The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Veterans: Government Response to Report
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) (12:01): I ask leave of the House to provide a ministerial statement in response to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's report on the inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, The constant battle: suicide by veterans.
Leave granted.
Mr TEHAN: As all Australians know, one suicide is one too many. Tragically, suicide affects all areas of our community—around seven Australians a day will tragically take their own life and it remains the greatest cause of death for men between the ages of 14 and 44.
Veterans and members of our Australian Defence Force (ADF) are sadly not immune. In the latest official figures available from the Australian institute of health and wellbeing (AIHW), which I have detailed to the parliament, between 2001 and 2015, 325 veterans took their own lives. Sadly, the number is increasing over time. In 2014, the figure was 31. In 2015, this rose to 33.
The government is committed to addressing suicide in our community. We must understand that everyone including the government has a role to play if we are to address the incidence of suicide in Australia.
The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's report on the inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, The constant battle: suicide by veterans, was tabled in parliament on 15 August 2017. The work of the committee in preparing this report has been significant and the government has carefully considered all recommendations that it made. The committee report states:
… the aspirational target rate for suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel should be zero. However, it would be misleading to represent that the recommendations in this report will achieve that goal. Any effective measures to decrease the rate of suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel will require a long-term multifaceted approach involving government, business, non-government and ex-service organisations and the wider Australian community. Change is likely—
to—
take a substantial period of time.
Today, I table the government's response and outline the measures that will be put in place to reduce suicide and self-harm in the veteran community.
The government has agreed to all of the recommendations made by the committee. Today I announce a package of $31.0 million and provide new programs that will deliver better support for veterans and their families.
Jesse Bird— r eview
Through its work in its inquiry, the Senate committee has drawn on many individual stories. As the committee notes in the report, 'Bereaved widows, partners, parents, friends and advocates have shared stories which have often ended in tragic loss.' Sadly, the government has seen examples where the current support services were not good enough.
One such veteran was Jesse Bird. With the approval of his family, today I will show how Jesse's case highlights the need for us to continue to improve the current system. Jesse Bird took his own life on 27 June this year, at the age of 32. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge his parents, Karen and John Bird, his siblings, Brendan, Kate and David, and their partners, who I have gotten to know since Jesse's regrettable death. I would also like to acknowledge his extended family and extensive network of friends, many of which he served with in the ADF. I would like to reiterate my commitment to them that this government will continue to drive the reforms necessary to improve the support and care available to veterans and reduce the risk of suicide in the veteran community.
Jesse joined the Australian Army as a rifleman in 2007. His family remembers him as 'an elite-level athlete, booming with charisma and self-confidence and proud to be a member of the ADF'. In 2009, Jesse deployed on Operation Slipper to Afghanistan. There he faced the challenging and dangerous nature of service. On 18 July 2009, a close friend of Jesse's was killed in an improvised explosive incident. Jesse returned to Australia in 2010 and in 2012 he voluntarily discharged from the Army.
Following Jesse's discharge, he faced the challenges of transition back into civilian life. Due to physical injuries and the deterioration of Jesse's mental health with the impact of PTSD during his time in the Army, Jesse found it increasingly difficult to find meaningful work that gave him the sense of purpose he had during his time serving in the ADF. Departmental processes failed or simply did not exist to offer services to help Jesse. While struggling with all this, Jesse decided to end his life.
Jesse's case highlights the complexity and breadth of the challenge the Department of Veterans' Affairs faces to support our veterans, particularly those with mental health conditions as a result of their service. These Australians have risked themselves in the service of our country. If these people are not receiving the support they need, then we must continue to drive change.
Following Jesse Bird' s death, I asked the Departments of Veterans' Affairs and Defence and the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service to thoroughly examine his case. They have conducted a review which looked at his experience with Defence and Veterans' Affairs. This occurred in consultation with his family.
I delivered a report on this investigation to Jesse's family on 15 September. Amongst other findings, the report into the management of Jesse Bird's case shows that, while some aspects of process and management were within expectations, others were contrary to the Department of Veterans' Affairs policy and practice. The Department of Veterans' Affairs either did not or could not provide the support or proactive engagement Jesse needed.
In particular, the report highlighted the issue of providing timely compensation and financial assistance to support those veterans suffering mental health conditions. The requirement for mental health conditions to be stable before being considered for compensation needs to be addressed. In addition, the provision of financial assistance when veterans are at their most vulnerable is needed. These issues let Jesse down as he was unable to get financial assistance when he needed it.
The report identified 19 recommendations, which I have accepted on behalf of the government and will table today. Many of these align with recommendations put forward by the Senate committee. These recommendations include priority actions to improve current processes and practices in DVA and progressing initiatives already being considered as part of the Veteran Centric Reform program. The implementation of the recommendations will be independently reviewed after 12 months.
It is the government's commitment to address the shortfalls identified by this investigation and to put in place urgent changes in the provision of support to our veterans, especially those who are vulnerable or at risk. These veterans must have their claims assessed quickly and have case managers to assist them during what can be a difficult process.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs has apologised to the Bird family for the way in which its processes failed their son and brother. Today I put that apology on the public record. The Department of Veterans' Affairs apologises to the Bird family and to Jesse's extended family and friends.
In examining what happened to Jesse Bird, we have developed plans together that will change Defence and Veterans' Affairs. The lessons from Jesse's case have helped inform the government's response to the Senate committee's report. I want to assure Mr and Mrs Bird and Jesse's family and friends that the government is committed to making that change happen.
The Senate report
The Senate committee has made 24 recommendations in its report. These recommendations ask that the government undertake a number of different reviews and policy changes to address veterans and defence personnel mental health and suicide prevention.
Firstly, the committee has recommended that the government undertake wide-ranging reviews of its processes in Defence and Veterans' Affairs. Amongst others, the committee recommended that the Productivity Commission should review the legislative framework of compensation and rehabilitation and review other arrangements in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The government has accepted the recommendations and will ask the Productivity Commission to undertake this review. The Treasurer and I will develop the terms of reference for this review, which will be open to submissions from all Australians.
The government also accepts the committee's recommendation that the Australian National Audit Office conduct a review into the efficiency of veterans service delivery by DVA and will write to the Auditor-General to request to include this review in the 2017-18 program of work.
In its report, the committee identified a number of measures that the departments of defence and veterans' affairs should implement without the need for review. They included recommendations that:
the departments align the provision of mental health care;
the Career Transition Assistance Scheme include an option for external work experience for veterans;
ADF members are provided DVA white cards on discharge; and
a two-track program be developed for ADF members leaving Defence.
The government welcomes these recommendations and agrees to implement them. Many are already being implemented.
Throughout the inquiry, the committee covered a number of issues relating to the current functions of DVA. To address this, the committee has provided a number of recommendations. Firstly, the committee has recommended a continuation of the Veteran Centric Reform program in DVA, while also providing resources to alleviate claims times and resolve complex cases. This is consistent with the government's commitment in this year's budget, which provided over $160 million to veteran centric reform. It represents the largest investment in the department in over a decade.
The committee has also recommended that the government establish a formal bureau of veterans' advocates with the capacity to commission legal representation and training for veterans advocates. There is an opportunity to improve the regulation of veterans advocacy to increase quality and consistency of services to veterans. The government agrees with the committee in principle that the current advocacy system needs to change. We will consider the committee's recommendation for a bureau of veterans' advocates alongside other advocacy models and will consult the veteran community about future directions in veteran advocacy.
Most importantly, the committee has identified measures that can help us provide support to those who need it today. The government knows that mental health treatments work best when intervention is early. That is why we have put in place a system that provides free and immediate treatment for all mental health conditions for anyone with one day's full-time service in the military.
As the committee noted, 'there was almost universal praise from stakeholders regarding the extension of non-liability health care for all mental health conditions.' This reform over the past 18 months has been revolutionary. It has meant treatment for veterans without the need to prove it was linked to service, cutting the administration and processing burden.
However, the committee has recommended the expansion of a number of services and systems to support this: (1) the development of specific suicide prevention programs targeted towards at-risk groups and a pilot of a case management service for at-risk veterans; (2) the expansion of online engagement with younger veterans; and (3) the funding of a trial program to provide assistance animals for veterans with PTSD. I am pleased to say that work on these recommendations has begun or is about to begin.
Finally, the committee recommended that the government should maintain a national veteran suicide register. The government commissioned the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to provide the first accurate, robust data ever produced on suicide among the serving and ex-serving populations. This data was published last year. The government has asked the AIHW to continue to independently track this data.
To achieve all the committee's recommendations, the government will put forward a package of $31 million. This package will include:
a new veteran payment;
extended support for veterans' families;
GP health assessments for the first five years post discharge;
a case management pilot; and
a scoping study to professionalise veterans' advocacy.
This package is part of around $550 million of new programs and money this government has provided over the last 18 months to veterans and their families.
Conclusion
In closing, I want to reiterate to the entire Australian Defence Force and ex-service community that this government will continue to prioritise mental health support for our veterans.
Please remember, help is available. Help can make a difference. If you, your family, or friends are worried about how you are coping or feeling, please reach out. The Defence All-hours Support Line, VVCS and Lifeline are there for you at any time of the day or night.
The government would like to thank the senators who participated in this inquiry and the secretariat. In particular it would like to thank the work of the chair, Senator Alex Gallacher, and the deputy chairs, Dr Chris Back and Senator Bridget McKenzie.
The government would like to thank the individuals and organisations who made a submission to the inquiry or gave evidence at the public hearings for their contribution to this important issue. Their evidence helped shape this report and will add further to the government's understanding of how to serve veterans and their families.
As the Prime Minister has said, in this Centenary of Anzac period, we best honour the diggers of a century ago by caring for the current and former service men and women of today. I thank the House.
I present the following documents: Australian government response to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee report—The constant battle: suicide by veterans, October 2017; Department of Veterans' Affairs; Department of Defence—joint inquiry into the facts surrounding the management of Mr Jesse Bird's case: review recommendations; and Response to Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's report on the inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel—Statement by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Mr Dan Tehan MP, 24 October 2017.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (12:17): The mental health and suicide of our current and ex-serving Defence personnel has received considerable attention in recent times, and rightfully so. Serving in the Australian Defence Force involves sacrifice and risk and, in exchange for this risk, we commit to supporting our personnel both during their time in Defence and beyond.
While many will leave Defence having gained much from the experience and view their time and contribution positively, for some their time in the ADF and their subsequent transition back into civilian life can have a negative impact on their mental health. Mental illness can be an impact of war and service and, without effective support and treatment, the impact on the veteran and their support network can be significant. The Senate inquiry report into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, which was handed down in August, both makes a vital contribution to our understanding of the issues facing veterans and proposes solutions which seek to provide greater support for veterans and their families.
In conjunction with this inquiry, today, as the minister has stated, we have the outcome of the review into the suicide of Jesse Bird. This inquiry initiated a review into the management of the handling of Jesse Bird's case by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and demonstrates the very real and potentially tragic results if we don't get this process right.
Jesse was a private with the Townsville 1RAR infantry battalion who proudly served for eight months on the front line in Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010. While serving, he was exposed to significant trauma which resulted in him leaving Defence. Following his time in Defence, it is clear from reports that there were many factors which resulted in Jesse not receiving or accessing the care and support he needed. Tragically, he took his own life on 27 June 2017.
I welcome the minister and the government's accepting all 19 recommendations of the review into the circumstances surrounding Jesse Bird's case. I firmly believe that the report and subsequent outcomes have happened because of the advocacy and persistence of both Karen and John Bird. I can't imagine the strength and bravery it took, so recently after his passing under such difficult circumstances, for them to advocate on Jesse's behalf to ensure that his death was recognised and not forgotten, and also that steps would be taken so that other veterans would not be let down in the future.
I spoke to Karen Bird last night, and she asked me to put on the record thanks to a number of people who have supported both her and her husband during this difficult time. She wanted me to mention Jesse's brother, Brendan, and Jesse's sister, Kate. She also wanted me to mention Inge Stainlay, Don and Annie Brealey, the Exton family and Michael Atkin, from the ABC, who she said treated their story seriously. Also she wanted to make mention of the support she had had from the wider veterans community. This was invaluable to her.
As members may be aware, both Jesse's family and his ex-partner made submissions to the Senate inquiry process detailing some of their concerns and experience with DVA. Their submissions form part of the 458 submissions the Senate inquiry received from peak bodies, ex-service organisations, advocates and individual veterans and their loved ones detailing how their experiences post their time in the ADF had impacted them.
I understand that the government has accepted all of these recommendations, noting that there will be some work still to be done around the detail of several of these recommendations. Labor look forward to continuing our discussions with the government on how best to implement all of these recommendations. Labor believe that one suicide of a veteran is one too many, and we will continue to do all we can to ensure that veterans receive the care and support to live full and productive lives both during and after their time with the ADF.
This past year has seen a number of studies on the mental health of our current and ex-serving Defence personnel released, all of which form a picture of the impact of mental illness on our ADF members and veterans. Earlier this year, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare completed a study into the incidence of suicide amongst serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force personnel and found that, while serving members had a lower than average suicide rate, the concern was when they finished their service. The risk of suicide is 13 per cent higher than the general population in those who have left service. They also found that veterans aged between 18 and 24 were twice as likely to die by suicide. In addition, men—and I say 'men' because that is what the statistics were able to show—who were discharged involuntarily were 2.4 times as likely as those who were discharged voluntarily to commit suicide, and those who were discharged for medical reasons were 3.6 times more likely to die from suicide.
The Senate inquiry into veterans' affairs initiated by Senator Lambie and supported by Labor sought to highlight the struggles that some veterans and their families undergo following their time in the Australian Defence Force. For too long there has been a stigma around mental illness and suicide, particularly for our ex-serving personnel. This has meant that some veterans have been reluctant to ask for help, leaving them feeling isolated and often alone. Overcoming stigma is integral to ensuring that those suffering know they can talk about how they're feeling and to preventing tragedies like this from occurring.
I have no doubt in my mind that, for some of those who made submissions to the Senate inquiry, it was the first time that they had disclosed their experiences widely and, in some cases, at all. I want to affirm to each and every submitter to this inquiry: you were heard; you are not alone; and thank you for your contribution. Thank you for taking the time to tell your story. It is your strength that has made this inquiry as productive and useful as it is, a thorough, detailed and expansive discourse that highlights the struggles that some people are experiencing post their time in the ADF but, importantly, a pathway to improving this experience.
The report made 24 recommendations which seek to provide greater assistance to veterans and deal with longstanding administrative issues in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Overwhelmingly, this inquiry and the Jessie Bird report highlight that there are significant ongoing issues in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the impact this can have on a veteran's mental health. I recognise that the government has taken steps to address these issues. In particular, I want to draw the House's attention to recommendations 2, 9 and 13 of the suicide inquiry, which sought to address the compensation claims process, the training of staff and the provision of service to veterans. This does echo feedback that I consistently receive in my work with veterans and the ex-service community.
The long and overly complicated and adversarial nature of the claims process for some veterans has been raised with me time and time again. Several submitters highlighted these issues, describing the DVA claims process as 'challenging and weighing heavily upon one's mental health and wellbeing, generally at a time when one is at an extremely low ebb'. Several recommendations do seek to address this point, whether it be through reviews or streamlining administrative processes, and Labor is certainly supportive of these. Prior to the last election, Labor sought to resolve these issues by 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 would examine the department and seek to rectify administrative process failings to ensure the department is able to meet existing and future challenges in a clear and efficient manner. Most importantly, this review would help to re-establish the trust of veterans and their representative organisations in the DVA.
As noted in the Senate inquiry, transition can be a difficult time when some ex-service personnel can fall through the cracks. This was a focus of a number of the other recommendations, with a number of submitters highlighting how the period of transition can impact individuals and families. How to prepare for discharge is different for each person, with the needs varying significantly for those who are medically discharged or leave involuntarily. The committee highlighted the importance of transition, stating that the appropriate support is essential to assist ADF members' transition to civilian life. Recommendation 14 called for the transition task force to examine and address gaps to support veterans, barriers to employment and any disincentives for veterans undertaking work and study. Following on from this, in recommendation 15 the Senate inquiry called for the establishment of a two-track transition process which provides additional support for those who need it and the provision of a white card for all transitioning members to facilitate access to non-liability health and for identification and data collection. This is something Labor has supported for some time and we are very pleased that the government has accepted that recommendation.
Transition is a critical juncture in life for a veteran and their family. If not undertaken well, it can lead to worse outcomes for them and their loved ones. Finding a purpose post Defence is a key element to a successful transition. What that purpose looks like is different for each individual and can be a direct result of their reasons for discharge. For some, it is about ensuring continuity of care in regard to rehabilitation. For some, it is about exploring social and other connectedness. For others, it is about moving to further study or finding meaningful employment. Whatever that purpose may be, we should be working with the individual and their family to ensure that the best outcome and support is available for veterans and their loved ones.
Support for families was an issue raised by a number of submitters, with many acknowledging the role families play in supporting our ex-service personnel. This was reflected in recommendations 19 and 22. I was pleased to see that this report addressed the need for greater support for family members. The critical role of family members in supporting our current and ex-serving Defence personnel is often not acknowledged or appreciated by society as much as it should be. 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, with this separation causing emotional stress for partners and children; and, when personnel are not deployed, there are regular re-postings to different bases around the country, meaning they have to choose between uprooting their whole family and living apart for a period of time. Post-service, particularly in the circumstances where someone is medically discharged, the impact can be significant and ongoing. When someone is medically discharged, it is often the family who become their carers. It is the family who help and support them. It is often the family who can identify those first signs of mental illness. It is also the family who often can recognise the signs and symptoms of poor physical health. But they need support too, and this was highlighted by a number of submitters to the inquiry. One submitter, a Vietnam veteran, stated that we need to go one step further with support, and that step is family support, saying: 'Without the support of parents, spouses and children, the veteran cannot get anywhere. If you lose family support, you are lost.'
I believe, by not including families in our greater policy response to supporting our ADF personnel, we are ignoring our biggest asset 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 would provide a national blueprint to include engagement of DVA and Defence with military families. It would also ensure that best-practice support for families of serving personnel and ex-ADF members is consistently available across the country.
In closing, I would like to sincerely thank all of the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for the work they've done on this important bipartisan inquiry. In particular, I acknowledge Senator Lambie for initiating this inquiry and the consistently hard work of Senator Gallacher, as the chair, and of the deputy chairs, Chris Back and Bridget McKenzie. I thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for being willing to work in a bipartisan way on this report. And I thank all those who put their hearts on their sleeves and were willing to contribute to this inquiry. Finally, I give a thankyou to Karen and John Bird. I hope the review of Jesse's case and the subsequent changes that the government has committed to will bring you some comfort. I commend this report to the House.
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) (12:32): I thank the shadow minister for her contribution. I know I speak for all members of the House when I say these issues should not in any way be seen in a party political way, and the way that she conducts herself and the way she engages with me means that we are able to do this in a completely bipartisan way. I thank her for that, and I thank all other members of the House, who, on this issue, act in exactly the same way. It's a great example of where the best of this parliament can be seen, and my hope is that, through the work that's been done here, we will be able to demonstrate that in spades. I move:
That the House take note of the document: Response to Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's report on the inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel—Statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Dan Tehan MP, 24 October 2017.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
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) (12:33): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (12:34): 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 calls on the Government to:
(1) abandon its support of the decision of the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates because it will mean nearly 700,000 Australians will have their take home pay cut by up to $77 a week; and
(2) legislate to prevent the decision from taking effect to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut".
I rise to oppose the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017 and speak in favour of the amendment. It is fair to say that this is a very considerable bill, as far as its size is concerned. The first I saw of this proposed piece of legislation was Thursday, last week. The bill has 80 pages and, of course, has an accompanying explanatory memorandum. There was no consultation with the opposition before it was introduced into this place last Thursday. A whole range of issues arise from the proposed provisions of the bill that the opposition will want to examine. I want to thank the department, which yesterday briefed my office and me on the bill, but that has led to as many questions as answers. No doubt there'll be a chance for the Senate committee to examine this bill, but, nonetheless, there are some things I want to put on the record. As I say, at this point the federal opposition is not in a position to support the legislation.
The Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017 was introduced in the House last Thursday. This bill has five schedules and runs to 80 pages. It amends five pieces of legislation: the Fair Work Act 2009, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Tax Administration Act 1953. It has significant implications for unions and employer bodies, some of which will only be able to be identified following detailed examination of the technical provisions of this bill. It has significant implications for workers who benefit from their entitlements being protected through these funds and from the counselling, training, occupational health and safety and support services that those funds invest in. Notwithstanding this, we would contend that the government is rushing this bill through the parliament without proper scrutiny and without sufficient stakeholder consultation, and that's unfortunate. If the government wants to work with the opposition to improve laws in this area of public policy or, for that matter, any area of public policy, it would do well to consult and seek to find common ground rather than just expeditiously introduce legislation of this significance without that consultation and engagement.
I understand that, with the support of the Nick Xenophon Team, the government defeated Labor's attempts to have a thorough Senate employment committee inquiry, which would have examined the bill over several months. Instead, a reporting date of 10 November this year was imposed. We would argue that sets a very difficult time line for stakeholders to prepare submissions and present evidence. The time line for submissions is coming up, so there was very, very little time for stakeholders and affected parties in general to cooperate and produce submissions for that inquiry. We just note that that's characteristic of this minister, who doesn't seem to know what the word 'engagement' means.
The government's purpose is to use this bill to limit the legitimate activities and sources of income of employer bodies and unions. Partly, I think, that's a result of them not understanding the genesis of worker entitlement funds, their history and the important service they provide thousands and thousands of workers in this country. The minister's press release claims:
Through cosy deals with big businesses, unions have become a big business in their own right and more focused on making profits than representing people.
I would argue that that's unmitigated rubbish. Worker entitlement funds—which, by the way, are jointly established by unions, employer bodies and employers—operate firstly to ensure that workers' entitlements are protected, and secondly to provide important services to workers such as, as I said earlier, training, counselling support, suicide prevention, and funding of OH&S officers, just to name a few.
We think that it would have been useful if there had been a genuine engagement with those affected to consider the history of the funds and what purpose they serve, and to give a brief history of some of the funds. Some of these funds were set up decades ago, and were set up arising out of genuine complaints about phoenixing companies—that is, companies that were not paying entitlements and were winding up, avoiding obligations to creditors and, in particular, their workers, and then starting up again and maintaining a similar business debt-free. And for that reason and others, employers and unions wanted to provide greater security to their employees and members respectively by allowing such funds to continue and to afford that protection to workers.
The construction industry represents unique safety risks to workers. It is one of the most dangerous industries in this country and is characterised by high levels of worker vulnerability. For example, construction workers face one of the highest risks of injury and death of any industry; the highest level of suicide of any worker group; high levels of labour mobility and insecure work; long periods of unemployment; and high levels of redundancy. One of the funds in the construction industry, Incolink, provides a safety net which protects vulnerable construction workers by investing in workers' training, health, wellbeing and safety to tackle the issues. It is an important fund which brings workers and employers together to solve industry problems.
This bill, it's been put to me, may well have very significant impacts on this and other funds. It would prevent these funds investing in key occupational health and safety initiatives. It is unclear as to whether these funds could continue to subsidise members' insurances such as funeral cover, accident, dental, ambulance, portable sick leave and income protection. If they cannot continue to provide some of these services, I don't doubt that employers will bear the cost because there will be claims in subsequent enterprise negotiations asking employers to pay through those negotiations the shortfall that might arise if we allow for the unfair limitation of the purpose of these funds, which is to provide general protection for working people in the construction industry. Incolink, for example, worked alongside industry associations to establish a program of industry occupational health and safety grants when WorkSafe removed funding for these roles in 2002. Funding these OH&S roles helped to ensure good OH&S practice across the commercial building and construction industry.
That fund invested $4.8 million in 2016-17, I'm advised, to fund the occupational health and safety program. In order to be able to provide a range of additional benefits and support services to workers and their families in the building and construction industry, I'm advised that that fund invests to generate a return. Some of these funds are used to provide important wellbeing services such as supporting workers with mental health and DNA problems; attending critical incidents and providing suicide prevention; funding training for over 16,000 workers per year; counselling over 3,000 workers each year; and undertaking almost 4,000 health checks for workers. These are some of the really important services provided by these funds. If the government came from the view that they wanted to resolve any regulatory matters but understood the importance of the schemes, if they had at least some sense of the importance of consensus that exists in the construction industry with respect to these funds—that this is about workers, their representatives and employers working together to afford protection to workers in the industry—if the Minister for Employment thought through that prism rather than the constant partisan, extreme language that she uses when talking about organised labour, then I think the government would have a different view about these funds and would probably deal with the bill in a different manner.
We'll be looking at the bill to see how it might affect very important services to workers, to see whether in fact there'll be adverse consequences that flow, intentionally or otherwise. The government claims that this bill implements 10 recommendations of the Heydon royal commission. I accept that that may in part be true, but, as we know, that was a discredited royal commission led by a discredited commissioner. He is a former High Court justice but wanted to raise money for the Liberal Party while he was sitting in that position and presiding over the commission's conduct. He tried to deny it. Then he realised: 'I'd better think about this,' and judged that he was not partial and that there was no apparent conflict of interest. He sat in judgement of himself, found himself clear of all allegations and continued to act in that role, even though, if you look at his own judgements as a High Court justice, you would find he was completely contradicting his own reasoning when he was a justice of the High Court. Nonetheless, he proceeded, and that really discredited the findings of the commission. We also know that the commission was a political witch-hunt headed up by the commissioner to whom I just referred, who was willing to attend Liberal Party fundraisers and whose sole aim was to do the government's bidding. Nonetheless, even if the reasoning behind this legislation had a rocky start, we're examining whether some of these provisions are reasonable and would lead to better reporting and better disclosure provisions and whether the penalties are reasonable.
History teaches us that we can't trust this government to introduce legislation that does what it claims and that does not have serious overreach and flawed drafting. Labor will properly and thoroughly examine the provisions of the bill. Accountability, transparency and good governance are important. However, we must be vigilant to ensure that, in the name of these principles, this bill doesn't impose such a heavy regulatory burden that worker entitlement funds are not able to function.
I turn now to the range of matters that are the substance of the bill. The bill would put additional requirements on governance, financial reporting and financial disclosure requirements of worker entitlement funds. It would prohibit awards or enterprise agreements from requiring or permitting contributions to any fund other than a superannuation fund, a registered worker entitlement fund or a registered charity. It would prohibit awards or enterprise agreements from permitting or requiring employee contributions to a union election fund. It would prohibit coercion of employers to pay amounts to a particular worker entitlement fund, superannuation fund, training fund, welfare fund or employee insurance scheme, which is unlawful already. It would put additional financial management and disclosure obligations on registered organisations. It would introduce new penalties for registered organisations' noncompliance with financial management disclosure and reporting requirements.
A 'worker entitlement fund', according to the bill, is defined as 'a fund which is for the purpose or purposes of paying worker entitlements and death benefits'. 'Worker entitlements' are defined as including payments in respect of leave, payments in lieu of leave, payments in relation to termination of employment and any payments that contracts, awards or agreements provide for an employer to make to an employee. A superannuation fund, a registered charity, a discretionary mutual fund, a fund established by state, Commonwealth or territory law, and a fund controlled by a fund member are not included; however, the minister may prescribe additional funds as worker entitlement funds.
Given the conduct of the minister in these matters generally, and the government's intentions to attack unions at every turn, we do have a concern. I can say from the outset, without having it referred to the Senate committee, that the idea that we would allow for a minister to prescribe additional funds and deem them worker entitlement funds is of concern to the opposition. We can imagine in the hands of the current minister what sorts of malevolent acts might be perpetrated upon such funds and, therefore, we are concerned about allowing the minister to have a disallowable instrument—even if it is a disallowable instrument, we're concerned that regulations will allow for the broadening out of the definition of the funds and we will be examining that.
The bill places limits on when a worker entitlement fund can become or stay registered, including what sort of organisation can operate the fund and the make-up of the board of the fund, and the way in which the assets of the fund can be used. The bill also contains provisions that we understand would operate to prohibit enterprise agreements specifying that employers have to pay into training funds. What is the justification for this, given that enterprise agreements are completely transparent? They are voted on by workers, they have to be presented to the Fair Work Commission, the commission has to find that they're fulfilling the requirements of the act, so what would be the need for this potential change to the law? Mr Dyson Heydon conceded that training funds provide a public good. Stakeholders have raised concerns that there's a significant uncertainty about whether worker entitlement funds can continue to provide safety training and wellbeing services, such as suicide prevention support, mental health, and drug and alcohol counselling.
We are concerned about the construction of this bill. These are significant issues. If the government's intention is to stop unions or, indeed, employers from being part of providing these types of services to workers, then we cannot support that proposition. There are too many questions yet to be answered, as I said from the outset, about the details of the bill for Labor to give it support, even qualified support. And, as I also said earlier, I did receive a department briefing. I do appreciate the speed with which the department, with the cooperation of the minister's office I should add, were able to brief me on the bill; however, there were a lot of questions taken on notice. There were a lot of questions—more questions sometimes than answers, which is understandable given the breadth and depth of the bill—and so we are awaiting further information, which I'm sure the department are dutifully considering and I'm sure they will return to us with those answers.
For the record, some of the issues we are concerned about include how do the regulations this bill imposes on registered organisations compare to the regulations in place for corporations? I think that is a very important point. The rhetoric of the government often is that we need to make sure there's a comparable set of arrangements for publicly listed companies on the one hand and registered organisations on the other. They're very different legal personalities, they're very different beasts, but that's the argument put by the government. That's why I never fully understood why the government didn't support Labor's reforms to this area and say that you don't need to establish a registered organisation commission, which I'm sure will have the minister interfering with it every week. I'm sure we'll see more of that soon. That will come to light.
We believe that allegations of serious breaches by officers of registered organisations should be dealt with by ASIC. If you believe that companies and registered organisations should be treated the same or similarly, then surely you would use the same regulator, with a history of regulating such matters and with the capacity to prevent interference by a very interfering minister? ASIC is big enough and ugly enough to resist those interventions by the minister and by this government, who would want to use the Registered Organisations Commission in the same way that they've used the ABCC, which is as their vehicle to attack their political opponents. Strangely enough, I think, whilst they argued that they wanted to treat organisations like corporations, it was Labor who suggested that we actually have ASIC as the regulator, but that was not accepted.
Another question in relation to the bill is: is this bill another layer of regulation over and above what applies already under legislation, such as the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act and the Corporations Act? How do the proposed deregistration schemes compare to what is in place for managed investment schemes? We're particularly concerned that the minister will have the power to flesh out the details of this new regulatory scheme via regulation. We're concerned that we don't know whether in fact there are comparable regulations for corporations, vis-a-vis registered organisations. I think that's an important point given the rhetoric of the government. We think that there is a series of things that we need to do. We're most concerned that the very good work that these funds undertake would be adversely affected by such legislation.
The reason we question the motives of the government is because it spends all of its time obsessing about overregulating, interfering with and attacking unions in this country. A week doesn't seem to go by that we don't have the government introduce another bill in this place seeking to intervene further into the conduct of unions and employer bodies. Employer bodies just happen to be the collateral damage. They're quite happy to damage employer bodies if they can get to the unions. That's what they do; that's their obsession. We saw that with the integrity bill that was introduced some weeks ago, which would have devastating effects upon unions. And we now see that there's another attempt to regulate. We want to make sure that the changes proposed in this bill are in the public interest. We want to make sure that the government, in its attempt to attack unions, doesn't end up damaging the rights of working people.
We do know that the government is very happy to see working people exposed. We do know, through their own history, that the Liberal Party are the party of Work Choices. They may have learned something since then; they know now to start by attacking unions rather than immediately and directly ripping off conditions of employment for workers in this country, as Work Choices did. That is something that the current Prime Minister supported and advanced. And so their relentless assault on unions just goes on uninterrupted, and that's why we have to question the motives behind this legislation.
It's also why we moved this second reading amendment. We moved the second reading amendment to make very clear that Labor has not given up supporting workers in this country and the more than 700,000 workers who are going to see their wages fall in real terms as a result of the penalty rates decision. Already on 1 July this year, retail and hospitality workers' wages have been cut, with the support of the Prime Minister and this government. They have backed this position and have refused to support the private member's bill moved by the Leader of the Opposition to prevent the effects of that happening.
We have a situation in this country where wages are falling in real terms, and that's being compounded by a government decision to support the Fair Work Commission decision that will cut real wages to some of the lowest-paid workers in this country. There are thousands of workers in every electorate across this country; every member of this place represents workers whose wages are falling in real terms, and it's being supported by a government which had the opportunity to support our legislation and to stop the immediate effect of that decision, not only for this year but for next year and 2019 and 2020. These workers will not get a pay increase for four years, because they're getting pay cuts for four years as a result of the decision that has arisen out of the Fair Work Commission.
At a time when wage growth is at its lowest in a generation, this Prime Minister has presided over the lowest wage growth in living memory, and yet he supports tax increases for low- and middle-income earners, he supports tax cuts for multinationals and millionaires and he supports penalty rate cuts for some of the lowest paid workers in this country. The Prime Minister has no regard for these workers. He has no empathy, because he does not understand. He does not understand the struggle that they have to make ends meet and to pay the bills that they need to pay. He has no idea.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: The member for Hunter's right: the Prime Minister has no idea what's going on in the real world. That's why he supports tax increases for low- and middle-income earners and penalty rate cuts for some of the lowest paid in this country. At a time when he's presiding over low wage growth, he's got the temerity and arrogance to think it's fair that some of the hardworking low-paid workers in this country should take a pay cut.
Well, that's not what Labor believes. We don't believe that at all. We believe that, at a time when wage growth is falling, you don't increase taxes on low- and middle-income earners. You do not put up their taxes, which is exactly what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are seeking to do, and you don't support a decision to put a hand in the workers' pockets and take out their wage, which is effectively what's happening with the government supporting the Fair Work decision and not supporting the private member's bill that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition. While the government is obsessed with attacking unions in this country, attacking industry superannuation funds, attacking working people generally and supporting a penalty rate cut decision, Labor will continue to defend workers in this country. We will defend workers in this country. We will change the laws to make sure that people are not unfairly treated at work. We'll make sure that they get their fair share.
We heard the Treasurer only today change his language. Apparently now he's into inclusive growth. He wants to have inclusive growth. He can barely say the phrase 'inclusive growth'. You can't just say 'inclusive growth'; you've got to mean it when you say 'inclusive growth', and when you say it you've got to have policies that sit below it. You have to have something that makes sense and is consistent with that phrase. What he has done is go to a focus group which has said: 'Look, you've got to say "fair" more often, and to other people, to the commentators, you've got to use the phrase "inclusive growth". It ought to go down well if you say it, because the IMF, the OECD and the World Bank say it now, so why don't we say it now?'
The problem is that none of their policies are consistent with the proposition that they believe in inclusive growth. The government are saying one thing and doing another. The Treasurer's standing up today and saying, 'We support inclusive growth,' as he supports tax increases for low- and middle-income earners. The Treasurer's standing up today and saying 'inclusive growth' as he supports a decision that will take money out of the pockets of retail workers and hospitality workers. The government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer say they believe in fairness and inclusive growth, and yet they want to give the biggest tax cuts we've seen to multinational companies, to the big end of town, and tax increases for people earning over $21,000 a year. What sort of joke is this? Do they really think the Australian people are mugs to believe that's even possible? They must, because I tell you: it is a contemptuous thing to say one thing and do the direct opposite, but that's exactly what this government's doing.
They are obsessed with unions, interfering with organised labour and supporting decisions that are hurting retail and hospitality workers. They say they can't oppose the decision because it's the umpire. Well, quite frankly, they were willing to abolish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal as an umpire when they didn't like truck drivers' wages going up. This time they won't intervene, because it's allowing retail and hospitality wages to go down. So it is hypocrisy on the part of the government and the Prime Minister to suggest that they could not have supported Labor. Of course, we should not be surprised. This is the Liberal Party. This is the party of Work Choices. This is the party that has always had a callous disregard for working people in this country and the difficulties that they might confront at times when wage growth is at its lowest in a generation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Fitzgibbon: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (13:05): by leave—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Australian Grape and Wine Authority Amendment (Wine Australia) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (13:05): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australian wine exports are expected to exceed $2.5 billion in 2017-18, with benefits flowing to wine producers as well as regional wine producing communities.
The Australian government recognises the important contribution this industry makes to Australia' s economy and is committed to supporting the sustainable growth of the sector.
We have worked with industry to undertake reform of the wine equalisation tax rebate scheme, to address integrity concerns and to better target the benefits to small Australian wine producers as originally intended.
In 2016, the Australian government also announced the introduction of a $50 million Export and Regional Wine Support Package and a $10 million Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant.
Both of these initiatives have been introduced to assist the wine industry transition to reforms of the wine equalisation tax, including a reduction of the annual rebate from $500,000 to $350,000 from July 2018.
2
This bill introduces changes to enable the Australian Grape and Wine Authority, as it is currently known, to implement all planned activities under the Export and Regional Wine Support Package and the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant.
The authority is uniquely placed to deliver the Wine Support Package and the Cellar Door Grant as they have extensive experience in wine marketing and export.
They are also able to readily access existing relationships, information and expertise to enable implementation at regional, national, and international levels.
The bill also takes the opportunity to change the authority's legislated name from the Australian Grape and Wine Authority to Wine Australia, to align with their established trading name. This alignment will avoid any unnecessary confusion for stakeholders about the identity, roles or responsibilities of the authority.
The bill is reflective of a constructive collaboration between the government and industry and will enable the flow of increased support for regional wine producing communities.
I commend the bill to the House.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (13:08): I rise to speak on the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Amendment (Wine Australia) Bill 2017. The assistant minister and I are obviously living on completely different planets. We just heard the assistant minister try to convince the world that what they are doing today is somehow a great gift to Australia's winemaking sector. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
A little bit of history is worth revisiting here. Right back in the year 2000, John Howard introduced, for the first time, a GST. As part of that GST package, the government of the day decided that they would have a wine equalisation tax. They decided it was necessary to have a wine equalisation tax because taxes on wine would have dramatically fallen under the new tax regime without a wine equalisation tax. I think it was a very solid argument and I agree with it, but it would have been socially irresponsible and economically distorting. So the 29 per cent wine equalisation tax was born.
The opposition of the day, those representing the Australian Labor Party, moved amendments in this place to introduce a cellar-door exemption from that tax. The initiative was designed to promote cellar-door sales and economic activity around the small players in wine regions like my own wonderful, world's best Hunter Valley. The Treasurer of the day, Mr Costello, rejected those amendments and they were defeated here in the House of Representatives. However, we continued our campaign as the bills made their way through the Senate. Eventually, Treasurer Costello was forced to back down and acknowledge that our initiative was a good initiative. Of course, he didn't embrace our initiative. Treasurer Costello was never one to give credit to an idea belonging to someone else, so he did a deal with the Democrats at that time and introduced, by way of government amendment, not an exemption for cellar doors but a rebate. I must say, it's always been a very untidy arrangement. That arrangement became untidier as the years went on. In the end, that arrangement was exploited by those who were able to secure the rebate without really being eligible for it—typically the big bulk and unbranded players who were creating false entities just in order to allow themselves to claim the rebate. So we all agreed that reform was necessary.
But in the 2016 budget, without any consultation or warning, the government announced some very significant changes to the arrangements, saying it was to stop the shocking rorting. It's something we would have welcomed in the normal scheme of things, but, of course, the government couldn't help itself; it decided it could make some money along the way. It was going to pocket about $300 million as a result of the reforms. Think about that, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell: they were tightening up a rort which would have given them extra revenue anyway, but, no, they couldn't help themselves and they decided to overreach and try to grab money out of an industry which could ill-afford to give up that money. We opposed those changes, but, more particularly, the wine industry, not surprisingly, also opposed those changes.
By December last year, roughly six months after the budget, there was a backdown. Finally, the government decided it had better consult some people. That is hardly surprising given that the winemakers in those regions, including my own, were so adversely affected. It was even worse, arguably, for very small winemakers in the regions represented by the member for Bass and the member Bendigo, for example. So we had a backdown. What we're debating here has a connection to that backdown. The assistant minister comes in here and wants anybody listening to the broadcast today to think the government are on their feet today doing something good for the wine industry. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Originally, they were going to bring down the cap on the wine equalisation tax rebate, from $500,000 to $300,000, and then bring it down further in 2019 to $290,000. That's got nothing to do with reform. That had nothing to do with stopping people from rorting the system. That was just reducing the amount winemakers in the regions could claim each year—those who legitimately qualified for the wine equalisation tax rebate. What they did in wine reform mark II, as I'll call it, is give up the second cut in the rebate. They fixed what was an act of stupidity when they decided to find a new approach to stop the rorting. Originally, they decided that a grape producer had to own or have a long-term lease on a winery. That just demonstrates a complete failure to understand how the industry works. I might grow some grapes, give the grapes to someone else to make the wine for me, bring the wine back, put my label on it and sell it at my cellar door. That should legitimately allow me to claim the rebate—of course it should—but, under the arrangements in reform mark I, that would not have been possible. Those people would have been completely cut out of the wine equalisation tax rebate. In mark II, they found another way of dealing with that rorting and we welcomed that.
But it remains the case that these initiatives, despite the new proposals being put today, will be overwhelmingly revenue positive for the government—in other words, they will be taking money out of the industry, not putting money into the industry. So the bill before us today could be best described as the initiator of some of the compensation the government is going to give the industry to bring it on board with these reforms.
Between budget night 2016 and December last year, the wine industry was punch drunk, so distressed was it by the impact of the reforms or changes the government had announced in the budget, so those in the industry were pretty much ready to accept anything that was better. So they're accepting of reform mark II, and that's why we have been supporting the changes here in the House of Representatives and in the other place, because it's what the industry wants. But these are, if you like, the crumbs they have sent their way, to buy that support from the industry.
As the minister mentioned, first of all there will be the Export and Regional Wine Support Package, to the value of $50 million. This package is not a bad package. It's an initiative to allow people to get out there in China, including in Hong Kong and Macau, and in the US, and sell their wares in export markets. No-one can argue with that. Whether this is the most efficient way to do it or not is another question. But I'm satisfied that this can only do good and give those people those additional opportunities. Of course, the bill is allowing these grants to be allocated by the newly named Wine Australia. I've got some questions about that as well, but the government of the day has decided that that is the best way to proceed, and I won't say too much in challenge of that.
But, when you think about it, that package is not going to do anything for people who are exclusively domestic producers—those people in Bendigo, in Bass and even in my own electorate who are rather small and entirely focused on the domestic market. They're going to be losing some of their rebate but not getting any assistance out of that package.
The second proposal is a Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program, to the tune of $10 million. This is the program which leading winemakers in my electorate have describe as 'crumbs'. This is basically giving some of the rebate back in the form of a grant. But guess what? It's going to be capped at $10 million. So if they get applications from winemakers—who, by the way, used to just be able to do it on their BAS—to the tune of $12 million, then everyone is going to have to take a haircut. Everyone's going to get their proportional share, based on their revenue or their sales, but discounted because it's oversubscribed. So no-one really knows what winemakers in my electorate or elsewhere are going to receive from this grant program because they don't know how many subscribers there are going to be.
So, again, as my winemakers say, this is crumbs. This compensation will not go anywhere near compensating them for their losses. And of course it's going to increase the regulatory burden. Remember: when this government was elected, they said they were going to decrease the regulatory burden. Didn't they have a regulation repeal day? Do we still have those? I don't even remember. The minister might nod or shake his head. Do we still have regulatory repeal days? I know we were going to be the innovation government. I don't know what happened to that one! That's just laughable today. And we were going to be a smaller government and reduce all this red tape. Well, red tape, under this government, I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, is on the rise and on the rise and on the rise.
So it's a little bit audacious for the assistant minister to be coming in here and presenting this as some sort of gift to the wine industry. They certainly don't see it that way, so I don't know why you would say it.
But something really intrigues me about the Orwellian approach of this government. They claim credit where they are not entitled to claim credit. Minister Joyce often crows about rising beef prices and what a great thing it is for cockies—farmers; cattle producers. Yet the cattle producers know better than anyone that Minister Joyce had nothing to do with the rising beef prices. They know it's all about supply and demand and is a problem that is overwhelmingly driven by drought. So who does he think he's talking to? He might fool some people. In city electorates, for example, they don't realise what's causing beef prices to rise—and, by the way, they are paying higher beef prices in supermarkets and don't welcome it that much. But the people who know the real cause of those price rises, those who produce the beef, particularly in electorates represented by the Nationals, know that Minister Joyce had nothing to do with rising beef prices. So who does he think he's talking to?
And the same situation occurs with the wine industry. The Assistant Minister, Minister Ruston and the Deputy Prime Minister himself—who never expresses much interest in wine, or wine policy anyway; I don't remember him ever making much of a contribution—say this is a great gift to the wine sector. But who are they talking to? The wine sector knows that this is the wine sector going backwards. Sure, they'll welcome the opportunity to do a bit more in certain export markets with a bit of extra money—$50 million is welcome, but it doesn't go too far—
An honourable member: Crumbs!
Mr FITZGIBBON: 'Crumbs' is the way Andrew Margan, a leading winemaker in my own electorate, described it. He was actually referring more to the $10 million grant program, but it's fair to say he was encapsulating the view of winemakers in the region with respect to this package. So we shouldn't be fooled. No-one listening to the debate should be fooled. These are not small matters. I am fortunate to be standing at the dispatch box as not only the shadow minister in terms of the bill before the House but also as the local member for the world's greatest wine region! And I'm looking to my colleagues in great expectation that there will be heads nodding everywhere.
An honourable member: That's not true!
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: I think even the member for Cowper might have nodded his head there. I should not misrepresent him, but I do know that he has a fine appreciation of the Hunter's wine, including our signature variety semillon—and we are a multi-award winner on that front. Speaking of the member for Cowper, I wonder what his winemakers think of this package. That is what I would like to know; I might make some calls later. He does represent some very significant wineries in his own area—Cassegrain comes to mind—and I would be very surprised if they are welcoming of this package, particularly those who are focusing almost exclusively on the domestic market rather than the international market.
The other person in this place who I now have in mind is the member for Calare. I know with great certainty that the winemakers in the member for Calare's electorate were particularly exercised and anxious about package mark I—that is, that great revenue grab this government put forward in the name of a reform designed to shore up the integrity of the system. Of course, the rest of that is history. I know what they thought about reform package mark I. But given that this second package also represents a significant revenue grab, which is going to have significant impacts on wineries across the country, I suspect the winemakers in the member for Calare's electorate will have a view not dissimilar to the view they had with respect to the first package—even though, like the rest of the industry, they will be breathing a great sigh of relief that at least things have improved somewhat.
We are, of course, talking about a very significant sector in our economy and one that should be taken very seriously. I was as shocked as anyone when the government made those announcement in the 2016 budget without any consultation with the industry. I know I shouldn't have been surprised given some of the things the government did in the 2014 and 2015 budgets without consulting people—particularly in the 2014 budget. There was no consultation whatsoever; no wonder the whole country went into a state of shock! So I should not have been surprised. But let's be frank about it: we know that despite the fact that the Labor Party has really introduced all the big reforms in the wine sector that the government enjoys a pretty healthy relationship with the leadership in the wine sector, and one is very surprised that it would institute and pursue such significant reforms and pursue such a significant revenue grab at the expense of a sector that it has a good relationship with—a sector which is so important to our national economy and, just as importantly, to many regional economies around this great nation, including my own.
When people think about the wine sector, of course, they should not just think about what happens at the cellar door. They should think about the market more generally—including the export market, where we are doing particularly well and always punching above our weight. But they should also think about all the economic activities that feed off our great wine sector. To use my own Hunter Valley as an example—and there are many fine examples around the country—there are the wonderful restaurants, the balloon rides and the very many wedding events that are held in my electorate that wouldn't be held there if it were not for the attraction of our beautiful vineyards and the wine sector that grows off them.
Of course, the pieces de resistance in the Hunter Valley are our great outdoor concerts. When I was a young bloke and we wanted to see an entertainer or a band, we went to Sydney. And now I'm happy to say that Sydney comes to us! Sydney now comes to us on a regular basis, particularly around this time of year, in spring, when tens of thousands come out of Sydney to make their way to the Hunter Valley, to places like Hope Estate, to hear some of the world's greatest entertainers. In fact, just last Saturday night, none other than Midnight Oil, led by a former member in this place, Peter Garrett. It was, I'm told, a wonderful evening, bringing tens of thousands of people to the region.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: The assistant minister was there, was he?
Mr Laundy: No.
Mr FITZGIBBON: No? Well, that was a bad decision! We welcome them from everywhere. We'd even have the member from Dawson come all the way down from Queensland if he cared to spend some of his money in the Hunter region to attend one of our concerts and to learn firsthand the very fact that we do have the world's greatest wines. Or maybe he would take a balloon ride. Maybe the member for Dawson might even get married in one of the great wedding venues we have in our great Hunter wine country!
But I do digress just a little! I come back to the main point that I'm making and, of course, that point is that every adverse decision they make for the wine industry is an adverse impact on wine tourism and on our regional economies. So, it's very sad that the government has sought to turn reform into a revenue grab. We appreciate the half backdown and the sector appreciates the half backdown, but, sadly, it's not enough.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (13:29): by leave—I move:
That the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Amendment (Wine Australia) Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It being almost 1.30, the debate is interrupted accordance with standing order 43.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Mogadishu: Attacks
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (13:29): I offer my condolences to the families of those senselessly murdered in the terrorist attack in Mogadishu, Somalia, on 14 October. At least 358 people were killed and 228 injured, and there are still many unaccounted for. The attack targeted the city's largest marketplace, everyday people doing everyday things—working, shopping, socialising. Somalis are in a state of shock and mourning right across the world, and we mourn with them.
Jagajaga is home to the largest population of Somali Australians in Victoria. They are a proud, vibrant, family-oriented people, and they love their community and love Australia. On the weekend I joined them for a community barbecue in Heidelberg West to show support and our affection for those lost and left behind. They showed and told me of people they knew who were killed in this attack. There was a young woman who had graduated that day from her medical course and a paraplegic father of eight who lost a son and daughter working in a market stall selling milk—terrible stories. However, the Somali people are eternal optimists. They won't allow those attempting to drag their country backwards to win. I'd like to thank local community elders, the Darusalam Society, Abdullah Ahmed, Hussein Haraco, the women leaders and the children of that great community.
Gilmore Electorate: South Coast Youth Leadership Forum
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (13:31): Every year our schools are invited to a leaders weekend workshop, originally the Gilmore Youth Leadership Forum, now evolved to the South Coast Youth Leadership Forum. Last weekend I was privileged to visit and hear the end-of-camp suggestions for projects that are global issues with local solutions. I congratulate every single student for taking their first step of knowledge-building to create a social change.
The standout group was #ahealthyhaven, where they set down an agenda of change to increase healthy living for youth. Their idea is to have three themed sessions in schools: firstly, advice from a dietitian; secondly, information about exercise; and, finally, a set of practical and affordable healthy cooking and recipe sessions. As Gilmore has many health risks, I've invited the group to formalise the concept so I may be able to get a pilot for that idea and help them get that great thing into action.
There were four other groups previously judged as finalists from all the forum projects. One was to have clean-energy electric trains between Kiama and Bomaderry. Another was to have a Waste Warrior app developed which helped a person to determine how best to recycle things, with inspirational quizzes to get people on board with recycling. Another was to have School or Else! to motivate students with career options, with personal finances, information about super, and simple household budgeting. The most poignant was the Little Box proposal to have a care-package concept for young people to show them someone cares so they don't take the side step to suicide. I want to help them set that project up and help get the boxes ready. (Time expired)
United Nations Human Rights Council
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:33): Today is United Nations Day, a day to pay tribute to the most important body we have for maintaining international peace and security, devising and upholding international frameworks and protecting human rights worldwide. With challenges like the Rohingya humanitarian emergency, a combative and volatile US President, global poverty and the threat of climate change, the role of the United Nations has never been more critical.
It's a great privilege for Australia to have been recently elected to the UN Human Rights Council, but with this opportunity comes a very serious responsibility to ensure that our own human rights record is exemplary. So it's time to reverse this government's shameful record of indefinite detention of asylum seekers and our abject failure to address Indigenous disadvantage in all its forms. Upholding human rights at home is essential if we are to respond with moral authority to human rights breaches abroad. This is an unprecedented opportunity for Australia and one that we should absolutely grab with both hands.
Page Electorate: Sport
Mr HOGAN (Page) (13:34): Round 2 of the 2017 BMX Interclub Challenge was held recently. It's a competition between local BMX clubs in my region. The Clarence Valley BMX Club's executive—Marnie Brighton, Timothy Botterill, Taya Wear and Stuart Russ—organised what was a great day. Thanks to the hard work of Grant Marsh and Jessica Butler, the track was in great form. Breanna Robertson from the Clarence Valley BMX Club was widely regarded as a stand-out competitor. I'd also like to acknowledge the Casino BMX Club executive: Kylie Sneesby, Danny Rapmund, Liss Rapmund and Kristy Martin. I know they're working hard on making the round 3 interclub challenge a success as well.
