The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Members Sworn
The SPEAKER (10:01): I have received a return to the writ which I issued on 13 November 2017 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Bennelong, in the state of New South Wales, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of John Alexander. By the endorsement on the writ, it is certified that John Gilbert Alexander has been elected.
Mr John Gilbert Alexander made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.
The SPEAKER: On behalf of the House, I welcome the new member for Bennelong.
COMMITTEES
Petitions Committee
Report
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:04): Today I present the 19th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament together with 97 petitions and 20 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. This report is the largest petitions report for this parliament, indicating what a busy time it's been for the committee over the last few months and, indeed, over the past year. Our records show that, over the last 10 years, an average of 137 petitions have been presented each year. In contrast, last year the committee received around 550 petitions. Approximately half of these were paper petitions, many of which were part of two large-scale campaigns that spanned communities all around the country, communities that care deeply about the issues the petitions raised. The remaining petitions were lodged by the House's e-petitioning system, making requests to the House that covered myriad different community and individual concerns.
It's great to see petitioning serving its purpose as a conduit between the parliament and the people, and, with the introduction of e-petitioning at the start of this parliament, people are finding it easier than ever. Now people can choose the petitioning process that best suits their petitioning goals, be they to launch a nationwide campaign or to attract a special interest group to lend support to their concerns. I encourage all members to continue championing the petitions process by engaging with, or presenting petitions on behalf of, their constituents. I also thank those ministers who have facilitated responses to petitions referred. In this way, we can continue to assist Australians to have their voices heard in this parliament. I will continue to provide updates to the House on the work of the Petitions Committee.
PETITIONS
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:05): I present the following petitions:
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 306 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 88 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 55 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 98 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 117 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 301 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 173 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 189 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 274 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 60 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 60 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 353 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 192 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 129 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 91 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 33 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 40 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 58 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 170 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 189 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 751 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 92 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 102 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 150 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 168 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 42 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 135 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 440 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 16 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 31 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 496 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 56 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 181 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 120 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 280 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 150 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 16 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 13 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 207 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 208 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 186 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 234 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 118 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 316 citizens.
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 257 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 878 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 173 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 203 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 86 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 552 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 68 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 560 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 302 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 277 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 22 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 35 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 85 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 177 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 429 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 234 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 103 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 17 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 362 citizens.
Climate Change
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of [MULTIPLE ELECTORATES as indicated next to petitioner name], draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being 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 among 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, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
from 53 citizens.
Medical Workforce
This petition of the citizens of Deniliquin NSW Australia, draws to the attention of the House the critical doctor shortage in Deniliquin NSW.
We therefore ask the House to - Reclassify Deniliquin as a DISTRICT of WORKFORCE SHORTAGE - Assist the NSW Government to expand the Internship in General Practice program in rural areas - Work with the NSW Government to expand the Rural Generalist training program and to - Generally assist in relieving the rural health workforce shortage in Deniliquin.
from one citizen.
Workplace Relations
This petition of the citizens and friends of the community of Perth, Western Australia, Draws the attention of the House to the welfare of up to 175,000 Western Australian workers who will see their take home pay reduced by up to $77 per week as a result of cuts to penalty rates. Penalty rates pay the bills and put food on the table for families across Australia. The Turnbull Government's decision to slash the take home pay of dedicated workers within the retail, hospitality and pharmacy industries will have devastating consequences for some of the lowest income earners in our community.
Your petitioners therefore ask that the House take action to protect penalty rates by supporting legislation that would reverse the disastrous decision to cut penalty rates.
from 14 citizens.
Mining: Infrastructure
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our grave concerns that nearly $1 billion of taxpayers' money from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund (NAIF) may be provided to Adani to help fund the construction of a railway line to transport coal more than 300 kilometres from the Galilee Basin to the Adani-owned coal port at Abbot Point.
We do not support taxpayers' funds being used to prop-up the coal mining operations of this company, and therefore ask the House to refuse to provide these funds to the Adani company.
from 474 citizens.
Taxation
This petition from residents of Scullin draws to the attention of the House: The extremely high tax rates paid on investments that are truly invested for a child's future. We want to make it easier for young Australians to buy their own home. If a child is given $6000 for their future, that money will soon earn interest that exceeds $416 pa. In 2017/18 if they earn $1000 over $416: $637.20 will be taken in taxes. We would like it to be taxed at normal rates if it is truly for a child's future. We want the money invested for a child when they are young, by parents, grandparents and great grandparents, to eventually become a large house deposit when they become adults. The ATO already specifies that if family members utilize even some of the earnings or funds invested in a child's name then the earnings on those funds belong in the family member's tax return - not the child's. This can easily be policed by the Australian Tax Office via the child's tax file number and not used by the wealthy for themselves.
We therefore ask the House to: change the tax legislation so that "Excepted income for minors includes income earned from investing in publicly listed trusts, public companies and financial institutions." This will then become part of the income taxed at normal rates and declared on the child's tax return at Al Under 18.
from 406 citizens
Llandilo Post Office
This petition of the residents of Berkshire Park, NSW 2765, draws to the attention of the House: The current local post office for our suburb is in Riverstone. With development it now takes much longer to get there, (upwards of 20 minutes) through new suburbs. There is a post office in the adjacent suburb to us which would consistently be approximately ten minutes or less from all Berkshire Park residents. Having Llandilo Post Office as our local post office would keep residents in a like area i.e. semi-rural, with the bonus of being in our own local council area and just makes sense.
We therefore ask the House to make Llandilo Post Office, 2747, our local post office.
from 342 citizens
Recreational Vehicles
The recreational vehicle (RV) industry is regulated but self certifying under 4.5 tonnes. As a result there is an industry wide culture of breaching applicable laws, which in turn causes danger to RV consumers and other road users. Regulatory authorities such as Vehicle Safety Standards have not to my knowledge prosecuted any breaches of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989, in spite of lethal defects regularly being made known to them and breaches being criminal offences. The ACCC has also not to date enforced the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) in this industry sector in spite of knowing of numerous breaches and millions of dollars of consumer detriment. The State and Territory ACL regulators have not properly enforced the ACL in spite of numerous complaints and millions of dollars of consumer detriment. They are breaching their own compliance and enforcement policies regularly. This lack of enforcement where enforcement options are available, and a culture of conciliation, is reinforcing breaching behaviour. The peak industry body, the Caravan Industry Association of Australia, allows accredited members to breach their Code of Ethics and Code of Practice. Members continue to advertise compliance through use of the RVMAP key symbol stuck onto their products when they are not compliant. There is systemic failure at all levels of government to protect RV consumers and other road users from injury and detriment.
We request a government inquiry be urgently instigated into the RV industry, the regulatory authorities response to complaints and whether the judiciary is upholding the objects of the ACL.
from one citizen.
Commonwealth Parliament
Section 1 of the Commonwealth Constitution states that the name of the Federal Parliament shall be called: "The Parliament of the Commonwealth" COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 1 Legislative power The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth. The Federal Parliament appears to be publicly operating under the name of "PARLIAMENT of AUSTRALIA" as seen on Federal Parliaments website: http://www.aph.gov.au/. This is causing confusion for the Public and allows for doubt as to the validity of legislation being passed under the name "PARLIAMENT of AUSTRALIA".
I request that the House act for the Public benefit to a) Clarify the actual name of the Federal Parliament b) Clarify the constitutional requirements for the name of the Federal parliament. c) Clarify the head of power or source of authority being used by the federal Parliament to use the name "PARLIAMENT of AUSTRALIA" and return to using the constitutional name "The Parliament of the Commonwealth" for all matters.
from one citizen
Executive Powers
Clause 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act states that the provisions of this Act extends to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the UK. The Royal Title and Style (RST) Act 1973 allowed for a change in the form of the RST to be used in relation to the Commonwealth of Australia and its Territories. The importance of coronation and the RST of the Monarch is stated in Halsbury's Laws of England: a) The King may not rule his subjects as King of any foreign country, but only as King of England and the dominions belonging there to as expressed in the royal title b) The Crown's Duty towards the Subject are now to be found expressed in the terms of the oaths which every Sovereign is required to take before or at his coronation. This has potentially led to defects in the government and the administration of justice, of or in, the Commonwealth.
I request for the House to act to clarify: a) What head of power was used to enact the RST Act 1973 b) What the effect of the change in RST has on the sovereignty in which Her Majesty operates within the Commonwealth. c) What the effect of the change in RST has on the coronation oath that Her Majesty took during the coronation. d) What the effect of the change in RST has on the oaths of affirmations taken by members of the federal parliament, before taking their seats.
from one citizen.
Aged Care
We believe residents in Aged Care Facilities in Cairns, North Queensland are not getting receiving adequate care due to staffing issues. We believe these issues are rooted in staffing levels not being set at a mandatory level, for example; for the night shift in one facility they only have 7 staff including 2 registered nurses to care for 144 residents. We believe this to be inadequate staffing levels. Additionally, critical information communication between staff and residents is observed to be unreliable due to staff being of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, including some being unable to speak fluent English.
Care staffing to resident ratios to be made mandatory, similar to the nursing staff to patient ratios in hospitals. Implement requirements for language training for staff, including English fluency requirements.
from one citizen.
Ombudsman
The Commonwealth Ombudsman does not have determinative powers, and can only make a recommendation on the action that should be taken by another agency. Defence members who are not under civil contract with the Crown or the Commonwealth, and therefore not protected by civil employment laws, have limited redress against adverse administrative decisions, and only through the Defence Force Ombudsman (DFO). The DFO is the only independent complaints mechanism for serving and former Defence members, yet under current legislation, where their complaint is found to be valid, the DFO cannot correct the adverse decision for that member.
We therefore ask the House to amend the Ombudsman Act to include additional determinative powers to the Defence Force Ombudsman, to enable that office to override administrative decisions made by the Australian Defence Force (ADF) upon its members, as well as to be able to dispense benefits and/or entitlements to ADF members.
from one citizen.
National Anthem
Review and change our current National anthem of 'Advance Australia Fair' to a more appropriate anthem to reflect our current values and cultural diversity in our country.
We therefore ask the House to review, debate & change our current National Anthem from 'Advance Australia Fair to a more appropriate song called 'We are Australian'.
from one citizen.
Immigration
Since the ANC came to power in South Africa, it is estimated that over 70,000 whites have been murdered, many in the most sadistic ways imaginable. Sometimes men are strung up and forced to watch their wives be raped before they are both hacked to pieces. Others are disemboweled by broken objects before being set on fire. ANC chants such as "Shoot the Farmer, Kill the Boer," encourage the slaughter of white Boers and contribute to the astonishing black on white murder rate of 95%--5%. Sadly it is not just adults who are victims of rape, torture and murder, but also children. In 2013, the World Health Organization rated South Africa as having more than double the world average for child homicides. Traditional black "Sangomas" (witch doctors) recommend the rape of a white virgin (often children), which will supposedly cure Aids/HIV. Hence the horrendous child rape and murder numbers in SA. These crimes are concealed by both the Western media and the authorities in SA, making it nearly impossible for the whites in SA to receive the help they need. The increasing murder rate, along with the campaign to dispossess whites of their history, culture, farms, property, and jobs will inevitably lead to a complete genocide of South Africa's white population without intervention.
Steps necessary to initiate an emergency immigration plan allowing white Boers to come to Australia, Intervention on behalf of the White Farmers undergoing genocide and land occupation; Australian media cover what is happening in SA.
from one citizen.
Sex Education
Long ago, people simply avoided talking about sex, especially to their children. We now know that Sex Education is important and not to be avoided. However, Sex Education can go against anything that a parent teaches their children at home and can even override it. It may encompass topics and subjects that are not classically regarded as "Sex Education" but as Gender Studies. Any module, subject, topic of a school curriculum should not be subjected to political opinion, political popularism, debate, agendas. Despite the good intentions of educators, teaching the topics of sex, sexuality, gender theory et cetera brings them to the forefront of young students' minds, when they most probably do not have the mental and emotional capacity or maturity to grasp or handle such topics.
We therefore ask the House to: place restrictions on Sex Education by limiting the age at which Sex Education is taught in schools; restrict any Sex Education to information that is medically and scientifically accurate only; prohibit any Sex Education unless parental consent is given in writing; allow parents and schools to enter into flexible agreements, arrangements with parents regarding Sex Education; ensure that the Sex Education is tailored to the age of the student(s) being taught; if not presently current, standardise the curriculum of Sex Education across Australia; make any Sex Education curriculum accessible to any member of the public; and; make any school, regardless of its status subject to auditing processes for the purpose of administering good government.
from one citizen.
Citizenship
To establish who was legally able to be elected for the 45th Australian Parliament.
A request to clarify an MP's legal standing to be in the 45th Parliament in regards to the matter of dual citizenship and article 44.
from one citizen.
Citizenship
I request that ALL politicians in Government in Australia immediately PROVE their SINGLE Australian citizenship status.
All Australian politicians must please present proof of single Australian citizenship, along with where they were born and where their parents were born. No politician to be exempt from this process.
from one citizen.
Marriage
The "same sex marriage survey" is nearly complete. In the event of a "Yes" result there is no doubt going to be a debate about legislation in which some parties will try to introduce exemptions to existing anti-discrimination legislation. These foreshadowed amendments are aimed specifically at non-heterosexual unions and the inclusion of such exemptions amounts to condoning discrimination.
Maintain existing anti-discrimination legislation and it's intent by not allowing the protections to be watered down by the introduction of exemptions (specifically targeted at non-heterosexual weddings and marriages) in the process of amending the Marriage Act.
from one citizen.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
The community does not have reasonable access to the supply of Pharmaceutical Benefits by an approved pharmacist. Friendlies East Victoria Park has operated as a non-PBS pharmacy since December 2015 and has cared for the community despite not being able to provide medicines and services which are subsidised under the Commonwealth Government. A section 90 approval has been denied to this pharmacy due to the current location rules criteria.
Give Friendlies East Victoria Park reasonable access to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits and services by requesting that the Minister for Health exercise Ministerial Discretion so as to provide a Section 90 approval to Friendlies East Victoria Park.
from one citizen.
Child Protection
Child Protection Australia wide are ignoring their own policies and procedures. Our numbers are growing exponentially and we (kinship carers) are the new 'Australian poor class.' We are funding the next generation at our own peril. This is a societal problem with drugs and mental health being the main reasons.
We request a Royal Commission into the actions of the Child Protection services in Australia. We request a national investigation into the policies and procedures of the child protection system, Australia wide that has been continually misrepresented and mismanaged by case workers and their hierarchy. We demand more training for those who deal with the placement of children at risk and that the minimum requirements of such persons be over 30 with children of their own. We request immediate initiation of investigation into the policies & procedures of the child protection services Australia wide and the mismanagement and fraudulent activities of those services. We request your help in hearing what we have to say, as we are the ones dealing with the services, the biological parents and the traumatised children. We request an independent Kinship carer support worker to help navigate the system. We request a grandparent carer support person to advocate between us and the services. We request you, the government, help us and help us now. We request that you act to bring uniformity to child protection services and instigate an overseeing body independent of the child protection services to monitor said services and make accountable their actions.
from one citizen.
Climate
The Air Force Center for Strategy and Technology (CSAT), United States Air Force, in 1996 published "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025". The article compiles patents and developments with plans to modify/weaponise weather. Climate Viewer News reports over 250 "weather modification" patents. Implemented, they induce mild to catastrophic results appearing as "climate change". In 2011, journalist and author Donna Laframboise reported that one third of IPCC report authors committed fraud and that spurious data is being used as evidence of "climate change". Proponents of these facts such as David Keith identify their activity as geoengineering specifically "albedo modification" with stratospheric aerosol injection consisting of sulphuric acid and aluminium et al. Weather modification techniques breach the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki through the use of toxic aerosols and electromagnetic radiation as disbursement.
We request that all geoengineering and weather modification cease and desist throughout Australia and maritime waters. We request that all intent, activities and interests be comprehensively gazetted coherently without redactions. We request that all parties and people involved be charged with the full force of the law in accordance with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901.
from one citizen.
Mental Health
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that Victims of Psychiatrists (VOP) are subjected to brutal persecution, violent exploitation for the purpose of invasive, cruel, lucrative forced human experimentation. Psychiatrists, are wrongly given statutory power in Australia to arbitrarily detain, torture with poisons 24/7 indefinitely, indoctrinate, interrogate, electrocute, tie a person up… until the person breaks under torture, complying under duress. Victim-blaming propaganda, threats of further torture and disenfranchisement are employed to silence VOP who speak out against forced psychiatry. Many victims of crime, corruption and pollution are silenced by forced psychiatry, allowing horrendous abuses, such as paedophilia, to continue. Many intelligent, inventive, artistic people are murdered, maimed and their creations never allowed to reach fruition. Half the population dies in Australia each year, dies iatrogenic deaths from forced psychiatric drugs. The Mental Health System is a system of diabolical Eugenics-Stigma-targeting, violation in the guise of 'protection.'
Petition Request: We, the Victims of Psychiatrists (VOP) and allies, therefore ask the House to request the Prime Minister and the Attorney General to abolish all State/ Territory Mental Health Acts and Federal Legislation that perpetrates Forced Psychiatry, stop discriminating (on the basis of perceived disability, financial and social disenfranchisement, atheist beliefs, religious and creative expression of the unknown or undefined) and if necessary replace these State/ Territory Mental Health Acts with a Federal Human Rights and Reparations Act, equivalent to the signed and ratified United Nations Convention On The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities.
from one citizen.
Australia Act 1986
Whereas the Australia Act 1986(UK) claims to terminate the power of the Parliament of United Kingdom to legislate for "Australia" where no Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory. And whereas parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution that makes the Parliament of United Kingdom the supreme legal authority in the United Kingdom, where no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change.
Will the House act to declare and clarify, for public knowledge: a) The effect of a repeal or amendment of the Australia Act 1986(UK) by a future UK Parliament (via the exercise of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty), specifically in relation to claims of "Australia" being an independent sovereign nation; b) The source of the self-governing powers that are held, enjoyed, and exercised by the people of the Commonwealth in the governance of the realm (e.g. delegated by and derived from the British Parliament specifically in the manner prescribed by the grant); c) Details of the subjection of these self-governing powers in relation to; the Crown, the constitution of the Commonwealth, the legislative power of the UK parliament (both before and after termination) to legislate for Australia, and the pre existing laws of England (prior to the Australia Act) and the UK constitution.
from one citizen.
Marriage
Given the history of corruption in the Australian government, and the information gained from various independent opinion polls, it is our opinion that the Marriage Equality Vote results are invalid and do not hold.
We request that an independent, unbiased and validated third-party be used to audit the results of this campaign to ensure that it is both reliable and reflective of true public opinion.
from one citizen.
Marriage
Requesting that the House note that the actions of certain religious organisations, currently granted exemption from payment of taxation, in expending non-taxable Church funds to support their position on the recent Same-Sex Marriage Survey are irreconcilable with the separation of church and state and their continued tax-free status.
We therefore ask the House to remove the current taxation-exempt status from all religious organisations in Australia.
from one citizen.
Residential Rezoning
The Federal Government/Department of Defence refuse to support Residential rezoning in the Rural (Aircraft Noise) Direk Industry and Residential DPA - City of Salisbury, SA - RAAF Base, Edinburgh - without common sense justice and even changing interpretations of Defences criteria to refuse acceptable development on my land. The Local Government highly supports Residential rezoning and the State Government will support it if Defence will agree. This DPA will be forced by Defence to close if the Local Government do not remove Residential rezoning putting at risk many landowners Development Rights. My 2 acres is divided by a dissecting boundary containing 2 zones - Residential/Primary Produce, both in the same 20-25 ANEF Contour. My Residential can continue to develop like many surrounding lands in the same Contour and Defence show no concerns of impacts to them they determine my land will create. My land will accommodate approximately 6-8 houses and a potential loss of land value of $1million dollars if denied rezoning. RAAF Edinburgh has very limited flights and weeks can pass before an aircraft flies and development impacts forced on my 1 acre should not be based on other busy military airports around Australia. RAAFs investigations for PFO/PFOA contamination impacts my land more than my land impacts them.
An investigation should be carried out as to why Defence Canberra refuse to support Residential rezoning on my land that is so minor in nature, meets all Defence criteria and is supported by the Local and State Government SA.
from one citizen.
Influenza
Draws to the attention of the House: This past Winter has been the worst influenza season recorded for many years. Influenza is a deadly virus and has unfortunately resulted in many deaths. Disease and virus outbreaks are becoming more prevalent and can spread throughout the entire country and cause our economy to fall. In recent studies we have found that, compared to previous years, 2017 has been the most threatening influenza season yet. Young children are more vulnerable and susceptible to contracting the Influenza strain. We feel that this issue is of utmost importance as this influenza virus is causing fatalities.
We therefore ask the House to: We therefore ask the house to make it mandatory for children between the ages of birth to 12 to have the influenza vaccine. For this to happen, we ask that the Government provides funding to support free influenza vaccines. This is sure to save many lives and make Winter a less feared season. Vaccines are essential when taking care of the well-being of our country.
from one citizen.
Energy Companies
Consumer fees for payment method choice. This must be a matter that the government should address. Utility companies being able to impose multiple fees to consumers for there choice of payment.
I request and ask the house of representatives to change the law where companies are allowed to do this as they can receive fees imposed by said methods as a taxable business loss. What the companies are doing are unjust and simple unfair to the everyday Australian consumer while they rack in millions across the board from all the fees imposed monthly. The ombudsman says it's not illegal so I ask for a change to that. You the government are our voice after all and are voted in to do so, speak and act on our behalf.
from one citizen.
Safe School Programs
To eradicate all possibilities for safe school programs to operate in any Australian School would remove the potential dangers of corrupting our innocent youth with unhealthy viewpoints.
Removal of safe school programs in all Australian Schools.
from one citizen.
Pesticides
The world health organisation states that pesticides are a chemical compound that directly kills rodents, insects, fungi and weeds. I would like to ban pesticides because of how many people and animals die each year from pesticides and for those who will die in the future from pesticides if we don't do something quick. I also would like to ban pesticides, so that people in the whole of Australia can enjoy organic food without having to pay more for healthier food. There are a lot of natural ways we can use instead of pesticides. Pesticides kill innocent animals but they also kill humans. Every year about 3 million people get poisoned and about 200,000 people die from pesticides. Indirectly probably more animals and people get killed by pesticides because they end up in our water ways and oceans. If we ban the production of pesticides nobody will be able to buy them in the future which will reduce deaths caused by pesticides of plants, animals and humans.
I ask the house of representatives to ban pesticides from Australia because pesticides kill the environment, animals and us.
from one citizen.
Refugees
The current situation surrounding the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers on Manus Island has been condemned by the UN. Despite this the government presents this event in a positive and beneficial light.
We therefore ask for the incident be examined by an independent commission looking at the legality of this government's actions, with emphasis on Peter Dutton's competence to continue as an MP.
from one citizen.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Tax Integrity) Bill 2017
I am writing to make a formal complaint against the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Tax Integrity) Bill 2017: Limiting deductions for travel expenditure for residential rental property. This amendment is:
1. Unfair in that travel expenditure deductions are disallowed for Residential Property Investors only and do not apply to all means of gaining or producing an assessable income.
2. Unfair for Residential Property Investors doing the right thing and claiming for legitimate travel expenses.
3. Treating Residential Property Investors with inequality by excluding them from travel expenditure deductions and not applying this to all means of gaining or producing an assessable income.
4. Defamatory as it has published unsubstantiated information providing the public with perception that Residential Property Investors have been claiming travel deductions without correctly apportioning costs, or have claimed travel costs that were for private purposes.
5. Affecting human rights freedom of choice of residential property investors to self-manage residential property investments by dictating that these amendments do not affect the ability of a taxpayer to deduct from their assessable income the cost of property management services.
6. Unsubstantiated, there is no facts and detailed analysis provided to support the concerns and claims:
a. Residential property investors have been claiming travel deductions without correctly apportioning costs, or have claimed travel costs that were for private purposes.
b. Disallowing travel expenditure deductions for residential property investors will address housing affordability. c. Disallowing travel expenditure deductions for residential property investors will improve the integrity of the tax system.
I ask that the House stop this Bill.
from one citizen.
Petitions received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:06): I present the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:
PETITIONS
Responses
Infrastructure
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 22 May 2017 notifying me of petition number EN0163 regarding pedestrian and cyclist access to the proposed Dryandra Road underpass at Brisbane Airport. I regret the delay in responding.
I understand the petitioners are concerned about the lack of a bicycle lane and pedestrian access in the design of the underpass. I am advised this decision was made by Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) in the interests of site security and for the safety of all road users, especially given the ongoing construction activities in this area. I understand the underpass will be used primarily by freight and heavy vehicle traffic, and BAC therefore considers separation between this traffic and cycle and pedestrian movements provides the most appropriate safety outcome.
I am also advised BAC surveyed current levels of cycle and pedestrian access to the precinct served by Dryandra Road. This survey showed very low levels of usage of this type of transport. I understand BAC engaged with the tenants of this precinct, and none expressed any concern about the design of the underpass.
I acknowledge the development intentions outlined in BAC's current Master Plan which include expanding the Airport's active transport network and increasing the share of active transport movements at the Airport. I note BAC has already strongly committed to active transport on-airport, with an existing cycle network covering over 50 per cent of landside roads and more than $1.5 million has been invested in cycling infrastructure over the past three years.
Airport Master Plans are strategic planning documents to, amongst other things, indicate the development intentions of an Airport Lessee Company for a federally-leased airport site. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, through the regulatory framework of the Airports Act 1996 and subordinate regulations, ensures all on-airport development is consistent with an airport's approved Master Plan.
Thank you again for taking the time to write and inform me of your concerns on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Chester
Advertising
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 16 August 2017 concerning a petition requesting a ban on advertisements that refer to sexual health or that have sexual connotations in public places and on television in times visible to children.
The Australian Government recognises the importance of advertisements being legal, honest,
truthful and not offensive to their audience. There are a number of self-regulatory and co-regulatory arrangements in place to strike a balance between legitimate health interests and appropriate community safeguards, which are detailed below. Provided broadcasters and out-of-home (OOH) advertisers meet their regulatory requirements the Government generally does not intervene in such decisions.
Self-regulation of advertising
The content of advertisements in Australia are subject to predominantly self-regulatory arrangements. Complaints about the content of advertisements are handled by the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) which administers self-regulatory codes of practice developed by the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA), including the AANA Code of Ethics (the AANA Code). The AANA Code contains a range of provisions relating to taste and decency and is intended to reflect community values and expectations. The Government has no formal role in the development of the AANA self-regulatory codes or guidelines.
Complaints about the content of advertisements can be directed in writing to the ASB via its website, at www.adstandards.com.au, for consideration by the Advertising Standards Board (the Board).
The Board comprises members of the general community who are independent of the advertising industry and from a range of age groups and backgrounds. Further information about the Board, including information about the appointment of Board members, is available at
www.adstandards.com.au/aboutus/theadvertisingstandardsboard
I note the petitioners' stated reasons for wanting sexual health advertisements and advertisements that have sexual connotations banned from being published in public places and on television. Section 2.4 of the AANA Code requires advertising or marketing communications to treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience.
Petitioners may be aware that the Board has previously considered complaints about the content of sexual health campaign advertising. Most recently, in 2016 the Board considered the 'Drama Downunder' sexual health awareness campaign run by the Victorian AIDS Council (VAC) that included a call to action to get tested for syphilis. This complaint referred to advertising depicting the image of a man in his underpants with a message to be tested for syphilis, which appears similar to the one that is subject to the petition. The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach Section 2.4 of the AANA Code.
In line with the concerns expressed by the petitioners, the Board acknowledged that some community members would prefer this type of sexual health community awareness messaging were not promoted where children could view them. However, overall the Board considered that the advertisement treated the issue of sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant broad audience which would include children.
Specifically, the transcript reproduced in the case report states that "...the Board noted that the man is wearing underpants and considered that the man's private area is sufficiently covered and the level of nudity was consistent with advertisements for lingerie. The Board noted the text on the advertisements and considered that the suggestions that men should get tested for syphilis are presented in a non-sexualised and practical manner".
A copy of the entire case report with the case number 0202/16 can be accessed at https://adstandards.com.au/cases.
In addition to making a complaint about current advertising campaigns, decisions of the Board may be independently reviewed. Petitioners may wish to visit the ASH website at www.adstandards.com.au/complaint-process/independent-reviewto obtain further information about the review process. It does not appear that the decision to dismiss previous complaints about the VAC's 'Drama Downunder' campaign, nor other determinations relating to sexual health awareness advertising, have been independently reviewed.
Out-of-home advertising
In relation to the placement of 00H advertising, the Outdoor Media Association (OMA) is the peak national industry body that represents operators who advertise across all OOH formats, including roadside, transport and retail. OMA has developed and administers the OMA Code of Ethics, a set of voluntary principles defining the OOH industry's community and environmental responsibilities, and the industry's standards for working with advertisers and regulators. Under the OMA Code of Ethics, OMA members support all decisions made by the ASB and the Board in regards to complaints about outdoor advertising and remove any content found in breach of the AANA Code. In addition, OMA provides the Concept Advisory Service that assists advertisers gauge compliance with the codes of practice developed by the AANA. Complaints regarding OOH advertising may be directed to the ASB.
Co-regulation of broadcasting services
I note the petitioners also request a ban on sexual health advertisements, or advertisements with sexual connotations, being broadcast on television at certain times.
Broadcasting services are provided under a co-regulatory legal system established by Parliament where the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 sets an overarching framework for the delivery of broadcasting services, but where specific rules relating to program standards are set by the broadcasting industry in consultation with the public and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). This recognises the importance of ensuring that broadcasting content reflects community standards and provides a means by which the community can formally express its views to broadcasters.
The ACMA only registers industry codes of practice if it is satisfied that they provide appropriate community safeguards, are endorsed by the majority of broadcasters in the relevant sector, and that members of the public have had an adequate opportunity to comment on them. Codes of practice are available from the ACMA's website at www.acma.gov.auftheACMA/About/The-ACMAstory/RegulatinWbroadcasting-codes-schemes-index-radio-content-regulation-i-acma.
For commercial free-to-air television broadcasters, the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (Commercial TV Code) is intended to regulate content on Australian commercial free-to-air television in accordance with community standards, assist viewers in making informed choices about their television viewing, and provide effective procedures for receiving and handling viewer complaints.
The Commercial TV Code requires most program and non-program material, including advertisements, to be given a classification appropriate to its content. The Commercial TV Code sets guidelines for classification relating to a range of matters including adult themes, offensive language, violence, sex and nudity, and are intended to be in accordance with prevailing community attitudes
The Commercial TV Code also contains classification zones that dictate the time of day program and non-program material can be shown. For instance, most content that is classified 'M' can only be shown between 12.00 noon and 3.00 pm on weekdays and after 7.30 pm on any day. However noting that news, current affairs sports programs are not classified, the Commercial TV Code includes special care requirements to ensure that advertising shown during these programs is appropriate for the audience. For instance, all non-program material shown during sports programs broadcast between the hours of 5.00 am and 6.00 am and 7.30 pm and 8.30 pm must be classified no higher than 'PG'. Further, the Commercial TV Code extends this requirement until 9.30 pm for all non-program material shown during sports programs commencing before, and continuing after, 8.30 pin.
I also note that, for commercial free-to-air television broadcasts, the Children's Television Standards 2009 prohibits advertising during 'P' (preschool) programming, and provides a number of additional safeguards that apply to advertising during 'C' (children's) programming, including in relation to unsuitable material.
For subscription television, the Subscription Broadcast Television Codes of Practice (Subscription TV Codes) deal with the classification and placement of advertisements, and licensees' compliance with other relevant advertising codes including those developed by the AANA.
Whilst the Subscription TV Codes do not set classification zones, the codes do require all advertisements to be given an appropriate television classification. The classification guidelines under the Subscription TV Codes contain a similar range of classifiable matters to the Commercial TV Code, and includes sex and nudity.
The Subscription TV Codes also require subscription television broadcast licensees to take account of the intellectual and emotional maturity of the intended audience of the channel when scheduling certain advertisements. The Subscription TV Codes lists categories of advertising that this requirement relates to, such as advertising for alcoholic beverages, betting and gambling services and intimate products. While the Subscription TV Codes lists advertising within a block or blocks of programming directed at children, sexual health awareness advertisements are not specifically referred to in the Subscription TV Codes.
Broadcasting complaints process
Broadcasting industry codes of practice include procedures for dealing with complaints. In the first instance, complaints should be submitted to the relevant broadcaster within 30 days of the broadcast at issue. If audiences feel there has been a breach of the codes of practice, they can raise their concerns with the relevant broadcaster directly.
If a complaint is not answered within 60 days of being received or to the complainant's satisfaction, it may then be referred tothe ACMA. More information on the complaints handling process is available from the ACMA website at www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/Takeaction/Complaints/Broadcast-complaints/broadcasting-complaints or by writing to:
Assistant Manager
Investigations Section
Australian Communications and Media Authority
POBox Q500
QUEEN VICTORIA BUILDING NSW 1230
The broadcasting industry codes of practice are periodically reviewed. Petitioners may wish to contact Free TV Australia or the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA) to raise their concerns about the appropriateness of the scheduling and placements of sexual health campaign advertisements, or advertising containing sexual connotations, at times when children are likely to be watching, and to enquire about how they can contribute to future review processes.
Free TV Australia's contact details are:
Free TV Australia
First floor, 44 Avenue Road
MOSMAN NSW 2088
Ph: (02) 8968 7200
Web: www.freetv.com.au
ASTRA's contact details are:
Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association
5 Thomas Holt Drive
NORTH RYDE NSW 2113
Ph: (02) 9776 2684
Email: astra@astra.org.au
Web: www.astra.org.au
Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Mr Fifield
Wildlife
Thank you for your letter concerning a petition (EN0215) to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions, requesting the removal of a Flying-fox colony from the town of Murrurundi in New South Wales.
Grey-Headed Flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus), which are listed vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), have been utilising the Murrurundi area for many years and in April 2017 established a camp on the Pages River. The camp population reached 100,000 animals before moving on in late-Winter. In response to community concerns about the camp, the Upper Hunter Shire Council has prepared a Murrurundi Flying-fox Camp Management Plan, which was open for public comment until 5pm Friday 6 October 2017. The draft plan is available on the Council's website at: http://upperhunter.nsw.gov.au/do-it-online/say-it/notice-of-public-exhibition-drafc-flying-foxcamp-management-plans.aspx.
Grey-Headed Flying-foxes are also a listed threatened species under NSW legislation and disturbance to this species and their habitat is restricted by both the EPBC Act and NSW legislation. This species is highly mobile and camp populations vary widely over time due to food resource availability.
I am confident the Upper Hunter Council's Flying-fox Camp Management Plan provides a tool to ensure appropriate future management of the camp. it outlines the issues of concern to the community caused by the presence of Flying-foxes, and measures that can be taken to manage the land and reduce conflict with the local community. Experience in other areas has shown that attempts to move camps are generally unsuccessful, expensive, and likely to result in relocation of problems. The management actions proposed at Murrurundi are therefore primarily to manage the camp should Flying-foxes return to the site.
Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg
National Corruption Watchdog
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 16 August 2017 concerning petition number EN0233.
The petition requests the establishment of a 'national-level corruption watchdog' with powers to investigate financial links between federal politicians and business, non-government organisations, and individuals undertaking lobbyist work for private organisations.
The Australian Government is strongly opposed to corruption in all its forms. Australia is consistently rated by Transparency International (T1) as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. The Australian system of government, separation of powers, the rule of law, a free press and other important features of our system are also safeguards against corrupt behaviour.
The Australian Government takes a robust, multi-faceted approach to combating corruption, in which a range of agencies play specialised roles in preventing, detecting, and responding to corruption. For example, the Attorney-General's Department oversees criminal legislation and corruption policy, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) investigates serious and complex crimes against Australian laws including fraud and corruption, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office handles complaints against public officials and carries out specialised oversight tasks.
The Australian Government believes that the current multi-faceted approach is preferable to creating an entirely new anti-corruption agency.
While the Government considers that the federal anti-corruption framework is robust and effective, we are committed to ensuring that we do not become complacent. In April 2016, the Government announced that it would invest an additional $14.7 million to expand the investigative capability of the AFP to bolster Australia's capability to respond to foreign bribery, alongside an additional $127.2 million over four years to strengthen the investigative capacity of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
This year, the Government also established the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA). The IPEA is responsible for auditing and reporting on parliamentarians' work expenses. It provides advice to parliamentarians and their staff on travel and work related expenses to support them in undertaking their duties, requiring that taxpayer funds be spent in compliance with the relevant principles and regulations.
The Government has also committed to review the jurisdiction and capabilities of Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and the AFP's Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre in early 2018 in the context of developing Australia's second Open Government Partnership National Action Plan.
Finally, I add that as part of the Australian Government anti-corruption framework, the Australian Government has a Lobbying Code of Conduct and a Register of Lobbyists. The Code underpins the Register and sets out the requirements for contact between third-party lobbyists and Government representatives, indicates what will be publicly available on the Register, and outlines the conditions for successful registration of lobbyists. The Code is intended to promote trust in the integrity of government processes and ensure that contact between lobbyists and Government representatives is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty.
As you may be aware, the Senate Select Committee on a National Integrity Commission has undertaken an inquiry into the adequacy of the Australian government's legislative, institutional and policy framework for addressing corruption and misconduct. The Committee handed down its report on 13 September 2017, which is available at
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/National_Integrity_Commission/IntegrityCommissionSen/Report.
The Senate Select Committee did not expressly, or directly, recommend that a national integrity commission or agency be established to investigate integrity and corruption matters relating to members of parliament. The report makes seven recommendations, including that the Government carefully consider establishing a Commonwealth agency with broad scope and jurisdiction to address integrity and corruption matters (recommendation 2), and that the Senate review the question of a national integrity commission after certain research is available (recommendation 3). The Government is considering its response to the Committee's recommendations.
I hope this information is of assistance. Thank you again for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Justice, Mr Keenan
Dear Mrs Wicks
I refer to your letter of 16 August 2017 concerning a petition presented to the House of Representatives on 14 August 2017 (reference EN0235), requesting that the House take action in relation to the practise of Sharia law in Australia, the wearing of a burqa in Australia and the removal of books promoting violent ideology from mosques and Islamic schools.
Australia is home to a diversity of faiths, and is united by tolerance, mutual respect and a commitment to democratic traditions. Australians are free to choose their religion, and are entitled to express and practise their religion and their beliefs consistent with Australian law without intimidation and without interference.
Australia has a secular legal system which applies to everyone equally. The Australian Government is not considering and will not consider the introduction of any part of Sharia law into the Australian legal system.
The Australian Government believes in freedom of religion and in the strength of diversity. This includes the freedom of people to express their religion through their choice of clothing. The Prime Minister has noted that a person's face should not be covered where it is important to establish that person's identity for security or integrity reasons. However, banning the burqa or any other form of religious dress in Australia would be inconsistent with our principles and traditions of religious freedom and tolerance.
It is not illegal to hold radical views in Australia, no matter how offensive they may be. However, Australia does have strong laws against urging violence and advocating terrorism and genocide. Individuals or groups who seek change through fear and intimidation rather than through constructive democratic processes will not be tolerated in our society. The Australian Government is working with communities and influential spokespersons to discredit violent extremist propaganda; promote positive messages and provide legal and constructive avenues for achieving ideological and political goals; and build the skills of young people to enhance their critical thinking and make them more digitally resilient.
I trust that this information is of assistance.
Yours faithfully
from the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis
Military Pension
Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence concerning taxation of military superannuation invalidity pensions.
The Government greatly values the service of all military personnel and acknowledges the dedication and sacrifices they and their families make every day in order to keep our nation safe.
I have been advised by the Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) that the ATO received approximately 200 private ruling requests from a number of individuals in receipt of invalidity payments paid from the Military Superannuation and Benefit Scheme or Defence Force Retirement and Defined Benefit Scheme.
The Commissioner has advised me that the ruling requests were all received during a period from late 2015 to early 2016 and that each of the ruling requests was in relation to the classification of the income streams. In particular, the ruling asked whether the income streams were considered to be superannuation benefits.
I have been advised that the ATO issued alt the private ruling applicants with general advice in early August 2016.
The Commissioner has confirmed that the ruling requests did not include any requests as to whether the recipients of the invalidity payments could access the lump sum election to treat one or more of the income stream payments as a superannuation lump sum.
I am further advised by the Commissioner that in addition to answering the questions in the private ruling requests, extra information was provided regarding the potential accessibility of a loophole. This information was provided without reference to the fact that the Government had already announced on 3 May 2016 that the loophole would be closed effective 1 July 2017.
This loophole was a regulation that enabled recipients of all taxable superannuation income streams to elect to treat their payments as a series of superannuation lump sums to reduce their income tax liabilities. Elsewhere in the tax system similar attempts to reduce tax are not sanctioned and the enabling loopholes are closed.
At the time of the announcement, not one military invalidity pensioner or military personnel was using this loophole.
The ability for military invalidity pensioners to elect to access the loophole during the period of time taken by the ATO to respond to the private ruling requests was not affected by any delay in finalising the private rulings.
The Commissioner has advised that after the general advice issued in August 2016, there were approximately 75 additional private ruling requests that were received late October 2016 which did specifically ask about accessing the lumps sum election in respect of their invalidity pension. These ruling were finalised within the ATO's published service standards.
also note that none of the individuals who elected to access the lump sum election will be subject to any back payment of tax; however, they have no longer been able access the loophole from 1 July 2017.
I have enclosed a copy of the statement that I released with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon Dan Tehan MP, regarding this matter. In addition, I enclose a copy of information that the ATO has released.
I note that your correspondence raises questions regarding whether Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS) and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme (DFRDB) invalidity payments meet the definition of a pension under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994. An invalidity payment paid under either the MSBS or the DFRDB is a common law pension within the definition of a 'pension' in subsection 10(1) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.
The pension is paid in accordance with regulation 1.06(1) (a) (i) and regulation 1.06(9A) (b) (i) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations (SISR). It may also be paid in accordance with regulation 1.06(9A) (iii) and 1.06(2) of the SISR as a lifetime pension, depending on the age of the member and the differing medical review rules that may apply under the schemes' rules.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Ms O'Dwyer
Military Pension
Taxation treatment of superannuation income streams
Joint media release with
Dan Tehan MP
Minister for Veterans' Affairs
It has been a longstanding feature of the Australian superannuation system that military personnel and military invalidity pensioners are subject to tax on their superannuation income streams. Under the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation system, payments made before preservation age are treated as income and taxed accordingly.
Before the 2016-17 Budget, some superannuants were using a loophole to reduce their tax obligations on their superannuation income streams by electing to treat their income as a series of lump sum payments. Elsewhere in the tax system similar attempts to reduce tax are not sanctioned and the enabling loopholes are closed,
The Government announced on 3 May 2016 as part of the 2016-17 Budget that this loophole would be closed from 1 July 2017. At this time not one military Invalidity pensioner or military personnel was using this loophole.
Only after the Budget announcement was made, a small number of military invalidity pensioners decided to change their arrangements to utilise the loophole, and reduce their tax obligations, prior to its closure.
Since September 2016, around 390 out of 11,800 military invalidity pension recipients have elected to make use of the loophole.
None of the individuals who elected to access the loophole will be subject to any back payment of tax, however they willno longer be able to use the loophole from 1 July 2017.
This change only impacts the way benefits provided by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation are treated, not benefits provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
The Government provides more than $11 billion annually in pensions and services to veterans and their families. This year's Budget provided a significant Increase In funding of $350 million in support of veterans.
The Government is continuing to work with veterans and other interested parties in clarifying this issue.
The Government has offered a briefing to the Opposition on this matter and they have agreed to take up our offer.
The Government greatly values the service of all military personnel and acknowledges the dedication and sacrifices they and their families make every day in order to keep our nation safe.
Australian Government Military super statement
The ATO is aware that there has been recent media commentary in respect of rulings that have issued to the recipients of invalidity payments from the Military Superannuation and Benefit Scheme or Defence Force Retirement and Defined Benefit Scheme. The majority of the requests were received between late 2015 to early 2016.
The individuals were seeking clarity on the tax treatment of their invalidity payments. Specifically to confirm whether the payments were considered to be a superannuation benefit (lump sum or income stream) or whether they were an employment termination payment.
Prior to finalising the private rulings the ATO provided general information about how these invalidity payments would be taxed. This included additional information, above what was requested, advising the applicant that under the law at that time they could have their income stream payments taxed as superannuation lumps sums by making an election with the superannuation fund. In line with our usual practice the ATO suggested the applicants seek financial advice as to whether it was suitable for their personal situation.
Depending on the taxpayer's circumstances, making the lump sum election to apply to their fortnightly payments may have reduced the amount of income tax withheld to the payment. At the time of issuing the general advice, and when the ATO issued the final private rulings in late 2016, the ATO did not advise any of the applicants that the Government had announced their intent to remove the lump sum election with effect from 1 July 2017, as a part of the 2016 Budget measures.
The regulation removing the lump sum election was registered on 27 March 2017. At that time the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation wrote directly to all the taxpayers that were utilising the lump sum election. This letter included a specific fact sheet (/uploadedFiles/Content/SPR/downloads/MS17-003145%20Att%20C.PDF) prepared by the ATO explaining that the lump sum election had been repealed with effect from 1 July 2017.
The timing of the ATO issuing the private rulings did not prevent any of the affected individuals from accessing the lump sum election. The lump sum election has been available since 2007 and could have been accessed by the individual by making an election with their superannuation fund prior to receiving their payments.
Age Pension
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 16 August 2017 regarding the petition to increase the Age Pension. The Commonwealth Government appreciates the important economic and social contribution that senior Australians make to our community and is keen to ensure that all pensioners' living standards are safeguarded by the pension system.
Australia's social security system is a non-contributory system designed to support the basic living standards of all Australians and increase their social and economic participation. It is a means-tested, residence-based system, designed to provide income support to people who, for reasons such as age, unemployment or ill health, are unable to support themselves. As a non-contributory social security payment, eligibility for the pension is not based on past income or contributions, or taxes paid during a person's working life.
Pensions are paid at the highest rate of income support payments in the Australian social security system. On 20 September 2017, the maximum total pension rate for single pensioners increased by $6.10 to $894.40 a fortnight or $23,254.40 a year. The maximum rate for pensioner couples combined increased by $9.20 to $1,348.40 a fortnight or $35,058.40 a year. Since the Coalition was elected, pensions have increased by $86 a fortnight for singles and by $129.60 a fortnight for couples.
In addition to the Age Pension, the following additional assistance is available to people receiving the pension:
assistance for people who rent;
assistance for people in remote areas through an additional allowance;
subsidised aged care;
subsidised health care and related products; and
concessions to pensioners by state and territory governments. These concessions include subsidies for rates for home owners, utilities such as electricity, gas and water, and public transport and vehicle registration fees. Concessions offered vary between states. It is up to each individual state and territory government to determine the type and amount of subsidies offered.
In addition, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) provides timely, reliable and affordable access to necessary medicines for Australians. The PBS is part of the Commonwealth Government's broader National Medicines Policy. The aim of the National Medicines Policy is to meet medication and related service needs, so that both optimal health outcomes and economic objectives are achieved. Under the PBS, the Commonwealth Government subsidises the cost of medicines for most medical conditions. To help meet the cost of the scheme, you pay a proportion (a `co-payment') for your PBS medicines and the Commonwealth Government pays the rest of the cost. Co-payment amounts are adjusted in line with indexation on 1 January each year.
Thank you again for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Social Services, Mr Porter
Islam
Thank you for your letter of 16 August 2017 concerning petition number EN0260 on Wahabbism in Australia, which requests a Royal Commission into Islam.
Australia is home to a diversity of faiths, united by tolerance, mutual respect and a commitment to democratic traditions. The Australian Government does not regulate the practice of religion. Australians are free to choose their religion, and are entitled to express and practise their religion and their beliefs, without intimidation and without interference, as long as those practices are within the framework of Australian law. It is for these reasons the Australian Government will not consider a Royal Commission into Islam.
The Australian Government rejects all forms of violent extremism. Violence and promoting violence in the name of a religion, ideology or political cause are criminal acts for which the Government has no tolerance. We are committed to supporting communities who are at the forefront of our prevention and early intervention efforts.
The other matters raised within the petition are matters for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Minister for industry.
Thank you again for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours faithfully
from the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis
Gambling
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 16 August 2017 about petition EN0267 regarding the request from petitioners to introduce laws to require game companies to publish item drop rates for loot box systems. I am writing to you in response to this petition.
Interactive Gambling Act 2001
The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (the IGA) makes it an offence to provide or advertise prohibited and unlicensed regulated interactive gambling services to customers in Australia. Prohibited services include online casino-style gaming services of chance or mixed skill and chance, such as online poker and slot machines, which are played for money or anything else of value.
The IGA does not capture video games as they are considered a game of skill, though there may be some chance element in the game. In general, loot boxes and similar services are not considered interactive gambling services under the IGA. The IGA, however, does capture third party websites that allow players to gamble on virtual items on casino-style games where the virtual items can be exchanged for money or anything else of value. Such operators would be subject to the increased enforcement measures that were introduced as part of the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 that was passed by Parliament on 9 August 2017 and came into effect on 13 September 2017.
Although the elements of chance for purchases in video games are not captured under the IGA, there is a range of information and consumer protections to help Australian parents and children make informed choices and manage in-game spending.
National Classification Scheme
To assist consumers to make informed choices about what they or their children play, the National Classification Scheme requires that computer games must generally be classified before they are sold or published in Australia. Computer games are classified by the Classification Board or the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC) tool (for online and mobile games in participating storefronts including the Google Play, Microsoft and Nintendo
stores). Content in computer games is classified according to standards in the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games.
Computer games are assigned a classification rating (e.g. G, PG) and consumer advice (e.g. violence, sexual references). Consumer advice can relate to the six classifiable elements (themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity) and can also include other information about content in a game or warnings about a game.
The consumer advice of 'online interactivity' is used when a game contains the ability to make digital purchases, including for games that provide an element of chance with the items that are digitally purchased. For example Overwatch, which includes loot boxes, is classified Mwith consumer advice 'violence, online interactivity'. In addition, many online app and game storefronts (e.g. Apple App store, Google Play store) advise at the point of sale if a game includes in-game purchases.
If a computer game contains simulated gambling, where a player is unable to win real money but there is a casino-like feel (such as poker machines, blackjack or roulette) or there are elements of wagering, the consumer advice of 'simulated gambling' is used to inform consumers. 'Gambling themes' and 'Gambling references' can also be used in consumer advice.
Parental controls
Device and console manufacturers provide functions to restrict or disable in-app and digital purchases, which allows parents to control the amount of purchases made by their children. This can assist in managing family finances. Parents can also control children's spending by removing credit cards and other payment options linked to their children's account. Further information on managing in-app purchases in games is available on the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission website. www.accc.gov.au/consumers/internet-phone/in-app-purchases.
I note the petitioners' request for laws to be introduced so that game companies must publish drop rates for loot boxes and similar services. In response to consumer concerns and pressure from international regulators, I am aware that some companies (including Activision Blizzard, the developer of Overwatch) have recently started proactively publishing the probabilities that users will receive certain types of items in loot boxes in their games. The Department regularly consults with key stakeholders including the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association and will continue to monitor this issue.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention. I trust the information will be of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Mr Fifield
Refugees
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for referring petition (EN0271) of 16 August 2017 to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Julie Bishop MP, concerning Australia's refugee and humanitarian intake. Your correspondence has been referred to me as I am the Minister responsible for the matters raised in the petition.
The Humanitarian Programme is an expression of Australia's commitment to working with other countries, United Nations agencies and the wider international community, as part of our global responsibility to find solutions to the plight of refugees and displaced people.
In determining the size and composition of the annual intake, the Australian Government undertakes extensive consultations with key stakeholders, including the community sector, state and territory governments, other portfolio agencies, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to ensure available places are targeted to those most in need.
I note your concerns about refugees from Africa in particular. All people who wish to migrate to Australia must meet visa criteria, including public interest criteria on health, character and security. People who are considered to represent a danger to an Australian citizen or the community would not meet these criteria regardless of race or religion. These checks are conducted before individuals are granted a visa to enter Australia.
Refugees and other humanitarian entrants naturally face challenges in adjusting to the Australian way of life. Despite these challenges, most settle successfully and make a positive contribution to the community, including social engagement, workforce participation, business ownership, and volunteering within the community.
The Government remains committed to maintaining a multicultural, safe and prosperous Australia that enjoys a high level of social cohesion based on respect for human rights, the law, and core values. The Government also regularly reviews its immigration programmes to ensure that they are based on the best interests of Australia to maximise the benefits for all Australians.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton
Immigration
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 11 September 2017 concerning a petition presented in the House of Representatives about a 'future citizen pay-back scheme' and further tightening of the citizenship requirements (petition number EN0275).
Australia is a country built on immigration. The Australian Government designs migration programmes to deliver economic and social benefits to Australia.
Permanent migrants enter Australia via one of two programmes, the Migration Programme for skilled and family migrants or the Humanitarian Programme for refugees and those in refugee-like situations. Under these programmes, the Government allocates places each year for people seeking to migrate permanently to Australia.
Australia's permanent Migration Programme is set on an annual basis. When determining the size and composition of the programme, a wide range of factors are considered including stakeholder views, immediate and forecast long-term social and economic trends as well as the family reunion needs of Australians.
Skilled migration, which consists of around two thirds of the Migration Programme, contributes to the three `P's of economic growth: population, productivity and participation. In general, skilled migrants have good labour market outcomes, higher than the national average. Furthermore, as a unit, migrant families provide net economic and social contributions to Australia.
Australia is one of only a small number of countries that operate well-established and successful resettlement programmes, and consistently ranks in the top three resettlement countries, along with the United States and Canada. The Humanitarian Programme is an expression of Australia's commitment to working with other countries, United Nations agencies, and the wider international community, as part of our global responsibility to find solutions to the plight of refugees and displaced people.
Settlement and support services are an important part of Australia's commitment to providing a path and a means for eligible migrants and new arrivals, primarily humanitarian migrants, to achieve full participation and adjust to their new society. In particular, government-funded services focus on supporting the early acquisition of English language skills, active participation in the workforce and access to education. This leads to a more cohesive Australian society, and helps ensure humanitarian migrants contribute to our economy.
The Government has committed to important reforms to strengthen the requirements for Australian citizenship. The package of reforms announced by the Prime Minister on 20 April 2017 is the Government's response to the National Consultation on Citizenship, which indicated strong support for strengthening the requirements for Australian citizenship.
The package of reforms includes:
increasing the general residence requirement;
introducing an English language test;
strengthening the Australian values statement;
strengthening the test for Australian citizenship;
introducing a requirement for applicants to demonstrate their integration into the Australian community, and
strengthening the pledge.
Under the new arrangements, applicants will need to be permanent residents in Australia for a period of four years immediately prior to their application for citizenship, during which time applicants may be absent from Australia for no more than 12 months in total. The Australian public expects aspiring citizens to commit to Australia and Australian values, and the Government has determined that four years is an appropriate period over which to measure this commitment.
Thank you for raising this matter. The Government will continue to draw out the best from our migration programs and capitalise on the social and economic dividends.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton
Consumer Affairs
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 11 September 2017, originally directed to the Treasurer, concerning petition number EN0278 which was presented in the House of Representatives on 11 September 2017. Your correspondence has been referred to me as the Minister responsible for Consumer Affairs.
I note the petition requests amendments to the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) to prohibit the practice of business pricing goods at amounts which require rounding in cash transactions. The petition would prohibit businesses from pricing of goods at $9.99 rather than $10. The petition was signed by three petitioners.
The ACL is the principal consumer protection law in Australia. The ACL currently prohibits businesses from making false or misleading representations, including false and misleading representations about the price of goods or services. Pricing goods at certain amounts is not inherently misleading.
I also note the practice of businesses rounding prices in cash transactions will diminish as Australian businesses and consumers continue to adopt electronic payment methods for more transactions.
Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Small Business, Mr McCormack
Islam
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 11 September 2017, enclosing petition number EN0283 which requests that legislation be brought forward to implement the monitoring of all mosques and sermons preached in mosques in Australia.
May I assure you that the Australian Government's first priority is to keep the public safe. We are committed to ensuring our agencies have the powers they need.
The Australian Government does not target particular religious groups within our community. Australia's counter-terrorism laws and operational arrangements are aimed at countering the threat of terrorism and protecting our tolerant and multicultural Australian community, not dividing it.
Australia is home to a diversity of faiths, united by tolerance, mutual respect and a commitment to democratic traditions. Australians are free to choose their religion, and are entitled to express and practise their religion and their beliefs, without intimidation and without interference, as long as those practices are within the framework of Australian law. Australia has a secular legal system which applies to everyone equally.
The Australian Government acknowledges that some comments that spread poisonous hatred, including those by influential individuals who have been described as 'hate preachers', can be extremely damaging and could inspire others to take lethal action, particularly when combined with brutal imagery, I would like to reassure you that the Australian Government is doing everything it can to tackle the threat posed by terrorism and those who support it, including those whose comments seek to justify terrorism and radicalise and recruit people to take part in terrorism.
One of the best methods to build resilience to violent ideologies is through well-informed families, communities and local institutions. They are often best placed to identify signs of when something is wrong and are able to step in to help turn an individual away from violent extremism. To build resilience to the violent ideologies that seek to divide our society we are working with families, communities and local institutions to ensure they are well-informed so 2
The Australian Government works with civil society, industry, communities and influential spokespeople to discredit violent extremist propaganda, promote positive messages and provide legal and constructive avenues for achieving ideological or political goals, and build the skills of young people to enhance their critical thinking and make them more digitally resilient.
Additionally, the Australian Government works closely and engages equally with all of its community partners, across all religious sectors, to promote equality, acceptance, tolerance and social inclusion across Australia.
Thank you again for writing on this matter.
Yours faithfully
from the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis
Islam
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 13 September 2017 concerning a petition presented in the House about Muslim migration (petition number EN0284). Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
Australia has a well-earned reputation as one of the most successful and cohesive multicultural societies in the world today. A fundamental principle of our immigration and humanitarian programs is that they are non-discriminatory. This means that ethnic background, gender, race or religion do not play any part in the consideration of people's applications to come to Australia. As a result, all persons applying for a particular type of visa must satisfy the same requirements regardless of where they come from.
People of Islamic faith have been part of the Australian story since the 1800s. The majority of Australians, including those who have migrated, are law-abiding citizens who reject intolerance and who strive to live peacefully in Australian society.
All new residents are encouraged to learn as much as they can about their new country, its heritage, language, customs, values and way of life, and to apply for Australian citizenship when they become eligible. Australia's approach to cultural diversity recognises that our multicultural character gives us a competitive edge in an increasingly globalised world. The approach acknowledges that both rights and responsibilities are fundamental to living in Australia.
The Australian Government takes its role of protecting the Australian community from risk of harm by non-citizens very seriously. Remaining in Australia is a privilege and it is expected that all non-citizens, regardless of how long they have resided in Australia or their nationality, are law abiding and continue to satisfy the requirements of the character test, as defined by section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Telephone: (02) 6277 7860 Facsimile: (02) 6273 4144
Section 501 of the Act provides the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, or a departmental delegate, with the power to refuse or cancel a visa where a person is found not to be of good character. A person may fail the character test, and therefore enliven grounds for refusal or cancellation under section 501 of the Act, for a number of reasons, including where they have a substantial criminal record or pose a risk to the Australian community or a group within the Australian community.
It is important that we work together to uphold the core values of our multicultural society. This includes respect for diversity, commitment to equal opportunity, upholding Australian law and ensuring that neither special preference nor discrimination is directed at any group or individual.
The Government will continue to draw out the best from our multicultural society and capitalise on the social and economic dividends which come from our rich cultural and linguistic diversity.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton
Afghanistan
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 11 September 2017 regarding petition number E0304
The Australian Government acknowledges the concerns expressed in the petition about the safety of Hazara communities in Afghanistan. We continue to provide resettlement opportunities for those Afghan people, including Hazaras, in need of international protection.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade released the report Hazaras in Afghanistan on 18 September 2017. Members of the Shi'a minority in Afghanistan, including Hazaras, are assessed in the report as facing a risk of being attacked by Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) because of their religious affiliation.
While the Australian Government recognises the complexity of the situation in Afghanistan, it is also committed to ensuring that its refugee policy is as compassionate and as fair as possible. Consistent with this approach, Australia has a Memorandum of Understanding with Afghanistan (and UNHCR) to return Afghan nationals who do not have a lawful right to remain in Australia, and to support them once they reach Afghanistan.
Australia's concern about the situation in Afghanistan, including the threats to minority groups, underlies its long-term commitment to improving the country's security. Australian Defence Force personnel arc working as part of the NATO-led Resolute Support mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces to better meet the challenges presented by insurgent groups such as the Taliban and ISKP.
In addition to working with its international partners to improve security outcomes, Australia is also committed to supporting Afghanistan's development. Australia's development program ($80 million annually) aims to: support the Afghan Government to maintain economic growth and improve governance; empower women and girls; and build resilience among populations at risk.
Afghanistan is a difficult country to deliver aid in, with three decades of war resulting in ongoing development, security and financial challenges. Despite this, Australian aid has delivered results - in 2015-16, we helped enrol 5,387 children in school, including 3,919 girls; supported 62,250 children to receive polio vaccinations and 61,970 children to receive measles vaccinations; and trained 9,299 farmers on agricultural practices.
Australia has also been a strong advocate to the Government of Afghanistan for the implementation of human rights reforms for all Afghans, particularly women and girls. Since 2006, we have provided $7.5 million in funding to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, including through our Ending Violence Against Women Program. The program supports women's access to services such as shelters, as well as legal representation, and trains police officers and members of the judiciary in women's rights under Afghan and Islamic law.
Australia, along with many other representatives of the international community in Afghanistan, continues to encourage Afghanistan to investigate any allegations of human rights violations in accordance with International Human Rights standards. We work closely with the United Nations and international partners to address serious human rights violations and abuse. I understand that alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Afghanistan are under investigation by the International Criminal Court, and we look forward to receiving the results of those investigations.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Bishop
Cancer
Dear Mrs Wicks
I refer to your letter of 11 September 2017 regarding Petition EN0305 for public funding of
Melanoma Surveillance Photography.
An application requesting Medicare Benefits Schedule listing of Melanoma Surveillance Photography, involving follow-up total body photography and digital dermoscopy for patients at high-risk and very high-risk for melanoma is currently undergoing consideration through the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) process and a recommendation is expected towards the end of the calendar year.
The MSAC is an independent expert committee that appraises new medical services and provides advice to Government on whether a new medical service should be publicly funded (and if so under what circumstances). Potential new services are assessed on the basis of their comparative safety, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and total cost using the best available evidence.
Further information regarding this application is available on the MSAC website at www.msac.gov.au.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
Pensions and Benefits
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 4 September 2017 about petition number PN0063, which seeks changes to the Defence Farce Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, including restoration of a perceived loss of benefits payable under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme (the Scheme).
The Australian Government is committed to contemporary, balanced and fair superannuation arrangements to recognise the service of members, past and present, to the nation. Although contemporary military superannuation arrangements now succeed the Scheme, as a defined benefit arrangement with its structure of benefits, the Scheme does ensure the continued recognition of the unique requirements of military service. It is not the intention of Government to deny pension recipients or contributing members access to benefits duly entitled to be paid under the provisions of the Scheme.
Like all Commonwealth defined benefit schemes, the Scheme was developed as a structured benefits scheme. The Scheme has a number of key features that include: payment of pension benefits after 20 years' service irrespective of age; a higher percentage of final salary as a superannuation pension compared to other Commonwealth schemes; the ability to commute or exchange part of the pension for a lump sum, on favourable terms relative to the pension forgone; and the ability to receive lifetime indexed pensions with reversionary benefits to spouses and/or children or orphans. These are benefits that are not normally available without significant additional costs to the member.
For many years, retired military members and ex-service organisations, have sought to improve various elements of the Scheme and its replacement scheme, the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme. These campaigns focus on single or discrete elements of the Scheme without consideration of the overall benefit available to members upon their retirement.
In 2014, the Government made changes to the Scheme's legislation that further increased the beneficial nature of the Scheme. Since 1 July 2014, pensions paid from the Scheme (and Defence Forces Retirement Benefits scheme) for retirement pay and reversionary recipients aged 55 and over, are indexed in the same way as the Service and Age Pension. The result of this indexation change is that these pensions are now increased by the greater of positive movements in the Consumer Price Index or the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index measured against a floor percentage of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings. Previously, all pensions paid from these schemes were indexed in line with positive movements in the Consumer Price Index only.
Whilst I acknowledge that the issues raised in the petition cause considerable concern amongst a group of the ex-service community, the Government does not support the view that pension recipients have been denied eligible benefits, nor does the Government support the proposed legislative changes to the Scheme.
I have enclosed a paper prepared by the Department of Defence, which provides further background of the individual elements presented in the petition.
I hope this information will be of assistance to you and the Committee.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Tehan
Pensions and Benefits
BACKGROUND PAPER
Parliamentary Petition Number: PN0063
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme
Introduction
The Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) scheme legislation was derived from a 1972 report of the Joint Select Committee on the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (DFRB) legislation. The Joint Select Committee (commonly known as the Jess Committee) made 20 recommendations to the Government of the day. The Government of the day accepted the majority of the Jess Committee recommendations and modified some.
The DFRB scheme was established in 1948 and closed to new members when the DFRDB scheme commenced on 1 October 1972. All contributory members of the DFRB were transferred to the DFRDB at that time. Pensions payable under the DFRB however, continue to be paid under the provisions of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948 (DFRB Act).
The DFRDB, a complex defined benefit arrangement, was closed to new members from 30 September 1991 when the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS) was introduced. The MSBS is a 'hybrid' defined benefit and accumulation scheme. With transitional arrangements in place, contributing members of the DFRDB were able to elect to transfer schemes within 12 months from the date of commencement of the MSBS on 1 October 1991. It was not compulsory for DFRDB contributory members to transfer to the MSBS.
The MSBS has since closed to new members, with the introduction of contemporary military superannuation arrangements from 1 July 2016. From this date, ADF Super became the default employer fund for all new military members and the ADF Cover scheme provides death and invalidity cover for all military members who are covered under the new superannuation arrangements.
Indexation
Pensions payable under the DFRDB scheme are adjusted bi-annually in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). For pension recipients aged 55 and over, the pension is adjusted by the greater of positive movements in the CPI or the Pensioner Beneficiary Living Cost Index measured against a floor percentage of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings.
The Jess Committee recommended that pensions paid from the DFRDB scheme should be indexed annually to maintain relativity with Average Weekly Earnings. Although ad hoc increases in line with Average Weekly Earnings were made in the early years of the Scheme, the method finally adopted was for annual increases based on CPI. This decision was made following an independent report by actuary Professor A.H. Pollard in 1973. Although concluding that the purchasing power of pensions should be maintained, Professor Pollard noted that national productivity gains, as reflected in the Average Weekly Earnings measure, was an inappropriate criterion to be used in adjusting Commonwealth superannuation pensions for retirees.'
Professor Pollard did however, recommend automatic annual indexation of the Government funded portion of the pension by 1.4 times the increase in the CPI between the two preceding March quarters, capped at the growth in Average Weekly Earnings over the same period (therefore inclusion of wage based index). This recommendation was also adopted on an ad hoc basis in relation to DFRDB and DFRB scheme pensions.2 In 1974, Professor Pollard, with Mr G.L. Melville, recommended that the Government financed pension in the new Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) should be updated annually by the percentage increase in the CPI.3 In order that the purchasing power of pensions could be maintained in times of high inflation, the removal of the AWE ceiling was also proposed for the new scheme.4 This recommended indexation methodology was subsequently adopted for all Government superannuation schemes including the DFRDB and DFRB schemes.
Bi-annual adjustment of DFRDB pensions took effect from January 2002 after the Government announced in the 2001-2002 Budget an increase to Commonwealth superannuation pensions in line with CPI twice yearly instead of annually.' In a 2001 report by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services, it was recommended that the Government introduce a bi-annual adjustment of CPI, which should flow through to Commonwealth public sector and defence force pensions to ameliorate the effects of the current 'indexation lag'.6
The Senate Select Committee also recommended that the Government examine the feasibility of adopting an indexation method other than the CPI for Commonwealth public sector and defence force superannuation schemes, to more adequately reflect the actual increases in the cost of living (relative to community standards).' Noting that the use of CPI as an index for adjusting pensions in the Commonwealth schemes needs to be considered in the context of the overall benefit design and cost of the schemes, the Government of the day did not adopt this recommendation.8
A 2002 report by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation recommended that the Government consider indexing Commonwealth funded superannuation benefits to Male Total Average Weekly Earnings or CPI, whichever is the higher, in order that recipients share in the increases in living standards enjoyed by the wider community.9
In its response to the report, the then Government noted "that it believed that indexation using CPI represented an equitable and satisfactory method over a period of years for increasing pensions; that it protected the living standards of retired Australian Government employees; and that the Australian Bureau of Statistics findings of research for a period up to June 2004 reinforced the Government's belief that CPI did provide a reasonable measure of the cost of living".10
A Review into Military Superannuation Arrangements in 2007, commonly known as the Podger Review, recommended that 'If the Government is willing to go beyond the envelope of current costs, it should consider indexing DFRDB and DFRB pensions for those over 55 on a similar basis to that applying to age pensions'. In its finding, the Review Team noted that given government policy on preservation arrangements, it considered there was no case to increase the generosity of benefits payable prior to age 55.11
The Podger Review Team, although noting there was an in-principle case for changing the indexation arrangements of these pensions, also found "the DFRDB is a particularly generous scheme for those in receipt of pensions; that CPI indexation does maintain purchasing power, and is generous when compared to most contemporary superannuation schemes that may only provide account-bases pensions at the member's risk".'
A further independent review by Mr Trevor Matthews in 2008 recommended that pensions paid from Australian Government civilian and military superannuation schemes continue to be indexed by the CPI. Acknowledging, that although CPI has changed in some respects over time, he considered that it remained the most suitable available prices index for the purpose of pension indexation.'3
In his review, Mr Matthews considered whether the CPI indexation methodology should be changed for the seven Commonwealth schemes having regard to the following Terms of Reference: the occupational nature of those schemes; the form and value of the benefits payable under those schemes; indexation arrangements in similar Australian defined benefit schemes; the interaction with government safety net benefits; and the full cost to the Commonwealth. The Government of the day accepted Mr Matthews' recommendation.
Mr Matthews found that the most consistent argument in support of change was on the grounds of fairness and equity; to achieve this, it was argued that a change from CPI indexation to wage based indexation was necessary. Mr Matthews found that there was no case for a change having regard to the Terms of Reference. He noted that Age and Service pensions (whereby wage indexation is a factor) and superannuation are two separate, but supportive, components of Australia's retirement income system. However, they are different benefits with different purposes and are not comparable.14 Similarly, Professor Pollard had noted that he saw no relationship between the rate at which the Government may choose from time to time to increase welfare pensions and the rate of increase which it should apply to pensions payable to its own retired employees.15
In line with the recommendation of the Podger Review, the Australian Government made a beneficial change in 2014 to the DFRDB and DFRB schemes indexation methodology to the same way as for age and service pensions, for retirement pay and reversionary pension recipients aged 55 and over. The benefits of this change will become clearer over time. The compounding effects of improved indexation means that pensions will move further ahead of an equivalent CPI only indexed pension.