There's a great pool of talent across the Northern Rivers BMX community, and this was displayed not only at the interclub challenge but also by Clarence Valley club member and Team Navy rider Brittany Cole as she competed in New Zealand at the North Island BMX championships on the same weekend. Congratulations, Brittany, and well done to everyone involved in the interclub challenge.
I'd like to congratulate sisters Maya and Taquira McGrath and Billy Bradford, who have all been selected to represent New South Wales in the all schools team to compete at the Pacific School Games in Adelaide. This is the pinnacle school sport competition in Australia, and they've done very well to get there; I congratulate them.
Goods and Services Tax
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:35): The Northern Territory can see right through the Treasurer's plan to change the measure of horizontal fiscal equalisation from 'equal' to 'reasonable' in relation to the GST. We know that this is just a short-term political fix to pick up some votes in certain jurisdictions but it will have a devastating long-term impact on the Territory, leading to a permanent drop in the Territory's GST revenue. You won't be closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage; you'll be widening it. You won't be developing the North; you'll be killing it off.
Horizontal fiscal equalisation recognises that different jurisdictions in our Federation have different capacities to generate revenue that we need to pay for things like education, housing, health and policing. The Treasurer proposes to permanently reduce the standard of services and infrastructure development in the Northern Territory. The Productivity Commission is consulting around the country but not in Darwin—not in the northern capital of Australia, the very jurisdiction that's most under threat. I call again on the Treasurer and Senator Scullion to fix this injustice, bring the Productivity Commission to Darwin and make sure that Territory voices are heard in this very important debate for our Federation.
Swan Electorate: Stronger Communities Program
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:37): I'd love to comment on that, but I have something else I need to talk about. I rise today to talk about the coalition's Stronger Communities program, which just had its application period finish recently. It's great to be part of the coalition government which has continued this community focused program for its third round. This program allows many community groups and organisations access to alleviate some of the costs of capital projects, and this year was no different.
The success of this program has spread through the community groups in Swan quite quickly after the previous two rounds, which saw many groups become beneficiaries of this program. This meant my office was inundated with many interesting and worthy projects for the third round from the suburbs of South Perth all the way out to High Wycombe and Belmont, ranging from applications for trailers and equipment for local scouting groups to major refurbishment of local sporting clubs to ensure the community can gain the most benefit from their applications. I'm pleased to see the enthusiasm and drive of many of these local groups, which generally do all their work through volunteers. I thank them for their expressions of interest and their dedication to our community.
The quality of these submissions meant it wasn't easy for the consultation committee to decide on the projects to endorse, as many submissions were received. I'd like to thank my consultation committee for giving their time to assist in recommending projects to the department. I wish all the successful projects good luck with securing funding from the department and am looking forward to visiting many of the fantastic projects once completed.
Broadband
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:39): I rise today to call something to the House's attention. We sat here yesterday in question time and heard the Prime Minister tell us stories about the lived experience of people around the country and their relationship with his NBN. He basically suggested that what they're living is their fantasy and, if that's not the case, they should blame Labor. That was the summary of question time for me yesterday. Well, while the Prime Minister was doing that yesterday, people were emailing me and ringing my office to tell me their stories about their most recent connections to the NBN.
Jeni says:
We are lucky and had the real NBN installed but have sympathy for those that ended up with the 'fake' version.
Another said:
It drops out so regularly, can take 1 hr to reconnect.
Their uni student son cannot use the internet because it drops out or fails to connect. That was in Tarneit. I heard another horror story where people rushed to sign up, only to be cut off from phone and internet services for three weeks; they were fighting, making phone calls, and at their own cost getting wireless. These stories are everywhere in my electorate. This is a bad NBN. Can we have the good NBN back please, Prime Minister?
Petrie Electorate: Aspley Hornets Football Club
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (13:40): I can't name a lot of AFL players, but the Aspley Hornets Football Club in my electorate has certainly sparked my interest in this iconic game. The Aspley Hornets are the biggest junior club in Australia; they have more players than any of the Victorian clubs. They have terrific coaches, managers, volunteers, board members and club management. They have a real vested interest in the community at large.
For the last two Friday nights I have attended the club's junior and senior presentation dinners, and they cleaned up this year. They won more premierships than they ever have before. They won two senior premierships and three junior premierships. I want to ensure that this club continues to grow and inspire children to get outside and participate in sport—to get off the couch, off the video-gaming machine, and run around on the field—because we know that by doing that it will help taxpayers through lower health costs as well. That's why last year I secured $540,000 for the club to upgrade their sporting fields. The main field at Kirby Road in Aspley has been upgraded; there's also a new coaches box and new toilets. It's a fantastic club, and I encourage people to get involved with the Aspley Hornets. Well done, and keep up the great work.
Richards, Mr John, OAM
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:41): Colleagues: our senior citizens—we need to be there for them, to treat them as they have treated us. They've paid their taxes, they've done their community service, they've built the institutions, they've raised families. Today I would like to acknowledge the work of Mr John Richards OAM. Mr Richards is a former jackaroo, soldier and farmer and was the inaugural president of the Yarrawonga District Health Service board of management. His vision to support aged care research in North East Victoria has been backed by the generous and continuing donations to La Trobe University and has resulted in the establishment of the John Richards Initiative into ageing and aged care in rural communities based in Albury-Wodonga.
This year the John Richards Initiative and his philanthropy celebrate 10 years as the only interdisciplinary rural ageing and aged-care research in Australia. They are recognised as global leaders in rural ageing and aged-care research. And if that's not enough, in 2013 he established a fund to support scholarships for students studying agriculture. This has now been extended to undergraduate students at La Trobe University in Albury-Wodonga.
John Richards, I acknowledge you, I thank you and I honour you. And I call on parliament to value all of our senior citizens in word and deed, and to take a leading role in making sure that we give to our older citizens the place and the respect they deserve in our nation. (Time expired)
Queensland Government
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:43): It's a great state, Queensland, but having a government that has mastered the art of being a small target and doing nothing is incredibly frustrating. Queensland pays 30 per cent more for power than any other state in this nation, and because they're government-owned power generators all the money goes in the pocket of the Premier. Then she has the temerity to hand back 50 bucks a year! It's as if you've been running a corner store and ripping off the kids for years, and then you give half the money back to the parents but keep ripping them off. This is a $1.5 billion overcharging of Queensland families.
Now, I mentioned 'doing nothing' because there's nothing happening on our roads, either. We saw them cancelling projects when they came into government and then delaying announcements of important intersections in the city like Cleveland Redland Bay Road and Giles Road. They have the temerity to introduce it now, when the developer was begging for years to build this road, and the community begged for years to stop the disastrous crashes that we've seen at that intersection. Well, it's finally being built before the election, and it's not a moment too soon.
This is a government who contrives to announce things just before an election. This fundamentally exposes them as a do-nothing government focused on renaming the Bruce Highway with $9 million worth of useless signs, money that could have been invested in roads, and using another $11 million to consult with unions about the decision. This is a go-nowhere, do-nothing Labor government. We're begging for upgrades of our intersections, and with a change of government we will achieve that.
Canberra Electorate: Broadband
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:45): For the past 18 months I have been fighting really, really hard to get Canberra on the NBN rollout map. Just three months ago—hurrah!—we finally got on the NBN rollout map. Now I'm concerned that it's a case of 'be careful what you wish for'. I'm very concerned about the fact that this government has created a digital divide right across Australia. We've got a digital divide already here in Canberra, between the north and the south of Canberra. I'm concerned that because of our late entry and because this government rolled out the NBN and prioritised the NBN in the wrong spot, a spot where we already had TransACT, the people of Canberra have been left behind and, as a result, are going to get a second-rate NBN.
My colleague the member for Lalor was talking about the lived experience. Here's one lived experience: the individuals and hardworking community groups of Gleneagles are trying to get their NBN service upgraded from fibre to the node to fibre to the premises. That comes at a very hefty price. These residents have been asking NBN to design an upgrade for them for at least three years. They handed over an initial $2,200 and got a quick estimate that an area switch would cost the community between $900,000 and $2 million. That's a big gap—$1.1 million. That's how appalling is this government's NBN rollout. (Time expired)
Freckle Farm
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:46): It was a pleasure recently to have my colleague the member for Cowper, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, join me to tour a number of farms in my electorate. The minister and I are adamant that agriculture is one of the key pillars of our nation's economy. Agriculture brings billions of dollars into rural communities like those in Capricornia every year. Australia has led the way in innovative farming and cropping techniques, revolutionising the way farming is done worldwide.
The minister and I visited Freckle Farm, which has been run by Rob Bauman and Deb McLucas since 2008. They have put an enormous effort into rehabilitating the land, taking what was a depleted cane farm and developing a sustainable, productive grazing enterprise. Both Deb and Rob are passionate, holistic farmers, utilising grazing techniques that replenish the land as they grow their product. Deb and Rob have built up a fantastic business at Freckle Farm, selling free-range eggs, pork and beef to local restaurants throughout the region and at the Greater Whitsunday Farmers Market. Deb and Rob also host school groups throughout the year to educate children on the importance of healthy, nutritious, tasty food and explain their pasture based, chemical-free, natural farming principles. I would like to thank the team at Freckle Farm for their hospitality and wish them all the best for their future in the Pioneer Valley.
Blue Mountains Business Awards
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:48): The 2018 Blue Mountains Business Awards showcase the amazing entrepreneurs and talent in my local community. It takes a huge amount of effort on top of your day job to put your business forward for an award. Congratulations to every finalist and winner, including Rubyfruit, which won the Harry Hammon Regional Business of the Year award and the sustainability prize and was inducted into the hall of fame, and Ask Roz, which was similarly inducted into the hall of fame and took home the Excellence in Innovation award.
I was in business for 25 years before coming to this place and have been a proud sponsor of these awards for several years. This year I sponsored the new Home Based Business Award category, which recognises the special mix of challenges involved in setting up and running a business from home, like being taken seriously with a phone number that begins with 47, not 92; the discipline of sitting at the desk when there's a pile of washing waiting down the hall; and, equally, the discipline of not sitting at the desk when there's work to do but family life should probably get a bit of a look in. So I want to make special mention of the winners of this category: Alicia Windeisen, whose business, Conveyancing Smart, was highly commended. Alicia is a businesswoman who runs a business—with four children, including twin babies. Illuminart were the category winner. They are a network of artists who design, create and present interactive and innovative illuminated and moving image art for public spaces. Congratulations on your hard work that makes these big ideas flourish.
Sport: Pennant Hills Demons Australian Football League Club
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:49): Last Friday night I attended the awards presentation night for the Pennant Hills Demons AFL Club. Founded in 1971, the Pennant Hills Demons club has been a great feeder for the Sydney Swans, and such players as Kieren Jack and Jarrad and Mark McVeigh have cut their teeth with the Demons.
The club fields four senior men's teams, a women's team and an under-19s team. Pennant Hills is among the largest non-university community AFL clubs in Australia, with 220 registered players. Unlike some other clubs in their division, none of the Demons players are paid. The Demons are regarded as a model club, with a positive culture promoting club and team before self.
The 2017 season was particularly successful for the club, with the Premier Division team having a tough start but then going undefeated for nine weeks and scraping into the final rounds, before winning every single game in those rounds. Interestingly, seven of the 22 players in the grand final team were under 19, which bodes well for future finals success in the Premier Division. The women's team also made the final rounds in only their second year, and next year, because of the huge popularity of women's AFL at Pennant Hills, they will add an additional women's team.
I had the honour of presenting service awards to the long-serving secretary Bob Wray and club identity Matt Lee. Other awards were given to Chris Yard, Jesse Vidot-Coleman, Mikaela Mahoney, Peter Carey, Jackson Preedy, Kieran Wright, Aaron Crisfield and Josh Boag. I want to say congratulations to the Pennant Hills Demons and wish them every success. (Time expired)
Migration
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (13:51): Thirty-three years ago, a man named Ismail Soykuvvett walked into the Wills electorate office seeking assistance with an immigration matter. He was seeking residency in Australia based on his marriage to the Australian love of his life. At the time, it was former great Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke who was the member for Wills. Ismail was helped by an electorate officer in Bob's office named Mimi Tamburrino. His matter was resolved through representations by the office, and he got his residency.
Last week, on an unrelated matter, a man walked into my office in Wills seeking assistance—the same office. As it turns out, it was the same man, Ismail, and it was he who recognised that, after all these years, he was getting assistance once more from the very same Mimi Tamburrino, from 33 years ago, for Mimi is on my staff as she was on Bob's.
Ismail is now a husband, a father of five and a grandfather of one. He spends his days working in the family business, Chorba Cafe, around the corner from my office. Ismail is a prime example of the great contribution of migrants to this great land. He came to Australia without university-level English. He settled here and firmly established his roots. He and his wife worked hard and raised their children, who have grown up and are now making lives for families of their own. He and his family now spend their days joyfully feeding the people of Wills because, 33 years ago, a Turkish man walked into Bob Hawke's office for help. Last week, an Australian walked out of my office. And that's why Australian multiculturalism works.
Cancer Council Border Relay for Life
Ms LEY (Farrer) (13:52): I rise to pay tribute to the wonderful combined efforts of more than 2,500 people from the Albury Wodonga region who took part in our annual Border Relay for Life at the weekend. As many in the House will know, these relays are one of the Cancer Council's major fundraisers to help in research, prevention, information and support for people suffering from cancer. The figures from the weekend are still coming in, but once again the border community rose to the challenge, with 123 teams raising more than $400,000. Even though official registrations were slightly down on last year, Alexandra Park in Albury came alive, with community members from all walks of life paying tribute to members of their family or friends forced to fight the cancer battle.
Specifically, congratulations to the major fundraising efforts from teams Happy Feet, the local X-ray Group, and Cross Border Justice League, and a big shout-out to the year 11 students from Trinity Anglican College, who, I'm told, will likely top the local schools tally again this year, with $9,000 raised so far. These funds not only go to the Cancer Council but also towards a second local patient transport vehicle, which is so important for our people in the fight against cancer. So 'Bravo!' to the local organisers, who continue to make the Border Relay for Life one of the biggest and best in Australia.
Broadband
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:54): Today is the day when Malcolm Turnbull—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! Order!
Mr STEPHEN JONES: when the Prime Minister should come into the parliament and show some humility about the national broadband disaster. It's not a day for lectures on how extremely excellent he is. It's not a day for lectures on how exceedingly smart he is. It's not a day for him to tell us about how well the NBN rollout is going. It's not a day to brag about the fact that the Prime Minister has now rolled it out to five million houses when the little gift he's left at the majority of those five million houses is a broadband service that doesn't work as well as the one he replaced but has cost us $49 billion.
There is a 160 per cent increase in the number of NBN complaints, but the Prime Minister says, 'No big deal.' There are 6.5 per cent of premises getting no broadband in their rollout area, but the Prime Minister says, 'No big deal.' Small businesses are shelling out $9,000 on top of the money they're losing in revenue and the Prime Minister says, 'No big deal.'
The people of Australia deserve much better than what they're getting. While he's banging on about the lived experience, what the people of Australia want is an internet and phone service that just damn works.
Queensland Rural Regional and Remote Women's Network
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (13:55): Last Friday the Queensland Rural Regional and Remote Women's Network gala dinner was held at Emerald. Today I'd like to congratulate Senior Constable Sarah Grayson from Charleville's Queensland police station, who was awarded the Woman of the Year Award. This is an award that recognises the significant contribution to a high-priority issue in Queensland. To be successful, the nominee must demonstrate resilience and strong leadership, and must constantly strive to improve and inspire others to achieve their goals.
As the deserving high achiever, it's no surprise that Senior Constable Grayson was also awarded the Professional Woman of the Year Award, which recognises a woman who, through the course of her work, has influenced change to improve services to regional, rural and remote women.
Senior Constable Grayson has almost 24 years of policing experience working in some of the most challenging and remote communities. Senior Constable Grayson has worked tirelessly to identify barriers in rural communities and works towards making positive changes. It gives me great comfort that we have people like Senior Constable Grayson working to make our regional, rural and remote communities a better place to live.
In closing, I would also like to congratulate all the nominees for their service and dedication to regional, rural and remote Queensland. It is inspirational and greatly appreciated.
Prime Minister
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (13:57): Today is an important day. Today it's the Prime Minister's birthday. He turns 63, and doesn't he look sprightly! Like a good truffle, he's just getting more expensive with age. It doesn't matter how old you are, everybody likes a present for their birthday. But what do you get a man who's got everything? This is a man who promised so much but has given us so little, other than, of course, a dodgy NBN, a tax cut for millionaires, a tax increase for almost everybody else, a cut to penalty rates, a cut to people's pension payments, a cut to education and now, apparently, a cut of 50 cents—a measly 50 cents—to people's power bills. What do you get a man like that for his birthday? Maybe a new leather jacket. Maybe a new Deputy Prime Minister. No, we have to wait until Friday for that.
The people of Australia know what to get this Prime Minister for his birthday. The Prime Minister wants everyone to work until they're 70. I have to tell you, the feeling isn't mutual. What the people of Australia would really love to give the Prime Minister for his birthday is early retirement. They've told him 21 times. They can't wait to give it to him. So, Prime Minister, on behalf of the opposition, happy birthday. The people of Australia have their present ready for you. They're ready whenever you are. (Time expired)
Energy
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:58): Isn't it wonderful to hear members of the Labor Party complain about electricity prices? We know that under their watch there was a 100 per cent increase. They come into this chamber and they complain about electricity prices. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, the constituents in my electorate know one thing: they will get lower electricity prices under a Liberal coalition government than they will under a Labor government any single day of the week.
I say to the Labor Party: if you are really concerned about electricity prices, if you are really concerned about protecting jobs in this nation and doing the best thing you can for this nation, abandon totally your 50 per cent unreliable energy target and abandon totally your 45 per cent reduction in emissions and your Paris target. Come on board with the coalition. Sign up. Sign up to the National Energy Guarantee. Sign up to the coalition's policies. You talk about bipartisanship and you talk about providing certainty for the market. The energy minister sitting down there in the front has given you the opportunity to do so. It's time you put aside your ideological dreams with the Greens, get on board with the policy and put consumers first before going after the green votes of the basketweavers of Balmain.
The SPEAKER: It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded.
SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): Mr Speaker, on indulgence, for the information of the House I present a revised list of the shadow ministry:
The document read as follows—
SHADOW MINISTRY
Title |
ShadowMinister |
Leader of the Opposition |
Hon Bill Shorten MP |
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders |
Hon Bill Shorten MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders |
Senator Patrick Dodson |
Shadow Cabinet Secretary |
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence |
Terri Butler MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader (Tasmania) |
Senator Helen Polley |
Deputy Leader of the Opposition |
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP |
Shadow Minister for Education and Training |
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP |
Shadow Minister for Women |
Hon Tanya Plibersek MP |
Shadow Minister for Skills, TAFE and Apprenticehips |
Senator the Hon Doug Cameron |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools |
Andrew Giles MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Universities |
Terri Butler MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Equality |
Terri Butler MP |
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs |
Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific |
Senator Claire Moore |
Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
Shadow Special Minister of State |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
Shadow Minister for Sport |
Senator the Hon Don Farrell |
Shadow Treasurer |
Hon Chris Bowen MP |
Shadow Assistant Treasurer |
Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP |
Shadow Minister for Competition and Productivity |
Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP |
Shadow Minister for Charities and Not-for-Profits |
Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP |
Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy |
Ed Husic MP |
Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs |
Tim Hammond MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury |
Hon Matt Thistlethwaite MP |
Shadow Minister for Environment and Water |
Hon Tony Burke MP |
Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Australia |
Hon Tony Burke MP |
Shadow Minister for the Arts |
Hon Tony Burke MP |
Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives |
Hon Tony Burke MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Australia |
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Australia |
Julie Owens MP |
Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services |
Hon Jenny Macklin MP |
Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness |
Senator the Hon Doug Cameron |
Shadow Minister for Human Services |
Hon Linda Burney MP |
Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers |
Senator Carol Brown |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Families and Communities |
Senator Louise Pratt |
Shadow Minister for Infrastructure , Transport, Cities and Regional Development |
Hon Anthony Albanese MP |
Shadow Minister for Tourism |
Hon Anthony Albanese MP |
Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government |
Stephen Jones MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure |
Pat Conroy MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories |
Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
Shadow Attorney -General |
Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP |
Shadow Minister for National Security |
Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP |
Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives |
Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP |
Shadow Minister for Justice |
Clare O'Neil MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for an Australian Head of State |
Hon Matt Thistlethwaite MP |
Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations |
Hon BrendanO'Connor MP |
Shadow Minister for E mployment Services, Workforce Participation and Future of Work |
Ed Husic MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Workplace Relations |
Lisa Chesters MP |
Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy |
Hon Mark Butler MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change |
Pat Conroy MP |
Shadow Minister for Defence |
Hon Richard Marles MP |
Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs |
Hon Amanda Rishworth MP |
Shadow Minister for Defence Personnel |
Hon Amanda Rishworth MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC |
Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Cyber Security and Defence |
Gai Brodtmann MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence Industry and Support |
Hon Mike Kelly AM MP |
Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research |
Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Science |
Hon Nick Champion MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation |
Senator Deborah O'Neill |
Shadow Minister for Health and Medicare |
Hon Catherine King MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare |
Tony Zappia MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health |
Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry |
Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP |
Shadow Minister for Rural and Regional Australia |
Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Australia |
Lisa Chesters MP |
Shadow Minister for Resources and Northern Australia |
Hon Jason Clare MP |
Shadow Minister for Trade and Investment |
Hon Jason Clare MP |
Shadow Minister for Trade in Services |
Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP |
Shadow Minister Assisting for Resources |
Tim Hammond MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Northern Australia |
Hon Warren Snowdon MP |
Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection |
Hon Shayne Neumann MP |
Shadow Minister for Finance |
Dr Jim Chalmers MP |
Shadow Minister for Small Business and Financial Services (2) |
Senator Katy Gallagher |
Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate |
Senator Katy Gallagher |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Small Business |
Julie Owens MP |
Shadow Minister for Communications |
Hon Michelle Rowland MP |
Shadow Minister for Regional Communications |
Stephen Jones MP |
Shadow Minister for Ageing and Mental Health (3) |
Hon Julie Collins MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Ageing |
Senator Helen Polley |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health |
Senator Deborah O'Neill |
Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Development (1) |
Hon Amanda Rishworth MP |
Each box represents a portfolio except for (1) which is in the Education portfolio, (2) which is in Treasury portfolio and (3) which is in the Health portfolio. Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type .
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will add training to her responsibilities. Senator Cameron will work closely with her, adding TAFE to his current responsibilities. The member for Kingston will join the shadow cabinet as shadow minister for early childhood education development, in addition to her current responsibilities. And the member for Kingsford Smith will become the shadow assistant minister for an Australian head of state, in addition to his existing responsibilities.
And on behalf of the entire Labor movement, I thank the member for Adelaide, Kate Ellis, for her outstanding work as a member of the Labor front bench.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides! The Minister for the Environment and Energy! The Leader of the House! Members on both sides will cease interjecting or we'll have a 94(a) before we even get to question time.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Australian Federal Police
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police today revealed at Senate estimates that the government has cut over $184 million from the AFP, with 117 officers cut this year. Is the commissioner correct when he says: 'These cuts will mostly apply to our discretionary funding. So they are areas that fund a large portion of our antinarcotics, our organised crime work, our general operation work and our fraud and anticorruption'?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (14:02): I'm not sure whether the Labor opposition is determined to wilfully mislead this House—because they have asked questions like this before—or whether they are actually clueless about the way the budgetary cycle works! I've offered briefings to the shadow minister for justice before about the budgetary cycle. She hasn't taken them up, but I'm very happy to run through how it works.
Now, budgets work over a four-year cycle, so we make commitments over a four-year cycle. For example, if we make an announcement about extra funding for the National Anti-Gang Squad, that exists in the budget for four years and then it terminates at the end of those four years. The logic that the ALP, the logic that the opposition, are bringing to this argument is that if I were stand up tomorrow and say, 'We're adding an extra $100 million worth of funding to the AFP, the Labor opposition would get up and say that we're cutting the AFP's funding of $100 million in four years' time. That is the logic they are bringing to this argument!
The facts are very clear: we have made record investments in the capacity of the Australian Federal Police—record investments! I was very pleased, prior to last year's budget, to stand up with the Prime Minister and announce that, on top of the record investments we've already made, we added an extra $321 million to the capability of the Australian Federal Police. This is the largest investment in the Australian Federal Police's domestic capability in a decade—in a decade! This is in stark contrast to the record of the Labor Party when they were in government. They used our law enforcement community as a never-ending reservoir to make up for their inability to balance the budget. They cut funding to the Australian Federal Police. They absolutely gutted the Australian Crime Commission at the time.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton!
Mr KEENAN: They completely gutted Customs—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton is warned!
Mr KEENAN: They destroyed the ability of Customs to screen cargo as it crossed our threshold, resulting in guns coming in at the post office at Sylvania Waters.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith!
Mr KEENAN: Since we arrived in office in 2013, the most important job I've had is to undo the damage done by the Labor Party when they were in office. The Australian Federal Police has never been better supported than they are at the moment. Constantly and wilfully making the same false representations in this House does not change these basic facts.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the member for Chisholm: members on both sides will cease interjecting. The member for Moreton has been warned. The member for Ballarat will also cease interjecting. The member for Chisholm has the call.
Energy
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is reducing power bills for hardworking Australians, including in my electorate of Chisholm? Is the Prime Minister aware of any risks to the government's approach?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:06): I thank the honourable member for her question. The largest risk to energy affordability and reliability in Australia is the honourable members sitting opposite. They have demonstrated again and again that they are a threat to affordable energy through their reckless and incompetent prosecution of an ideological agenda in energy. We have seen that they have failed to prioritise affordability and reliability in their ideological pursuit of renewable energy without any regard to the fact that the sun doesn't shine all the time and the wind doesn't blow all the time. If we need any confirmation of that, we only have to look at the home state of the opposition spokesman on energy, the member for Port Adelaide. South Australians know very well what a Labor energy policy looks like, and Australians would see that right around the nation if the Leader of the Opposition were to become Prime Minister.
Australia cannot afford a Labor government which would increase taxes—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Lyons will leave under 94(a). The Prime Minister has the call.
The member for Lyons then left the chamber.
Mr TURNBULL: We know that, were Labor to implement its policy of a 45 per cent cut in emissions by 2030, nearly double what we had committed to in Paris, a 50 per cent renewable energy target would add nearly $200 a year to household energy bills—as against a $110 to $115 saving from the implementation of the National Energy Guarantee. So that is the difference—$300 a year is the tax Australians would have to pay for the Labor Party's energy incompetence. Compare that to what we're doing. The National Energy Guarantee is recommended by the brightest minds in the business—those with the most experience and the most authority. You'd think Labor would embrace it. No, they have described it as science fiction and nonsense.
What about gas prices? They went through the roof because of Labor's failure to recognise that, if you allow exports from the east coast without doing anything to protect the domestic market, you'll get tight supply and higher prices. They were warned. They ignored the warnings. Prices went through the roof, and so did electricity prices. Sixty five thousand jobs are at risk. We moved, and we have now secured the gas supplies that the east coast market needs—no thanks to the Labor Party, cleaning up their mess. We've delivered reform on limited merits reviews. No more can the owners of the poles and wires game the system and jack up prices. (Time expired)
Australian Federal Police
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any policies or decisions taken by him or his government that are diminishing the operational capacity of the Australian Federal Police?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:09): As the Minister for Justice very eloquently and comprehensively replied, the support that we have given to the Australian Federal Police is at an unprecedented level, $321 million in the last budget, the largest single funding boost for the AFP for policing capabilities in a decade.
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hotham will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL: What we have provided the AFP with is the ability to fill new specialist positions so vital to keep Australians safe in the face of the threat of terrorism: 100 intelligence experts, over 100 tactical response and covert surveillance operators and just under 100 new forensic specialists. I don't know whether honourable members opposite have had the opportunity to visit the Federal Police headquarters there at Majura to see the extraordinary work that's undertaken by the tactical response team and by the forensic specialists. The police there are at the absolute cutting edge of science and technology. That's what we need to keep Australians safe, and we are providing them with the financial resources to enable them to do that.
But, in addition, what we're also doing is providing them with the legislation, with the laws, that they need to keep us safe. Again, one tranche of national security legislation after another has been passed through this parliament at the instigation of my government and indeed of the government headed by the member for Warringah. We have done that. We have done everything to make Australians safe and give our agencies, our national security agencies, our intelligence services and indeed the ADF all of the tools they need to keep Australians safe in dangerous times.
Energy
Economy
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (14:11): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please advise the House how the National Energy Guarantee will work to boost Australia's productivity, creating more and better-paying jobs for hardworking Australians not just in Petrie but all around Australia? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:12): I thank the member for Petrie for his question. The five-yearly review of productivity that this government tasked the Productivity Commission to undertake contains a section which says 'fixing the energy mess'. It calls it an appalling mess, and it was a mess created by the Labor Party. The Productivity Commission has said that, if we want more and better-paid jobs, which is what productivity means, we have to fix that mess. And we are fixing that appalling mess, which is described by the Productivity Commission and which is standing in the way of productivity improvements, which means it's standing in the way of better wages and more and better-paid jobs, which are what this government is focused on delivering.
It calls for a national answer, not an answer where the states go it alone. It calls for a national answer that is technology neutral, that is efficiently priced, that recognises the need to meet our emissions reduction targets, that clearly articulates the trade-off between reliability and cost, and that provides clear direction to expert bodies. We should be listening to those expert bodies, like the Energy Security Board, set up by COAG independently to advise the governments—not just the Commonwealth but all states and territories—on what the best way forward is, picking up on the Finkel review.
That's what they've provided us with. They said at the Productivity Commission that we need to let those market regulators and participants get on with the job. That is exactly what we are doing by supporting the Energy Security Board's National Energy Guarantee, with the right policy settings—and the shadow Treasurer should listen to this particularly because he said it just this morning—that are good for the environment and put downward pressure on prices. That's what he said. That's what the shadow Treasurer said. It's a benchmark for these policies.
The National Energy Guarantee delivers on that benchmark more than any other alternative, certainly those put forward by the opposition. It delivers the investment certainty that is necessary, which has caused the Business Council of Australia to today write to all state and territory leaders, arguing that the guarantee provides the best chance to break the deadlock on climate policy that has paralysed large-scale investment in dispatchable electricity generation for several years.
The shadow Treasurer is like Grandpa Simpson, shouting at the clouds, shaking his fist at the clouds—there he is. Angry and empty are the shadow Treasurer and the members of the Labor frontbench, because their policy is to put prices up by $192, not to put prices down by $115. What a bunch of muppets!
Australian Federal Police
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer. I repeat: is the Prime Minister aware of any policies or decisions taken by him or his government that have diminished the operational capacity of the Australian Federal Police, specifically to investigate major drug importations, including the importation of cocaine?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:15): The chutzpah of the Leader of the Opposition! He stands up here and asks us about national security. This is the leader of a party that outsourced our border's sovereignty to people smugglers. This is the leader of a party that, despite all of the warnings and all of the knowledge, chose to abandon the integrity of our own borders—they abandoned all of that—and outsourced border protection to people smugglers. The extraordinary performance of the Labor Party in—
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order, on direct relevance. It's the second time a question of this nature has been asked—there's been no preamble in either—and it's specifically asking about decisions taken by the Prime Minister or his government.
The SPEAKER: I listened to the question very carefully. Whilst it was a short question, they were a number of aspects it covered. The Prime Minister is entitled to a preamble and the Prime Minister is in order. There is no standing order that demands questions receive a yes/no answer. The Prime Minister has the call and he's being relevant to the question.
Mr TURNBULL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If 50,000 illegal arrivals and over 1,000 deaths at sea was not enough on border protection—that was Labor's track record—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is now warned.
Mr TURNBULL: That's your glorious record. That's your record of failing Australians on security. What about the ADF? How many naval ships did the Labor Party commission in six years? None—nothing at all. We have set out to build and are in the process of designing and building 54 naval vessels. That's the commitment we've made—a real commitment to keep Australians safe.
As far as the Australian Federal Police is concerned, I can say this to honourable members: every decision we've taken, every policy we have set out and every measure relating to the AFP is focused on ensuring they have the capacity to keep us safe and the skills and the technology to do so in these dangerous times.
Crown Casino Melbourne
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, a fourth Crown Casino whistleblower has now come forward and levelled further serious allegations of poker machines being illegally tampered with. Significantly, he names the Crown staff he alleges told him to modify machines and asked me to give these names to the police, which I'm doing. However, this worker fears for his safety and doesn't entirely trust the police or the regulators, and for that reason he asks you personally, and the opposition leader, to support a transparent inquiry. So, Prime Minister, will you establish a parliamentary inquiry so that the Australian people can learn the truth about the casino industry? Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table these latest allegations.
The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne: As to the last part of the question, Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The member for Denison will resume his seat.
Mr Pyne: As to the last part of the question, Mr Speaker, the purpose of tabling documents, of course, is not to allow slanderous or defamatory material to be covered by parliamentary privilege. As I haven't seen the documents, I will not be granting leave on this occasion.
The SPEAKER: Leave is not granted. The member for Denison's asked his question. He can resume his seat if he wishes to receive an answer. The procedures are very clear. He sought leave. I didn't get to ask whether leave was granted, but I've got the answer: leave is not granted. It's very clear, and the Prime Minister can now choose to address the question.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:19): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the honourable member for the question. The police, the gambling regulators in Victoria and AUSTRAC are the appropriate people to investigate and examine these allegations. Those agencies have the necessary powers, extensive powers—indeed, powers far greater than a parliamentary committee. The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, I am advised, is investigating the allegations, and AUSTRAC is also examining the specific nature of the allegations of money laundering. If any members or senators are aware of allegations of unlawfulness, I strongly encourage them to report those directly to our law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Our law enforcement agencies do an outstanding job in keeping us safe and enforcing and upholding the rule of law, upon which our democracy depends. I encourage the honourable member to provide—
The SPEAKER: The member for Denison on a point of order. I'm prepared—
Mr Wilkie: Speaker, this man's in fear of his life and has lost faith in the regulator.
The SPEAKER: The member for Denison will resume his seat. I say to the member for Denison: there are courtesies, as I pointed out the other day, extended to members of the crossbench in terms of the length of their questions, but there is no favouritism on points of order. If you rise to seek a point of order, you need to state the point of order. It is not an opportunity to make a speech or to make a point you wished to make in your question. If the member for Denison or, for that matter, any other member repeats that, I will have to take further action. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: The honourable member, I believe, knows very well that the police, the gambling regulators and AUSTRAC are the appropriate agencies to whom to report these allegations and the appropriate agencies to investigate them, invested with all of the necessary powers. The idea that those investigations would be assisted by a simultaneous parliamentary inquiry almost beggars belief. I say to the honourable member that, if he is really concerned with ensuring that these allegations are investigated, that due process is applied and that justice is done, he would confide his revelations, his communications and his information on this matter to the police and the regulators. That is his duty as a member of this parliament and as someone committed to upholding the law.
Energy
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (14:22): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House how the government will meet Australia's international commitment on carbon emissions while also guaranteeing reliable and affordable energy for all hardworking Australians?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:22): I thank the member for Bowman for his question and for his deep interest in ensuring that the Australian people are provided with affordable and reliable electricity. That is indeed the priority of the Turnbull government not only for Australian households but also for Australian businesses so that they can be internationally competitive.
The National Energy Guarantee has been welcomed by those who are responsible for the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Australians. In particular, I refer to the comments of the CEO of Master Grocers, who said:
The Turnbull Government has … proposed a plan that promises businesses 'cheaper and more reliable electricity.'
The CEO of the Australian Food and Grocery Council says:
The National Energy Guarantee's focus on delivering affordable and reliable power is a fundamental step forward in providing long term policy certainty for Australia's largest manufacturing sector.
JBS Australia said: 'JBS Australia, as Australia's meat and food processor and a major energy user, welcomes the announcement of the government's National Energy Guarantee that, as a policy, offers a solution to lower the costs of energy, deliver reliability and underpin a competitive Australian manufacturing sector. We employ 12,000 people across five Australian states.' Energy Consumers Australia said:
Energy Consumers Australia CEO … welcomed the plan … endorsed by the Federal Government, which integrates the need for reliable power and emissions reductions in the electricity sector, at least cost for consumers.
Then the CEO of the Business Council of Australia said:
The government's plan … is the most practical, workable thing we've seen in business for quite some time … it brings together the three crucial things together: affordability, reliability and meeting our carbon target.
And that is absolutely correct. This is the first time we've seen climate policy and energy policy integrated to give affordable and reliable power as well as meet our international obligations.
Compare and contrast Labor's unaffordable, unreliable, irresponsible policies. A 45 per cent emissions reduction target is way beyond any other target by any comparable economy, whether it is Japan, New Zealand, Canada or the EU. And the 50 per cent renewable energy target that the Labor opposition would embrace in government would drive up power prices, drive down jobs growth and put our international competitiveness at risk. The $66 billion subsidy that the Labor opposition want to impose on Australian businesses and households would be passed on to consumers again, driving up power prices, driving down jobs growth and putting our international competitiveness at risk.
The choice is clear. The Labor Party stands for higher power prices. The coalition stands for affordable and reliable energy that meets our international obligation.
Billson, Mr Bruce
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:26): My question is for the Prime Minister. Was the Attorney-General accurately representing the Prime Minister as his representative in Senate estimates when last night he defended the conduct of Bruce Billson, saying:
… it is very appropriate for backbench members to receive remuneration from third-party sources not inconsistent with their responsibilities as members of parliament ... it is both consistent and commonplace.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Sorry; I want to listen very closely to the question. Members on both sides are interjecting and preventing me hearing what I think could be a critical part of it. I'd like the Manager of Opposition Business to begin his question again.
Mr BURKE: My question is to the Prime Minister. Was the Attorney-General accurately representing the Prime Minister as his representative in Senate estimates when last night he defended the conduct of Bruce Billson, saying:
… it is very appropriate for backbench members to receive remuneration from third-party sources not inconsistent with their responsibilities as members of parliament … it is both consistent and commonplace.
Is the behaviour of Bruce Billson commonplace for this government? Just how many members of the government are we talking about?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:27): The members' interest disclosure system, which all members here are very familiar with, does provide for the disclosure of income over and above a member's parliamentary salary, and it's open to the honourable member or anyone else with an interest in the matter to go through all those disclosures and determine how many backbenchers are in receipt of income from third-party sources as the honourable member described it.
Energy
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. I know the minister is well aware of the difficulty South Australia has been having with its electricity market. Will the minister update the House on the importance of the government's commitment to energy affordability and reliability, and what obstacles stand in the way of delivering reliable and affordable energy to hardworking Australian businesses and families?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:28): I thank the member for Grey for his question. I know that he is deeply focused on reducing the power prices for his constituents and major business, whether it's Arrium, whether it's Nyrstar at Port Pirie and whether it's BHP at Olympic Dam. He welcomes the Turnbull's government's commitment to solar thermal projects, including those at Port Augusta and at the upper Spencer Gulf—a pumped hydro facility at Cultana.
On this side of the House we support the National Energy Guarantee because we know it is going to lead to reliable, affordable power as well as meet our international obligations. There are no taxes, no subsidies and no trading schemes. It's been broadly welcomed by the Minerals Council, by the manufacturers, by the meat processors, by the irrigators, by the grocers, by Australia's biggest employers, by the BECA, by the Ai Group. It has been endorsed by the Chief Scientist. There's only one person who's not yet on board. Guess who? It's the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is like that Japanese soldier, Hiro Onoda: for 30 years he was stuck in the jungle, lost in the jungle, refusing to surrender while everyone was getting on. In fact, they found the Leader of the Opposition there in the jungle with his emissions intensity scheme in one hand and the climate wars in the other.
Today, on the front pageofThe Australian it has been revealed that modelling undertaken by the Climate Change Authority will mean that Labor's emissions intensity scheme and its 50 per cent renewable energy target won't lead to power prices going down, but will lead to them going up by nearly $200. So, while the National Energy Guarantee will lead to savings of up to $115, Labor's policy will lead to an increase of nearly $200, which is not good news for the people in the electorate in Port Adelaide or for the people of Maribyrnong or the people in the electorate of Watson.
Now the Labor Party has a very bad policy. The member for Port Adelaide, he might be a good bloke but he's in charge of a very bad policy. The prices will go up under the Labor Party if they ever get their chance back in government, as prices went up when they were last in government—up by 100 per cent. So it's time the Labor Party got on board with the National Energy Guarantee and gave us more reliable and affordable power, which is what the coalition will do.
Australian Federal Police
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): My question is to the Prime Minister. In question time today the Prime Minister said:
… every decision we've taken, every policy we have set out and every measure relating to the AFP is focused on ensuring they have the capacity to keep us safe …
How then does the Prime Minister explain an ABC report that has just appeared online, which states:
The July AFP memo revealed resourcing shortages left the AFP unable to properly investigate a 1.6-tonne cocaine importation, leaving it to be handled offshore.
This meant the operations of an Australian-based crime group behind the import could not be fully explored.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:32): Mr Speaker, I'll invite the minister to add to this answer, but let me just say this: in terms of intercepting drug importation, we have seen record seizures—hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of drugs seized—and extraordinary cooperation between the AFP, Border Force, and police and security agencies overseas. We are cracking down on those drug importers on a scale never seen before, but I should say the challenge is on a scale never seen before and so we will need to do more and more. We understand that. But the combination of great policing, great investigation, great intelligence is a credit not simply to the AFP and the other agencies with which they work but also to the extra resources—intelligence, legislative and financial—that we are putting behind our effort to stamp out drug importation.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (14:33): I would just invite the opposition to look at the scoreboard that our law enforcement agencies have actually managed over the past four years: record seizures of cocaine, record seizures of crystal methamphetamine, record seizures of precursors such as ephedrine.
We've never seen a more coordinated and joined up effort from our law enforcement community: the Australian Federal Police working in conjunction with Australian Border Force and working in conjunction with the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. We have seen these record seizures. We have sent our law enforcement agents out into the world incredibly effectively. Taskforce Blaze in China is the only joint task force of any foreign law enforcement agency with the Chinese national narcotics control bureau. That one task force alone, where AFP officers are working side by side with their Chinese counterparts, has stopped 13 tonnes of drugs from hitting Australian streets in the past two years—13 tonnes! We've now got similar task forces with the Royal Thai Police and the royal Cambodian police.
We do have a significant problem with the high demand for illicit drugs in Australia. We have been tackling it by tackling the supply side, and our efforts have never been more effective, with the law enforcement operations that I've just outlined. We've also tackled the demand side, particularly in relation to crystal methamphetamine, or ice, with the largest investment in drug and alcohol rehabilitation in Australia's history. I'm very pleased to report to the House, because this is the first time we've ever had comprehensive information, that we are seeing the embryonic start of the decrease in ice usage throughout the community. This is a direct result of the efforts of our law enforcement community, combined with what we've done to decrease demand for this insidious drug.
Energy
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (14:35): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. Will the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House how the government's energy policy will guarantee reliable and affordable energy for hardworking farmers and businesses in regional communities like those in my electorate of Flynn? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:36): I thank the honourable member for his question and note that in his past he has actually done blue-collar work: he was a fettler. He actually believes in blue-collar workers' jobs. Unfortunately, those on the other side are a lot of university graduates—no problems with that—and a lot of solicitors, but there are no labourers in the Labor Party anymore. They actually believe that labourers are politically incorrect, and you can see that in their jihad that they run against some of the vital coal-fired assets in the member's electorate. The member for Flynn will be aware of Callide B, Callide C, Gladstone and Stanwell, all employing blue-collar workers and creating blue-collar jobs, because the member for Flynn is not embarrassed about blue-collar workers. He has been a blue-collar worker, unlike those in the Labor Party.
Very rarely do you ever find someone in the Labor Party who has actually done a labouring job. The teachers all stick up their hands. I have no problems with teachers either. Teachers are good people. The member for Melbourne Ports has stuck up his hand. Where are these people who have actually ever worked for a living in the Labor Party? Where are the labourers in the Labor Party? They don't exist anymore. But we are going to make sure that we keep the jobs of the people in Flynn, in the industrial city of Gladstone. We're going to look after the people of Gladstone rather than just looking after the people of Annandale. We are going to make sure that the basketweavers do not reign supreme in the power policy of this nation.
We look for the member for Maribyrnong, who apparently used to represent labourers—he never did any labour himself, but he used to represent them—to come to the dispatch box and tell us about his grand vision for Australia: 50 per cent renewables. There won't be a job left in this place. They say today in the paper that 75 per cent of coal-fired power stations will have to be closed down. So what does the member for Hunter have to say about that? What does the member for Shortland have to say about that? What does the member for Herbert have to say about that? They say nothing, because they don't stand up for workers anymore.
Then we hear the piece de resistance. Of course, we're all waiting for Mr Rudd's book to come out, because in that we hear that the member for Lilley, the former Treasurer of the millennium, was put there as a poison pill. He was there to blow up Rudd. He ended up blowing up a whole budget. He ended up blowing the budget of the nation. He was there as a joke. Well, they never saw the funny side of it. They kept him there. They made him the Treasurer of Australia. What an enlightenment the Labor Party is! What a wonderful grace to our economic future the Labor Party is! You know what? The joke is still here. I think the joke is making a comeback.
Australian Federal Police
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:39): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, we support the AFP efforts, but why are the AFP advising that they lack the resources to properly investigate serious crime, including drug importation? I quote the ABC online, where they say:
The document said NSW AFP did not have the sufficient resources to meet the operational load …
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:39): If the honourable member spent more time listening to the AFP and less time coordinating his question time tactics with the ABC, he'd have a better insight into national security.
Energy
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House why reliable and affordable energy is crucial for hospitals like Casey Hospital in my electorate of La Trobe and throughout regional Victoria? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that will drive up power prices and destabilise the energy market?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:40): I want to thank the member for La Trobe. He's not just a great member for La Trobe and a passionate member for La Trobe, but, before coming to this place, he was a member of the Victoria Police. He was a policeman's policeman. He played senior roles in dealing with both counterterrorism and organised crime. In fact, he was one of the people who kicked in the door and then personally arrested Alphonse Gangitano. So we're not going to be taking any lessons from the people on that side about matters in relation to crime today. One thing is that he has a nose for the truth. As part of that, he said to me that there are two things he knows that matter today. One: Labor loves higher electricity prices. How does he know that? He knows that because Labor voted for a $15 billion electricity tax and he voted against it. How else does he know? Because he voted to abolish a $15 billion electricity tax and every member who was on that side at that time voted to keep it, not just once but on multiple occasions. He also knows that Labor now wants to introduce not a $15 billion electricity tax but a $66 billion electricity tax, which would have a net impact on our families of $300 a year.
But he also knows that it would hurt our hospitals—that their electricity tax would be bad for our hospitals. It would impact their ability to provide for essential services; it would impact their ability to provide for community support—all of the things that you would hope for. And we know this because it's already happening in Victoria. We saw that Victoria's action in deliberately closing down the Hazelwood power station led to a $44 million hit on Victoria's hospitals. The Casey Hospital suffered as a consequence of the Victorian government's actions—Victorian Labor's actions, supported by every member on that side. We know that the Portland Hospital suffered an over $270,000 hit in the member for Wannon's electorate. Echuca hospital, Castlemaine hospital and so many others suffer as a consequence. That's why on this side we are opposed to Labor's massive new electricity tax. The Prime Minister and the energy minister are taking steps to deliver reliable and affordable energy with the National Energy Guarantee. It builds on what we've done by abolishing their electricity tax. It builds on what we've done by abolishing the limited merits review. It builds on what the Prime Minister personally did in fronting the gas companies and forcing them to change the way they were treating Australian consumers. So, at the end of the day, the member for La Trobe is dead right when he says that Labor loves electricity taxes.
Australian Federal Police
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister just advised the parliament to listen to the AFP, does the Prime Minister consider the AFP is wrong when it says that resourcing shortages left the AFP unable to properly investigate a 1.6 tonne cocaine importation? When will the Prime Minister finally stop blaming everybody else and take some responsibility for the decisions that his government makes when it comes to the AFP?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:44): The Labor Party's commitment to the rule of law would be taken somewhat more seriously if they weren't wholly owned and beholden to the CFMEU. Let's have a look. It's very important when we look at corporate structures to see who the shareholders are. That's where the money comes from: the CFMEU.
As at eight days ago, on 16 October, there were 84 CFMEU representatives before the courts, facing a total of 896 alleged breaches of the law.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: The CFMEU or its representatives were respondents in 41 separate matters before the courts, facing a total of 1,779 suspected contraventions. Over $10 million in penalties has been awarded against the AWU by the ABCC and its predecessors.
The fact of the matter is that Labor continues to defend an organisation that breaches the law as a matter of course and that treats fines as parking tickets. They know that if the Leader of the Opposition had the courage or the character of Bob Hawke he would do what Bob Hawke has said. He said, 'You know what I did with the Builders Labourers Federation—'
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. I've been listening carefully to the Prime Minister, and I have said many times he's entitled to a preamble, and he is on the policy topic, but the question was about the AFP. I have allowed a very long preamble. In fact, we're a little more than halfway through the allotted three minutes. I ask the Prime Minister, in the remainder of his answer, to bring himself to the question that was asked.
Mr TURNBULL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said earlier and as the minister has said, we gave record funding to the AFP in the last budget. We provide them with the resources they need to keep us safe. Speaking for myself and, of course, for the minister, the Attorney-General and other ministers, we are in the closest contact with the AFP. I value the advice of the AFP Commissioner, Andrew Colvin. I spend a lot of time with him and I take his advice very carefully. He knows that, when he needs the support of my government to keep Australians safe, he can always count on that support.
Trade Unions
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important for employer and employee organisations to act in a way that upholds the values of truthfulness and integrity as well as managing the potential for conflict of interest? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith I have asked a number of times to cease interjecting. She can now leave under 94(a).
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:47): I thank the member for Groom for his question. It's beyond doubt that the CFMEU is the most lawless union in Australia's history. Let's take a quick snapshot of their most recent best performances. They've become the most penalised union in Australia's industrial history, with over $10 million worth of fines. They have the record single-largest fine in Australian industrial history, which was $2.4 million for the Barangaroo site in Sydney, awarded only a couple of months ago. The Victorian CFMEU boss, John Setka, has been publicly threatening the officers of the Fair Work Commission—who have just been going about their job doing their work—saying that the CFMEU will make their kids ashamed of their parents. Even worse, just recently, at Oaky in Queensland, at the Glencore site represented by the member for Capricornia—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo will cease interjecting, as will the member for Wakefield.
Mr PYNE: CFMEU protestors and picketers were threatening workers going to work at Glencore that they would rape their children if they continued to do so. That's the kind of union we're talking about with the CFMEU.
I was absolutely delighted today to read that Kevin Rudd has joined the chorus of sensible Labor leaders calling on the Leader of the Opposition to remove the CFMEU from the Labor Party in Australia. Bob Hawke did it to the BLF. He had the strength of character to stand up to a rogue union. Kevin Rudd did it to Dean Mighell and Joe McDonald when he was the leader of the Labor Party. But this leader will not. If you don't have the strength to stand up to the CFMEU, you don't have the strength to stand up for our nation's interests at home or abroad.
But I was very surprised, when Kevin Rudd made these comments about standing up to the CFMEU, that the person who was sent out to run interference on Kevin Rudd was our old friend the member for Sydney. The member for Sydney was asked about the CFMEU today; she defended the CFMEU. She said:
Unions get to have a say, business gets to have a say, non-governmental organisations get to have a say.
So the CFMEU is no worse than any other organisation engaging in lobbying—no worse than the AiG and no worse than our friends at the Country Women's Association.
A government member: UNICEF!
Mr PYNE: Or UNICEF—these non-government organisations, the CFMEU and the Country Women's Association! Those lovely ladies who provide a cup of tea to weary travellers and a cake at the royal show are apparently just the same as the CFMEU. Perhaps the member for Sydney will suggest that, next time John Setka's in dispute, he has a bake-off to try and resolve it. (Time expired)
Australian Federal Police
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the Minister for Justice said the government has 'never been more effective in the fight against drugs', but earlier in estimates AFP Commissioner Colvin said the AFP is having to look at its anti-narcotics work and 'our organised crime work' to make up the government's $184 million cut to the Australian Federal Police. Prime Minister, who is right: you or the Australian Federal Police commissioner?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Braddon and the member for McEwen will cease interjecting, and I think the member for Cowan was in there yet again.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (14:51): Well, don't verbal a respected public servant. Don't walk into this place and try and make out that he said something that he didn't. It is absolute nonsense to say that we have cut the Australian Federal Police's budget by $184 million. It's complete nonsense. As I said at the start of question time, either you don't understand it or you're wilfully misleading.
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hotham will cease interjecting. She's not in her seat. She's asked her question. She will cease interjecting.
Mr KEENAN: I'm very happy to run through the record and compare and contrast our record in government with your record when you were in government for six years, which saw our law enforcement not given the support and the resources that, quite frankly, they deserve. We have invested, since 2013, $1½ billion in our national security and counterterrorism operations; $128 million to fund the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce, which are very difficult crimes to investigate, and we've got specialist capability in there with this investment to do it; $116 million in the National Anti-Gangs Squad; $25 million to expand the AFP's National Forensic Rapid Lab capability; $21 million to extend the trade union royal commission task force—something, of course, that we know that those opposite don't support; and $15 million for the Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre. On top of these resources that we've given to our agencies, what is also very important is that we've given them the powers to do their job.
If the Australian Labor Party are so worried about fighting crime, why don't they join us in helping to lock up paedophiles? Why don't they support what we want to do to lock up paedophiles?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides!
Mr KEENAN: Why don't they support us in wanting to lock up gun runners? And why is it that they continue to support the criminal organisations of the CFMEU? I'm just stating the facts, Mr Speaker. It's plainly the facts.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to hear the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order without interruption.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I refer to pages 516 and 517 of Practice in asking for that comment to be withdrawn.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. I'm going to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business and then I'll hear from the Leader of the House. I don't need to hear from him during the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order.
Mr Burke: Practice at 516 and 517 specifically refers to two points. Firstly, a comment does not need to be levelled against an individual member; it can be levelled generally to be offensive. Secondly, language of 'a nature likely to create disorder' is included, as well as words that are generally considered unparliamentary. Specifically, criminal offences such as sedition, treason, support for corruption and deliberate dishonesty are referred to as being unparliamentary terms. Anything that associates members of parliament with in some way approving of paedophiles—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right will cease interjecting.
Mr Burke: Anything that associates members of parliament with in some way approving of paedophiles in terms of directly saying they don't want them to be locked up is an extraordinary claim. I would draw members' attention to quotes from Senate estimates today that were not used by the opposition. This sort of language is going to have an impact on the chamber, and both sides of politics should be above it.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on the point of order.
Mr Pyne: The Manager of Opposition Business is clearly worked up about this matter. But can I just point out that what the—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will pause for a second. I think I have made it clear to the House that I'm considering the matter. I have heard from the Manager of Opposition Business largely in silence but I admonished those on my right during his interaction. I think those sitting behind the Manager of Opposition Business might just reflect on whether they want me to consider this matter without being interrupted continually. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr Pyne: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What the Minister for Justice in his statement was referring to, which is well understood by the entire chamber, is that the government had legislation before the House to introduce minimum mandatory sentences for people who have been convicted of sentences to do with paedophilia and gun smuggling, and the Labor Party has indicated they will not support that. It is, therefore, a statement of fact; it is not an insult—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr Pyne: It is not an insult to the opposition and it wouldn't have been meant as an insult to the opposition. It is a juxtaposing of this government's record on tough sentences in things like drug smuggling and paedophilia—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will now resume his seat. I'm going to rule on this in a second. The member for Isaacs is warned. How as Deputy Manager of Opposition Business he thought that would be helpful when I was trying to hear the Leader of the House is absolutely beyond me—and if he wasn't in the position he is in he'd be out of the chamber. I have listened very carefully to the Leader of the Opposition. I listened carefully the other day to the Minister for Justice. The Leader of the House—and I ask for the forbearance of all members of the House while I complete my remarks—is quite right in saying that that is not what the Minister for Justice said. He didn't refer to any legislation. He did make a very specific statement.
On the Manager of Opposition Business's point of order, I'm very familiar with the Practice and I'm very familiar with the pages. I spend a lot of time reading the Practice. And he's right when he says that offensive remarks directed at individuals have been asked to be withdrawn regularly. As far back as Speaker Snedden there have been occasions where remarks to a group have been asked to be withdrawn as well. Can I say on the history of all that that it does cut both ways; you could pick what you want to out of all of those precedents. But I have reflected on what the minister said. He didn't say what the Leader of the House said. In fact, if he had framed it that way, whilst I wouldn't have approved, as I said the other day, that would have been a different matter. But in terms of what I heard I'm going to ask the minister to withdraw that and continue on with his answer.
Mr KEENAN: I withdraw. I'm sorry that the facts are such a deep inconvenience.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Justice will resume his seat. The member for Moore.
Border Security
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (14:59): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the government's actions to protect the Australian community from dangerous visa holders? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:59): I thank the honourable member for Moore for his question. I thank him for all the work he does in keeping his community safe.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will just pause for a second. The member for Whitlam and the Minister for Justice will cease interjecting, as will the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, or the three of them will be out. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has the call.
Mr DUTTON: As I have reported to the House before, a key priority of the Turnbull government is to keep Australians safe. We are doing that by securing our borders, which is what the Australian public want. And we are making sure that we cancel the visas of criminals who are here on a temporary basis as the holders of visas. Where they commit a crime against an Australian citizen, we cancel the visa, and we've done it now on 3,000 occasions, which is up some 1,200 per cent. I am pleased to report we have now cancelled the visas of 154 outlaw motorcycle gang members.
The reason that this is important is that the outlaw motorcycle gang members are the biggest importers and distributors of amphetamine and ice in this country. This government has cancelled the visas of 154 bikies. From the Labor Party's six years in government there is no evidence they cancelled the visa of any bikie. Indeed, it looks like they issued visas to bikies.
It's also important to understand that the bikies have infiltrated the CFMEU. The bikies in this country are involved not in legitimate trade, business or employment but in the distribution of drugs, in extortion and as hired muscle on building sites to work for the CFMEU. We've seen some activity in Queensland involving a particularly militant aspect of the CFMEU as described by the Leader of the House in his earlier answer. Some of the conduct of these individuals at Oaky North has been disgraceful.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: 'Legendary' I hear from someone opposite. That is an absolute outrage. I point to one individual: a Mr Brodsky, who is running at the moment for the position of national general secretary of the CFMEU. I understand he is personally known to the Leader of the Opposition. He is a person of deplorable character. He is involved and mixed up with outlaw motorcycle gang members, with contacts from the CFMEU into outlaw motorcycle gangs, is very well known to law enforcement agencies in this country, and has not been chastised by the Leader of the Opposition for this conduct up at Oaky North. He's been visited by the Leader of the Opposition, patted on the shoulder by the Leader of the Opposition and given this rail's run, it seems, to become the National Secretary of the CFMEU with all of the links to outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised criminal activity in this country.
It is no wonder that the Australian public have a question mark over the character of this Leader of the Opposition, just like former Prime Minister Rudd does. I can say one thing to the Australian people: they cannot trust this bloke. (Time expired)
Illicit Drugs
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answers. How can the Prime Minister claim today that he's cracking down on drug importers on a scale never seen before when an AFP leak says that, thanks to his $184 million cuts to the AFP, the Federal Police were unable to properly investigate the importation of 1.6 tonnes of cocaine and an additional 600 kilograms of cocaine imported from Mexico?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:03): As the minister has said and as I have said, the track record of the AFP in intercepting drug importation speaks for itself.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is now warned.
Mr TURNBULL: The way in which the Labor Party want to challenge the competence, the efficiency of the AFP is disgraceful. The Labor Party have no basis for the claims they are making. We know that we have provided the Australian Federal Police with record levels of funding. We know that they are intercepting drugs on a scale unprecedented, but, of course, I note the challenge, the threat is also unprecedented.
And when we ask the Labor Party for some real support in this place on law enforcement, where do they stand? Where do Labor stand on punishing people who commit sexual offences against children? We've asked for mandatory sentences. Do you know why? We want to make sure they go to jail—that's why. We want to make sure they go to jail, whereas Labor won't support that. Perhaps they can explain why they won't support mandatory sentences for some of the most disgusting crimes in the criminal calendar.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: What about guns? What about gun trafficking? What about gun runners and gun smugglers? We want there to be mandatory sentences for them too, because we want to make sure they go to jail. We want to make sure there is the strongest deterrent message and that they are punished. Where is Labor on that? It is nowhere to be seen. Why won't Labor support us in putting paedophiles and gun runners behind bars?
Law Enforcement
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (15:06): My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on measures the government is taking to protect our community from our worst criminals? Are there any threats to these reforms?
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston is now warned.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (15:06): Can I thank the member for Fairfax for that question. He knows that the best way to attack criminality, the best way to stop people re-offending is to actually give them prison sentences, to actually have them spend time in prison.
We have legislation that has passed this House and will be dealt with in the other place that is the strongest crackdown on Commonwealth child sex offending ever. The reason we are doing that is that we believe these horrendous criminals should actually spend time in prison. Let me tell members what is the current situation. This is the status quo that the Labor Party supports: 42 per cent of Commonwealth child sex offenders do not spend one day in prison, not one day; and of the 58 per cent—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I have a very low tolerance for repeated interjectors, and I'm not going to keep repeating myself. The member for Moreton will now leave under 94(a). He was warned earlier and he has continued to interject.
Mr KEENAN: I want to repeat that, because this is the status quo that the Labor Party supports: 42 per cent of paedophiles not spending one day in prison, not one day; among the 58 per cent of those who do go to prison, the most common length of time served is six months. This is the status quo.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Keenan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will cease interjecting.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask the member to withdraw the statement that there are members of the House who want to see paedophiles on the street.
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Deakin is warned. The Manager of Opposition Business: I am interested in his point of order; I would like him to explain to me what his point of order is.
Mr Burke: I am asking that the minister's statement that there are members on this side of the House who want to see paedophiles on the street be withdrawn.
The SPEAKER: I certainly did not hear the minister—
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, I'm actually going to address the point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business can sit down for a second. I gave a very comprehensive ruling and detained the House for a long period of time. I referred to what the minister said last time, in reference to the Leader of the House's point of order, and pointed out that if the minister had said what the Leader of the House had said the way he'd constructed it—and let me be very detailed about it—around the piece of legislation before the House, that would be factually based. Indeed, the Prime Minister did that in just the last answer. I realise it's difficult territory. I am listening very carefully. But the minister's answer this time is very different to his answer last time, and it's no different from the Prime Minister's answer, and it's in accordance with my ruling. So far he has given some statistics and he is talking about legislation before the House. The Manager of Opposition Business?
Mr Burke: Speaker, we did not take a point of order during the Prime Minister's answer. While there was a view about it, it was completely in accordance with your ruling. What the minister has said now is that those opposite support the status quo. And then he has said: the status quo involves paedophiles being on the street. That's what he said.
The SPEAKER: I know that's difficult, but he's talking about the current law. I've got to balance what is a very robust debate with, frankly, freedom of speech with respect to legislation, and I've made a very tough ruling on the minister, and, when he defied that ruling, I sat him down. I'm listening to the minister, and I'm going to keep listening to the minister.
Mr KEENAN: Because of the howls of outrage and the objections we've got from the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the Opposition—
MOTIONS
Minister for Justice
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:11): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Minister for Justice be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:16]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Law Enforcement
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (15:20): Mr Speaker, there are two ways that the Labor opposition can get me to stop talking about this. Firstly, they can pull a stunt like they just did, where they tried to close me down in question time. What would be preferable is if they looked at their position, realised that the status quo is not acceptable and supported the reform that we are making to make sure that child sex offenders spend time in prison.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, 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) (15:21): 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
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:22): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr SHORTEN: Yes. I believe that my whole party has, including myself.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the opposition.
Mr SHORTEN: The Minister for Justice made some disgusting remarks in question time. Child abuse is an evil and sick crime. Every parent's worst nightmare is having someone hurt their child. Our community reserves a special place of loathing for child abusers.
Mr Keenan interjecting—
Mr Gosling: Just shut up and listen!
The SPEAKER: The member for Solomon will leave under 94(a).
The member for Solomon then left the chamber.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney has already been warned!
Mr SHORTEN: We believe that appropriate action to punish pedophiles is to increase the maximum sentences for paedophiles. Those opposite believe the appropriate action is mandatory sentencing. We have a different view on that, but all of us want paedophiles locked up, and locked up for a long time.
The dignity of parliament is not enhanced by the suggestion that there is any doubt that any member of this parliament does not utterly and totally deplore pedophilia and child abuse. We have been misrepresented and, absolutely, all of us—and I don't doubt the government means the same as we do—deplore pedophiles, full stop.
Mr Keenan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will cease interjecting across the table!
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting!
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:23): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Sydney claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms PLIBERSEK: Yes I do, by the Leader of the House in the question time today.
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney may proceed.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In question time today the Leader of the House partially quoted me from an interview on Sky News today. I actually said, 'I think everybody's got a right to participate in democracy. If someone in a union has been accused of doing the wrong thing, that's a different matter. But as for unions standing up for better pay and conditions for their workforce, that's an absolutely fundamental part of our democracy.'
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:24): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to give a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member claim to be misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: I do.
The SPEAKER: You may proceed.
Mr ALBANESE: Yesterday, during estimates, Senator Fiona Nash claimed before the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, 'In 2012-13 your minister budgeted to spend $6.8 billion and only ended up spending half—$3.6 billion—in that year.' Mr Speaker, that is not correct. These are the facts. Table 2.9 in Budget Paper No. 3, released with the 2012-13 federal budget, shows the allocation for financial year 2012-13 was $3,659,200,000. Table 41 in the final budget outcome document confirms that the actual spend on infrastructure in 2012-13 was $3,635,729,000. There was no underspend in the infrastructure budget in 2012-13, and I ask leave to table the two budget documents.
The SPEAKER: They are already documents of the House.
Mr ALBANESE: I knew that.
Mr Pyne: So she was right. It actually proves that she was right!
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Broadband
The SPEAKER (15:25): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Greenway proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's second-rate copper NBN creating a digital divide across Australia.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (15:25): Mr Speaker, if you were looking for your daily dose of inspiration today, you certainly would not have taken it from the Minister for Communications. On the Today show this morning we saw the following:
Stefanovic asked Senator Fifield to fast-forward to 2020 and give his 30-second pitch to sell the "great turkey" to investors.
"This is a national broadband network, we're the first continent this sort of fast-broadband network," Senator Fifield said.
"It's fit for purpose and it's over to investors."
After an awkward pause, a baffled looking Stefanovic asked: "That's your pitch?"
"You're not going to be able to sell it, who is going to buy it?" Stefanovic asked.
"Australians just want hard talk from their politicians, they want you to take responsibility," he said.
The Minister for Communications may have no passion for this portfolio whatsoever and no vision about digital inclusion and ending the digital divide. But what is most telling is the fact that again we have all blame and no responsibility on the part of this government.
I tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, you only have to look at some of the effort that this government and the current NBN Co put into spin over improving the consumer experience. We have, for example, the 'gen nbn' marketing campaign. How much money has it spent since January this year on that campaign alone? $9.5 million. In contrast, how much was spent on consulting engagements for customer experience and customer service? $2.6 million. Imagine if the amount of effort that went into spin from this government actually went into improving the consumer experience.
But, no, this Prime Minister has thrown up his hands and said, 'Big mess; not my problem.' It is an extraordinary change in language from what we have seen from this Prime Minister in the past. We had him talking only days ago about how the NBN was all in hand. We had the Minister for Communications saying that the NBN under this government would be the envy of the world. We had the Prime Minister waxing lyrical about how the NBN under his tenure is the biggest corporate turnaround in Australian history. All of a sudden, the Prime Minister says, 'Well, the NBN's a train wreck.' We've gone from it being in hand to being in chaos. We've gone from it being commercially viable to the boss of NBN Co saying he's not even sure if it's commercially viable.
The question arises: what has changed? What has changed in the space of such a short time? I'll let you know what hasn't changed. What hasn't changed is that the consumers of Australia are still fed up. They are fed up with the second-rate internet that they are getting under this government. The lived experience of consumers will trump any day this government blowing its own trumpet, this Prime Minister refusing to take responsibility and absolutely nothing happening to improve or to shorten the digital divide in this country. You have to ask yourself: do the people opposite actually believe in making sure that we eliminate the digital divide in Australia? When the minister was asked about this issue, what do you think the response was? Maybe it was a response about how we recognise that Australia is part of a global economy and that we need to have the highest quality broadband in order to compete in a globalised market for goods, services and employment, and in order to do that we need the best connectivity available for consumers, education and health care. No—none of that. All he gave is an answer that makes even Karl Stefanovic say, 'Are you serious?'
This is not some abstract concept about a digital divide. We saw only a few months ago that the Australian Digital Inclusion Index shows growing evidence around inequality and digital inclusion, and Australians with low levels of income, education and employment are significantly less digitally included. There is a significant digital divide between the rich and the less-well-off Australians. We see in the Australian Digital Inclusion Index yet another set of benchmarks that show that the government can't even get the basics right for every Australian to have the equality of opportunity to participate in our economy and enable Australia to compete on the world stage. Instead, they are ploughing billions of taxpayer dollars into a copper network that is simply not delivering for Australians.
Let's look at how the government has approached the issues of consumers. For example, the Prime Minister responded to last week's figures from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, which reported a 159 per cent increase in consumer complaints about the NBN. What did he have to say? At first, he said nothing. He just gave a smirk in response to a question about this. He then answered: 'Well, you know, complaints—they're a fact of life.' How out of touch can you get as a Prime Minister? How out of touch can you possibly get? The government claimed that the level of complaints is in line with the rollout. It's not in line with the rollout at all. For the first time, we see consumer complaints increasing above the level of the rollout—the first time this has happened. For the first time, we see NBN complaints being the highest source of complaints. The internet is the highest source of complaints in the TIO's complaints data.
What we also see is the business case under this government for the NBN completely unravelling. The economics are changing by the day. As I said, once upon a time, not too long ago, the NBN was supposedly the envy of the world and all in hand. Now the head of NBN Co is calling for protections and new taxes, saying, 'Not even sure that it's commercially viable.' I'll tell you what the reality is: under this government, the economics of the NBN are completely busted, but they throw up their hands and say, 'It's not my responsibility.' So not only are the economics of the NBN busted but consumer complaints are going through the roof. Here is their response to what they've been doing for consumers. They say they've instituted a broadband monitoring scheme to test internet speeds. I'll tell you about this. The minister sat on this advice from the ACCC for 14 months before it was instigated. Earlier this year, he said that this would be 'the year of the customer'. That was in April this year. We're still waiting. There are still about two months to go to see if this is actually the year of the customer.
What do Australians think of the government's second-rate NBN?
I will tell you what they think. You only have to look at the Essential report, where only 27 per cent of those surveyed say they support the Liberal government's plan—which actually represents an increase in support for the Labor plan since the question was asked in September 2015. So, more and more, we see Australians not only completely turning off this government but also starting to understand—indeed, many of them have understood this for some time given the level of complaints—that this is a second-rate network that is not serving Australians.
Talking about the digital divide, have a look at what the rest of the world thinks about us. Earlier in the year The New York Times did a dissertation showing that: 'Australia, a wealthy nation with a widely envied quality of life, lags in one essential area of modern life: it's internet speed.' That is how the rest of the world sees us. How on earth is Australia supposed to crack the digital divide under this government with a second-rate copper network, a minister who has no passion and no vision, and a government that won't take responsibility?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (15:36): Let me make it clear that there's one thing in this debate that the coalition takes very seriously, and that is unsatisfactory customer experiences on the NBN. Where there's an unsatisfactory experience we want to see it dealt with, we want to see it fixed. That's why, for example, Bill Morrow, the Chief Executive Officer of NBN Co, said last week:
We're working with retail service providers and industry as a priority to improve these figures and the overall experience for consumers. This work is being reflected in a 13.6 per cent decline in overall TIO complaints between July to September 2017 and a 26.3 per cent decline in TIO complaints about landline and internet services over the same period. We believe it is an early sign of movement in the right direction.
So let me be absolutely clear: if there are unsatisfactory customer experiences we want to see them dealt with, we want to see them fixed; we take them very seriously.
Let me make equally clear what we do not take seriously. We do not take seriously the attempts by the Labor Party to rewrite history and pretend that it wasn't their collection of chaotic decisions which created a starting point which we have been working to resolve. Let me remind you of some of the key Labor mistakes in relation to the NBN, including the shocking process by which this model was first developed. Let me quote from an independent audit into the NBN public policy process conducted by the eminent former public servant Bill Scales AO. He had this to say about the process that led up to Kevin Rudd—remember him—announcing this approach:
After just 11 weeks of consideration, the government had decided to establish a completely new start-up company, now called NBN Co, to roll out one of Australia's largest ever single public infrastructure projects. The NBN was to be rolled out in eight years at a preliminary estimated cost of around $43 billion. There is no evidence that a full range of options was seriously considered. There was no business case or any cost-benefit analysis or independent studies of the policy undertaken, with no clear operating instructions provided to this completely new government business enterprise within a legislative and regulatory framework still undefined and without any consultation with the wider community.
That is what Bill Scales, an eminent former public servant, said about the train crash public policy process which led to Kevin Rudd announcing the NBN in early 2009. So that was the first mistake—the terrible process.
The next mistake was appointing a board with virtually no relevant skills, and management with very little relevant skills. Here's what the forensic accountants KordaMentha had to say when they reported on this issue in August 2014. Their assessment of the board appointed by Labor was that it had 'a collective lack of deep operational experience and insight in areas critical to the success of NBN Co'.
Ms Madeleine King: Five years!
Mr FLETCHER: One of the public policy geniuses on the other side of the chamber says, 'Five years.' That's your argument. I'll tell you what, mate: there's no statute of limitations on public policy incompetence! When you stuff things up as fundamentally as Kevin Rudd did, that stuff-up stays around for a very long time. Be it NBN, pink batts or Building the Education Revolution, Kevin Rudd was responsible for years and decades of public policy stuff-ups—and this government is working hard to fix them.
The next mistake that we saw from the Labor Party when it came to the NBN was hopelessly mismanaging the rollout. By the time we came to government, barely 50,000 premises were connected to the fixed network and they were hopelessly behind their own business case. They were supposed to be achieving 1.7 million by 30 June 2013. In fact, they had reached 282,799—hopelessly behind. Here's another mistake, another fundamental factor that we never hear from Labor today. They wanted it erased from history, but it's a reality and you can't erase it from history. The contract that they did with Telstra was to pay $11 billion in net present value terms to Telstra and $1 billion to my former employer Optus. And yet they want to wash their hands of the fact that through these contracts they put an incoming government into a position where it had to take the most rational choice in the circumstances, and that's what we've done.
The other big mistake they made was saying, 'We'll build fibre to the premises everywhere.' These geniuses said that. Not one of them had a jot or iota of telecommunications operational experience, and their ripper idea was fibre to the premises to 90 per cent of the population. Let's look at how much fibre to the premises costs to connect to some premises. We've seen some evidence of it just in recent days. A premises in Ravenswood in Tasmania costs $91,000 to connect to fibre. Mount Cotton in Queensland is $40,000. The average cost to connect fibre to the premises is $4,400. The average cost to connect fibre to the node is $2,200. It is for these rational business reasons, these sensible public policy reasons, that, when we came to government having inherited this hopeless train smash of a policy, we reconfigured it under the current Prime Minister—then Minister for Communications—who instituted a rational policy to turn this mess around. This turnaround is one of the most successful turnarounds you are ever going to see, and it was from one of the most disastrous starting points you could imagine.
Why did we do it? First of all, changing to this mix means we're going to save $30 billion. Second of all, it means that we're going to get the rollout completed six years earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Let's just go back to the impact of the reduced cost of the rollout. What we've got is one side of politics with their head in the skies: the dreamers, the visionaries—'Don't talk to me about how its done; we've got the dream.' Actually, your dream is going to cost $43 a month more for the ordinary Australian family on their NBN broadband bill.
This is a very familiar story, members of the House. A bunch of completely impractical dreamers and their ripper idea mean ordinary Australian families have to pay more on their bill every month. Telecommunications, energy—it's the same incompetent public policy approach from this hopeless rabble.
Let me turn to another question, which is a very instructive question for the House to consider: what is Labor's alternative plan? Here's a very instructive quote from The Sydney Morning Herald, not notorious for its friendship with the coalition government, this morning:
Labor communications spokeswoman Michelle Rowland was sharply critical of the government's handling of the project, but could not say whether in government it would spend billions more to deliver fibre to the home connections or what it would do to fix speed issues.
There's Labor's policy: Labor's communication spokesman could not say. We can go back to 2016 and we can have a look at the ripper policy that was put forward by the member for Blaxland, who is now very relieved to have got away from this particular policy area. This was a ripper policy. What a genius! This genius said, 'A Shorten Labor government will roll out fibre to the premises to up to two million additional Australian homes and businesses.' That sounds great. Listen to this bit: 'Labor will spend exactly the same amount.' What a miracle. The ordinary rules of economics have been abolished. They're going to find a way to build two million more fibre to the premises at not one extra dollar. It's a miracle! It's a miracle! The conventional rules of economics have been thrown out the window by these geniuses in the Labor Party.
What did the Financial Review have to say about it? Here we go again: 'Labor's announcement it will reinvigorate the NBN fibre optic cable to every home network, but not share any details or even admit it will cost a lot more money than the current mix of technologies, should come as no surprise. Labor has no credibility in this area.' You could not find a better summary of this public policy area. Labor has no credibility in this area. So let's be clear: we inherited a mess, thanks to Labor; we're fixing it up. Over six million premises are able to connect and we are getting on with the job. This hopeless rabble has no idea and no plan.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (15:46): I think it's time we took the volume down after that rant from the minister. They say the hardest word to say is 'sorry', and I know it's impossible for that word to come out of the mouths of any of those opposite. In the alternative universe that those opposite inhabit, I note that this morning the foreign minister said to the party room that, and I'm quoting here, 'Julie Bishop tells the coalition room that the NBN is a success story for the coalition.' That is the alternative universe. Look, I'll be honest sitting on this side of the chamber: if that's the policy of the government, they will be the opposition very shortly because the people of Australia are onto this government. Don't take my word for it—
Mrs Prentice interjecting—
Mr DICK: The member for Ryan says 'overconfident'. I'll ignore the 21 Newspolls that we're seeing; I'll ignore that poll after poll shows us that Australians do not trust, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, you to handle telecommunications in this nation.
Let's deal with what the minister, who has now vacated the floor, just said. If that's what the foreign minister is saying about the NBN then I suggest she spend a little less time on the red carpet and a little more on blue carpet. I know, by listening to what the government says, that it does not match the commitments that it's promised the Australian people. We have had a lot of history lessons today. That's fine, that's the narrative from the government. We know that the Prime Minister had promised that every household in Australia would be connected to the NBN by last year. We know that the NBN, as promised by the Prime Minister, would cost $29.5 billion. That was your commitment to the Australian people. His multitechnology mess now costs $50 billion, a blowout of $20 billion. He made a commitment; it blows out—the assistant minister is shaking his head.
Mr Taylor: It's not right.
Mr DICK: He's saying that's not right. The Prime Minister promised everyone would have access to NBN by the end of 2016. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that correct? No answer. By the end of 2016, more than seven million premises were still waiting for connection. The Prime Minister also promised that the NBN would be faster and cheaper. The reality is that he is delivering a second-rate NBN that is slower and more expensive.
We know that last week the communications minister said the government's second-rate NBN would be the envy of the world, but all of a sudden this week the NBN is a train wreck. So what's happened in one week? It went from being in hand to now being in chaos. It went from being commercially viable to the NBN CEO saying that he was no longer sure. As the shadow minister has said, the economics of copper are destroying the NBN. We all know it because when we're out campaigning we're listening to constituents in street corner meetings, at shopping centres—and the member for Macarthur receives the highest amount of complaints of anyone. Yet I know those opposite, who are campaigning and doing street stalls at yacht clubs and at Point Piper and country clubs, don't hear the same message that those on this side of the House are hearing. We hear it day in, day out. And do you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker? I know those opposite get complaints from constituents. I know the so-called minister has said that they deal with every one of those complaints.
Let's talk about my electorate of Oxley, and about my constituent Pam, of Sinnamon Park, who has had problem after problem since the NBN was installed in March this year. Of course, the service provider is blaming the NBN, and the NBN is blaming the service provider. It is still currently unresolved. Another of my constituents, Jean, of Westlake, finally had her issue resolved yesterday. Seven months it took, to solve a simple issue.
This is what the foreign affairs minister said this morning is a great success story for the coalition. On the front page of my local paper we read: 'Stranded. Switching to the NBN was supposed to be a godsend, but for five days last month Naomi and Marcus Hodgson had no internet or phone line at all. The couple, who study and run a business from their Springfield Lakes home, wish they had never chosen to be connected to the NBN.' Yet the foreign minister this morning told the party room it's a complete success for the coalition. Those opposite are in an alternative universe. Just once we would like them to apologise for the mess they've created in Australia which is their NBN. (Time expired)
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) (15:51): This government was handed a pup—and that's as far as I need to go with that analogy. But Labor's NBN was a pup, and it's those opposite who are living in an alternative universe. It's Labor, Member for Oxley, who should be saying sorry on this one, not us. It's Labor that should be saying sorry. But we haven't heard that. Now, as usual, as is customary in this place, and as has been customary in recent years, we're cleaning up their mess. We have taken responsibility to fix their mess.
Time and time again I discover in this place that Labor doesn't show much respect for the facts and is constantly in denial. In fact, in recent times we've seen the professional apparatchiks from the union movement turn Labor into a shadow of its former self. Rational arguments have been lost in a mist of fact-free fervour where spin merchants can create their own reality. So let's bust apart a few of those Labor myths.
False claim No. 1 from those opposite, from the earlier speakers, is that nations around the world are rolling out fibre to the premises. Well, that is rot. Nations around the world are overwhelmingly rolling out a mix of technologies in an economically pragmatic way. Fibre to the premises might make sense in city-states like Singapore and Hong Kong, where almost the entire population lives in high-rises, but not here. They have population densities of 300 people per hectare; we're about a 10th of that in our densest cities. I know those opposite would love to turn our cities into apartment-living, basket-weaving, sandal-wearing, car-free utopias, but it isn't happening anytime soon. In the meantime, we need a range of technologies, and that's exactly what we have done in cleaning up your mess.
The second claim from those opposite is that, under Labor's original rollout, all Australian homes would have had the NBN by 2021—more rot. Labor's fibre-to-the-premises NBN policy would've cost, we know now, $30 billion more. That's generous, by the way. We're hearing this week about $90,000-per-premises rollouts. We read in the media it would've taken six to eight years longer to complete, and it would've left millions of households waiting another decade for better broadband, including those in my electorate—and I'll come back to that in a moment. Labor drastically underestimated the time and cost involved in a full fibre rollout when they embarked on the NBN program, because they didn't understand the basics of our cities and our regions—the lack of density that they thought that we had, as I explained earlier, in some kind of utopian view about what Australia should be. We know that every 10 days we're rolling out more than Labor rolled out in its whole time in office. So the reality is very different from the false claims of Labor.
The third false claim is that the network is behind schedule and that there are cost overruns. Under the coalition, NBN has hit every rollout target we've seen since coming into government. We had a three-year rollout plan released in July 2015. We set the target of reaching half of the premises across Australia by mid-2017 and three-quarters by mid-2018, and we are right on track. In contrast, back in December 2010 Labor forecast it would reach a target of 1.2 million premises by the end of 2013, but it only passed 200,000 premises. It had burned through $6.5 billion in funding out of its total budget. That was over $300,000 per premises.
The Labor Party sold us a pup. We have spent the last four years cleaning up the mess. In my electorate, we are at a point where 89 per cent of premises have access and over 50 per cent have connected, and that rate is increasing by the day. It's time for Labor to say sorry for the mess they left.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Werriwa, the volume of interjections is increasing to a point where I'm issuing a general warning. The member for Macarthur is out of his place and is grossly disorderly, so he's warned.
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (15:56): The frustration that people are experiencing in my electorate in the growing south-west region of Sydney is clear to see. Last week's figures released in the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman annual report listed both Liverpool and Campbelltown as being in the top 10 postcodes for complaints. In fact, the only areas in the electorate with positive feedback are those with fibre to the premises—and they were part of the original rollout.
Recently, I held an NBN forum in Werriwa. Even on a very cold night, over 100 people attended. Thirty more contacted my office to provide apologies and seek further support. The forum was attended by a representative of the NBN. I thank her for her presentation and willingness to answer questions from my constituents, but it is clear from the forum and the inquiries my office is dealing with every day that the NBN providers and retailers are failing every segment of my electorate, and this is creating a difference in the experience of our residents. Elderly residents are confused as to why they need to change their phones and medical alert devices. Technicians show up but don't ensure the phones are put in the most convenient places in the house or even that they work properly. Young people are being promised and are paying for speeds which are just not being delivered. NBN Co says this is because the retailers are not buying enough bandwidth or because there's still ADSL on the line. However, the fact is people aren't getting what they were promised. My office has received in excess of 300 inquiries since June alone, when we began promoting the NBN forum. Regardless of the issues with the NBN or the telecommunication providers, the sheer scale of the issues that have been raised is astonishing, ranging from issues with installation and technician appointments to the quality of installation and the speed and reliability of connections.
One of the most consistent issues raised comes from constituents with hybrid fibre-coaxial, or HFC, connections. These are used when the existing pay TV or cable network can be used as the final connection for the NBN. Many constituents who've been using an existing ADSL connection have been switched over to HFC before the connection was correctly activated, thereby leaving them without any phone or internet connection, sometimes for weeks at a time. This is particularly prevalent in Macquarie Fields and Hinchinbrook in my electorate. When finally the connection does work, many of my constituents are so disappointed to find their service quality is, in fact, significantly diminished with this connection. The difficulties with switching households to HFC have been disastrous for the elderly in particular. The lack of access to a phone connection is creating a great deal of anxiety for older constituents and their families, as they frequently don't have mobile phones—and don't want them—and rely on their landlines for cases of emergency. There is also ongoing confusion about how the NBN will interact with special-need devices, such as landlines for the hearing impaired, which NBN Co have failed to truly clarify for many of the constituents in my electorate.
Many young families moving into new neighbourhoods in my electorate are discovering that their new 'NBN-ready' properties are not actually ready at all. In Edmondson Park, the residents of Zulu Road were very pleased to recently have their residences connected, except for the fact that they waited well over a year without any fixed-line connection. The most egregious example, however, is probably the suburb of Long Point, which I've spoken about in this place previously. Long Point residents barely have mobile coverage and, despite NBN Co earlier promising rollout dates and connecting suburbs that are less than 60 metres away, they remain left behind.
I recognise, though, that it's not just the constituents of Werriwa who've been let down by this government's bungling of the NBN rollout. Australia's average download speeds have reached 11.1 megabits per second. This leaves Australia ranked 50th in the world for average speeds, behind South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand and Kenya. While it's frustrating enough for someone to stream the latest Netflix series or communicate on Skype, this also risks leaving Australia behind while countries such as China and India look to keep their economies on the cutting edge and compete with the success of Silicon Valley. This will not occur with the current NBN rollout that we've got. This has been compromised. By no longer connecting homes and businesses directly to high-speed fibre to the network and using this second rate copper wire, we have seen— (Time expired)
Mr HOGAN (Page) (16:01): I'll get to the good work that we've been doing as a government with the NBN, but this whole story reminds me of an Irish joke I might share with you, Deputy Speaker. You may have already heard of it. There's this American tourist and he's driving around Ireland. He's in his convertible. He's got the roof down. He's enjoying the Irish countryside—the stone walls and the green fields—but after about an hour or so he feels as though he's lost. He feels, 'I think I've driven past this place before, or down this lane before.' After a while, he sees an Irish farmer putting some hay into a shed, and he walks over to the Irish farmer and says: 'Sir, I'm trying to get to Dublin. How do I get to Dublin from here?' The Irish farmer says, 'Oh, sir, if I were going to Dublin, I wouldn't start from here.'
I think that says it all about the NBN. We were left something which certainly isn't the place you would have started from. The minister spoke about—and it's been well documented—the complete public policy wreck that the NBN was as it was created by Minister Stephen Conroy. Some of his exploits were well documented, but the minister alluded to a few of them. In 11 weeks it was put together. There was no business case. There was no independent study. Let's look at this, because this was always a project of tens of billions of dollars, and there was no independent study ever done on it. There was no cost-benefit analysis. The board was put together and, as has been documented by independent people, there was no operational experience on the board. This was a thing that was hatched together by a minister who did no consultation and no independent study on it. So what were we left with? We were left with the debacle that it was.
Deputy Speaker Coulton, I share a thing with you. When I'm not in Canberra and I'm with industrious Australians who are out there having a go and starting small businesses, out and about doing it, it's easy to feel optimistic about Australia and everything that's going on. When I'm in Canberra, I feel less optimistic as the week goes on, having to listen to the ideology of those opposite and the diatribe that comes out of their mouths. They have no commercial experience. Most of them have never run a business or had management experience, and then, of course, you hear them say things like this.
If you were to run it as it was originally designed by the Labor Party, where they were going to do fibre to the premise everywhere, that was obviously going to mean a couple of indefutable things. It was always going to be more expensive to build. To build a fibre-to-the-premise model was always going to be more expensive than fibre to the node or fibre to the curbside. Besides being more expensive to build, it was always, obviously, going to be more expensive for the customer. To build a more expensive project meant that the expense to the customer was always going to be more and, obviously, the rollout was always going to be slower when doing a fibre-to-the-premises model.
What should've happened in the original, as happened in many countries, is that there should have been a mixture of technologies, and not necessarily done by government. This is the shock to them: this didn't have to be done by government! But that's something that they just can't get through their minds, because they have to control everything. Everything needs to be built by government. Many countries have done this in a good model; they have done it with a model with private companies doing it in the high traffic areas. They've done it with a model in capital cities, where people competed to build it, and, obviously, governments got involved where it may not have been commercially viable and they needed government involvement.
Obviously, that is too shocking for them; everything has to be done by government—governments are the only people who know how to do stuff. And, of course, what a great result! It will be a thing that goes down in history as the diabolical thing we were left with—much like the Irish farmer said: 'You wouldn't start from here.' It's where we were left when we took over.
But much good has been done. Firstly, the Prime Minister, who was the previous Minister for Communications, got in and put the management team and the governance system in place with NBN. This meant that the statistics and the rollout have been much better than they otherwise would have been. In my electorate of Page, we've had the rollout of the fixed broadband, which is now covering just about all of the electorate where the fixed broadband was going. We're going to have a mixture of fibre to the node and fibre to the curb. It's been redesigned in some of the CBDs where it floods, so there is good work happening.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (16:06): And the member for Page is spot-on: the NBN, as it currently stands, is 'bolical'. It's indisputable, it's irrefutable and it's even, if you like, 'indefutable' that this is 100 per cent on you. This 'bolical' NBN is 100 per cent on you!
It's a rare achievement to stuff up the policy and program implementation for an essential service twice—not once: twice. It was the Howard government, in its wisdom—in its unbridled enthusiasm for privatisation—that decided to sell off Telstra, and they consigned Australia to life as a broadband backwater. That decision in the late 1990s, at the relative dawn of the internet, put us into a 20-year broadband limbo—a 20-year holding pattern. Other countries, including much less developed countries in our region, surged ahead. We have the 13th-biggest economy in the world—sometimes the 12th, sometimes the 13th—and we currently have broadband speeds at 53rd in the world. The member for Page told an Irish joke. As the member for Lyons points out, in Ireland, they're seventh in the world. We are 53rd in the world; it's a crying shame.
Labor's creation of the National Broadband Network was designed to repair that damage—to create an affordable, consistent, high-quality broadband framework for this nation in the 21st century. And it was going to be based on fibre, because all the evidence and all the expertise showed that fibre is the state-of-the-art, future-proofed technology. As every person who knows anything about broadband the world over will tell you, 'Do it once, do it right, do it with fibre.'
So how did it all go wrong? I think I'd be tempted to borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister and put it down to ideology and idiocy, because it's hard to explain it in any other way. It began with the lunacy of privatising an infrastructure monopoly. Privatisation at any cost is the path they wanted to go down, and that's where we are now, 25 years later. It continued with the abandonment of a fibre based network in favour of the multitechnology mess and the 19th century copper catastrophe that we live with now in 2017. It's not just decades-old copper, where they found it buried in the ground after 70, 80 or 90 years, but brand-spanking-new copper that they've brought in, becoming one of the largest copper wire stockpilers in the developed world, and shipping it around to put back into trenches where the old copper just won't do. Why? Why did they do that? Because the Vertigan review—geniuses; cutting-edge high-tech users, like Henry Ergas—decided that the biggest risk was that a fibre network might just be too fast. A fibre network may give more speed and more data than we actually needed. Never mind that since the 1970s computer processing power has doubled every single year. It's called Moore's law, a law that computing power and processing power will double every year.
Ninety per cent of all the data on the planet right now was created in the last two years. But those on that side were concerned that the fibre network would be over par—that it would be too good for Australia's needs. What is the result of all that? It means that Australian households and businesses continue to go without an essential service. It means we remain at a global disadvantage. It means our economy misses out on the most important infrastructure investment that is critical for us to take advantage of the areas that our economy needs to move into: high-tech manufacturing and agriculture, and creative industries. We are missing out on all of the various different creative and productive opportunities that the 21st century holds and it's because of the policies of this government.
The saddest thing, if you take a broad view of social and economic life, is the creation of a savage and steep digital divide that will lock in and exacerbate disadvantage. That will mean that people who live in poorer areas, people who already face significant disadvantage, are locked into that set of circumstances. They are held out from access to health, education and essential services.
The NBN disaster is the Prime Minister's pet project. It's his area of special interest. It was his portfolio responsibility. It is 100 per cent on this government. They have done the double: they sold off Telstra and they buggered up the NBN. It is 'indefutably' a mess of their making, and they will wear it around their necks.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:11): Labor's attacks today are as fantastical and lacking in preparation as their plan for the NBN was in 2009. This MPI is one of the greatest own goals ever kicked. When I read The Australian yesterday morning, I thought, 'Surely they won't do anything in the MPI in relation to the NBN.' I will have great delight in going through that great article from The Australian just yesterday. They couldn't even let the dust settle for a couple of days or a week. The best form of offence is defence, they say, and that has clearly been exhibited by those opposite today.
Let's have a look at this. Labor is as credible on the NBN as they are on the NDIS. With the NDIS, they promised the world; they gave us an atlas; they delivered a $55 billion funding black hole. With the NBN, they told Australians that they must all have fibre to the premises, whether they needed it or not. Even if they didn't want it, they would still get it. What they delivered was fewer connections in four years than we are delivering every fortnight, and yet there is another black hole. Labor's impractical plan would have cost up to $84 billion—over $30 billion more than the coalition's business-like approach. I know those opposite don't care about money—'We'll just keep putting up the taxes to pay for it.' The gall of members opposite, in seeking to attack the government for so effectively cleaning up the mess of that lot, is hard to stomach.
Labor's NBN was two years behind schedule before it even connected a single home. Labor's NBN would have been finished, if it ever was, in 2028, and would have cost $3,500 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Labor's NBN spent $50,000, $80,000 and even $90,000 to connect single premises to the network. I'm going to return to that article, because that article from The Australian was an absolute pearler. Labor's NBN, according to one analysis, would have driven up average home internet bills by more than $500 a year. Labor's plan, if you can call it that, was an impractical, financially illiterate, technologically uninformed shambles. In contrast, the coalition has taken pragmatic, business-like and evidence based action to give Australians the high-speed broadband that they need.
This government adopted a mixed technology approach, giving NBN the option to choose the best-fit and most cost-effective technology solution for each area. This government saved the taxpayer $30 billion. This government fixed the build costs to ensure that the NBN's business model delivers a modest return on taxpayers' investment. This government has made the NBN available already to 6.2 million premises and prioritised regional Australia, ensuring that two-thirds of regional premises are already connected. This government got the rollout back on track, ensuring that NBN has beaten its financial year 2017 target by 100,000 and that the full rollout will be complete by 2020.
In my electorate of Fisher, the rollout is 53 per cent complete. That's 45,000 households who are ready to access the high-speed broadband. Tens of thousands of people have already signed up. Though we have around 39,000 of our 85,000 premises still to connect, we're at least six to eight years ahead of where we would've been under Labor's fantasy version of the NBN.
Let's have a look at some of these costs to connect to the internet. This is from The Australian yesterday, and what a great article it was. For Ravenswood in Tasmania it was $91,196—that's not to connect the town; that's just one house. For Invermay in Tasmania, it was $86,533; for Kingston in Tassie—the good place of Tassie—$55,766. In relation to speed, 80 per cent of users of NBN are opting to buy the two slowest NBN speed packages of up to 25 megabits per second. That's half of the average capability of 60 megabits per second, plus— (Time expired)
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (16:16): It gives me great pleasure to speak on this MPI because the NBN is in Labor's blood. It's in our DNA. We created the NBN, and we're incredibly proud of it. These guys opposite mucked it up. They messed it up. They've killed it. There are just a couple of issues I'd like to go through before I get to the substance of my speech.
The member for Page, who's unfortunately no longer with us, said the NBN didn't have to be delivered by government. He is a member who represents the far north-east of New South Wales. I cannot imagine any corporation or any telecommunications company breaking their neck to deliver NBN services to the good constituents of Page. So he might want to have a talk to his constituents about that.
My good friend the member for Fisher was scoffing at the cost of service delivery for cherrypicked premises. I wonder if those opposite, especially National Party members, have the same attitude and put the same logic to extending services like roads and powerlines and power poles and telephone wires to remote and rural areas of this country. They cost more per premises to deliver as well, and they too, like the NBN, are essential services. So there are two issues there.
Tasmanians know about the digital divide. We live with it every day. The Australian Digital Inclusion Index, which the shadow minister referred to, shows that Tasmania still lags in the broadband stakes. Southern Tasmania, which includes part of my electorate, is in the bottom five digitally included regions in Australia. In 2014, Tasmania's digital inclusion score was 4½ points behind Victoria. Now it's 7.7. For digital ability, in 2015, there was a 5.8-point difference, and now it's 8.6. The affordability gap has blown out from one point in 2015 to 7.9 points now. It's going in the wrong direction under this government. Ever since the election of the Liberal government, Tasmania's digital gap has widened.
What a different story it was under Labor, when Tasmanian towns and cities were the first in the country to benefit from Labor's real NBN, with fibre to the premises delivered in Sorell, Midway Point, Smithton and Scottsdale, Launceston and Hobart. These places are now the envy of the country, delivering superfast broadband. We've got Launceston, the first gigabit city in the country. One can only imagine how bad the digital divide in Tasmania would have been if Labor had not delivered fibre to the premises.
The Prime Minister says that Australia should have followed the New Zealand example—he's quoted in the press—of splitting an existing telecommunications company into wholesale and retail rather than creating the NBN. He conveniently forgets that his side privatised Telstra, as my friend the member for Fremantle mentioned, and refused to include separation when it did so. And those opposite, including the Prime Minister before he became the Prime Minister, opposed Labor's legislation at the time for separation. He says that Labor should have followed the New Zealand example, but he was one of the very people who prevented it from happening.
The NBN didn't exist before 2009. It was conceived, developed and started under Labor, and it was starting to roll out in just four years, a mammoth infrastructure project. The size of it almost can't be conceived, and it was rolling out in four years, and it was well underway when those opposite came to power and they demolished it. Who can forget that cringe-worthy performance by the Prime Minister when he was the shadow communications minister, with the former opposition leader Tony Abbott, member for Warringah? He was the man who invented the internet! They said they were going to crush the NBN and create their version of it—a cringe-worthy performance. That was the beginning of the end for the NBN in this country, and this Prime Minister has kept that up. He's been an absolute disgrace as a Prime Minister and the worst communications minister in this country. He had one job, to deliver an NBN that this country could be proud of, and he's wrecked it. As Prime Minister, he's had the power and the authority to deliver an NBN that Australians can be proud of and that can close the digital divide in this country, but instead he's widened it. He's made it worse. He's delivered an NBN that no-one is proud of, where complaints are soaring. Nobody wants to be part of it. He's so embarrassed about it that he doesn't want to answer questions in this place and defers to his junior minister. It is an absolute disgrace, and I back the shadow minister in this MPI. Only Labor can deliver a real NBN. (Time expired)
Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:21): We just heard from the member for Lyons, and he said that, when we took over as government in 2013, the NBN was well underway, but during part of my speech I'll be happy to remind him how well it was underway. We also heard the member for Fisher talk about an own goal, and it reminded me of a question from the Leader of the Opposition back on 14 September, when I managed to send a GIF to one of the members opposite. I won't name who it was, but I sent a GIF to one of the members opposite of a bloke playing soccer who tries to kick the ball over his head but actually kicks it into his head, and it goes into the goal. That reminds me of this MPI. It's an own goal.
These MPIs on the NBN have been going on since 2010. There are a lot of new members here, but I see the member for Hunter. He'll know. He's probably participated in a few MPIs on the NBN over the years. Back in 2015, when some of the members who are now in here weren't here, there was a question I gave to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, who at that time was the Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects. He certainly wasn't the minister for the Asian century. I don't know where he's gone now, but I know there was one back when Labor were in power. They have all disappeared, those ministers. My question to the minister at the time was:
I have received … letters from my constituents about the poor broadband service in the Ascot exchange. In 2007 the then Labor member wrote to the constituents of Swan and said that they would solve this—
by 2009.
They said they would fix it, but in six years they did nothing. They were absolutely useless. What action is the coalition government taking to reverse Labor's inaction and pathetic uselessness, and to help my constituents in the Ascot exchange?
There were a lot of interjections, because a few of the members over there, particularly the Manager of Opposition Business, said there was argument within that particular question, but the Speaker allowed it, and this was the minister's answer. I'll remind the member for Lyons to listen to how well underway they were in Western Australia. This'll tell you how well underway, after five years of rolling out the NBN, they were in Western Australia. Mr Fletcher said:
I do want to thank the member for Swan for this question, which really reflects a campaign that he has been assiduously pursuing in the totality of his time here in the parliament in relation to the delivery of broadband in Ascot.
There is, as the member informed the House, a letter on the record from Kim Wilkie MP, the then Labor member for Swan, from September 2007 which says:
Labor's National Broadband Network will solve Ascot's broadband problems.
There it was. There was the promise in 2007. And so, when the new member for Swan—as he then was in 2007—came to the parliament, he understandably pursued the delivery of that promise—
through the Labor government. What happened? Nothing. The answer continued:
To his great surprise, when the city of Belmont and the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council put forward a proposal to prioritise the Ascot exchange, it was rejected by the then minister for broadband, Senator Conroy. He rejected out of hand the proposal, when there had been a promise only two years before by the then Labor member for Swan that Ascot would be sorted out.
It has fallen—as it always does—to the coalition to sort out Labor's mess. We are doing that with the NBN all around Australia. We are doing that in the electorate of Swan, where there are 28,000 premises ready for service today. I am sure there are many in the House who recollect that the total number of premises connected in all of Western Australia in 2013—
wait for it—
when we came to government, was 34.
After five years, only 34 premises in the whole of Western Australia had been connected.
Mr Brian Mitchell: What have you built in five years?
Mr IRONS: And the member for Lyons says, 'It was well underway'—it was well underway after five years. What an absolute disgrace. Do you know how many premises were connected in Swan? Eighteen.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Lyons!
Mr IRONS: The minister's response continued:
Yet today—only slightly more than two years later—in just one electorate in Western Australia over 28,000 premises are ready for service. Indeed, when we came to government, Western Australia's NBN rollout was in such disarray that the primary contractor, Syntheo, had pulled out of that market.
This was another contract by the Labor government. Remember that contractor, Syntheo, you guys selected to roll out the NBN? Where are they? They pulled out of the market. Mr Fletcher continued:
So we have turned that situation around in a short period of time. Thanks to the advocacy of the member for Swan on behalf of his constituents, some 15,500 homes and businesses in Ascot, Belmont, Cloverdale, Perth, Redcliffe and Rivervale will see construction begin in the first quarter of 2017 …
To update the member for Lyons, we have now connected over 59,000 premises in Swan.
Mr Brian Mitchell: Yes, but it's all rubbish!
Mr IRONS: No, they're working well, mate. I've actually been out on the site. The NBN is being rolled out by the coalition government and is successful, particularly in my electorate of Swan.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allotted for the discussion has concluded.
BILLS
Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (16:27): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill 2017 reflects the Australian government's ongoing commitment to the long-term sustainable use and development of Australia's fisheries resources.
The Australian government continues to work with all fisheries users—commercial, recreational and Indigenous—to ensure ecologically sustainable development and achieve the maximum benefit to the Australian community of this important and publicly owned resource.
Our fisheries management framework is internationally recognised as one of the best in the world. In 2015, no fish stock managed solely by the Commonwealth was subject to overfishing, ensuring the sustainability of Australia's fisheries for the benefit of present and future generations of Australians.
Commonwealth fisheries legislation primarily regulates the commercial harvest of fish stocks in Commonwealth fisheries to ensure catch rates and fish stocks are at sustainable levels. However, in recent years there has been an increase in the amount of recreational fishing occurring in Commonwealth waters.
By recognising and taking the interests of all users into account in the Commonwealth fisheries management framework, the government can enhance regulatory certainty and improve access to Commonwealth fish stocks consistent with their optimal use as a public resource.
As significant stakeholders in Commonwealth fisheries it is important that recreational fishers' interests can be readily identified and taken into consideration by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA).
Recreational fishers have an interest in a number of fish stocks managed by the Australian government. Considering their interests as part of the fisheries management framework is important both for ensuring sustainable fish stocks and for optimising the benefits of our fisheries resources for the Australian community.
Proposed amendments will address this, ensuring that legislation keeps pace with the changes in use of Commonwealth waters and thus stays effective in ensuring sustainable management of the resource.
Fishing by Indigenous Australians should also be recognised as a sector in its own right in fisheries management regimes, including for any traditional customary fishing rights.