Sub-section 98B(5) of the Defence Farce Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973
Automatic annual adjustment (by CPI) of DFRDB and DFRB pensions was introduced into legislation in 1977. Part XA — Pension Increases, was incorporated in the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 (the Act) at that time. Section 98B provides for an increase in certain pensions.
Section 98B of the Act describes how the increased rate is determined, defines the meaning of the term 'relevant rate'16 of a pensioner's pension benefit, and introduces the term 'notional rate of retirement pay' in to the legislation at subsection 98B(5).
Essentially, 'notional rate of retirement pay' is a term used to identify the amount of DFRDB pension that is to be indexed. If a member does not elect to commutel7 (or commutes less than four times the pension) then indexation is only applied to notional retirement pay, being the rate of pension that would be payable if the member had commuted four times the pension (which was the maximum amount that could be commuted at the time indexation arrangements were introduced). A member can now commute up to five times the value of the annual pension in exchange for a permanently reduced lifetime pension.
Reversionary benefits under the DFRDB scheme are payable to eligible spouses and children on the death of a member, where the member is in receipt of a pension at the time of their death. Orphan benefits are also payable where there is no eligible spouse benefit payable.
Where a member did not elect to commute, the notional rate applied does not result in a reduction in the entitled benefit where a reversionary pension is payable. Noting that automatic annual indexation was introduced around five years after the commencement of the DFRDB scheme, and many retiring members had commuted part of their pension to the maximum extent available to them. Additionally, commutation of pension under the DFRDB scheme does not affect the amount of reversionary pension payable after the death of the member. The lifetime reversionary pension for spouses is equal to 62.5 per cent18 of what the deceased member's retirement pay would have been had the member not commuted. In the usual situation where the member took the maximum lump sum through commutation of retirement pay, this broadly equates to around 70 per cent of the deceased member's actual pension.
Section 24 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973
This provision of the Act provides for the commutation of a member's retirement pay. Essentially, commutation in the DFRDB scheme is the early payment of part of a member's retirement pay in the form of a lump sum, The decision to commute part of the retirement pay is entirely voluntary. When a member elects to commute, the lump sum forms part of the overall superannuation benefit and the pension is permanently reduced recognising the capacity of lump sum recipients to obtain long-term advantage from the immediate use of their lump sum.
The commutation provisions incorporated in the DFRDB legislation in 1973 mirror the provisions in the 1948 DFRB legislation. The DFRB Booklet issued in 1970 provides that: 19
'Every pensioner should think carefully before relinquishing portion of his continuing pension entitlement to obtain an immediate lump sum payment. Factors such as the following are significant;
Once commutation is approved, the relevant portion of the pension is cancelled and cannot be restored subsequently
By commutation the pensioner cancels, not only a portion of this current pension entitlement at the date of approval of the commutation, BUT ALSO a similar portion of any likely pension increases by the notional category metho d 20 based on that pension entitlement'
The early payment of part of the DFRDB member's retirement pay in the form of a lump sum is neither an advance nor loan. The calculation undertaken to determine a member's lump sum and residual pension benefit includes a life expectancy factor. The life expectancy factor is only an element of the calculation, nothing more. Should a member exceed the life expectancy factor used in the calculation of their lump sum, the pension is not adjusted accordingly, nor is any recovery of part of the lump sum undertaken from a deceased member's estate, should the recipient die before reaching the life expectancy factor used. The value of lifetime pensions in most schemes normally incorporate two elements; a life expectancy factor and a rate of interest that reflects the income earning capacity of the lump sum over the anticipated term of the pension payments. The commutation factor in the DFRDB scheme beneficially considers only life expectancy.
The Podger Review Team, although acknowledging the significant improvement in life expectancy, found that the conversion factor based on a 1960s life expectancy is substantially more generous than a cost-neutral factor that takes into account opportunities to earn interest on the commuted lump sum. The Review Team concluded that a conversion factor based solely on current life expectancy figures would be even more excessively generous and noted, if any change were to be made to the factors in the DFRDB scheme, it should be to require a substantially larger reduction in retirement pay pension in return for the commuted lump sum, not a smaller reduction.21
Conclusion
In assessing the overall benefit of the DFRDB scheme, it is not reasonable to consider individual elements of the Scheme as a change to one element changes the entire basis on which the Scheme was developed. This is true for all Commonwealth defined benefit schemes.
The Scheme, designed some 45 years ago, was at the time tailored to meet the unique requirements of military service. Similar to the DFRB, the scheme was developed to meet service requirements and personnel objectives, which at the time included early retirement ages and an understanding that military retirees went on to further careers. The need to ensure superannuation for military members remained relevant and contemporary resulted in the closure of the Scheme to new members in 1991. Enhancements subsequently occurred to the DFRDB scheme with the introduction of MSBS. The changes to indexation of pensions in 2014 have further improved the beneficial nature of the Scheme.
1 1973 Parliamentary Paper No.9, Enquiry into Superannuation Pension Updating, Report by Professor
A.H. Pollard of March 1973 Page 2
2 1973 Parliamentary Paper No.9, Enquiry into Superannuation Pension Updating, Professor A.H. Pollard, March 1973 Pages 12-13
3 Report on the Treasurer's Proposals for a New Superannuation Scheme for Australian Government Employees of 5 June 1974, Professor A.H. Pollard and Mr G.L. Melville Page 19 para. 49
4 Report on the Treasurer's Proposals for a New Superannuation Scheme for Australian Government
Employees of 5 June 1974, Professor A.H. Pollard and Mr G.L. Melville Page 15 para. 37-38
5 Budget Paper No.1 Statement 1 Part III Budget Priorities, Commonwealth Budget 2001-2002
6 A 'Reasonable and Secure' Retirement? The benefit design of Commonwealth public sector and defence force unfunded superannuation funds and schemes, April 2001, Page 45 para. 3.104
7 A `Reasonable and Secure' Retirement? The benefit design of Commonwealth public sector and defence force unfunded superannuation funds and schemes, April 2001, Page 44 para. 3.
8 Government response of 11 December 2002 to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation Financial Services Report A 'Reasonable and Secure' Retirement, tabled in Parliament 5 February 2003
9 Superannuation and standards of living in retirement — Report on the adequacy of the tax arrangements for superannuation and related policy, December 2002, Page 194 para. 14.28
10 Government Response To The Recommendations Of The Senate Select Committee On Superannuation Report 'Superannuation and Standards of Living in Retirement', tabled in Parliament 14 February 2005, Page 19
11 Report of the Review into Military Superannuation Arrangements of 31 July 2007, Pages 60-61
12 Report of the Review into Military Superannuation Arrangements of 31 July 2007, Page 60
13 Review of Pension Indexation Arrangements in Australian Government Civilian and Military Superannuation Schemes, December 2008, Chap 8 Page 47
14 Review of Pension Indexation Arrangements in Australian Government Civilian and Military Superannuation Schemes, December 2008, Chap 8 Page 45
15
1973 Parliamentary Paper No.9, Enquiry into Superannuation Pension Updating, Professor A.H. Pollard, March 1973 Page 39
16 Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 subsection 98B(4)
17 'to change (one kind of payment) into or for another, as by substitution' — the Macquarie Dictionary Seventh Edition
18 Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 section 39
19 The DFRDB Booklet issued by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board in 1970 was at the time considered the equivalent of a Trust Deed and Rules for the DFRB scheme, Page 94 pars 251
20 At the time, the Government reviewed pensions paid under the DFRB scheme in conjunction with the annual Budget reviews. When pension increased had been provided for, the cost of the increase had historically been met from Consolidated Revenue. Pension increases by the notional category method gave a pensioner the benefit, on a non-contributory basis, from Consolidated Revenue of an increased pension entitlement based on the current equivalent, at a specified date, of the pay or pay group as appropriate, applicable to their rank at termination from Service.
21 Report of the Review into Military Superannuation Arrangements of 31 July 2007, Pages 61-62
Water
Dear Mrs Wicks
I refer to your correspondence dated 4-September 2017 concerning the petition on potential impact on the Sydney water catchment area and on the Kangaloon aquifer of an underground coal mine proposed by Hume coal (PN0076).
The Australian Government becomes involved in the assessment of actions that are likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Matters of national environmental significance include water resources in relation to the impacts of coal seam gas and coal mining (referred to as the 'water trigger'). All proposals referred to the Department of the Environment and Energy (the Department) are subject to a rigorous and transparent assessment process, which includes opportunity for public comment.
The proposed Flume Coal Project was referred to the Department in July 2015. Following an initial public consultation period and careful consideration of all relevant matters, it was determined that the proposed action was likely to have a significant impact on listed threatened species and ecological communities and a water resource in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development. Notification of the decision can be viewed on the Department's website at http://www.enviromnent.gov.au/epbc/public-notices.
The proposal requires further assessment and a decision on whether or not it can be approved under the EPBC Act before it can proceed. The proposal is currently being assessed under the bilateral agreement with the New South Wales Government which means that the State Department of Planning and Environment will provide to me an assessment report and recommendation that addresses matters of national environmental significance.
On 23 March 2017, the Australian and NSW governments jointly requested advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development (IESC) on the likely impacts of the Hume Coal Project to water resources. The IESC provided advice to both governments on 8 May 2017. This advice is available on the IESC's website, www.iesc.environment.gov.au/committee-advice/proposals. The IESC advice will be considered prior to recommendations being made concerning approval of the proposed mine.
Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Telephone (02) 6277 7920
Those interested in how the assessment is progressing arc encouraged to monitor the NSW government's website for updates at www.majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au.
Thank you for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg
Australia Post
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 4 September 2017 seeking my response to petition PN0077 presented in the House of Representatives, regarding the closure of Australia Post's Post Office at Everton Park, Queensland.
Australia Post is an independent Government Business Enterprise, both legally and financially separate from the Australian Government. Under the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989, Australia Post is responsible for the day-to-day running of the organisation, including all decisions relating to its operational network. Australia Post is legally required, as far as practicable, to perform its functions in a sound commercial manner.
The Government does, however, require Australia Post to maintain a network of at least 4,000 retail outlets across Australia, including 2,500 in rural and remote areas. This means that Australia Post operates one of the largest retail networks in this country.
Decisions on specific post offices are taken by Australia Post and closures of postal retail outlets do happen from time to time. Whenever there is a potential closure, Australia Post takes into consideration the community's access to postal services.
Australia Post advises me that the premises occupied by the Post Office in the Everton Plaza Shopping Centre were to be demolished as part of the redevelopment of the Plaza, and it was unable to secure a suitable tenancy within an appropriate timeframe elsewhere within the Plaza. As a result, and considering that there are nine other post offices within a five kilometre radius of the Plaza, Australia Post decided to close the Everton Park Post Office and amalgamate services with the Brookside Centre Post Office, about 1.4 kilometres away. I am informed that there are two street posting boxes, including for Express Post, located outside the Plaza.
I understand that on 20 June 2017, Everton Park Post Office customers were notified of changes to postal services and were guided to nearby post offices that provide a full range of postal services.
While there are nine other post offices within a five kilometre radius, Australia Post is keen to ensure that the Everton Park community has ongoing access to postal services.
Australia Post is currently in discussion with a business in the Everton Plaza to provide an agency service where the community can purchase stamps and a range of pre-paid envelopes and satchels. I have asked Australia Post to keep me updated on progress in this matter.
Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention.
Thank you for your representations of 11 September 2017 to the Minister for Health and Minister for Sport, the Hon Greg Hunt MP, regarding the petition presented to the Standing Committee on Petitions concerning Bundaberg's classification under the Rural, Remote and Metropolitan Areas (RRMA) system. Your letter has been referred to me as Assistant Minister for Health with portfolio responsibility for this matter.
I note the issues raised in the petition, in particular concerns with the RRMA classification of Bundaberg compared with nearby towns. The RRMA classification was developed in 1994 as a remoteness classification based on 1991 population Census data and 1991 Statistical Local Area Boundaries boundaries.
Since the introduction of RRMA, there have been significant advances in the methodology by which the relative remoteness of areas is assessed. This has resulted in improved remoteness classifications such as that maintained by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Statistical Geography Standard — Remoteness Areas (ASGS-RA) and the Department of Health's Modified Monash Model (MMM). As such, the RRMA classification will not be updated.
For various reasons, some health workforce programs continue to use the RRMA classification as an eligibility requirement. The Department has established a Distribution Working Group (DWG) to review the current use of geographic classification systems, including RRMA, and make recommendations for improvements in which remoteness classifications are best suited for use by programs to achieve their policy objectives. The DWG met for the first time on 28 July 2017 and is meeting again in November 2017 to progress this work.
Thank you for raising this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Mr Fifield
COMMITTEES
Standing Committee on Environment and Energy
Report
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (10:06): On behalf of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, I present the committee report entitled Powering our future: inquiry into modernising Australia's electricity grid, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr BROAD: Throughout 2017 the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy examined the important issues facing Australia's electricity grid. Not only are we experiencing a changing mix in the source of the electricity generated but consumer preferences are also changing. The modernising of the electricity grid in Australia provides an opportunity to reconsider what the system could seek to achieve and how the different priorities of stakeholders could be balanced. Four key issues under consideration are the ongoing security of the system, the reliability of the system in meeting customer demand, emissions reduction and affordability.
Industry experts, energy users, electricity distributors and regulators all gave evidence to the committee. What was striking was the committee heard the same evidence from each witness—the importance of a consensus approach to energy policy in Australia. The committee took this evidence about consensus very seriously and applied it to all the inquiry work. This report reflects the absolute best efforts of the members of this committee to find common ground when it comes to delivering a modern electricity grid to ensure the secure and reliable delivery of electricity whilst balancing emissions reduction considerations and the important issue of affordability.
Of course, as members of parliament representing different constituencies, many of us have different views which we had an opportunity to test and discuss throughout the inquiry. Yet this report is the unanimous report of the committee and the fact that it is unanimous is a source of personal pride to me and is testament to the professionalism and goodwill of my colleagues. The collegiate spirit that was fostered in this committee enabled us to consider the evidence and prepare a report in a manner which enabled us to put consensus and pragmatism first.
The witnesses spoke, telling us of the energy industry's need for certainty. The committee listened, and we have delivered a comprehensive consensus-based report that provides recommendations which will enable the grid to be modernised in a manner which provides the certainty the stakeholders expressly requested. Four members of the committee, including me and the deputy chair, undertook a delegation to visit parts of Germany and the United States. Benefiting from a comprehensive program, we learnt more about current electricity markets and policy landscapes in each country. We collected evidence from visits to the mainland National Electricity Market states, submissions and our visits overseas. We gained genuine insights into how we can take a grid that was built for very different conditions in the earlier part of the 20th century and transition that same grid into the 21st century, and, in so doing, futureproof it.
There is space for big thinking when it comes to modernising the electricity grid. Additional interconnectors in places such as northern Tasmania could provide a platform for truly innovative practices such as wind farms taking full advantage of the Roaring Forties winds. A Mallee interconnector, which could be linked into Snowy Hydro, could capture the advantage of east-west solar resources.
I thank my fellow committee members for their collegiate and productive approach when considering the issues raised during the course of the inquiry. The committee was fortunate in the assistance it received from submission makers and witnesses, who provided a strong evidence base which informed our deliberations. I would also like to the thank the staff of the secretariat for their assistance with our work. They are in the chamber here today. They worked very hard.
This report canvasses important issues and makes timely recommendations that seek to ensure Australia is not left behind in the electricity revolution that is occurring all around us. I call on all my colleagues in this place to take heed of this report and the evidence of witnesses everywhere. This evidence was a call to arms: abandon partisan politics and unite to deliver the certainty the energy sector requires in order to deliver secure, reliable electricity with lower emissions and—of paramount importance—that is affordable to all. I'm very optimistic for the future and what can be done. Our electricity grid will transition, and this report will form a body of work that will assist in that transition over the next 20 years. I thank my colleagues for their hard work and I commend this report to the House.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (10:11): I want to start by thanking the secretariat for the brilliant job they've done in putting this report together and by complimenting the chair of the committee, the member for Mallee, and all the members on what is a very strong report. In the energy policy arena, which is probably the most heated part of the national policy debate, a consensus was achieved across four parties. It's a rare issue that gets the member for Mallee, the member for Hughes, the member for Melbourne and me to agree on anything, and this report recognises that and represents that. I think it signals a way forward on the energy debate in this country.
There are a stack of recommendations, 23, and I won't go through all of them, but I want to highlight quickly seven really important recommendations, starting with the first one, about the drastic need, the desperate need, to resolve the uncertainty in energy policy that has bedevilled this country since 2009. The report makes reference to calculations by the Energy Council, the peak body for generators, which says that the effect of the inability of this place—the House of Representatives and the Senate—to agree on a settled energy policy since 2009 is the equivalent of a $50-a-tonne carbon price. That is because people in this place cannot agree on a policy that people can invest in for the next 40 years. It is essential that we resolve that uncertainty in energy policy and get an enduring mechanism to tackle our greenhouse gas abatement requirements.
Recommendation 4 talks about speeding up rule making. Recommendation 5 talks about greater parliamentary oversight of the Finkel recommendations. There are recommendations around industry demand and responses around energy efficiency which will be essential to reduce demand in the sector while providing a revenue stream for our manufacturers. There are recommendations around AEMO studies into more interconnectors, which the member for Mallee has referred to. There is a strong recommendation around reviewing the RIT-T test, which is very short sighted in its regulatory oversight for new investment in transmission infrastructure. The recommendation I'm particularly passionate about, besides the uncertainty recommendation, is recommendation 16, which is that AEMO consider establishing renewable energy zones. This is essential if we have to decarbonise our grid. We need serious investment in renewable energy zones to take advantage of the greatest solar radiation in the world and great wind resources, but to do that we need adequate planning and adequate investment in the grid, and AEMO has a lead role in this. These are really important recommendations.
There is some really important commentary around system security. Our review found that renewable energy can provide all the security services that the grid needs around frequency control, ancillary services and inertia responses if there is adequate planning and investment. It is not that these sources of generation can't provide these services; it's that they've never been called upon to do that. With adequate planning and a good regulatory framework, they can provide them.
The final thing in this report which is really important is the commentary around geographic diversity. We are an energy island, and some people say that, because we are an energy island, we can't invest in renewable energy because we don't have nuclear from France to draw upon or hydro from Canada to draw upon—as you can if you're in New York. But our geographic diversity and the sheer size of the land mass in this country means that that diversity provides reliability, north and south and east and west. If we invest in renewable energy with good planning, we can have solar going in western Queensland backed up by wind and wave power in Tasmania and great support in South Australia. These are things that can be provided—they occur in other countries—if we do the planning right.
I want to thank the Speaker personally for approving overseas travel for this committee. Often this travel is portrayed as a junket, but I, as one of the four members of the committee who had the privilege of going to Germany and the United States, learned so, so much about the energy infrastructure and approach in those countries, and it informed this committee report. I can absolutely assure you that this report would not be as strong, credible and well researched as it is now if we hadn't had that trip, so thank you very much, Speaker.
I commend this report to the House, and I would recommend that everyone who is interested in energy policy have a read of it with an open mind, because it does chart a way forward.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Mallee wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (10:16): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (10:16): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment (Improving National Employment Standards) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bandt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:17): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, parliament is acting.
Today we have an opportunity to address the epidemic of domestic violence that scars our nation.
Today I am proud to introduce this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Improving National Employment Standards) Bill 2017, which will provide every employee with an entitlement to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave per calendar year. An employee will be entitled to access the leave if they or a member of their family experiences family and domestic violence and, as a result, requires care from that employee. The employee will be able to take this leave if they require counselling, medical attention, legal advice, relocating or any other activity associated with the experience of domestic violence.
Family and domestic violence is a wicked act that is not caught on CCTV footage, like a hold-up at a convenience store or a robbery, which are often beamed into lounge rooms across the country on the nightly news.
This insidious violence takes many forms, often occurring under a dark shroud, behind closed doors. It is hidden from view. It is perpetrated by cowardly people in the kitchens, bedrooms and living rooms of homes all across the country.
One in six women experience family and domestic violence. Indigenous women experience violence at even higher rates. Last year, we lost 44 women to family and domestic violence. Every one of these deaths is a tragedy—an unacceptable tragedy. The number should be zero.
Domestic violence is a problem that begins and ends with men. Mainly, it is men who perpetrate this violence against their partners and their families. It is men who are imbued with entitlement and misogyny, who scar our collective national consciousness, and it is men, not women, who must change their behaviour. It's clear that we need to alter the way we raise our boys. We need to teach them to respect women, and that violence is abhorrent.
It's clear we all have a role to play to stop this from happening—but that until then we must live with our failure, and living with our failure means acknowledging the reality before us: that family and domestic violence is an ongoing problem that we must address now. And, while the parliament cannot flick the switch immediately and prevent another woman from dying an unnecessary death at the hands of their partner, we can do something.
The reason that this bill is so important, and I urge everyone, whichever party they come from, to support this bill, is because leaving a domestic violence situation is one of the hardest things that a person may attempt in their lives. It is not a matter of packing a bag and walking out the door. The perpetrators of family and domestic violence erode the liberty, the freedom and the independence of their victims. They do not just inflict fear and pain—they paralyse and isolate people.
Not only is the cost of domestic violence to our society vast, but the cost of escaping and leaving a violent relationship is also significant. According to the ACTU, on average it takes $18,000 and 141 hours to escape such a relationship—$18,000, 141 hours. Starting a new life in a new place isn't easy—you need to do simple things, logistical things, like hire a truck to move possessions, and spend time finding a new place to go; things that in many circumstances are stressful enough anyway, but when you have the added burden of experiencing family and domestic violence, or knowing someone who has, it makes it all the harder. And if you're trying to start a new life while escaping an old one, you also need to pay lawyers, seek support to deal with trauma, apply for Centrelink, look for new schools for your child—the list goes on and on.
Many women consider their financial capacity while they're thinking about leaving an abusive situation, and a majority of women—two thirds, in fact—are in paid employment.
But right now, instead of automatically having the support of their workplace, women in abusive relationships are trapped in a scary catch 22: leaving work to create more time means sacrificing income, financial independence and possibly their job, but staying at work may hinder their ability to get organised and get out.
Additionally, along with the personal impact that domestic violence has on an employee, there are real costs borne by the workplace in the form of decreased performance and conflict among workers. This is because intimate partner violence spills over into the public sphere. This violence does not end when women step outside their homes but pervades every part of their lives, including their workplaces. The workplace can cease to be a safe space. Oftentimes, past or current abusive partners may target victims and survivors at work, through an onslaught of emails, phone calls or by showing up in person, attempting to get these women fired or forcing them to resign. Make no mistake, this is an exercise in exerting power and control over women, robbing them of financial security, self-confidence or the ability to do their work effectively. Women cannot afford this disruption and the endangerment of their jobs.
According to a report from the Australian Human Rights Commission, women who experience domestic violence are more likely to have lower personal incomes and a disrupted work history, and almost half of the women said it affected their ability to work.
The point is that this impossible choice is a false choice. There is another option for these women, if this place has the courage to choose it. We can give another option to millions of women across this country.
Ten days of paid family and domestic violence leave gives women the flexibility to take time off work to arrange for their own safety. This year, the parliament can grant what should be a universal right for every single worker in this country—the right to safety.
This policy will save lives.
Without paid leave, it's very hard to leave.
And right now, we're not doing a good enough job at both preventing domestic violence from happening in the first place but also calibrating our policies to ensure that people who are in abusive relationships can leave them. We're failing on both fronts.
Why is this? How many people must suffer until we do something? How many more Rosie Battys will there be until we act? This government talks a lot about keeping Australians safe. But there's a troubling reality: figures from the Bureau of Statistics show that from 2003 to 2012, while deaths to Australians caused by terrorism was at 133, deaths from domestic violence was at 870.
It is the height of hypocrisy and it is offensive for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to sit here in this place, complete with white ribbons, to talk about tackling family and domestic violence and then—when we have the opportunity to act to do something about it—to choose not to
That takes a special kind of malice, a special kind of mendacity—to look women who have suffered in the eyes and effectively say, 'I know I can help, but I am choosing not to.'
The Greens are putting our cards on the table. We've introduced this bill and we're willing to have a conversation about this issue that's literally destroying people's lives.
I hope that this bill passes with support from across the aisle. I know, having been here now for a period of time, that what often happens when courageous bills are brought forward is that they're ignored and then there's a period of ridiculing them saying, 'It'll cost too much,' and then, as we see time and time again, policies that the Greens bring to this place usually get adopted a few years later. We should not wait. We should not go through that cycle this time. We should make this a reality this year.
I challenge members who are sitting in this place to turn their talk into action. Put forward a legitimate reason for not voting for this bill. The Minister for Employment, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should all stand up and say they support this bill and turning it into law this year.
Women today are living in an extraordinary time. The President of the United States is an anti-abortion misogynist who sees women as objects for him to accumulate and conquer. The #MeToo movement, at the same time, is sweeping the globe, uncovering men in powerful positions who have abused their power and their privilege at the expense of women who are just trying to do their job. But this is not merely a problem of men in power or men of celebrity. These abusers of women are hiding in anonymity across our country. Most women's stories are yet to be acknowledged. Women without the privilege, the public platform, the workplace support, or the financial security often needed to speak up, face a greater likelihood of devastating consequences. So, as this bill is debated and progresses through this place, every one of us needs to decide: which side are we on? Right now, history is being written. Will this parliament capitulate or will we use the extraordinary potential of this place to take a step that will save the lives of women around this country? Ten days leave for those experiencing family and domestic violence is unobjectionable, and I commend this bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Wilkie: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (10:28): I 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.
It's with great pleasure that I stand in this House today to speak about the importance and the value of the trade relationship between Australia and Japan. This motion looks to acknowledge the importance of this trade relationship. Importantly, it welcomes the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Australia-Japan Agreement on Commerce, and it looks at the significant opportunities that are offered by this economic partnership for Australian businesses and exporters. It recognises and celebrates the significant role of Japanese investment in the Australian economy, noting that this investment is creating and supporting Australian jobs. It notes the ongoing cooperation and commitment between Australia and Japan to open markets and have a strong, rule based global trading system. It encourages the Australian government to continue its economic cooperation with Japan for the mutual benefit of both countries to create jobs and support prosperity in both of our nations.
The economic relationship between Australia and Japan has been exponentially bolstered over the past five years thanks to the success of the government's economic partnership agreement. This successful program is in part thanks to the tremendous efforts of the government's current and former ministers for trade, tourism and investment who have gone above and beyond to build an ever-strengthening partnership between our two nations. However, the success of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement is also in large part thanks to our country's exporters and businesses, who have taken the opportunity to become competitive and to embrace the trade opportunities this agreement with Japan presents.
Japan is a vital and longstanding economic partner for Australia, and over the past decade the country has become a beacon of economic stability. Japan is Australia's second-largest export market and fourth-largest source of foreign investment. In 2017 we marked 60 years of the Australia-Japan agreement on commerce, which has provided tremendous opportunities for our two nations. The 60-year partnership has bound our two countries together, with Japan's investment in Australia underpinning the development of both our economies. It has forged the creation of new industries in Australia, while Japan has prospered from a stable, long-term supply of our natural resources. Our relationship has been further strengthened by the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, which came into effect in January 2015. Three years later we're seeing the fruits of its success, with Australian exporters benefiting from improved market access across a wide range of services and products.
Thanks to the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, Australia has seen the first significant agriculture producer to have a meaningful trade agreement with Japan, providing our exporters with a competitive advantage in the market. I would like to share with the House just how tremendous the export growth to various Australian industries has been. Beef is our largest agricultural export to Japan, worth some $1.8 billion in 2016, and the rapid tariff reductions have provided significant competitive advantage over our major competitor the United States. Between 2014 and 2016 Australian fresh or chilled beef exports have increased by 22½ per cent, a terrific outcome for our Australian beef farmers. It's a terrific outcome not only for our beef farmers but also for our beef processors, like Teys in my electorate, which employs nearly 800 people. The benefits of these relationships with Japan have ensured 800 people in my electorate of Forde have retained their jobs.
Our wine, dairy and seafood industries are also benefiting greatly, with the agreement providing a competitive advantage over other countries. As an example, in the same period Australia's bottled wine exports increased by 13 per cent, our fresh table grape exports increased by 5,183 per cent, shelled macadamia exports grew by 4.7 per cent, rolled oat exports increased by 99 per cent, fresh or chilled carrot exports increased by nearly 500 per cent and prepared or preserved abalone exports increased by some 86 per cent. We can see from those figures alone the breadth of opportunity that's being provided across Australia through these agreements, and I would like to add another business in my electorate: Frosty Boy, who provide the powder for soft serve ice cream. As they like to say in their slogan, 'Often licked, but never beaten'. They have spoken very positively about the improved access and ability to trade in Japan as a result of these agreements.
Our resources, energy and manufacturing industries have also experienced increases in exports. As an example, Australia's exports of pigments and preparations of titanium oxide have grown by some 31 per cent. In terms of fresh produce, many Australian products have seen growth in their exports to Japan. Sugar, natural honey, chilled and fresh asparagus, oranges, broccoli and shelled almonds have all seen very significant increases over the years.
In the education sector, our universities have been brought closer together, with Japan formally recognising Australian bachelor degrees for entry into postgraduate programs into Japanese institutions. This formal recognition is of great benefit to students, and it makes Australian education services more attractive in Japan.
Not only do these figures show an outstanding result for these industries; importantly, every single one of these industries employs Australian people. That is the great value of these agreements—that these benefits carry forward into the Australian economy and benefit everyday Australians by providing them with job opportunities.
This investment continues to be good for the economy as a whole. These tariff cuts in return also provide tremendous opportunities for Australians. The tariff cuts on Japanese exports to Australia mean we are now paying less for goods and services, including Japanese-made cars, electronics and white goods. The economic agreement between Australia and Japan has resulted in successful outcomes for both countries.
I'd like to finish on a new business that has recently opened in my electorate as a result of this. We've seen one of the great manufacturing companies of Japan open a big new factory in the electorate of Forde, at Yatala. Oji Fibre Solutions have opened a $72 million factory, introducing new technology which will boost fresh food exports and open fresh prospects for food exporters in Queensland, New South Wales and the Northern Territory. The Japanese-owned pulp and paper company is producing food packaging that is tailored to the climatic conditions of specific markets. The packaging technology will help Australian producers ensure the goods dispatched to high-end consumers in Asia arrive in pristine condition. This world market leader in manufacturing of cardboard boxes and specialist packaging is not only helping Australian exporters expand their horizons but also creating local jobs in my electorate of Forde. Without the opportunities created by the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, the demand for Oji Fibre's products wouldn't be as great, and we would never see their multimillion-dollar investment in Yatala.
It is heartening to see that the hard work that this government continues to do with these trade agreements, continuing to build these trade relationships with countries around the world, has a direct benefit in many electorates around the country, but in particular in my electorate of Forde. I congratulate the government and the minister for the continuing great work they are doing in this space.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I thank the member for Forde. Is the motion seconded?
Mr Craig Kelly: I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (10:38): Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, welcome to 2018. I hope you had a great Christmas. I support this motion and I thank the member for Forde for articulating those good things that are happening between Australia and Japan, both for the benefits that we get in terms of jobs and improvements to our economy and for the great things the people of Japan get as part of our strengthening relationship. I just want to acknowledge the importance of our trade and economic relationship, and add to that the importance of our defence relationship.
Japan is a large economy. It is a large trading partner for us and it is also, as we heard, a very important source of foreign investment. In Darwin, where I'm from, and which I represent, we're very conscious of this. We have a very large gas project, the INPEX project, worth about $40 billion—not a small project at all—the gas from which will be processed and shipped out from the Port of Darwin, and it will literally keep the lights on in Tokyo. The construction phase for that massive facility in Darwin is winding down now—the project is moving into the operational phase—but it has been a big boost for many companies in Darwin and for the people of Darwin and Palmerston, in my electorate. It's a big boost for the energy security of Japan.
We need further investment in the North. Whilst the INPEX project has been great, we can't depend on it; we need to make our own luck and create our own job-producing projects. That's why we look forward to the confirmation of the Darwin City Deal and some form of Commonwealth investment in Darwin. We also need to look at ways that, when there are large projects like the INPEX project coming to town, we can maximise the benefit to the local economy.
There are many opportunities for investment in the Northern Territory, other than in natural gas. We really welcome further Japanese involvement in our many and varied industries in the Top End. We heard a bit from the member about cattle—we've got those. We have natural resources in abundance and we look forward to a deepening and strengthening of our trading relationship with Japan.
But our relationship goes beyond trade and investment. Since the 1950s our relationship with Japan has been broad and deep. Our shared interests in defence, international security, democratic government, humanitarian aid, and disaster response, in which Darwin plays a pivotal role, and our strong ties of cultural exchange, education, and research are but a few of the ways that everyday Australians experience this strong bond.
Darwin, as the capital of northern Australia and the centre of the defence of northern Australia, is part, with the Japanese and our allies, of keeping markets open. Together, we are committed to the rules based order that allows global trade to continue. That's why it is so important that we work closely with Japan and our allies. In Timor-Leste last year I saw firsthand some of that close interaction. There was an exercise involving Timor-Leste, Australia, the US Marines and Japanese defence force personnel, which was fantastic. I note that the anniversary of the bombing of Darwin is coming up on 19 February. We do not forget the loss of Australian lives in World War II, but, in the spirit of the Fujita family, we also look to reconciliation. Our trade and defence ties will get stronger as we move on.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:43): I'm pleased to rise to support this motion moved by the good member for Forde, who I know has great interest in the people of his electorate and the businesses there, and in creating opportunities for those businesses to export to Japan. Over the past 12 months we've seen the success of our free trade agreement with Japan. Just look at some of the results: frozen beef exports up 32 per cent to $663 million; honey exports up 66 per cent to $1.7 million; mandarin exports up 65.8 per cent to over $8 million; bulk wine exports to Japan up 52 per cent to $3.9 million; shelled almond exports up 55 per cent to $3.6 million; and shelled macadamias up 24 per cent to $2 million. These export sales add wealth to the country. They create wealth, especially in our regional areas. They strengthen them, with income flowing into them, with higher prices—good for the economy and good for the country. Is it any wonder that last year we saw 400,000 new jobs created in this economy? Four hundred thousand is a record. That is because this coalition government understands that the way you create jobs is that you get government out of the way, and you give the private sector opportunities to get in and sell their products and exports.
Amongst all the great news of our increasing exports to Japan is coal. In 2016, Australia exported $11.1 billion worth of coal to Japan. I know that last year we had many members of the Labor Party, especially the soothsayer, the member for Port Adelaide, the man with the great vision of the future, stand there and say that thermal coal exports were in significant decline. 'Substantial decline' was the prediction from the member for Port Adelaide for coal exports. Can you guess what happened to coal exports to Japan last year—remembering that the member for Port Adelaide said that they were in decline? I'm proud to say here in the House today that Australia's coal exports to Japan last year increased by 50 per cent to $16.78 billion. That was an increase of $5.68 billion worth of coal alone—an amazing increase. And yet we had members of the Labor Party, their shadow spokesman for energy, running around in the middle of last year telling all and sundry that thermal coal exports were in decline. Could he have got it more wrong? And is it any wonder? Japan have 45 new coal-fired power stations currently under construction—45—and yet we have zero coal-fired power stations under construction. Japan's economy is going ahead. They understand the importance of low-cost energy, and that is why they are building new coal-fired power stations.