It is important that governments recognise and understand the strong relationship Indigenous people have with fishery resources and ensure the fisheries management frameworks appropriately accommodate sustainable cultural fishing through greater and more meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities.
The amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 will ensure that the interests of all fisheries users are adequately represented, and taken into consideration in fisheries management decisions.
This bill provides greater certainty to stakeholder groups regarding the extent to which their interests should be identified, represented and considered by AFMA.
It also allows for greater membership of all interested parties on management advisory committees.
The inclusion of a new objective in both acts ensures that legislation keeps pace with the changes in the use of Commonwealth-managed fish stocks, particularly given the increasing presence of recreational fishers in Commonwealth waters.
It improves transparency and provides formal mechanisms for recreational and Indigenous fishers to voice their views regarding proposed changes in management decisions.
The inclusion of an additional objective is consistent with representations from recreational fishers and Indigenous advisory bodies. Submissions by these sectors to the recent Productivity Commission inquiry into the regulation of Australian marine fisheries and aquaculture sectorscalled for legislative recognition of the two sectors as well as greater involvement in AFMA's decision-making framework.
In addition to a new objective, the bill amends the eligibility criteria for the appointment of AFMA commissioners. The criteria will be expanded to include the addition of expertise in matters relating to recreational and Indigenous fishing.
Broadening the eligibility criteria of AFMA commissioners to include expertise in matters relating to recreational and Indigenous fishers will enhance the capacity of the AFMA Commission to respond to future challenges in fisheries management.
Finally, the bill increases the maximum number of members on AFMA's management advisory committees from seven to 10.
It also includes a requirement for AFMA to actively seek, as far as practicable, recreational fishing members on relevant management advisory committees.
These amendments will ensure that there is greater opportunity for key fisheries stakeholders to be appropriately represented on management advisory committees.
Importantly, the bill strengthens the voice of recreational fishers and Indigenous stakeholders in regard to the management of Commonwealth fisheries without compromising the Commonwealth's world-class fisheries management framework.
I commend the bill to the House.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (16:32): As the assistant minister indicated, the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill 2017 is about giving recreational and Indigenous fishers a voice in Commonwealth decision making, and of course the opposition supports the proposition. We think it's a very important step in recognising both the value of recreational fishers and Indigenous fishers and their important contribution to the public debate wherever the Commonwealth has responsibility.
I'm very proud to represent an electorate which has more than its fair share of Australia's many recreational fishers. In fact, there are around five million of them, contributing more than $2 billion to the national economy. Of course, fishing is very much part of the Australian culture. It's as Australian as football and meat pies, I would suggest, and this is a group worthy of support.
And, as the minister has indicated, our Indigenous Australians have a very, very deep connection to both our waterways and our fishing resources. That needs to be recognised and respected. They too deserve some role in the decision-making process and of course have a great deal to offer in terms of advice to the Commonwealth on fishing matters. So we do support the legislation before the House.
I must say, though, that this has been in the making since prior to the 2013 election. Labor, in government, began the process of further engaging the rec fishers and Indigenous fishers sectors in Commonwealth decision making. I note that the coalition opposition at the time also promised to progress that engagement if elected at the 2013 election. It's fair to say that this has been an all-too-slow process.
I again reinforced Labor's commitment to the policy in an announcement on 18 June 2016—in other words, just prior to the last federal election. The coalition again met Labor's commitment, but here, again, we are almost at the end of 2017 and only now is legislation being put into effect to give fishers the voice they deserve. It's a little like the Forest Industry Advisory Committee and other stalled processes in forestry. Both fishers and forestry, of course, are portfolio areas of responsibilities which have been dropped from the title of the senior minister. We think that's regrettable, because we think that their role and contribution should be taken into account and fully and properly respected as such. So the opposition supports the bill, and we trust that the government will be very quick now to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the engagement is substantial and that the voice we expect to be given is given both to rec fishers and Indigenous fishers.
I'm very pleased to say that over recent years I've been an active member of the Parliamentary Friends of Recreational Fishers group. There's a regular breakfast here in Parliament House, as you probably know, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons. Sorry, I'm not a regular attender at the friends of fishers; I'm a regular attender of a breakfast held by the Australian Recreational Fishers Foundation, led by CEO Allan Hansard. At last year's event, in my own contribution to that event, I suggested that it was time that we have a parliamentary friends of fishers group in this place. It seems that we have one for just about every other interest in the parliament, and fishing is of interest to many members on both sides of the House. I'm pleased that that has now occurred, and particularly pleased that the member for Solomon has led the way there at my request. He has played a leading role in having the formation of that friendship group put in place. I know that the friendship group will keep a close check, and will look to the government to make sure that the hope given in terms of this legislation and the government's other commitment is fulfilled and that the rec fishers and Indigenous fishers get a proper voice in Commonwealth decision-making.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (16:37): by leave—I move:
That the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (16:38): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2016 represents the first substantial tranche of Commonwealth acts to trigger the operation of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. The regulatory powers act provides for a standard suite of provisions in relation to monitoring and investigation powers, as well as provisions regulating the use of civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. That act commenced on 1 October 2014 but only has effect where Commonwealth acts are drafted or amended to trigger the standard provisions in that act.
By standardising regulatory powers across the Commonwealth, the act is intended to significantly reduce the length of legislation governing each regulatory regime, provide greater clarity and consistency for agencies that need to exercise powers with respect to multiple regulatory regimes, make it easier for businesses that are subject to multiple regimes to understand and comply with the law, and facilitate the development of a common body of law.
The regulatory powers act also ensures that Commonwealth regulatory powers are sufficiently certain and predictable while being flexible to ensure agencies with specialised functions can operate effectively. This bill will amend 15 Commonwealth acts to repeal existing provisions providing for regulatory regimes and instead apply the standard provisions of the regulatory powers act. Those acts fall within the portfolios of the Attorney-General's Department and the departments of Agriculture and Water Resources; Defence; Employment; Health; Industry, Innovation and Science; and Social Services.
In most instances the bill will not alter existing arrangements because application of the regulatory powers act will result in either the substitution of an equivalent provision, or a provision that is the same in effect, with modernised technology or minor technical changes reflecting current drafting standards. Where necessary, the amendments will modify the operation of the regulatory powers act to retain existing regulatory powers that do not have equivalent provisions in the regulatory powers act. In a small number of instances, the bill will alter existing arrangements because application of the regulatory powers act will result in the acquisition of new provisions or additional powers or functions. This only occurs where such provisions are necessary for the effective performance of duties or functions and the effective exercise of powers under the regulatory powers act.
Alignment with the regulatory powers act also provides an opportunity to consider whether existing regulatory powers or functions are still relevant and appropriate. Accordingly, in some cases the bill will either repeal or narrow existing regulatory provisions that do not have equivalent provisions in the regulatory powers act on the basis that those existing provisions are no longer required or required in their current form. The standard provisions of the regulatory powers act represent best practice in relation to regulatory powers of general application. That act also includes operational safeguards and maintains parliamentary scrutiny over application of that act to specific regulatory regimes.
The bill will also make minor amendments to the regulatory powers act to clarify the operation of certain provisions and remove unreasonable administrative burdens on agencies exercising regulatory powers under the regulatory powers act. Those amendments relate to the ability to secure evidence of a contravention when exercising monitoring powers, the age of photographs for identity cards, the time period for the making of a civil penalty order and the cap on the amount to be stated in an infringement notice.
Implementing the regulatory powers act supports the government's regulatory reform agenda as that act intends to simplify and streamline Commonwealth regulatory powers across the statute book. Over the last 20 years there has been an enormous proliferation of regulatory powers and associated provisions across the Commonwealth statute book. Those powers and provisions vary in their breadth and detail, resulting in inconsistency or unnecessary duplication across regimes. Standardisation provides regulatory agencies with the opportunity to use more uniform powers and increase legal certainty for businesses and individuals who are subject to those powers. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (16:44): I rise to speak on the Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2016, which Labor will be supporting. The standardisation of Commonwealth legislation was a project of the last Labor government which began under Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the Clearer Law project. As part of its regulatory reform agenda, the Gillard government developed a framework of standard regulatory powers, such as powers of investigation, compliance monitoring and enforcement.
Commonwealth legislation has many provisions that confer powers on agencies to regulate regimes, such as the regime that ensures that Australians have access to paid parental leave or the regime that prevents doping in Australian sport. The idea was that standard regulatory powers would be conferred on agencies that administer regulatory regimes in order to reduce the volume of Commonwealth legislation. A suite of standard provisions containing powers to be conferred on agencies would only be in one act that can be incorporated by reference instead of hundreds of acts that contain similar provisions. This would improve the clarity and reduce the complexity of Commonwealth laws.
These standard provisions were developed by the Gillard government and introduced to parliament as the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2014. Unfortunately, the bill lapsed upon prorogation of the parliament on 5 August 2013. The Abbott government then introduced a modified version of the 2013 bill, which became the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. The standard provisions in that act increase legal certainty for agencies because, when they are exercising powers across multiple regimes, they are less likely to make mistakes if the powers and procedures are consistent. The act also reduces the compliance burden on individuals and businesses that are subject to regulatory powers, because the consistency in powers and procedures means that they are more likely to be aware of and exercise their rights and obligations.
The regulatory powers act does not have direct legal effect. The standard provisions must be applied to a particular regulatory scheme through another piece of legislation for either a new act or to amend an existing act. The bill before us today is one such piece of legislation. The bill amends 15 Commonwealth acts that establish regulatory regimes by substituted certain provisions with a corresponding standard provision of the regulatory powers act. The bill also repeals existing provisions conferring powers so that they can be replaced with the standard powers. The acts that are being amended to insert standard provisions are the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006, the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010, the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992, the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Collection Act 199, the Defence Act 1903, the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001, the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012, the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Act 2011, the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012, the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989, the paid parental leave act 2010, the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, the Privacy Act 1988, the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction(Prevention of Proliferation) Act 1995. There are some existing regulatory powers and related provisions in these acts that do not have an equivalent standard provision in the regulatory powers act. The bill provides that those existing provisions will continue to operate. The bill also makes a few minor amendments to the regulatory powers act.
These are all worthy reforms and Labor is pleased to support them. We hope that the government will continue to build on Labor's standardisation reform project in pursuit of less voluminous and less complex legislation. We must all strive to make sure that the statute book is as clear, accessible and comprehensible as possible. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.
Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2016
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (16:49): by leave—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (16:50): I'm very pleased to make a contribution on behalf of the opposition regarding the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017. Labor will be supporting this bill. In my role as shadow minister for justice, I have the great privilege of meeting with and talking to law enforcement right around the country. I often ask them: if there were one thing they could do to improve the situation for them in the work that they're doing, what would it be? I get a pretty consistent answer, and that is that we need to work harder to take the profit out of crime. One of the key ways that we can do this is through our anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-financing regime.
This bill implements the first phase of reforms arising from the recommendations of the Report on the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 and associated rules and regulations, which reported in 2016. The review considered the operation of Australia's AML/CTF regime, its objects and its effectiveness. Out of that review came 84 recommendations for reform, split up into two phases. The bill before us tackles a portion of the recommendations from the first stage.
When Minister Keenan announced to the media the introduction of this bill, he heralded the reforms in this way:
These measures ensure there is nowhere for criminals to hide.
Contrary to the minister's ambitions, this is not an ambitious bill. It doesn't even tackle half of the statutory review's recommendations. It doesn't deal with the many critical issues outlined by the Financial Action Task Force. Indeed, the government's own department has described this bill as including 'the easier parts' of the AML/CTF reform that could be done 'fairly quickly'.
The bill will expand the objects of the AML/CTF Act. It will give the AUSTRAC CEO the power to issue infringement notices for a greater range of regulatory offences. It will allow the AUSTRAC CEO to issue a remedial direction to a reporting entity to retrospectively comply with an obligation that has been breached, and it will give customs and police officers broader powers of search and seizure for AML/CTF breaches.
The most significant measure contained in this bill would bring digital currency exchange providers such as Bitcoin under the AML/CTF regime. The AML/CTF regime was designed in 2006 and, as it currently stands, only applies to an e-currency which must be backed by a physical thing. This excludes a convertible digital currency such as bitcoin. The statutory review found:
The dynamic nature and rapid developments associated with new payment types and systems offer opportunities for criminals to exploit these systems for ML/TF—
money laundering and terrorism financing—
and other criminal purposes.
This is a change that is of particular interest to me in my role as shadow minister for justice. Digital currencies are taking up an increasing share of the currencies used to pay for crime. They're used not just for money laundering and terrorism financing but to facilitate really any criminal activity that requires a level of anonymity. Through the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry, we learned that the UK Internet Watch Foundation has reported over 200 commercial sexual abuse websites which accept bitcoin for payment. There were only 30 sites which accepted bitcoin in 2014. This is a crucial area of law, one that I'm very, very passionate about, and it is very clear that we are going to need to do a lot better to ensure that bitcoin comes under these and other regulatory regimes.
There is bipartisan sponsorship to support reform in this area. Labor supports the government's decision to bring digital currency exchange providers under the AML/CTF regime. The bill requires digital currency exchange providers to do a number of things, including to enrol and register on a digital currency exchange register, which would be maintained by AUSTRAC; to adopt and maintain an AML/CTF program to identify, mitigate and manage money-laundering and terrorism-financing risks; to identify and verify the identities of their customers; and to report suspicious matters to AUSTRAC. When you hear that list, it's quite concerning, isn't it, that for as long as Bitcoin have been operating they've not had any of these obligations.
One of the things that is unfortunate is that, under the government's proposal, digital currency exchange providers would only need to report on transactions of physical currency of $10,000 or more. I note that this is a back-down from an earlier position contained in the government's consultation paper on digital currencies, which proposed a $0 threshold for digital currency exchange providers to come under this regime. That would have required digital currency exchange providers to report all transactions as threshold transaction reports 'in lieu of an obligation to report international funds transfer instructions'. The government's own regulation impact statement indicates that, because of this decision, 99 per cent of cash transactions will fall below the $10,000 threshold for reporting and will not be captured. We would consider this as a matter to be improved. We support the government's decision to bring digital currency exchange providers under this regime but are disappointed with the light-touch approach that has been taken.
There are a number of recommendations from the first phase of reforms recommended by the statutory review which are absent from the bill. These include the insertion of principles into the AML/CTF Act, a privacy principle, a prohibition on providing a service if customer due diligence cannot be completed, and improving secrecy and access amendments to facilitate information sharing.
I want to close my remarks by speaking about enforcement. In 2015, the Financial Action Task Force found that Australia's AML/CTF regime was non-compliant with six international standards. I want to let that sink in. Counterterrorism financing and anti-money-laundering sit at the heart of organised crime, of terrorism, of so much that we as a federal government need to do to keep Australians safe, yet we have a regime today which is simply not up to standard. In the same year, AUSTRAC sustained a $7 million budget cut in the Abbott Liberal government's 2014-15 budget. Just when Australia was being told to ramp up our AML/CTF enforcement, the Liberal government cut eight per cent from AUSTRAC's budget in one year.
Breaches of this regime are an issue of national security. We cannot afford to take lightly the issues that this scheme faces. The recent charges by AUSTRAC against the Commonwealth Bank, relating to alleged breaches of money laundering and antiterrorism laws, are extremely serious and deeply concerning. We need to ensure that financial institutions and companies do not allow their facilities to be potentially used to fund terrorist activity. Unfortunately, yet again, in the most recent budget, the government has taken the knife to AUSTRAC. The 2016-17 budget contained a $19 million cut to AUSTRAC's work protecting the financial system from criminal abuse. And the government continues to refuse to hold a royal commission into the banking sector. We know that the government loves to talk a big game on cracking down on organised crime and terrorism, but it is not investing in the public institutions and law enforcement organisations that are there to keep us safe.
Labor supports this bill because it contains some small, very moderate steps towards strengthening our AML/CTF regime. The bill alone will not have a significant impact on Australia's ongoing issues with money laundering or terrorism financing. There are many areas that the government has put in the too-hard basket. We are willing and eager to work with the government over the coming months on the more significant challenges Australia faces in responding to these critical issues.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (16:58): I move:
That the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017
Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017
Income Tax Rates Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017
Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017
Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017
Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017
Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017
Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017
Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Untainting Tax) (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017
Nation-building Funds Repeal (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give this bill a second reading as:
(1) this is a tax hike on over seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 a year;
(2) the Government is already supporting cuts to penalty rates for low and middle income workers;
(3) at a time of low wages growth and the high cost of living pressures, including energy costs, the Government should not be seeking to raise taxes on these low and middle income workers;
(4) the Government:
(a) is cutting funding for vocational education, university and research infrastructure, and transport infrastructure;
(b) has failed to abolish the Nation-Building Funds previously; and
(c) has sidelined Infrastructure Australia when making infrastructure investment decisions;
(5) the National Disability Insurance Scheme has been fully funded in a bipartisan fashion, and funding has been allocated to the NDIS in all Budgets since 2013-14 and bilateral agreements with the states that contain the Commonwealth Government's commitment to the full funding of the NDIS have been signed in a bipartisan manner;
(6) like all other items of Government expenditure, such as defence, the NDIS is funded from consolidated revenue and does not require a separate funding arrangement; and
(7) there is a better and fairer plan which would:
(a) only raise the Medicare Levy for those earning above $87,000 a year;
(b) reinstate the Budget Repair Levy for those earning above $180,000 a year; and
(c) ease the pressure on low and middle income workers, and be better for the budget bottom line".
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:59): I know the frustration that so many Canberrans and other Australians have felt in dealing with the NDIA, with the coordination that comes from the NDIA, or lack thereof, and the overwhelming bureaucracy. My attention was drawn to an article that was in The Guardian a few days ago, a tragic story about Denis and Annette Reid. Denis lives in Queanbeyan, grew up in Bombala and is an Army veteran. As the article says, Denis's experiences mirror the experiences of so many of those who've had to deal with the NDIS.
As I said in my remarks last night, this is a scheme that I am 150 per cent behind. This is an empowering scheme. It's a scheme that allows those with a disability to realise their full potential. It's a scheme that allows carers respite—well, that's what it's designed to do. But there have been challenges with the scheme, and that's why it's important that we discuss these challenges and don't sweep them under the carpet. We've got to get this right. This is vitally important for our nation's future. It is vitally important for those with a disability to ensure that they realise their potential and have a bright future. It's vitally important for carers who are worried sick and spend sleepless nights. They are worried witless about what's going to happen to their child when they get older, when they get frail and when they're no longer able to physically and emotionally manage, look after, support and care for this child. They are worried witless about what happens when they get older and also when they die. That's why the NDIS provides them with lifetime support that is tailor-made to each and every individual.
I start with this example of Denis and Annette Reid, whose experiences mirror those of many who are dealing with the NDIS at the moment. Annette, unfortunately, has MS. The article says:
Denis sought and was granted a $150,000 NDIS package to support Anne, which included $30,000 for a bathroom renovation.
He got a quote from a builder friend for a professional bathroom fit-out, which came in at $18,000, well below what he had been approved to spend.
Denis had been given prior approval to self-manage the funds, but sent in a request form for the work to the National Disability Insurance Agency.
He was bounced between staff and state offices. No one could give him a straight answer—
about the difference in the money for the renovation and the quote from his mate.
One moment the form had arrived, and was being processed. A week later, Denis was told it hadn't been received and needed to be sent again.
This is the experience of so many Australians, including Canberrans, and it's got a lot to do with the fact that there has been a cap on the NDIA staff. We've got this huge, incredibly ambitious scheme rolling out nationally—a scheme that will, as I said, realise the potential of so many Australians—and there just are not enough staff inside the NDIA and also not enough providers providing the services that people need. So Labor has made it clear that we are calling on the government to act urgently on the staffing issue. I understand the Productivity Commission suggested that the cap of 3,000 staff is underdone, and I call on the government to urgently remove the NDIA staff cap.
In the 2013-14 budget, Labor clearly set out how the NDIS would be funded for 10 years, well before the transition to the full scheme in 2020. Our plan to fund the NDIS included $6.5 billion in reforms to the private health insurance rebate, $6 billion in retirement income reform and $20.6 billion in other long-term savings proposals. These long-term savings included changes to tax concessions for fringe benefits and net medical expenses, changes to the indexation of the tobacco excise, and increases to import processing charges. The Medicare levy was also increased by 0.5 percentage points, to two per cent. Together with the contributions from state and territory governments, these measures covered the cost of the NDIS for 10 years.
Independent research from the ANU shows that twice as many households would be worse off under the plan that the government currently has before us than under Labor's plan. If the government's policy were in place from 1 July 2019 then, according to the ANU modelling, 60 per cent of households would be worse off, 39 per cent would see no change and just one per cent would be better off—just one per cent! By comparison, if Labor's policy were implemented from 1 July 2019 then 27 per cent of households would be worse off and 73 per cent would see no change in their circumstances, a huge difference.
Despite this, the government seems adamant on funding the NDIS through an increase to the Medicare levy. This is after its plans to help fund the NDIS through cuts to welfare were scrapped earlier this year. Of course, where do they go? They go to those most vulnerable in our community. Helping fund the NDIS through a further increase to the Medicare levy means that it will affect workers earning less than $87,000. It means that low- and middle-income earners in my electorate will feel the pinch of this bill. These are also people who are going to be getting a tax hike.
It's breathtaking that at a time of low wages growth and high cost-of-living pressures—especially when it comes to housing affordability—this government is prioritising an income tax hike for the same workers who have already had their penalty rates cut. Essentially, their wages have dropped. We're at the lowest level of wage growth in a generation. Productivity has gone up 10 per cent over the last 10 years, and yet wage rises have only gone up six per cent. We have a significant issue on wages in this country, and it's not just in terms of penalty rates; it's also in the fact that real wage growth has not happened over time.
I want to make reference to the fact that this government is hell-bent on targeting those who are most vulnerable in our community—those who can least afford it and who are struggling. There are a lot of Canberrans and a lot of Australians who are out there, struggling. Just recently, on Friday, I hosted a pensions forum with the shadow minister for social services. It was a pensions forum that covered not just the aged pension but also the disability support pension, Newstart or any pension that people can get. And what was really concerning from that event was the fact that people are really frightened about their futures. This is what this government has done to Australians and this is what this government has done to Canberrans. It's a fact that they're frightened about their future in terms of cuts to services, cuts to pensions and cuts to the energy supplement. They're frightened that they're constantly targeted by a government that is completely out of touch and which is absolutely hell-bent on pitting Australia's vulnerable people against each other—this government pits the most vulnerable in our community against each other.
In closing, I want to send a very strong message to those Canberrans and those Australians who are listening that Labor will continue to fight for you. Labor will continue to fight for the most vulnerable and those who are doing it tough in our community: only Labor has your back and only Labor has your concerns at heart. (Time expired)
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (17:08): The position that Labor has taken on this matter has been really clear: we don't think that low- and middle-income earners should be hit by an increase to the Medicare levy to pay for a National Disability Insurance Scheme that has already been paid for. So we oppose the Turnbull government's proposed increase to the Medicare levy on workers earning less than $87,000. We think that the more than seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 each year should be spared this tax hike.
Let's remember what this is about: it's an increase in the Medicare levy of 0.5 per cent, taking it to a rate of 2.5 per cent. Of course, it replaces this government's original plan to do welfare cuts, which they said was to fund the NDIS. Of course, that was blocked, but, again, this is something that has already been funded. Now the government seems to thinks that low- to middle-income earners have money to burn. It does make me wonder what those opposite do in their time away from this place. When I'm out talking to people, whether it's in Bilpin or Bligh Park, Warrimoo or Woodford, they're telling me that things are tough. Their wages are not keeping up with the costs that they face on a day-to-bay basis.
If those opposite were out there talking to normal people—to people who work in shops and hospitals and have their own small businesses—they'd know that right now people are feeling the squeeze. It's the mix of low wages growth, high cost-of-living pressures like electricity bills and the government already pursuing cuts in penalty rates and forcing those sorts of cuts onto low- and middle-income earners. I suppose we should not even wonder with why the Treasurer would stop there; he is also hitting the same group of workers with the income tax hike.
I do think it's interesting that we're talking about an increase in the Medicare levy at the same time as there is some discussion by the Treasurer on the back of the Productivity Commission report about inclusive growth—growth that doesn't leave some people out, growth that doesn't widen the gap between the top and the bottom and is spread across all Australians. It has probably come as a bit of a surprise to this government that the Productivity Commission is saying that the key to Australia's economic growth and productivity is apparently people. Yes, fancy that—people! It will be a shock because this government has presided over non-inclusive growth entirely at the top end of the system.
Productivity has surged 20 per cent but with only six per cent real wage growth. We've got a high degree of casualisation and a high degree of outsourcing to labour-hire companies. It's hard for workers to get a pay rise. And then we have a Treasurer wanting to talk about health reforms when all they really want to do is tear Medicare apart.
Labor long ago appreciated that people are the heart of the economy. They're the reason for the economy. Go back to 2008, and under the Labor government COAG agreed that human capital was the key source of economic growth. That was nearly a decade ago. It's taken those opposite a little while even to hear the phrase 'inclusive growth'. The Commonwealth and the states at that time agreed on how to invest in people, but the Liberals rejected it all in their 2014 budget, cutting health and cutting education, and they continue with that agenda, so they're very late to this party. They want to cut universities. They can't get it through the Senate, but it's what they want to do. They want to invest less than we need in schools, and here in this legislation they want to hit low- and middle-income earners to fund something that is already funded.
We can hope that the Treasurer's rhetoric that echoes the true values of fairness and equity that we in the Labor Party actually believe in is reflected in his policies, but I won't hold my breath, because I think it will take more than a Productivity Commission report for this government to get it. They say they believe in fairness and they say they believe in inclusion, but every piece of law they try to pass, including this one, shows they really believe in the opposite.
It's worth looking at just what a 0.5 per cent increase means to low- and medium-income earners. For a start, it will increase the tax burden on vulnerable Australians earning as little as $21,000 a year. The Prime Minister's tax increase will mean a worker on $55,000 a year will pay $275 extra in tax. Someone on $80,000 will face an extra $400 in tax. Of course, these are not necessarily large amounts to those opposite, but when you are raising a family, running a small business from home or putting together the early part of your career or your profession, they're significant amounts of money. When you get your electricity bill, it barely touches the edges of it. A worker earning $85,000 a year will lose the full benefit of last year's sandwich-and-milkshake tax cut. I'm not going to claim credit for that phrase, but it describes beautifully the value of that tax cut to people. In fact, those earning $85,000 a year will end up paying more in income tax after that tax cut.
We think that workers earning less than $87,000, which is the top figure of the third tax level in the tax table, will be hurt by this increase and they simply don't deserve it. The stagnant wages, the falling living standards and the record levels of underemployment all mean that many Australians are probably less able to pay more tax than they ever have been in the past. It is especially galling that this is happening at a time when big business is getting a $65 billion tax cut. The combination is just staggering.
This piece of legislation is also based on a furphy. The NDIS was funded by Labor in government. I don't think that I can join this discussion about NDIS without pointing out that this government has so poorly rolled out the service for many people in my electorate of Macquarie. We spend hours every week trying to resolve their issues. The government has actually saved money on the NDIS by having a staff member per electorate office working for them, I would guess, as advocates and problem solvers.
In talking about the problems of the NDIS, I have previously spoken in this place about the challenges facing Gretta Serov, who lives in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, one week at a time with each parent. She's 26, in a wheelchair and waiting to be able to use some of her core funding to get to university. What she was allocated in her transport plan does not cover that journey. We're talking about investing in people—in human capital—yet we can't find a way to allow a young person with a disability to get to university. That really is shameful. This is something she has been asking for since November last year. Months and months of promises have not led to a solution for this situation.
Not surprisingly, as Gretta's situation became more widely known in my electorate, Kayla got in touch with me. Kayla lives in Hazelbrook, which is halfway up the Blue Mountains. She has no access to public transport. She uses a power wheelchair, just like Gretta, and is having so many issues regarding transport. Transport is one of the key areas where we are failing recipients of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We have not got this right. I'm trusting there is a commitment on the other side to get it right. There is certainly a commitment on this side of the House that we get this system working.
There are other challenges thwarting people and really giving the NDIS a bad name that need to be addressed. The Australian disability enterprises are finding it particularly challenging. They're concerned there's no support from the NDIS with referrals. In fact, they feel that people have been directed away from disability enterprises which create products, deliver services and employ people with disabilities.
One of the big issues that comes to my electorate office is around the complaints process—perhaps not about the complaints process so much as about the lack of complaints process and the randomness of how a complaint is dealt with by the NDIA. Sometimes it is by email and sometimes by phone call. There is no consistency. You speak to different people and you get different responses. This is the sort of issue that we should not be hearing about.
Inadequacy of funding is obviously something that comes up, and where we notice it most is where there is a request for a review of a plan. There have been poor plans done; there is no doubt about it. There are people who are worse off under this system, and that was never meant to be the case. But getting a review, even for something minor, seems to take forever. The participants feel that the review is just an excuse for there to be a cut to the funding that they get, so there is fear about even requesting a review because there is no guarantee they will even maintain the service level that they have when requesting an improvement in that service level. There are things like discrepancies in plans, such as where the plan states it's for nine months, but the portal says 12 months. That creates confusion with costing—is it meant to last nine months or is it meant to get them through 12 months? And accessing the portal is another issue altogether; it's a piece of technology that was not well thought through. The biggest concern that I hear is around the inordinately long wait for review decisions. I mean, you've got people whose lives are literally on hold while their plan is being reviewed. They're treading water, waiting for decisions, and yet there doesn't seem to be any agreed timeline within which those decisions occur.
One of the other concerns that has come to me from many constituents is that the reviews are sometimes decided without any consultation with the participant or with any of their support workers, or any of the medical specialists who they work with. We also hear this about plans: that plans are approved and people aren't even sure that there's been a proper discussion about it. When there's a review, it is unacceptable that participants have no opportunity to review the plan before it has been finalised, because—guess what, Deputy Speaker Vasta?—that just leads to another review of the plan, so this process can go on and on and on.
To be fair, I have heard of really great outcomes from some participants on the NDIS. There are people who have experienced the benefits that this program was designed to bring. It has changed their life; it has given them more independence; it has given them the capacity to self-determine and make decisions about what their priorities are as an individual. But I have to say there is a long, long way to go before that becomes the norm. I look forward to seeing the quality of plans improve, the processes improve; however, if that doesn't happen then we are really failing the people who expect a lot from this parliament, who received a commitment from both sides of this House to a National Disability Insurance Scheme.
We often get asked, and it's often asked about here in question time on issues, if there are any alternative views? I want to talk about Labor's alternative position on funding the NDIS, because the position we have is better and fairer for the budget. Our plan raises $4 billion more than the government's proposed tax rise over 10 years by increasing the Medicare levy for people earning more than $87,000. Our plan is restricted to those earning more than $87,000 a year, and keeping the deficit levy on those income earners earning more than $180,000 a year. We'll obviously be moving amendments in the Senate on this. Independent research from the Australian National University shows that twice as many households would be worse off under the coalition's plan than under our plan. We think that being able to halve the number of people impacted is a pretty good outcome, particularly because you're ensuring it's not the most vulnerable people who are impacted.
Labor created the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We know how important the NDIS is to improving the lives of people with a disability, and the lives of their friends and families. We are genuinely committed to its successful rollout. Like other items of government expenditure such as Defence—there's a whole array of them—the NDIS is funded from consolidated revenue and does not require separate funding arrangements. (Time expired)
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (17:23): I stand here today on behalf of the families and workers in Herbert to say no to the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. I cannot support a bill that increases taxes for the poor and lets the top end of town get away with not paying their fair share of tax. I am sick and tired of the relentless attacks on workers by the Turnbull government.
I stand with Labor in opposing the Turnbull government's proposed increase to the Medicare levy for workers earning less than $87,000. This is a tax hike for more than seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 each year. And while the Turnbull government are increasing taxes on Aussie workers, they are also giving a $65 billion tax cut to big business. Allow me to repeat that: a person working in construction on the Townsville Stadium, serving coffee at McCafe on the Lakes, the local subcontractor, nurse, or teacher at Thuringowa State High School will receive a tax increase and big business will get a $65 billion tax cut from the Turnbull government.
The Turnbull government is asking Australian families and workers to pay more tax whilst allowing companies like Chevron and Google to get way with not paying one cent of tax to this country. How is that fair? How is it fair that billion-dollar companies do not pay their fair share of taxes in Australia whilst the local subcontractor pays more in tax? This is the current situation in Australia, and I will keep on repeating these facts until the Turnbull government actually does something to stop the growth in inequality and support Australian families and workers.
Inequality is at a 70-year high. More than 105,000 people are homeless, one-third of pensioners live in poverty and 32 per cent of unemployed people live in poverty. The HILDA report shows that child poverty in Australia is growing. Wage growth hasn't been this low since records started being kept. Since 1975, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has collected data on earnings inequality. Profits have gone up by 40 per cent and wages have gone up by less than two per cent. Real wages have grown by 72 per cent for the top 10 per cent. In 1975, the top 10 per cent earned twice as much as the bottom 10 per cent, but by 2014 they earned nearly three times as much. If low-wage earners had enjoyed the same percentage gains, they would be $16,000 better off a year.
The richest one per cent of Australians own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians combined. For every dollar a male earns, a woman earns 82c. Six hundred and seventy eight corporations have paid no tax. Forty eight millionaires paid no tax. The latest corporate tax transparency report by the Australian Taxation Office in 2014-15 showed that 36 per cent of large firms had zero tax payable in 2014-15. I would be very grateful if someone from the Turnbull government could please explain to me how these statistics are fair. Can the Treasurer or the finance minister outline what they are doing to ensure that these companies pay their fair share of tax? They won't, because I suspect they can't. When your mates, and your experience, are big business you can never have an understanding of what it's like for a working Australian on a low income.
It's dumbfounding that, at a time of low wages growth and high cost-of-living pressures, the government is already pursuing a cut in penalty rates for low- and middle-income workers and the Treasurer is prioritising an income tax hike for those same workers. The Turnbull government's plan to increase the Medicare levy would increase the tax burden on vulnerable Australians earning as little as $21,000 a year. This government's tax increase will mean a worker on $55,000 would pay an extra $275 in tax, while someone earning $80,000 would pay an extra $400 in tax. A worker earning $85,000 a year will lose the full benefit of last year's tax cut and actually end up paying more income tax.
This is a government that pretends to give you money with one hand while stealing it from you with the other. And whilst they're giving $65 billion tax cuts to big businesses and increasing the taxes those earning $21,000 a year, in this bill they're also making cuts to the Education Investment Fund. The Education Investment Fund was established to provide capital investment in higher education infrastructure and vocational education and training infrastructure, including renewal and refurbishment in universities, research facilities and major research institutions. Since 2008, and until the Turnbull-Abbott government abandoned the program, around $4.2 billion was provided to co-finance the updating and modernisation of Australia's vocational, higher education and research facilities across 71 projects. Universities Australia said that losing the EIF, which has $3.8 billion remaining, would make it harder for the sector to create new jobs, generate research breakthroughs and compete for international students. Because of the abolition of these programs universities, TAFEs and research institutions have said they will either cancel or postpone plans for infrastructure investment and upgrades.
These cuts will cost jobs in my electorate of Herbert, an area that can afford neither job cuts nor cuts to higher education. On top of these cuts, $37.1 million in funding will be lost to James Cook University, and $30.1 million will be cut from Central Queensland University. It is internationally recognised that education is a key factor in lifting people out of poverty. A strong education system equates to a stronger middle class. A strong middle class means a strong economy. When the government is making such severe cuts to universities and is cutting more than $2 billion from TAFE, on top of increasing taxes for Australian workers and families, it is clear that the Turnbull government is not helping workers but, in reality, destroying them. We see cut upon cut upon cut by the Turnbull government to the people who need the most support.
The Turnbull government's treatment of the NDIS is abhorrent and shameful. The NDIS is the biggest transformational social change this country has seen since Medicare. The NDIS has the potential to make amazing and transformational changes to the lives of people who live with a disability, and to give those people, who have been socially isolated, the opportunity to engage in their community. The NDIS is the opportunity for people with a disability to achieve a life of choice, purpose, meaning and citizenship, just like other members of the community.
I have seen a young 14-year-old girl's life turned completely around. Her physical health was very poor. She was spending many months each year in hospital. Her physical health is now so much better. She is actively engaged in life, which has taken enormous pressure from her mother and family. In this young woman's case, the NDIS has been life-changing.
However, sadly, this is not always the case, because it is very hard to deliver consistent quality supports to vulnerable people when the system is being developed on the run due to the government's lack of planning, preparedness and ability to assist those most in need and the most complicated cases. I have a man aged 42 who is a veteran living in my electorate who has a devastating acquired brain injury and very bad physical health. He has a wife and three children but he cannot live at home because his care needs are very high. His wife is beside herself, and has become very depressed, because he is now caught between the aged-care system and the NDIS. He is living in the ABI unit, and this is simply just not good enough. I am working with the NDIA to address this situation.
I stand here as a proud member of the Labor Party and I vow to the Herbert community that, together, Labor and I will fight to protect the NDIS. Labor created the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and we know how important the NDIS is to improving the lives of people with disabilities and their families. Labor has a plan to ensure the full and proper rollout of the NDIS, and it does not include taxing the most vulnerable Australians.
Labor has a plan that is better and fairer for the budget. Labor's plan raises more than $4 billion—more than the government's proposed tax rise over 10 years—by increasing the Medicare levy for individuals earning more than $87,000 a year and keeping the deficit levy on those income earners earning more than $180,000. Independent research from the Australian National University shows that twice as many households would be worse off under the coalition's plan than under Labor's plan. We are 100 per cent committed to the successful rollout of the NDIS. We are 100 per cent committed to looking after Australian workers. We are 100 per cent committed to supporting Australian families. The question is: are you, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull?
These cuts and all of the benefits to big business highlight one thing: that the Prime Minister is completely out of touch with Australian families and workers. With an estimated worth in stocks, shares, properties and trades of $200 million, of course this Prime Minister could not possibly comprehend the day-to-day struggles of someone earning $50,000 a year. The Prime Minister is out of touch and seemingly incapable of understanding the needs of Australian families and workers. I will never support taxing the poor and giving large tax breaks to the very rich. Stagnant wages, falling living standards and record levels of underemployment and unemployment all mean that low- and middle-income Australians are less able to pay more tax than they have in the past. Only Labor will stand up and fight against inequality. It has only ever been Labor, and will only ever be Labor, that gives families and workers a fair go.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (17:34): I rise to speak on the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. As do all my Labor colleagues who have spoken before me, and who will continue to speak after me, I stand here in resounding support of both Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme—or, as we all know it and love it, the NDIS.
Both Medicare and the NDIS are incredible initiatives, of course. Both programs have been designed to deliver quality and affordable health and social outcomes for all Australians regardless of who they are or where they live. For many vulnerable Australians these programs ensure—or in the case of areas yet to receive the NDIS, like my area in the Moreton Bay region, they will ensure—that we have a reasonable quality of life for people living with a disability. In my area, that's around 10,000 people, so we're eagerly awaiting on the NDIS to arrive in the Moreton Bay region.
But programs like these should always be lauded. Anything that can be done to ensure that all Australians have a fair go are highly important in helping move Australia forward. It comes as no surprise that both Medicare and the NDIS were Labor initiatives. Labor are 100 per cent behind both initiatives and Labor is 100 per cent committed to the successful rollout of the NDIS Australia-wide. As I mentioned, that includes the Moreton Bay region as we await the rollout.
But as all Australians know, it is only Labor that's 100 per cent committed to Medicare, because they just can't trust the Liberals with Medicare. At any chance the Liberals get they will take a jab at it. They will look at dismantling the pride of our nation wherever they can. Sometimes it's pretty blatant—blatant, like the Medicare freeze, which they absolutely refuse to lift. Instead they make excuse after excuse, day after day. The Prime Minister could lift that freeze right now if he wished to—right now. He could lift it right now, but he won't because this government has it in for Medicare.
But sometimes this government isn't so blatant. Sometimes they're a little more subtle—not a lot but just a little, like with the bill I'm speaking on right at this second. Despite the NDIS having been fully funded in a bipartisan fashion, with funding allocated to the NDIS in all budgets since 2013 and 2014, here we are today with the government looking to raise the Medicare levy to fund what has already been funded. This is the government raising the price of Medicare for every Australian, one step at a time. We all know that this government wants Australians to pay their healthcare costs completely out of pocket. So, instead, they raise the cost half a per cent at a time. That is not completely subtle, of course, but not as blatant as their Medicare freeze.
Somehow, the government had money to burn in this budget, though. They threw $122 million away—$122 million!—because they were too weak to do their job. They were too scared to stand up to the right wing of their party despite their dishonest claims that they were united and a factionless party. They were too weak to do their job and threw away $122 million. And they're throwing away $65 billion by sending taxpayers' money offshore with huge multinational companies that will benefit from the ideological big business tax cut. And they've cut $16,400 in taxes from millionaires by axing the budget repair levy.
I would argue that this budget is far from being repaired. Under this government the national debt has skyrocketed. This government claims that when Labor was in power, Australia was facing a budget emergency. Do you remember that, Deputy Speaker Buchholz? It was a budget emergency. What would it be called now, I would ask? What would they call it now? Now that debt has grown so much under their rule and now that it has grown so much due to this government's reckless spending, surely it can be called nothing less than catastrophic? And yet despite the catastrophic circumstances that Prime Minister Turnbull and his government—and his Treasurer, of course: don't forget the Treasurer's involvement in this—have got Australia's budget into, they now think it's okay to remove the budget repair levy.
Well, I agree that some things need to be done—they absolutely do—to reduce the negative balance that continues to grow under the Turnbull government, but I vehemently oppose this government's ridiculous assertion that it's low- and middle-income Australia who should be the ones to pay for this mess. It is not their fault. It is not the fault of hardworking taxpayers that this government mismanages money. So how is it fair? Tell me how it is fair that this government plans to burden a worker on $55,000 a year with an extra $275 a year in tax. How is that fair? Somebody earning $55,000 a year is now going to be burdened with $275 extra a year in tax. How is it fair that the government's proposed increase to the Medicare levy will hit vulnerable Australians earning as little as $21,000 a year? You have to ask: how do you live on $21,000 a year?
This government has absolutely no idea. It has no idea what real Australians live like, how people just barely get by, or how this government's continual attacks—such as cutting the take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of workers, which has begun rolling out to Australia's most vulnerable workers—are taking their toll on these people. The government has no idea how the cost-of-living pressures that have ballooned under this government—like the energy prices that this government, despite its claims, still hasn't got control of—are taking a toll on households all over this country. It has no idea how this extended period of low wages growth is taking its toll. Then here stands this government, raising the rate of taxation on the very same people who it's taking its toll on: Australia's most vulnerable workers.
This is all coming from a party that like to claim that they're the party of lower taxes. What they like to omit, though, is the footnote on the party of lower taxes, and that's the caveat that shows their true intentions. They are the party for lower taxes—but for wealthy people, of course. How else could you define the government? They raise taxes for people on a barely liveable $21,000 a year—that's right—and they've cut $16,400 from the taxes of millionaires. They are raising the tax on people earning $21,000 a year, and millionaires get a $16,400 tax cut. That is over three-quarters of $21,000. It's three-quarters of a salary of a worker who'll be getting a tax hike, being gifted to a millionaire. I really struggle to understand how the government justify this—how they can look at low-income earners in Australia and say that they deserve a tax hike while millionaires deserve a tax cut.
That is why I so strongly oppose this bill. Anyone earning less than $87,000 shouldn't have to shoulder the brunt of this government's economic mismanagement. You know, there are less than five per cent of people who earn over $87,000 in my electorate. Ninety-five per cent of people in Longman earn less than $87,000, and they're going to shoulder that, while your millionaires get a tax cut. Tell me how that's fair.
Not only that, but over the next 10 years Labor have plans to make sure that we have a plan that is fair. We've got a better plan for the budget, and let me tell you about it. Labor's plan raises over $4 billion more than this government's proposed tax rise for low- and middle-income Australia. It is a plan that just makes sense. Independent research from the Australian National University shows that twice as many households would be worse off under the coalition's plan than under Labor's plan.
But the sad part about this is that the government won't listen to the ANU, of course. It won't listen to the ANU. It won't listen to Labor. It certainly won't listen to Australian people. It appears to me that, unless you are conforming to the government's single-minded vision—and it supports the top end of town; this government only wants to hear from the top end of town, the wealthy people—then it just wants to put its fingers in its ears and say: 'We don't hear you. We don't want to know about it.' But we on this side of the House know this isn't how good governments operate. It's not how strong governments operate. It's not how governments with leadership operate, of course.
As you well know and, I'm sure, as lots of Australians well know, this government has no real reason to impose a Medicare levy on the NDIS. The NDIS is fully funded from consolidated revenue like nearly every other item of government expenditure, so what makes the NDIS so special? Why is it so different that it requires its own funding stream? Why doesn't defence spending, for example, require its own levy? Why does the $65 billion taxpayer fund that will pay for this government's big business tax cut come from its own revenue stream? Is it because the government doesn't completely support the rollout of the NDIS? You have to ask the question. I can't think of any other reason that would make sense. Why else would you isolate the NDIS and impose such an increase to the charge for Medicare to pay for it? What I suspect is that the government is seeking to pose both the NDIS and Medicare as much greater burdens than they actually are. By increasing the cost of Medicare, it seems less attractive—I suppose because it is. It is because the government is not stopping its continual attempts to undermine Australia's first-class universal healthcare system. It just keeps chipping away at it. As long as the coalition is in power, nothing is safe.
Despite this government's attempts—or maybe because of them—Labor will fight. We will fight for Medicare. We will fight for the NDIS now more than ever before. Labor will fight for these services because Labor truly believes in them. The NDIS was Labor's great idea. It became a great policy and now is a great reality. We in Labor will fight for the NDIS and we will not allow low- and middle-income Australians to be caught in this crossfire, especially not now—not now when, we have low wage growth that has flatlined; not now, when energy prices are through the roof; and, for that matter, not in a few years' time, when Prime Ministers' half-baked energy plan saves people 50c off their power bills either. We will not be doing that now. We will not get people caught in that crossfire—certainly not now, when the government is giving high-income earners and big businesses a free pass.
This is a government in disarray. This is a government and a party that used to claim to be really good economic managers, but we know they can now be seen as anything but. Following the disastrous run-out over the last through years, I think it's pretty clear. We've had millions wasted on a postal survey—$122 million, to be precise. Billions and billions of dollars have been lost on the failed rollout of the NBN. Tens of billions have been spent on big businesses getting a tax break. This is a government with no policy except to recklessly throw taxpayers' money at their conservative base.
I oppose this government's attacks on low and middle income. I oppose this government's taxation hike for over seven million Australians. As I mentioned before, about 170,000 of those seven million Australians live in my electorate, and 95 per cent of those people earn less than $87,000 a year. That's why I oppose this. I was elected to represent the people of my electorate, and that's exactly what I will stand up and do. Unless this government is willing to amend this bill to no longer hit society's most vulnerable, including the people of Longman, and to no longer increase the taxes of people earning less than $87,000, I will stand here and oppose this bill.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (17:49): I rise to join my colleagues in speaking on the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 and other bills and specifically to support the amendments that Labor has proposed to these bills. We know that politics is all about choices. Every day in this place we are making choices on behalf of our constituents in this place and as well in our local communities. Every now and again, something comes up that makes you reflect on your role in politics, exactly who it is that you're representing and who it is that you're fighting to protect in this community. This bill is one of those examples.
Let me make it abundantly clear: Labor is 100 per cent committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We created it. We know how important it is for families and for people with a disability. That is without question. But when you have a choice on whether to hike taxes for every low-income earner in the country, at the same time as the government is proposing to lower taxes for wealthier Australians and for corporations, you have to ask: is it the right choice? The answer that Labor has to that is: no, it is not. It is a choice that is inconsistent with our values.
You can't see this bill in isolation from all of the other decisions that the government has taken. The government has taken the decision that it believes the best thing it can do in order to get the budget into some balance is to cut billions of dollars out of health care, hospitals, education services and not-for-profit organisations across every single portfolio area. It's then said it wants to put some of the savings that it's made into some other priorities. It's then saying that it wants to literally provide tax cuts to millionaires—$16,400, as we heard from the member's contribution before, for millionaires—and corporate tax cuts amounting to $80 billion worth of impost on the budget. That's what it wants to do. Then it's saying: 'We don't have enough money to fund the NDIS because we've made some other decisions about the money that Labor put aside to fully fund the NDIS. We now need to find some more money, so the people we're going to go to to find that money are all Australians, including those who are on the lowest possible incomes.' So that's the choice this government has made.
We recognise that we have different values to this government. We think that the NDIS is important. It's why we fully funded it. It's why we created it and developed it, because we knew there was a problem in access to services for people with disabilities nationally. It was a fundamental reform that was needed. But we also knew that there were better ways to make savings, without hitting low-income earners. We have announced those plans. It's unusual for an opposition to provide such detailed costings already at this stage of an election cycle, but the fact that our plan raises $4 billion more than the government's plan, without hitting the lowest income earners in this country, says everything about the values of this government.
We oppose this government's proposed increase to the Medicare levy on workers earning less than $87,000, because it is a tax hike on over seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 a year. Labor rejects the government's claim that the NDIS is in any way underfunded. When Labor announced the NDIS, it was fully funded. The government's claim that the NDIS is not funded simply does not stack up. But we don't want there to be any second of a doubt about the future of the NDIS, so we've made difficult decisions, including supporting the increase in the Medicare levy on the top two tax brackets and, in effect, making the deficit levy permanent. That is what we have suggested. Labor's plan, as I said, raises $4 billion more than the government's proposed tax hike over 10 years, but it is a fairer plan and it is better for the budget.
I want to touch on the importance of the NDIS and reinforce Labor's support for this scheme. When former Prime Minister Gillard introduced the legislation to establish the NDIS, she said:
The scheme … will transform the lives of people with disability, their families and carers. For the first time they will have their needs met in a way that truly supports them to live with choice and dignity. It will bring an end to the tragedy of services denied or delayed and instead offer people with disability the care and support they need over their lifetimes. This is a complex bill, yet at its heart is a very simple moral insight:
Disability can affect any of us and therefore it affects all of us.
I think that last sentence sums it up incredibly well. We have a shared responsibility to ensure that people with a disability and their families, who carry a significant load, receive proper support. It's all too common for families of people with disability to describe their constant fight to access services and support to ensure that their loved ones are able to reach their full potential. I know that many families feel like they have to fight to get the help that they need, time and time again. For some, navigating the system itself is a full-time job. The NDIS is designed to transform this process, and it's one of the most important achievements in Australian social policy in recent years. It is a fundamental change to the way in which we provide services in this country for people with disabilities. As we created it, we fully funded it.
The government knows the NDIS is fully funded. Otherwise it would not have signed the bilateral agreements with the states and territories on the further rollout of the scheme. In the 2013 budget, Labor increased the Medicare levy by 0.5 per cent. We also made other tough savings measures, including private health insurance rebate reforms, changes to retirement incomes, changes to tobacco excise indexation and changes to import processing charges. Together these savings fully funded the NDIS over 10 years. I respect that the government has made different choices about what it wants to do with those savings. But it can't now come back and say there's no money for the NDIS, that the NDIS is not going to be supported and that the only way we can save it under this government, making different choices, is by increasing the Medicare levy again, in the context of tax cuts to wealthy millionaires and corporations and of taking some different decisions about cuts to other services. That's what this government has done.
After four years of the Liberals, we have seen the budget worsen and the economy, frankly, stuck in neutral. There hasn't been any cost blow-out with the NDIS. Only last Thursday, the Productivity Commission released a report that showed the NDIS is in fact actually on budget. The government is projecting its own fiscal failure onto the NDIS funding and making people on lower incomes pay for it. So it's looking for a way to plug the gap that it has created. It's dumbfounding that, at a time of low wages growth, high cost-of-living pressures and with the government already pursuing a cut in penalty rates for low- and middle-income earners, the Treasurer is prioritising an income tax hike for those same workers, as is represented in this bill. The government's plan to increase the Medicare levy would increase the tax burden on vulnerable Australians earning as little as $21,000 a year. The government's tax increase will mean a worker on $55,000 would pay $275 extra a year in tax, while someone on $80,000 would face an extra $400 in tax. A worker earning $85,000 a year would lose the full benefit of last year's sandwich-and-milkshake tax cut and actually end up paying more in income tax. Stagnant wages, falling living standards and record levels of underemployment all mean that low- and middle-income Australians are less able to pay more tax than they have been in the past. Combine that with increases in the cost of living and increases in energy bills that occurred under this government's policies, and all of those things add up to a sector of the community that is under substantial strain. This bill does nothing to assist them; in fact, it makes it far worse for them.
In contrast, Labor has a plan that is better and fairer overall, both for lower- and middle-income earners and for the budget itself. Labor's plan raises more than $4 billion more than the government's proposed tax rise over 10 years, by increasing the Medicare levy for individuals earning more than $87,000 a year and keeping the deficit levy on those income earners earning more than $180,000. We will move amendments in the Senate to reflect this.
Independent research from the ANU shows that twice as many households would be worse off under this government's proposal than under Labor's plan. Labor created the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We know how important the NDIS is to improving the lives of people with disabilities and their families. We are 100 per cent committed to the successful rollout of the NDIS. The NDIS has been funded by Labor governments. Governments allocated funds to the NDIS in all budgets since 2013 and have signed bilateral agreements with the states that contain the Commonwealth government's commitment to the full funding of the NDIS. Like other items of government expenditure, such as defence, the NDIS has been funded from consolidated revenue and does not require a separate funding arrangement.
I'd like to finish by reiterating the importance of the NDIS and the importance of getting the NDIS rolled out, both on time and in a way that actually benefits the majority of people who are involved in it. People with disability have waited all their lives to get decent services and they don't deserve any more waiting from this government. The Productivity Commission's report last week identified some real issues with the rollout of the scheme under this government. As my colleague, the member for Jagajaga, the shadow minister for social services, said last week, one of the critical issues is that there are not enough staff inside the National Disability Insurance Agency and not enough providers providing the services to meet people's care needs. The reason for this is the government has imposed a cap on the staff at the NDIA, which is severely restricting the capacity of people with a disability to get into the scheme and get the services they need. There has been an absolute mess made by this government with the introduction of the new IT system, which needs to be addressed as a matter of absolute urgency if we are to get this scheme right. Labor has called on the government to fix the IT mess, lift the cap on the number of staff employed at the NDIA and provide much better training so we can make sure the assessments that occur and the very important plans that are made for people who are eligible for the scheme are got right in the first instance.
This scheme has the potential to absolutely change lives. It is fully funded. It was fully funded under Labor, it will be fully funded and it can be fully funded if the government accepts Labor's amendments to this bill. The only question we have before the parliament today is whether it is every low-income Australian who has their tax increased or whether the government finally acknowledges that Labor has a plan that is better and fairer on the budget. People with disabilities, their families and carers understand that Labor designed, funded and delivered the NDIS, and they know that Labor will always protect it. We know how important the NDIS is to improving the lives of people with disability across Australia. If this government takes the decision to accept Labor's amendments to this bill, we can take out any uncertainty around NDIS funding that has been created by the different choices this government made for the savings that Labor made when in government to fully fund the NDIS. We know the government's decisions to cut taxes for millionaires and to cut taxes for corporations amounted to $80 billion worth of tax cuts. This government is deciding it now wants to create a circumstance where low-income Australians have a substantial tax increase. In the context of having low wages growth and higher costs of living, it is fundamentally unfair. We know that is fundamentally unfair and the government needs to accept Labor's amendments either in this House or in the other place as we go forward with this bill. If we're to take this NDIS forward we must make sure that under this government people with disabilities actually get the services they deserve and were promised by this reform.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (18:04): I rise to speak against the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017. Whatever else this bill may be about, what it is not about is the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is a matter of bipartisan policy between both the major parties. From the very moment that the NDIS was conceived and established, it has been fully funded by a range of policy measures, which the member for Ballarat took us through a moment ago, and by bilateral agreements that have been pursued with the state governments both by the former Labor government and by this government. To assert that there is any lack of funding flies in the face of the bilateral agreements with the states which this government has absolutely pursued. So there is no question that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded.
What this bill is about is increasing tax. Ironically, given that this is a conservative government, it is also a high-taxing government which has seen a greater share of GDP being involved in taxation than during any government since the Howard government. Indeed, this government, in this year's budget, has introduced $20 billion worth of new taxes. As I said, the tax-to-GDP ratio is higher now than it ever was during the former Rudd-Gillard government. So this is a measure to increase tax, and it comes from this conservative government.
This bill comes against the backdrop of an issue which is at the forefront of what's being experienced by working Australians and, indeed, the working people of market economies around the world, and that is inequality. It is a lack of fairness, as the member for Ballarat rightly said. We are seeing inequality growing markedly. Since 1975, the earnings growth of those in the top 10 per cent of our economy has been three times that of the bottom 10 per cent. The labour share of the economy now is at a 60-year low. In the last generation, we've seen the top one per cent of our economy double their share of national income. We've seen low wages growth in the last few years, such that right now wages are growing at the lowest rate since that stat began being recorded back in the 1990s, and homeownership now is at a record 60-year low.
All of those indications speak to the growing inequality that we find within our community, which increasingly is seeing Australians being divided between the haves and the have-nots. I can tell that in my electorate there are many who are feeling the raw end of that equation. Having seen job losses at places like Alcoa and Ford—with the removal of the car industry in this country, which sadly came to an end last Friday—they have seen their share of our national prosperity decline, and they feel it greatly.
It's against that backdrop that we have this bill, which seeks to impose taxation upon them. It really is a particularly perverse outcome that we see emanating from the bill which is before the parliament today. It is, as I said, a bill which is fundamentally the work of a high-taxing government, but it is also a bill which flies in the face of dealing with this fundamental challenge which presents itself to our country today, the challenge of inequality. This bill, in combination with the removal of the deficit levy in this year's budget from those earning more than $180,000 a year, sees the remarkable result that people who are earning less than average wages actually get a tax increase by virtue of the bill that we are debating right now whilst, on the other hand, those who are earning more than $180,000 a year, including those who might be earning $1 million a year, actually get a tax break by virtue of this government's proposal to remove the deficit levy on that cohort of income earners. That is the way in which this government has sought to deal with the issue of inequality in our society. I reckon that, if you are a person who had been working at Alcoa and you have lost your job, are living in a suburb like Corio or Norlane, are on the lowest of incomes and see that this is the formula that your government is putting before you to increase your taxation whilst at the same time providing a tax break for those people who might be earning $1 million a year, that absolutely flies in the face of what we see in this country as being fair. There is nothing fair about that equation at all.
That's why we are seeking to amend the bill which is in front of the House today to provide that those earning less than $87,000 a year would not have to pay the increase in the Medicare levy which is proposed by the bill before us now. The difference between our proposition and what this bill provides as the policy of this government as enunciated in this year's budget, in terms of relieving those people having to pay the increase in the Medicare levy, is a removal of a tax hike on seven million Australians. That's the number of Australians who are earning less than $87,000 a year. Right now you can be earning as little as $21,000 a year and you will be struck with an increase in your taxation as a result of the bill in front of us today, which is why we seek to amend it to remove that requirement and so this increase will not apply to those who are earning less than $87,000 a year. As it stands right now, research from the ANU demonstrates that twice as many households would be worse off if the amendment that we are proposing is not put in place compared to the situation if the amendment that we're proposing is ultimately passed by this parliament.
In the same breath, what we also seek to do—and we will be moving amendments that provide for this as well—is have the deficit levy, which applies to those earning more than $180,000 a year, continue. On the one hand you have the government seeking to remove the deficit levy, providing a tax cut for those earning more than $180,000, and imposing a tax increase for those earning less than $87,000—indeed, earning as little as $21,000. On the other hand you have Labor's proposition, which would see those earning more than $180,000 keep paying the tax that they are currently paying and those earning less than $87,000 also remain on the tax rate they're currently paying and not be slugged with the increase which is being put forward by this bill and which was contained in this year's budget. That is an approach to fairness which stands in stark contrast to what we have seen from this government.
It's not only in respect of this legislation that we see the failure of this government to deal with the question of fairness. At the same time as it put this legislation before this parliament, we also see this government supporting a cut to penalty rates for those who absolutely need that extra income in their pockets. This government has form on attacking people who need income the most. This government is not only failing to deal with that huge challenge being faced by our nation and market economies around the world; it is making things much worse. The response is to put in place this provision which gives a tax cut to those on the highest income and puts a tax increase on those on the lowest income at the same time as there is a cut to penalty rates for people who absolutely need to take home the income they earn through penalty rates on a Sunday.
I said at the outset that what this is not about is funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is a matter of bipartisan policy—the NDIS has been funded from the moment it was created. And it is, for us in Geelong, something which is particularly important for two reasons. The National Disability Insurance Scheme began its life back in 2013 at Barwon, based on Geelong, as one of its two trial sites. The other trial site was in the Hunter, based on Newcastle. We've had it in place since 2013, and we've been able to see firsthand, over the more than four years since then, how this has changed the reality of people who have a disability. It has changed their reality and their experience of life. We have seen how they can enjoy life to the fullest and, more than that, contribute to the economy in a way that they were unable to do before the National Disability Insurance Scheme came into being.
That, after all, was the basis of the Productivity Commission's original support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, because what it provided for was the unlocking of the enormous potential of those with a disability in our community to contribute to our economy. We in Geelong have seen the benefits of that since 2013, so we know as well as any community in this country how important the National Disability Insurance Scheme is and why it's important that it be fully funded. And it has been. It was fully funded by Labor and it has continued to be funded by this government. So the idea that this is somehow necessary in order to bring about that funding is completely wrong.
But the other reason why this particularly pertains to those of us in Geelong is that it is also the site of the National Disability Insurance Agency's headquarters—the entity charged with the responsibility of running the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Indeed, as I go for a run most mornings in Geelong, I am watching the NDIA's headquarters rise as the tallest building now in Geelong. That construction started earlier this year. It's expected to be completed later next year. There is $120 million worth of investment in that building, providing hundreds of jobs. The office will be the home of 560 people, ultimately, in the headquarters of the National Disability Insurance Agency. As I said, since 2013 they have been responsible for supporting almost 100,000 people with a disability around the country—a cohort of them from Geelong. By 2020 it's expected that that number will rise to 460,000 people around Australia. Indeed, the agency will be responsible for delivering the full $22 billion National Disability Insurance Scheme.
The NDIS is a critically important scheme for this country. The agency is now a fundamental part of the fabric of Geelong. We see that in an employment context and in the way the agency engages within the community of Geelong right now. Increasingly, we are seeing in a very physical sense, with the new headquarters rising against the skyline, what will become the home to the NDIA.
But not for a second should anyone be under any illusions that this bill needs to be passed in order for all of that to continue to occur. The NDIS has been fully funded from the outset—fully funded, as I said, by Labor, and, to be fair, by this government as well. Ultimately, what this bill is about is taxation. It is a bill that in its unamended form is deeply unfair, taxing those who earn the least and providing a tax break to those who earn the most. It's for those reasons that we will seek an amendment in this place to restore fairness to this bill and attempt to continue the process of restoring fairness to our taxation system by exempting those who earn under $87,000 from a tax increase and making sure those earning more than $180,000 continue to pay the tax which they have paid up until now. If we do that, and if the government supports us in those amendments, it will indeed make the bill a whole lot fairer.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (18:19): I thank the member for Corio and indeed a whole number of speakers on our side of the parliament who have been absolutely spot on to say that the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 and the cognate bills before the House say it all about a government so desperate to cut taxes on the top end of the town that they're prepared to jack up taxes substantially on people who work and struggle in this country. They want to jack up income taxes on middle Australia so that they can fund this showering of largesse on the top end of town, whether it be through the company tax cuts or through the personal income tax cuts if you make more than $180,000. All of it is funded by this raid, really, on the family budgets of middle Australia. The Australian people know that this government has form when it comes to this kind of behaviour—this kind of damaging and dangerous trickle-down agenda. They know that this is a government of the top end of town, for the top end of town and by the top end of town.
What makes it especially galling is to hear this rubbish from that side of the House that somehow this is about funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is total and absolute rubbish. They should not be using Australians with a disability and the NDIS—which we designed under the member for Jagajaga, the member for Maribyrnong, the member for Lilley and others—in this debate. We care deeply about the NDIS; we fully funded the thing. For Australians with a disability to be told that they are the excuse of those opposite to jack up taxes on middle Australia to fund top-end tax cuts for multinational corporations, the big four banks and people who earn over $180,000 is offensive. And I think a lot of people in the community are angry about that. Australians know better than the lies that they are being told about the funding of the NDIS. They know that the NDIS was funded. They know that Labor cares deeply about it. They know that this is more about taking from those who work and struggle to pay for corporate and high-income earner largesse at the top of the tax system. They know it because this is the government's defining feature—to jack up taxes on middle Australia in order to give big tax breaks to the top end of town.
Time after time in question time, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister say: 'We're the party of lower taxes. The worst thing you can do is jack up taxes; that would be very damaging to the economy.' When they say that, they aren't referring to people across the board; they don't mean people that we represent; they don't mean people on middle incomes in this country. They want lower taxes for people who earn the highest incomes and for multinational corporations and the four big banks, but they want higher income taxes for people on middle incomes.
That's why middle-income earners have the most to fear—not just from these bills, as important as they are, but from the entire approach of those opposite. That middle Australia has the most to fear is no longer just the opinion of people on the Labor side of politics. This is now the view of the independent Parliamentary Budget Office. The PBO released on 11 October some damning statistics about the approach of those opposite. The PBO, which is independent of either side of politics in this place, said that everybody will have their taxes increase over the next four years but especially people on middle incomes. People on middle incomes will bear the brunt of the agenda of those opposite.
Strangely, when you think about our challenges—when you think about wages growth at record lows, cuts to penalty rates, record underemployment and living standards having gone backwards in the last national accounts—it is astounding. It is astonishing that those opposite want to give the biggest tax increases to people who average $46,000 a year in personal income. This is the extraordinary outcome of the trickle-down ideology from that side of the House, which pretends that the only way to grow the economy is to give the biggest tax breaks to those who need them least and to make people who work and struggle pay more income tax.
When they have a government like this, it is no wonder the Australian people want the rules of the economy rewritten. They want the rules of the economy rewritten to support inclusive growth, not as a slogan but as a governing principle. They want the rules of the economy rewritten so there's genuine reward for effort, not cuts to wages for people who work on weekends, and they want the rules rewritten so that there is genuinely a decent social safety net for those left behind and those at risk of being left behind. We say to middle Australia, from this dispatch box, with colleague after colleague making the same point, that we stand with middle Australia. We do not think that people earning under $87,000 a year should cop a tax increase at the same time as those opposite want to give a tax cut to the top end of town—to multinationals and high-income earners. We don't think that's fair, we don't think that's good economic policy and we will not be supporting it. Instead we'll be supporting the amendment moved by the member for McMahon.
As others have said, there are 11 bills in the package that we are debating at the moment. The first 10 give effect to the increase in income tax—the 0.5 percentage point increase in the Medicare levy to 2½ per cent. They change the Medicare levy rate and make all of the consequential changes as well. The net effect, of course, is that people on low and middle incomes who are already struggling with the cost of living—with energy prices, for example, as my colleague at the table, the member for Port Adelaide, knows all too well—will face more acute cost of living pressures if these bills are passed by the parliament this week. Something like seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 a year will get that tax hike. It will be imposed on vulnerable Australians earning as little as $21,000 a year. Somebody on $55,000 a year will pay $275 extra a year in tax and somebody on $80,000 will pay an extra $400 in tax. That gives you a sense of the magnitude of what those opposite are trying to pull when it comes to taxes on middle Australia.
The 11th bill in the package is a bit different. It's about the Building Australia Fund and the Education Investment Fund. It wants to abolish both of those funds which were set up in 2008 by the former Labor government to invest in university capital and critical national transport and communications infrastructure. These funds hold something like $3.8 billion each. They're making a return for the government. They are there to invest in the things that would actually deliver growth in this economy—human capital and physical capital—to get the productivity that we need to grow the economy. They are being abolished by those opposite, again as part of this absurd claim that it's necessary to fund the NDIS. It says more about their unwillingness to invest in education and infrastructure than it says about the NDIS, so we oppose those measures as well.
The stats that I mentioned before by the Parliamentary Budget Office are the most important considerations before us as we deal with these bills that jack up taxes on middle-income Australians. As I said before, the biggest increase will be for people earning around $46,000 a year, but everyone will get a tax hike over the next four years. Average-income earners will see their tax jacked up by 3.2 percentage points—much higher than the increase of two percentage points that is expected for the highest earners—and tax rates for middle-income earners are expected to hit at least a 20-year high. You can see the sort of damage that these tax cuts will do in middle Australia.
We shouldn't pretend that it's all bracket creep, although those opposite would like to pretend sometimes that this damning analysis from the PBO is all bracket creep. That's an important part of it, but, as the PBO itself said, average tax rates are projected to increase due to policy changes—most notably the policy decision to increase the Medicare levy from 2019-20. The PBO report supports the independent research from the ANU which shows that twice as many households would be worse off under the coalition's plan than under Labor's alternative plan, which is captured by the amendment that the member for McMahon moved.
With the economic situation that I described earlier—record low wages, cuts to penalty rates, record underemployment and declining living standards—it is really quite extraordinary that those opposite would contemplate handouts to the top end of town at the expense of millions of ordinary workers in this economy. That's what they're doing: giving a $65 billion handout to multinationals and the big four banks. The big four banks get something like $10 billion or $11 billion of that $65 billion. That says it all, really, in one number. Even then, they won't get the growth dividend that they claim from that. Their own Treasury says that the dividend from those company tax cuts would be one per cent in 20 years. That is 0.05 per cent a year, which is not enough bang for all of those bucks. There is a $16,400 a year tax cut for somebody making a million dollars in the income tax system at the same time as somebody on $55,000 pays $275 more a year. I could go on, but people understand what's happening here: money out of the pockets of middle Australia, onto the bottom line of multinational corporations. At the same time, we have all these other cuts in the budget: $17 billion out of schools; $3.8 billion out of universities; a $1 billion cut to the pensioner energy supplement; and a $2.2 billion cut to GP, specialist and allied health services. The list, unfortunately for Australians, goes on and on and on and on. So we have these handouts to the top end of town. We have these income tax hikes and cuts which affect people on low and middle incomes in this country.
As I said before, it is shameful that those opposite try to pretend this is somehow about the NDIS. The NDIS was funded. We created it on this side of the House. We are proud of it. We know how important it is to the lives of people with a disability and their families and loved ones. The costs of the NDIS are already built into the budget bottom line. They have been since the 2013 budget. The government has been reporting those costs for the past four years.
Very inconveniently for those opposite, the Productivity Commission came out with a very important report—I think last week—where they said that the issue with the NDIS was not the funding. The costs are not blowing out. The issue is with the implementation, whether it be the IT or the handling of complex cases. The challenge in the NDIS has not been the funding. The funding has evolved as we expected. The challenge has been in the rollout. We want to make sure that it is rolled out effectively. Enough of this rubbish about it not being funded! Enough of this rubbish that the costs are blowing out! The Productivity Commission said that the costs are broadly on track.
The 2013 budget, as others have mentioned in this place—principally the member for Jagajaga, who was such a key architect of the NDIS—set out the 10-year costs in 2013. It set out all the difficult decisions. She worked with other members in here to fund the NDIS. There were issues around changes to the fringe benefits tax, personal income tax offsets, tobacco excise and import processing charges. There were lots of those kinds of savings, difficult decisions that were taken then to make sure that we raised something like $66 billion over 10 years to pay for what we considered to be a very high priority, which was fully funding the NDIS.
We have an alternative when it comes to income tax as well. We believe in budget repair which is fair, but as part of that we want to make sure that the most vulnerable people in the economy and in our society are not asked to carry the can for the budget failures of those opposite. We do not support hiking income taxes for people earning up to $87,000 a year. We'll cop it over $87,000 a year. Our priority has to be people on middle and low incomes in this country.
Our plan is better and fairer. It is better for the budget. Our combination of leaving people under $87,000 alone and maintaining the deficit levy at the top end raises $4 billion more than the government over 10 years, which is important when you consider that we have record net debt for the next two years and record gross debt for as far as the eye can see, and rising. On Friday we had something like $506 billion in gross debt, more than half a trillion dollars, a new record under those opposite.
So we're conscious of those things. We know that we need to be sensible with the budget. We think there are better ways of going about it. We should not be jacking up taxes on people on middle incomes. We should not be shovelling $65 billion in the direction of the biggest companies in this country, including the big banks. We shouldn't be shovelling $16,000 a year towards people who are earning $1 million. We have a better alternative. True to form, it is fairer and more responsible. Those opposite should support it. They should stop pretending that these tax hikes are to fund the NDIS when they're just part of a dangerous and damaging trickle-down agenda.
Debate adjourned.
Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (18:35): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
At the 2016 election, the coalition government made a commitment to the Australian people to implement tougher penalties for gun-related crime.
The criminal misuse and trafficking of firearms is a deadly crime and an ongoing threat to the safety of our communities.
Although there is no single group which dominates the sale and supply of guns in the illegal market, the illicit use and possession of firearms is a significant element of organised criminal activity in Australia.
Firearms are regularly used to commit acts of violence.
The imperishable nature of firearms and the ongoing supply of firearms to the illicit market mean they remain a serious threat to the Australian community.
Now, more than ever, we must do everything in our power to ensure the ongoing safety and security of all Australians.
The government amendments to this bill would introduce a mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment for offenders convicted of trafficking firearms or firearms parts under the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Mandatory minimum sentences send a strong and clear message that gun-related crime and violence will not be tolerated.
The mandatory minimums will capture all offenders who engage in the illicit firearms trade, not just those who trade in 50 firearms or parts.
These mandatory minimum sentences are not without safeguards. They do not include specified non-parole periods and they also allow a discount for offenders who plead guilty or who cooperate with law enforcement agencies.
Increasing the maximum penalties, including life imprisonment for the aggravated offences, does not guarantee the judiciary will impose an appropriate minimum sentence.
Unless a mandatory minimum sentence is introduced, it will remain possible for low sentences to be issued to offenders.
When this bill was debated in the other place last year, the government—in good faith—supported amendments related to increased sentences for firearms trafficking. This was obviously in line with our election commitment.
But again, unless there is a mandatory minimum sentence, it is possible for low sentences to be given to offenders who engage in this terrible crime.
So we call on members to support this important measure to send the strongest possible signal that we want to crack down on people who smuggle in guns.
This bill is just one of the measures that the government has taken to address the serious problems arising from illegal firearms.
For example, we recently oversaw the enormous success of the National Firearms Amnesty—which has seen more than 51,000 guns surrendered. This was an outstanding result, and shows how important this initiative was in reducing unregistered firearms from our streets. This was the first national amnesty since the 1996 Port Arthur buyback.
In addition, the government has invested $116 million in the National Anti-Gangs Squad, with strike teams now in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia and liaison officers in Tasmania, the Northern Territory and here in the ACT. Since the introduction of the squads in 2013, more than 5,700 illegal guns and gun parts have been seized.
The government is also investing an additional $25.4 million over three years to enhance the Australian Federal Police's capacity to detect and seize illegal guns by expanding the National Forensic Rapid Lab to crack down on the illegal firearms market.
This government is determined to tackle illegal firearms and making the Australian community safer.
This bill introduces amendments to reflect the seriousness with which this government is addressing criminal activity and the gravity of firearms offences.
The combination of mandatory minimum penalties and increased maximum penalties sends a strong message that the illegal trafficking of guns will not be tolerated.
These measures will be a strong deterrent against people seeking to illegally import firearms and their parts into Australia, with all the harm we know that illegal trade in guns can do.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (18:39): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2017, and I have been waiting about eight months now to do so. What the minister failed to mention in his remarks is that this bill was amended and adopted by the Senate in February. That's eight months for which this country could have had tougher, stronger, better gun laws, supported by almost every single political party represented in this country, and yet, due to the bloody-mindedness of the minister on the other side of the table, who has rudely walked out for this contribution to the debate, we've not had those laws in place. It's not because of the detailed amendments to this bill that the government is moving. I have the amendments in my hand here. They're two pages long. They could have been lodged many, many months ago. But how can the government come into this chamber and talk about how seriously it takes strong gun laws when, for eight months, it has had bipartisan support to do something about this?
I've written to the minister multiple times. I wrote to him first in May to ask why there was this ridiculously lengthy delay in bringing these forward. I wrote to him again in October, after the minister, in a disgraceful act, I must say, chose to politicise the tragic shooting in Las Vegas. I did not do that, but I did write to the minister to ask why, if he was so concerned about gun violence in Australia, he had not brought this bill back into the parliament.
Everyone in this chamber, everyone in this House, everyone who works in this building, should know that, for eight months, this country could have had tougher, stronger gun laws—gun laws that had bipartisan support—but, because the minister didn't want to be ashamed to have to come into this chamber and support what is essentially a Labor-written bill, we have not had those laws in place. Such is the height that politics takes over good public policy with the minister who operates on the other side of the chamber.
The opposition will be supporting the bill as amended by the Senate, and I say that this is essentially a Labor bill because we took a piece of political legislation—a piece of legislation that was written only because the minister believed that Labor would not support it—and we amended it. We made it tougher. We made it stronger. We put in place life sentences for serious gun traffickers. We supported the Nick Xenophon Team in the other place, who also sought to strengthen the bill. Those are amendments that the government backed. Now what we have before us is essentially a very good law. It's a good law that has support right across the parliament. I am very concerned, though, to see the minister move amendments—amendments that have already essentially been rejected by the Senate. Here he is playing petty politics with gun safety again. He's moving amendments to this bill that he thinks Labor will reject, so they're going to go back to the Senate, where the Senate will reject them again. This is pathetic.
I believe we do have problems with gun violence in this country. I want our community to be safer. I want to get more guns off our streets. I want people who seriously traffic in guns to go to jail, and, if a court deems it necessary, to go to jail for life. Yet the minister stands in the path of those reforms because he wants to play little boy political games in this parliament. And I think that is absolutely disgraceful.
There are 600,000 illegal weapons in the illicit market in this country at the moment. Ten thousand of these weapons are handguns. They are the weapon of choice for gangs and criminals. We do need tougher sentences for gun traffickers. That's why Labor worked with the crossbenchers in the Senate to create a bill that ultimately the government supported.
We first proposed amendments that are similar to those that form the basis of the bill supported by the Senate in 2012. There were mass trafficking incidents in 2012 that we did not believe were being appropriately dealt with by the courts. In recent years, and five years on from that problem, the problem remains. Law enforcement recently intercepted a consignment from the United States of six fully automatic assault rifles and 96 semi-automatic handgun frames bound for Australia. These are incredibly serious crimes. One of the comments that I always get from law enforcement on this very important problem is that the issue with guns is that, once a gun is in the country, it's essentially here, as a tool that can be used for crime, indefinitely, because guns last for a very, very long time.
Last year, an alarming 3,542 firearms were stolen from legal gun owners and entered the illicit firearms market. That is 633 more illicit guns flooding into that firearms market than the previous year. In the home state of the Minister for Justice, Western Australia, the number of firearm weapons stolen in the space of a year doubled. What we are concerned about is these guns falling into the wrong hands. We need our law enforcement and our prosecutors to be able to pursue more serious charges for the most egregious type of firearms trafficking, such as the examples I have mentioned.
This is a tough bill that Labor amended in the Senate to contain life sentences for the very worst kinds of firearms traffickers. When the government introduced this bill in the Senate it contained mandatory minimum sentences. It was a flimsy piece of law. It was mandatory minimums and not a lot more. I talked about how we worked with the crossbenchers. It was very hard in the Senate to take this piece of petty politicking and create a bill that actually works. That is the bill that has been sent back to this chamber from the Senate and that we will be supporting. We want tougher penalties for gun smugglers, so we proposed sweeping amendments that were supported by the government. The aggravated offences will ensure that the worst traffickers can be sent to jail for life. Those aggravated offences apply to the trafficking of more than 50 firearms, firearms parts or a combination of firearms and firearms parts within Australia in a six-month period or the trafficking of more than 50 firearms, firearms parts or a combination of firearms and firearms parts into and out of Australia in a six-month period. Both of those offences will attract a maximum of life imprisonment or 7,500 penalty units or both. We selected those penalties because those are the penalties that apply to the trafficking of controlled drugs and the importing and exporting of commercial quantities of border control drugs or plants under divisions 302 and 307 of the Criminal Code. The number of firearms or firearms parts for these aggravated offences which Labor put into this bill in the Senate is to be calculated over a six-month period. This is quite specifically aimed at capturing a process where criminals structure their trafficking arrangements to avoid detection by sending small consignments on a regular basis. These measures were previously proposed by Labor in 2012. They passed the House of Representatives in 2012 with the support of the coalition. In opposition we put them into the Senate and they passed again with the support of the coalition. That is the part of the bill that Labor will be supporting.
I have talked a bit about the letters I have written to the minister. I will say again how frustrating it is for those of us in this chamber who are trying to get a good policy outcome, and to create laws that will better protect the Australian community, to see silly politics being played, especially with a matter that is as important as national security. I said that I wrote to the minister. I've written to him twice about this. It is good that, after those long eight months I've been waiting to make this speech on the second reading, the bill has come back to us here.
The coalition has two choices. It can pass the bill as it is, as it was agreed to by the Senate. In fact, we could have a vote in the parliament this evening to accept that this becomes a new law—we could make this happen today. Or we could do what it appears the government is choosing to do, which is play a ridiculous political game with gun violence and gun safety by moving amendments that it thinks that Labor and the crossbenchers will not support. I mean, please: this is absolutely just pathetic.
The minister keeps coming back to his obsession with Labor. It's not Labor. A wide range of crossbenchers in the Senate took out of this bill the aspect that doesn't work, the mandatory minimums. That was done as a joint approach in the Senate. Sometimes people say that Labor's stance on mandatory minimums comes down to principle. I want to talk about something that's got not much to do with principle, and that is what works for law enforcement. My main aim as a shadow minister for justice is to create a safer community for Australians.
Now, mandatory minimums do not make us safer. In fact, there is good evidence that mandatory minimums will increase danger in the Australian community. They will do this for a few reasons. The first reason is that we have very good evidence that juries are less likely to convict the perpetrator of a crime if mandatory minimums are in place, because juries believe in the judicial process. If they know that a judge is not going to have any control over the sentence that's given to a perpetrator, they are less likely to convict that person of a crime. What that means is more gun runners on the street. I don't want gun runners on the street; I want them in jail.
We know that law enforcement officers tend to hate mandatory minimums, and the reason they do that is because mandatory minimums mean that perpetrators do not cooperate with police to bring down the kingpins and the organised crime bosses who operate these networks. We know that people who are running this sort of criminal organisation will get the junior people in the organisation to do the work that's involved in committing a crime. They are often the people who are apprehended. We need those people to cooperate with police if we want to make a serious dent in crime in this country. I'm not going to stand in this parliament and vote for a bill which is going to reduce the incentive for people to cooperate with police, as we want them to do.
A final point that I want to make about mandatory minimums is that there are unintended consequences. There's actually very good reasons why we want judges to have discretion when it comes to determining sentences. The Law Council of Australia have called repeatedly on the government to try to work with Labor to make the Australian community safer by taking the mandatory minimums out of this bill. The Law Council of Australia in fact provided some very interesting examples of what they thought were unintended consequences of the mandatory minimums that the government is now moving as amendments to this bill. I will share one of those examples, and no doubt we will get right into the detail of this as the debate continues. The example from the Law Council of Australia is as follows: a farmer who has never been overseas before goes to the US and attends a gun show. He finds a gun part that he thinks will be helpful to use when he is controlling pests back on the farm. He buys one for himself and one for his mate down the road that he intends to sell to him. He gets caught returning to Australia when he is going through Customs. He is honest with the officer and tells him that he intends to sell one of the parts to his friend. That will satisfy the elements of trafficking that are contained in this bill and he will be looking at a five-year sentence in jail. The judge will have no choice but to jail him.
This is not my view; I didn't dream this up in my office. And it's not the view of the crossbenchers who voted down the mandatory minimums in this bill in the Senate; it is the view of the Law Council of Australia, a group of eminent people who make it their business to try to create a safer community and good public policy for our country. There are other examples that have been put forward, including one where the Law Council of Australia believes that Simon Overland, the decorated Victorian police commissioner, may have put himself foul of this bill. Under the mandatory minimums that are being proposed by the government, he could face a mandatory five-year jail term.
So we don't support the mandatory minimums in this bill. We don't support them because they won't make the community safer. Juries will not convict people; they are less likely to convict people who face mandatory minimums. We want people to cooperate with law enforcement, especially in an area like this, which is so much within the purview of organised criminals in this country. And we won't do it because we don't want innocent people, or people who have committed a crime that clearly doesn't line up with a five-year jail term to end up in jail. And it has a bigger consequence than the things I've just talked about: it risks undermining the justice system. When Australians who trust us to make good laws for them see arbitrary consequences from laws, they don't have faith in this parliament to do its job correctly, and that's something I cannot support.
So the Liberals and the coalition on the other side of the House have two choices. They can vote for the bill that was sent back from the Senate: a good piece of law, a law that was mainly written by Labor but with the assistance of some amendments made by crossbenchers up in the Senate. It's a good law that will make the community safer. In fact, it's a good law that could have been in place since February. It's a good law that the government voted for.
We could have this law in place tonight in this parliament, but instead what do we see? The justice minister comes in and tries to play politics once again. What is he trying to achieve? If he thinks he's going to win this debate by preventing this from becoming Australian law tonight, by sending back to the Senate a bill he knows the Senate will not agree to, then he is making a mockery of his position and he is showing himself to be the petty politician that he is. I wouldn't bother appealing to the justice minister on this because I think we all know his politics. We understand that, and we saw his silly performances in question time.
There are good people on the other side of this parliament. One of them is the member for La Trobe, who served in law enforcement, and I greatly respect the work he has done to try to protect our community. I want him and the other people on the other side of the House who care about good public policy to understand the choice that the leaders of their party are making for them. They can choose a law that could be in place tonight, providing better protection for the Australian community, providing better laws to prosecute people who are running guns or who are helping organised criminals in this country, or they can play the petty politics.
There are Australians who feel that this chamber is not serving them appropriately. There are people who feel that they are losing faith in the political process because we create these ridiculous stalemates without really seeking an outcome. We need to prove those people wrong. We need to show them that this chamber can cooperate. If we're ever going to cooperate, it's going to be on this bill, as amended by the Senate, which has bipartisan support. The only thing standing between this becoming Australian law—a good law—is the petty politics of the justice minister.
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (18:56): I have to pick up the shadow minister on a few points. I and my colleague beside me—the member for Wide Bay, a former police officer—have had a lot to do with juries. In my time I found that when they dealt with firearms offences they were pretty tough. I've got no doubt if they heard the evidence that someone was trafficking firearms and they were aware that the person could get a minimum sentence of five years for trafficking, they would go along and give a guilty verdict and convict that person. The shadow minister also raised points about former Chief Commissioner Simon Overland, who I believe did take some ammunition through security. In this legislation, by my understanding, it's trafficking if you have at least 50 items or 50 firearms. So, in my belief, that example would not apply.
Can I also advise the shadow minister and the Labor Party that when you actually have very strong sentencing, in the criminal world the message goes around pretty quickly. It will go around pretty quickly that no longer should you try to bring firearms into Australia. That's why I do support this. I know the shadow minister, with her best intentions, is trying to make a point, but I say to her that, from my experience of dealing with law enforcement and police officers, they are absolutely sick and tired of having firearms on the streets. So, yes, this is a very tough approach from the Minister for Justice, but he's trying to make the point that we need to get firearms off the streets.
I'll go back in time. Through the 1980s and 1990s, we saw an increase in gun violence in Australia. There was the Hoddle Street massacre and the Queen Street massacre in Melbourne, in my home state of Victoria. There was the Milperra massacre between outlaw motorcycle gangs. Of course, no-one should ever forget the Port Arthur massacre, a moment in 1996 that will be forever ingrained into our nation's memory for the saddest of reasons: 35 people were killed and 23 wounded. The gunman opened fire on tourists with two semiautomatic rifles. Australians were collectively horrified, and so came John Howard's National Firearms Agreement and the gun buyback scheme. Let's compare this with the US, where there have been 91 mass shootings in the past 35 years, and most of the killers got their guns legally. Most recently we saw the terrible scenes in Las Vegas, with at least 59 people dead and at least 527 people injured. That's horrific. Of course, there are many reasons terrible scenes like this occur, but one very clear thing we can point to in this case is lax gun laws.
In Australia we have always prided ourselves on a tough stance towards firearms, at least in the last two decades. While we have some of the strongest firearm laws in the world, there is no place for complacency. We need to make sure we don't let up or sleep on this issue. This government has a strong record of tackling gun-related crime, including introducing legislation for mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking, something the federal Labor Party continues to oppose. Since coming to government, we have taken decisive action by investing $88 million to boost inspections at our borders, establishing the National Anti-Gangs Squad—and I put that policy together, and I congratulate Minister Michael Keenan for the way it's been implemented—unlocking the proceeds of crime accounts, establishing the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, and cracking down on legal loopholes which allowed criminals trafficking firearm parts to escape prosecution. What criminals try to do, rather than move an entire firearm, is bring in the pieces, and that's something this government is tackling. We have also committed $25.4 million to boost the AFP's capacity to detect and seize illegal firearms by expanding the national forensic rapid lab.
The Labor Party want to water down the bill by opposing the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal firearm trafficking. The Labor Party don't want to get tough on gang criminals; it's all talk. The Labor Party can't decide what they want either. They proposed mandatory minimum sentences for people-smuggling offences in 2010, yet now they say they're against them in principle. Bill Shorten wanted gun runners to face life in jail earlier this month, yet they seek to amend this bill to remove mandatory minimum sentencing. Which is it for Labor? Do you support illegal gun runners or do you not?
Regardless of Labor's indecision on this matter, we as a government need to move forward and make decisive moves to demonstrate that, just as we were in 1996, Australia is resolute in its attitudes towards safe, controlled gun ownership. The bill amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 to put in place, in division 360, aggravated offences of trafficking 50 or more firearms or firearm parts within a six-month period within Australia—that is 50 parts, not just one bullet, as said by the shadow minister—and, in division 361, trafficking 50 or more firearms or firearm parts within a six-month period into or out of Australia. A maximum penalty of life in prison or a fine of 7,500 penalty units, or both, will apply to those offences. The bill will increase the maximum penalty for base offences of trafficking fewer than 50 firearms or firearm parts from 20 years imprisonment to 30 years imprisonment.
The mandatory minimum sentences will apply to trafficking firearms and firearm parts within Australia, in division 360 of the Criminal Code, and trafficking firearms and firearm parts into and out of Australia, in division 361 of the Criminal Code. The amendments also allow a court to discount the mandatory minimum sentence if the offender pleads guilty to the offence and cooperates with law enforcement agents. So, if they plead guilty and also cooperate with law enforcement—potentially giving up the Mr Bigs, as the Labor Party mentioned—that is a safeguard in there. The mandatory minimum sentences reflect the serious nature and potential consequences of supplying firearms and firearm parts to the illicit market.
In addition, the introduction of mandatory minimum offences of five years imprisonment for these firearms-trafficking offences means that we're delivering on our election commitment to the Australian people, who want us to keep our commitments. We promised that we would keep illegal guns off the streets in our election policy to keep communities safe, released on 26 June 2016. This policy was given a mandate by the people during the 2016 election, and the Labor Party need to stop standing in the way.
These offences ensure that firearms traffickers can be held responsible for the consequences of supplying firearms into the illicit market from both domestic and international sources. The aggravated offences and increased maximum penalties aim to more accurately reflect the serious nature and potential consequences of supplying firearms and firearms parts to the illegal market. The government believes mandatory minimum sentences are necessary and will act as a strong deterrent—I will say that again: a strong deterrent—for those who would otherwise engage in illicit firearms trafficking. Don't go soft on gun control, Labor. We have a strong history of fine gun laws in Australia. Don't be the group of people who stand in the way of continuing that tradition.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (19:04): Around 800 firearms and related items, including pistols and machine-guns, were recently surrendered by Canberrans to the Australian Federal Police during the National Firearms Amnesty. Among the firearms that were given to the police was a German ME8 maxim machine-gun, captured by the Australian Light Horse in 1918. We will be commemorating the great work of the Australian Light Horse next week at Beersheba. The German machine-gun was captured by the Australian Light Horse in 1918 and was shipped back to Australia. Before the establishment of the Australian War Records Section in May 1917, the collection of war trophies and relics by Australian units was carried out in accordance with British War Office regulations. The British War Office established a committee to deal with the disposal of trophies and relics. It stated that the best trophies would be selected for a British national war museum. Why doesn't that surprise us colonials? The rest of the trophies would then be distributed among other countries. There was a resistance to this from Australia and, by the end of 1917, the Australian War Records Section controlled the administration of all war trophies captured by Australian units. Those trophies fell into two categories. The first consisted of large trophies, such as artillery pieces, machine-guns and vehicles, which required little protection from the rain. The second group consisted of smaller trophies like daggers, bombs and ammunition.
It wasn't until July 1919 that the Australian War Museum Committee decided a selection of relics and trophies would go on display at the Australian War Museum, now the Australian War Memorial, just over the lake, and the remainder would be divided amongst the states, with a state trophy committee established to administer the relics and trophies across Australia. These committees included one member of the House of Representatives, one Australian Imperial Force officer, one senator, one state government museum representative and the director of the Australian War Museum. The distribution system chosen by all the states was according to the size of the population and the size of the town. For example, towns other than a capital city with a population above 10,000—people would have heard this on ABC Radio the other day—were allocated two artillery pieces and two machine-guns. Towns with a population between 3,000 and 10,000 were allocated an artillery piece, and so on.
That brings me back to the German ME8 maxim machine-gun. As the story goes, the machine-gun was gifted to a town in Victoria and, not long after that, it went missing. After so many years, it has finally been handed in during the gun amnesty here in Canberra. The Australian Federal Police has since donated the machine-gun to the Australian War Memorial. So, in a way, we have a connection going right back to the War Museum, the commemoration of Beersheba and the connection with the Australian Light Horse.
The amnesty this year was the first since the Howard government amnesty that followed the absolutely horrific massacre at Port Arthur, which really shocked Australia to its core. With 50,000 guns handed in across Australia, we still have a long way to go before we truly rid our communities of illegal firearms. There is still a long way to go, but at least Australia again participated in the latest amnesty and we're getting these wonderful stories and these wonderful relics from our history showing up as part of the process. Most importantly, we are getting rid of guns from our communities.
The violence that's happening in my community—and we're talking about 10 to 15 minutes down the road from Parliament House—means that I can say, yes, I do support tougher penalties for firearms trafficking. This year, suburbs in the south of Canberra have been subject to a spate of incidents involving guns. A lot of people who are listening to this broadcast tonight would consider Canberra to be nirvana—it is paradise—but we have pockets of disadvantage and we have incidents of violence. We've had a number of incidents in recent history involving guns. In July, a car was set on fire before shots were fired into a home in Kambah and, less than a week later, police confirmed that 27 shots from a high-powered rifle were fired into a Waramanga house. And just last Tuesday a man was shot in the groin and shoulder—his young family were terrified—and two cars were set alight in the front yard of his Fisher home, in Canberra's south, as part of a targeted attack. This Fisher story, the Kambah story and the Waramanga story are of great concern. These incidents come up again and again at my coffee catch-ups and mobile offices, and I've had a number of emails on it. Canberrans are very concerned about these gun attacks. With this latest one, just a week or so ago at a Fisher home, two young children were at home at the time. It is a great concern.
It is because of incidents like these that Labor supports tougher penalties for firearms trafficking. The difference between the government and Labor isn't so great, but where we do differ is in how we would achieve that goal. We won't support ineffective measures. If we are going to be tough on firearms trafficking then let's introduce maximum penalties not mandatory minimum sentences. I call on the government to consider the amendments proposed by Labor to this bill. In its current form the bill only serves a political outcome. It helps the government fulfil a 2016 campaign commitment—it ticks that box—but the government has had mandatory minimum sentences as a pillar of its crime prevention policy since 2013. And since 2013 any attempt for mandatory minimum sentences to be applied in legislation has failed. The government has tried to get its mandatory minimum sentences through parliament not once but twice and they have been rejected not once but twice. So I'm wondering why the government seems to think that the third time will be the charm. Why is it trying again? What has changed? Is it because the government lost control on guns and now needs to appear tougher than it really is?
Under the government's watch, a record number of weapons have flooded the illicit market. Right now, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates that there are more than 260,000 firearms in the illicit firearms market and possibly as many as 600,000. They estimate that 10,000 of these are handguns. We saw 50,000 guns handed in in the most recent gun amnesty, but that's just a drop in the bucket when we're looking at 260,000 firearms in the illicit market and possibly as many as 600,000. It is estimated that 10,000 of those are handguns. There were 50,000 guns handed in, some of them with a really rich and interesting history. That's just a drop in the bucket.
In the past year, we've also seen savage cuts to the Australian Federal Police abroad. Today's question time was less than pleasant in a range of ways. We heard the member for Hotham, the shadow minister for justice, talking about the fact that the AFP had admitted during Senate estimates that cuts had been made and that had affected its ability to perform its operations, particularly in relation to illicit drugs. As I said, question time today was very unfortunate. The allegations that were made against Labor were absolutely appalling, incredibly low. Hopefully, we won't see a repeat of that tomorrow. As I mentioned, in question time we heard today about the cuts to the AFP here in Australia and also abroad. There have been reports indicating that the number of AFP officers overseas has dropped by 63 per cent in the last year, which is a significant number.
We know that organised crime groups operate within our region, so at a time when we should be tackling these threats and ensuring that we have the resources to do so, we're seeing more cuts by this government. The government is too divided on the issue of guns to take any meaningful action. That is the nub of the problem here. The Adler shotgun proved to be a hugely contentious issue for the government, to the extent that it caused the Nationals to split from the Liberals on the floor of the Senate. We saw Liberals come out in favour of weaker gun laws, in complete contradiction to the strong gun laws that former Prime Minister John Howard put in place and of which he was so proud.
The thing that was so extraordinary about Howard at the time was the fact that he showed leadership. There was a very strong reaction amongst some sectors of the community—the gun lobby, farmers and others—who were opposed to what John Howard, the former Prime Minister, was doing, and yet he showed leadership, knowing that what he was doing was the right thing
Since then, we've had this third attempt by the coalition to pass mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking. But things haven't changed so much since the last time these sentences were considered and the last time these sentences were opposed in this place. Some of the reasons why mandatory minimum sentencing continues to be opposed are that it contravenes the doctrine of the separation of powers and that it also steps on the toes of the judiciary, whose job it is to determine appropriate sentencing and penalties. Despite what the member for La Trobe says, there's little evidence that mandatory sentences actually act as a deterrent to crime. They can lead to unjust or unnecessarily harsh sentences. It's inconsistent with Australia's human rights obligations in the areas of arbitrary detention and the ability of someone to appeal sentences. And, interestingly, the proposal to introduce mandatory minimum sentences goes against the government's own advice set out in its Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers.
Given all of these reasons, and the fact that parliament has already considered and rejected the proposal for mandatory minimum sentences not once but twice, the government has still failed to make its case, as it does so often, for the third assessment of this bill. It hasn't even been able to justify the need for these provisions. The government needs to amend this bill to remove the provisions in schedule 1 relating to mandatory minimum sentences.
Removing the mandatory minimum sentences provision does not mean that Labor is soft on gun crime: quite the opposite! Labor supports the proposal in this bill to increase the maximum penalty of imprisonment to 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units. In addition to this, Labor is proposing further amendments to introduce two new aggravated offences related to firearms trafficking. They are aggravated offences for dealing in 50 or more firearms and firearms parts in a six-month period, and aggravated offences for importing or exporting 50 or more firearms and firearm parts during a six-month period. Both of the new offences attract a maximum penalty of lifetime imprisonment or 7½ thousand penalty units or both. Labor's amendments would make the maximum penalty for trafficking in firearms the same as the maximum penalty for trafficking in drugs. It sends a very strong message, stronger than mandatory minimum sentences, that trafficking large numbers of illegal firearms is just as dangerous as trafficking large quantities of drugs and that the same maximum penalties should apply.
Labor first introduced the aggravated offences in 2012 in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012. The measures passed the House with the support of the then Liberal opposition but lapsed at the end of the parliament. The proposals in this bill only contain maximum sentences of 20 years. With Labor's amendments, prosecutors could pursue tougher penalties for the worst forms of firearms trafficking. The proposals in this bill are ineffective measures to distract from the fact that the government is weak and divided on the issue of gun control. Labor is proposing tough measures to create new aggravated offences with the strongest penalty available: life imprisonment. Only Labor can be trusted to protect Australia's world-leading gun laws.
Mr HART (Bass) (19:19): I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2017, which is currently before the House. I'm proud that I have served as a former director of the Law Council of Australia. I'm proud to have served as a President of the Law Society of Tasmania. I'm also proud to stand against the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties as a question of principle.
There is no doubt in my mind that this government has lost any sense of principle. It's operating purely on politics at present, which is evidenced by the disgraceful attack today in connection with the legislation concerning mandatory sentencing of child sex offenders. These are very serious issues. As was very eloquently indicated by the member for Watson, these serious matters should not be used in order to drag down the dignity and responsibility of this parliament. When you're dealing with important issues of principle—like national security, paedophilia and questions of the safety of our public—we should stand on principle, and we shouldn't get down into the gutter. We shouldn't be dealing with the political aspects of these matters, but this government, I'm afraid, is all about politics at present. It is under pressure, and it is trying to search for distractions. In its search for distractions, it is lashing out across areas of policy, and it's now rested on this legislation, which has been around for quite some time. Indeed, an earlier version of this bill was introduced into the 44th Parliament, and the bill was passed by the House of Representatives but had not been passed by the Senate when the parliament was dissolved on 9 May 2016.
The bill operates to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to increase maximum penalties and to introduce mandatory minimum penalties for firearms-trafficking offences. As I indicated earlier, Labor does not support the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences in the context of this legislation. I, as a former President of the Law Society of Tasmania and having served on the Law Council of Australia, cannot support this legislation whilst it contains mandatory minimum sentences. Labor, in a principled way, supports the increase of maximum penalties, as this sends an appropriate message as to community concern surrounding firearms trafficking and, indeed, all serious firearms offences. There are existing offences and penalties for firearm trafficking, particularly with respect to cross-border firearms trafficking—that is, between one Australian state or territory and another. There is a further offence with respect to international firearms trafficking. This applies to trafficking prohibited firearms or firearms parts in or out of Australia. The two offences—that is, international and cross-border firearms trafficking—have the same maximum penalties.
In addition to the lapsed bill, there have been prior attempts by this government to legislate mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for firearms-trafficking offences. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015 were introduced, and they included amendments to maximum penalties. Both bills became law, but only after amendments in the Senate removed the provisions that would have introduced mandatory minimum sentences.
An earlier version of this bill has received consideration by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The majority made no recommendation in relation to mandatory sentencing provisions but requested that the government:
amend the Explanatory Memorandum to clarify who bears the onus of proof in relation to the age of defendants;
clarify in the Explanatory Memorandum the operation of mandatory minimum sentencing in relation to people with significant cognitive impairment specifically relating to discretion in setting parole periods; and
in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, consider including provisions regarding significant cognitive impairment similar to those found in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s25A(5)(b).
The dissenting report of the Labor senators maintained the ALP position that the 'introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking should be avoided'. The Labor senators indicated:
… that effective deterrence is achieved by increasing penalties applicable to the most serious firearms offenders, rather than by imposing prison terms on the least serious offenders.
They added:
Increasing maximum penalties for firearms trafficking reflects community concern about the consequences of serious firearms offences, and [there is] the regime of penalties proposed by Labor when it was in Government. It [sends] a strong message to serious criminals about the consequences of firearms trafficking.
The explanatory memorandum offers no evidence to support the idea that mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking will enhance or sustain Australia's firearms control regime by deterring potential offenders.
Finally, the Labor senators noted:
… that there is evidence suggesting that imposing mandatory minimum penalties in fact has the opposite effect.
Indeed, we heard about this issue at length in the recent address to this House in connection with child sex offenders. There is much evidence to suggest that juries will decline to convict where they know there's a mandatory minimum sentence to be imposed.
The Law Council of Australia has repeated the position it took in relation to the 2015 bill, which was to support increased maximum penalties and to oppose mandatory minimum sentences. The Law Council of Australia made a very comprehensive submission, as did the Australian Human Rights Commission. Both organisations, and others, oppose the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences.
It is important, indeed very important, to highlight the submissions made by the Law Council of Australia with respect to the 2015 bill. The Law Council expressed in strong terms, I might say in the strongest terms, its:
… unconditional opposition to mandatory sentencing as a penalty for any criminal offence on the basis that raises the potential for unintended consequences …
Those consequences, as detailed in the submission, include:
the imposition of unacceptable restrictions on judicial discretion and independence which is inconsistent with rule of law principles …
The contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Canberra, addressed that. They go on:
the potential imposition of unjust or unduly harsh sentences;
the infringement of a fundamental sentencing principle that a sentence and punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, having regard to the circumstances of the case;
[the potential of] increasing the likelihood of recidivism because prisoners are inappropriately placed in a learning environment for crime. This reinforces criminal identity and fails to address the underlying causes of crime. This has particular relevance to young and first time offenders.
There is also the very important issue of the:
undermining the community’s confidence in the judiciary and the criminal justice system as a whole. Research demonstrates that when members of the public are fully informed about the particular circumstances of a case and the offender, 90 per cent [of those people] view judges’ sentences as appropriate; and—
finally the Law Council indicated—
unjust outcomes [occur], particularly for vulnerable groups within society—
people we should be protecting, such as—
indigenous peoples, young adults, juveniles, persons with a mental illness or cognitive impairment and the impoverished.