And it's not only Japan that are increasing their consumption of coal. Last year—the numbers are just in—we saw China increase their consumption of coal by 5.2 per cent. We had all the experts in the Labor Party telling us the exports of coal to China were in decline. We saw last year China increase their consumption of coal by 5.2 per cent. To put that in some context: if we took our entire consumption of coal in all of Australia—every single last piece of coal that we burnt and we used to generate electricity—China's increase last year was double what we used. That was just their increase. We've seen the International Energy Agency's forecast for coal demand to increase. They expect the increase of coal for 2022 to be $5.5 billion tonnes, up from the current $5.2 billion tonnes. As the President of the USA said in his State of the Union speech:
… we have ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.
It's about time the Labor Party joined with the rest of the world and realised that coal exports are increasing, not decreasing.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (10:49): I'm glad for the opportunity to speak on this motion about the relationship between Australia and Japan—not about coal, as I understand it. I thank the member for Forde for bringing this topic up for debate. Australia and Japan have a considerable recent history of economic and cultural engagement. It's a tradition that has enriched both countries. It's a relationship that continues to underpin our prosperity in a region of relatively sustained but nevertheless fragile peace and stability.
There's no doubt that Japan and Australia, representing the north and south poles of the eastern Indo-Pacific, have vital work to do, in partnership, if further cooperative, peaceful development is to prevail in our region. From the first recorded export of Australian wool to Japan in 1888 through to the 60th anniversary celebrations of the Australia-Japan Agreement on Commerce last year, ours is a relationship built on a core set of shared values and shared ambitions for a thriving Indo-Pacific region. Since the end of World War II we have worked closely with Japan to establish and promote a number of shared objectives.
From our own distinct perspectives and national interests we have worked together in pursuit of peace, trade, democratic governance and a cooperative rules based international order, but there is much more to be done, as Japan's ambassador to Australia, His Excellency Ambassador Kusaka, said last year in Perth:
Merely drumming up support for democratic values on their own will not gain the support of our fellow neighbours in finding common ground for our interests.
We need to be able to offer a credible economic plan that instills confidence among our neighbours …
I absolutely agree with that. I would go further in saying there's potential for Japan and Australia to work together not just for our mutual trade and broader economic interests but in supporting sustainable development in the Pacific, where our neighbours include some of the poorest and least developed nations.
My home state of Western Australia has been at the forefront of the trading relationship between our two countries, with state representative offices in both Kobe and Tokyo, the latter of which recently celebrated its 40th year of operation. Japan is WA's second largest export market, and the value of those traded goods increased 11 per cent last year alone to reach $15.7 billion. Japan is also Western Australia's largest source of imports.
My electorate of Fremantle benefits directly from the strong relationship via both tourism and international students, and the City of Fremantle maintains a vital connection with its sister city of Yokosuka, a key port to the south of Tokyo which I've been fortunate enough to visit. The cities of Fremantle and Cockburn within my electorate are active participants in the Mayors for Peace initiative, which started in Japan in the aftermath of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a great privilege in my former role as deputy mayor of Fremantle to join a delegation of Anangu artists from South Australia to install the first Australian sculpture in the Nagasaki Peace Park in 2017.
We must not forget, whenever we talk about trade and economic cooperation, that the precondition of commerce is peace. Indeed, at a time of uncertainty and volatility across the world, including some worrying instabilities in our region, it is crucial that we honour and strengthen country-to-country relationships that are founded on principles that support dialogue and cooperation. At a time when some nations are responding to domestic economic challenges by taking a closed approach to borders and trade, and in some cases slipping towards authoritarian models or modes of governance, the Australia-Japan relationship stands as an example of openness based on robust, democratic institutions and adherence to the rules based international order. It stands as a clear demonstration of the synergies that can be gained when countries, despite their historic, cultural and linguistic differences, work together on the basis of respect and understanding to expand common ground rather than retreat to opposing positions.
As we mark the 60th anniversary of the Australia-Japan Agreement on Commerce, we should remember there was nothing preordained about the quickly formed and substantial nature of our relationship after World War II. The fact that we've overcome what might be reasonably have been regarded as cultural and historical obstacles should be a reminder that we can keep working together even in areas where we take a different starting position. We have a shared interest in rules based and rigorous fisheries management and ocean protection, but a clear difference when it comes to whaling. I believe that ultimately we will reach a common position on that issue. We have a shared interest and even some common experience in respect of atomic weapons, and I believe there's more we can do together towards the cause of nuclear disarmament. As a member of this place I hope that I can join with others in the parliament to support a strong Australia-Japan relationship. That relationship should continue to deepen as we cooperate further in the Indo-Pacific region.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (10:54): I'm very pleased to be able to rise here today on our first day back in the parliament to speak on this commendable motion brought forward by the member for Forde. It acknowledges, among other things, the importance of the trade and economic relationship between Australia and Japan. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the historical settlement of Japanese people in Australia, particularly in Western Australia. There is undoubtedly a troubled history between our two nations, and Japan and Australia have a most grave shared experience of conflict and war that is to be acknowledged, but we must never allow the past to hold captive our future peace and prosperity. I, for one, have been a frequent visitor to Japan since discovering the ski fields of Hokkaido—not to mention the fine Japanese food and their excellent whisky. I, along with many Australians, make my way to Japan for the occasional dose of snow. More recently, we've tended to visit the old towns in the snow such as Nozawa Onsen, in Honshu, in the Nagano prefecture. It's a beautiful village steeped in tradition, surrounded by beautiful terrain and shared with us visitors by most-welcoming people.
People from Japan first settled as residents in WA in 1879 in Cossack, in WA's north-west. Japanese people participated in a wide variety of trades and labour around that time. Principally, they were engaged in the pearling industry in Broome. By the early 1900s, Broome was the world's largest pearling centre. Testament to the contribution of Japanese divers to that industry there are 900 graves in the Japanese cemetery in Broome, principally those of men who died diving for pearls or from the effects of that risky trade. Today Broome continues to hold the Shinju Matsuri Festival, the Festival of the Pearl, and celebrates the wonderful multicultural population of that industry. I acknowledge the comments earlier by the member for Solomon regarding Mr Fujita. It's a story of reconciliation and hope for a better future together, which we have now realised with the remarkable trade and relationship we enjoy with Japan.
In regard to trade Japan was WA's second-largest export market in 2016-17, accounting for 30 per cent of the state's total merchandise exports. The value of WA's exports to Japan rose 11 per cent in that year, from $14.2 billion to $15.7 billion. Petroleum, mainly liquefied natural gas, accounted for 54.9 per cent of exports to Japan in 2016-17, and the value of that export rose by 3.6 per cent, from $8.3 billion to $8.6 billion, over the last two years. And, of course, we continue to export iron ore to Japan out of Western Australia.
Japan was WA's fifth-largest market for agriculture exports last year. Co-operative Bulk Handling, a very proud cooperative venture, has the largest bulk-handling facility for grain in the Southern Hemisphere. That is located at Kwinana Beach, in my electorate. CBH exports 800,000 tonnes of WA growers' grain to the Japanese market per annum, the majority of which is wheat. Japan was also WA's largest export market for cereal straw and hay and the second-largest market for pearl barley. Australia is the first major agricultural exporter to secure a bilateral trade agreement with Japan. There are very significant advantages in this for Western Australia and, for that matter, the whole of Australia. I am very much a keen supporter of that trade agreement. Of course, trade is two way. Japan was WA's largest import market for 2016-17, accounting for 13.7 per cent of the state's total merchandise imports.
I'd like to reflect for a moment on the sister city relationships between Japan and Australia. WA enjoys many sister city relationships. Late last year my home town of Rockingham celebrated the 20th anniversary of its sister city relationship with Ako. I congratulate Mayor Barry Sammels, Deputy Mayor Deb Hamblin and City of Rockingham councillors past and present for their very great efforts to extend this relationship with Ako.
The state of Western Australia has celebrated the 35th anniversary of its sister state relationship with the Hyogo prefecture. I'd like to acknowledge the very important work of Japan's Consul-General in Western Australia, Mr Tatsuo Hirayama. Since arriving in Perth in September 2016, he has been a frequent visitor to Rockingham and is very busy building relationships across Perth and Western Australia. I look forward to visiting Japan in March. I'm participating in the Australian Political Exchange Council program. I very much look forward to learning from those in Japan and the work in the National Diet and to the visits. I thank the House.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:59): I rise to take the opportunity to contribute to this debate, which acknowledges the importance of the trade and economic relationship between Australia and Japan. In particular, I welcome the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Australia-Japan Agreement on Commerce. Indeed, given the history of World War II, it's quite a remarkable thing that we're recognising that 60 years ago, just after the end of that conflict, Australia and Japan entered into a relationship based upon friendship and, whilst not forgetting the past, acknowledged the need for us to move forward into the future as two peoples in two sovereign nations. Indeed, what a success that relationship has been over the last 60 years! There is no doubt that there is a significant opportunity, moving forward, for that relationship to continue to be strengthened. It is of mutual benefit to our two nations—in terms of job creation and our cooperation in international forums—that our trade relationship has formed the basis of that. It has been of great benefit, Japan being a major importer from Australia of our resources, our agriculture and our technology, which has allowed Japan to be one of the economic success stories of the late 20th century.
Indeed, Japan has played an important role in international forums. Twice as a minister in the previous government I was able to go to Japan, and on a number of occasions I was able to host here in Australia infrastructure delegations from Japan. Japan was critical in forming the MEET, as it was known—the ministerial council on energy and emissions in transport. Japan understood that, in playing an important role in the development of the Kyoto Protocol—the global foundation that came out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Kyoto—we need to work cooperatively as an international community to drive down our emissions, and one of the ways we can do that is in the transport sector. That's why Japan has been at the forefront of the development of electric vehicles and zero-emissions transport.
Japan's success in the postwar period has been put down to many things, but one critical factor is the development of high-speed rail. With the Shinkansen, they were ahead of the rest of the world in having the vision of being able to transport large numbers of people in very short periods of time, and they continue to lead the world in that technology. They have much to offer Australia as we seek to develop a high-speed rail network down the east coast. Just as high-speed rail stacks up in Japan, just as it has led to significant economic development along the routes in regional centres in Japan, Australia has much to gain from high-speed rail. So I look forward to continuing to have discussions with executives from the Japanese rail sector on how their knowledge can provide a basis of support for the development of high-speed rail here in Australia. We know that it stacks up, with a return of more than $2 for every dollar of investment between Sydney and Melbourne, and we know that it could be a major factor in developing our regional economies, taking pressure off the capital cities on the east coast.
I commend the resolution to the House and I look forward to strengthening the friendship between Australia and Japan in the future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Domestic and Family Violence
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:04): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) one in three Australian women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15; and
(b) two thirds of women who experience violence are in paid employment;
(2) recognises that:
(a) family violence isolates and excludes its victims and disconnects people from community, work, education, friends and family;
(b) the trauma experienced by an employee facing family violence will be lessened if they have the support of an understanding and accommodating employer that offers domestic and family violence leave; and
(c) access to a leave specifically allocated for situations of domestic and family violence protects employees from discrimination and allows them to maintain stable employment which increases their likelihood of leaving violent relationships;
(3) commends the many private companies that already provide domestic and family violence leave, including Telstra, Virgin, Qantas and the National Australia Bank, to more than one million Australian workers;
(4) condemns the Government for its public service bargaining policy which has resulted in the removal of domestic and family violence leave provisions in some public service enterprise agreements; and
(5) calls on the Government to amend the National Employment Standards to include domestic and family violence leave as a universal workplace right.
It's with great concern that I rise in this House today to shine a light on not just the extent and prevalence of domestic and family violence in Australia but the need, the urgent need now, to address the issue of domestic violence leave. Despite its increasing prominence in much of our national debate, the rates of domestic and family violence in Australia continue to be horrifying. One in four women experiences intimate partnership violence; women are five times more likely than men to require medical attention or hospitalisation as a result of intimate partner violence; and one woman is killed by a partner or an ex every single week in Australia. As a country we must find ways to end this scourge.
Given that more than one-half of domestic violence victims, most of them women, are in full-time work, workplace reform is critical. So domestic and family violence is absolutely a workplace issue. The most urgent priority is for the federal government to enshrine domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards. Domestic violence leave crushes stigma and protects employees from discrimination. It brings the issue out from behind closed doors, and it sends a clear message to employees that they have understanding and support in their workplace. And it gives women the time and space they need to rebuild their lives while maintaining their financial independence, one of the key predictors of successfully leaving a violent relationship.
Leaving a violent relationship is traumatic, and we know it is also extremely dangerous. But it's equally demanding, exhausting and time consuming. There are doctors' appointments; trips to the police station; meetings with lawyers, counsellors, financial advisers and others—not to mention house inspections, applications, calls to real estate agents to find a new home. Of course, women with children often have to find new schools and make sure that the mental and physical needs of their children are always being looked after.
In recent years, we've seen some real momentum gathering for workplace change. More than half of Australia's major private sector employers have introduced domestic violence leave, and one-third have a formal policy. Companies including Telstra, NAB, Virgin Australia, IKEA and Blundstone have led the way, and 1.6 million Australians now have access to this important workplace provision—but many millions do not.
I'm very pleased that federal Labor has pledged that 10 days paid domestic violence leave would be enshrined in the National Employment Standards under a Shorten Labor government, but it saddens me that the federal government hasn't made the same commitment. Not only has the Turnbull government not made that commitment; it has actually rejected the proposal of domestic violence leave. It has actively removed it from public sector enterprise bargaining agreements. I do believe that many government members are genuinely committed to addressing the scourge of domestic violence, but this isn't being borne out in any government policy. If we as a country are serious about addressing domestic and family violence, then our National Employment Standards must include domestic and family violence leave as a universal workplace right.
Government ministers have consistently argued against domestic violence leave, and the arguments they have used to support their inaction have, frankly, been baseless. The former Minister for Employment and—regretfully, for many of us—Minister for Women, Michaelia Cash, argued that domestic violence leave would be a 'perverse disincentive' for employers to take on female workers. Using that argument, you might as well say the same thing for carers leave or maternity leave, both provisions that are disproportionately needed and accessed by women. This is an argument that's been demolished by not just members on this side of the House but indeed the Centre for Future Work, which has really put paid to that argument.
I'd like to pay tribute to that fearless domestic violence campaigner, Rosie Batty, for her work here. Mr Turnbull, it's time for the government to match Labor's commitment and amend the National Employment Standards. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Keay: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (11:10): I rise to speak on this motion, and I want to start my contribution by saying, as the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs—the member for Newcastle is the deputy chair—that we handed down some very important recommendations on family violence law reform at the end of last year. These recommendations are incredibly important, incredibly far-reaching, and I'm very disappointed that none of that very significant work that we did as a committee, recognising the substantial work of the Turnbull government in the law reform measures that have been taken already, was recognised either in the member's contribution or in the motion. So I do want to place on record my disappointment about that, and my disappointment that the member for Newcastle's opportunity to promote and also strongly endorse these recommendations again today was missed. I think that is extremely regrettable.
Look, I do want to correct a number of matters that have been put forward by the member for Newcastle. Of course the Australian government recognises that domestic and family violence has far-reaching effects for the women, and some men, who are experiencing it, including disrupting their ability to work. We recognise the important role that employers can play for employees experiencing domestic and family violence. We encourage all employers to support their staff during such difficult times. But I want to make it very clear: contrary to Labor's claims, the government's workplace bargaining policy does not require Commonwealth Public Service agencies to remove leave provisions for employees affected by domestic or family violence. This is dealt with on a case-by-case basis as part of any EBA negotiations, and it's of no help to victims of domestic violence to suggest this support will be diminished. These claims are inaccurate, they are dishonest and they create unnecessary fear, particularly amongst those who are currently in this very difficult and very traumatic situation. Agencies are strongly encouraged to use existing provisions to provide support for employees affected by family violence, and a number of Australian Public Service agreements contain specific references to domestic violence leave, which puts paid to the misrepresentations that are being forward in this motion.
The Fair Work Commission is currently hearing a case on the inclusion of domestic violence leave in modern awards. The government's position is that it will consider the Fair Work Commission's decision once that is made. There has been a preliminary decision made on the ACTU's claim to have 10 days of paid family and domestic leave included in all modern awards. The Fair Work Commission decided not to grant the ACTU's claim for paid leave. It formed the preliminary view that employees have access to unpaid domestic and family violence leave, and they should also be able to access personal or carers leave for the purpose of taking family and domestic violence leave. It's important to point out that in the national employment standards of the Fair Work Act employees already have the right to request flexible working arrangements if they're experiencing family violence or providing care or support to a member of their family or household who is experiencing family violence. The Fair Work Act includes general protections and up to 10 days of paid personal leave for employees or a family household member to recover from personal illness or injury, including as a result of domestic violence. And, frankly, these are some of the most generous provisions of any country in the world.
I would like to return to some of the really significant recommendations that we have made as a parliamentary committee, and I'm absolutely delighted to see that the new Attorney-General has already said that a key focus of his work in his role as Attorney-General is to tackle some of the terrible delays that we have seen in the Family Court system, particularly for those seeking justice as a result of being a victim of family violence. We've made very important recommendations to tackle these delays, by simplifying procedures and abolishing the presumption of shared equal parental responsibility, to ensure that family violence allegations are heard at the earliest possible time, which gives justice to victims and also to those who are falsely accused of family violence, as well as introducing measures that provide greater access to justice. I commend our report, and I do not agree with this motion. (Time expired)
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (11:15): I rise to speak on the importance of this motion that one-in-three Australian women living in the electorates of everyone in this place has experienced physical violence since the age of 15. Of those victims, two-thirds are in paid employment, smashing the myth that domestic violence only occurs in disadvantaged households. I stand here as testament that it happens in every kind of household this country offers. Seventy-five per cent of us survivors have a job. The scourge of domestic violence is a national crisis and a national humiliation that continues to undermine our values and ambitions as Australians.
We are well aware of the shocking statistics that represent the violence that befalls too many women and children in this country. It creates long-term harm and consequences for the victims, the families and our society. I am proud to support this motion and Labor's policy of 10 days paid leave for victims of domestic violence. This is something long fought for by the front-line workers who are helping survivors step through this process. I condemn this woeful government for not acting in the best interests of survivors and their children. I note the member for Corangamite's very brazen statement: 'We've made these recommendations.' Well, I say: put them into place then. If you are so proud of your recommendations, do something about them. Have the courage to do something about them. The inclusion of 10 days paid domestic leave is exactly the kind of courage that we need for those people who find themselves in a situation outside of their control. It will save lives and change the story for people for whom saying 'I love you' was their only mistake.
Only Labor recognise the importance and the need to improve workplaces, and we've been doing it throughout our whole existence. The Prime Minister and those with whom he serves only care about improvements to the bottom lines of their big donor mates and the big end of town. Let's be clear: the cost of 10 days paid DV leave in the National Employment Standards is just 5c per day, per worker—about $9 to $12 per year. It's hardly going to dent the value of the shareholdings at Goldman Sachs. The PM cowers from the real reform that would jeopardise their big business pals, who see this as a cost burden to their bottom lines and not a lifeline to the one-in-three women who deserve it. That is evident here today when those opposite could only scrape together a single speaker to hustle their point—one member of the LNP to defend their weak-as-water position. It is easier for them to pin on a white ribbon and show faux empathy for the women who need real action and meaningful change.
In case there was any misunderstanding about why this need is so important, let's paint a picture. A victim of domestic violence is not sick. She doesn't need to take her sick leave. They're not taking a holiday, so annual leave certainly doesn't apply. And they're not grieving, so bereavement leave isn't what they need either. They are meeting with police, giving statements and providing evidence—specialist police who work the hours of nine to five. They are seeing their children's schoolteachers and meeting with counsellors to ensure their children's lives aren't unexplainably disrupted—schools that work the hours of nine to three. They are making arrangements for their children to move schools and start safely in another location. They are viewing new accommodation options for themselves with real estate agents who work nine to five. They are meeting with tradespeople at their homes to upgrade security, such as locks, or implement more security options—tradespeople who work regular hours. They are seeing their caseworkers, preparing for court attendance and making safety plans—caseworkers who work nine to five. They are attending appointments with lawyers to ensure their children are kept safe during this period of disruption—lawyers who work nine to five. Then, when all the mechanical things are taken care of, these survivors then attempt appointments of their own: psychologists, doctors, forensic evidence documenters—all who work the hours of nine to five.
Bearing all that in mind, without access to paid leave—like the 10 days we seek—a woman would have to face the prospect of doing this with some other leave entitlement, to hide the truth of her situation from her colleagues or superiors, keeping the shame game alive and telling society that this should still happen behind closed doors, to rely on the goodwill of a generous boss or—the worst scenario of all, that we all should be ashamed of—to stay in the relationship because the burden of trying to do all this unsupported financially is too overwhelming. We need to ensure that we are supporting those who need it but also that we are sending a message to our communities, to our workplaces and to our society at large that we no longer accept the violence that happens. This would be one clear indicator of that. The workplace entitlement would be available to all employees if they or an immediate family member had experienced family or domestic violence. As Bill Shorten has said, we recognise the need to improve workplace support for survivors of domestic violence. I support this motion and I encourage those on the other side to do the same.
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (11:20): I rise today to talk to this motion moved by the member for Newcastle. It is a pity that the member for Lindsay reflects negatively on the work of the joint bipartisan committee and refers to faux empathy. In fact, the bipartisan, joint house committee made several recommendations based on submissions by members of the public and others who had given of their own time.
In my early days as a young lawyer I practised family law and saw firsthand that divorces and break-ups are inherently serious and complex when the element of domestic violence is an integral component and that, sadly, when domestic violence is implicated within the family law proceedings, it often has significant, devastating consequences for the victims of violence. Domestic and family violence has far-reaching effects for the women who are experiencing it and for their children, including, for women, the disruption to their ability to work. The Australian government recognises the important role that employers can play for employees experiencing domestic and family violence. I come from 20 years experience in the private manufacturing sector, where employers always provided support during difficult times—and the government encourages all employers to support their staff during such difficult times.
Under the National Employment Standards of the Fair Work Act, employees already have the right to request flexible working arrangements if they are experiencing family violence or providing care or support to a member of their family or household who is experiencing family violence. The Fair Work Act includes general protections and up to 10 days of paid personal leave for employees or a family or household member to recover from personal injury, including as a result of domestic violence. Contrary to Labor's claims, the government workplace bargaining policy does not require Commonwealth Public Service agencies to remove leave provisions for employees affected by domestic or family violence. It is of no help to victims of domestic violence to suggest this support will be diminished. These claims are inaccurate and dishonest, and falsely create fear—even more fear—among employees on this highly sensitive issue.
Agencies are strongly encouraged to use existing provisions to provide support for employees affected by domestic family violence, and a number of Australian Public Service agreements contain specific references. Agencies whose enterprise agreements do not specifically mention leave for domestic violence remain committed to providing support for employees through existing arrangements. The Fair Work Commission is currently hearing a case on the inclusion of domestic violence in modern awards. The government will consider its position once the Fair Work Commission has made its decision; once it has made a preliminary decision, we will consider that.
I also rise to talk to this motion because I see it as an opportunity to discuss the excellent work done in 2017 by the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, a bipartisan committee, under the excellent leadership of the chair of the committee, the member for Corangamite. May I take this opportunity to thank all those who made submissions to this inquiry. I'm very proud that in March 2017 the Attorney-General requested that this House of Representatives standing committee inquire into how Australia's family law system can better support and protect those affected by family violence. Many families across Australia access the family law system for assistance and support to resolve the legal issues which arise following a family breakdown, and many of these families have had experience with family violence. It is imperative that adequate support and management is provided to these families to ensure their ongoing safety and wellbeing.
The report represents the findings of the inquiry including: the difficulties posed by an adversarial family law system; the existence of inappropriate responses to the family law system; the legal fees and complex court procedures; and the complexity of navigating state, territory and federal jurisdictions. Responding to these concerns, the report outlines various ways in which the family law system can be improved, including a nationally developed risk assessment tool and a stronger, more unifying approach to identifying and responding to family violence in family dispute resolution, using the new nationally consistent risk assessment tool.
Noted in the report are the early signs of success of the Australian government's new Family Advocacy and Support Services program. The report recommends the extension of this program, subject to a positive evaluation, including into regional Australia. The committee makes several recommendations to ensure that, once the matter reaches court, the determination of family violence occurs in early proceedings and that the complexity of Family Court proceedings is ameliorated.
I submit this and again congratulate the member for Corangamite for leading an excellent inquiry and making recommendations which will make the world a better place for the victims of domestic violence.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (11:25): I rise in this place to support this motion because the facts and statistics regarding domestic and family violence are truly devastating, and they remind us that this issue is real and, unfortunately, rife across our nation. It is a national shame that one in three Australian women has experienced physical violence since the age of 15. It is a national shame that a woman is killed by her partner, ex-partner or a family member every week in Australia. It is a national shame that domestic and family violence is the principal cause of homelessness for women and their children. It is a national shame that Indigenous women and girls are 35 times more likely than the wider female population to be hospitalised due to domestic and family violence. It is also a national shame that one in four children is exposed to domestic violence. And it is also a national, state and local government shame that has an impact in my electorate of Herbert, as we have the second-highest number of domestic and family violence reports in the state per capita, according to police statistics. These statistics must send a very loud and clear message to all elected members that we must act on this issue, and the time to act is right now.
There are so many organisations in the electorate of Herbert that are collaborating and working hard to address this urgent issue. The Townsville Women's Centre works incredibly hard in this space, as do our specialist community legal services, as they are often the only and last hope for a number of women experiencing domestic and family violence every day.
Sera's Women's Shelter also works very hard to support women and children who are seeking shelter urgently by providing them with a much-needed roof over their heads.
Last week, the 3rd Combat Signal Regiment Army unit announced their partnership with the North Queensland charity Sky Foundation to help raise awareness and funds for women's support services. The Sky Foundation was established in November 2013 when the founding members became aware that the Townsville Women's Centre was struggling to meet the ever-increasing demands for help, and support from the 3rd Combat Signal Regiment has been greatly welcomed and appreciated.
Then there's James Cook University, which has developed a unique program that ensures that dentistry graduates are trained to recognise the signs of family and domestic violence. This program was developed by the College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University social work academics and the Cairns domestic violence service. More than 200 dentistry students now practise in this educational program annually, which covers educational sessions such as role-play scenarios, non-verbal cues, promoting honest conversations and researching the prevalence of domestic and family violence.
Then there's the work that is done by the North Queensland Women's Legal Service, who last financial year provided more than 6,000 legal services and have provided more than 75,000 legal services since opening in 1996. Even though this is a large amount of support from this service, the demand for the North Queensland Women's Legal Service 1800 phone line continues to grow. Last year, for every call answered, eight calls went unanswered. I really want to reiterate the point: for every call answered, eight calls go unanswered. That is on-the-ground support which can't be provided due to this skyrocketing issue. This alone is evidence of a serious demand for domestic violence support services and of how much more needs to be done for those eight calls that are unanswered—and often these women may be at work.
These are just some of the organisations that are working on the ground to address this issue.
We need to support all Australians who are experiencing the devastation of domestic and family violence, and the government has a significant role to play in this matter. Not only should we be providing support to on-the-ground services, but we should also legislate support for those experiencing domestic and family violence in terms of leave. I am proud to be a member of the Labor caucus, because we recognise the immediate need for, and are committed to legislating, 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave for all workers.
The Turnbull government has to do much more than simply deliver speeches and attend breakfasts. They must do better than simply wear badges, because the shocking and devastating reality in Australia is that for every week no action is taken a woman is killed by her partner or ex-partner or a family member. Paid domestic violence leave should have bipartisan support. I call on the Turnbull government to support 10 days of paid domestic leave for all workers.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (11:30): I rise today to commend this motion to the House. I thank the member for Newcastle for putting the motion. I note that we've had two speakers from the government: the member for Chisholm and the member for Corangamite. I don't think it's a coincidence that both those members opposite who chose to speak are from Victoria. I think it's a credit to the royal commission. It's in response to the heightened awareness in Victoria, as a result of that royal commission, that all members of this parliament from Victoria are acutely aware of the social, the emotional and, of course, the economic cost of domestic violence in our community.
We measure, in this country, what we care about. We do it to enable us to have a clear view of the issue and the impacts of any interventions or mitigating factors that government might put in place. Domestic violence leave, therefore, is something that would allow us to measure. In the first instance it would allow us to track the number of workers in the workforce requiring leave as a result of experiencing domestic violence. This, for me, is the critical point. Yes, we want domestic violence leave to support those people and to give them the leave they need to deal with the crisis occurring in their lives at that point in time. We want to do it for all of those reasons, but I think, importantly, we also want to do it to ensure that we have a system that is tracking the economic impact of domestic violence, because, as all of the women on this side of the room know, it often takes an economic argument to get action. Introducing domestic violence leave would give us a trigger that would allow us to measure the impact of domestic violence on our businesses. The reason we measure what we care about is that we need to measure the economic impact. If we care about decreasing incidence of domestic violence, we will implement paid domestic violence leave.
Late last year, campaigners from the Australian Council of Trade Unions campaigned strongly for paid domestic violence leave. From an economic perspective, the ACTU claimed that the reform would cost just 5c per employee. Let me be clear: when it comes to the welfare of workers in our society, we should never just be justifying a policy on how little impact it will have on business. However, it helps if we can clearly see that it's a minimal cost for a maximum outcome for those victims of domestic violence. It would allow us to measure the impacts, and it would allow us to study the who, the where, the when and the why through that lens. That would allow us to have a look at the answers that might be able to be put in place, either in protective behaviours or in terms of prevention.
We can look to carers leave as an example of an entitlement incorporated under the National Employment Standards which affords workers with paid leave the time to deal with caring responsibilities. I know that I was in sitting in the principal's chair in a school when carers leave was introduced in Victoria. It gave us, as an education community, great insight into the work that our workforce was doing, unpaid and out of hours, in caring for parents and caring for children. It gave us really good data to help us prepare to support those people in the workplace.
I would argue that this is an extension of that same process. Introducing domestic violence leave would give us insight into where it's happening, when it is happening, why it's happening and who the perpetrators are, but it would also give a level of support to those victims of domestic violence during that crisis. If you think about the processes that are put in place around domestic violence, if you think about being someone who is employed—we know that two-thirds of the victims of domestic violence are in full-time work—first that person needs to get their personal issues in order and find someone to care for the children, then they have to go through an intake process and then referrals to support services. They need the time to do that. They need to have that time without having to lie to an employer about what they're doing. I commend this to the House and I condemn the government for not taking the initiative to implement this.
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (11:35): I rise today to speak about family violence, and I thank the honourable member for the chance to speak about this epidemic. Today I am speaking on behalf of a woman whom I met and spoke with only last week about her own experience fleeing from family violence. Unfortunately I am all too aware of how widespread and devastating this problem is for our society, as parts of my electorate are on the wrong end of family violence statistics. According to New South Wales Police, areas on the Central Coast, including Wyong, where I grew up, have consistently higher-than-average incidences of family violence than many other areas of the state. That is one of the reasons I need to speak today.
It has become obvious that any effective approach to addressing family violence must be multifaceted, holistic and led by the federal government. We know that family violence has a wide range of contributing factors, including but not limited to gambling, alcohol and drug dependency, education, lack of options for victims, ineffective legal systems and an unfair stigma around survivors and whistleblowers. It is against this backdrop that I acknowledge Wyong's Woman of the Year, Danielle Habib. Danielle has not just worked for women in the community through organisations like White Ribbon, the Central Coast Domestic Violence Committee and the Central Coast Community Women's Health Centre but taken this work into migrant communities that are often difficult to access for health professionals and police. I thank her for her work and note that we can all look to women like Danielle across our communities in Australia who are the front line in addressing family violence.
In my local community we also have a number of organisations that work to protect and further the rights of victims. I draw attention to the work of the Central Coast Domestic Violence Committee in coordinating these efforts. However, this government is failing to adequately support family violence groups and survivors throughout Australia. A lack of both policy initiative and funding is costing lives and endangering people at risk every day. The Rondeley Program, part of Coast Shelter in my electorate of Dobell, provides critical support for women and children fleeing family violence but is limited by lack of funds and facilities. Last week I had the opportunity to meet with Nicole, the program manager of their domestic violence response enhancement project. Nicole told me of the women and families they support and the many more people in need they can't help, because the service is already overstretched and overworked. They worked with over 600 women and children last year alone and have formed a well-respected network with local law enforcement and community groups. They need funding to extend this work. They also look to government to put in place policies that let them do their best work, and that is what Labor would like to make happen.
Labor believes in working constantly with groups like this to help to improve the lives of those escaping dangerous situations and in showing leadership by putting in place national policies that address family violence. When Gough Whitlam introduced the single mothers pension in 1973, it didn't just support vulnerable families; it gave women threatened by family violence the chance to leave without the fear of not being able to provide for their children. This is one example in a proud Labor history of advancing women's rights in overcoming family violence. I am proud that I can stand here with my colleagues today to discuss the next step of this continuing campaign to protect women, children and victims of family violence across Australia.
On too many occasions I have met with desperate victims seeking help without having the necessary tools to support them, from my days as a mental health professional to now as a local MP. It is frustrating that we are rarely given an opportunity to make a serious difference in this area. We don't have the tools. That is why I was relieved to hear that Labor, if elected, will be implementing a mandatory period of 10 days family violence leave. Any reasonable person knows that if you are fleeing from a violent home, particularly with children, it would be near impossible for you to go to work. The woman whom I met last week was in exactly that situation. She had a young child and was trying to find rental accommodation while trying to maintain her work. Between police stations, courthouses, real estate agents, counselling and countless other steps people must take when removing themselves from such dangerous circumstances, it is simply not fair for them to have their employment jeopardised.
Labor is not the only institution in Australia to recognise this. I want to take this chance to commend some of our business leaders on already implementing family violence leave of 10 days or often more. More than one million Australian workers at companies like Telstra, Qantas and Virgin can already be confident that, should their world be turned upside down by family violence, their jobs will be safe and they will have time to focus on their and their family's safety.
I'm really seeking support for this, as I said, as a mental health worker, a pharmacist and as a local MP. This must change.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
BUSINESS
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (11:41): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:
(1) today, if any member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House:
(a) between 12 pm and 12.45 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he will count the House at 12.45 pm, if the Member then so desires; and
(b) between 4.30 pm and 6.15 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he will count the House at 6.15 pm, if the Member then so desires; and
(2) today, any division on a question called for in the House:
(a) between 12 pm and 12.45 pm shall stand deferred until 12.45 pm or immediately after any quorum count at that time if required; and
(b) between 4.30 pm and 6.15 pm shall stand deferred until 6.15 pm or immediately after any quorum count at that time if required.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Electoral Matters Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (11:42): The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Leyonhjelm has been appointed a participating member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the committee’s inquiry into matters relating to section 44 of the Constitution.
BILLS
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment.
Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
COMMITTEES
Joint Select Committee on the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (11:43): I report to the House that on 22 December 2017 Mr Speaker received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating Mr Irons and Mrs Sudmalis to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Oversight of the Implementation of Redress Related Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. In accordance with standing order 229(b), as the House was not expected to sit for several weeks, the appointments became effective on that date. I will now call the minister to move a motion to resolve the membership of the committee.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (11:44): I move:
That Mr Irons and Mrs Sudmalis be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
Question agreed to.
Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs
Report
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (11:45): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, I present the report entitled The power of education: from surviving to thriving, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mrs SUDMALIS: by leave—Today I present to the House the long-awaited final report for the committee's inquiry into educational opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.
Education provides opportunities and choices for the future and it is critical to improving the quality of life for a community.
There is no shortage of examples of Indigenous people who have worked hard to achieve significant education and employment outcomes, often overcoming substantial disadvantage to do so.
However, the persistent gap in attendance and education outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students remains. The committee travelled across Australia to talk to students, families, communities and those people working with them in the education sector.
We set out to find out what works, what doesn't, and to learn about the barriers and circumstances that are hindering Indigenous students in their educational outcomes.
The report makes a number of recommendations regarding:
the importance of making sure there is gender equity in engagement and support programs
training all new teachers, and those already teaching Indigenous students, in Indigenous history and culture, as well as in teaching English as a second language
establishing additional public boarding facilities in key regional centres so that Indigenous students can study closer to home; and
cutting the funding for Direct Instruction until a thorough review of the teaching method has been undertaken and shows that it is actually making a positive difference to Indigenous students and their educational outcomes.
Throughout the inquiry, the committee was troubled to find a significant disparity between the availability and funding of engagement programs for girls compared to those for boys. I was heartbroken to hear of girls, many of whom were facing incredible challenges, coming to school and having to stand and watch as the boys are given a hot breakfast and taken on exciting trips, while the girls get nothing.
These girls will be the mothers and carers of the next generation of Indigenous students. Their education is critical to improving health, education and employment; not only their own, but also those of their children and future generations. Women, by and large, are the custodians of a great deal of cultural heritage. They need encouragement. It is essential that all co-educational schools offering engagement programs for boys offer the same engagement programs for girls. As such, we have recommended that, as a matter of urgency, the government review and reform its policy approach and processes for evaluating grant applications for support and engagement to make sure that girls are being given the same opportunities and support as the boys. This is the only fair and equitable solution and should be implemented as soon as possible.
It also became clear during the inquiry that cultural safety, fostered by strong connection and engagement with community, is essential for education and support programs and must be built in order to succeed.
The common element present in all successful programs was strong relationships. Strong relationships with students, parents and carers, teachers and schools, health services and the community as a whole. We must better equip teachers, particularly those working in schools with significant proportions of Indigenous students, to build and strengthen these relationships and the teachers' connection to that community.
To this end, the committee has recommended that, as a matter of urgency:
English as a Second Language or Dialect training be made a compulsory component for all teaching degrees;
teachers already working in schools with a substantial number of Indigenous students should complete an in-service English as a Second Language or Dialect training as part of mandatory professional development; and
where relevant, teachers should be provided with the opportunity to undertake local language training if it will assist them to perform their functions, improve communication with students and forge better relations with the community.
The committee also found that for students to succeed in school they need the love, encouragement and support of their family. The active engagement of families supporting students and directing their education is essential to achieving positive educational outcomes. Families should be able to choose from a range of well-supported options for secondary education, both public and independent, within their local region as well as further afield.
The committee found that the most effective and efficient outcomes were being achieved by public boarding facilities in regional centres, which allow students to access a range of quality public and independent secondary schools as close to home as practical. As a result, we've recommended that additional public accommodation be established in key regional centres so that students can access these schools in their local area, closer to home. In implementing this recommendation, the committee believes that attendance rates will increase and students will feel better able to concentrate on their studies.
There is absolutely no silver bullet to improve Indigenous students' literacy and numeracy skills. No single teaching method will ever meet the needs of all students. Schools and teachers must be empowered to tailor their teaching to best meet the needs of their students. However, all teaching methods must be evidence based and they must adhere to the Australian curriculum.
In its interim report the committee was sceptical of the claims made by proponents of Direct Instruction, calling for independent evidence to confirm these claims. However, as the inquiry continued, the scepticism turned to concern that not only was the program ineffective; it was actually hindering student attendance and achievement. We saw evidence that:
student attendance declined under the Cape York Aboriginal academy initiative, despite many stakeholders' perceptions that it had increased; and
the Aurukun school was not providing the full Australian curriculum to the students under the Good to Great Schools Direct Instruction approach.
Given this evidence, we cannot support the continued use of federal funds to deliver Direct Instruction. The committee has recommended that no funding beyond 30 June 2018 be provided for Direct Instruction until the federal government conducts a review of schools utilising the program and finds that the program is providing a proven benefit to the educational outcomes of these Indigenous students as well as demonstrating that:
the full Australian curriculum is being provided;
the cultural safety and responsiveness of the school is not being adversely impacted; and
attendance rates are not declining.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the secretariat staff for all their hard work throughout the inquiry and their guidance and overall efficiency in this very important inquiry. I would also like to thank all the individuals, schools, organisations, governments and their departments for contributing to the inquiry, and also my colleagues on the committee.
In particular, my appreciation goes to the many Indigenous students, families and organisations who provided information about their experiences with the education system.
These reports and discussions formed the core of the committee's deliberations, providing an insight that could not otherwise be gained.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (11:53): I acknowledge and thank the member for Gilmore for her contribution on this report. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that this inquiry was held over two parliaments—the 44th and 45th parliaments. In the 44th Parliament, the chair of the committee was Dr Sharman Stone, who's no longer here, of course. We made a set of interim recommendations in that parliament which were referred to by the member for Gilmore. I want to also acknowledge the chair-but-one, who only resigned as the chair last week, Melissa Price, the member for Durack, for her leadership, support and collaboration with the other members of the committee in producing what I think is a good document. I acknowledge that the member for Gilmore is to be the new chair of the committee, so welcome. You've been on the committee, but welcome to being chair of the committee. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the hard work and forbearance of the secretariat, Melanie Brocklehurst, Casey Mazzarella, Louise Milligan and Megan Jones, and the secretary in the 44th Parliament, Dr Anna Dacre, and the research officer, Ms Lauren Wilson. It is important, I think, to acknowledge that to get the sort of report that we've had now over two parliaments requires a consistency of effort. To see that this report, in its recommendations, reflects the recommendations of the interim report is indeed a good thing.
Most importantly, as the member for Gilmore said, we have to acknowledge and thank the many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around the country—we traversed the country—for giving evidence to the committee, expressing their point of view and making sure that we understood their priorities in terms of the education of their children.
Also, of course—even though we are critical of some of the pedagogies which have been used, and I think in this report there's implied if not explicit criticism of the number of kids going away to boarding school without a result—I think we need to acknowledge the massive contribution and effort which is being made across this country by educators. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that for the people that we met in the classrooms right across this nation, whether it was in North Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, South Australia or Western Australia—it didn't matter where they were—their dedication to the task before them was clear. Some had better tools than others to use. We refer to some of those things in this report. Some didn't have the resources they should have had. Some may not have been as equipped as they might have liked to be to deal with the kids that they were confronting in their classroom—those with hearing loss, where there was no proper acknowledgement within the structure of the school of the hearing loss.
This report actually recommends that the federal government establish a capital works fund to allow schools with a substantial number of Indigenous students to equip all classrooms with sound field amplification technology by 2020. That is really very important, because the number of kids with middle ear infection across this country having their education impaired as a result of that handicap is enormous. It's something which I don't think the broader population properly understands, but it is important that we acknowledge it, deal with it, address it and provide the capacity for these kids to learn as we would want them to do and as they would desire to do.
We also pick up here a concern which has been expressed in previous reports from this committee around FASD. It's very difficult to describe the importance of us coming to terms with the chronic aspect of FASD across schools in remote parts of Australia. It does exist in urban areas, and this is the point. Too many of us believe that FASD is really just a thing to do with blackfellas, but it isn't. We still have middle-class mothers in urban areas of this country using alcohol whilst they are pregnant. It ought to be understood by now, as a result of the publicity around FASD in northern Australia, that alcohol, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy, is a real issue and can confine the yet-to-be-born child to an impairment which is extraordinarily difficult to overcome.
So acknowledging the importance of FASD in the context of Aboriginal kids is really important. We need to make sure that screening for FASD is available for all students who are deemed to require it. I know of a place in Australia—I won't name the place, but you could guess it at some point—where certainly 18 months ago there was only one psychologist capable of assessing FASD in a community of 30,000. That affects the capacity for people to be diagnosed. Of course, most GPs—I know we've got a couple of eminent medical practitioners in this parliament; one has just walked into the joint—historically have had no idea how to identify FASD. It's only over the last 12 months, really, that a diagnostic tool for the evaluation of FASD has been available in medical practices across the country, and it should be used. We should not walk away from the fact this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Of course it can be prevented by doing a whole range of issues around alcohol consumption, child maternal health and neonatal health. All of those things need to be addressed, but at the same time we need to acknowledge that we have a chronic problem with FASD in parts of Australia that needs to be fixed.
In conjunction with that, what is clear to this committee, and a recommendation in the committee report reflects it, is the importance of having—in this case, in Aboriginal communities in remote Australia—local health services available and accessible to the schools, and of information about the health of the students being passed between the health clinics and the schools so that the schools can be aware of the health needs of the child. Conversely, there needs to be a capacity for the teachers, health professionals and other educational professionals in the school environment to be able to converse with medical practitioners and other experts about the issues confronting their students in the school.
We make recommendations that I think were borne out, in particular, by our visit to the Acacia Ridge State School, an Aboriginal school in Queensland. On their site they have an Aboriginal clinic, a full-time clinic operating in the school. It is very important. There are clinics in most remote Aboriginal communities, but often the relationship between the schools and the health services is that they don't talk much. We need to emphasise the importance of knowledge sharing in the health domain in order to provide more opportunities to address the issues of concern around the education of children, because health is a primary concern in that space.
Before I go to the issue of gender equity, what we also need to understand—and this is reflected in all the work being done around getting good outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids across the country—is that there must be appropriate cultural safety and that the kids in these schools must feel safe—must feel safe in their Aboriginality and in expressing it—and not be denied the opportunity to have their languages and their cultural priorities understood.
Ms Price, the member for Durack, has just walked into the chamber. I wanted to tell her that I thank her for her contribution in her capacity, previously, as the chair of this committee. I want to thank her whilst she is here. I think we all worked well together, and it was largely due to her leadership. So thank you.
We need to make sure that, where Aboriginal languages are the primary languages of these kids and English is the second language, we provide opportunities for the staff and teachers of the schools where those kids are going, particularly where there is a dominance of Aboriginal population in those schools, to have the capacity—if they have the desire and interest, but they should be encouraged—to learn an Aboriginal language and to get the cultural education that's required to deal with their particular group of kids. We should understand that there is a diversity of cultures across this country. There is not one Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture. There is difference. The fact that you can be very good working with a group of Aboriginals in Nowra doesn't mean you're necessarily going to be any good at teaching a couple of kids in Balgo. They are very different populations. It is important to recognise that if you have the skill to work cooperatively with people in a cross-cultural way, and you open up your eyes to the possibilities involved in learning in teaching, then, if you are a committed person, as I know most of these teachers are, you will find a way. We can't deny the opportunities that exist for Aboriginal kids.
I won't go any further into the discussion from the member of Gilmore about Direct Instruction. I thought she covered it adequately. But I do want to go to the issue of gender equity. The member for Gilmore raised that issue, and properly so. You summarised the situation very well about the next generation of mothers being the drivers of the next generation of kids. If this country doesn't come to terms with the fact that it is largely Aboriginal women who will determine the fate of the next generation of kids, then we are blind to the past. We need to appreciate that the opportunities we give to every Aboriginal person must be equally shared. Young Aboriginal women need to have the opportunity to make informed choices about their lives so that they don't have to have children when they're 15 or 16, so that they can have a choice about their education and so that they can make decisions about their own personal space and relationships and behaviours. We've got to make sure they have that capacity. That requires us, as leaders in this country, to ensure that we are investing in programs that promote the engagement of young women in schools and make sure they understand, within that context, that they are safe. We need to ensure that they are given an opportunity to be educated about their own health and wellbeing and the opportunities that await them should they make a particular choice.
I support 100 per cent the investment being made in programs like Clontarf, but programs of equal importance to Aboriginal women have not been so well funded. We need to make sure that programs like the STARS program, of which I'm a great advocate, are given the funding to provide the same level of programs in the schools where these boys' programs exist. As you pointed out, Member for Gilmore, it is ludicrous to walk into a school anywhere in Australia and find that boys, young men, are being given these fabulous opportunities, with these committed full-time mentors in the school, but the young women don't have that same opportunity. We can't be that stupid! We do know the importance of these programs in engaging kids in school. The evidence is very clear. Where these programs operate, attendance increases, academic opportunity increases, educational outcomes are better and life-course opportunities become greater. That seems to me to be what we should be all about. I again commend the member for Gilmore for her words. To those who are listening: if you didn't hear the member for Gilmore, try and get a copy of the Hansard and see what she had to say about the importance of educating young women. I think it highlights it very well.
One of the key issues we addressed was that of boarding. Some people in this country are fixated by the notion that, if you send some kid to Scots College, or Wesley or St Ignatius, they will come out as brain surgeons. Well, the evidence before us was very clear. For a very small number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids, that is absolutely the way to go. We as a nation are investing a hell of a lot of money in the educational outcomes for those kids. At the same time, we are not investing the money that is required in the local educational outcomes that could be theirs in their home communities. All power to those kids who can go away and survive the process and last for five or six years in a high school in a remote environment away from their family and culture. If they are able to survive and do well, good on them. And good on those schools for looking after them. But what we know—and this report reflects it—is that too many who start on that process jump out very soon after. Six, 12 or 18 months later they are out of the system—back home, alienated and with nowhere to go.
In this report we make a recommendation about local regional boarding colleges that are state owned. There are some very good examples. I want to commend our colleagues in Western Australia—the current Western Australian government, the previous Western Australian government and governments before it—for having the foresight to establish these places.
We saw one in particular which bears talking about, and that's in Broome. You walk into the grounds of this boarding facility, and it would be as good as any boarding facility in the country—as good as any boarding facility in the country, and probably better than most. It was full of engaged Aboriginal kids from all over the north-west of Western Australia. They had a very close working relationship with the local high school. They had programs set up for those kids, and the kids were staying in school. They were getting the educational outcome they required and, regionally, they were in their home environment—a lot easier.
As I say, while we commend those who are fortunate enough to go to those very elite boarding schools, for most that's not an opportunity, and it shouldn't be. We should be able to find it within ourselves to ensure that the educational opportunities for Aboriginal kids and Torres Strait Islander kids are available as locally as they possibly can be, and if that means providing, as we've got at Wadeye, a boarding facility which is evolving over time, we should.
I note that we visited the new boarding facility at Nhulunbuy in the Northern Territory. It was not so successful last year but again, like the one in Broome, a very nice facility, and hopefully this year they will have kids—they've got capacity for 40 or 60 kids—on the high-school grounds, effectively. If we can attract the kids into that school, they will get the support they require, and they will come out educated and have better life opportunities. But if we don't, as sure as night follows day, those kids who would have otherwise been at that school won't be at school. They will have left school when they were 13 or 14, and they will face a lifetime of pedalling the welfare bike. Because they won't have the skills to get into the workforce, their opportunities to get a job are going to be very difficult.
Instead of providing remedial services for older kids and adults, we need to invest in the education of our young kids, and this report highlights the need for that local investment. It is very important that we across the parliament recognise that this is our responsibility. If we ever really want to close the gap in this country, in any form—in health, in anything—kids must have a good education. It's as simple as that.
I won't mention the school, but we visited a particular school—it no longer operates as a boarding facility, I don't think—where the boarding conditions were absolutely appalling. They were shocking. I wouldn't have sent my worst enemy there. I hope I don't have too many enemies! But, if I have one, I'll send them there and see what they think! No. I certainly wouldn't have sent one of my children or a friend's children or recommend to anyone to send their children there. It was awful. So we've got to try and provide the best for young people, and that means making the investments that are required. We know that, if we do that, we will get a better outcome.
I was at a school opening last Friday, as it happens: Haileybury school in Darwin. It used to be Kormilda College. Now, it will have its challenges—no question. They hope to attract 80 Aboriginal kids from remote parts of the Northern Territory into that school this year; they've got 40 so far. But they have done something which I think will make a real difference. In the three or four months since Haileybury have taken over the school, they've invested a huge amount of money in upgrading the boarding facilities. God forbid, they've even got air conditioning—in Darwin! What were you thinking, providing air conditioning! Surely, you don't need it! My God, why do they need to be comfortable! They did some landscaping. They put in new furniture. The rooms are terrific. If you want to get people there, they've got to be comfortable. I want to commend Haileybury for the work they've done.
Mr Speaker, I could go on for ages. We do refer to Abstudy and make recommendations around Abstudy. I say to the government and indeed to my opposition colleagues: we need to reform Abstudy because it isn't working. Kids are being alienated; they should not be. Families are finding that their kids can't start school, because the Abstudy process hasn't been entered into properly. Parents who are illiterate need assistance. It's very important that we go through this process and understand that we should be facilitators of access to school—and that is what this report highlights.
I'm very proud to have been part of this committee inquiry. I know that my colleagues on the government benches who are on this committee—who aren't here, as it happens—share the view that this was a good inquiry. We would have gone on and on. The truth is that, if we had had our way, we would have been doing this for another 12 months because we were having such a good time—and I don't mean that in the sensational sense. We were actually learning things that we needed to learn, and so this inquiry could have gone on and on and on. But, as the chair rightly said—she put her foot down—'It's time for this to stop.' We all bemoaned and cried and carried on like pork chops, but she was right.
This report is evidence of a great deal of hard work. I hope that the government takes heed of the recommendations and we get positive responses to them, but, most of all, I hope those people who were part of the inquiry can see that we've properly considered what has been put to us and that they can have faith that the processes of the parliament are not all that they appear from the outside but rather can be very productive internally. This is a good report, and I commend it to the House.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (12:14): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (12:16): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources
Report
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (12:17): Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, on indulgence, I endorse the comments of the member for Lingiari and congratulate the former Chair of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs on the report. It was thoroughly enlightening. We could have gone on for a long time, but you were quite right to say that we've got to come to some conclusions.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I present the committee's report on its inquiry into water use efficiency programs in agriculture, entitled Making every drop count, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr RICK WILSON: On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I present the committee's report entitled Making every drop count: inquiry into water use efficiency programs in agriculture. The agriculture sector is an important part of Australia's economy; it is also the backbone of many of Australia's regional and rural communities. The Australian government's water policies and programs are of the utmost importance to the sector and to those communities. For those reasons, as well as the importance of sustaining Australia's wonderful natural environment, it is vital that water use policies and programs achieve their goals appropriately and efficiently.
One of the key components of the Australian government's water policy is its focus on water use efficiency: making sure that irrigators are able to get the best outcomes from the water they use and, in turn, ensuring that our water systems have appropriate levels of water for environmental purposes. This is a complex area but not one that Australia can afford to get wrong.
The committee's report makes eight recommendations based on the evidence we received. I would like to highlight a few of those as I table the report today. First:
The Committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources conduct an internal review of water use efficiency (WUE) programs to address the following issues:
minimising delays following submission of expressions of interest to securing agreement and approvals,
assisting program delivery partners to determine administrative costs and consider mechanisms to reduce up-front costs borne by those delivering programs,
reducing impediments for smaller irrigators to participate in programs,
providing mechanisms for irrigators to apply for an extension to program timelines, given the impact of weather and other uncertainties,
undertaking baseline measuring of regional ground or surface water systems at the commencement of each program, and then ongoing measuring to determine impacts of changed water practices resulting from WUE funded projects,
ensuring that the assessment process includes consideration of the project life cycle contribution to the financial independence and long-term resilience of the irrigated agriculture sector, and does not skew market crop decisions or create reliance, and
ensuring defined regular evaluation points to monitor and assess achievement against a long term objective of financial independence for the irrigated agricultural sector.
The Department should provide the results of this review to this Committee no later than 1 June 2018.
The second recommendation, given the range and scope of water use efficiency programs, is that:
The Committee recommends that the Auditor-General consider conducting a performance audit of Australian Government funded water use efficiency programs to assess the design process, evaluation arrangements, and effective and efficient administration of these programs. The Committee recommends that the audit take place in 2018.
This external scrutiny would provide the public and the Australian government with reassurance regarding the overall efficiency of current water use programs.
The committee's third recommendation relates to the Productivity Commission's review of the National Water Initiative, which was provided to the government in December:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government act expeditiously in response to the final report of the Productivity Commission's … and ensure that:
the final report is promptly made available for public release,
the recommendations are considered and an Australian Government response is made public by 31 March 2018, and
recommendations requiring national agreement are considered by COAG at its first meeting of 2018
A key theme that the committee heard throughout this inquiry was the importance of further research, development and extension in relation to irrigation technologies to improve water use efficiency. Therefore:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish and provide seed funding for a coordinating Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) body to work with the agriculture sector in order to:
Accelerate the adoption of existing cutting-edge irrigation technologies, and
Promote innovation and the development of new water efficiency technologies.
Another related point we heard a lot about was the disincentive to upgrade to more efficient irrigation technologies, because of the high cost of electricity:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate mechanisms to address factors such as the rising cost of electricity and cost of alternative energies which may act as impediments to the adoption of water use efficiency technologies in irrigated agriculture.
As I said earlier, the viability of Australia's irrigation based agriculture sector has important consequences for regional communities. For that reason:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish an integrated taskforce to assist Regional Development Authorities to:
develop targeted initiatives to assist regional communities which are impacted by the local irrigated agriculture sector transitioning to water use efficiencies, and
ensure ongoing monitoring of the social and economic health of these communities.
Our final recommendation looks at the use of Australian government funding for infrastructure and related projects. The considerable expense of these programs requires the most rigorous analysis and process to ensure that money is being spent in the most efficient and effective way, as with all government spending:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government require any water efficiency infrastructure funding or assistance provided to set out:
the defined public good benefit,
detailed plans for the full lifecycle costings of the infrastructure, including asset depreciation and replacement, and
a detailed intention of how these lifecycle costings will be funded.
On behalf of the committee, I thank all of those who have contributed to this inquiry by providing submissions, appearing at hearings and hosting us on their properties. I particularly thank the committee secretariat, led by Dr Anna Dacre, Anthony Overs and Peter Pullen, both of whom have moved on, and I wish them well in their future endeavours; and also the committee deputy chair, Justine Keay, the member for Braddon, who is here with us today to say a few words; Rowan Ramsey; Tony Pasin; John McVeigh; and Matt Keogh.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (12:24): by leave—I would like to thank the chair, the member for O'Connor, for leading this inquiry and also thank all the committee members for their participation and engagement, and for partaking in the work that we've done. It's a very complex policy area, and I'd like to thank them for their work. The committee made a decision over a year ago to make water use efficiency a priority for our work, particularly in light of the billions of dollars in the public spend directed towards water resource programs like those in the Murray-Darling. As deputy chair of the committee, I'm pleased to join the chair to table this report.
In many areas of Australia, water as a resource is a scarce commodity, limiting the agricultural productivity and diversity of a region. In areas where there is an abundance—for example, in my electorate—or even low to moderate levels, capturing and storing water and delivering it to where it needs to go can dramatically increase productivity and diversity to allow high-value production that benefits not just the farmers but also the regional economy and the national economy.
However, enormous pressure is placed on communities and the environment when this resource is not properly managed or planning of the resource in the system is flawed or non-existent. Conversely, when the system is managed and public funds are provided to do this, as is the case in a number of regions—Tasmania has been a large recipient of public funds to irrigate areas that were quite arid, as has, notably, the Murray-Darling Basin—it is imperative that the management provide effective value for money to ensure agricultural production is enhanced, the environment protected and communities sustained, particularly in an ever-changing climate.
One aim of the committee was to investigate the effectiveness of government-funded water use efficiency programs not just for the Murray-Darling but across the country and to provide recommendations to improve program delivery. The committee has made recommendations on measures and initiatives to further enhance work in this space. I trust the government will implement these recommendations in the interests of the agricultural sector in many areas outside the Murray-Darling Basin, and of course within the basin, and in the interests of the environment. Such new measures recommended by the committee include the provision of seed funding to establish a coordinating research, development and extension body to work with the agricultural sector in order to accelerate the adoption of existing cutting-edge irrigation technologies—we did see some of them while we were undertaking this inquiry—and promote innovation and the development of new water efficiency technologies.
Much evidence supported the need for coordinated and additional research to inform future programs and policies. Importantly, a review of water use efficiency programs is needed, and the committee has recommended this be conducted with a focus on the removal of impediments for smaller irrigators to apply for funding sources; expediting the process for funding allocation; undertaking baseline measuring of groundwater and surface water in a system before implementing water use efficiency programs, which in my view is the most important; and ongoing measuring to assess any impacts from such programs.
The Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering, in their evidence, recommended to the committee that further research into water use efficiency programs is vital. They said in their submission:
It is essential to establish the hydrological impacts of WUE—
water use efficiency—
on surface and groundwater systems, and to ensure that policy development is informed by sound hydrological research.
This is a fairly basic concept, and one that I was quite surprised we have not quite got right. Professor Lin Crase from the University of South Australia also raised concerns about the benefits of water use efficiency programs. He noted that, because policymakers are not informed by a detailed hydrological picture, investments in water use efficiency can have unintended consequences. He said:
The published literature in this area shows that investments in water use efficiency in most parts of the world usually lead to an expansion of irrigation, not a contraction. That's usually because we don't fully understand where the water goes when we start to invest in efficiency.
Evidence that we heard, and that I am particularly concerned about, dealt with the issue of intensification or changes to perennial crops. We should be monitoring to ensure short-term cropping gains are not sought at the expense of long-term water efficiency gains. That is why this recommendation is so important to the future success and value for money of any water use efficiency programs.
The committee heard significant evidence from farmers and irrigation bodies that the cost of energy to run irrigation is becoming a barrier to utilising water-efficient technologies, and farmers are sadly thinking about going back to diesel power and more traditional and less efficient irrigation methods. Therefore, and in light of an energy policy malaise, the committee has recommended that the Australian government investigate mechanisms to address factors such as the rising costs of electricity and costs of alternative energies, or all our efforts will be futile. Particularly in regional communities, we have seen and heard that they have been impacted by measures to gain efficiencies within the systems. Thus the committee also recommends that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development establish an integrated task force to develop targeted initiatives to assist regional communities impacted by the local irrigation agriculture sector transitioning to water use efficiencies and to ensure ongoing monitoring of the social and economic health of those communities.
I join with the chair to firstly thank the many individuals, organisations and government departments that made submissions and gave evidence at hearings. I thank those that facilitated the committee's visits to many irrigation districts, organisations and farming operations, from beef and dairy in Southern WA to grapes in South Australia and to rice and cotton in Griffith. I would have loved to have the committee come to Tasmania to see what we do with our irrigation, but, unfortunately, that did not occur. I would also like to thank the secretariat for enabling this investigation and for the drafting of a very comprehensive report into such a complex policy area. Thank you.
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (12:31): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (12:31): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Migration Committee
Report
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (12:31): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports together with a corrigendum, entitled No one teaches you to become an Australian: report of the inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr WOOD: by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, it gives me great pleasure to present the committee's report incorporating a corrigendum for its inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes.
Each year, approximately 200,000 people from across the seas choose to make Australia their permanent home. They come to work, to be near their families and loved ones, and to enjoy the safe and secure lifestyle our nation is famous for.
The majority of new arrivals enter via the Migration Program for skilled and family migrants. A fluctuating number of new arrivals also come through the humanitarian program. These humanitarian entrants often have a refugee background and are the main focus of this inquiry.
This inquiry had a particular consideration of the social engagement of youth migrants, and what can be done to address issues arising from antisocial behaviour such as gang activity.
The committee understands every migrant's journey is different and there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to settlement services. But the system will be improved by the committee's recommendations, including:
A focus on early intervention programs that give hope and encouragement to vulnerable young people to flourish.
Flexible English language courses—which is absolutely key for migration success—combined with cultural awareness training that sees students successfully transition from classroom study to further study and employment.
And more migrant youth workers that come from the cultural background of our new arrivals, which is key because with proper mentoring and guidance from people who they trust—young migrants will flourish, not fail.
The committee is also of the view that more needs to be done to protect Australian communities from those migrants who are at risk of violent extremism.
Strengthening the character test provisions under section 501 of the Migration Act to remove repeat offenders will make Australia safer for everyone. Visa cancellation and deportation is an effective way of disrupting and preventing organised crime, and I've no doubt it'll also be an effective means to target violent youth gang crime. The mandatory cancellation of visas for offenders between 16 and 18 years of age who've been convicted of a serious violent crime, such as a machete attack, and for those over 18 who are convicted of a serious offence, such as a sexual assault, serious assault, home invasion or carjacking, will stop crime and keep communities secure. I make the point that at the moment there's no age limit for the character test, so this will put a stringent regime in place for those between the ages of 16 and 18 for violent crime where someone is seriously injured.
Establishing community protection intervention orders will give migrant parents who do not want to see their troubled teenagers get involved in the lure of extremism an important measure to help young people and protect Australians from terrorist attacks. If it is made clear to new arrivals that committing crimes may jeopardise their ability to become Australian citizens in the future or result in a visa cancellation and deportation, migrants will think twice before engaging in criminal activity and will be more likely to commit to make a meaningful contribution, as most do in our homeland.
The Australian Migration Program is a huge success. I acknowledge the presence of the committee's deputy chair, Maria Vamvakinou, here today. When the committee went around the world, we visited the UK and the US and we saw how good Australia's migrant program actually is. Thousands of people who make their home here each year do make a real contribution to our society. If we are to continue this, we need to focus on early intervention and support programs to make sure new arrivals have the best start possible in their new homeland. At the same time, we need to make it very clear to those who commit serious and violent crimes that their actions have consequences and they forfeit their passage to becoming Australian citizens. Getting this balance right is essential so our young nation can continue to be a safe and welcoming place for new arrivals in the future.
I would like to sincerely thank all the stakeholders—the other committee members, especially the deputy chair; the state and territory governments; the police; the community groups; and the religious and cultural organisations—for their time in preparing submissions and appearing in public hearings. I would also like to give very special thanks to those involved in the committee secretariat: Ms Pauline Cullen, Ms Susan Cardell, Mr Paul Zinkel, Mr James Bunce, Ms Phillipa Blackwood, Ms Belynda Zolotto, Ms Stacey Borg, Ms Tanya Pratt and Ms Fiona McCann. I commend this report and corrigendum to the House.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (12:37): by leave—I welcome the opportunity as Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration to speak to the tabling of our report titled No one teaches you to become an Australian: report of the inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes. Making a new home in a new country isn't easy, yet thousands of people each year do so, and they make it work. They work hard and they're able to orient themselves into a new life here in Australia. In fact, since Arthur Calwell's post Second World War nation-building migration program, millions of migrants and refugees have settled in Australia, making this country the most successful multicultural nation in the world. Our country has achieved this successful migration program through the strategic planning and provision of well-targeted settlement services designed to assist newly arrived migrants and refugees with their settlement and integration into the broader Australian community. By focusing on English language training and community and cultural orientation, we have been a success story, as the chair has so rightly said.
However, settlement into a new and foreign country is not without its challenges, for both the newly arrived and the community, and especially for the service delivery agencies tasked with assisting the integration process. Melbourne-based Sudanese-born youth worker Gum Mamur, who works with the Les Twentyman Foundation in Victoria, summed up the challenges for migrants, especially young migrants, and refugees integrating into Australian life when he said, 'No-one teaches you to become an Australian.' So this report is aptly named as such, and I'm told by Les Twentyman that Gum is very, very chuffed that the report has been named after a comment that he made to the committee.
This inquiry was a timely opportunity to consider whether the settlement services available in Australia are appropriately targeted and sufficient to successfully support migrants and refugees, in particular the young, who have journeyed to make Australia their home. It was an opportunity to consider evidence based material and to find out how the government could improve its support of new arrivals across the country to help migrants become contributing, engaged members of society and to ensure government migration resources are being used efficiently and effectively.
It's clear Australia is at the forefront internationally of settlement and support services for new migrants. As the chair said, the committee visited the UK, Sweden, Germany and the United States in July last year and our visit affirmed that without doubt. Of course, there is always more that can be done. The evidence submitted to the committee makes a clear case for more flexibility within the migrant settlement program. The robust and consistent evidence in the 115 submissions the committee received has, for the most part, reflected the views of those who participated in the inquiry. The committee made a number of worthwhile recommendations for the government to improve migrant settlement services. Mindful of the time, I won't go through those at this point. I'm hoping to be able to do that another time.
Despite the many fine recommendations that we as a committee have made and agreed to, not all of this report objectively reflects the evidence presented during the inquiry. It ignores crucial contextual details in places and gives undue emphasis in others. There is minimal or no evidence to justify some recommendations made by the committee. As such, Labor members of the committee dissent from recommendations 15 to 18. In particular, recommendations 17 and 18 are clearly outside the terms of reference of the inquiry. Despite there being minimal or no evidence, the report focuses on young humanitarian entrants from Sudanese backgrounds who engage in criminal activity. The purpose of this inquiry was to investigate issues relating to migrant settlement outcomes. Labor members are concerned the committee has drawn conclusions and recommendations based on opinion and anecdotal evidence and has made recommendations outside the scope of the terms of reference. As such, some aspects of the report do not reflect the evidence received and ignore the wider context of Australia's migration situation.
This inquiry's focus on humanitarian entrants and youth crime missed the opportunity to review settlement outcomes for the vast majority of new arrivals. Despite this, it is a report that carries important recommendations around improving our settlement service programs while providing more flexibility and appropriately adjusting the nature and delivery of settlement services in order to meet the challenges of Australia's migrant program in the 21st century. For that, I commend the report.
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (12:42): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (12:42): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (12:42): The Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017 that we're debating today could perhaps be called the 'What a Difference a Few Days Makes Bill' because it is emblematic of the chaotic nature of policymaking at the heart of this government and, in particular, by this Treasurer. On 28 November last year, which wasn't that long ago, the Prime Minister said, 'We've made it clear that we are not going to establish a royal commission.' A couple of weeks after this legislation was introduced into the parliament, the Treasurer said on 3 November:
I'm not quite sure how spending $150 million on a QC's complaints desk, otherwise known as what others are pushing for, would help resolve any of those issues.
He was talking about a royal commission into banking and financial services. He quoted the measures in this bill, the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, as evidence that 'the government was taking action now', which is why, he said, they didn't need a royal commission into the banking and financial services sector. And then on 30 November, after 600 days of fighting Labor's call for a royal commission, the government announced a royal commission. That could be regarded as one of the more spectacular backflips of this government—and it's a very long list.
As I said, this goes to the lack of a coherent agenda and coherent policy narrative at the heart of this government. We know that the government doesn't even fully believe in what it is doing: at the time the Prime Minister announced the royal commission, he called it 'regrettable'. I don't think the victims of financial scandals would regard it regrettable; they would see it as essential. Sometimes it is said, and the government has said, the royal commission would take too long. If the government had adopted a royal commission at the time that Labor proposed it, it would now be over. We would be moving on. We would be dealing with the implementation of recommendations. All this wasted time wouldn't have existed, and we would have been getting on with these important challenges as a nation. This has been just the latest example of a government doing anything it can to avoid a royal commission. It's all about avoiding a royal commission, and yet now we have this bill as well as a royal commission.
We will be supporting this bill. In fact, the government can rely on more support from this side of the House than they can from their own when it comes to this bill. It's reported that the member for McMillan called this a contravention of Liberal Party philosophy. There were concerns also expressed by the members for Goldstein and Corangamite. So the government has some internal issues on this bill, but it will be enjoying the support of the opposition.
The bill does introduce an accountability framework for banks. Who the framework applies to, what the obligations are for the banks and for employees of the banks, deferred remuneration obligations for banks, a civil penalty regime for breaches of these obligations and other related issues are all covered by this legislation, which is said to take effect from 1 July this year.