The Law Council's submission also highlighted that the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking offences on the following basis. It said:
It was the experience in NSW when there were a number of people smuggling cases before the NSW Courts that the accused did not enter pleas of guilty because of the mandatory minimum sentence and all the trials ran the full course. This had a significant impact on the District Court to dispose of other work and on the resources of the [Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions] … Additionally trials with a mixture of Commonwealth and State offences by reason alone of the combined effect of State and Commonwealth provisions are more complex cases to prosecute. The inclusion of a mandatory minimum sentence in this mix will add to the overall complexity.
It's also important to note:
… the Tasmanian Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions noted that mandatory sentencing provisions 'can lead to unjust results' and that, if it is thought desirable to have some form of mandatory minimum sentencing scheme, then it should be drafted in such a way—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ) (19:30): It being 7.30, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Kelly, Mr Leo Henry, OAM
Blacktown City Art Prize
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (19:30): Saturday, 2 December, will see the opening of the 2017 Blacktown City Art Prize competition—I'm pleased to have the member for Chifley here in the chamber. The competition is now in its 22nd year, and the prize is highly valued. There are cash prizes of $20,000 and acquisitive awards, and the prize attracts local, regional and national artists in drawing, painting, sculpture, ceramics and mixed media.
But this year there's another reason why this event is so important. It will also be the occasion to officially rename the Blacktown Arts Centre in honour of the late Leo Kelly, who passed away on 24 January this year. Leo had an amazing passion for the arts. He wanted to encourage local artistic talent and performance space, and his ethos was that the western suburbs of Sydney should have equitable access for its citizens in recognition of their desire to participate in, view and enjoy art and culture in all its forms. Indeed, it was Leo Kelly who in 1996 moved the motion to establish the Blacktown Arts Centre. He instigated the Blacktown City Art Prize. He attended all of them and, despite his illness, he attended the function to announce last year's winners. He overcame strong opposition to the plan for an arts centre on its current site. He argued that his opponents had no alternative use for it and just wanted to sell it as a car park. But Leo had the foresight to recognise that the people of Western Sydney deserved and should have such a high-value centre of excellence.
Leo Kelly was a servant of local government. In fact, he was first elected to Blacktown City Council in 1980 and had served continuously since that time. He was mayor on three occasions, including during my period of service from 2004-08 and including a year in which I had the honour of serving as his deputy mayor. I found myself rifling through old boxes of campaign material from our election in 2004. It was Leo who, in 2003, suggested to me that we should run a ticket in ward 2—Labor hadn't elected two Labor members to that ward for decades. It's hard to imagine that that was 14 years ago. I remember saying to Leo: 'Look, if we're going to do this, I'm going to run this campaign. You're going to be doorknocking in Glenwood, and you're going to have to keep up with me.' I remember seeing him one day—we were doorknocking during the summer—and I lost him. I couldn't find him. It turned out someone in Glenwood had taken him in because he was covered with sweat and they were worried that he was going to expire in front of them. But Leo persisted, and we got up in 2004. That was the start of my career in public office.
He had an incredible vernacular. He created words like 'stuffwittery', which I'd never heard from anyone else. His voicemails were legendary. His voicemails would start: 'Leo here, Michelle'. He was a life member of the ALP, as is his beloved wife, Janet. I still remember, unfortunately, Janet coming to a mobile office of mine in Schofields towards the end of last year. It was there that she told me that he was sick and wasn't going to get better. He had just been elected to council again in those elections.
Leo did so much for Blacktown. He loved Blacktown. He was a true champion of Western Sydney, in everything from the establishment of parks and reserves to arts, as I discussed, and sport. He was passionate about the idea that local sporting groups should play on high-quality fields. He never believed that second-rate teams deserved second-rate grounds; he wanted everyone to have the highest quality facilities. He was passionate about child care. He was passionate about the staff of council more than anything. It was a testament to how much he was loved by all the staff by the attendance of so many of them at his funeral.
He was in the last weeks of his life when my baby Aurelia was born just before Christmas, and Janet messaged me the afternoon that she arrived: 'Congratulations to you on the birth of your daughter, a wonderful Christmas present. Leo not doing so well. Cancer spread to his brain. Just told him about the baby, and his reply was, "I knew it was a girl."' Janet, the dignity which you showed Leo in his final weeks was incredible.
To John and Melissa, his beloved grandchildren, Owen and James: he loved you so much. Owen, Leo considered you his son. He made a difference, and it's fitting that he'll be honoured in this way.
Robertson Electorate: Community Safety
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (19:35): I rise to speak about the need for safer streets in our community on the Central Coast and about a new opportunity for local government and local organisations to secure funding for their streets and suburbs where it's needed most. Right now we're looking for applications for a new round of funding called the Safer Communities Fund program. The program implements the coalition government's $40 million election commitment to deliver safer communities and is open until 14 November. The grant amount will be up to 100 per cent of eligible project costs up to a maximum of $1 million. The program is about preventing and deterring crime before it happens and giving our emergency services the resources that they need to detect and catch the culprits. This round of funding is an open and competitive round and will invest up to $28.6 million in individual grants for eligible incorporated non-government or not-for-profit organisations.
Today I'm putting the call out to hear directly from residents and businesses in my electorate on the Central Coast about where the worst crime hotspots are for them. I will write to the Central Coast Council and local community organisations this week and urge them to make an application for this round of funding. This is a valuable opportunity, and it comes at a critical time.
Even yesterday morning I woke to see a video on my Facebook feed from Julie Goodwin, the former MasterChef winner and now the co-host of the Rabbit and Julie breakfast show on STAR 104.5. Julie isn't just a local radio celebrity and an inspirational mum on the Central Coast; she's also a hardworking businessperson who runs Julie's Place, a restaurant and a cooking school in North Gosford. Julie wrote on her Facebook:
We are very sad to announce that we were robbed at Julie's Place, with thieves making off with 2 of our beautiful plants … a male and a female walked down the driveway, de-potted 2 plants, wiped the fingerprints off the pots, bashed the dirt off the roots and walked away turning south along Mann St. … If anyone recognises these people, or sees these plants for sale, we would be very grateful if you could please phone Brisbane Water LAC - NSW Police Force.
This post has been shared hundreds of times on Facebook. It's appalling this robbery took place, and I certainly hope that our local police identify the thieves quickly, but it is also an example of how powerful CCTV cameras can be in quickly getting out a message for chasing down criminals.
It also happened last week at Marine Rescue Central Coast. They also posted on Facebook:
Last Thursday morning at around 12:15AM, three people were captured on our Video Cameras prowling around the base and TS Hawkesbury next door. They boarded both the Maritime vessel and our rescue vessel looking for something to steal. Luckily, both vessels were secure.
Of course, while these acts are really to be condemned, far worse crimes are happening, including domestic violence, which I spoke about in the House last week.
This government's funding program is about working together to help make our Central Coast a safer place, so, if you or your community group know an area that needs safer streets, please contact me, and we'll fight to get this funding. This will, of course, be on top of the funding that we've already delivered since I was first elected as the member for Robertson in 2013 and which adds up to a combined investment of more than $1.2 million in safety projects around our local community. The first round of funding under the former Gosford City Council installed 15 new CCTV cameras and replaced 44 existing cameras in Gosford CBD, Kariong Skate Park, Woy Woy, Ettalong, Kariong, Umina Beach and at the Avoca Drive pedestrian underpass at Kincumber. The second round of funding, which was a commitment from the last federal election, is now being rolled out in Copacabana and in Terrigal, and this will see the newly amalgamated Central Coast Council install 16 new cameras, including nine new cameras in the Terrigal CBD, five new cameras at the Copacabana shops near the beach, a camera and lighting on The Skillion and at Captain Cook Lookout and replacement CCTV cameras on the Terrigal Esplanade and at the Copacabana Surf Life Saving Club.
The funding is not just for cameras and for lighting. We are also backing the Umina Beach PCYC with a share of funding to deliver more opportunities for at-risk, marginalised youth to develop the necessary life skills for them to make better choices through inclusion and through resilience building. I again call on the community to speak out so we can quickly identify some of these places in our region where our streets could be safer.
Mayo Electorate: Small Business
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (19:40): Last Friday evening I was fortunate enough to be invited to the Beyond Bank Business Victor Harbor Outstanding Business Awards for this year. I had the opportunity to meet with so many of my community's exceptional small businesses. I would like to pay special tribute to all of the finalists for their hard work and for their role in our community.
I give thanks to the McCracken convention centre for hosting the event. One highlight of the night was the professional and outstanding job of the Investigator College catering students, who provided and served canapes and pre-dinner drinks on the night. Well done to those students; it was delicious. Thank you to the McCracken convention centre for opening your venue to the students of our district. This is an example of the type of business-community collaboration these awards seek to recognise and reward.
I turn now to the finalists. There were nine winners across eight categories. The Bridgestone Service Centre in Victor Harbor was, by popular community vote, the winner of the Best Customer Service award.
Alexandrina Cheese Company was the winner of the Best Agribusiness award. They are an outstanding regional brand who use products from their own dairy and have a strong focus on quality, as I know firsthand from our local farmers markets.
The winner of Best Retail Business went to SportsPower Victor Harbor, a family business whose impressive growth belies their strong service to local sporting groups and clubs with sporting clothing and equipment.
The Best Service award went to Harcourts South Coast, which provides premium services and has attracted upmarket business interests from the eastern states with their top-quality professionalism. I had great pleasure in presenting the award to Mark and Sam Forde, a husband and wife business team who manage to live together at night and work together collaboratively during the day.
The Big Duck Boat Tours took out the Best Tourism Experience award. They show visitors our beautiful region and the local delights of our area from Granite Island to the Murray Mouth. The Veenstra family has a long history of networking and promoting tourism along the River Murray and on the Fleurieu Peninsula, which includes a commitment to promoting other businesses in the area.
Nino's of Victor Harbor were the winners of the Best Tourism Hospitality award, with a reputation for extremely well-trained, professional staff and their longstanding and generous support to the community. Over 180,000 customers—a good mix of locals, tourists and regulars, including myself—grace their business each year, which only goes to prove they are earning their reputation well.
UltraTune Victor Harbor won the award for Best Trades and Industry Business, with a reputation for positive and professional thinking in managing their customers—not only their repeat customers but those who are tourists. Their online promotion work is especially worthy of admiration.
Such was the class and the field that two businesses tied and won the 2017 award for the Most Outstanding Business of the Year: UltraTune Victor Harbor and The Big Duck Boat Tours.
What I was most taken with is how all of these businesses, and the best businesses in particular, put back so strongly into the community, which helps to make them so successful. They are not just profit driven but community driven, with a focus on training their employees, who are always locals, and promoting all that is good about the community in which they operate. I've got to say, when sporting clubs look for donations, they go to our small businesses; they don't go to the large multinationals. To paraphrase Mr Graeme Jameson from Business Victor Harbor, it's not just about making money; whether they are large or small, it's irrelevant.
I want to extend a warm thanks to the Victor Harbor business community for being such wonderful hosts. I for one, along with my husband, had an absolutely terrific evening and I hope I will be fortunate enough to have the honour to be invited to next year's event. I wish all the businesses that attended and those elsewhere across the community all the best for Christmas and the year ahead. It's a busy, difficult season for small businesses, but I know you'll do well. There are approximately 10,900 businesses in Mayo, 99 per cent of which are small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of our community and the backbone of our economy. I will do all in my power as the member for Mayo to support those small businesses.
Goods and Services Tax
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (19:44): I stood here in this chamber last week and spoke briefly about this parliament's opportunity to reform the GST. I believe, as I said then, that we have an opportunity to change the system in a way that makes the Australian economy stronger. But I fear that opportunity is lost on the members sitting across the chamber. The confusing and limp rhetoric from the opposition tells us two things: one, that the opposition has failed to grasp the substance of the Productivity Commission report, because the WA members on the other side seem to all share different views about the next step; and, two, that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have ruled out my meaningful reform to the Commonwealth Grants Commission formula. These past two weeks have shown us that Labor don't really have any appetite for reform. They'd rather tread water and hit the problem with a wet lettuce leaf in the hope that it goes away. I wonder how many of my colleagues on the other side have even read the Productivity Commission's draft report, but I'll return to that in a moment.
We all know the background for the Productivity Commission inquiry. WA's relativity—that is, our share of GST revenue—has plummeted. As the strongest state, horizontal fiscal equalisation means we are propping up other jurisdictions. I don't think anybody in Western Australia would argue that equalisation in Australia is a bad thing, but we do say that the principle, although created with the best of intentions, has been applied far too aggressively. The logic of raising every state to the highest standard is a bridge too far, and the Productivity Commission acknowledges that. Their report states:
… equalising comprehensively and to the fiscally strongest State means that when there is an outlier, the redistribution task is considerable and the standard being equalised to is potentially volatile
WA is the outlier here. In 2015-16, when no other state fell below a relativity of 0.89, Western Australia dropped to 0.3. This is all in the report, by the way, should any member of the opposition care to read it. That relativity has only marginally risen, to 0.34, which is out of step with our current fiscal situation. The three-year assessment period and the two-year time lag applied to the GST distribution have hit Western Australia particularly hard. The mining boom finished, yet our GST distribution remained cripplingly low. This is a national issue. Every member in this chamber should heed the advice of the Productivity Commission. This is an independent report. It's been compiled by an authority looking at the best interests of Australia, not just one particular state.
I just can't understand the behaviour of our friends on the other side of this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition, who is so vocal about the GST whenever he visits WA, offers nothing but an unfunded top-up payment that I have no doubt will come out of infrastructure funding that would have come to WA anyway. The Leader of the Opposition doesn't have the stomach to discuss national GST reform with the other states, so how would he pay for this? Just last month, we saw the new state Labor government attempt to increase gold royalties to pay for election promises. If the Labor Party's plan is to find more tax revenue to pay for unfunded promises, it will be catastrophic for the national economy. The member for Burt, who was shouting at me across the floor last week, told The West Australian on 11 October that we need an urgent remedy 'such as Labor's 70c floor commitment'. Member for Burt, do yourself a favour and go and have a read of the report. You don't even have to read that much of it; just go to page 20. The report says:
… the introduction of a relativity floor is unlikely to provide a holistic fix to the various complexity and efficiency concerns identified earlier, and may even increase uncertainty and unpredictability. A floor is targeting a symptom, and ultimately, prevention is better than cure.
The member for Perth—and I wish him all the joy with his new baby—told the same newspaper on the same day that the issue facing WA was just a 'blip on the radar'. When you get back to work, Member for Perth, you're going to have to do a little bit better than that. Member for Perth, you might want to pick up a copy of the report too. It says:
Equalising comprehensively and to the fiscally strongest State means that the redistribution task is too great for any jurisdiction to bear; and is volatile at times of significant cyclical and structural change.
There is scope for it to discourage desirable mineral and energy resources policies … and State policy for major tax reform …
With the Labor Party's contempt for the mining industry, it's no wonder they're not motivated to take action.
We have an opportunity to strengthen the national economy if we do this the right way. If we reform the system and improve the way our economy operates as a whole, then every Australian will be better off. The notion that the Grants Commission used the GST formula to raise every state to equivalence with the best-performing state is damaging our national economy. I call on the opposition to provide bipartisan support for real GST reform for the good of the nation, and especially my home state of WA. (Time expired)
Zampelis, Gunner James
Manning, Mr Leslie
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (19:49): Yesterday, 23 October, marked the 75th anniversary of the second battle of El Alamein, where, in 1942, Australian diggers, as part of the Allied forces, won a decisive battle against the German and Italian armies during World War II. 31 October will mark the 100th anniversary since the charge of the Australian 4th Light Horse Brigade in Beersheba in 1917 in a make-or-break battle for the Allied forces' campaign in Palestine and one that is described by some as Australia's first big achievement on the world stage. It is indeed an important time to reflect on the courage and sacrifices of Australian soldiers in theatres of war, to reflect on the debt we owe them as a nation and to honour their memories.
On Sunday, I attended an event highlighting the important contribution that Australians of Greek heritage have made in our war efforts. An estimated 2½ thousand Australians of Hellenic background fought in World War II, some of whose ancestral homeland was the Ionian island of Lefkada, which happens to be my place of birth. Amongst them was Gunner James Zampelis, from the 2/2nd Field Regiment of the Australian Army's 6th Division, who died in the Battle of Crete. Five hundred and twenty four diggers died in the Greek campaign, and only one of those was of Hellenic heritage, and that was Gunner James Zampelis.
In his message to the Lefkadian Cultural Association's event honouring James Zampelis, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, said: 'James's story and that of his parents is emblematic of many migrants who came to Australia, committed their lives to building and enriching our nation, participating in all aspects of our national life, and giving the ultimate sacrifice, fighting for the beliefs and values that we all hold dear.' James's father, Gerasimos Zampelis, migrated to Australia in 1903 from the village of Marantochori in Lefkada. James was the second-born of his three children. His father ran a cafe in St Kilda. Cafes and restaurants would become a Zampelis family tradition, and are to this very day.
James was 26 when he joined the Royal Australian Artillery in November 1939 and, according to historian Jim Claven, James had survived many deadly battles that had claimed the lives of many Anzacs leading up to the fatal morning in Crete. It was 24 May 1941 when James and other diggers found themselves on the outskirts of the village of Mournies. The men had assembled for the morning parade at 6.30 am when the German planes struck, killing four soldiers and wounding several more. James was one of those killed. He was 28 years old. One officer wrote this account of the attack that claimed James's life: 'A fierce bombing attack, which killed Jim and several lads. They were all killed instantaneously, and that evening they were buried by men of the regiment.'
James was survived by his wife, Doris, and son, Peter. Members of the Zampelis family were present on Sunday, including his son, Peter, who were all profoundly moved by the honour bestowed on James's memory.
I want to thank the President of the Lefkadian Cultural Association, Olga Vlahos, and especially Claire Gazis for her incredible research on the diggers of Greek background, and, of course, historian Jim Claven, who has dedicated his life to researching and writing about the shared war experiences between Australian and Greek soldiers.
There is another Aussie digger that I want to pay tribute to this evening, and his name is Les Manning. Les passed away last Wednesday at the age of 104. He was an energetic, sprightly man with a youthful outlook on life and a very sharp mind to match. Les was one of the last surviving Anzacs from the Battle of Crete, who was a longstanding friend of the Greek community and was revered by the Cretan community in Australia, particularly by those in Melbourne. As my friend John Rerakis said of him in his tribute this week, 'Les Manning was an Australian treasure who, at 26, left his wife and child behind to go send Hitler a message.'
It would be remiss of me not to mention Les's unwavering love of the Richmond Football Club, who, along with the Greek community of Melbourne, are mourning the loss of their oldest fan. In fact, last year, on the eve of his 103rd birthday, which he celebrated at Punt Road, he said, 'Richmond better win a flag because I'm running out of time. I've only got about 15 years left in me.' Thankfully, Les got to see his beloved Tigers take home the AFL Premiership last month. As someone who had the honour of meeting Les Manning, I want to express my sincere condolences to his family and to thank him for his service. Vale Les Manning.
Old Brighton Grammarians Football Club
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (19:54): With the mighty Melbourne Demons sadly falling short this finals season, it is appropriate that we acknowledge another outstanding sporting club in the great state of Victoria, and that is the Tonners, the Old Brighton Grammarians, who have had a fantastic year this year. I would like to congratulate Old Brighton on an outstanding season and thank them so much for giving me the honour, with my fellow No. 1 ticketholder, Felicity Frederico, of being able to stand as their No. 1 ticketholder and in this place.
This year the seniors confirmed their status as the top premier B team with a magnificent win against Old Scotch in the grand final only last month. For the fourth time in this season, they went to battle against Old Scotch and gave them a hotly contested game of footy. It was a well-fought game in front of an enthusiastic crowd at Trevor Barker Oval. The Tonners looked like winners for most of the match, but it was Pat Liston's goal to answer the Cardinals' late thrust which sealed the match with moments to spare. The final margin was 36 points. It was the club's fifth senior premiership and the first since 2013.
On behalf of the Goldstein community, I'd like to congratulate the premiership players of Old Brighton and their seniors team: Harry Hill, the co-captain, who got three goals; Michael Karayannis, who got two goals; Ben Jakobi, Daniel Anthony, Anthony Zimmerman, Brock Rawlinson, Luke Healy and Pat Liston, who got one goal each; and Andrew Dewar, Tom Fisher, Ben Jarick, Dylan Verney—he was the co-captain and the winner of the Ian Corder Medal for his outstanding performance in defence—as well as Matthew Gadsden, Michael Dewar, Tom King, Stuart Hooy, Tom Garner, Raury Bolger, James Davis, Oliver Cavallaro, Michael Slater and Ben Austen. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank so much the coach of the team, Greg Hutchison, for his remarkable contribution, as well as so many other people who contributed to Old Brighton this year, including the president, Shane Young; the vice presidents, John Rawlinson and David Paterson; the treasurer, Pam Fitzpatrick; the secretary, John McKell; the trading operations manager, Phil Anthony; Jack Geddes, for events fundraising; Louise Graham, for events; Leanne Sargent, also for events; Frank Cavallaro, for club development; Richie Gee, for sponsorship; and Rosie Jakobi, for catering.
It was also a very important year because it was the first year that women's footy was part of Old Brighton. I particularly want to thank the committee, which included the coach, Peter Grant; the assistant coach, Andrew Grant; the team manager, Janine Olivier; captain Madeline Grant; vice-captain Nadia Olivier and deputy vice-captain Megan Yeoman; as well as Louise Graham, who continues to provide incredible support, and Ben Verney. I also want to thank the incredible number of women who played an important role as part of this inaugural team: Sophie Grant, Chloe Mutimer, Indi Tait, Maddie Grant, Nadia Olivier, Sophie Ambrose, Rachael Sargent, Gina Kay, Isabella Riegler, Natasha Lade, Clare Cameron, Morgan McGregor, Greta Dickson, Alex Currie, Eliza Grubb, Freya Fajgman, Maddy Ogilvie, Bonnie Chipp, Shelley Jones, Jeanine Vette, Kathleen McKinna, Georgie Lawless, Jacqui Stenniken, Iona Miller, Emily Grant, Emma Lomas, Elaine Dargan, Katie Grant, Evelyn Turek, Isabella Roper, Sarah Priestley, Maddy Stenniken, Megan Yeoman, Abbey Franklyn, Alex Briggs, Alice King, Amy Fogarty, Annie Grant, Camilla Fisher, Claire Lazarides, Ella Finnis, Emily Shaw, Emma Helmer, Freya Breidahl, Gabby Lovell, Gaynor Ramsay, Georgina Kennedy, Loui Healy, Mary Trumble, Phoebe Goodman, Sam Dick and Tansy Mutimer.
And, to cap off a highly successful season, I was lucky enough to attend the Old Brightons 2017 Best and Fairest competition at the convention centre. I'd like to further congratulate all the award winners and runners-up in the Best and Fairest awards, particularly, for the seniors, Harry Hill; for the women's, Indi Tait; for the reserves, Marty Ho—and this deserves a little dance: Marty Ho, Marty Ho!—and, for the under 19s, Tom Wallace. Congratulations to the reserves, to everybody who contributed to the victory against Old Scotch and to the Old Brighton Grammarians footy team, which is one of many footy teams that are part of the Goldstein electorate, who all do us proud through their activity on weekends to make sure that they bring together the community.
I've got to say that one of my favourite things to do every weekend is to go and watch the Tonners play and be victorious against many of the teams across the great state of Victoria. So, to the Tonners on their dual premiership in 2017, congratulations, and we look forward to you going back and smashing it up in 2018.
National Police Remembrance Day
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (19:59): Just in this very brief time: recently we had Police Remembrance Day. I was joined by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in Victoria. I'd just like to again pass on all our best wishes for all the family members of members who have fallen in the line of duty. It's something where there is a bipartisan approach to our serving men and women, and we thank them for their contribution, especially in dangerous and troubled times.
The SPEAKER: It being 8 pm, the House stands adjourned.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Joyce to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to agricultural and veterinary chemicals, and for related purposes. (Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017)
Mr Sukkar to present a bill for an act to amend the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009, and for other purposes. (Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2017)
Mr MC Butler to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises:
(a) the role of Australia in helping to broker the Paris Peace Accords (PPA); and
(b) that one of the core promises of the PPA was to provide the Cambodian people with free and fair elections;
(2) expresses serious concerns about:
(a) political suppression in Cambodia, including the closure of media outlets such as the Cambodia Daily; and
(b) the arrest and trial of the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) leader, Kem Sokha, arising from a speech he delivered in Australia in 2013;
(3) calls for:
(a) the immediate release of Kem Sokha from detention and the removal of restrictions on civil society; and
(b) greater transparency and assurance of due process in proceedings against political prisoners and dissidents;
(4) condemns the move to disband the CNRP and redistribute seats to minor parties without by-elections;
(5) expresses serious concerns about the timing of the actions against the CNRP and Kem Sokha in light of the impending 2018 general election; and
(6) calls upon the Australian Government to impress upon the Cambodian Government the importance of free and fair elections for the Cambodian people.
Ms LM Chesters to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) National Asbestos Awareness Week is 27 November to 1 December;
(b) as part of this year's events, the Australian Government Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency (Agency) is holding the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Summit (Summit) in Canberra;
(c) this year's Summit will focus on debate on Australia's next National Strategic Plan to eliminate asbestos nationwide;
(d) the Agency has raised concerns over workplace safety following the 100 workers who were exposed to asbestos while working on the Sydney Opera House renovation in July 2017;
(e) it is unclear how many further building sites across Australia contain asbestos or how many workers are unknowingly exposed to asbestos each day; and
(f) the Agency advised the Senate Economics References Committee's inquiry into non-conforming building products that building products containing asbestos are being imported to Australia contrary to Australian law;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos related deaths and injury in the world, with 33,000 people already having lost their lives to asbestos;
(b) around 700 Australians die each year from asbestos related diseases, and without proper management experts worry that tens of thousands of Australians could be diagnosed with asbestos related diseases in the coming decades; and
(c) experts believe that 20,000 to 25,000 Australians will die from asbestos or asbestos related illnesses before the end of this century;
(3) condemns the Government's inaction and silence on the dangers of asbestos, despite warnings provided to the Senate inquiry; and
(4) calls on the Government to:
(a) give greater importance to stopping asbestos importers at the border and immediately increase the penalties for illegal asbestos contamination on Australian building sites; and
(b) create greater transparency and accountability between the Australian Border Force and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in their dealings with asbestos related importations.
Ms McGowan to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) among 15 rural research and development corporations which receive statutory levies partly matched by the Commonwealth, the representation of women is no higher than 44 per cent, is as low as 11 per cent, and averages 26 per cent;
(b) the Australian Institute of Company Directors (Institute) says its quest for 30 per cent female representation across ASX 200 boards by 2018 has stalled;
(c) the Institute's latest gender diversity report shows that as of 31 August 2017 there were 25.4 per cent female directors, only marginally higher than the 25.3 per cent reached at the end of 2016;
(d) at the time of the publication of the Institute's latest gender diversity report, 11 ASX 200 companies had no women on their boards; and
(e) the Institute says that the Government may be forced to intervene with quotas to force companies to appoint more female directors;
(2) acknowledges the Diversity in Agriculture Leadership Program (Program) initiative launched by the National Farmers' Federation and AACo on 15 October 2017, which asks organisations to commit to auditing the gender diversity within their leadership teams and pledge to make 'meaningful change' towards achieving enhanced gender equality; and
(3) calls on the:
(a) Government to support the Program and similar initiatives to ensure that companies appoint more female directors; and
(b) Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources to outline to the Parliament a plan to increase the representation of women to a minimum of 30 per cent on all agricultural boards over which the Government has some level of influence, including rural research and development corporations, agricultural committees, panels and councils.
Mr Bandt to present a bill for an act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes. (Fair Work Amendment (Improving National Employment Standards) Bill 2017)
Mr van Manen to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the importance of the trade and economic relationship between Australia and Japan;
(2) welcomes the sixty year anniversary since the signing of the Australia-Japan Agreement on Commerce;
(3) notes the significant opportunities offered by the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement for Australian exporters;
(4) recognises and celebrates the significant role of Japanese investment in Australia's economy, noting that this investment is creating and supporting Australian jobs;
(5) notes the ongoing cooperation and commitment between Australia and Japan to open markets and a strong, rules-based global trading system; and
(6) encourages the Australian Government to continue its economic cooperation with Japan to the mutual benefit of both countries, to create jobs and support prosperity in both our nations.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ) took the chair at 16:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (16:00): The National Disability Insurance Scheme was designed, created and fully funded by Labor in government, and it's one of the greatest social investments of our generation. Labor understood that the old system of disability support was broken and needed to be fixed. That's why we acted. When the NDIS is fully rolled out in 2019-20, more than 460,000 Australians with severe or profound disability will be receiving the care and support they need. For people with disability, their carers and their families, the NDIS will be truly transformational.
Unfortunately the government's planned rollout and growth of the scheme has not been up to standard. People with a disability and their supporters want and need the NDIS rollout to be made clear and much more efficient. In my electorate of Richmond I've been contacted many times by constituents or their carers who are experiencing delays and difficulties with accessing the NDIS in its initial rollout phase. One particular family advised me that they'd made a request to start a plan after being approved several months ago for the NDIS. They'd still not been contacted after very lengthy time frames, despite constant phone calls being made by both the daughter in the family and their social worker, and this was causing a great deal of stress for them, of course. The woman in question remains stuck in limbo in a local hospital. She urgently needs her NDIS plan to be implemented so that she can get a motorised wheelchair to provide her with some freedom and also to fund some form of housing so she can finally be discharged.
Another family who were extremely stressed had been waiting months after requesting a review of their current plan. They were promised, after several phone calls to the NDIA, that their case would be escalated. They were then advised, weeks later, that the request for review had been approved, but they could not guarantee how long the process would take. Fast-forward six weeks, and her two carers had not been paid a cent for their services. After contact was made with the minister's office, the problem was again escalated, and once again it was unable to progress, because of an administrative problem. Finally the changes that this family wanted did happen, but the fact is that these changes are relatively simple and straightforward. This family does have the ability to advocate on their own behalf, yet it still took so long. The review process is inadequate, and the time taken for reviews is simply unacceptable.
Whilst I understand that of course there are so many who have benefited from the rollout of this scheme, there are many participants who have issues with accessing this important service. Participants with psychosocial disability and those who struggle to navigate the system are most at risk of experiencing poor outcomes, as are people who are living in outer regional and remote and very remote areas and those with complex, specialised or high-intensity needs, and of course also our older participants. There are also lengthy waiting lists for some providers and types of support because of the absence of local providers, along with some concerns about quality. So I call on the Turnbull government to invest more resources to ensure that the quality of this rollout will improve to provide much better and more accessible services to those in our community who need the support the most and those who need to access the NDIS in a timely and efficient manner.
Petitions: Impacts of Climate Change
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:03): I rise to table a petition today, drawn up and signed by concerned members of my electorate. The chief petitioner is my constituent Fiona Plunkett of Port Augusta, and the petition has 2,153 signatures. These 2,153 people have asked that the House do all in its power to protect communities in Australia and the region from the harmful impacts of climate change, such as severe heat, extreme and unpredictable weather and rising seas. On 22 August I met with a group of very motivated and committed students from Caritas College in Port Augusta. It was great to sit down and speak across the table about their concerns for the future and the things that this government is doing to address them. Good on them, I say.
I am pleased then to present this petition.
The petition read as follows—
The petition was unavailable at the time of publishing.
Mr RAMSEY: The petition has coincided with the government's release of the National Energy Guarantee, which has been endorsed by the Energy Security Board. Our energy plan will reduce emissions consistent with our Paris target of 26 to 28 per cent reductions on 2005 levels by 2030. The pre-eminent body in energy policy in this country, the Energy Security Board, with the endorsement of the heads of the Australian Energy Market Operator, the Australian Energy Market Commission and the Australian Energy Regulator, has affirmed that the government's National Energy Guarantee will meet our Paris targets. Australia's emissions per capita and per unit of GDP are currently at their lowest in 27 years, and we have a strong record of meeting and beating our emission reduction targets. Australia is on track to beat its 2020 target of five per cent on 2000 levels by 224 million tonnes.
As a nation, we have made a strong suite of policies in this place to meet our targets, including the phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons which will reduce up to 80 million tonnes of emissions. The Emissions Reduction Fund has contracted 189 million tonnes of emissions abatement at $11.83 per tonne. A Renewable Energy Target of 23.5 per cent by 2020 will be achieved. The National Energy Productivity Plan will deliver 40 per cent improvement in efficiency by 2030. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency has committed grant funding of $1.1 billion to date, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has financed more than $3½ billion worth of new projects around Australia since 2013. I am particularly pleased to be tabling this petition today and particularly pleased that it comes from such a group of young and concerned citizens who are so committed to Australia's future. When I sit down and talk to them, I feel as though Australia will be in safe hands in the future. I thank them for their commitment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): Member for Grey, has the petition been approved by the Petitions Committee?
Mr RAMSEY: It has been.
Grayndler Electorate: Oktoberwest
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:06): I rise to speak about the positive impacts that the craft brewing sector is having on my electorate and on jobs and tourism. Last Sunday, the recently formed Inner West Brewery Association hosted the first ever Oktoberwest beer festival, and it was a great success. It's part of the Sydney beer festival, of which I'm proud to be the patron. The festival marked the official launch of the association, celebrating the rich culture of Australia's craft beer capital with a line-up of local breweries including Young Henry's, Willie the Boatman, Wayward, The Grifter, Batch, Sauce, and Akasha, to name just a few. The festival, held at different locations across the electorate, included a celebration of women in craft brewing and small business, FemmeApocalypse, at the Wayward headquarters in Camperdown. Here I met Sophie Gamble, Wayward's head female brewer, who gave me a tour of the facility. It was a great day. They had female small business, from barbecuing to artists to performers, all at Wayward, being celebrated by the local community.
Oktoberwest also aimed to raise further awareness about the unfair rate of federal excise that is disadvantaging our craft brewers. Today the rate of federal excise charged for a keg containing 50 litres of beer is less than the rate charged for a keg containing 30 litres. That disadvantages the small businesses that want to get their product into local pubs and want to support local jobs. This excise makes up approximately 40 per cent of their operating costs. The day was a triumph of live music, arts, entertainment and great food. Indeed, I want to particularly thank The Morrisons, who got me on stage at the Factory Theatre to present the argument for voting yes for marriage equality in the current voluntary postal survey. It was also a celebration about the creativity and sustainability of local businesses that create jobs. I will continue to argue the case that craft brewers deserve fair treatment—they deserve fair treatment because they have grown exponentially in recent years. There are now over 420 craft breweries right around Australia, not just in our cities but in our regional centres as well. They're good for local small business; they're also good as tourist attractions in their own right. That is why the government needs to respond to the current inequity which exists, to support jobs and to support local small business.
Peel Youth Medical Service Health Hub
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (16:09): On 6 October I joined GP down south and other local stakeholders to celebrate a milestone event in my electorate—the turning of the sod for the Peel Youth Medical Service health hub. This event would not have been possible without a federal contribution of $2 million from the coalition government towards capital works. The PYMS health hub is a project that GP down south has fought hard for over the years. In fact, I first discussed the project with Eleanor Britton from GP down south two years ago during the Canning by-election. Eleanor's vision for a one-stop-shop medical facility for 12- to 25-year-olds is unlike any in the Peel region at present. The hub was born out of a need to better coordinate medical and physical treatment for young people struggling with a range of issues, with a particular focus on prevention and early intervention. By co-locating service providers under the one roof, the PYMS health hub model will ensure young people can easily access different services at the right stage of their treatment. The agencies that will soon call the PYMS health hub home are the Peel Youth Medical Service, a youth counselling and GP service; Allambee Counselling, a service for domestic and family violence victims; Palmerston Association, a drug and alcohol service; and the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service.
Last year, after lobbying for community and federal government support, GP down south received the good news that headspace will also be joining the PYMSA health hub. For those not familiar with the work of headspace, it provides early intervention mental health services for 12- to 25-year-olds, with a focus on four areas: mental health, physical health, work and study support, and alcohol and other drug services. This project has received widespread support from the community and all levels of government.
It's no secret that my region, the Peel region, and Mandurah in particular, is affected by social dysfunction. Unemployment, crime and substance abuse are common themes in the local media, and the community feedback I've gotten, particularly during my town hall meetings over the last five months, is that these issues are symptomatic of a breakdown in the family unit and the wider community. In a world where youth particularly have greater connectivity through social media platforms, it can seem like the world is at their fingertips, but young people in regional areas like the Peel region are, ironically, increasingly isolated, and the virtual world can never replicate a healthy community.
I saw what a healthy community looked like recently at the Waroona Football Club presos. One of the Best and Fairest players stood up and shared how it was the footy club that had helped him through one of the toughest years of his life, and it was the guys who stood around him and helped him through that that made all the difference. But, sadly, not everyone has that, and that's why the PYMS health hub, which seeks to replicate that kind of community and seeks to protect young people who are isolated and in need of those networks, will make all the difference in the years ahead.
Petition: Climate Change
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:12): I was recently presented with a petition from residents of my electorate and asked to present it to the House. The petition reads:
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of Makin draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, wellbeing and security of all people around the world, particularly our poorest and most vulnerable neighbours. We remind the House that Australia's greenhouse emissions are the highest per person amongst wealthy nations, while our emissions reduction targets are among the weakest.
We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to protect communities in Australia and our region from the harmful impacts of climate change, such as more severe heat, extreme and unpredictable weather and rising seas, by committing to deeper and more urgent reductions of our greenhouse emissions; developing a plan to ensure Australia achieves zero net greenhouse emissions well before 2050; supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; and lastly by providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
Climate change discourse throughout the country is to some extent waning from the time I was first elected here in 2007, when, perhaps because we were at the end of a 10-year cycle of drought, the impacts of climate change were more confronting than they are right now. But, nevertheless, it is a matter that continues to be important across the world, and certainly in parts of the world where they are feeling and experiencing similar effects to what we were some 10 years ago. We are seeing predictions of 10 years ago with respect to melting ice and extreme weather events occurring almost on a daily basis around the world, and more particularly recently we saw it in the USA and in neighbouring countries of the USA with hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones, flooding, fire and the like. Those kinds of events caused not only the loss of lives but also destruction, and cost society trillions of dollars.
A recent report from the Commission on Pollution and Health found that in 2015 around nine million deaths worldwide were linked to pollution, with some 6.5 million linked to air pollution and 1.8 million to water pollution, accounting for 16 per cent of all deaths in 2015. So, apart from the destruction, there is also the loss of lives as a result of the pollution. Recent energy policy from this government abandons the renewable energy direction that Australia had embraced and takes us back to our reliance on fossil fuels. That not only continues to contribute to climate change but adds to poor health outcomes. We need to maintain our focus on climate change because it does pose threats to the people who live on this planet and the planet itself. For those reasons I present this petition.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): We will make sure it gets to the Standing Committee on Petitions. I thank the member for Makin.
Energy
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (16:15): It is my great pleasure to rise and speak about our government's very strong plan to deliver affordable and reliable energy. We've just heard from the member for Makin about his concern about climate change and reducing emissions. Well, if Labor were concerned about these matters—delivering affordable, reliable power, driving down power prices and also emissions—it would back our National Energy Guarantee.
The Turnbull government has accepted the recommendation of the Energy Security Board for a new National Energy Guarantee which would deliver more affordable and reliable energy while meeting our international commitments, and that's very important. Under the guarantee, households and businesses across the Corangamite electorate and across the nation would have access to affordable, reliable power. We've see an abomination from Labor with its reckless 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target and its 45 per cent emissions reduction target. It is all at sea. It compromised our domestic gas supply by allowing gas to be exported when it was in power, rather than ensuring that there were appropriate supplies for Australians. Our policy is all about putting Australians first. We read in The Australian today that in fact Labor's policy would deliver a $200 increase to the annual power bill if its policies were implemented. That is incredibly reckless.
The modelling by the Climate Change Authority is very credible, and we've heard from the Energy Security Board that a National Energy Guarantee would deliver a decrease in power bills of between $100 and $115 a year. That is incredibly important. There are so many businesses in my electorate that are facing very high gas and power bills because of the terrible policies we saw under the previous, Labor government. Viva Energy, an incredible business in our region employing some 700 people, is facing an increase in both power and gas bills of something like $50 million. AKD Softwoods, a wonderful timber merchant and manufacturer of softwoods in Colac and other parts of Victoria, which employs 400 people in Colac, is facing a $2.5 million increase for gas and a $1.5 million increase for electricity.
We're very proud of this policy, which is all about driving down emissions and power prices, and we call on the Labor Party to get on board and to stop these reckless economic policies which will drive power prices up in households and businesses around Australia.
Climate Change
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:18): The people of Kingsford Smith are deeply concerned about the Turnbull government's lack of action on climate change and lack of support for renewable energy policy. There's a feeling in the community I represent that Australia is now going backwards when it comes to taking action on climate change and that we're not caring for our kids' future, because ultimately we will pass on responsibility for taking action on climate change to them if we don't do enough in this generation to tackle the issue.
The Abbott and Turnbull governments, when they came to office, removed the price on carbon emissions and carbon pollution. They tried to cut funding for the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. They succeeded in cutting the Renewable Energy Target, and state Liberal and National Party governments have introduced broad land-clearing laws once again into Australia. The result is that carbon pollution is now again on the increase in Australia. Can you believe it? When every other nation in the world is putting in place the necessary government policies to reduce carbon pollution, Australia is going in the opposite direction and carbon emissions are now beginning to increase in our country. That's clear evidence of the Turnbull government's failure to take the necessary action on climate change and to take seriously this issue of protecting our kids' futures.
Now the government are attempting to make the situation worse with their policy on energy that has been released over the course of the last week. The war on climate that is going on within the Liberal Party has seen Malcolm Turnbull, who used to believe in climate change and actually crossed the floor to vote with the Labor Party on a carbon pollution reduction scheme, completely change his tune. He has gone further to the right than Tony Abbott on these issues and has cut the Renewable Energy Target for 2020 completely under this new proposal. There will be no price on carbon emissions as the government seek to delay the phasing out of dirty, coal-fired, polluting power stations in our country.
The people of Kingsford Smith are sick and tired of this lack of action and the changing positions within the Liberal and National parties. I've recently received two petitions, one from 700 constituents urging deeper action on climate change, deeper cuts to emissions and more renewables, and one from 697 people from Kingsford Smith urging that no taxpayer funds be put into the Adani Carmichael mine from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund. I thank all those who signed these two very, very important petitions. Labor are listening. Labor understand that we need to have a price on carbon emissions, reduce carbon pollution in our economy, ensure we are supporting renewables and ensure we have a land-clearing trigger. Labor will take the necessary action to fight climate change.
Page Electorate
Mr HOGAN (Page) (16:22): In my region, we are coming to the end of our show season. Our agricultural shows are a great celebration of all that our region has to offer. An important part of the shows is the showgirl competition. I want to acknowledge some of the entrants in those competitions in the shows in my region. I would like to congratulate the Casino Showgirl winner, Kaela McRae, the runner-up, Zoe Griffiths, and the other entrants, Sarah Lynn and Brooke Hewitt. The Miss Teen winner was Dakota Wadsworth, Miss Junior was Jessica Cruickshank, Miss Mini was Sam McLennan and Miss Tiny Tot was Emma Green. At the Woodenbong Show, the Woodenbong Showgirl winner was Tegan Jones. The winner of Miss Teen was Jemima Lee. The other entrants were Anneleise Barrett, Bessie Wilson, Chelsea Wadsworth, Cheyanne Cockram and Emily Watson. The Junior Showgirl winner was Katelyn Fletcher. The other entrants were Madison Fleming and Jemimah Williams. At the Kyogle show, the winner was Leisl Pederson. The other entrants were Carleta Owen and Desiree Little. At Maclean, the winner of Miss Showgirl was Nicole Cowling. The other entrants were Kylie Vickery and Taneal McConnell. The Miss Junior Showgirl was Georgia Everson. Colbie Cameron also entered.
The Grafton showgirl winner was Lily Weatherston. The runner-up was Mikalaya Richardson. The Junior Showgirl was Sarah Ryan and the runner-up was Samantha Diebert. At the North Coast National Lismore Show, which was held just last weekend, the winner was Janaya Everingham. The runners-up were Cassandra Keogh and Brooke Felsch. Ashlee Tindall and Genevieve Wright were also entrants. The Miss Teen Showgirl winner was Nicola McKenzie. The runners-up were Ella Robinson and Casey Rucker. Other entrants were Jazmin Eakin, Rachael Redman, Lucia Greene, Holly Rankin and Taylor Small. At the Alstonville Show this weekend, which I'm looking forward to, entrants are Joanne Hunter, Bethany Lock, Brooke Convery, Melony Chapman, Maya Layton, Angelina Marchant, Jenna Robinson, Erica Kelly, Sophie Thompson, Kayla Wright, Samara Barrett, Georgie Young and Charlee Crowley. I congratulate all those young women for getting involved in what is a great event.
I would like to recognise three organisations in my community which were recently recognised in the Resilient Australia Awards. I notice the member for Richmond is in the chamber as well. Our region was hit very hard by a flood in the aftermath of Cyclone Debbie. I would like to acknowledge three organisations who got these awards. One was the Lismore Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who did great work. The executive put together some very important public meetings to get us all focused to make sure we got category C funding and got money into the area, working with both me and the state member, Thomas George. I'd also like to acknowledge Lismore Helping Hands, who set up an amazing organisation in south Lismore. The other one I want to focus on is the Casino Red Cross, and I'd like to congratulate the executive, Betty Braithwaite, Barbra Thorley, Carrie Kennedy and the whole team, on their 'Get in the Know' emergency services forum. (Time expired)
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:25): Every five years, the census data gives us a snapshot of our communities right across Australia—the people that live in these communities, the success that they're having and the challenges that they're facing and that, as a result, we as policymakers face.
In the ACT we have faced many challenges since the last census. None were bigger than the sustained attack on our public service by the Turnbull government. In a city where the public service makes up nearly a third of our workforce, it's concerning to see that the census data revealed that the number of Canberrans working in this area dropped by nearly two percentage points, and the number of Australians working in the public service fell to a decade low. What a great achievement! The number of Australians working in the public service is now at a decade low.
In direct correlation with the cuts to the Public Service by the Abbott and Turnbull governments, we've seen a cut of 15,000 jobs in Canberra's public service—15,000. This reminds me of 1996, when the Howard government was in, and the Howard government got rid of 30,000 public servants right across the country and 15,000 here in the ACT. The 15,000 in this recent round of cuts are on top of significant cuts to our national institutions. They haven't been cutting into fat. They haven't been cutting into bone. What we're seeing is them cutting into the vital organs of our national institutions.
Nothing can better exemplify the sustained attacks on Canberra than the train wreck that is the forced relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate. This is a blatant and shameless pork barrel. The APVMA website says that it has a clearly defined role as the regulator of agricultural and veterinary chemicals in Australia. But, as a result of this government's ridiculous cuts and this ridiculous relocation, the APVMA is still very far away from where it needs to be on that front. Close to half its work remains unfinished by agency deadlines and it's approving only a third of crop protection products within time frames ahead of the proposed relocation. This is having a significant impact on the agricultural industry. CropLife has said:
The APVMA's continuous failure to meet its statutory obligated timeframes is unacceptable and comes at a massive cost to the plant science industry and the nation's farming sector.
The House's Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation is looking into the best-practice approaches to regional development, the decentralisation of government entities and supporting corporate decentralisation. The decentralisation of the APVMA is the perfect example of what not to do.
St George Basketball Association
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (16:28): On 23 September, I attended the annual presentation evening of the St George Basketball Association, down at Club Central Hurstville, and as always it was a fantastic event, with lots of great players recognised. It was terrific to be able to present the Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement Awards on the night, as I've done for a number of years now.
I'd like to acknowledge the committee that manages the St George Basketball Association so well: Ray Barbi, the president, for his leadership and vision for the basketball community in our area; Anna Pazanin, the administrator, who's done so much for our community; Elizabeth Chipman, the secretary, who, when she's not running cricket competitions, is running basketball competitions; and all the other members of the committee who were there on the night. More than a thousand people play basketball through the St George Basketball Association, and I commend them for their efforts.
On 19 September, kids from Revesby Public School visited my electorate office. They were doing a walking trip around Revesby, going to various places along the way. They also went to St Joseph Banks High, Broderick Gillawarna School and the Beechwood nursing home. There was a large group of kids, about 40 kids, and they were from the stage 3 group. Narelle Nies, the principal, was leading the group along with a number of teachers. It was great to see them. The school has a very proud history and dates back to 1896, so it is one of the very oldest schools anywhere in my electorate, and also the only school in my electorate with its own museum about its history—a history of which the school is justifiably proud. I'm really looking forward to seeing the short film that the kids were making on the day, and thank you to them all for their visit.
On 25 September, I attended the end of season presentation night for the St Charbel Netball Club at Mount Lewis. The club was only started about three years ago, but more than 100 girls participate in the Canterbury-Bankstown netball competition. It's a great credit to the club president, Madonna Ghajar. I also acknowledge Reverend Father Maroun Youssef, the Principal of St Charbel's College, who was there, and, of course, Father Superior El Ferekh for his leadership of the St Charbel's community and the broader Maronite community in my area. It was fantastic to see the girls there on the night, so enthusiastic and so dedicated to their sport. Congratulations to everyone involved in St Charbel's Netball Club.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ) (16:31): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to:
(1) abandon its support of the decision of the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates because it will mean nearly 700,000 Australians will have their take home pay cut by up to $77 a week; and
(2) legislate to prevent the decision from taking effect to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut"—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ) (16:31): The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:32): It's a basic principle, fundamental to our system of financial regulation, that if someone is managing the investment of a large amount of other people's money we apply governance rules to ensure that investors have a reasonable chance of that money being deployed in their best interests. When it comes to bodies like banks, credit unions and super funds, we oversee them with APRA, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. We require them to have independent directors, we require them to meet strict reporting standards and to keep written policies, and we require them to act prudently to protect their members or customers' interests.
There is, however, another kind of organisation that holds and invests billions of dollars of hardworking Australians' money. Each year, millions of dollars are being poured into what are called 'worker entitlement funds', controlled by union and employer organisation officials. These opaque funds are now worth around $2 billion. While they are supposed to pay and protect workers' entitlements, in reality some unions skim around $25 million every year from these funds. The money for these funds comes from employers who are forced to pay as much as $100 per employee per week, or more than $500,000 per year from a single employer. Around 30 per cent of enterprise agreements compel payments into funds just like these, and that figure is as high as 60 per cent in the CFMEU dominated building and construction industry. This is all money which could be going to employing more workers or be invested back into that company.
Currently, the basic rules of good governance that we rightly apply to banks, credit unions and super funds do not apply to worker entitlement funds. They do not need to be managed by trained professionals or even by people of good character, they don't need independent directors, they don't need to be transparent or provide even the most basic of reporting, and they don't need to state in writing their policies on investment. In short, there is no requirement on them to act responsibly, to use workers' funds in their best interests, or even to tell them what they are doing with that money.
This is yet another area of secrecy and corrupt self-service in the union movement uncovered by the Heydon royal commission. The trade union movement and their friends in their political wing, the Labor Party, do not like transparency. When they had the chance, the Labor Party abolished the ABCC and, with it, the powers needed to uncover union corruption and illegality. When we sought to investigate, the Labor Party tried to stop the Heydon royal commission happening at all. They called it a witch hunt. They called it politically biased. They attacked its commissioner on frivolous grounds. And they called its evidence 'smears'. They fought tooth and nail to avoid the Leader of the Opposition being required to testify. They sought to undermine it at every turn.
When the Leader of the Opposition testified, he was—in the words of the commissioner—'evasive', and gave cause for concern as to his credibility as a witness. When the Heydon royal commission had identified widespread union corruption, illegality and violence, and had demonstrated the damage unions were doing to workers, Labor voted down the reintroduction of a tough cop on the beat, and even were willing to force the country into a double-dissolution election to try and prevent its reinstatement.
What do we find when we break through the secrecy and examine what unions are actually doing with their members' funds and their collective power? We find a CFMEU that has accrued fines of more than $12 million for illegal activities, and 90 CFMEU representatives before the courts on more than 1,300 charges. We find the secretary of the ACTU, Sally McManus, saying on national television that it's okay for unions to break the law, that the unions are above the law. Most recently, we find a union picket line at Oaky Creek Mine, where officials threatened to rape the children of those who were simply trying to do their jobs.
So, when it comes to the union movement, we desperately need transparency, and we need governance rules every bit as strong as those that pertain in the private sector. The bill imposes that transparency and those governance rules on unions and their schemes in the area of investing funds on behalf of workers. The need for this has been clearly demonstrated in recent years. There's more than $245 million of workers' money held in the Protect scheme, which ostensibly exists to provide workers with redundancy and income protection. That sounds perfectly good, doesn't it? That's fine. Employers are made to pay into it on their employees' behalf by arrangement with the Victorian Electrical Trades Union and National Electrical and Communications Association, NECA.
So where does this money end up? It's invested for the benefit of the workers, to ensure that they have an income when they need it. Well, is it? Nearly $5 million of it is not. $4.5 million is funnelled straight into the coffers of ETU Victoria, and another $330,000 goes back to NECA. If it were not for the work of the royal commission, workers would never have known about this arrangement. They would never have been told, because there is no rule that forces the fund to tell the very workers it alleges and purports to protect.