We do have some issues and concerns about this bill, and I will be moving an amendment in the consideration-in-detail phase. While I'm not moving an amendment on this particular matter, it strikes me as odd that the government has empowered APRA, not ASIC, in this space, and this is something that will need to be monitored. We have well-respected regulators in Australia. We have had, traditionally, a very clear delineation of responsibility between the regulators. Based on what is being implemented here, it would be a natural fit for ASIC to have these responsibilities that the government has chosen to give APRA. I'm not going to quibble about that in consideration-in-detail amendments or try and change that. I just point that out as we go and say that that will need to be monitored in terms of how this regime is implemented, going forward.
What I will move a consideration-in-detail amendment about is the start date of the legislation in relation to small- and medium-sized banks. Now, this is a considerable regime. It will take considerable effort on behalf of the banks to comply with it. I'm confident that our large institutions will be able to do that by the proposed start date, but smaller institutions will struggle. Banking competition is an important matter in this country. We have a Productivity Commission inquiry into banking competition. I think most honourable members would concede that more competition in banking would be a good thing. We saw some hollowing-out of competition with the departure of St George and Bankwest, or their being subsumed by parent entities. We all, I think, would support the role of customer-owned banking, credit unions and the like, and smaller banks, and recognise they play an important role in the financial system. We will wait and see what the Productivity Commission recommends; that could potentially play an even more important role going forward.
What we don't want to do is put them at a substantial disadvantage. I think that this legislation as it's currently framed would put them at a substantial disadvantage. The Australian Bankers' Association noted:
Effective implementation of the BEAR regime will require material effort and reallocation of resources by ADIs and APRA to meet the proposed deadline.
The Australian Shareholders' Association said:
While we acknowledge the government’s desire to implement the legislation as soon as possible, we are of the view that ADIs will need time to undertake changes to policies, contracts and systems.
The Australian Institute of Company Directors, the AICD, have said that they reiterated their view that BEAR's implementation date should be deferred so that it commences on 20 January 2019. Customer Owned Banking Australia said:
In order to effectively and efficiently implement the BEAR there are a number of things that must happen prior to the implementation date.
They went on to argue that there was insufficient time to do that. So I do note that this has been raised by a number of stakeholders. Concern about the implementation date was shared by some government senators, who, in their report, recommended the date of implementation of the entire package be delayed for 12 months. But, for small- and medium-sized banks, the Labor Party has suggested previously that the implementation be delayed by 12 months—and that is the amendment that I will move when we get to consideration in detail.
The Senate inquiry clearly showed that small- and medium-sized banks are not afforded the same access as the big banks to the development of this policy. I make that observation in passing as well.
It was noted in paragraph 2.75 of the explanatory memorandum that discussions were held with the big banks in February 2017 about options to address accountability gaps. But evidence from the Customer Owned Banking Association is that they had no knowledge of or involvement in these meetings. Labor senators made it clear that our position was to delay the implementation for small and medium ADIs by one year. I note the Treasurer's comments in the media that there would be 'a slower pace of implementation for the smaller banks'—we welcome that. That is, in effect, him agreeing with the Labor Party's position. As I understand it, the amendment I move may well receive the support of both sides of the House. Obviously I don't speak for the government. That's a matter for them to talk about in the House, but I would be hopeful of that amendment receiving bipartisan support in this House.
I do think this is a bill which should receive the bipartisan support of the chamber. We don't, as I said, agree with every single element of it. We have made commentary on different parts of it, but none of that is enough for us not to support the bill as a step forward. None of it obviates the need for a royal commission—a point I would have made if the government had not already announced one. But, the government having announced a royal commission, quite evidently a royal commission is now bipartisan policy as well, so it's not in conflict with the fact that we are going to have a royal commission.
I note that some have said that this doesn't go far enough. The Consumer Action Law Centre said:
Treasury has restricted the application of the proposed BEAR so that it will apply to poor conduct or behaviour that is of a systemic and prudential nature. This misses the crucial element of the United Kingdom model that ties accountability measures to poor consumer outcomes, not just prudential matters.
CHOICE went on to say:
As it stands, what we've got is a bit of a teddy bear.
As I said, none of those concerns would be reason to oppose the passage of the legislation. It will receive our support, and I would hope for support for the amendment that I will move.
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (12:51): Before being elected to this place, I had several stages to my career. The first was here in Canberra as a policy adviser and director of corporate relations for the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I was privileged to spend four years working with Dr Peter Hendy, Greg Evans and Peter Anderson and learning from them. They all had extensive economic, business, industrial relations and policy reform experience. From them, from our state and territory chambers of commerce members, from our industry association members, like the Master Builders, the Hotels Association and the Printing Industries Association, and from the individual businesspeople who gave their time as volunteers on the ACCI board and on their committees, I learnt firsthand about the impact government regulation has on businesses.
Government regulation costs businesses of all sizes time and money. It means they are less productive, less profitable and less able to focus on expansion and innovation. Government regulation is imposed by local councils, by state governments and by the federal government. As a newspaper columnist before my election to this place, I regularly wrote about the impact government regulation has on business. As a lifelong Liberal, I know that it's my duty to be true to the principles our party and our members hold dear: small government, low taxes, low regulation and letting business get on with business. As our Liberal Party constitution says, we look 'primarily to the encouragement of individual initiative and enterprise as the dynamic force of progress'. For all of these reasons, I am speaking on this bill today.
Since 2013 Australia's financial sector has been the subject of no fewer than 24 reviews, reports and inquiries, including three by ASIC, three by the Productivity Commission, one by APRA, three by departments and statutory authorities, one by a House committee and seven by Senate committees. Our national financial institutions are subject to almost 40 regulations of varying degrees at any one time, from state governments, the Commonwealth and industry associations. The compliance cost burden on each of our financial institutions can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars per year. These costs are shifted straight onto consumers, who are hardworking Australians, their families and the businesses that they run and are working hard to maintain and grow. Since 2013 there have been 11 changes to the Banking Act and five changes to the APRA Act, further increasing the compliance burden borne by businesses and, ultimately, their customers.
Australians expect us as their representatives to establish and maintain laws that reflect community expectations. We must make laws that send a clear message to the banking sector as to what we expect from it, but equally these laws must be effective and efficient in maintaining ethical standards. The long list of reviews, reports, inquiries, active regulators and legislative tinkering over the past five years alone suggests that these laws have been anything but efficient. The establishing of a banking, superannuation and financial services royal commission and the general discontent in the community suggest they have been anything but effective.
Our job is to protect Australians—individuals, families and businesses. Another inquiry, another report and an expensive royal commission are not necessarily going to give redress to anyone who has been wronged. While the Banking Executive Accountability Regime reflects community expectations, the regime in and of itself is also not going to right wrongs.
The coalition government has a strong track record of cutting red and green tape for employers and wealth creators, particularly small and medium businesses. We've saved the economy billions per annum in regulatory costs. Now, as the nation's most responsible party for economic management, we must concentrate our attention on effective and efficient regulation in this area. As a fiscally responsible government, we cannot fall into the dangerous bank-bashing mob mentality which, while potentially politically beneficial in the short term, will hurt Australian businesses, their shareholders and employees and, most importantly, their customers in the long term. We must remember that around 210,000 people are employed in the finance industry, comprising 1.7 per cent of total employment in Australia. Of these 210,000 people, around 150,000 are employed by banks, with the rest working at credit unions, building societies and the Reserve Bank of Australia.
Australia must look to successful financial sectors for the world's best practice when it comes to effective regulation. It's clear that financial centres such as Singapore and Hong Kong have the balance right in terms of regulation, and they enjoy a strong financial services sector because of this. This means jobs; this means businesses. I'm contributing to this debate because I fear we are not adhering to world's best practice when it comes to regulating our financial sector. The Banking Executive Accountability Regime adds yet another layer of regulation to the ever-growing compliance burden faced by our financial institutions, adding another detractor to our competitiveness relative to those international sectors I mentioned earlier. It does this having only been subjected to a three-week consultation paper on the idea of the regime, followed by a one-week consultation period on the draft legislation itself.
Of primary concern is that the regime creates a vague obligation for accountable persons to take reasonable steps to prevent the institution's reputation or prudential standing being adversely affected. The wording of 'reasonable steps' has been adopted from the United Kingdom's own version of this legislation. However, it speaks about reasonable steps to avoid breaching specific regulations. The obligations created by our legislation are particularly nondescript, and, even though APRA have provided some examples to the sector, their list is by no means exhaustive. For example, what is considered reasonable where a decision taken by an executive might preserve the institution's prudential standing but damage its reputation? What is an accountable person to do in this situation?
Similarly, the BEAR bill proposes joint liability where two or more accountable persons share obligations within the institution. This means that an accountable person who shares obligations will be liable for a breach by the other person. While having bank executives look over each other's shoulders will help ensure compliance, executives need to know what compliance means. These two measures in particular have potential to slow a financial institution's decision-making process, and with it the potential to slow Australia's economic growth. While the parliament must hold bank executives to account, we need to get the legislation right the first time.
The condensed time frame that the BEAR has had to be considered by both the industry and the parliament is of concern. On the timeframe for implementing the BEAR bill, I note that it has been consistently raised, both in submissions on consultations and by the Senate economic committee's report on the legislation, that the start date of the regime on 1 July 2018 leaves very little time for institutions to adequately comply. This particularly disadvantages smaller institutions, who don't have as much capacity to absorb new regulations as larger institutions might, and I note the comments of the previous speaker on this very point. The Senate committee recommended that the implementation of the regime be delayed to begin not less than 12 months after the legislation passes. I believe the government should not be burdening smaller players in the financial sector, especially at a time when we want to see a more diverse and competitive industry so that lower costs and more competitive terms and conditions can be provided to consumers. I'm concerned about the burden we're placing on financial institutions, our global competitiveness and, potentially, our economic growth.
To reiterate, Australians expect us as their representatives to establish and maintain laws that reflect community expectations. We must make laws that send a clear message to the banking sector as to what we expect from them, but equally these laws must be effective and efficient in maintaining appropriate ethical standards. Our job here is to protect Australians, whether they're individuals, families or businesses. Equally, our job is to ensure we have the most competitive and thriving businesses in the world in the banking and financial services sectors—and businesses more generally—who generate income for our nation and employ millions of Australians each and every year.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:01): The Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017 represents one of the greatest political backflips of all time. Just 12 months ago the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and members on that side of the House were saying that there were no issues with executive remuneration in the banking industry, there was nothing to see here, there were no problems and we didn't need a royal commission into banking and financial services in Australia—everything in our banking industry was hunky-dory—despite the fact that millions of customers were being ripped off and there were scandals in wealth management, insurance and retail banking. The government chose to ignore those, and it was only when the banks agreed that they were dragged kicking and screaming to agreeing to a royal commission. This bill does represent part of that backflip on the issue of executive remuneration in the banking industry, because for many, many years now there have been cases of rip-offs of customers and scandals, particularly in wealth management and insurance, where customers have lost millions and millions of dollars, lost their homes, lost out on insurance in cases of severe illness and death, lost their jobs and lost their ability to pay the household budget, but no-one was held accountable—particularly the big banks and the Australian deposit institutions that were responsible for those activities and left those hardworking Australians in those difficult positions.
This bill seeks to implement an accountability regime for executive remuneration in our banking industry. It proposes to strengthen the responsibility and accountability framework for senior directors and executives of authorised deposit-taking institutions, or ADIs, and their subsidiaries. The banking executive accountability regime, or the BEAR as it's become known, is part of the government's more accountable and competitive banking system program, which was their response to issues in the banking and financial services industry and their claimed credible alternative to Labor's proposal for a banking royal commission in banking and financial services. It would be remiss of me not to mention the fact that the government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the measures contained in this bill, and that's been put forward as a way to silence calls for a royal commission into banking.
Look at all of the scandals that have occurred over the last decade or so in banking. The wealth management scandals that we saw in the Commonwealth Bank and that have subsequently been identified in all of the big four major banks—which have meant they've had to pay back money to customers in those circumstances, many of whom have been fighting for long periods of time to get recompense, and some of whom are still fighting—were uncovered over the course of the last couple of years. There have been rip-offs in insurance, particularly CommInsure but also in other insurers throughout the country. There was the scandal relating to AUSTRAC and the Commonwealth Bank not reporting transactions through their intelligent deposit machines that were meant to be reported, because they were above certain thresholds contained in our antiterrorism and financing laws. People have been ripped off. Millions of Australian customers have been ripped off. Businesses, including small businesses, have shut down because of some of these rip-offs. Jobs have been lost. The pressure and stress that this put on a number of Australians and their households and businesses was immense, and the government chose to ignore them. The Turnbull government chose to ignore them for many, many years, saying that there wasn't a need for a royal commission into banking.
It is only when the executives of the big four banks wrote to the Prime Minister and said to him, 'We want a royal commission now, because we're sick and tired of the blame game and all of the damage that it is doing to our reputations,' that the Prime Minister rolls over. It's only when the big four banks say, 'It's okay to have a royal commission,' that this Prime Minister and this government roll over and finally give the Australian public what they want.
Then, in the process of doing so, he seeks to obfuscate the issues associated with banking and tries to point the finger at the industry super funds, where there've been no examples of rip-offs and scandals to the degree associated with the big four banks. Yet it's as if the Prime Minister spat the dummy and said, 'Well, if I have to give them a royal commission, I'm going to make sure that I go after the industry super funds as well, because they've got union representatives on their boards.' It says everything about this government's approach to financial services and banking in this country and to dealing with the issues and working in the interests of small businesses, families and pensioners.
It's lamentable that the government has ignored the pleas of the Australian public for greater accountability, particularly in the big four banks. Only the coalition have had such contempt for the Australian people that they would side with the big four banks over the course of the last few years in avoiding a royal commission. It's particularly the phrase 'executive accountability' that didn't seem to exist in their lexicon up until late last year, when they capitulated to calls for a banking royal commission.
It is worth noting what the Treasurer said just a year ago about the regulation of executive remuneration. He said:
In terms of those in senior corporate positions and what they are paid, they are matters for their boards … it is up to those companies to get the balance right, in terms of how they set those arrangements with their shareholders and their overall accountability to the Australian public for the social licence that they have to operate in Australia.
That was the Treasurer less than 12 months ago saying, 'Nothing to see here—no issue with banking accountability,' in terms of what they were paying their executives, despite what had been uncovered through successive parliamentary inquiries and investigations by journalists and the regulatory bodies into what was actually going on with the management of our big four banks and executive remuneration.
Finally, they've acted, and they've acted through this bill—a bill that creates an accountability framework that ADIs must comply with, with exemptions granted by the Treasurer or where it's a foreign ADI not operating a branch in Australia, or where they may have contravened a law of a foreign country. It defines an accountable person, for the purposes of the framework that's being developed, as a person who:
… has actual or effective … responsibility:
(i) for management or control of the ADI; or
(ii) for management or control of a significant or substantial part or aspect of the operations of the ADI or the relevant group of bodies corporate that is constituted by the ADI and its subsidiaries.
The bill sets out the accountability obligations of the ADIs and accountable persons. For instance, an ADI must take reasonable steps to conduct its business with honesty and integrity, and with due care, skill and diligence. It must deal with APRA in an open, constructive and cooperative way and, in conducting its business, prevent matters from arising that would adversely affect the ADI's prudential standards or prudential reputation. The bill sets out deferred remuneration obligations of an ADI, meaning an ADI must defer a proportion of the remuneration of an accountable person for a period of four years, the proportion generally depending on the size of the ADI. It also sets out notification obligations of an ADI, with ADIs to give APRA statements detailing the roles and responsibilities of each accountable person, and accountability maps identifying the lines of responsibility through the ADI group. It sets out a civil penalty regime for ADIs where they breach obligations—up to one million penalty units, or $210 million, for large ADIs.
A number of issues have been identified with the implementation of this particular package, through a Senate inquiry, and the shadow Treasurer has outlined those. I won't go into those in detail, but they relate particularly to smaller ADIs and their ability to meet the compliance obligations under this proposal within the time frame. Labor is suggesting and the shadow Treasurer will move, in the consideration in detail stage, an amendment to that effect to give more time to some of those smaller ADIs.
In conclusion, the case for greater accountability in the banking sector has been made out repeatedly by the tragic losses and the cases of fraud and deception that have befallen many across all corners of the country. Through the House Economics Committee, which I've been privileged to be a member of, and through the banking inquiries with the big four banks, we've identified some of those issues. But, unfortunately, we were given precious little time questioning the big bank CEOs to get to the bottom of the various injustices that have been perpetrated upon banking customers. Twenty minutes simply isn't enough time to question one of those CEOs about all of the scandals and rip-offs that have been going on in the banking industry over the course of the last decade. Nonetheless, I think the committee was very effective in hearing some of the revelations that have occurred in this industry, particularly around executive remuneration, most notably: the current, soon to be former, boss of CBA, Ian Narev reminding us that 40,000 customers had been charged for financial advice that they never actually received; and CBA admitting that no executives had lost their jobs over the wealth management scandal or the CommInsure scandal or the AUSTRAC financial advice scandal. All the CEOs refused, during those inquiries, to make public the number of executives earning above $1 million. But at the end of the day, we saw that that banking inquiry was hopelessly inadequate to get to the bottom of the toxic banking culture that we've had in this country for some years now.
Labor knew from day one that the only way to shine a light on what was actually going on in this industry was through a fair dinkum royal commission: a fair dinkum royal commission that provided an independent arbiter, with the probative powers necessary to call the banks and get to the bottom of what was going on in this industry. And that's what the Australian people have wanted for some time now. They are sick of the rip-offs and the scandals; that's left a bad taste in their mouths about banking in this country and they wanted a royal commission, but the Prime Minister denied that—only agreeing once the banks had given him the okay for it to occur. For 18 months Labor has been calling for a royal commission and it has been met with only obfuscation and ridicule by the government. Rather than listen to the victims, the government stuck with their talking points slamming the idea. It was only when the banks themselves realised that the writing was on the wall that the government came around.
This is not the first time that this has occurred in financial services. We look back to the Future of Financial Advice reforms, the FoFA reforms, which introduced a 'best interests' duty—a duty that ensures that a financial adviser must act in the interests of their customer, their client: the person that they're supposed to be working for. And what did those opposite do, when Labor introduced those laws in the parliament some years ago when we were in government? They opposed them. They opposed financial advisers operating in the best interests of their customers. It says everything about the government and what they stand for. Then, when they got to government, they tried to overturn those laws. They tried to water down that best-interest duty in the parliament. They got it through this place and then they got it through the Senate. It was only when the Senate saw what was going on in banking—that there was a problem there—that they changed their minds and removed their approval for those changes to be made. The same happened with superannuation reform as a result of the Cooper review into superannuation and the establishment of MySuper accounts. Again, there was opposition from the government to those sorts of things.
Even when Labor introduced its executive accountability regime generally—the two-strikes rule, as it's known—it was again opposed by those opposite because they didn't want to shed a light on what was actually going on in Australian corporations and give shareholders a say in the management of those companies that they had a stake in and that were paying ridiculous salaries and bonuses and providing share schemes for executives who were doing the wrong thing by them. It says everything about the government's approach to banking and finance and whose side they are on. They're certainly not on the side of the customer, of the client, of the small-business person, of the family or of the pensioner when it comes to banking. It was only when the banks agreed to a royal commission that the government rolled over and changed their view. They've chosen a piecemeal approach to solving this problem of executive remuneration and the problems in banking, and it's sad that they have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table on this issue.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:16): I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017. This bill amends the Banking Act to establish the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, or the BEAR, as it's more commonly known. The BEAR is a strengthened responsibility and accountability framework for the most senior and influential executives and directors in banking groups. To support the BEAR, the bill gives the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, new and strengthened powers.
The banking sector plays an essential role in promoting economic growth and a critical role in the lives of all Australians. In order for it to operate in an efficient, stable and fair way, the community has to have trust in the banking sector. More than perhaps any other sector in the economy, this is the case for banks because we all rely on the banks to provide us with finance to conduct our activities. Whether you are borrowing money to finance the purchase of a home or borrowing money to finance the purchase of a business or to expand a business, the banks are absolutely fundamental to the functioning of the Australian economy.
In Australia, however, a series of incidents involving poor behaviour by banks over recent years has raised the question of whether there may be emerging systemic issues that are undermining public trust in the banks. Public trust is very important in the banking sector precisely because so many of us rely on the banks. In order to have an efficient, effective, secure and stable banking system, we need to ensure that there remains public trust.
Under the BEAR legislation, banks and their most senior executives and directors would be expected to conduct their businesses and responsibilities with honesty, with integrity, with due skill and with care and diligence; deal with APRA in an open, constructive and cooperative way; and prevent matters from arising that would adversely affect the authorised deposit-taking institutions' prudential reputation or standing. Where these expectations are not met, APRA will be empowered to more easily disqualify individuals, ensure that bank remuneration policies result in financial consequences for individuals and impose substantial fines on banks. Banks will be required to register with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority before appointing people as senior executives and directors. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority will also get additional examination powers which will help it to investigate potential breaches of the BEAR legislation. These mechanisms are intended to deter poor behaviour and ensure that banks and individuals are held to account where they fail to meet the high standards that are expected of them.
The legislation provides further clarity on the accountability obligations of banks and their directors and senior executives, and the enhanced consequences for being in breach of those obligations. In particular, APRA is empowered to impose substantial fines on banks, to more easily disqualify accountable persons and to ensure that bank remuneration policies result in financial consequences for individuals. The regime is due to start from 1 July this year. Banks may, as I said, remain at the centre of some of the most critical decisions in people's lives—buying a home, starting a business and saving for retirement—and it is important that mechanisms are in place to deter poor behaviour and provide for accountability where the high standards of behaviour that we all expect of such an important sector are not being met.
I heard a lot from the member for Kingsford Smith, who preceded me in this debate, about government inaction and government failures, but I think those opposite need to have a look at their own record in relation to banking matters. Their record of inaction stands in contrast to the Turnbull government's ongoing reform of the financial services sector. Under our government, we've established the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, a one-stop shop to provide victims with compensation now, not years down the track. There is the creation of the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority, which protects consumers from dodgy practices, and industry funding of ASIC to bolster their resources and powers properly. Just last year, the government set up a focused and responsible inquiry into misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry.
From the early days of my candidacy, I have supported calls for a royal commission into the banks, and I'm pleased the government has acted, yet again, as part of its ongoing work into the financial services sector. I've personally been concerned about customer complaints relating to the Commonwealth Bank's takeover of Bankwest in 2008. The Commonwealth Bank's conduct in the aftermath of the global financial crisis has seen it accused of impairing healthy Bankwest loans and forcing customers into foreclosure. I think of the heroic work of my constituent Peter McNamee, who himself was not a victim of the Commonwealth Bank's conduct in this regard but who became a great advocate for victims before the various inquiries that occurred in this place, the inquiry established under Kate Carnell and the inquiries set up by ASIC. He was doing the hard yards to get public policy changed in this space to provide justice for victims. Peter has been a very strong advocate of the banking royal commission, and I'm very pleased that, through his work, many of the victims of the Bankwest issue will now have their chance to put their case before a very distinguished former High Court judge in Ken Hayne, who will make recommendations to the government about what to do going forward in this area.
These issues have been long-running. They date back to when Labor was in government. The opposition had six years to act on banking misconduct, but they didn't do anything. When Storm Financial collapsed and other crises hit Australia under their government, what did they do? Their silence was deafening. When the coalition proposed a financial system inquiry in opposition, how did they respond? They refused to support it. Despite what the member for Kingsford Smith and others on the other side of the House may claim, when they sat on this side of the House, they were a government defined by inaction, and we've seen it time and time again. It takes the coalition to respond in a responsible and reasonable manner. That's what we've done with the royal commission, that's what we've done with a range of other financial services elements and that's what we're doing with the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, which is being established under the legislation that is currently before the House.
The opposition leader has pursued politics over people here. He has led a campaign where political pointscoring has drowned out the voices of victims. For all his talk, where was he when Labor was in power? If only the opposition leader had been in a position to act then, perhaps in his capacity as minister for financial services! But whether it was the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Treasurer, who was then the Assistant Treasurer, Labor repeatedly rejected in government the need for a royal commission. The contrast of record to rhetoric couldn't be clearer. The Turnbull government's take-action-now approach puts the inaction of previous Labor governments to shame. The establishment of the royal commission and the BEAR are just the latest in the long list of measures implemented by this government. They are the end result of orderly and orthodox processes, where the government has consulted with industry and affected parties in order to consider the best way forward to enhance public confidence and trust in the banking and financial services industries.
Despite all of the noise we heard from those opposite about the royal commission, despite making a lot of noise over a long period of time, they never suggested anything about terms of reference for a royal commission. If you're serious about a royal commission, you publish your set of terms of reference. No—instead, it was just a political stunt. For all their boasting and bank-bashing, they never suggested these terms of reference. What's worse is that, in the way those opposite have conducted themselves, they have given false hope to the victims of banking misconduct. In this legislation, we have a way forward to ensure that bank executives act properly, ethically and prudentially and are appropriately supervised by the relevant authority.
While the Banking Executive Accountability Regime and a royal commission might uncover instances that lead to recommendations of compensation or, in relation to this particular regime, fines in relation to bank executives, those opposite just made a lot of noise rather than proposing actual policies. On top of their rhetoric, they should be ashamed at the way they have undermined Australia's financial stability through their alarmist attacks. In irresponsibly bashing the banks, they've put politics above people and their own egos above the economy. Our major banks represent almost nine per cent of Australia's GDP and employ more than 400,000 people. Millions of Australians have banking shares either directly or through their superannuation funds. We must be prudent and careful and sensible in the regulation of the banking industry. The vast majority of Australians not only are customers of the banks but have a direct stake in them through their superannuation, but those opposite have gone about this debate in a way that has put the economy at risk. They have put at risk the very system that supports Australian employment and wages. No-one in the Labor Party has done more to bash the banks than the former senator Sam Dastyari. His calls for a royal commission and actions on banks pre-date the official Labor position by some two years—and, where the former senator Sam Dastyari went, the Leader of the Opposition followed.
Time and time again, it has been a coalition government that has had to clean up the mess left behind by Labor, and that's what we're doing with the legislation before the House today. The failure of past Labor governments to adequately support victims of banking misconduct is reflected in their do-nothing approach. They didn't support a financial systems inquiry; they didn't respond to the victims of Bankwest or Storm Financial; and they didn't even bother to write terms of reference for their stunt of a royal commission. Shame on those opposite for leaving a legacy of inaction.
Once again, with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill, the coalition government has come to pick up the pieces and restore stability and public confidence in our banking sector.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:27): This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017, to introduce a banking executive accountability regime is nicknamed the BEAR. To quote financial sector expert Pat McConnell, a visiting fellow at Macquarie University:
Rather than being a terrifying polar or grizzly, it is already an old teddy bear that has had the stuffing knocked out of it.
So, rather than growl, this bear purrs like a pussycat. When it comes to the banking sector, that is how those opposite like it: purr like a pussycat and have your belly scratched.
Pat McConnell further states:
The government's new Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR) legislation is a confused mess that is not going to do what it claims to do, which is make bankers accountable for scandals.
It is hardly a ringing endorsement of the government's approach.
This bill appears to echo the Senior Managers and Certification Regime, established by the May government in Britain, which came into force last year. Copying the British Chancellor's homework, our Treasurer proposed the BEAR in last year's budget, initially in order to take effect from 1 July this year. I'm pleased that I understand the Treasurer has now agreed to an amendment put forward in the Senate that that implementation be delayed.
For years, Labor has kept pressure on the government to act on the concerns of the tens of thousands of Australians and small businesses who have smelled something rotten going on in our finance and banking services sectors. It is why Labor has been calling for a banking royal commission. I couldn't understand the member for Berowra, who just spoke on the bill. One minute he was belting Labor for not supporting a banking royal commission early enough, and then he was belting us for supporting one two years ago. I didn't understand his logic, and I don't understand it now.
Labor has been on the record consistently as wanting a banking royal commission to get to the heart of the scandals in the banking sector in this country. Too many people and too many businesses have been ruined by the scandals engulfing this sector. We're pleased that the government's finally come to the table—kicking and screaming—on a banking royal commission. It took too long to get there, and it shouldn't have taken so long. This government's been reluctant to do anything regarding the banks, but finally it's been dragged into action, not because it wanted to, not because of the evidence provided to parliamentary committees of ruined lives and ruined businesses, but the consequence of banking malfeasance—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Lyons will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude his contribution.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
National Basketball Association
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:30): I rise today to express my outrage at the exclusion of Australian Ben Simmons from this year's NBA All-Star game. In a record-breaking rookie year for the Philadelphia 76ers, Ben is currently averaging nearly 17 points, eight rebounds and seven assists in a game. He's already had five triple doubles, and, frankly, no-one with two brain cells to rub together would want Goran Dragic on their team over Ben. The fact that compatriot 'Jingling' Joe Ingles has also been left out of the three-point competition despite currently sitting at third in the league in three-point percentage makes me think there is some kind of an anti-Australian conspiracy going on at the league head office at the moment. If you thought that Australia was angry about The Simpsons 'Bart vs. Australia' TV episode, you ain't seen nothing yet, Yanks!
There is, however, a more serious point about the golden generation of Australians currently playing in the NBA at the moment. The nine Australians who are currently flying the flag for our nation in the NBA include an Indigenous Australian, four children of immigrants and two refugees. Our representation in the NBA looks like modern Australia: a nation of migrants, and the most successful multicultural nation on earth. We should particularly recognise South Sudanese Australians Thon Maker and Mangok Mathiang for their extraordinary achievement of not just making it to the pinnacle of their profession but overcoming the enormous challenges that they needed to confront on arriving in Australia as refugees. There's been a lot of nonsense said about Australia's African-Australian community over the summer parliamentary recess by politicians around the country, but Thon and Mangok show the potential of every member of this community to overcome obstacles and excel at the highest level. (Time expired)
Robertson Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (13:31): I rise to speak about some incredible individuals on the Central Coast who have recently been honoured with awards on Australia Day. Five people received an Order of Australia, including Tom Bagnat, for his service with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, including keeping our community safe from bushfires. Kevin Best was awarded an OAM for his years of service to football, including at Wyoming and Kincumber. Leslie Dell of East Gosford was awarded an OAM for service to business, education and the community. Stephen Emerson received recognition for his many years of service to veterans and their families, and Neville Glover was awarded an OAM for services to rugby league and the community, including with the police force.
Central Coast Council also continued its tradition of Australia Day awards and announced Kate Broadhurst as our local citizen of the year. Kate's 25 years of service to lifesaving include a unique surf-lifesaving program called Shark Nippers, for children with additional needs. Crystal Russom was the Youth of the Year award winner. Other community award winners include Paul Johnson, Norman Harris, Darryl Davis, John Oates, Richelle Ellis, Leasha Craig and Carley Chapman. Highly commended awards went to Kai Darwin, Leslie Smith, Colin Laing, Fred Leake, Tracey Howie, Shelly Luck, Margaret Smith and Jemma Smith. Council's Australia Day ambassador was, of course, our local music legend, and the coast's own superstar, Rod McCormack.
To each one of you: we know you don't seek the accolades, but you definitely deserve them. Our congratulations and our thanks for all you do for the Central Coast and Australia. (Time expired)
Tasmania: Biosecurity
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (13:33): Tasmania has a fruit fly emergency on its hands. Fruit fly has been found in Flinders Island and also in my electorate. The Tasmanian fruit industry is worth almost $200 million, employing hundreds of people across the state. Liberal Premier Will Hodgman must take responsibility for this emergency. In his first budget, he cut $1 million from Tasmania's biosecurity budget. Even now, in the middle of this emergency, people are still arriving in Tasmania by sea and air without any biosecurity checks. At a federal level, this coalition government has so far refused to implement recommendations to strengthen our biosecurity, as contained in last year's review report into the Australian biosecurity framework.
Our hardworking local farmers are now paying the price for state and federal Liberal government incompetence. The highly valuable Chinese market is now refusing to take fruit from the control zone, which is in my electorate. Sassafras Orchards, whom I visited last week with the member for Bendigo, have no choice but to sell their cherries into Hong Kong at half the price they would have received in China. Such is the incompetence of the Hodgman government that 40 kilograms of fresh fruit from within the control zone has been found in an external local market. The policy failures of Will Hodgman and this government have seen Tasmania's hard-won national and international reputation of being fruit fly free tarnished. Tasmanian farmers deserve better.
O'Connor Electorate: Employment
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:35): I recently hosted a youth PaTH forum in the beautiful seaside town of Esperance in my electorate. This was an opportunity to promote the PaTH program to local businesses and to unemployed young people between 18 and 25. Robyne and Doc Reynolds, owners of the kepa kurl gallery and the Lucky Bean Cafe, attended and spoke about how the PaTH program really worked for them. They took on a local Indigenous girl, Anastasia James, who had been struggling to find employment due to lack of experience and subsequent lack of confidence. During the prepare phase of the program, Anastasia was taught general and specific job-related skills through local employment agency Max Employment. The trial phase then gave Anastasia on-the-job, real-life work experience, with kepa kurl receiving support to train and potentially retrain their intern through the hire phase.
So far in O'Connor, 109 long-term unemployed youth have gained work experience through the PaTH program, with 69 per cent transitioning into ongoing full-time employment. That is an extraordinary figure. We have a textbook, perfect example in the case of Anastasia and kepa kurl. Anastasia agrees she probably has the best job, working in the Lucky Bean Cafe on the beach at Lucky Bay, regularly voted one of the best beaches in the world. I also ran into the Reynolds last weekend in Esperance. They could not be happier with the way things have worked out for their business. I will be hosting youth PaTH forums throughout O'Connor in the coming months, encouraging businesses to embrace the PaTH program and provide meaningful work experience for those young people needing a job.
Tasmania: Biosecurity
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:36): You can't muck around when it comes to biosecurity, and certainly not in Tasmania. We're GM free, we're hormone promoting free, and until the last month we were fruit fly free. Now all the hard work done by our farmers and producers over many years to carve out a premium edge in the global market is being put at risk by the Hodgman Liberal government's failure to invest in biosecurity—a million dollars out of biosecurity in their first year in government! Since 2015, flights in and out of Tasmania have gone up 12 per cent. Over the same period, the number of cruise ships coming to Tasmania has more than doubled, from 55 a year to 121 this year. That's great news. But how many biosecurity officers did they employ? Not one more—the same number of biosecurity officers, when there's been a massive increase in activity on and off the island.
That is a disaster waiting to happen, and three weeks ago disaster did happen. For the first time ever, fruit fly larvae were detected in our prime fruit-growing region of Spreyton, just over the border of my electorate. Apples, pears, cherries—a $200 million industry is at risk. Chinese buyers quickly shut the gate on cherries from this new exclusion zone that's been thrown up. This is not an isolated incident. It is the latest in a string of biosecurity failures by the Hodgman Liberal government.
Higher Education
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:38): Universities have a responsibility to pass knowledge from one generation to the next. When universities neglect their responsibility to pass on the accumulated knowledge of our society and facilitate debate, society ultimately suffers. A foundational principle of a free society and of a successful university is the freedom to openly debate ideas and opinions. That freedom is under increasing threat in Australian universities as well as in many other countries around the world. Last year a Free Speech on Campus audit analysed over 165 university policies, finding that 34 of Australia's 42 universities have some questionable conduct around free speech. Today campuses are imposing policies that prohibit students from making offensive, unwelcome comments or even engaging in sarcasm.
This is not acceptable. It will only lead to the silencing of debate, and self-censorship. This culture is in response to the modern Marxism that challenging ideas or opinions can be harmful and amount to violence. This is simply absurd. No-one disputes that poor conduct can occur anyway and that there is legitimate room to make sure we stop harassment or threatening conduct. But it is wrong-headed to focus on ideas and not conduct. Universities have a responsibility to defend an environment of inquiry and to confront a culture that risks censorship. Bucking the trend, the University of Chicago has published a statement on principles of free expression and confirmed its commitment to free speech. I encourage Australian universities to do the same.