UPlus, another Victorian income protection scheme, is a joint venture between that worst of unions, the CFMEU, and insurer Coverforce. The scheme provides free travel and insurance and ambulance benefits to workers whose employers pay into it, but only those who belong to the CFMEU. If you're a law-abiding citizen and you don't want to join a union which has accrued record fines for illegality, then you are out of luck. It almost goes without saying, of course, that the scheme has also made around $810,000 a year in undisclosed payments to the CFMEU.
Sadly, in my own state of Queensland, we have the Building Employees Redundancy Trust, sometimes referred to as BERT. It holds $130 million of workers' money and, like too much of the construction industry in this country, it is controlled by the CFMEU, along with the CEPU and the Queensland Major Contractors Association. The fund regularly uses money that should be helping workers who were made redundant to pay those who actually have a job. It has channelled millions into the unions and associations that control it and has even made illegal payments to striking workers. The CFMEU is so desperate to keep this cash cow that its Queensland secretary, Michael Ravbar, is currently in court facing penalties for boycotting Universal Cranes because their employees had the audacity to find an alternative fund that offered real value for money.
Something must be done to ensure that these funds act in the interests of their members, just as anyone else who holds millions of other people's money must do. This bill does just that. This bill will require funds to be run by people of good character—not a particularly unusual thing, you would think. This bill requires funds to have at least one independent voting director on their boards, and it will require the funds to be managed at arm's length. This bill will require workers' money to be responsibly invested and managed by trained professionals. This bill will require transparency in the form of regular reporting to workers, employers and the Registered Organisations Commission. This bill will require the registered unions and employer organisations that run these funds to have written policies on basic matters like how they make financial decisions, how they use credit cards and how they treat hospitality and gifts. Finally, this bill will put these funds under the proper regulation of the Registered Organisations Commission. The Registered Organisations Commission will monitor the funds. It will ensure that they comply with the law and check whether they are managing workers' money responsibly.
As the Heydon royal commission told us, we need to go further to ensure that workers are not compelled to get involved in schemes like these when they have no interest in doing so. This bill ensures that enterprise agreements and employment contracts cannot include terms that require people to contribute to election funds that are set up to fund the campaigns of people running for office in a union or employer group. The bill also bans the coercion of employers into contributing to specific union approved super funds, welfare funds or other worker benefit schemes like those we've been discussing. The pressure that unions have placed on employers to contribute to specific schemes is not in the interests of workers. As we've seen, it has often been applied because those schemes were to the direct financial benefit of the union, and this must stop.
Once again, we've discussed throughout this debate that the best solution to the blight of union corruption and the selling out of workers in this country is transparency. The unions have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted to obey the law or to act in their workers' interests. I will make a correction on that, because I firmly believe that not all unions are bad. Many unions do a great service to their members, and in fact I'd go so far as to say that we need unions in this country, because if it wasn't for unions then some unscrupulous employers would take advantage of their workers. I'm not against unions, and neither is this government. What we are against is the illegal conduct of unions who continue to break the law, who continue not to observe the rule of law, who continue to think that they are above the law. That's why this bill also requires unions, employer groups and employers to disclose any financial benefit they will receive from promoting or arranging insurance products or payments to workers' entitlements, training or welfare funds.
I recently had a group called MATES in Construction come and see me, just last week. They were concerned about how this bill would impact on them. MATES in Construction does a terrific job in the construction industry. MATES in Construction, as the name suggests, educates people working in the building industry, particularly about how to look after your mates who are working in the construction industry. The construction industry is renowned for high suicide rates and high rates of mental illness. MATES in Construction does a terrific job of teaching building and construction workers how to look for signs and symptoms in mates who might be suffering from mental illness. They were concerned that this bill might impact upon them. They went and saw the minister, and they came and saw me and a couple of my colleagues, and the bill was amended to appease their concerns. MATES In Construction should have no fears with this bill and nor should any other group, any other valid group, any other bona fide group, that is conducting training or welfare services to those who are working in the building and construction sector.
Workers need to know when a conflict of interest exists. Where their interests are being sold out for the benefit of their union or its officials, I'm confident that workers will take action to protect themselves and withdraw from or reform the unions that have abandoned them.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It is a steriliser that the government is determined to apply to the union movement and all of its corrupt practices. At the Heydon royal commission we saw the reintroduction of the ABCC, and also the introduction of the registered organisations act, the protecting vulnerable workers act and the corrupting benefits act. In the many years to come, when we reflect on the achievements of this government, our comprehensive and determined delivery in forcing the secretive and corruptive union movement into the light will be one of our enduring legacies. This bill is an important part of that mission, and I commend it to the House.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:47): I rise to speak in favour of the amendment that's been moved by the member for Gorton. It focuses on and calls on this government to protect the penalty rates—the penalty rates that have been cut for over 700,000 workers—workers in retail, workers in hospitality, workers in pharmacy. The previous speaker didn't even make reference to the amendment, which would see those pay cuts restored for all of the workers who've had their pay cut, meaning that they would not cop this pay cut. The previous speaker and the government aren't even interested in protecting the pay of low-paid workers, some of the lowest-paid workers in our community.
I urge all of those on the government side to finally stand with Labor to protect the penalty rates for 700,000 low-paid workers. Since that penalty rate cut, we've seen other industries—hair and beauty, clubs and hotels—now also ask the Fair Work Commission to cut the penalty rates for their workers. These workers don't receive compensation for this pay cut. This is a minimum entitlement, a minimum wage, and there's been a straight wage cut.
I'd also like to set the record straight on a few things that the government is saying in relation to this bill. You'd think that they were living in some kind of alternative universe, that they were completely ignoring what is actually happening in the space of your rights at work and in the space of the ABCC. They're completely rewriting and changing history. Let's start with the royal commission. The Heydon royal commission was supposed to be independent and impartial, yet during the process of the royal commission, the commissioner himself, Dyson Heydon, agreed to be the keynote speaker at a Liberal fundraiser. Hardly impartial. Hardly independent. When you as the commissioner agree to go to a Liberal Party fundraiser, before the report is even handed down, I'd call that a little bit biased. It wouldn't even pass the pub test. Because of the findings of this particular commission, we now see legislation after legislation attacking unions—anti-worker, anti-union legislation. They took us to an election on the ABCC but hardly ever raised it during the election, then got the ABCC through, and now what's happened?
It's going so well for the government that the commissioner himself has had to resign because he knowingly broke the law; he knowingly broke the Fair Work Act. And yet they stand up here and talk about how great it is. You'd think there'd be some humility within the government—that they'd realise they've made a mistake. But, no, talking point after talking point still talks up how they needed to reintroduce the tough cop in the construction industry, who's had to resign because he broke the law. He knowingly broke the law. In fact, the minister recommended that he be reappointed to the role, knowing that he had broken the law.
Then we get to what has happened this week. The ABCC legal counsel quit, citing that Hadgkiss's actions made the role untenable. The whole reason the government forced this country to an early election was on the back of the ABCC. The commissioner has quit, the legal counsel has had to quit because of the consequences of the commissioner, and yet they still stand up here and lecture us—lecture people in the Labor Party, lecture construction workers, lecture the union movement.
Whilst the ABCC has been in place under this government, the hardest thing to stand here and say is that the union, unfortunately, was right: the number of construction deaths has gone up. There were 27 yesterday and 28 today and counting. That is because of this government's actions, deliberately weakening workplace health and safety on worksites. The ABCC, under their watch, is more interested in prosecuting union officials who fail to give 24 hours notification that they're walking onto a site, when that union official, in most instances, is walking onto that site because a construction worker has incurred a workplace injury. Some of the most grievous of those cases have been in Victoria. A union official walked onto a site because they received a call from a union member that a good friend and a delegate had fallen in the workplace. He died in the union official's arms. The company did the right thing and shut the job down. They called in counselling and the site went into grieving. Do you know what this government did, what the ABCC did? Issued a notice to the CFMEU: 'Why didn't you give 24 hours notification before entering that workplace?' The man was dying in the union official's arms, and the government doesn't talk about the workplace health and safety breaches—they ask why they didn't file the paperwork. Well, 24 hours after that man died, is there really a point to issuing a notification that you're going to walk on site? That is the audacity of the government, and that is where they're going.
Then we get to the bill that we have before us. I need to set the record straight on a couple of things that were raised by the previous speaker and that also came up in question time. As I've said previously, the Queensland Police have said that they are not investigating any member of the Oaky North picket line for accusations suggesting that they would rape a child. That is wrong, and every single person in this place stands united in condemning any threats of child rape, any threats of child abuse and any actions of it. The Queensland Police have said, in The Australian—which is not a workers' paper, which is not a union paper—that they are not investigating that incident. Yet this government—the ministers and the speakers on this bill—used that for political purposes when there is no evidence that it was ever said. The miners at Oaky North have been locked out by their employer, Glencore, for over 117 days—miners, working people, who just want to go back to work.
Today the Fair Work Commission basically issued a stunning rebuke against Glencore for their behaviour and conduct. They have ordered Glencore to order their security company to stop surveilling workers when they're at home. The commission declared that Glencore withdraw its direction in which it tried to discipline workers for being involved in the dispute. It has also said that it must stop the private security company applying military tactics to its anti-worker operations, likening union members to the Vietcong, and following union members and their families into schools and around their homes.
This is the behaviour of the mining company in this dispute: they are following families, they have private security behaving like a military organisation and they are referring to these workers as the Vietcong. They've said openly to the commission, 'We know where every CFMEU member lives.' The company has handed over their personal addresses. This has come out in the commission. The Fair Work Commission has turned around and said to Glencore, 'Stop what you are doing to your own workers.' But not one member of the government has stood up and condemned Glencore. Not one member of the ministry has stood up and condemned this multinational. Instead, they seek to condemn the workers who have been locked out, are frustrated and just want to go back to work. This is the nature of this government.
You can understand why Labor is saying that this bill needs to go to a Senate committee to make sure what is trying to be done is fully understood. The member for Fisher, the previous speaker, said to MATES in Construction, a great organisation: 'Don't worry. We've amended the bill so that your organisation will not be affected.' I don't take the government and the minister at their word, which is why this bill's content should be fully examined.
Worker entitlements funds are a way unions and employers pool resources to support workers, to protect their entitlements and, importantly, to provide services workers may need, such as training, counselling, suicide prevention and OH&S officers, just to name a few. We've already heard about the great work that MATES in Construction do. They're necessary. Every year about 190 construction workers take their own lives. That's a high statistic. Very few other professions would have a suicide statistic that high. A construction worker is six times more likely to die of suicide than from an accident at work. About 5,500 construction workers attempt suicide each year and just under 1,000 of them are permanently disabled because of their attempt. In acknowledging this and knowing this, unions and employers helped establish and fund MATES in Construction.
MATES in Construction was established in Queensland in March 2008 by the building employer redundancy trust—one of the trusts and organisations that this government seeks to target in this bill. MATES in Construction believe that, as a result of this bill, they will lose about 18 per cent of their funding. They estimate that would see a cut to frontline services: a 40 per cent cut in staffing and services in Queensland, a 15 per cent to 20 per cent cut in staffing and services in Western Australia and the organisation having to close in South Australia. That is the impact that MATES in Construction believe this government's bill will have.
This 80-page bill is being rushed through this parliament. We don't really get the chance to explore the true impact. These are significant issues. If the government's intention is to stop unions from being able to provide these types of services to workers, then we on the Labor side cannot support it. There are far too many questions that are yet to be answered about the details of this bill and the impact that this bill will have. This is why it needs to be properly explored.
How does what the bill imposes on registered organisations compare to regulations in place for corporations? Is the bill yet another layer of regulation over and above that that applies under other legislation, such as the fringe benefits tax act and the Corporations Act? How does the proposed deregistering scheme compare with what is in place for managed investment schemes? Again these are more questions that the government needs to answer. We are particularly concerned that the minister will have the power to flesh out details of this new regulatory scheme via regulations—so let's just leave it up to the minister, who knowingly appointed a commissioner who had broken the law. You can understand why we're a little bit sceptical on this side about giving that kind of power to the minister, who knowingly appointed someone who has had to resign because they had broken the law.
Further, why would we not want to encourage more organisations like MATES in Construction? Perhaps the government fails to understand that in a number of workplaces, in a number of industries, employers and employees, through their union, do work collectively and collaboratively together to make sure people are safe at work. I've mentioned MATES in Construction, but there are other organisations that are, for example, tackling drugs, making sure that workers are fit and ready to work. There are lots of schemes being operated to ensure that workers have support. On Friday I will be on site in Victoria attending some toolbox meetings which the CFMEU run around DV prevention, to make sure that their members understand what their role is not just in terms of White Ribbon but in making sure that women are always safe. Will this organisation be at risk because of these changes?
I urge the government to stop its attacks on unions and to start focusing on the real issues in Australian workplaces, like wage theft. Where is the legislation to tackle the chronic issue of wage theft in our country? Where is the government supporting Labor's amendment here today to reverse the cuts to penalty rates? These are the issues that we need to tackle in our workplaces. We do not need more rhetoric from the government or more attacks on unions that are getting on with the job to make sure not only that workers are safe but also that their work rights, their wages and their conditions are protected.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (17:02): It may come as a surprise to the government, but sometimes people like to use their money to help other people. Not everything is about profit. Some might say, 'Well, you can come together collectively as a group of people, get in a community group, or a workers' group; you might want to pool your money and then use that to help out people who might be doing it a bit tough.' In many industries, like the construction industry and the electrical industry, that's something that workers have to deal with quite regularly because they are industries where a lot of people work for a short period of time when there is building going on, a piece of construction, and then they might find themselves without a job for the next little while. They will spend their whole lives going through many, many employers. Over the years in those industries the workers, with the agreement of employers, have managed to set up funds that the employers pay some money into, under an agreement with the workers, and those funds then sit there to be available to people when they fall on hard times—when they are out of a job for an extended period, for example, or when they find themselves injured or they get sick when they are off the job and are not covered by WorkCover. They might get income protection insurance at below market rates, for example. This happens because people have pooled their money together and said, 'We recognise that this is the nature of our industry and we want to look after each other.' This has worked very well in looking after people. Unless the government is going to say, 'We want to tighten up the unfair dismissal laws in the construction industry and the redundancy laws so that no-one ever gets sacked,' then it is going to be a feature of life in construction or in the electrical and plumbing trades that people will go through periods of work and not having work, and they will have to look for support in those times when they don't have work.
So we've got these funds around the country that look after people in these industries, and they look after them in a number of ways. One is that they provide access to things like insurance at rates that are cheaper than they would be if you went to the market and got them yourself. A second thing they do—one of the main reasons for their existence—is to provide redundancy and income support for those periods when you're not working. And there are other services that they don't provide at a cost but because they're good things to do. For example, they provide counselling. We know that the suicide rates in the construction industry, in part because of the hours people work, are higher than average. What has happened over the years through people chipping in a little bit, a couple of dollars a week, and that money adding up is that there's now a fund, managed by workers and employers alike, to look after people in the industry. It means, for example, that if you find yourself doing it really tough then not only do you have access to financial support but there is someone to get on the phone to who will provide counselling—and you don't have to pay for it. That's not something that's done because they went out to tender, went to the market, and said, 'Who can give us the best possible rate?' No; it was seen as a good to look after the people in their community.
So we've got schemes that currently do this, in Victoria and right around the country, and they're serving their members very, very well. They can do it because they're run on a cooperative model. When they don't have to run everything at a profit they can do things like subsidise insurance, which they might not otherwise be able to do, and offer free counselling, which they wouldn't be able to do if they had to pay for everything at market rates. There is a basic understanding that if everyone pitches in a little bit to a central pool, and that central pool is managed properly—not like a corporation as a profit-making entity but with the money going back to the members in the industry—then everyone benefits. It allows these funds, for example, to make grants to training organisations to train people up so that there's safety in the workplace and people increase their skills.
Bear in mind that very often these funds are run by an equal mix of employer and union people. When funds go off to these training organisations it's not done because they're running things like a company, working out how they can make a profit, but to benefit everyone in the industry. It means that training can be offered in a way that doesn't impose additional costs on employers. Many of these training centres run without having to charge the people who front up, which means that employers get a benefit as well. They train people in aspects of construction, they train people in plumbing—not far from my electorate of Melbourne—and they do it right around the country. They can do this because when they get money from the workers they invest it, and when they get returns they can use them for these purposes that improve the lives of everyone in the industry.
This government looks at that and it hates it. It says, 'That should not be allowed, because these are not commercial, market-length transactions where we open up everything to the private sector.' It's the equivalent of saying: 'You can't go and join the RACV and pitch in your money and run things on a cooperative basis. Every time your car breaks down you have to go out to tender and find someone to come and look after it for you. If it costs you a bit more, so be it.' No. People have the right to come together and put their money into cooperative ventures, and that's exactly what is happening here. But the government wants to break it apart.
We saw a version of this with the Kennett government when they got their hands on local councils in Victoria and said: 'Councils aren't allowed to run things not for profit anymore. You have to contract everything out to the private sector.' Rates have gone up and, as a result, many councils are trying to pull things back in. They have council-run providers running a lot of their services. What we've learned in Victoria is that the whole process, which is embodied in this bill, of saying we have to do everything at market rates and make a profit out of it results in people getting fewer services but paying through the nose for them. We've seen it with electricity, we've seen it with councils and now the government is ideologically trying to do it to unions as well. It will mean that when the central fund, one of the funds governed by this legislation, says, 'We'd actually like to give a grant for some training to be run in the industry on a zero-cost or not-for-profit basis,' they won't be allowed to do it anymore. They won't be allowed to do it anymore under this bill because everything has to be paid for at market value. If you want to offer a bit of counselling to people, on my reading of this bill you won't be able to do that for free anymore because using money from the fund to pay for a service can only be done if you are giving it to someone offering the service at market value and at arm's length. It goes on and on.
It's typical of the government to give us an 80-page bill and say, 'Pass it now.' In the short time we've had it available to us to read, the bill has made us go, 'Hang on; this will actually make life very, very difficult for a number of services at the moment that are actually making people's lives better, only because they're not being run at a profit.' The government, for purely ideological reasons want to come in and say, 'You've got to reconstitute your board and you've got to rewrite your contracts,' without asking the first question of, 'Is the system actually working at the moment?' If the government actually ask that they will probably find that, by and large, it is. If there is a case for making some improvements, you would probably find some willing participants within the sector who'd say, 'We are happy to sit down and discuss improvements.' But that's not the government's approach. The government's approach is to bring in a bill that could grind to a halt the operations of some very worthwhile services and to say: 'Pass it. We are going to give you a couple of days to look at it.'
That suggests that the government's purpose is not at all to improve governance in the sector. Yet again this is purely an ideological stick to beat up people with. That's all it is. They say, 'We've had a royal commission that has recommended it.' It was a royal commission headed by someone who was going to go and speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser until he got found out. The government are quite happy to say, 'We'll have a royal commission into unions and particularly unions we don't like because they sit on a certain side of the political fence,' but, when there are allegations that Crown Casino have been tampering with pokie machines and causing people to lose money, they say, 'We couldn't possibly have an investigation into that.' That tells you everything about this government's priorities. So, pardon me, government, if, when you whack an 80-page bill on the table and say, 'Trust us; it's all about improving governance,' I don't believe you.
They have the gall to come in here and say, 'We want to improve the rule of law in areas like the construction industry.' I'm still waiting for the explanation from this government about why they appointed someone to head up the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, who has just had to resign because he broke the law that he was meant to enforce. He has admitted this in court. He knowingly went out and said to people: 'I know that the law gives people certain rights to meet their unions to discuss things like safety and so on in the lunch rooms, but I don't want you to tell anyone that. In fact, I want you to tell them the opposite.' He got his organisation to publish misleading information to workers and builders in the sector to say, 'No, you're not allowed to have these meetings,' when in fact, by law, they were allowed to. He got found out and he had to resign. All the while, it turns out the minister knew these allegations were hanging over his head. The same minister who is bringing this bill to us and saying, 'It's all about improving good governance,' has not given an explanation at all about why she appointed someone to head up the construction industry watchdog who broke the law that he was meant to enforce.
Meanwhile, if you look around the country at the moment, if you want to focus on something in industrial relations or fix up issues in the workplace, there's plenty to do. We've got a youth unemployment crisis in this country. Youth unemployment is always higher than general unemployment. Historically, every time we have a downturn, we know that young people get hit hard and youth unemployment spikes up. But what you usually find is that a couple of years after that the lines come back into sync and youth unemployment comes back to its normal levels—still higher than general unemployment, but the two lines come back into sync. What we found in this country since the GFC, though, was that youth unemployment spiked and stayed high. The lines haven't come back together. In other words, we have a situation where, when it comes to the workplace—which the government is telling us they're concerned about in this bill—there are now young people who, since the GFC, have never been able to find a job, and the unemployment rate for them has not come back to its historical norm. We've abolished entry-level jobs in this country to a large extent. They just don't exist anymore in the way that they used to, and young people are suffering. As a result, we have the stats of five young people applying for every one job advertisement, with youth unemployment at historical highs and no jobs for them to go into.
If the government were seriously concerned about addressing issues in the workforce, it would be dropping everything to deal with this youth unemployment crisis, because it is worse than it has been for several decades. I'm still waiting for the government to come up with a bill that tells us how they're going to address that—what nation-building infrastructure they're going to invest in to find jobs for young people or how we're going to make sure young people can work. But not a week goes by that they don't come up with another bill that attacks people's rights at work and disrupts services and systems that are working perfectly well. So, pardon me if we don't take you on trust, government, and if we don't accept that this is all just about tidying up some loose ends. When you're serious about dealing with some of the issues that are facing people at work, when you're serious about dealing with the fact that wage growth is at historic lows because you've spent the last three decades, often with Labor's support, changing the industrial laws so that people can't bargain—when you're serious about addressing that—come back with some proposals, and we'll take you seriously.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (17:17): Well, another day, and it's no surprise, as the member for Melbourne observed in his closing there, that we see yet another government bill—a trumped up Trump-style government bill—attacking unions, the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017. This is extraordinary, in terms of both substance and process. The process does need to be looked at from the outset. There are five schedules—80 pages—amending five pieces of legislation, with significant implications for employer groups and for unions. This needs detailed technical examination. It doesn't deserve to be rushed through the parliament as if somehow this is a crisis, as if this is urgent. It would behove the government to allow us to do our jobs as legislators and spend time actually reflecting on the clauses and the words, particularly given that apparently it's implementing some of the recommendations from that outrageous Heydon royal commission—which was quite some time ago, so it's difficult to understand what the urgency is. But the government of course is trying to rush it through. There may well be worthy bits, but you wouldn't really know, and you can't be confident in the time available. And, as the member for Melbourne and others have observed, you certainly cannot place any reliance anymore on this minister's word, given her appalling behaviour and given that there is still a lack of explanation around the affair with the ABCC commissioner.
It is based, as we see from the press release—a bit like the energy policy: it's government by press release or letter, these days; you don't have to release policy or modelling—on familiar nonsense about unions. Unions are apparently big business, and they're focused on making profits and not representing workers, and therefore we should just vote for this, which is utter garbage. Just because you say it, government, that doesn't actually make it true. Worker entitlement funds are jointly established by unions and businesses, and they operate primarily to ensure that workers' entitlements are protected. But they also have important secondary functions, and there should be no shame about that; there's no problem with their providing important services, including safety advice and services. Regarding the Heydon royal commission, apparently we're supposed to vote for this because it came out of a dodgy royal commission. I mean, give me a break: it's the same old conservative trick that we've seen through the decades. It started I think with the Queensland conservative government having a witch-hunt royal commission on, as they say, 'Red Ted' Theodore, when he was the Commonwealth Treasurer back in 1929-30. We saw the same outrageous, garbage trick played by the Court government on Carmen Lawrence when she was a senior minister in the Keating government. We see exactly the same trick that conservatives always pull: they misuse the powers of a royal commission. In this case, it is to get the opposition leader in the dock, get him on tellie being investigated by a former High Court judge. It is completely outrageous. He attended a Liberal Party fundraiser and we give it no credence whatsoever.
You really have to look at the context. We have made some important points in the second reading amendment. This fundamentally is a desperate attempt. If you say 'fair work' in the title, perhaps the government thinks that someone might be fooled that this is in some way fairer, in some way going to improve workplaces—
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
Mr HILL: Indeed. Thank you, member for Brand. You are my muse here in this chamber. We have a packed gallery.
This is a desperate attempt to distract public attention from the fact that the government has no agenda to address wage stagnation or underemployment or rising inequality, and to distract people from remembering that the government is really only focused, as you see from their budget and legislative priorities, on the top end of town. We all get a tax cut. Everyone earning over $180,000 in this country gets a tax cut. Let's give it away! Fire up the nation's ATMs—$65½ billion company tax cut, including for Gina Rinehart and her mates in the next tranche! Defend to the death the unjust and highly regressive damaging and unsustainable tax breaks that go to high-income earners overwhelmingly. Not just stagnant wages though—and this is the piece de resistance—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr HILL: That's right. Pop that into Hansard—is to actually cut wages. And, as the second amendment shows, the government could legislate now. They could put this bill aside, push it down the Notice Paper, let the parliament do its job, let us work through it clause by clause, let us reconcile it to your dodgy royal commission report and see whether it is one of the reasonable bits in there, and focus on stopping the wage cut for 700,000 low-income workers. That should be a priority for the parliament to legislate.
Indeed, there is a bill on the Notice Paper—you shouldhave had enough time to look at it because it has been hanging around for months—that the Opposition Leader introduced to do exactly that. Perhaps, if plebiscites and surveys are the order of the day, you can have a survey and see what the Australian people think about penalty rate cuts. Try that on for size.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr HILL: No. Call an election. Try that. With regard to the penalty rate cut for hospitality, fast food, retail and pharmacy awards, fundamentally this is a wage cut for 700,000 workers. You can dress it up however you want; it is a wage cut, a wage cut, a wage cut. It is the thin end of the wedge, as we are already seeing, for millions of others.
This is not a blank sheet. We are not designing society or the economy from scratch. We need to consider reality as we find it in the real world, outside this building, not on the IPA's magical happy place or on the whiteboard where they dream this rubbish up, but in the real world, in families and communities where young people and women will bear the brunt of these wage cuts, as the second reading amendment points to.
The first point I would make is this is not inevitable. We are told there is a sense of inevitability. 'Oh well, the Fair Work Commission said this. It's a neoliberal happy trickle-down world. It's inevitable.' It's not. We choose. We can, and we have the responsibility to actively choose the kind of society we want. This is an unwanted and unnecessary change to the long-established economic and social structure in Australia. It goes to the heart of the kind of society we want to be.
Labour is not—this is news to those opposite, the bean counters, the widgets, the Daleks—a normal economic input like electricity or rent, at least not outside the IPA's happy whiteboard place. Ethical and human concerns must be taken into account in workplace relations laws. The Australian community has long valued people working unsociable hours. They miss family events, they miss time with kids, they miss sports and they miss social events. Everyone else can have a day or a night out, but not those people working unsociable hours. And this stuff is important to the fabric of our communities, to the kind of place and country we want to be. It is often thankless work—shop workers, shelf packers, cleaners—people who make everyone else's Sundays relaxed should be valued.
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
Mr HILL: You're on my side, Member for Brand. Reducing penalty rates reduces the necessary respect and the value of time that should exist between employers and employees. Remember? Key point: it is not a normal economic input. These are human beings, with families and lives; they are part of society, not just rent or electricity. As a society we have every right to shape our economy to suit our way of life. We can choose to keep these arrangements, and the economic arguments that we somehow just have to ditch them are wrong.
The second point I would make is that penalty rates are a necessity for millions of Australian households. They rely on them to cover their expenses. They're not optional extras or executive bonuses. So what this wage cut for 700,000 people means—that the government is too gutless to actually stand up and stop—is that people will be forced to try and work more hours just to maintain their family's take-home pay, which of course is impossible for most people because of family or caring responsibilities or study.
Secondly, if they can't work more hours to keep their same take-home pay, guess what? They lose household income, which worsens inequality, because, unsurprisingly from this mob, these wage cuts overwhelmingly affect lower-income workers. That in turn reduces spending in the real economy, because the people affected by these wage cuts spend every dollar of their pay. They are not pouring thousands of dollars extra into superannuation; they are not spending it on enormous overseas holidays; they are not piling it up in the bank. They spend it on their daily lives.
In terms of the economic impact, cutting wages is not an efficient way of boosting productivity or growth. It actually does the opposite, because reducing domestic spending reduces turnover in exactly the kind of businesses that are cutting wages. It is an unvirtuous reinforcing cycle. An average $3,500 per year will be reduced from full-time employees wages. Thousands of people will be unable to spend thousands of dollars in local economies. Instead, these funds will be pocketed by businesses as profit for high-income earners, which means a less-positive impact on the economy, because these people, probably people in this room here, are more likely to save this money or spend it overseas, which doesn't add to our national prosperity.
With regard to employment, we're told that somehow you have to just roll over and suck it up, grin and bear it, because, somehow, it will create more jobs overall. This is based on a flawed version of the discredited trickle-down myth, which goes something like this: make doing business cheaper and it will increase aggregate profits and therefore employment will somehow increase, as business has more revenue with which to employ staff, and businesses will also remain open for longer hours as the cost of labour reduces. Yet the Fair Work Commission finds that the aggregate impact on employment rates of cutting penalty rates is negligible. So, all we have is a very weak case based on theory and anecdote, and it is not a proper basis on which to make policy or to justify such a massive change. The evidence, of course, is that larger businesses do not choose to remain open for longer and they don't invest labour savings into more jobs. Larger businesses, of course, employ as many people as they need to do the job—no more, no less. If they need more people they will employ them.
If a few businesses do open a bit longer, that doesn't mean that consumers will spend more. Most businesses in the affected industries are already open for long hours. There are plenty of opportunities for consumers to spend their money. Longer trading hours don't mean more money in the average consumer's pocket. People can't spend money they don't have—who knew! For any extra hours created here or there, as I said at the start, back to where we began, existing workers will be working those extra hours just to try to maintain their take-home pay. It doesn't create new jobs overall. It forces people to work longer for the money they already have.
If you think about timing—timing is everything, they say—even if you believe this nonsense theory this is the worst possible time in years, decades really, to cut wages, because wages have stagnated for the last five years. We are in the 20th quarter, I think probably the 21st consecutive quarter, since mid-2012 of falling wages growth for private sector workers. The most recent rate of growth was only around two per cent, the lowest since 1991. This consistent reduction in wage growth rate has resulted in real wages remaining stagnant for over 4.5 years, and in many cases actually declining in real terms.
We have the government over there introducing voluminous legislation to implement supposedly critically urgent recommendations from a dodgy royal commission that has hung around for ages—it is still unclear why it is so urgent—instead of focusing on something that actually matters to Australians. As I said, I dare you to have a plebiscite or a survey to see what people think of penalty rates cuts.
This is happening at the worst possible time. It shrinks the whole economy, because we create a negative cycle where wages remain depressed. Most sensible mainstream economists cite that average everyday Australians have identified lack of wage growth as one of the biggest problems facing the economy. It makes the cost of living even more difficult, it worsens inequality, it is bad for business, consumers spend less and, of course, it threatens budget projections.
The final point I want to touch on is something we've been whacked over the head about. When the Fair Work decision came out we said, 'This is going to set a pattern. This is going to flow on to other industries and other sectors.' We were told that that was wrong, it was not fair and we were making it up. Labor said it was the thin end of the wedge. We were told by the government: 'You're running a scare campaign. It's only these awards.' Well, now we're seeing the true agenda. This decision is spreading, right now: other awards, other sectors, other workers and other industries are pursuing these pay cuts. We've seen the application, already, from the restaurant and catering industry. There's talk of the hairdressing industry and many others.
The decision itself is flawed, and that's why we should be prioritising legislation to fix this decision, not mucking around with voluminous legislation, shoving it through the House when the case hasn't been made. Some findings in the Fair Work Commission decision about fact and law do go beyond these industries. It's not a Labor scare. This is a considered, detailed analysis that commentators have made, and we are now seeing it happen in the Fair Work Commission. The kind of factors which the Fair Work Commission said justified these wage cuts include: existence of entry-level jobs, consumer expectations of weekend public holiday service, the potential for increasing jobs, and the disutility for employees not, on balance, preventing a reduction in rates. The fact that employees were earning just enough to cover their weekly expenses wouldn't prevent a reduction in rates.
These exact same factors apply in numerous other industries. That's the text of the decision, and that's what we're seeing other sectors now jumping on board with, salivating for a wage cut, so they can pocket some profits. The industries most at risk are aged care and health care, nursing, transport, security, cleaning, construction, teachers, education workers working on weekends—such as sports coaches, mining workers, social, community, disability and homecare nurses. I'll probably be told by those opposite that that's a scare campaign. But it's not. Exactly the same conditions that underpin this flawed decision are flowing to other sectors right now. The decision is wrong. It was a flawed legal framework. There's a need to prevent it from being implemented and to fix the legislation.
The final thing I'll point out is that it will also affect people on enterprise agreements. Some commentary is saying that people on enterprise agreements are immune. That is, frankly, rubbish, because in the real world the relevant award becomes a measuring stick. This will flow through. It is flowing through elsewhere, over time, even within this sector. If the government had a shred of decency and had any contact with the real world, they would introduce legislation now to fix this flawed decision.
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (17:32): I feel for the member for Bruce. He was hoping to get an answer, but, clearly, no-one on the government side wants to defend this dodgy piece of legislation. I rise to speak about the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017 which was introduced to the House last week. You can just guarantee it: another day, another government bill designed to attack workers' pay and conditions. The government has, once again, managed to find another way to try and rob Australians of their rights in the workplace. This time, they're targeting workers' entitlement funds, funds which were set up, due to the countless complaints against phoenix companies, to provide better security to employees against loss of their entitlements.
In the manner that we've come to expect from this government, they're doing all they can to stop us from properly scrutinising this bill and from undertaking any real consultation with stakeholders. They want to rush this bill through the House faster than they can down a Cristal champagne or two by the harbour side. At the end of the day, it's just another measure to continue the government's absurd war against unions. It's clear that they simply don't understand the need for workers' rights, or the vital role that unions have played throughout the years. The minister is under some strange illusion that unions have become big businesses, focused on making profit instead of protecting the people they represent. It is an utter load of rubbish.
This kind of arrogance could only come from those opposite, who have never done a hard day's work in their lives. They've never been a worker, never understood a worker, and never, ever, stood up for a worker. Maybe if they left their marble offices and their big velvet chairs once in a while they would see that Australia is made up of hardworking people—people who will be gravely affected by the loss of penalty rates of up to $77 a week. Workers' entitlement funds are put in place to make sure that workers' entitlements are protected, that workers are adequately trained, that the proper funding of OH&S officers is guaranteed, and that employees can access fundamental services like counselling support and suicide prevention. I'd love to see those opposite own up to this disgrace of a bill and tell Australians what it really means. It means the government are backing away from what is right, once again showing they're putting dollars first, even when it means ripping off everyday Australians.
The absurdity doesn't end there. The government have told us that they've based this bill on 10 recommendations by the Heydon royal commission—the Heydon royal commission. It isn't that hard to see that the previous pieces of legislation based on this disgraced royal commission have been a flop, and they simply can't be trusted. Put simply, the disgraced royal commission was a political witch-hunt, using $100 million of taxpayer money that has delivered nothing better for workplaces. In what universe is it appropriate that their hand-picked royal commissioner attends a Liberal Party fundraiser in the middle of a commission to do the government's political bidding? What did the disgraced commissioner do when we raised this inappropriate behaviour? He investigated himself! He thought he'd go and talk to the tough cop on the beat! So he sat there and said, 'Commissioner, have you done the wrong thing?' 'No, Commissioner, I haven't done the wrong thing.' 'Are you sure?' 'Yes, I'm positive. I'm 100 per cent sure.' 'That's okay, then. All is good. All is forgiven. Let's move on.' You couldn't make up this stupidity.
Effectively, the government is trying to take away the independence of crucial unions and employers around Australia and put them under the umbrella of incompetent organisations like the IPA. You can be sure that all this does is replace real union advocacy with bureaucratic nonsense. The government want to stack these independent boards with Liberal Party stooges in an attempt to destroy fair working standards in this country. From a government that spruiks the need for less red tape, this measure is another broken promise as they push back efficiency to allow rolls and rolls of red tape to come in. The government claims these will be run by good people. Those are the minister's own words: 'good people'. Who exactly are they talking about? If we're talking about some of the government's good people, we're talking about Nigel Hadgkiss and Michael Lawler. What about Kathy Jackson or, of course, the Prime Minister's favourite, good old Godwin Grech? We know, when it comes to good character, the government has no credibility whatsoever.
We on this side see that workers' entitlement funds benefit workers. They are managed transparently and responsibly, and are spent for the genuine benefit of Australian workers. You only have to look at the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to see how fast the government is to kick aside the matter of workers' rights. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was put in place to pay truck drivers a fair wage and to make sure, when they're out on the road, they can pay their bills and feed their families. But the second the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal attempted to bring in minimum wages in order to combat unsafe contracts—which are causing death and serious injuries on our roads, and in the trucking industry—the government went into an absolute frenzy: 'We can't have people being paid proper wages!'
More than 200 truck drivers die in Australia each and every year. The government took the easy way out. Instead of addressing these deaths and protecting Australians, it completely destroyed the RSRT, turning a blind eye to the unbelievable conditions and pressures that truck drivers are expected to work under. This government, time and time again, ignores the advice of experts. When the National Transport Commission demonstrated the clear link between safety outcomes and truck driver pay rates, the government feigned ignorance. By axing the RSRT, the government took away protections for whistleblowers in the industry who were concerned about the safety of their workplaces, and took away their right to take leave without losing contracts. It was and is an appalling, short-sighted move by the government—just a way for them to point at something tangible, to give them a win during their time in government.
We on this side of the House know better than to gamble with the lives of Australians. It's not a win when you make it easier for truckies to die on our roads while they're trying to make a living. It's not a win when, for political gain, you drive good men and women truck drivers to suicide. But just like the trucking industry, the construction industry has one of the highest levels of worker vulnerability. The construction industry relies on entitlement funds for payments regarding leave, termination of employment, contracts, awards or agreements provided for an employer to make to an employee.
Quite often the government will come in and want to attack the CFMEU. It's their plaything. I really think John Setka should be panicking about what the Prime Minister's up to. Is he looking over his fence day in day out? Why is he always on his back?
My son-in-law works in the construction industry, and I'm more than proud to stand with the CFMEU to know that they are going to, each and every day, make sure he can come home, make sure he has a safe workplace. Even today, we had a construction worker die on the job. And where was the government's empathy for the family or for the workers? It was nowhere to be seen. They just want to keep sprouting proven false allegations. And the disgusting work in question time today: fair dinkum; I don't know whether anyone had the misfortune of watching that. I remember the chief of the ADF saying, 'The standard you set is the standard you walk past.' Well, today we've seen the lowest standard of the most morally and ethically bankrupt and corrupt government in this nation's history. It was wrong. The CFMEU stands up each day and makes sure people have safe workplace practices. I like the idea of knowing that my six-month-old granddaughter is going to know that her dad's going to come home each day because the CFMEU is standing up to make sure that he's looked after—to make sure that he's paid and gets the entitlements that he's due, to make sure that he can come home safely and go to work again tomorrow. That's what it's about.
The government just want to kick the union as a plaything, but they've got no understanding, because of their arrogance and ignorance—just as they are ignorant and arrogant towards the 700,000 Australians who are going to be losing up to $77 a week. That's $77 a week that a family in Mernda could use to pack their kids' lunches. It's $77 a week that a young couple in Sunbury could set aside to pay their mortgage. And it's $77 a week that this government is taking out of the pockets of hardworking Australians. Why does the government think families shouldn't be able to sit around the table to share a meal and have some quality time? You see just how little they care when you look at their attacks on penalty rates. The fact is that penalty rates are in place because people working on weekends or working unsociable hours are missing out on what we value in Australia. My father was a printer at News Limited. It hurts me to say that he worked at News Limited! But he worked all his life. He missed out on birthdays, Christmases—you name it: everything—because he worked at night-time, just so he could have the rag out in the morning.
The McKell Institute report found that McEwen will be the second-worst impacted by penalty rate cuts in the whole of Australia. We're set to lose approximately $19 million a year out of the economy that this government is doing nothing about. I have heard countless stories from constituents who are affected by these penalty rate cuts. At our local Amcal Pharmacy in Craigieburn pharmacists are fighting for their fair share in wages. Amcal turned over a $50 million profit last year. And how did it repay its staff for their hard work? By cutting the pay of their workers, who already earned as little as $27 an hour, thanks to this government and to big businesses ripping off hardworking employees and making it harder for them to make ends meet. While our local pharmacists serve our community 24 hours a day, seven days a week, this government sits idly by while they lose out. The government is so completely out of touch that it thinks cutting penalty rates will improve job opportunities. The irony is that the government's own information shows that's factually untrue. The government fails to see outside the Sydney Harbour bubble. In the small towns in McEwen, where more businesses are being opened, that doesn't actually mean more jobs or a huge boost in trade. Cutting penalty rates means that people throughout Australia and in McEwen will have less money to spend, which means they won't be visiting those restaurants and shops. Small-town economies are bound to suffer, and that's just unacceptable. In electorates like McEwen, a high proportion of retail and hospitality workers earn less than their city counterparts already.
When regional workers are employed by firms that are not locally owned, the benefits leave our communities. The McKell Institute study shows that workers in 45 regional communities will lose $667 million per year from penalty rate cuts, and $289 million of that is expected to leave our regional electorates altogether—just to line the pockets of corporations in the city and, even worse, overseas. The research shows that more than 277,000 workers in regional communities will be hit by the cut to Sunday penalty rates. Most of the savings businesses owners stand to make will not feed back into local communities.
The government are trying to stop unions from being part of the Australian workforce. They are trying to stop unions from providing crucial services to workers. We simply will not stand for that. They've done it before and they're doing it again with this bill. They'll keep coming and coming. Australian families and Australian workers know that the Australian Labor Party is there to stand in the way of these right-wing ideologues that run this pathetic government. It's disgusting, it's unjust and it just goes to show that, when it comes to Australian workers, only the Labor Party can be trusted.
The Prime Minister presides over the worst wage stagnation in years, though he did pretty well giving himself a $16,000 tax cut on 1 July. He keeps that nice and quiet, doesn't he? This government wants to continue to undermine workers and the unions. It's all words and no action when it comes to the government's plans to address wage stagnation, underemployment, rising inequity and really anything else, for that matter. Under this government big business gets tax cuts while Aussie workers get wage cuts. Labor will not stop fighting for workers' rights and exposing the truth behind this government's flawed and convoluted plans to empty workers' pockets and make sure that big businesses are looked after. If this bill were a dog, you'd take it out the back and shoot it. Maybe that's what needs to be done now.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (17:46): I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017. I cannot commence talking about this bill without making initial comments about the absolutely extraordinary attacks by this government on the union movement that played out this afternoon. We've seen outrageous raids on the offices of the Australian Workers' Union in Sydney and Melbourne. On the same day that this parliament is told that Malcolm Turnbull's cuts to the Australian Federal Police have meant serious crimes like drug smuggling cannot be properly investigated we see the extraordinary use of the AFP and taxpayer dollars to raid the offices of the Australian Workers' Union in Sydney and Melbourne.
The Turnbull government has openly directed the commission to start this witch-hunt. It's entirely responsible for this turn of events. It's an alarming misuse of ministerial power. It's an abuse of power, and it needs to be called out for that. The Liberals have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on their witch-hunt into unions. Their visceral anger and hatred towards the union movement and towards workers and their rights is absolutely disgraceful. They will stop at nothing in attacking workers and their representatives. We've seen that play out this afternoon in these extraordinary raids on the AWU.
Of course, this is a bit of deja vu. It's about the political incompetence and desperation of this government. We're seeing the NBN raids play out all over again. What did that get us? Absolutely nothing but more wasted taxpayer dollars. I believe that the Australian people will see this for the desperate act it is. It's an act of desperation by a desperate, pathetic government in the last throes of trying to figure out what to do with itself.
At the outset, we're also extremely concerned that we're debating this bill, given that it has five schedules, running to a total of 80 pages, and was introduced only last Thursday, 19 October. Barely five days, including the weekend, is hardly sufficient to get across an extremely dense and technical bill. I note, too, that the member for Gorton, as shadow minister for employment, received a departmental briefing on this bill only yesterday. Several questions put on notice to the head of the department have not yet been answered. The government is clearly attempting to avoid scrutiny of this bill. In everything they do they seek to avoid scrutiny, responsibility, accountability and transparency. It's being rushed through this parliament and that is simply unacceptable. The government claims that this legislation's purpose is to implement various recommendations of the Heydon royal commission. We remember that, don't we? Tens of millions of dollars was wasted on that royal commission, on that witch-hunt. The Heydon royal commission, as many will remember, was presided over by an individual who attended Liberal Party fundraisers and whose sole aim was to do the political bidding of the then Abbott government.
The explanatory memorandum states that this bill amends five separate pieces of legislation, and it will: first, put additional requirements on the government's financial reporting and financial disclosure requirements of 'worker entitlement funds'; second, prohibit awards or enterprise agreements from requiring or permitting contributions to any fund other than a superannuation fund, a registered worker entitlement fund or a registered charity; third, prohibit awards or enterprise agreements from permitting or requiring employee contributions to a union election fund; fourth, prohibit coercion of employers to pay amounts to a particular worker entitlement fund, superannuation fund, training fund, welfare fund or employee insurance scheme; fifth, put additional financial management and disclosure obligations on registered organisations; and, sixth, introduce new penalties for registered organisations' non-compliance with financial management disclosure and reporting requirements.
It is quite clear, even in this summary, that this bill has significant implications for both unions and employer groups. But it is entirely reasonable to say that a detailed examination of the technical provisions in the bill is essential in order to fully ascertain what the full impact of the bill is and which groups will be affected. On this basis I note that Labor has attempted to have the bill examined by the Senate employment committee—in my view an extremely appropriate approach, given the density of this particular bill. Regrettably, the government has joined with a group of senators, led by departing Senator Nick Xenophon, to block Labor's efforts on that front. The inquiry the Senate is having on this bill will be forced to report on 10 November 2017, setting an almost impossible deadline for stakeholders to prepare submissions and evidence. This proposal represents yet another chapter in this government's relentless attacks on unions. I know the media is focused on what we're seeing play out at the AWU offices this afternoon; nonetheless, this is part of this government's relentless attack against unions and it is no less important, given how they're trying to rush this through the parliament.
Of course, we know why they are doing this—the Liberals have always loathed the trade union movement. They've always hated the trade union movement. That's part of their DNA. Particularly disturbing is that those opposite remain obsessed with this ideologically driven antiworker agenda given the current environment of low wage growth and rising cost-of-living pressures. The latest Department of Employment Trends in federal enterprise bargaining report provides more evidence that the Turnbull government is presiding over record low wages growth and a 22-year low in approved enterprise agreements. According to the latest data, wages growth for enterprise agreements approved in the June quarter fell to 2.6 per cent from 2.7 per cent in March—a 26-year low. In addition to low wages growth, there were only 845 approved enterprise agreements in the June quarter—the lowest since 1995. It's staggering, then, that the International Monetary Fund and the OECD have both warned that declining union density and collective bargaining are contributing to stagnant wages and growing inequality.
This government wants to further undermine workers and their unions. Cost-of-living pressures are a very real problem and are having a real impact on people's lives, and those people demand real solutions. Instead we have this bill, hastily introduced by those opposite. They hope they can sneakily rush it through the parliament, probably while all these raids are occurring this afternoon on the TV screens, hoping that no-one fully understands what they're actually doing because they haven't had the time to assess the bill. It's extremely telling that the government, in their disreputable attitude to this debate, are seeking to squeeze union-backed worker entitlement funds, such funds being defined as funds which are for the purpose of paying worker entitlements, including those in respect of leave, payments in lieu of leave, payments in relation to termination, other payments due contractually or under an award, and death benefits. These very funds were designed and set up by the unions to protect their workers and ensure that their lawful entitlements were paid by employers, something that we know does not always happen.
This bill seeks to limit when a worker entitlement fund can become or stay registered, including defining what sort of organisation can operate a fund. It prescribes what the make-up of the board can be and the way in which the assets of the fund can be used. The bill further establishes a subset of worker entitlement funds called single-employer funds, which are funds that are controlled by a single employer for the benefit of its own employees. It would appear that these single-employer funds essentially escape all of the regulations contained in the bill, other than the tax related ones, unless the operator of the fund elects for it to be a worker entitlement fund and applies to be registered. In reality, worker entitlement funds often operate in the interests of creating a source of finance for unions to provide training, OHS support and other services to their members, hence the bill's very real potential to undermine the benefits that some workers receive through these funds.
The bill also contains provisions which we understand would operate to prohibit enterprise agreements specifying that employers have to pay into training funds. To reiterate the question posed by the member for Gorton earlier, during his remarks: what is the justification for this, given that enterprise agreements are completely transparent, voted on by the workers, and Heydon himself, even given his background, conceded that the training funds provide a public good? What is the justification?
Several stakeholders have raised concerns about the significant uncertainty as to whether worker entitlement funds can continue to provide safety training and wellbeing services such as suicide prevention support and mental health and drug and alcohol counselling. These are extremely significant issues. At this point there are just too many unanswered questions about this bill for Labor even to get close to supporting it. Despite the minister's hot air in the media, where she laughably tried to cast unions as evil, profit-hungry entities, what the government is actually doing with this bill is limiting the legitimate activities of unions and limiting the legitimate sources of income for unions, which unions use, of course, to represent their members, as they are duty-bound to do. A press release issued by the Minister for Employment in September read:
Through cosy deals with big businesses, unions have become a big business in their own right, more focussed on making profits than representing people.
That is ridiculous. It shows the government's ideological and visceral hatred of the union movement. It's a slur. It's rubbish. Worker entitlement funds—which, by the way, are jointly established by unions and employers—operate, firstly, to ensure that workers' entitlements are protected and, secondly, to provide important services to workers: training, counselling support, suicide prevention and funding of OH&S officers, just to name a few. This government simply does not understand the genesis of worker entitlement funds and the important service that they provide. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it doesn't understand the basic needs of working Australians. That's apparent in its attacks today and in this bill.
In recent months we have seen this government stand idly by while some 700,000 hospitality workers nationwide have suffered cuts to their penalty rates and cuts in their take-home pay. According to research I commissioned from the Parliamentary Library, informed by figures in the ABS labour force survey, as many as 3,046 people in my electorate of Wills will be adversely impacted by these cuts. Some of the lowest-paid workers suffered an arbitrary pay cut of up to $77 per week. That's a lot of money for someone on a low income. It's the difference between putting food on the table or not. It's the difference between getting school clothes for your kids or not. It's the difference between being able to afford public transport or not. It is money that they could not afford to lose, and this government stood by and did nothing about it. It could have acted but it failed to do so.
I commend the second reading amendment moved by my friend the member for Gorton, as it once again calls on this government to do something for the 700,000 workers nationally who have had their take-home pay cut and to legislate to stop this egregious and unfair decision of the Fair Work Commission from taking effect. This government has no plan to arrest wage stagnation and no desire to do anything to protect workers. In stark contrast, the Labor opposition is committed to the strong economic conditions and fair and equitable industrial relations framework that will deliver a better standard of living for ordinary Australians.
We believe that every working Australian deserves a good wage and decent working conditions. We know that the best way to tackle poverty and reduce inequality is to ensure that every Australian who can work is able to get a decent job, and that's why Labor will always put jobs first. Labor is, of course, the party that works with the unions and union movement, business and industry. It's a party that works with all of these groups to create and secure decent jobs.
A couple of weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to hear Bill Kelty reflect on the role that he played as one of the authors of the accord between the trade union movement and the Labor governments of Hawke and Keating and the business community. This remarkably successful period in Australia's history is testament to the fruits of a productive relationship between capital and labour and what's potential and what's possible. It should be a lesson on the perils of the needlessly adversarial approach to industrial relations that is taken by this government. In cooperation, pay rises were achieved during this period, entitlements were expanded for workers, inflation was contained, unemployment numbers fell and the then Labor government was given the electoral authority to establish important public services, such as Medicare. I reflect on this golden era of Australian politics with some regret and angst because I know that this type of harmony and productivity will never exist under this government and Australians will be quite literally the poorer for it.
While we're not declining to give the bill a second reading in order for it to be subject to a Senate review—albeit an extremely short one—Labor do not support the proposition that is before the House. Labor will never support any measure which attacks workers and the unions who are so important to their livelihoods and, indeed, who are so important to the future of our nation.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (18:01): I am a proud union member and I cannot possibly support this bill, the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017. I am proud to be a member of the Australian Services Union and I'm also proud to be a member of the Commonwealth Public Sector Union. I am a very strong believer in the power of the collective. That is the strength of the unions' work. It has only ever been the Labor Party and the unions who have fought for equality. This government seem to want to grow inequality. They want to achieve this by attacking the only people and entities that have ever stood up against the government's mistreatment of workers. There has been attack after attack, untruth after untruth, just so the government can assist their big business mates and give them a $65 billion tax cut without pesky Labor and the unions fighting for useful things like access to free health care, access to quality education for all, workers' rights and social inclusion and equality. There has been attack after attack by the Turnbull government and, with every blow, we stand united and fight back because workers united will never be defeated.
The unions that I am a member of are fighting against some of the shocking inequality and cuts that the Turnbull government is forcing on people. The Australian Services Union has been a strong advocate for the NDIS, but, under the guidance of the coalition, the aspirations for the NDIS in assisting the most marginalised group of people have been completely lost. The ASU has been vocal against the Turnbull government and its mishandling of the NDIS, and I am proud to be a member of a union that stands up to protect the NDIS and workers.
Then there is the CPSU. Haven't they experienced an absolute battering from the Turnbull government? There have been cuts to the Department of Social Services, cuts to the Australian tax office in Townsville and cuts to the services provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in Townsville. It has been cut after cut after cut. This union has stood up and fought not only for its members but for the most vulnerable people in our society. Their work is just amazing, and I want to particularly note the work of the National Secretary, Nadine Flood, and the Queensland state secretary, Bill Marklew, who have been relentless in their fight against the Turnbull government's unfair cuts.
Today we see another attack on unions with this bill. The Turnbull government is trying to rush this bill through the parliament without any proper scrutiny or stakeholder investigation. They are trying to undermine the process and get this nonsense bill, which is attacking unions, through the parliament as quickly as possible without the community uproar. This bill has significant implications for workers who benefit from their entitlements being protected through funds, including services like counselling, training, occupational health and safety, and support services that these funds invest in.
The government's purpose is to use this bill to limit the legitimate activities and source of income of unions, because they don't understand the genius of worker entitlement funds and the important services that they provide. A worker entitlement fund is defined as a fund that is for the purpose of, or purposes including, paying worker entitlements and death benefits. Worker entitlements are defined as including payments in respect of leave; payments in lieu of leave; payments in relation to termination of employment, whether ETPs or not; and any payments that contracts, awards or agreements provide for an employer to make to an employee. Worker entitlement funds—which, by the way, are jointly established by unions and employers—operate, firstly, to ensure that worker entitlements are protected, and, secondly, to provide important services to workers: training, counselling support, suicide prevention, and funding of occupational health and safety officers, just to name a few.
This bill puts additional requirements on the governance, financial reporting and financial disclosure requirements of worker entitlement funds; prohibits awards or enterprise agreements from requiring or permitting contributions to any fund other than a superannuation fund, a registered worker entitlement fund or a registered charity; prohibits awards or enterprise agreements from permitting or requiring employee contributions to a union election fund; prohibits coercion of employers to pay amounts to a particular worker entitlement fund, superannuation fund, training fund, welfare fund or employee insurance scheme; puts additional financial management and disclosure obligations on registered organisations; and introduces new penalties for registered organisations' noncompliance with financial management, disclosure and reporting requirements.
This bill places limits on when a worker entitlement fund can be registered or stay registered, including what sort of organisation can operate the fund, the make-up of the board of the fund and the way in which the assets of the fund can be used. The stakeholders have raised concerns that there is significant uncertainty about whether worker entitlement funds can continue to provide safety training and wellbeing services, such as suicide prevention and mental health support, and drug and alcohol counselling. As someone who has had 15 years experience working in the mental health sector, I am particularly concerned about that fact.
In particular, I am incredibly concerned over the impact this bill may have upon the excellent work undertaken by MATES in Construction, which is in the direct firing line of this bill. Changes in this bill have the potential to negatively impact upon MATES in Construction. MATES in Construction is a charity established in 2008 to reduce the high level of suicide among Australian construction workers. It was established in response to a major report on suicide, the AISRAP report, in the Queensland commercial building and construction industry. This report found that suicide rates in the industry were higher than the Australian average for men and that youth suicide in the industry could be as much as 2.38 times higher than it is for other young Australian men. Every year, 190 Australians working in the construction industry take their own lives. That figure is staggering, and MATES in Construction is there to assist construction workers and their families through these devastating and tough times. They do this by suicide prevention community development programs on sites. They support workers in need of help through case management and a 24/7 helpline. Together with OzHelp Foundation, they also provide Life Skills Toolbox training to apprentices and young workers.
If you don't believe me, then allow me to read a letter I received from a Herbert constituent today regarding MATES in Construction and this bill. The constituent asks that I do not use her name, as she is fearful that her husband's employer may identify him. The letter reads:
To the Sitting Member,
I bring to your attention as the wife of a union member the Bill the Turnbull Government are introducing into Parliament this week, the Fair Work Laws amendment (proper use of the workers benefits) bill 2017.
My husband told me about this after a CFMEU sub-branch meeting last Thursday night.
Our family has had to deal with the devastating tragedy of losing a child, personal illness and severe depression.
Without the services of the Union's Mates In Construction, anything could have happened to my family.
The threat of this Bill getting up and the blue-collar working class battlers losing the ability to use Mates In Construction suicide prevention assistance program and free counselling program for families including children would be devastating. I fear with this proposed bill all will be lost and many families will be disadvantaged, as we would have been. MATES in Construction gave us a funeral benefit that covered the cost of giving our child a dignified send-off. It will be a sad day if this bill gets over the line and a grim future for the generations to come if this government continues to take away the hard-fought entitlements that working-class people have continued to fight for to keep government from looking after the elite big end of town.
Yours sincerely,
Proud working-class union family in Townsville.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, these are the lives of real families that you aim to detrimentally affect as a result of this bill. This is the story of a family who has been through hardships that no family should ever have to suffer, a family that sought hope and help from MATES in Construction. MATES in Construction was the beacon of light for this family in very tough times, and I will not allow the Turnbull government to attack this vital service. I will fight for the workers in the Herbert community. I will fight for my comrades, and I will fight against this bill. It is vicious and malicious that the Turnbull government would attack this program just because MATES in Construction partners include the AMWU and the CFMEU. Causing any sort of detriment to an organisation that is purely there to help those in the construction industry with suicide prevention and mental health awareness, and to do so purely because it has links to unions, is abhorrent and disgusting. There is union bashing and then there is this. This is just plain outrageous by the Turnbull government. To put MATES in Construction under pressure, an organisation that assists an industry to decrease high suicide rates, is just downright wrong.
It is beyond comprehension, at a time when even the IMF and the OECD are warning that declining union density and collective bargaining are contributing to stagnant wages and growing inequality, that this government wants to further undermine workers and their unions. The Turnbull government is desperately trying to distract the public from the fact that it has no agenda to address wage stagnation, underemployment, unemployment and rising inequality—and, for that matter, anything else. Coalition governments will continually try to undercut and attack unions. But Labor and the unions will continue to do what we do best when we are under attack: stand up and fight back.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (18:12): There is no limit to the willingness of this government to use the extraordinary powers of the state to go after their political opponents for political reasons. In this parliament today we have seen some extraordinary circumstances. The government, in the House of Representatives, had one of their ministers stand up in parliament and make some absolutely outrageous observations about their political opponents on the other side of the House. The reason they did this? Because we had the temerity to expose some weaknesses and some problems with their administration of the Australian Federal Police.
A few moments before question time we saw the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police tell a Senate estimates committee that staff cuts to the Australian Federal Police—we understand about 117 jobs—and budget cuts to the Australian Federal Police were interfering with their capacity to conduct drug raids. We understand that the ABC has seen documents from senior sources within the New South Wales branch of the Australian Federal Police saying those very same things: staff cuts are interfering with their capacity to conduct drug raids.
Yet, at the very same time that evidence was being given and the minister was standing up in the House saying all sorts of slanderous things, the police had the capacity to be planning and conducting a raid on union offices. 'Staff cuts mean we can't conduct operations against drug smugglers and criminals, but we've got enough staff to raid the offices of the Australian Workers' Union about an alleged event that is alleged to have occurred 10 years ago.' I am sure that most Australians are scratching their heads and saying, 'Where are this government's priorities?' 'We haven't got enough staff to go after drug smugglers, but we've got enough staff to put on an operation to go after our political opponents.'
We have become anaesthetised to this government's willingness to use the forums of parliament, day after day after day, to slander law-abiding Australian citizens who do nothing but dedicate their lives to protecting the rights and conditions of their fellow workers. They are a target as far as this government is concerned because they are political opponents as far as this government is concerned. We have become anaesthetised to this government's willingness to use the legislative instruments of this place to go after their political opponents. In fact, you know it's a sitting week in Canberra because the government's got a bill before the parliament which is going after workers and their representatives. That's how you know when parliament's sitting; they go after workers and their representatives. You've got that fool of a Treasurer who goes on the radio this morning and says, 'We've got to do something about inclusive growth.' Then, a few hours later, he stands up in parliament and attacks unions and the representatives who are trying to do something about dealing with inequality in this country.
Australians are scratching their heads. They know that this government will leave no stone unturned in going after their political enemies, using the protections available in this place to slander and defame law-abiding citizens; and using the legislative instruments of this place to attack the very institutions whose sole purpose is to look after workers' rights, protect their rights and conditions and ensure that they get some wage equality in this country. They will leave no stone unturned to use the legislative instruments of this place to go after those organisations.
And yet today we see that is not enough: 'We have to go further. We are going to use the police force to go after our political enemies.' This at the very same time that the police force is telling parliament, 'We do not have the resources to go after criminals and drug importers and other people who legitimately should be attracting the police enforcement efforts of this country,' because this government has cut the resources to the AFP. And the minister who is responsible for this legislation before the House today thought it was more important that she instruct the AFP and the Fair Work Commission to have them go after this union. It is nothing short of a disgrace! The minister deserves to be condemned. The Prime Minister needs to be condemned. Is it any wonder that there is no member of the coalition government who is willing to come into this place and defend their actions and defend their legislation?
It's not only the legislative instruments and the police force of this country that the government are using to go after their political enemies; they are doing it as an employer as well. They are doing it as an employer as well. There is not a day in this country where good, hardworking members of the Australian Public Service aren't putting themselves on the line to represent the government and its policies, whether they agree with them or not, and to ensure that they are providing the service that the Australian public deserves and expects of their government. They don't get paid well. They don't get paid as well as you and me, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough. They certainly haven't enjoyed the pay rises that members of parliament and ministers of government have enjoyed over the last five years.
In fact, let's look at what's happening in the Federal Court of Australia. The work of the Federal Court and the Family Court is incredibly important to the Australian community. Court staff often deal with some of the most difficult cases. Funding and staffing of our federal courts have been a challenge for a long, long time. The courts have generally had a strong working relationship with their staff and their union representatives, but this has broken down in recent times. It has broken down under the decisions of this government. In June this year, staff overwhelmingly rejected an enterprise agreement, with a 90 per cent vote against it. After four years of a pay freeze, staff were offered an agreement which proposed substantial cuts to conditions and money in exchange for a one per cent per annum pay increase. Now, you don't need to be a member of Mensa to understand that a one per cent per annum wage increase is actually a pay cut, because of inflation and other cuts to conditions. But instead of attempting to negotiate in good faith with the staff and their representatives, the government is slamming the door shut.
Well, members on this side of the House understand the important role performed by members of our court's staff. We understand that they are on the front line, just as the staff in this place are often on the front line, standing between the politicians, the ministers and the government in this place and the members of the public and what they expect of their government. We on this side think they deserve a fair and decent pay rise. Labor supports a pay rise for these people that will at least see them keeping pace with the cost of living without having to trade off hard-fought-for conditions.
If we had to spend this afternoon debating a bill to do with industrial relations and the rights of workers and their representatives in this country, these are the issues we should have been dealing with—things that are within the direct control and interest of this government and that it turns its back on, at the very same time it is using the instruments, the forces—the police force—of our government to go after its political enemies. Is there no level to which this government will not stoop? If there is a decent member on the other side of the House, they will stand up in this parliament today and condemn the actions of their government as an employer, condemn the actions of their government as a legislator and condemn the actions of their government as an executive, for using the police force of this state for nothing more than political purposes and diverting resources away from their proper purpose.
If we are to debate an issue that matters to the Australian people, an issue that is relevant, these are the things and this is the legislation we should be debating today, not this stuff, which is nothing short of a political attack on those who seek to represent workers and those who are dedicating their lives to ensuring that people who go to work every day—whether in our courts, in our public sector, on a building site, in the transport industry or wherever, in a small business around the country—get the wages and conditions they deserve, and perhaps a bit of a pay rise, and the dignity they deserve day in, day out.
This legislation is nothing short of an attack on the political enemies of this government And I can tell you: the numbers of those who have a grudge with this government are growing day after day—this government's mismanagement of everything from the NBN to the economy, their attack on workers' rights, their failure to do anything about inequality in this country. The workers of Australia, the people of Australia, have worked them out, and they're coming after them.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (18:23): Like the member for Whitlam, I came in here prepared to speak on a bill before the House—the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2017—which of course I will do. But the raids today have to be dealt with. What an absolutely disgraceful misuse of government power to allow a police force to be used in this way, to use the power of the state against your political enemies. It should send a shiver down the spine of anybody who cares about the way a democracy should run—to use the power of the state, the police, against your political enemies. And what crime are we talking about? An allegation that 10 years ago some paperwork wasn't done. That warrants a police raid? It is absolutely outrageous, particularly when you think that just in the last few months Nigel Hadgkiss, the minister's hand-picked henchman at the building commission, resigned in disgrace for breaking the law. This man, the right hand of the employment minister, actually broke the law. Were the police called in? Was he dragged away in handcuffs? Was there a raid on the minister's office? No. The man quietly resigned, was quietly sent on his way.
And then we learnt that the minister knew of his transgression for a full year and kept him in the office. So it's okay when your friends break the law, but woe betide anybody you disagree with, woe betide anybody that disagrees with this government, because the full force of the state will be down on your head. There will be NBN raids against senators for speaking out against the NBN policy of this government. There will be AWU raids against the union from 10 years ago. It just beggars belief that we live in a democracy in the 21st century and these are the depths that this government and this Prime Minister—who, prior to being in politics, was well known as a lawyer and somewhat of a social progressive—will go to. This is how far he has descended. This is the abyss that he has come to in his desperate attempt to cling to government. Nothing is too low for this Prime Minister, as he clings to government, as he grapples with the right wing of his own party.
I can't understand it. When I know police resources are stretched and we are told all the time that they have to make choices about what they can and what they can't do. In Tasmania, we've got five AFP officers for the entire state. I'm pleased to say that the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, has promised that a Labor government will restore AFP officers to Hobart Airport, and not before time. AFP officers were taken out of service by this government. We will restore those officers.
Just yesterday, a pair of bikies was dragged off a plane at Hobart Airport. I believe Senator Abetz and Senator Bushby were on the plane. I'm not sure if the officers dragged the wrong people off the plane, but a pair of bikies were dragged off the plan. They weren't taken off the plane by AFP officers. That plane was on the tarmac and Tasmanian police had to be called in. They had to drive into the airport—because they're not based at the airport—and take the bikies off, and then the plane could go on its way. There was an hour delay, because Tasmanian police had to be called out because AFP officers are not based at the airport. That's the effect of this government. There are no AFP officers at Hobart Airport, but you've got AFP officers to raid union offices for alleged transgressions of 10 years ago.
Why is this government so keen to push this latest legislation before us through? Because it deals with their political enemies. It is like groundhog day. Ten years ago, the former coalition government, the Howard government, thought it would be a brilliant idea to take on the workers of this country with that dreadful Work Choices legislation. 'That'd be a good idea! Let's take on the unions and take on the workers of this country, cut their conditions, cut their pay, cut their penalty rates.' That worked out really well! Labor was swept into office in 2007.
We have an election in two years time. If you want to go to an election on this issue—the issue of taking on workers, reducing penalty rates, cutting workers' conditions, keeping wages flat and keeping work insecure—we would be very happy to accommodate you. The workers of this country—the employees, the cashiers, the office staff, the police, the nurses, the teachers—deserve better than what they're getting from this government. This government is trying to make it easier and easier to cut workers' pay, to cut workers' conditions, to make work more insecure, to make work more flexible for the employer, and to take away the rights, the conditions and the fairness of what it means to be a worker and a citizen in this country.
We've just seen the disgraceful, unbelievable situation where penalty rates in this country were actually reduced, at a time when wages have never been flatter. Since records started wages have never been flatter, and you've reduced penalty rates. Corporate profits are at an all-time high, a record high. So let's reduce the penalty rates for people working on Sundays. Let's make it harder for them to make ends meet. With power prices going through the roof, let's make it harder for people who depend on Sunday penalty rates to pay their bills. Bravo! Bravo! While you're cutting taxes for millionaires and people earning over $180,000 a year, you're making it harder for people on modest incomes to make a living in this country. What an absolute disgrace you are. In Tasmania, United Voice—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Order. It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That grievances be noted.
Employment
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (18:30): Last week the Treasurer talked a lot about the latest jobs figures. What he didn't talk about was underemployment—the more than 1.1 million Australians looking for more work, needing more hours, or the 148,000 fewer apprentices and trainees in Australia since this government came to office, or unemployment, which is far too common among younger Australians. In my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales the latest jobs figures report that 17.6 per cent of 15- to 24-year-olds are looking for work.
While the overall increase in jobs for the month of September is welcome, what the Treasurer didn't talk about is the more than 30,000 commuters leaving the Central Coast each day for work. That's almost one in four working people on the Central Coast travelling over two hours each way door-to-door for work—commuters leaving Wyong train station at 6.05 am, only to arrive at Central at 7.51 am to change trains or catch a bus or walk before they get to their place of work. What the Treasurer didn't talk about matters. What the Treasurer didn't talk about was underemployment and unemployment, particularly in regional and rural Australia.
In the last five years the Central Coast population has grown by more than five per cent. My community is now home to almost 328,000 people. Forecasts project another 70,000 residents will call the Central Coast home over the next 20 years. We need more jobs in regional Australia. We need more jobs on the Central Coast. In fact, Regional Development Australia estimates 24,674 new jobs will be required in my region by 2031.
The job market is tough. The Treasurer might not recognise this, but it's a fact. It is particularly tough for young people starting out, for experienced workers retraining, for people who are employed casualty or need more hours. Anglicare Australia's Jobs availability snapshot, released last week with the latest jobs figures, is a more accurate picture of working life in Australia today. It shows there are not enough entry level positions for people who need them. People with significant barriers to work are not benefitting from the increase in full-time employment. The growing casualisation of the workforce works against the ability of people with barriers to work to gain suitable and secure work. The market cannot be relied upon to fix these problems, without intervention.
The underlying issues driving unemployment, particularly amongst younger people, casualisation and underemployment must be addressed. For people living on the Central Coast, for my community, for regional Australians, it's time for a fair go. It's time for the state and federal governments to step up and back skills and training on the Central Coast and across regional Australia. On the coast we have higher numbers of people with trade qualifications than the national average, yet to upgrade a TAFE qualification, a plumber, like my brother Eddie, has to travel to North Sydney after doing a day's work on the tools.
Health and social assistance, my area of training and background, is one of the largest employers in our region, yet the government wants to introduce fees of up to $3,200 for Open Foundation and Newstep. Almost one in four commencing students at the University of Newcastle Ourimbah campus start their training through one of these programs—nurses like Michelle, who this year was recognised as Wyong Hospital Nurse of the Year, who wouldn't be a nurse today without enabling education, who wouldn't be serving our community without this program. But, rather than support plumbers like my brother Eddie or nurses like Michelle, this government is cutting TAFE funding and looking to introduce fees for Open Foundation and Next Step, putting obstacles in the way of apprentices and Open Foundation students—the most trusted pathway in my community for so many people to decent and secure work.
In the electorate of Dobell, the number of people who have followed this trusted path into decent work through an apprenticeship is higher than the national average. According to the latest census data, 57.7 per cent of people on the Central Coast with post-school qualifications have vocational education qualifications—10 points higher than the national average, which is currently sitting at 46.1 per cent. But this pathway is being undermined by conservative governments at state and federal levels. In the last 12 months alone, the number of new apprentices has dropped by 10.5 per cent. Australia, as I mentioned, now has 148,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than it did when this government was elected. TAFE and vocational education funding, as well as the number of supported students, is lower than it was a decade ago, despite a growing number of jobs requiring vocational skills.
On the Central Coast, there are around 20,000 small businesses. Of these, around a quarter are in the construction industry. The residential construction industry is a major driver of the local economy. While building and construction courses are offered at TAFE campuses in Belmont and Ourimbah, the lack of local courses is a concern. Wyong TAFE, like many campuses in too many towns in regional centres across Australia, has had courses scaled back and fees increased. It's not surprising that between 2013 and 2015 employer dissatisfaction with the availability of vocational education in regional and rural areas has more than doubled. This includes employers like Ray from Ausiports in Berkeley Vale, who I spoke to, who is keen to put his new starters through training that just isn't available in their industry. Then there is Julie, who let me know that there is a proposal to remove the advanced diploma in WHS from the VET register and says: 'Surely this cannot be happening. The growing industry on the Central Coast is construction, manufacturing and warehousing. Tighes Hill, where this course is offered, is an industrial town.' People like Ray and Julie are just baffled by the government's inaction. Once you pass the first hurdle and you've found a course, the government then puts another obstacle in your way. It hikes up fees and cuts support, like cutting the Tools for Your Trade subsidy, which it cut in 2014, making it harder for people, particularly young people, trying to get a trade.
Our community on the Central Coast needs a new approach. For people living on the coast, the people of Dobell, it's time for the government to give them a fair go. Labor has a plan to invest in skills and apprenticeships, and I'm particularly pleased about the benefits this will bring to Central Coast apprentices, students and employers. Labor has set a target of one in 10 apprentices on all Commonwealth priority projects, including major government business enterprise projects. Labor will also invest in skills and apprentices by expanding pre-apprentice programs for young jobseekers. Labor will reverse this year's budget cuts in full and expand programs for young jobseekers and workers in transition. We'll also ensure apprenticeship targets for Commonwealth projects. Most importantly, Labor will guarantee at least two-thirds of public vocational education funding for TAFE, re-establishing TAFE as the public provider of quality vocational education across Australia. Labor's Building TAFE for the Future Fund will revitalise TAFE, the backbone of vocational education in Australia, particularly campuses and facilities in regional areas. This will be incredibly important for those on the Central Coast—for apprentices, for business.
The government often talks about choice, but choice is a privilege. Currently on the Central Coast only one in two students have the opportunity to finish high school, and more than 45 per cent of the working-age population have no post-school qualifications. Australia needs to invest in education, skills and training more than ever. But across the board this government has delivered nothing but cuts. They have cut $22 billion from Australian schools, like regional schools in my community on the Central Coast. They're trying to cut $3.8 billion from Australian universities, and campuses like the Ourimbah Campus of Newcastle University cannot afford these cuts. They have cut $2.8 billion from TAFE training and apprenticeships. Our future and the future of the Central Coast is at risk. Our prosperity—locally, regionally and nationally—is at risk from this approach. This government has been careless. This government is just not investing in regional Australia. It needs to change. It must change—for students, for trainees, for businesses and for our community on the coast.
Energy
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (18:40): Given that this debate is about grievances, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, and as you come from Western Australia, you will understand where I'm coming from this evening. Back in the good old days, it was often hard to find a grievance debate topic. We had the perennial topic of the GST, but in Western Australia we had a good, stable conservative government. We saw our mining industry left alone to get on and do what it does best: produce the wealth of the state and employ a lot of people on very good wages. We had agriculture going very well, and it still is. We had a regional development regime in Western Australia which provided matching funds for our Commonwealth regional development scheme, and they certainly honoured those commitments.
But that all changed on 13 March. We had a state election that had been fought largely on the privatisation of Western Power. The Western Australia Labor Party, to their credit, ran a very successful scare campaign on the privatisation of Western Power. I'd like to quote from the now Premier, Mark McGowan. On 7 March he said:
Everyone knows that when you privatise State-owned utilities, power prices go up, and services go down. We've seen it time and time again.
Mr McGowan said that less than a week out from the election. We saw a resounding victory to the Western Australia Labor Party, and they formed government. Within weeks of forming government they announced an increase in power bills of 11 per cent, equating to around $169 per household per year.
So we had, just prior to the election, the now Premier assuring Western Australians that prices would go up under a privatised Western Power, and within weeks of him winning government he pushed power prices up by 11 per cent. That will have a big impact on Western Australian families and Western Australian businesses. On top of that, other utility prices, like water and sewerage, went up by six per cent. So there were major hikes to family budgets. And they had previously promised there would be no tax increases—but we'll come to that.
I want to touch on the coalition's energy policy here at Commonwealth level and the National Energy Guarantee, which has been modelled by industry experts. The most well-regarded and well-credentialed people in the industry have modelled that electricity prices would come down by between $100 and $115 a year. This has been ridiculed by the opposition as being insignificant—a hamburger a day or something. But I think most families would appreciate that money in their pockets. You can contrast that with the modelling that we've seen today in The Australian, which indicates that, under the Labor Party's 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target, we would see increases in household energy bills of $200 per annum. If you take the figures on face value, you would say that's a $300-a-year turnaround. But, as we all know, modelling is flawed and modelling over those sorts of time frames rarely gets the numbers right. But what I would say is: have a look at the trajectories. With our policy, the trajectory is down, and that's something that we haven't seen for a long time in household or, indeed, business electricity prices. Under the Labor Party's policy, the trajectory is up. When you're going to subsidise the renewable energy industry by a total of $66 billion between now and 2050, it's just logic that prices must go up, because that $66 billion comes straight out of the pocket of the consumer.
In addition to that, we saw in today's media the remarkable Kevin Rudd gift, the windfall, to renewable energy of between $3.8 billion and $7.5 billion. These were contracts that had already been signed on the basis that the subsidy under the Renewable Energy Target would end in 2020. At the stroke of a pen, then Prime Minister Rudd—who has written a book, and we all look forward to seeing that book in full—gifted those renewable energy companies between $3.8 billion and $7.5 billion. They were contracts that had already been signed; they'd already made the commitment to invest. When I say that the then Prime Minister gifted those energy companies those enormous amounts of money, it was quite easy for him to do because the gift came from individual energy users: everyday families in this country. It was an absolute disgrace. The Labor government can always be guaranteed to deliver higher energy prices for Australian families.
The new Labor government in Western Australia, apart from putting up charges, broke a direct promise in their attempt to increase gold royalties. In 2015, up in Kalgoorlie, now Premier Mark McGowan stated:
It's basically a waste of time to put up the royalty because it impacts employment and jobs and the health of the industry for limited benefit … We're not going to do it.
Admittedly, that was in 2015. But there was no retraction of that promise, or no indication prior to the election that the Labor Party were going to increase the gold royalty. So it came as an enormous surprise and disappointment to the industry that the Labor Party decided in its first budget that it would attempt to raise the gold royalty from 2.5 to 3.75 per cent.
For those people who don't understand the gold industry, although the gold price is quite strong at the moment, there are a lot of projects out there, between 15 per cent and 20 per cent, that are very marginal. They're not making an enormous amount of money at today's price. They're keeping their heads above water, but it wouldn't take much of a move in the gold price for those projects to close down. Industry estimates are that around 4,000 jobs would be directly affected if the gold price moved that small amount of $20 or $30 to $50 an ounce.
In addition to that, it was proposed to cut the exemption to the royalty for small producers on their first 2½ ounces, which is worth about $150,000. Now, there are a lot of small gold producers—two-, three-, four-man shows. They're very important to the industry because they go out prospecting and they spend a lot of time discovering new deposits which they often are lucky enough to then onsell to a larger, more capitalised producer who can exploit that resource. So it's very good news that, in a disallowance motion, the WA Liberal Party, combined with other members of the upper house in Western Australia, have headed off this gold tax which would have destroyed a large portion of the industry, which is mainly concentrated in my electorate of O'Connor, where we produce about 70 per cent of the gold. The 35,000 people that live and work in the goldfields would have carried a very disproportionate burden in the Labor Party's first budget. So I'm very pleased with that.
But I can't talk about the gold tax without touching on the Western Australian Nationals position in this debate and the rank hypocrisy that they showed. The WA Nationals—with due respect to my good friend who's on duty here tonight—went to the last election with, and still have on their books, a $5 per tonne increase in the tax on iron ore. Today's price of US$69 per tonne of iron ore represents around six per cent of the gross value of iron ore. If you applied that to the gold industry, at $1,600 an ounce, a five per cent increase in the royalty or tax would equate to US$96, or A$123, per ounce of gold. So, at the same time the WA Nationals had a policy on their books to tax iron ore at six per cent of its gross value, they were saying they would die in a ditch defending the gold royalty. That is rank hypocrisy, and they should be called out for it.
While we're on the subject of higher taxes, we now see the Labor government increasing payroll tax—the most iniquitous tax of all. It is a tax on employment. I know that they think that, by targeting companies with over $100 million in turnover, they'll hit the big end of town, but I can assure you that those costs will be passed down the line to the contractors and small operators that work in those industries.
Trade Unions
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (18:50): This is a grievance debate. At the beginning of my contribution today I need to mention what has just occurred at the AWU offices in Melbourne and Sydney. Today question time in the lower house and the Senate was prioritised to be about the AFP and resourcing of the AFP. Today it was revealed in estimates that the AFP don't have the resources they require to pursue, for example, a cocaine bust. They said that instead they were guarding the PM's mansion. They felt that they didn't have the resources. That is what the AFP Commissioner said in estimates, and it's been very active today on social media. We found out that not that long ago the AFP raided the AWU offices in Melbourne and Sydney. Their purpose was to uncover materials in relation to a donation that the AWU made to GetUp!
This is a real threat to our democracy. The government has directed its commission to start this witch-hunt into unions. It has wasted millions of taxpayers' dollars on its witch-hunt of unions and of a former union leader who is now the opposition leader. This is the kind of behaviour that you'd expect in a country like Cambodia, not in a country like Australia. It is a threat to our democracy when we have a government using the powers of the state to attack its political opponents—to attack organisations, community based organisations, political organisations, environmental groups and unions. It echoes the days of Bjelke-Petersen when state sanctioned suppression in Queensland stopped people from having a voice.
Let's just put this into context. The AFP was never instructed to and never did raid 7-Eleven, who has been involved in one of the biggest wage theft scandals we have ever seen. The AFP has not raided many, if any, offices of companies that have been accused of wage theft. It is an endemic problem within our community. Employers are ripping off workers, not paying them properly. We have seen the AFP work with the Fair Work Ombudsman in some worker exploitation cases, but there has not been enough, and resourcing is an issue.
Instead of pursuing the real crimes that are causing real problems in our society, because of the choice of this government, the AFP is pursuing the AWU and their relationship with GetUp! GetUp! isn't an evil organisation. GetUp! are a group of keyboard warriors who send us emails telling us what they think about an issue. GetUp! get involved in politics. They campaign. I find it extraordinary that this government is so scared of some keyboard warriors, people who will send you emails. Guess what? You can just delete them. You don't even have to read them.
Who are the people involved in GetUp!?
They tend to be people of the Whitlam generation, people between the ages of 50 and 70, who are passionate about political issues. They are more likely to be people who are working in an office or in a public services environment because they've got access to their computer. They are engaged in online campaigning. And it's the priority of this government to go after those organisations. It is a real indictment of this government and of our democracy that they would misuse state resources this way. It means they're not focusing on the other grievance that I wish to raise and that's what's happening with this government's failed Work for the Dole program.
There are some serious issues with the management of this program and its rollout, particularly in regional Australia and in my electorate of Bendigo. The stats speak for themselves. The are 6,000 people currently looking for work in Bendigo, yet last month there were only 400 full-time jobs advertised. So, clearly, not enough work has been created in central Victoria for the jobseekers that we have. Too many older jobseekers, parents, carers and young people in central Victoria who are struggling to get back to work after becoming unemployed are being bullied, victimised and demonised by this government.
We know, through the Senate estimates process and through their own reports, that almost 90 per cent of the participants involved in the Work for the Dole program do not have a full-time job three months after participating in the program. And there's no surprise when you start to talk to some of the participants about some of the programs that they've been sent on. When you're talking about 6,000 jobseekers, these aren't the people who are caught in intergenerational unemployment. There are serious complex social issues going on within those households. They need a serious social support program.
Put that group aside, and the rest of the jobseekers are people that have quite a lot of skills—like a young man I met who got sacked by this government. He was working at Centrelink and he was one of the victims of this government's job cuts. Another person worked at the ATO and was sacked by this government when they closed the office in Bendigo. People with skills were told, 'Look, because of your age, you'll have to do the Work for the Dole program'. They were made to drive 50 kilometres outside of Bendigo. We don't have a lot of not for profits that have taken up Work for the Dole participants. They had never used heavy machinery before and were involved in doing work with a tractor. That program didn't quite work out. They were also asked to go out to the Bendigo golf course. Again, they didn't have any certificates or any actual qualified experience in lawn or in the use of lawn maintenance equipment, including these quite large heavy tractors and was asked to perform work. There are serious issues about occupational health and safety when it comes to the Work for the Dole program.
I also met an organisation connecting care and community in Kyneton. They were oversubscribed with Work for the Dole. They are one of the only Work for the Dole options that are available in the town of Kyneton. They said, 'Look, we just can't manage that many people'. They are a charity that offers an op shop and food relief. They pulled back their program and only took one participant, to ensure that person had a genuine experience. It hasn't stopped the job agencies, services providers, bombarding them constantly. 'Will you take more? Will you take more?' They received $700. Some organisations—not this one in particular—have tried to game the system. The more people they take, the more money they get towards their organisation. But the quality of the skills and the experience for those participants just isn't there.
So the particular jobseeker in this situation was travelling from Woodend to the Kyneton for the experience. They received a tokenistic gesture of money for travel and fuel expenses. The job agency didn't follow up. There was no follow-up with this particular organisation. So we're receiving complaints from both the participants in Work for the Dole and the organisations that were recruited to take people for Work for the Dole. There's no OH&S scheme. There's no support for the participants. There's no support for the coordinators. And, as we know, the program is failing to connect people with work.
One of the most heartbreaking experiences for anybody to go through is being unemployed. People do not often become unemployed by choice. It is something that is forced upon people. These are some of the comments I have received from people who have been trying to look for work in my electorate: 'It was very degrading. I had worked the same job for 25 years and then suddenly I had no purpose in life. I got quite depressed.' These are the kinds of things that people openly say about being unemployed. That is why it's so disappointing of this government to continue to attack and demonise people who are quite simply looking for work.
We've seen several bills come before this House attack people. This is wrong. In my grievance debate today, I started with the shocking situation of the AFP raiding the union offices in Melbourne and Sydney, and I finish with the shocking way in which this government is running the Work for the Dole program. This government isn't really interested in working people. It isn't really interested in connecting people with real jobs. It continues to use state resources to attack unions and to attack its opponents.
Goldstein Electorate: Community Participation
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (19:01): One of the grievances that I always have is that there isn’t proper and full recognition of different parts of my community for the incredible amount of work that they do in supporting each other and contributing to building better lives for the tens of thousands of people who live within the Goldstein electorate and across the cities of Bayside and Glen Eira. You only need to look at some of the activities that have recently been conducted by many community-minded organisations, and their efforts to voluntarily bring people together to build a better community. That deserves full recognition and celebration.
In fact, only last Friday night I was at the Bayside night market at Sacred Heart Parish School in Sandringham, a local Catholic school, not far from where I live. Unlike last year when they suffered under a deluge of rain for their important night market, this year it was a beautiful sunny evening, which enabled parents to come together with children, family members and friends to celebrate the school and, of course, participate in a bit of commerce and relaxation. The night market had many stalls, with lots of different artisans and parents who had small businesses selling their goods. There were three different stalls that sold candles, although only one sold candles that were made in the wonderful Goldstein electorate, so I have to give deference and support to them. There were also the usual things like barbecues and the opportunity for drinking and relaxation in a very pleasant environment.
I want to thank and congratulate everybody who was a participant in the Sacred Heart Parish School community fair and Bayside night market, and, in particular, thank the Principal, Erin Macdonald, who has never been afraid to come forward and raise her concerns to me about many community issues. She is particularly concerned about making sure that there is proper and equitable funding for her school. It is something that we have worked upon. She has been provided with the opportunity to raise it directly with the minister to make sure that schools in our community are still affordable for all people, regardless of their walk of life. And I share her concern.
Similarly, on Friday night we were fortunate enough to have the Beaumaris art and craft show at the Beaumaris Primary School. We were very fortunate to have the participation of the Minister for the Arts, Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield, who came along to open this wonderful art and craft exhibition. Talented local artists came along to show their latest works. It was a great pleasure to be able to spend so much time with local artists and art enthusiasts from the Bayside community. It was the inaugural art and craft show. Lots of art and craft works were created specifically for the show.
I particularly want to thank the efforts of Jenny Dumont, who was the newly appointed coordinator of the first annual Beaumaris art and craft show. All I can say is that I'm looking forward to next year. I also want to thank Sheryl Skewes, the Principal of Beaumaris Primary School, where it was hosted, for being so supportive and providing the opportunity for the minister and me to come down last Friday evening and enjoy their important works.
That was followed, by the way, as part of a weekend of the Day on Dalgetty at Beaumaris Primary School, where they had their fete the following Sunday morning, with rides and things that excite people perhaps slightly shorter and younger than me. It also gave an opportunity for many local small businesses and parents who have stalls to be able to show their wares. I was particularly appreciative of the fact that you could walk around with a mug of coffee, rather than having to use a disposable cup, because one of the great things about Beaumaris is that it is a community of people who are conservation minded. I sometimes describe them as Liberal conservationists, and I say that with affection, because they care about their local community and their local amenity and make sure that they take care of their natural environment, which is absolutely stunning.
Similarly, over the weekend St Paul's Primary School fete was held on Sunday morning. The principal, Catherine Tammesild, was very kind in greeting me before she went off to mass. Catherine showed me around the fete. We saw the efforts of parents who are directly contributing to raise important money and resources for their school. It wasn't just the rides, of course. As with the Beaumaris Primary School fete, one of the critical things on offer was a cake stall. Some might say my waistline shows the fact that it was a very successful cake stall. But in fact the purchase of a gluten-free cake enabled me to take something to my in-laws later in the day.
This has all continued as part of a large pattern of unacknowledged work by the Goldstein community. Only a few months ago I was in attendance at Gardenvale Primary School, where local school leaders had raised concerns that their flag had deteriorated to the point where they were no longer to fly it. I think everybody in this place would understand the importance of having a fully working, functioning Australian flag that you can be proud of. They hoist the flag at their assembly at the start of every school week while they sing the national anthem. I'm particularly appreciative of Assistant Principal Janine Hall and Principal Mr Chris Chant, who I had the pleasure of being dunked with in a dunking machine at their fete, only 12 months ago. The children were presented with a new flag and educated about the importance of the Australian flag and why it's so critical to preserving the integrity and understanding of our nation and its enduring importance.
Similarly, the efforts of Brighton Grammar School and local parents, particularly Eveline Jona, who, as part of the Victorian Parents Council, recently hosted a Mental Health and Wellbeing in the Digital Age Seminar at Brighton Grammar School's new health and wellbeing centre, which is a converted church, on the Brighton Grammar campus. The school provided the opportunity to bring people together, particularly parents, to educate them about how they can help their children by making sure they have wellbeing in the digital age, particularly around issues of online bullying and ensuring they can take care of themselves. Brighton Grammar has been consistently supportive of bringing people together to address exactly these types of issues. It's why they developed the wellbeing centre. It was to make sure that particularly young boys, who are often at different, or unique risks, get the support and assistance they need to be able to grow up as mature adults who show respect to others. I would particularly like to acknowledge the leadership of Headmaster Ross Featherstone and Ray Swann, both of whom have made an important contribution as part of a broader package of doing good work to bring the Goldstein community together.
Finally, I acknowledge the contribution of Yeshivah Beth Rivkah Trades Skills Centre, in the Goldstein electorate, which I was very fortunate to open only a few weeks ago, where students from around Melbourne will realise the tremendous benefits through this terrific new facility, which provides the opportunity for young people to be trained and skilled, particularly in catering and cooking, to provide services and to help them as part of their integration into the job market. This program is supported by the Australian government. It is committed to ensuring vocational training meets the needs of industry employers and it provides students with this training, particularly in the areas where there are skills shortages. The $1.4 billion the Australian government provided to the program overall has been approved to establish trade skills training facilities and has revitalised 1,289 secondary schools across the country, of which Yeshivah Beth Rivkah is one. It was incredibly rewarding to see the hard work of my parliamentary colleague the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, the Hon. Karen Andrews, who became the key advancer of this important program. The generation of skills among students that will develop as a consequence of the Yeshivah-Beth Rivkah trade skills centre will benefit not only the local community but of course the Australian community at large. Students will be equipped with real-life experience to meet skills shortages that are the reality in cities, communities and regions throughout our great nation.
As the workforce becomes increasingly competitive, innovative and creative forms of education become the new currency of employment. The Australian government is dedicated to investing in these pathways, for obvious reasons, because the Yeshivah-Beth Rivkah trade skills centre would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of many community-minded people and people around the colleges. I'd like to particularly acknowledge Principal Rabbi Yehoshua Smukler's enthusiasm for the project, which for this school includes a commercial kitchen, a teaching restaurant, preparation and food storage areas, and equipment. I'd also like to express my sincere gratitude to Mr Albert Dadon AM and the Herzog family for their incredible work for this project, and of course the work of the leader of the opposition in Victoria, Matthew Guy, and the state member for Caulfield, David Southwick. Each of them has been very supportive of this very important program. The only danger, I warn, is that if you go down to Yeshivah-Beth Rivkah, to the trade skills centre, you might have the problem that they offer you some beautiful baked goods!
Political Change
Mr GILES (Scullin) (19:11): There's a paradox that is affecting and also shaping politics right across the developed world at the moment. People right across OECD nations and particularly in Australia perceive a real need for fundamental change to the way we live now and particularly to how we might live into the future. They see this need, but they also doubt the capacity of this to be achieved at all, particularly through the present institutional framework that governs our politics. This is a matter that is of deep concern to me and that I think should be of concern to all of us, because it reflects failures of policy but also of politics. Distrust and alienation in relation to politics in Australia isn't simply a reaction to instances of corrupt conduct. It goes beyond that, to a sense that the rules of the game, not just in workplaces but in how we are governed, simply aren't fit for purpose. Especially for those of us on this side of politics, those of us who are committed to building a more equal and inclusive society, this represents a profound challenge. So I want to speak about one particular aspect of this challenge of rebuilding trust in politics through the prism of the responsibilities I have as a member of this parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
But before getting to those specifics, I want to touch more broadly on the context within which this committee's work on political donation and disclosure reform is being undertaken and the role it plays, not in resolving these issues but in being part of a resolution, part of a settlement towards politics that more Australians feel they can more effectively participate in and have confidence in. So when I go about my role I think about what's happening economically and socially and how this is driving change in our political institutions and organisations right around the OECD and in Australia.
We are witnessing a continuing phenomenon whereby, on one hand, we are seeing a populist insurgency. In Australia we've seen it in various forms. Much more obviously, we have seen it in Europe. I note that a 31-year-old leader of a populist party became the leader of government in Austria just a few days ago. And of course we have seen Brexit. We have seen the election of President Trump. We are seeing a lot of data in Australia, which is reflected elsewhere, about declining trust in politics, declining involvement in political parties, declining civic participation, declining confidence in our institutions and, most worryingly, in recent Lowy foundation research, declining confidence, which is particularly pronounced amongst young Australians, about the importance of democracy.
This is a fundamental challenge to anyone who holds elected office or wishes to hold elected office. It's a challenge we have to meet head-on. It's a challenge that, as I said earlier, has many facets, and I think we have to acknowledge in this place that the disruption that is going on to political parties is also related to the disruption that's going on to media organisations. There is a very important relationship here. How we do politics is obviously changing, and so is how we consume news, which is the means through which we determine our understanding of the world and how our constituents determine their understanding of the world and the work we do.
I just make this observation because it goes critically to these questions about the influence money plays in how our politics is conducted and the importance of reaching a broad settlement in this place to restrict the influence, real and perceived, of external actors on what happens in the Australian parliament and in Australian government. I spoke earlier about failures of policy and failures of politics in terms of driving this sense of alienation, cynicism and disillusionment with politics. On the policy front, I'm so very proud to be part of a Labor team, headed by the member for Maribyrnong, which is squarely focused on combatting inequality, with a policy framework that is fit for purpose, that responds to what has been going on and that understands that, despite 26 consecutive years of economic growth, the benefits of that growth have not been spread equally and that too many Australians have been left behind and too many Australians feel—because this is in fact the case—that they will not enjoy the standard of living their parents did. This is not the social compact upon which modern Australia has been founded. This is not a social compact upon which Australia can continue to prosper and thrive as a nation.
Our policy work, led by Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, also recognises the critical relationship between economic and political inequality. What's happening to people economically is shaped by and is shaping their alienation from the political process. People feel powerless because all too often they are powerless, whether it's because of institutions that aren't subject to democratic oversight making critical decisions which shape the circumstances of their life, or whether it's because of their sense that the rules of the political game are rigged against them—that those doing well are simply being licensed to do better and better and better. This is particularly the case under this government.
The present Prime Minister has been inconsistent on so many aspects of his political journey, but I will give him credit for this: he has been a consistent neoliberal and he has been a consistent advocate for trickle-down economics. But he has not given sufficient thought to the sort of society this produces. So I say we need to respond to this. We need to respond to this in terms of how we conduct ourselves if we are concerned to see more Australians engage more effectively with our politics. We need to consider how, as public office holders, we conduct the debates we have over our visions, shared and often different, for policy foundations to secure Australians' living standards.
Today's question time was not a great example of how we can resolve difficult issues in this place and build confidence in this. There is a shared responsibility to do this, which is why the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has been such an important body to build bipartisan and indeed multipartisan consensus on establishing, in effect, a framework within which we can play out arguments and differing views. I would like to acknowledge the work of the chair, Senator Reynolds, who has been a very effective chair in stewarding this process, and Senator Rhiannon, from the Greens party. I disagree with senators Rhiannon and Reynolds on many issues, but we share a desire to work through this process to make sure that we can play out our substantive arguments more effectively and engender more confidence in the Australian people for them, and we have done good work. But I am concerned that the continuing work that we are doing is under threat. I am concerned by suggestions that the government will proceed to legislate unilaterally on some aspects of donation reform without considering its wider impact. I'm concerned at several levels on this.
The matter of process is important. If we are to build trust in politics, we have to take a shared ownership of our institutional framework and reach agreement, wherever possible, on that. We also have to be conscious of two things: firstly, the chilling impact of decisions we make on civil society. We should all be encouraging a more robust democracy. We should be encouraging a broad debate about building faith in politics, about responding to the very real concerns that Australians have that this is a game in which they cannot have confidence.
There is much more than simply tidying up donations reform to be done in this regard. But I will say this: it is important that we take the sorts of steps the Leader of the Opposition has proposed through legislation which is in the parliament and which has not been subject to any particularly credible critique on foreign donations reform. It is important that we seek to instil more transparency in who influences who in politics and lower the amounts of money that can be generated, but this cannot be the sum total of our efforts to build integrity. We need to do the reverse of what Senator Hanson has been suggesting and look at how we can better engage younger Australians in the electoral process, responding to their particular sense of alienation, not shut the door on their engagement. We need to look, today of all days, into how we can make sure that the institutions of state are genuinely independent and not unnecessarily politicised. Today is a difficult day in that regard to have confidence in a bipartisan settlement. We need to look at a wider integrity framework. But, above all, if we are to play out the debates and to have confidence in our different views about how we can build a more successful Australia, we need to work closely together on rebuilding faith in politics. This is a shared responsibility and a shared duty of all of us.
La Trobe Electorate: Roads
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (19:21): I rise to talk about roads in my electorate of La Trobe and the crucial linkage between road improvements and job creation. In the La Trobe electorate there is a parcel of land known as Minta Farm on the border between the suburbs of Berwick and Beaconsfield. It is approximately 286 hectares in size and is immediately south of the Beaconsfield interchange. The majority of that land is planned to be developed into a high-density business innovation and technology park, with opportunities for advanced manufacturing as well as research and development. I've spoken to Casey council, and I congratulate Mayor Sam Aziz. They are very focused on high innovation and advanced manufacturing jobs. I would also like to give a plug to the Mayor of Cardinia, Brett Owen, who has been very passionate about this. This will create 10,000 jobs in this area. That's the potential for 10,000 local people to be able to work closer to home, spend more time with their families and use less petrol getting to and from work and there will be fewer cars on the Monash Freeway travelling into the city. Car travel is a way of life in my electorate due to the scarcity of public transport options. So it's really important, when we create jobs, that they are local to stop people needing to travel to the city. However, early connections to the Monash Freeway are going to be vital in order to support the development of Minta Farm as an employment precinct.
This is one of the several reasons why I'm calling for work to commence as a priority on the extension of O'Shea Road in Berwick from Soldier Road to the Monash Freeway Beaconsfield exchange, together with the east-facing ramps that will create a full diamond interchange. The development of Minta Farm employment land will be held up until this high-standard connection can be achieved. The extension of O'Shea Road and work on the Beaconsfield interchange will be vital to ensure that projects succeeds, and it will support one of the fastest growing municipalities in Australia. I announced this project back in April 2016 with the Prime Minister—a billion dollar plan for upgrading roads, committing $500 million to the Monash upgrade. But it also included the Beaconsfield interchange and O'Shea Road for those points I just made.
The city of Casey has a current population of more than 310,000 people, which is almost double its number of residents only 20 years ago. About 8,000 residents move in every year, which is the equivalent of a whole plane-load of new arrivals every fortnight. The Minta Farm project will also very likely act as a catalyst for the development of another significant industrial precinct further east at Officer and Pakenham, which will create further job opportunities for Melbourne's south-east and give yet more local people improved quality of life by spending less time on the roads and more time at home with their families. There are 180,000 vehicles currently using Monash Freeway every day. With this project, we are now in the position to reduce that number, rather than increasing it.
On the subject of the Monash Freeway, in April 2016, as I stated, the federal government made a commitment of $500 million to get the project moving. After this was announced, the Labor state roads minister said in parliament that this was a bird-brained idea, yet we were able to force Luke Donnellan to cave in and commence funding for stage 1 of the Monash, between Clyde Road and South Gippsland Highway. I believe most of the $500 million will be from Transurban—so they can continue their tolls on the residents in the east for another 10 years!
The very disappointing thing was that in this year's state budget only $2.5 million was allocated for the business case for the other sections of the Monash, between Warrigal Road and South Gippsland Highway and from Clyde Road to Cardinia Road, which is something vitally important for our area. State Labor has made a weak commitment to just the one additional lane between South Gippsland Highway and Clyde Road. This translates to no relief for local roads like Clyde Road and an even bigger bottleneck at South Gippsland Highway.
By contrast, the federal coalition's commitment of $500 million equates to widening of the Monash Freeway not just from South Gippsland to Clyde Road but from Warrigal Road right out to Cardinia Road. Only the coalition's plan for the Monash Freeway, which was announced by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, will resolve the gridlock. I know the state Labor government are talking about getting on board, and we're hoping to see some action in November, but can I plead with the state Labor government: this project is so vital that we shouldn't be playing politics with it. I will congratulate them as soon as they come out and actually start work on the Beaconsfield interchange. Remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, they have the federal funding; they just need to use it.
Still on the subject of roads, in the north of my electorate is Mount Dandenong Tourist Road. It's a narrow road that twists and winds through towns such as Ferny Creek, where I went to primary school; Sassafras; Olinda; and Mount Dandenong. It's a beautiful section of road, but each weekend—and we can pretty much blame Cadel Evans for this—we have so many cyclists come up there that it becomes dangerous for cyclists and motorists. If a motorist tried to overtake a cyclist when a vehicle or other cyclist was coming the other way it could end in absolute tragedy, and that's something no-one wants to see. The TAC reports that in the last five years there have been 24 road accidents, which is 24 accidents too many. It also causes great concern for the CFA, especially in the fire season, as they have difficulty with trucks going past in different directions. At the last election we committed $10 million, and we've been working with Yarra Ranges shire and VicRoads. We believed there was going to be a lot more funding. Sadly, the state Labor government is not putting any funding into this project, even though it's so vital for tourism in the area.
Further west in my electorate a major east-west road continues to increase in popularity, and hence congestion, and that's Wellington Road. It's a single-lane highway that has been at capacity for many years. Back in 2007, in response to numerous requests from local residents and after doing a large survey, I committed $10 million for overtaking lanes on Wellington Road. Regrettably, it ended up in a huge stoush with the Yarra Ranges Council after the overtaking lanes were put in near where residents lived, which seemed absolutely dumb and bizarre at the time and still does. Some time after that I lost my seat. I wrote to Anthony Albanese—it was my final letter as a member of parliament at the time—asking Labor not to give away this funding. But guess what, Mr Deputy Speaker? They gave it away. It went on the other side of the electorate. I'm now getting asked about it again by residents. They need support for having Wellington Road upgraded. I've had a pretty much ironclad guarantee from Yarra Ranges Council that if they get funding they won't redirect it. As I said, it was very disappointing for residents that we had the funding there but the job wasn't done and the money was sent off elsewhere. So again I'll try to get funding to fix Wellington Road.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. 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