Tasmania: Biosecurity
Mr HART (Bass) (13:39): I thank both the member for Lyons and the member for Braddon for the contributions they have made today about the very important issue of fruit fly being discovered in Tasmania. This pest has the potential to devastate the state's agricultural industry and trade capacity, not to mention tarnish Tasmania's national and international reputation as a viable export state. Will Hodgman and the Prime Minister must take responsibility for the fruit fly outbreak that has occurred on Flinders Island and north-west Tasmania. Will Hodgman, in his first budget, cut $1 million from Tasmania's biosecurity budget. The Liberal government failed to identify the control of fruit fly and control strategies as a priority during the development of a national fruit fly research, development and extension plan. Tasmania's farmers are now paying the price of Will Hodgman's biosecurity cuts.
Biosecurity Tasmania staff have been put under huge workload pressures due to a reduction in full-time staff and resourcing, and we have heard from the member for Lyons of the increase in activity at our ports and airports. Labor's federal and state investment in irrigation schemes reinvigorated our agricultural sector and saw our high-value exports skyrocket. This has resulted in jobs and more investment, and we've also heard from the member for Braddon of the difference between the export of high-quality fruit into China and its export into Hong Kong. Half the price is being realised. This is an absolute failure by the Hodgman Liberal government.
La Trobe Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (13:41): Today I'm delighted to acknowledge the Australia Day awards that have been bestowed upon two residents within La Trobe. The first is Frank Phillips, who has been awarded the Order of Australia for his service to the community of Melbourne. Frank helped to start the Friends of the Royal Botanic Gardens of Melbourne and was the inaugural president in 1983. He spent more than 30 years helping to fundraise and establish a trust to ensure the future of the gardens, and they are looking fantastic. In addition to his horticultural interest, Frank has been heavily involved in not-for-profit groups such as Rotary and the Australian-made, Australian-grown campaign. He has also been on the council's Boronia advisory committee and has offered ideas to shape the future of his suburb of Boronia.
I would also like to congratulate Bev McAllister, who received an Australia Day award from the Shire of Yarra Ranges. I've known Bev for a number of years and she's absolutely fantastic. This award recognises her commitment to community development through her work establishing the Dandenong Ranges Music Council. In 1979 Ms McAllister helped to set up the Dandenong Ranges Music Council. The council is now considered to be a model for community music organisations throughout Australia. Bev has done an amazing job for the local community for so many years. I've always enjoyed working with her. I congratulate both Bev and Frank.
Kangaroo Island: Heart Disease
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:42): I'm proud to share the news that Kangaroo Island is now recognised by the international HEARTSafe Communities program as Australia's first HEARTSafe community. This title identifies Kangaroo Island as a place where more than 10 per cent of the population is trained in CPR and the use of a defibrillator and where you can find publicly available defibrillators in every town, even at the American River boatshed. It took 18 months for locals to achieve the criteria that ensure that 4½ thousand residents on the island and more than 200,000 people who visit every year have the best chance of survival after a sudden, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Special thanks must go to the HeartSafeKI team—Dr Tim Leeuwenburg, volunteer ambulance officer Trish Leeuwenburg and paramedic Mick Berden—who volunteered for this initiative.
Recognition is growing that surviving a heart attack depends more on having access to trained first aiders and the right equipment than it does on hospitals and helicopters, particularly when you live in a rural area. Sadly, the average survival rate for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is about eight per cent. By becoming Australia's first HEARTSafe community, Kangaroo Island is hoping to echo the experiences of other HEARTSafe communities overseas and bring that survival rate to 70 per cent. Congratulations to Kangaroo Island. As always, you make our nation so proud.
Australian Men's Shed Association
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (13:44): I rise today to acknowledge the work of the Australian Men's Sheds Association and the sheds they represent across my electorate and indeed Australia. In fact, Australia's very first Men's Shed was established in my local area. The Lane Cove Men's Shed began back in 1998 and continues in operation to this day. From these beginnings Men's Sheds have grown, and the association now represents nearly 1,000 sheds in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Lane Cove is always an international trendsetter. In my electorate the Lane Cove shed has been joined by others in North Sydney, Willoughby and Hunter's Hill. I had the opportunity to visit the Willoughby Men's Shed last month and was impressed with all that they're achieving. So successful have they been that they need a larger home than their existing facility in Northbridge.
In all four of these sheds the tradition of community service and individual health is a living tradition. 'Shoulder to shoulder' is the motto of Men's Sheds, and shoulder to shoulder they work alongside each other in the spirit of camaraderie. I've been particularly impressed with their work for the local community through projects such as the Lane Cove Toy Library, repairing furniture and toys in Wollstonecraft, the pencils and toys donated to Operation Christmas Child by the Men's Shed in Willoughby, and the toys made for donations to the local hospitals, toy libraries and refugees in Hunter's Hill. Last year the Men's Shed Association celebrated its 10th year as an organisation. I am proud of the fact that the Men's Shed movement had its genesis in my electorate, and I wish them even greater success in the years to come.
Morris, Ms Narelle
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:45): It was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of one of Parramatta's local heroes, Narelle Morris. Narelle started volunteering with Holroyd Community Aid in 2004, quickly moving into a leadership role in their welfare centre and the op shop, and then became vice-president. She was nominated for Citizen of the Year in 2010 and was awarded the accolade in 2012. In 2016 Narelle was named New South Wales Local Woman of the Year for Granville.
I was unable to attend Narelle's memorial, but I heard that the turnout was more than double what was expected. There were many kind words spoken about Narelle, but they all returned to a common theme: how much people loved her and how much she cared for people. She was small in stature but had an enormous heart. She was feisty, sincere, very blunt and empathetic and, as is often the case with caring people, always put the welfare of others before herself. Holroyd Community Aid lost its government funding in 2015, but Narelle made sure it stayed open, staying late every night trying to find a solution. It's hard to imagine that the centre would still be providing emergency relief services to the community without Narelle's tireless work. I send my sincere condolences to Narelle's family and all of those at Holroyd Community Aid, particularly the people whose lives she touched and the volunteers she inspired so much. We will miss you, Narelle. Thank you for all that you've done.
Bennelong By-Election
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:47): It's a real honour to serve as the member for Bennelong. The last few months of 2017 were chaotic. I say thank you to everyone who supported me, backed our campaign and voted for me as Bennelong's representative. Again I apologise to everyone for the inconvenience caused by this by-election. In the coming weeks I will have a lot to say about the people who helped us win this by-election; however, I start today, this new year of our parliament, with strong advice from the good people of Bennelong. They are concerned about the nature of political debate in this country. To use an analogy from my previous career, the Nadal-Federer rivalry has taken tennis to new heights. When Federer won the 2017 championship over Nadal, in one of their greatest matches, he lamented that the game of tennis was cruel and demands a loser. They speak of each other with great respect, despite being great rivals, and they play for great prizes, and together they have constructed a great following. The nature of their competition is productive.
The major parties must take responsibility for our declining fortunes. We should replace destructive debate with constructive engagement. Ultimately, victory shouldn't go to the greatest slanderer; it should go to the team that presents the best vision for Australia—not a competition of insults but a competition of ideas.
Canberra Electorate: Broadband
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:48): Last week NBN Co updated its rollout map, forcing Canberrans to face yet another delay in connecting to the technology patchwork that is the NBN. My community suffers from some of the worst internet speeds in the country. A further delay means these homes won't be connected for at least another 12 months. It's a slap in the face for the suburbs hoping to be connected this year and only further entrenches the digital divide this government has created in my community, with its patchwork of technology, second-rate copper and lack of transparency in the rollout decisions.
Canberrans, if you live in one of these suburbs, you can thank the Turnbull government that you now have to wait until between January and June 2019 at least for the NBN to roll out: Greenway, Monash, Bonython, Isabella Plains, Gordon, Calwell, Conder, Banks, Theodore, Richardson, Chisholm, Gilmore, Gowrie, Macarthur, Fadden and Parkes. In parts of Narrabundah, Forrest, Kingston, Red Hill, Barton and Griffith, small pockets of the rollout have taken place and will continue later this year, but most people in these suburbs will also be kept waiting until next year. Minister for Communications and NBN Co, you are both on notice. I am seeking answers. It's time to come clean. Canberrans deserve to know what is happening with the NBN, and they deserve to know why the constant delay. (Time expired)
Bougias, Mr Lou
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:50): On Australia Day, I was able to honour more than 50 local people who've made outstanding contributions to the community, including Lou Bougias. His story came to light following a Facebook post by Henry Dow, who described him as 'a genuine hero' on the day of the 2017 Bourke Street tragedy. On 20 January last year, Lou was waiting for his next job at the cab rank outside the RACV City Club when a car careered its way through the busy lunchtime crowd on Bourke Street. Bystanders stood in shock and were unsure how to help, but Lou knew exactly what to do. He immediately went to the aid of five victims, keeping them calm until the arrival of emergency services, while providing directions to others who had joined in to help.
His reaction has become one of the most inspirational acts of courage to emerge from the aftermath. On Facebook, Henry Dow wrote about Lou:
Administering first aid with me, under that skinny little tree, is a man named Lou: he is everything great and courageous you have seen, heard or read, rolled into one authentically humble bloke.
Today he's still in touch with the other first responders on that day and is keen to start an annual fundraising soccer match dedicated to the two children who died. Lou took command as he witnessed widespread horror, and the community generally owes a great debt of gratitude to him for what he did that day in January 2017.
Centrelink
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:51): You know when you sort of wake up and think: 'Just how disastrous is this government? What's next?' I think a lot of people would think, 'Seriously, can the government have spent $430,000 on an American based consultant to try to investigate why it is Centrelink aren't answering the phones?' But guess what? They actually have. Rather than directly employing people to answer the phones, they've spent money on a consultant who presumably has just said exactly what the rest of Australia has: you need to employ more people to answer the phones.
Just how bad is it in Centrelink, and how hard is it on the hardworking staff of Centrelink? Last financial year alone, there were 55 million unanswered calls where people got the busy signal—55 million unanswered calls. The people making these calls are constituents in all of our electorates. It's quite easy for this government to fix this: stop wasting money on consultants, as you've done in this case, and spend it on directly employing people to work in our Smart Centres. We have a Smart Centre Centrelink agency in Bendigo. There is one in Cairns. They are all over regional Australia. Here is a really good way to create good, secure jobs in our region: directly employ more people in Centrelink so that we can get the phones answered and get the support for people when they need it.
Chisholm Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (13:53): On Australia Day some very special Chisholm residents were acknowledged as part of our nation's honours system. Professor David Kissane was made a Companion of the Order of Australia for eminent service to psychiatry, particularly psycho-oncology and palliative medicine. Professor Rhys Jones was made a Companion of the Order of Australia for eminent service to mechanical and aerospace engineering and to education. Dr Margaret Gale was made a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to children who are blind or who have low vision, and as an educator. The following Chisholm residents received the Medal of the Order of Australia: Ms Susan Natoli for services to canoeing, including significant contributions in international and national competitions; and Mr Walter Van Nieuwkuyk for services to the performing arts, including as executive producer of numerous iconic productions.
I'd also like to acknowledge Whitehorse Young Citizen of the Year Michaela Clare-Cover, and the Whitehorse Community Achievement Award recipient, David Knowles, who were both recognised for their outstanding contribution to the community with Australia Day civic awards. Finally, I recognise and congratulate the Eastern Gymnastics Club in Box Hill South, who received, for the second year in a row, the Whitehorse sports and recreation trophy for outstanding and supportive inclusion of gymnasts of all ages and abilities. I join all Chisholm residents in congratulating these deserving award recipients, and I look forward to hosting them at an upcoming morning tea in their honour.
Biosecurity
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (13:54): Earlier today, the members for Braddon, Bass and Lyons made an appeal to governments, plural, to start taking Australia's biosecurity more seriously. Their immediate concern is the incursion of fruit fly into Tasmania for the first time, which will be devastating or potentially devastating for the Apple Isle. This comes soon after the outbreak of white spot disease in our prawn sector in Queensland.
There is much talk in this place and, indeed, in the parliament in Hobart about the wonderful opportunities presented to us by growing global demand for quality food. Those opportunities are indeed significant. But our key competitive advantage—and we do have significant competitors—is our reputation as a provider of clean, green, safe food. If we were ever to lose that reputation and that competitive advantage, of course, no-one in our agricultural sector would be able to compete on the international markets as they do today.
If you do a google search on ChAFTA and the free trade agreements with Japan and South Korea, along with Barnaby Joyce or David Littleproud or even the Prime Minister, you will get plenty of results. But do a google search on the member for New England and biosecurity and I guarantee you will find very few results. Until this government starts taking biosecurity seriously, we'll be undermined in our efforts in international markets. (Time expired)
Mallee Electorate: Air Ambulance Transfer Station
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (13:56): The people I serve are the people who live in Mallee. I always say they should be able to drive on a decent road, make a mobile phone call, have good educational opportunities for their children and know that, if they go to the doctor, there will be one there. I care about their health, and I will be looking forward to working with the minister for regional development to redirect the little bit of money that we have left over from the building of the Mildura runway upgrade. We've upgraded the runway, which has been essential, but what we want is an air ambulance transfer station.
Currently, with a population of 65,000 people, we have three air ambulances a day transporting people generally to Melbourne to hospitals. In the last few weeks it's averaged over 44 degrees each day, being very hot. If you have a subdural haemorrhage, the transfer time to move you from an ambulance to an air ambulance can be upward of an hour. That is upward of an hour on a tarmac of 44 degrees. So I look forward to an air ambulance transfer station coming to my patch. Essentially, an ambulance can pull into a shed where it's air-conditioned and do the transfer and then the patient can be loaded onto the plane and taken to hospital in Melbourne.
I care about the health of the people I represent. I don't think it's too much to ask that people who live in regional Australia have these sorts of facilities so that, when we move them from large population bases to the health services we have in our cities, they are transferred in a way that is mindful of the climate conditions that they have to be transferred in on the tarmacs of our airports.
Rural and Regional Australia
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:57): We've got to do something this year about growing inequality in this country. It's a problem. The Prime Minister is blind to it, but the rest of parliament should not be. If you live in rural or regional Australia, chances are you are doing it tough. If you're in the top 20 per cent of income earners, you probably live in the city. If you're in the bottom 20 per cent of income earners, you probably live in rural or remote Australia. That leads to life expectancy—there's a three-year gap in life expectancy between people who live in the bush and people who live in the city. It blows out to 10 years if you're looking at rural and remote Australia.
When the government set up the National Stronger Regions Fund in 2014 we thought it was a good idea, because it was targeted at addressing inequality between the city and the bush. There was $620 million to address growing inequality. Can you imagine our surprise when we learnt this week that 20 per cent of that funding has been diverted away from rural and regional projects to go to some of the wealthiest electorates in this country? Nothing says rural and regional like the electorate of Kooyong, where they siphoned $3.2 million away from needy electorates to fund a project in the minister's electorate. In the electorate of Warringah, there was $10 million for a similar project. So we've got to do more, and the National Party needs to be more than a group of blokes in big hats—they've got to deliver for regional Australia. (Time expired)
Gordon, Mr Michael
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:59): Mr Speaker, there's a space up there in the press gallery. He walked me into the San Remo Hotel. He took me through to the back. He walked me up to the Channel Challenge honour board. There on the Channel Challenge honour board, for 1986: 'M Gordon—competitor, winner'. He won the inaugural Channel Challenge, the sister race to the one he died in on Saturday. Michael's zest for life was inescapably infectious, his loss inescapably immeasurable. He loved this country; he wrote for a kinder, more reasonable and compassionate nation. There was no condemnation in Michael, not even qualified condemnation. He didn't even say to you: 'Look, I disagree with you on this. However, how are you?' No, it was always about you. Ted put it beautifully in The Age today: 'He was wise with words, wild in the pool and warm with the world.'
He was working on a project on John Howard and Julia Gillard. It was like he had a new toy, a new opportunity; it was like his first piece ever. His love for Robyn, the kids and little Harry just oozed out of him the whole time. He was an amazing person. He had friends right across this House everywhere. I'm going to miss him and I know all those around him will miss him terribly. He was a fine, fine, fine man and one of the people who have been so grateful and honoured. He honoured me and all of those around him. He honoured this place. He honoured us in his death.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
CONDOLENCES
Conquest, Mr Bryan Joseph
Bjelke-Petersen, Lady Florence Isabel 'Flo'
The SPEAKER (14:01): I inform the House of the deaths of Bryan Joseph Conquest, a former member of this House, and Florence Isabel, Lady Bjelke-Petersen, a former senator. Bryan Joseph Conquest died on 2 January of this year. He represented the division of Hinkler between 1984 and 1987. Lady Bjelke-Petersen died on 20 December 2017. She represented the state of Queensland from 1981 until 1993. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, I invite all members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:02): by leave—I move:
That statements on indulgence in relation to Florence Isabel, Lady Bjelke-Petersen be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
Cohen, Hon. Barry, AM
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:02): I move:
That the House record its deep regret at the death, on 18 December 2017, of the Honourable Barry Cohen AM, a former Minister and Member of this House for the Division of Robertson from 1969 to 1990, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Today we pay tribute to a man who understood the power and indeed the necessity of laughter. Warm and hearty, unrestrained and blissful, soft and controlled, Barry Cohen courted laughter in all its forms. He did so with a sharp wit and an endless store of anecdotes. That's how he connected with his constituents and his fellow parliamentarians, how he inspired hope and kept two feet on the ground. In a good lesson to us all, he didn't take any of us too seriously and particularly he didn't take himself too seriously. It was a humour that flowed from a joy of life and was complemented by the deeper, sweeter tones of a man who felt acutely and cared profoundly. For 21 years in Canberra and eight decades of life, that was the Barry Cohen Australians knew, and we were richer for it.
He entered parliament as one of Gough Whitlam's '69ers—passionate, determined and keen to contribute to a new vision of society in the nation. However, his was not a typical story. He came to Canberra with a resume as eclectic as his humour—a golfer, a squash court manager, a television sports commentator and a postman, just to name a few, and of course there was his menswear store. His dapper appearance, of course, is still remembered—always perfectly dressed.
He made his mark by staying true to who he was. His great friend and fellow Labor Party member Fred Daly offered him some early advice which the Leader of the Opposition recalled earlier today. As the Leader of the Opposition said, Barry was very wise to ignore it, but the advice was, 'If you want to make it, cut out the comedy'—one of the few occasions, I imagine, that the Leader of the Opposition would concede that Fred Daly's advice was wisely ignored! Nonetheless, Barry Cohen did it his way and he succeeded.
Following Labor's victory at the 1983 federal election, he was appointed Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment and then Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment. He served as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial from December 1984 to July 1987. He secured lasting policy achievements, particularly for the environment. During his tenure, the government handed back Uluru to its traditional owners, doubled the size of the Kakadu National Park and extended the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. He had a passion for fairness and he was always, throughout his career—beginning, as his son reminded us today, with his maiden speech—a powerful advocate for the rights and the advancement of our First Australians.
Of course, as a proud Jewish man, he understood very personally discrimination, and that informed his perspective and he carried that throughout his life. He wrote prodigiously and well and entertainingly in the Bulletin, in The Australian and, of course, in his many books. Her pursued his writing talent for over 30 years and it continued even after Alzheimer's cast its long shadow. An article he wrote in late 2014 in The Australian is a particularly powerful and poignant one. He said there that he expected he would never hear the cry, 'Eureka, we've found the cure to Alzheimer's!' and he was right. He hoped it would be so, but he didn't expect it. But he did use his voice to fight for better awareness and support for Australians with dementia. His writing opened up the door on what had previously been the very private pain of those who lived with Alzheimer's and dementia. But his humour remained when former Prime Minister John Howard called on Barry to check on his welfare. Mr Howard asked what life was like in the nursing home. Barry replied, 'It's like question time.'
To Barry's beloved wife, Rae, and his adored family, with whom we were, just a few hours ago, in Old Parliament House, I offer the heartfelt sympathy of this parliament and the thanks of the nation for his public service.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): I thank the Prime Minister for his tribute just then and his words at today's memorial service down the hill in the Old Parliament House. It was a mourning worthy of the man—full of warmth, humour, love of family and pride in his Jewish faith. It was a celebration of a life dedicated to others, spent in the service of Labor values. Barry Cohen leaves a legacy of extraordinary public service, particularly as Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment, where his passion helped secure the future of south-west Tasmania, Uluru, Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef for future generations. But, thanks to his prodigious output as a columnist and author, Barry will always live on as one of Australia's finest chroniclers of a politician's daily mini-disasters—the high wit and the low farce of this place, the world stage and the campaign trail. He had a brilliant eye for the humour which makes politics human. Barry's Gough Whitlam impersonation was always in high demand on the branch meeting circuit, a talent only exceeded by his knack for self-deprecation.
Barry loved retelling an anecdote, so I'm sure he wouldn't be offended if I repeat a story from this morning. He was always extremely proud of his background in menswear and the insights he gained from owning and running a small business. Back when he started his first menswear shop, in Gordon in 1959, a friend suggested that he visit another shop on the Pacific Highway that specialised in artistic bric-a-brac, to add some character to the interior of his own shop. It just so happened that Barry had known the shop owners for a long time. In his view, they were a respectable middle-class family, but their 18-year-old son, Brett, was a five-star nutter. Anyway, Barry bought a few different pieces, and on his way out the owner asked if he'd be interested in purchasing some of his son's paintings. He pointed to five that were hanging in the shop, 15 quid each, or all five for 60 pounds. Barry said: 'I don't know much about art; I wasn't about to be conned by an old codger trying to sell his son's paintings.' So he simply replied: 'It's kind of you to offer but no, thank you, Mr Whiteley.' No wonder Bob appointed him Minister for the Arts!
Mr Speaker, very soon question time will resume for 2018; with it, all the familiar colour and movement, the sound and the fury and the outrage. But for this moment, as we remember Barry Cohen, let us also remember a truth that he knew: this parliament can also be a place for the increasingly lost art of humour, warmth and friendship across party lines. Because, for all the daily skirmishes of politics lost and won, we're only just passing through, and what matters is not the duration of our service or how high we rise in the ranks; it's what we do here for our communities. It's the contribution we leave behind for future generations. Barry knew that. It's why, for him, Alzheimer's wasn't a personal grievance; it was a policy challenge: his last great campaign on behalf of people at the margins. Barry Cohen's legacy—standing up for the equal treatment of our First Australians, championing Australian culture, protecting our natural heritage and the conservation of our national landmarks, and demanding a better deal for older Australians—will live long after him and us.
We honour his service. We offer our love and thanks to his wife, Rae, and his boys—the family he adored. May he rest in peace.
The SPEAKER: As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:12): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
I'd like to acknowledge the family of Barry Cohen who came into the chamber during the contributions from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I had the great pleasure of being at the memorial service this morning as Leader of the House. To Rae, Adam, Stuart and Martin: it's great to have you here in the House.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Question agreed to.
Gordon, Mr Michael
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:12): Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to acknowledge the passing of Michael Gordon on 3 February, a few days ago. I want to note the beautifully eloquent and poignant remarks of the member for McMillan just before the beginning of question time.
We were, all of us, shocked and saddened—astonished, really—by Michael's death on the weekend. He was gentle; he was wise; he was always calm, in a business not known for calm. A great man, a good man, a great writer and mentor. In the maelstrom of a newsroom, as political stories broke and events moved and shifted, Mickey was the personification of calm. He was able to do that rarest of things under pressure: reflect on what was before him, rather than rush to judgement. There was one exception, of course, when it came to Hawthorn. In all matters football, there was only one way—the brown and the gold. In that characteristic Victorian style, his mood on Monday would depend on the scoreboard at the weekend. It was never far from conversation, and the end of one season was merely the starting point to live in hope for the next.
Michael had strong views—very strong convictions—about what was right and wrong, but he was a professional, and his research and interviewing were always designed to draw out from his subject, to learn and understand, not to hector or to trick—even if, in the end, he didn't agree. He took younger journalists under his wing, teaching by example, encouraging them, introducing them to the great and powerful, and sharing the by-line.
Despite numerous awards during his career, including the Walkley award last year, Michael Gordon never succumbed to hubris. When he retired last year he attempted to sneak out the back door to avoid the fuss, and in his concluding column he spoke of his immense gratitude to his beloved Age newspaper, to his wise colleagues and 'to the readers who shared in my adventures'. Michael's work was always in service to the Australian people. And it's important to remember, as we're about to embark on question time—many question times, for another year, as the Leader of the Opposition said—that the role of the media and of courageous journalists like Michael Gordon is as vital a part of our democracy as the work that we do here in this chamber.
The tributes that have poured out since his untimely death are testament to the quality of the man—the power of his grin and the sparkle in his eye that reminded those who knew him that life was precious and to be enjoyed, no matter how serious or momentous the task before you. To his wife, Robyn; his beloved family; and his many friends and colleagues who mourn his loss, so many of us here assembled today and around the nation, I offer the heartfelt sympathy of this parliament and the nation.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:16): On indulgence, I thank the Prime Minister for his words just then. I want to thank all of Michael's colleagues for the tributes that they have penned over the last few days: beautiful words for a man who's given us so many of his own.
It was a mournful digital ripple that started spreading late Saturday morning, early Saturday afternoon, with those sad phone calls: 'Have you heard? Can you believe it? Do you have X's or Y's number so we can tell them the sad news? They'd want to know.' I'm sure many had the same reaction that I did. I thought, 'Oh, not Mick—so much to do, so much to look forward to.' Shock would best describe the reaction because, even in those first moments, we also knew what we had lost. He was a person of complete integrity, absolutely trustworthy, an honest soul and a compassionate one.
Mick took the best side of everybody, and I think he believed in the fundamental decency of politics. You knew that if you told him something it wouldn't mysteriously pop up somewhere else. As a journalist he never chose to put himself at the centre of things or make himself the star. He wasn't interested in sensationalism or sneering. He was a genuine reporter; he cared about the story. He was an understated, earnest man who, in that understated, earnest way, gave the reader the respect of intelligence. When an article had Michael's by-line, you knew that what was written was sincerely believed and to be believed. And, if he was critical of you, it was genuine; you were being weighed and measured by the very best. I count myself lucky that I knew Mick well enough that I could ring him up and receive his good and honest advice, even if it wasn't always what I wanted to hear. In those conversations—and I know many of us shared them with him—he was a man who saw the whole picture, whose craft was distilling his panoramic view into a snapshot where not a single word was wasted.
I think he was at his very best when shining a light into the dark corners of our nation's soul, from the shocking allegations on Manus to the daily injustices facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Without Mick's courage and intellect, his capacity to be both the recorder and the translator, I don't believe those issues would have received anywhere near the attention that they warranted. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the way that Mick wrote about the First Australians, not from the air-conditioned comfort of a Canberra office but out there on the ground. He planted himself in the red dust and he absorbed the wisdom of people who live with disadvantage and strive every day to overcome it.
There wasn't cynicism in Mick's work—no long litany of hopeless cases or lost causes. He didn't shirk hard truths, but he found the joy and the hope and the optimism too. I think he had a gift of describing a universal humanity, and therefore invited us, the readers, to share responsibility.
The press is fundamental to nurturing our democracy and to holding our parliament accountable. The quality of our national debate is, in part, defined by the quality of journalism, and, in the end, great journalism depends upon great journalists. Michael Gordon was genuinely one of these. I think he will be recorded as one of the great journalists of the generation, and of any generation. It is such a terrible shame that we're all denied the third act of his writing life. It is so sad that Mick and his family have been robbed of the long days of leisure that he so thoroughly deserved. Our love and condolences to Robyn and his family. May he rest in peace.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:20): by leave—I move:
That further statements in relation to the death of Michael Gordon be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Taxation
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:21): My question is to the Prime Minister. Last year company profits increased by 20 per cent while average wages for Australians increased by just two per cent, so why is the Prime Minister giving the top end of town a $65 billion tax cut while increasing taxes on ordinary workers by up to $300 every year?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:21): I thank the honourable member for his question. It's good to know that he's got the same questions he had last year. Nothing has changed over the break, but there is one little difference—actually, it's rather a big difference. About a year ago the Leader of the Opposition was at the Press Club, and he gave a speech. He said 2017 would be all about jobs, jobs, jobs. How about 403,000 new jobs? How about that—403,000 new jobs last year, with three-quarters of them full time? It is the largest annual jobs growth since records began, because of the policies that we have put in place that are encouraging businesses to invest and employ. Business confidence and consumer confidence are all at highs, and yet we have a Labor leader who is the most anti-business Labor leader we've seen in generations.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: The member for Isaacs is chuckling there, because he knows I'm being too generous. He's probably the most anti-business Labor leader forever. This guy has declared war on business. He went to the Business Council of Australia and told them they could expect nothing from him. And, indeed, this is the man that, a year ago in that memorable speech at the Press Club, described the Trans-Pacific Partnership as absolutely dead. He said, 'Why is the Prime Minister wasting his time trying to do CPR on the TPP?' 'It's worse than a vanity project,' he said. Well, it's agreed: the TPP is underway with 11 nations—we regret the absence of the US—opening up more opportunities for exports, for investment and for jobs. He has opposed the legislation that has gone through this parliament in the course of the last 18 months, which is creating those 403,000 jobs—the tax cuts are for small and medium, overwhelmingly family-owned, Australian businesses. These are businesses that are investing and employing, and the Leader of the Opposition wants to take those tax cuts away. He wants businesses to pay more tax. He wants families to pay more tax. He wants more tax on investment and on property. He does not have one policy to encourage one business to invest one dollar or hire one employee. Jobs, jobs, jobs—we delivered them— (Time expired)
Employment
Economy
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:24): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's policies are driving jobs, investment and economic growth, including in my electorate of Robertson?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:25): I thank the honourable member for her question. Around the country, Australians, families and businesses are seeing the benefits of the economic leadership we promised to deliver and we are delivering. And, whether it is in the honourable member's electorate or in the electorates of all honourable members, we are starting to see confidence growing, investment growing and jobs being created.
Now, 403,000 jobs were created last year. That is 1,100 more jobs, in fact, every day. That is a level of growth in employment we have never seen before in Australia. Participation is up. Employment is up. We talk about wage rises, and we are looking to see now, this year, the growth in wages that a stronger economy will deliver. There are 403,000 Australians who got a good pay rise last year. They all got a job—403,000 Australians who did not have a job got into work, and that is a consequence of the leadership we provided.
We see today the ANZ job ads index. That's out today. That shows job advertisements are now nearly 14 per cent higher than a year ago. What that means is that employers are looking for labour; they're looking for employees; they're looking—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: The honourable member opposite is mocking people looking for jobs. Labour hire—she likes to despise it. It is extraordinary, isn't it! It's extraordinary. This class of professional apparatchiks, all of them brought up through the union movement—none of them work. They think manual labour is a Mexican bandit. As the Deputy Prime Minister says, they've abandoned labourers; they've abandoned workers; and they'll be abandoning a lot more of them as they race to the left to hold the seat of Batman. That will be great! We'll see Ged Kearney now. She is going to be writing Labor's new economic policy: down with profits, down with bosses, down with companies and down with business.
That is the new policy of the Labor Party—rushing off to the left and leaving behind the Australians that need a job, that need a chance and that need new markets so the businesses they work for can export to them. They need the opportunities we're creating. We are starting to see the strong growth, the better times ahead, that the Treasurer spoke about last year. We're starting to see them, and we need to stay the course. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:28): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Michael Lee, former minister and former member for Dobell. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Taxation
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:28): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister increasing taxes on ordinary working Australians by about $300 every year at the same time as wages growth is at record lows?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:28): I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member clearly wasn't paying attention when the parliament increased the $80,000 tax threshold to $87,000, taking half a million middle-income Australians out of going into the second-highest top tax bracket. That was middle-income tax relief already delivered and legislated—no thanks to the Labor Party, of course. Perhaps she's overlooked the way in which we have ensured that, for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth, we have a schools funding policy that is consistent with the recommendations of David Gonski and delivers national, consistent, needs based funding to every school so that, regardless of what system it's in or what state it's in, if it has the same needs it'll get the same funding. This is what the honourable member for Sydney used to talk about. The Labor Party never delivered it. We have delivered it and are delivering billions of dollars of additional funding to schools. Now, of course, in making sure every young Australian has the opportunity to realise their dreams and get ahead according to their likes, what we are doing is ensuring that, with Gonski 2.0, the second part of that study, we will get the recommendations to ensure we get the value and the outcomes in terms of better teaching from that massive additional investment.
The honourable member opposite, when she talked about the cost of living, failed to note that Labor have opposed the National Energy Guarantee. They opposed our action on gas. They mocked our action with retailers. Thousands of Australian families are already saving hundreds of dollars on their energy bills thanks to our efforts and the efforts in particular of the energy minister. And, despite, no doubt, the reservations of the member for Eden-Monaro, they have mocked Snowy 2.0, the biggest battery ever built in the Southern Hemisphere and one that will make renewables reliable.
There is not one part of our policy, whether it is on energy, whether it is on tax or whether it is on investment, that is not delivering better times for Australians and reducing the pressure of higher household expenses and living costs. What about child care? Labor voted against that and yet it is delivering more affordable child care for Australians and families on lower and lower-middle incomes. Now, of course, they want to roll back the tax cuts on small and medium businesses. These are not huge businesses but they employ more than half of the private sector workforce, and we're seeing that growth— (Time expired)
Economy
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (14:32): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on implementation of the government's plan to grow the economy to support more and better paid jobs, including the more than 400,000 jobs in 2017? Is the Treasurer aware of any impediments to this plan?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:32): I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. Last year was a record year for jobs growth in Australia. On this side of the House we celebrate every single day that Australians get a job, and last year 1,100 jobs were created every single day, and more than 100,000 of those jobs were in Queensland. More than 100,000 jobs were created in Queensland last year of those 400,000 jobs. Three out of four of those jobs were full time and seven out of 10 of those jobs were in the private sector. Businesses were employing Australians at record levels in 2017. About this time last year, the Leader of the Opposition pumped himself up at the Press Club and said, '2017 has got to be about jobs, jobs and jobs.' Well, we created 403,000 of them, Leader of the Opposition, by sensible economic policies that were supporting a resurgence in business investment in this country.
Consumer confidence today is at the highest level in four years. Business confidence is at twice the long-run average. Retail trade surged strongly again in November of last year. New private business investment is growing at the strongest rate since the peak of the mining investment boom in 2012. Today we saw, in the AiG index, the strongest start to a calendar year for the services industry in around 14 years. Let's not forget that 80 per cent of the jobs in this country are in the services industry.
2018 will be a year of economic opportunity for Australians and Australian businesses. The coalition government, led by the Prime Minister, is absolutely positive about the opportunities for Australians as the global economy and the domestic economy continue to strengthen. Everything we do as a government is aimed at enabling Australians and Australian businesses to seize those opportunities that are out there to create more and better-paid jobs for Australians, as occurred last year.
We have a positive view. Those opposite, the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition, have a very bleak view, they have a very small view, they have a very negative view about what can be achieved in this country by Australians and Australian businesses. They don't see the opportunities as we see them, and that's why they can't be trusted to seize them if they were ever to return to the treasury bench. They have a wet-blanket view of the Australian economy, and they are standing in the way of Australians realising their economic opportunities by standing in the way of our plans to reduce taxes, which will lead to more jobs and better-paying jobs for all Australians. They don't have an economic plan to grow the economy; they just have an envy plan to dice it up and spread it around in accordance with their own prejudices. (Time expired)
Mining
Mr BURKE (Watson) (14:35): My question is for the Minister for the Environment and Energy. I refer to reports that Adani tampered with scientific evidence in relation to contamination of sensitive wetlands with coal-laden water. Is the government investigating this matter, who is conducting the investigation and will it report publicly?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:36): The shadow minister knows that is a state matter. We on this side of the House conducted the most rigorous environmental assessment on the Adani mine, and it led to 36 of the strictest requirements. As a result of the Adani mine's going ahead, thousands of people will be employed in regional Queensland, in Mackay, in Hughenden and in Townsville—and where are those opposite standing up for workers in their electorates? In fact, the Leader of the Opposition once said that Adani should go ahead. He was in favour of the Adani project, but because Mr Feeney, the then member for Batman, lost his homework and subsequently resigned from his seat, and now they're in a battle with the Greens, he's had to move his policies to the left in order to placate the green left flank of the Labor Party. It's a state matter. We continue to impose the most rigorous environmental assessments.
Batman By-Election
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:37): My question is to the Prime Minister. For four decades the trickle-down troika of Labor, Liberal and big business have sold off public assets with privatisation after privatisation, but with power bills up, people in more debt and jobs less secure, people are certainly feeling something trickling down on them from above—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. I can't hear the question. The member for Melbourne will begin his question again.
Mr BANDT: For four decades the trickle-down troika of Labor, Liberal and big business have sold off public assets with privatisation after privatisation, but with power bills up, people in more debt and jobs less secure, people are certainly feeling something trickling down on them from above, but it's not wealth. Prime Minister, wasn't Bernie Sanders right when he said that the electricity grid should be in public hands, because it's an essential service, and shouldn't be run for profit? Isn't it time to stand up for refugees, equality and a safe climate, by bringing a bit of Bernie to Batman and electing the Greens' Alex Bhathal?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the Prime Minister, could members on both sides cease interjecting while I rule on the question. Of course, as is often the case in 45 seconds, there are a number of questions there. The Prime Minister can choose to ignore the last part of the question. That was a political advertisement rather than a question.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:39): I thank the very alliterative member for Melbourne for his question. On the second go-through, Mr Speaker, thanks to your restoring order in the House, we were able to listen carefully to the question. I couldn't find anything in it that the Labor candidate for Batman, Ged Kearney, would disagree with! I was wondering whether the Manager of Opposition Business had dropped some speaking notes from the Labor Batman campaign. Nationalising the energy grid—I've heard Ged Kearney talk about that. It has a certain retro aspect to it. I think we've all learnt that nationalisation and state intervention of that kind has not been successful. I know that in the Greens party they hanker for the good old times—they want to get back to the USSR—but that's all over, sadly from their point of view and happily from everybody else's.
The reality is this: we see now from the member for Melbourne the perfect synthesis between the Greens party and the left of the Labor Party. We've seen it foreshadowed with the question from the member for Watson. We'll see the Labor Party moving further and further to the left—closer to the member for Melbourne—so that they can try to present themselves as a sort of Green-Labor party for the people of Batman to consider. But the reality is this: the people whose jobs the honourable member's policies would threaten, were they ever to be put in place, will see through the Greens. They'll see through the Greens right through to the Australian Labor Party, because the Australian Labor Party has now taken up this left-wing, antibusiness, anti-free-enterprise approach which is calculated, and indeed designed, to destroy thousands of jobs and thousands of opportunities. The very jobs we're creating, the honourable member's philosophy would destroy. It will be a very interesting contest in the seat of Batman, with both the honourable member's candidate and the Leader of the Opposition's candidate hurtling off to the left in pursuit of Bernie Sanders.
Inland Rail
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Deputy Speaker) (14:42): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the government's progress on delivering the Inland Rail project? How is it creating jobs for hardworking Australians across the nation? Is he aware of any threats to the delivery of this project?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Leader of The Nationals) (14:42): I thank the honourable member for his question. I commend the honourable member for Parkes on his continued support for the Inland Rail going right back to his start in the political fray, where he was fighting for the Inland Rail. Now we are going to be part of a government that's actually delivering on the Inland Rail. We're delivering in a form that is ever present. During the break we went out and were unloading lengths of steel, 165 metres long, produced by Whyalla steelworkers—making sure we back them in—creating a corridor of commerce from Melbourne up to Brisbane. We are delivering an economic opportunity never seen before in their time to places such as Parkes, which is currently also attracting investment by Pacific National, with a $35 million facility going in there; for places such as Narrabri; and for Toowoomba. It was great to go to Toowoomba the other day and see how enthusiastic they are about connecting Wellcamp up to the Inland Rail to grow another centre of commerce to actually underpin the growth of the regional economies there.
We see that it is on this side of the House where the vision resides. It was this side of the House that had the capacity to find the money and to put it on the table to build the Inland Rail. For the Labor Party—and that's where the threat lies—it is no more than a valuable idea. It's like a Royal Doulton set for the local rugby club: a very valuable idea. But it's never going to happen under the Labor Party, and that's completely present. They don't believe in the workers at Whyalla. They don't believe in someone creating the steel for this Inland Rail. They don't believe in creating new centres of commerce at Parkes or at Wodonga. They don't have a vision for this nation.
We're happy to be part of a government that has committed in excess of $9 billion to fund the Inland Rail. We're happy to be part of a government that is standing behind the 16,000 direct and indirect jobs that will happen during construction. We're happy to be part of a government that stands behind the $16 billion boost to Australia's GDP by reason of this. We're happy to be part of a government that sees, in historic terms, the growth of places such as Fort Worth and Dallas that happened with the increase in rail connectivity there and what is currently happening in places such as Khorgos on the China-Kazakhstan border. We're happy to have a vision for this nation.
It is so vitally important if we are to grow this nation and if we are to take the next step to be a government of vision. We are doing precisely that. Whether it's Badgerys Creek, the inland rail, a duplication of the Pacific and Bruce Highways, the investment in the Warrego Highway that we saw the other day, it is all part of delivering for a nation that has a great future. But that future resides with the coalition government. It's been a compliment to work with the member for Parkes and the member for Riverina, the Deputy Leader of the House, in making sure that we build a stronger nation.
Private Health Insurance
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:46): My question is to the Prime Minister. The cost of private health insurance has never been higher. So why won't the Prime Minister support Labor's plan to cap private health insurance increases, which will save Australian families an average of $340? Why won't the Australian Prime Minister use his power to help Australian families, instead of protecting big private health insurance companies?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:46): The Leader of the Opposition's intentions are perfectly plain, and they were very clear when he spoke at the Press Club last week. When he was asked whether he was going to abolish or restrict further the private health insurance rebate, twice he had the opportunity to say that he was not and that he supported it. He failed to do so. We know what Labor are about. They hate the private health system, they hate private hospitals, they hate patients having choice, they hate people who want to put some money into health insurance to help take care of themselves. They hate that enterprise and that initiative. They have done everything they can to undermine the private health system. This is another typically cynical move by the Labor Party, all soundbite and no substance. In government, Labor cut $4 billion from the rebate and means tested it. Now they want to take an axe to private health insurance with a 16 per cent increase in premiums by abolishing low-cost products and slashing the rebate. That will put up premiums, push people out of private health and into the public system and increase waiting lists in a way that will prejudice and disadvantage millions of families.
One of the most important things when people buy health insurance is that they know the health insurer can fund their treatment when they call upon it. That is why APRA, the Prudential Regulatory Authority, supervises the conduct of private health insurance sector—as they do also the insurance sector generally and in particular private health insurance. The representatives of the private healthcare industry, on 4 February, made this point—and it's a very powerful one and worthy of reflection by honourable members opposite, many of whom I imagine have their private health insurance covered by smaller, union-based, employee-based private health insurance schemes. This is what the industry said:
An enforced premium pathway will put at risk a number of small, employee-based and regional mutual health funds who are already close to breaching prudential reserves. These health funds have been serving their local communities for decades and this election-focused policy will directly threaten their future and competition in the sector. With this level of interference bankruptcies will occur.
They added:
Further, the Opposition Leader should explain how Labor intends to override APRA's strict prudential requirements.
Mr Speaker, we've seen an increase in the premiums, the lowest since 2001—of course, we'd like it to be lower still—but the opposition leader's cynical move will only disadvantage millions of families.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (14:49): My question is for the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and what this agreement means for Australian jobs and economic growth? Is the minister aware of any risk to these benefits?
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (14:50): I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. The member for Capricornia, like so many on this side of the House, was absolutely focused on making sure that we as a government were able to deliver the TPP 11. And we've done it. This side of the House has delivered, consistent with our track record on trade, another major regional agreement that's going to be excellent for exporters in the member's electorate, along with so many other Australians in regional and rural Australia as well as those in new modern areas, in our cities, who are helping drive exports from this country.
We're doing it through the TPP 11 because this agreement will deliver new access into critical markets for Australia. The 11 countries involved, including Australia, represent more than $13.7 trillion worth of GDP. We will have new export agreements in place, new FTAs, with Canada and with Mexico; we've got new improved market access for our exporters into critical markets, like Canada and Mexico, as well as improved access into, for example, Japan for our beef producers and for our wheat growers. The fact is, across the board, this TPP 11 has been and will be a huge win for Australian exporters.
The member for Capricornia asks if there are any risks. I'm afraid there are. The risks that are presented to Australian exporters are called the Australian Labor Party. The reason the Australian Labor Party is a very real risk when it comes to the TPP 11 is that for years the Australian Labor Party wanted to walk away from this deal. We heard the Leader of the Opposition say, repeatedly, that the TPP was dead. We heard the shadow trade minister say, repeatedly, that the TPP was dead. He turned his back on the TPP just like he turns his back now, because the Australian Labor Party don't want to deal with the facts. The fact is that Labor get the big calls wrong on trade. They got the big call wrong on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which is delivering jobs in export growth. They got the big call wrong on the TPP 11, which will deliver jobs and export growth. So Australians know, when they go to the polls in Batman and when they go to the next general election, they have a choice. It is a choice between a government that is pro trade, pro exports and pro jobs growth, a government that's created over 400,000 jobs, more than 1,100 a day—and those jobs are driven by exports from Capricornia, from Leichhardt and from around this country, by people who are exporting their way to financial success and, in the process, creating more jobs for everyday Australians. The only people that can throw a spanner in the works on that are the Australian Labor Party.
Private Health Insurance
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:53): My question is to the Prime Minister. Some of the big private health insurance companies are making a return on equity of over 20 per cent, a return even larger than the big banks. At the same time, they're charging Australians record amounts for private health insurance. Why is the Prime Minister giving a $65 billion handout to big business, including big insurers, instead of doing something for ordinary Australians who are struggling with the spiralling costs of private health insurance?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:53): You know what? Labor hates private health insurance. Last time they came into government they took an axe to private health insurance. They promised before the election they wouldn't slash the rebate, and when they came in they slashed $4 billion from it. Just to make a virtue of it, here's what the member for Sydney said after they left power: 'Every promise I made I paid for. How did I pay for it? I paid for it by targeting private health insurance.' That's what they think about private health insurance. But what did they do on cost? Here are the private health figures under them: an increase of six per cent, 5.8 per cent, 5.5 per cent, five per cent, 5.6 per cent and 6.2 per cent. Health insurance premiums skyrocketed under Labor, and then there was also the fact that they slashed the rebate—and they want to do it again.
What is their real policy? While we have delivered, after real reform, the lowest change in premiums in 17 years—lower than any year under Labor—their average is more than 40 per cent above what we achieved this year. While that is what we've done, their real policy is to slash the rebate and, on top of that, there is a 16 per cent increase in private health insurance premiums. How does that come about? That comes about because their policy is to abolish low-cost choice-of-doctor premiums. That's their policy. It's clear; it's outright; it's absolute. Their policy is a 16 per cent increase.
What we saw yesterday was a con, a game and a smokescreen to pretend that they could keep some headline rate. But here's what the industry has said. The industry has said (a) that it would be disastrous; (b) after two years it would lead to double-digit premium increases; and (c) most significantly, as we have heard from the head of the AMA, a reduction in the quality of the product. What does that mean? It means higher out-of-pocket costs and fewer services. The very people who most rely on private health, those who have to go to hospital, are the ones who would be eviscerated by this policy—with higher out-of-pocket costs and less coverage. This isn't just an ideologically foolish policy. It isn't just an economically irresponsible policy. It is an utterly dangerous assault on health care for those Australians who have the most need of private health insurance.
Sometimes you get it wrong and sometimes you make a disastrous foray, as these people on that side have done. It's time for the opposition leader to recant the foolishness of last week. He got caught out at the Press Club and he made policy on the run without consultation on the weekend—and, in the end, 13 million Australians will suffer.
Defence Industry
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (14:56): My question is for the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on the government's Defence Export Strategy and its ambition to make Australian defence exports among the best in the world? How will this plan give defence companies the support they need to achieve export success and support sustainable jobs?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:57): I thank the member for Wright for his question. The House would know that this government is investing $200 billion over the next 10 years in the greatest build-up of our military capability in our peacetime history. While our first priority is always the capability of the Australian Defence Force, which we put first and foremost, our second priority in spending $200 billion on the greatest military build-up in our peacetime history is using that heft to create jobs—manufacturing, advanced technology and highly skilled work—in the manufacturing sector for the Australian workforce and the Australian economy. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity—always putting capability first. Unlike previous governments, the Turnbull government is committed to doing as much as possible of that here, because of the opportunities it creates to drive jobs, wealth and growth in our economy.
The next logical step, of course, is to expand that to defence industry as an export part of our economy, and that is what the government has committed to. We want to see defence exports as an opportunity to see through the peaks and troughs of domestic demand in our own economy and ensure that corporations that are investing right now in the equipment, the workforce and the tenders that they want to win can see through the troughs and the peaks of our domestic demand to be a force for manufacturing for decades into the future.
Over the summer, the Turnbull government released the Defence Export Strategy, which aims to take us from the 20th largest exporter in the world to being in the top 10 defence exporters in the world. It contains a defence advocate; a defence exports office, for the first time; a $3.8 billion export finance investment corporation loan facility, if it's required—which I'm managing with the Minister for Trade, who has done such a magnificent job with the TPP 11—and an $80 million commitment over four years to doing what we've never done before, which is to seriously attempt to get defence exports into our economy. We do it because it creates jobs, it creates wealth and it creates income for Australians to pay for their school fees, their mortgages, their rent, their groceries and medicines for their family.
This stands in stark contrast to Labor, the Rip Van Winkle years of defence—the six years under the Labor Party where they never made one decision—not one decision—to promote either defence exports or defence industry. Not one ship or submarine was commissioned by the Labor Party in six years, in contrast to the 54 from this side of the House. Labor doesn't support the TPP, it didn't support the China free trade agreement, and it doesn't support defence exports. (Time expired)
Housing Affordability
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:00): My question is to the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister and the Treasurer both claimed that Labor's reforms to negative gearing would be like a sledgehammer to property prices. Why were the Prime Minister and Treasurer claiming one thing publicly while receiving different Treasury advice behind closed doors? Why is it that the government's only answer to Australians struggling to buy their first home is to mislead them about policies that will actually help them?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (15:00): I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to answer this question. House price growth in Sydney has fallen from 17 per cent per year to down to less than three per cent in the last 12 months. That followed the targeted, calibrated, interventions by APRA to deal with the overheating that had been caused in the Sydney and Melbourne markets. It was a targeted, tailored intervention that was about ensuring that the hotter investment activity in those markets could be curtailed and we could have a soft landing in the Australian housing market. So, it's gone from 17 per cent down to three per cent. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer are now saying that on top of that we should abolish negative gearing and increase the capital gains tax by 50 per cent—on top of that! So, if it's fallen to less than three per cent, how far do you want to see property prices fall in this country and undermine consumer confidence, which is at the highest level in four years?
What the shadow Treasurer has been exposed for through his question today is that this isn't about housing affordability. Abolishing negative gearing isn't about housing affordability. Putting up taxes isn't about housing affordability. It is one big fat tax grab from an envy-driven Labor Party that wants to put its hands in the pockets of every mum and dad investor in this country. That's what the shadow Treasurer is about. He can't find enough tax to keep up with the rampant spending from every single member of that frontbench. If he ever got the opportunity to be Treasurer of this country again, he would see those house prices fall as a result. And I mean they would go backwards—not a soft landing but a crash landing under the shadow Treasurer. That's what he's about.
Trade
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (15:02): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Will the minister update the House on the government's efforts to promote economic links between Australia and markets in the Indo-Pacific? Is the minister aware of any examples that generate economic and tourism benefits to Australia, particularly in the electorate of Corangamite?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (15:03): I thank the member for Corangamite for her question and I acknowledge her magnificent advocacy on behalf of the people of Corangamite. The coalition government has an ambitious agenda to drive economic growth and more job opportunities, and we have seen the results: 403,000 new jobs last year. But we are continuing to find new markets and enhance existing markets so that Australian businesses large and small can export their goods and services into the Indo-Pacific region. The potential is enormous, because of the huge and growing middle class in the Indo-Pacific, and Australia is exquisitely positioned to take advantage of these opportunities.
I pay credit to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment for the conclusion of TPP 11, because this will bring enormous job opportunities, particularly into regional Australia. Importantly, TPP 11 includes Malaysia, our 11th largest trading partner.
Yesterday, the member for Corangamite and I attended a very important event at Avalon Airport, where it was announced that AirAsia, Malaysia, will commence twice-daily flights from Kuala Lumpur into Avalon Airport. This will mean enormous opportunities for the area of Geelong and surrounds. It will mean that regional Victoria will have its first international airport. That means more jobs, more business travellers, more tourists and more investment for regional Victoria. It will mean more opportunities for businesses in regional Victoria to sell their quality goods—wine, food and other services and goods—into South-East Asia's very important hub.
I want to congratulate the member for Corangamite for her continued advocacy for this development.
Opposition members: Corio!
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Ms JULIE BISHOP: We mustn't forget that the member for Corio said that this would never happen, and it has happened. The Avalon Airport-AirAsia-Linfox agreement has now occurred under a coalition government. We should never forget that it was the Leader of the Opposition who said the TPP-11 agreement would never happen, and it has happened under the coalition government. The choice is clear. Labor talks down the economy. Labor talks down job opportunities. The coalition supports economic growth and more jobs. (Time expired)
National Integrity Commission
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. All Australians deserve to have confidence in their government, their parliament and, of course, the Commonwealth Public Service. The Prime Minister has indicated that he's open to considering Labor's proposal to establish a National Integrity Commission. Will the Prime Minister join with Labor to begin work on a National Integrity Commission straightaway?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:07): The summer break is a time for reflection and renewal, no doubt, but I don't think the Leader of the Opposition has turned into an anticorruption warrior over the break. This is Sam Dastyari's great defender. It took weeks and weeks and weeks of public pressure and outrage before, finally, he had to cut Senator Dastyari loose and lead him out into the wide blue yonder. He's now, of course, standing up for the integrity of the parliament—he really is! He is standing up for the right of UK citizens to sit in the House of Representatives. That seems to be his current passion. At least David Feeney finally did the right thing and resigned. Of course, it took him a long time. The member for Bennelong did the right thing. He stood up; he resigned and he went to a by-election; and he's back. We welcome him back. It took months and months to get the then member for Batman to resign, and the member for Longman is still hanging in there. It may well be that in the Leader of the Opposition's mind there will always be an England, but there will always be a section 44 as well.
In terms of corruption, more generally, he has blocked integrity measures at every turn—at every single turn. He fought tooth and nail to oppose the reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission—an agency whose job it is to restore the rule of law to the construction sector and stop the CFMEU and other unions, including his own, from continuously flouting the law, standing over builders, standing over developers, standing over tradesmen, standing over the Australian construction industry in a way that has been a disgrace for years. But, of course, they're his biggest political donor, so he has to follow them. And of course he opposed the Registered Organisations Commission, which, again, is doing no more than to ensure that there can't be secret payments from employers to unions. Mr Speaker, you would think—and most people would have assumed—that those measures, which we finally got through the parliament, had always been the law. How could it be legal to pay a secret corrupt payment to a union? Well, it was; it's been rectified, and the Leader of the Opposition wanted to keep it. So we won't be taking lectures on corruption or integrity from this serial offender. (Time expired)
National Security
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (15:10): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of strong and consistent border protection policies for Australia's national security agenda? What are the risks associated with alternative approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:10): I thank the honourable member for his question and for the great work he does in his local community to keep his constituents safe. It's been 1,289 days since the last successful boat arrival to Australia. We are very proud of that fact. The member for Forde is particularly proud of that fact. A lot of work has been done on this side of the parliament over recent years to clean up the mess Labor left us when we came into government. At the last election the Labor Party pretended to the Australian public that they would, if elected, have the same policies as the coalition—that they would turn back boats where it was safe to do so, that they would have offshore centres and that they would have the same resolve as this government to stop the deaths at sea and to get the kids out of detention. But what has happened since this Leader of the Opposition has been gripped around the neck by the Left of his Labor Party is that he has walked away from the successful policies that have made deaths at sea a thing of the past. The fact is that we have not seen a boat now in 1,289 days. The Labor Party has walked away from Operation Sovereign Borders and the success that we have implemented over the last couple of years.
We had hoped there would be at least one champion on that side of the parliament who would uphold the right of all Australians to see the boats stopped and see the Labor Party implement the policy. The member for Blair sits there like some clown at the circus whose mouth you pop ping-pong balls into. His head goes backwards and forwards each day. He sits there agape trying to keep up the speed but can't. We were hoping at the recent by-election in Bennelong that Kristina Keneally would be the champion. But, of course, she wants to see an open-border policy. We are hoping that Ged Kearney, in the Batman by-election, could be the champion of common sense. But it's not going to happen, if you have a look at Ged Kearney's record. She said to the International Labour Conference in Switzerland that 'Australian unions explicitly reject the policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers that both major parties have implemented'. She went on to say at the Welcome Refugees rally:
Just think about those three small words—'stop the boats'. Never before can I think of three small words that have left such a permanent and dreadful scar on our national psyche.
Outside of this parliament the Labor Party speak the truth, they speak what is in their hearts, and that is that they want to undo the success of Operation Sovereign Borders. There is not a single person on that side of the parliament who in government would have the ability to stare down the people-smugglers scourge. They demonstrated that under the Rudd and Gillard governments, and every day this Leader of the Opposition demonstrates that he is just as weak. (Time expired)
Housing Affordability
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (15:13): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister has told first home buyers in Sydney to move to the country, saying, 'Houses will always be incredibly expensive if you can see the Opera House or the Harbour Bridge.' Is this why you, Prime Minister, won't take up Labor's reforms to negative gearing? Has the Prime Minister been told that people in Sydney are not looking for the Prime Minister's harbour views; they just want to be able to afford their first home?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:14): I distinctly recall the honourable member's colleague the shadow Treasurer saying Labor's negative-gearing policy wouldn't affect housing prices at all. He was chastising us for saying that it would bring a sledgehammer to the housing market—a view I stand by. So the Labor Party have got to work out whether their ban on negative gearing is designed to raise billions of dollars in tax and prevent hardworking Australian families on wages and salaries from investing and getting ahead, or whether they just want to shatter the housing market. The Labor Party's policy on negative gearing is no more than a cash grab. That is its whole motivation. Its impact on the housing market would be damaging in the extreme, and the Treasurer pointed out precisely why. You can imagine what it would do, and the honourable member might reflect on this: its consequence for the rental market would be to put significant upward pressure on rents, making it much harder for Australians to make ends meet when they are renting properties as, indeed, more than a third of Australians are—well over a third of Australians are. It's an ill-considered, unmodelled policy designed to raise billions and deprive thousands of Australian families from investing and getting ahead—as usual, an attack on investment, an attack on aspiration and an attack on Australians being able to realise their dreams.
Small Business
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (15:16): My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace, and Deregulation. Will the minister update the House on actions the government is taking to make it easier for small and family businesses so that they have the confidence to grow and to employ more hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr LAUNDY (Reid—Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace, and Deregulation) (15:16): My thanks to the member for Brisbane. I note with interest—having got to know him well over the last 12 months—that he is the fourth generation of his family to work in his family's business, retailing and shopkeeping. At the risk of being indulgent, I'm extremely proud that last year my 18-year-old son, Charlie, became the fourth generation of my family to work in my family business. Of course, those opposite have a very different understanding of family business: it's whether or not your brother or sister is in the union with you!
I'm asked: what are we doing for small and family business. At the risk of being very repetitive following the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, I say that, last year, the Leader of the Opposition at his Press Club speech spoke about the year of ideas and the year of jobs. It would be about jobs, jobs and jobs. How did he go in that contest? He didn't quite go as well as Bernard Tomic in I'm A Celebrity … Get Me Out Of Here. The verdict is in: 403,000 full-time jobs, 75 per cent of those being full time, and company tax rates being decreased down to 27.5 per cent, on their way to 25 per cent.
Why is this important? Why is it important to look after small and family businesses? The chief economist for the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, just pre Christmas, released a study of where employment comes from. Eighty per cent of the jobs created in the last 10 years—two million of 2½ million—came from small, young firms.
What is the alternative? The alternative is a place where modern economics does not exist. I like to call it 'McManusstan'. It's where Sally McManus comes up with Labor Party policy. It's where the Leader of the Opposition, sometime after that, finds his way to it, but not before the member for Gorton, Mr O'Connor, beats him there every time. The risk to small and family businesses in this country is plain and simple: it sits on the opposition benches. There is a clear choice in terms of what businesses are doing. They are investing, as the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have said they would do, back in their businesses. Why? Because that's how they grow. What happens when they grow? They employ more people. The choice for small and family businesses, not just in Brisbane but Australia wide, has never been clearer. I welcome the opportunity, and thank the Prime Minister for giving me the opportunity, to prosecute the case on their behalf.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:20): I table for the information of the House a revised ministry list reflecting changes made on 20 December 2017.
The document read as follows—
Title |
Minister |
Prime Minister |
Hon . Malcolm Turnbull MP |
Minister for Indigenous Affairs |
Senator the Hon. Nigel Scullion |
Minister for Women |
Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer MP |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation |
Hon. Michael Keenan MP |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service |
Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer MP |
Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister |
Senator the Hon. James McGrath |
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources |
Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP |
Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government |
The Hon Dr John McVeigh MP |
Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities |
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP |
Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister |
The Hon Damian Drum MP |
Minister for Foreign Affairs |
Hon. Julie Bishop MP |
Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment |
Hon. Steve Ciobo MP |
Minister for International Development and the Pacific |
Senator the Hon. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells |
Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment |
The Hon Luke Hartsuyker MP |
Minister for Finance (Vice-President of the Executive Council) (Leader of the Government in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann |
Special Minister of State |
Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann |
Assistant Minister for Finance |
Hon David Coleman MP |
Treasurer |
Hon. Scott Morrison MP |
Minister for Revenue and Financial Services |
Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer MP |
Assistant Minister to the Treasurer |
Hon. Michael Sukkar MP |
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport |
Hon. Darren Chester MP |
(Deputy Leader of the House) |
|
Acting Minister for Regional Development |
Hon. Darren Chester MP |
Acting Minister for Local Government and Territories |
Hon. Darren Chester MP |
Minister for Urban Infrastructure |
Hon. Paul Fletcher MP |
Minister for Defence |
Senator the Hon. Marise Payne |
Minister for Defence Industry (Leader of the House) |
Hon. Christopher Pyne MP |
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs |
The Hon Michael McCormack MP |
Minister for Defence Personnel (Deputy Leader of the House) |
The Hon Michael McCormack MP |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC |
The Hon Michael McCormack MP |
Minister for Home Affairs |
Hon Peter Dutton MP |
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection |
Hon. Peter Dutton MP |
Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs |
Hon Alan Tudge MP |
Minister for Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity |
Hon Angus Taylor MP |
Assistant Minister for Home Affairs |
Hon. Alex Hawke MP |
Attorney-General |
Hon Christian Porter MP |
Minister for Communications |
Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield |
Minister for the Arts (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield |
Minister for Regional Communications |
Senator the Hon. Bridget McKenzie |
Minister for Jobs and Innovation |
Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash |
Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation |
Hon Craig Laundy MP |
Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation |
Senator the Hon Zed Seselja |
Minister for Education and Training (Manager for Government Business in the Senate) |
Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham |
Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills |
Hon Karen Andrews MP |
Minister for the Environment and Energy |
Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP |
Assistant Minister for the Environment |
Hon Melissa Price MP |
Minister for Health |
Hon. Greg Hunt MP |
Minister for Rural Health |
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie |
Minister for Sport |
Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie |
Minister for Aged Care |
Hon. Ken Wyatt AM MP |
Minister for Indigenous Health |
Hon. Ken Wyatt AM MP |
Minister for Social Services |
Hon. Dan Tehan MP |
Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services |
Hon. Jane Prentice MP |
Assistant Minister for Children and Families |
Hon Dr David Gillespie MP |
Minister for Human Services |
Hon Michael Keenan MP |
Minister for Resources and Northern Australia |
Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan |
Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources |
Hon David Littleproud MP |
Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources |
Senator the Hon Anne Ruston |
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Questions in Writing
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (15:20): Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b), where replies have not been received 60 days after a question first appeared on the Notice Paper, may I please request you to write to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs to seek the reason for the delay in answering question in writing No. 825. I note that this question has remained on the Notice Paper for 145 days and that this is the second time that I have had to seek this reason.
I also request that you write to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to seek the reason for the delay in answering question in writing No. 850; to the Minister for Home Affairs to seek the reason for the delay in answering questions in writing Nos 851, 852, 853, 854, 855 and 856; and, lastly, to the Minister for Human Services to seek the reason for the delay in answering question in writing No. 867.
The SPEAKER (15:21): I will so write.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr MARLES (Corio) (15:21): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr MARLES: I do.
The SPEAKER: The member for Corio may proceed.
Mr MARLES: During question time the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in answer to a question, indicated that I had said that Avalon becoming an international airport would never happen. I have worked to see Avalon Airport become an international airport for as long as I have been in this place. Indeed, with the shadow Treasurer, back in 2010, I participated in an event which declared the then Gillard government's support for Avalon becoming an international airport. And, indeed, yesterday I was with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and very happily speaking at the event which was announcing AirAsia flying out of Avalon to Kuala Lumpur. Avalon becoming an international airport has enjoyed bipartisan support—
The SPEAKER: The member for Corio has pointed out where he believes he's been misrepresented.
Mr MARLES: and I doubt the owners of the airport would appreciate it being made a partisan issue.
The SPEAKER: He will now resume his seat.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Qualifications of Members
The SPEAKER (15:22): For the information of members, I present a copy of a letter from the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar of the High Court of Australia dated 8 December 2017, relating to the reference to the Court of Disputed Returns of the qualification of the member for Batman, Mr David Feeney, and the sitting of the court in connection with the matter.
Member for Batman
Resignation
The SPEAKER (15:23): I also inform the House that, on 1 February this year, I received a letter from David Feeney resigning his seat as the member for the electoral division of Batman. Consideration is being given to possible dates for the by-election, and I will shortly begin consultations with party leaders in the normal way. I will inform the House in due course of the dates which have been fixed for the by-election. In the light of the reference to the High Court referred to earlier, I will as a courtesy write to the court to advise it of the member for Batman's resignation. I thank the House.
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
Speaker's Panel
The SPEAKER (15:23): Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant revoking the nomination of the honourable member for Durack to be a member of the Speaker's panel. I also lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable member for Menzies to be a member of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when required to do so by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:24): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No 18 of 2017-18
Reports Nos 20 to 26 of 2017-18
The SPEAKER (15:24): I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports Nos 20 to 26 of 2017-18 and a corrigendum to report No. 18. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to India
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:24): I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to India from 28 October to 4 November 2017, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mr ALBANESE: It was my pleasure to lead an Australian parliamentary delegation to India between 28 October and 4 November. This was the first delegation to India from the Australian parliament for 17 years. As well as me, the delegation comprised Mr Milton Dick, the member for Oxley; Mr Ian Goodenough, the member for Moore; Senator Pauline Hanson, a senator for Queensland; and Mr David Littleproud, the member for Maranoa. The delegation was supported—very ably, it must be said—by Ms Rachel Callinan.
The delegation participated in a full program of events in New Delhi, Mumbai and Hyderabad. The key objective of the program was to strengthen parliament-to-parliament ties with India by undertaking visits to India's national parliament in New Delhi and the state legislatures of Maharashtra and Telangana. Other aims of the visit were to gain greater insight into the current social, economic, governance and political issues faced by India and its people and to discover opportunities to further the deep relationship between our two countries. The delegation report outlines the series of meetings that took place.
There's no doubt that 17 years is too long between visits from the Australian parliament to India, and all of the delegation would like to see more regular contact, because the relationship between Australia and India is so important. We are close partners; we're both vibrant democracies; and we both share a commitment to stability and prosperity in the region. India is our ninth-largest trade partner, with two-way trade of over $20 billion. More than 60 per cent of the value of Australia's merchandise exports come from three commodities: coal, gold and vegetables. Australia is a natural partner with India. It is a fact that India remains the world's fastest-growing major economy whilst it is implementing major structural economic reforms.
As well as this, the delegation built on the people-to-people relationships that are so important. Over 670,000 Australians are of Indian ancestry and, of those, some 400,000 were born in India. One of the first activities that we had was the launch of the Australian Alumni Association in New Delhi. Of course, we know that there are some 54,000 students from India studying at institutions here in Australia, and this association will mean that they can interrelate with each other and interrelate with Australia on an ongoing basis. I thank also the Australian high commissioner for the work that she and her team did in supporting our delegation. As well as visiting parliaments, we also had the privilege of visiting institutions such as Dr Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital in New Delhi, the TERI-Deakin research centre, Tata Consultancy Services and YES Bank Ltd in Mumbai. In Hyderabad, we visited the T-Hub and we visited the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy to receive a briefing on national security. We were well received.
I must say that, in spite of the fact that the delegation was a very broad delegation, we got on well and were cooperative, and I thank the delegation for that. It is somewhat unusual for an opposition member to lead a delegation of the parliament. It was as a result of Senator Parry pulling out of the delegation due to the circumstances which led to his resignation from the Senate while, in fact, that delegation was taking place. I thank government members for being accepting of that, given my seniority in the parliament. Certainly, in the way that the delegation worked very cooperatively with each other, with the Australian officials and, most importantly, with the parliamentarians, national and state, who we met in India, as well as the representatives of the private sector and other organisations, it was indeed, I think, a delegation of achievement in fostering that important relationship with India.
I commend the delegation report to the House. Senator Hanson will be tabling the report in the Senate this afternoon, and I do say that it is important that the parliamentary officers work closely to ensure that Australian parliamentary visitations don't wait some 17 years before the next visit.
COMMITTEES
Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation
Report
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (15:31): On behalf of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, I present the committee's interim report.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Ms SWANSON: by leave—I rise to speak on the interim report of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation.
We have had some changes in the committee in recent months, and, as nominal chair, I would like to thank the author of this report, the member for Groom, Dr John McVeigh, for his work in chairing the committee to date. I have served as his deputy.
I also thank the other committee members and the committee secretariat and support staff for their work. I note that we are looking forward to announcements about replacements for the four government members that have moved on from our committee.
By the nature of the task at hand, the committee has visited many regional and rural areas throughout Australia.
I acknowledge the many individuals and organisations who have made submissions and appeared at hearings during the course of our inquiry so far.
The purpose of this interim report is to provide an update on the work to date and an overview of the work ahead.
At this stage, the committee considers it would be premature to provide recommendations or views on the issues raised.
To date, the committee has received over 187 written submissions and heard from 115 witnesses representing 77 organisations.
More than a quarter of these submissions, 27 per cent, have been from local councils or groupings of councils, with other contributions from individuals, industry bodies, regional development authorities, community groups and non-government organisations.
A third have come from Victoria, a quarter from New South Wales, and 11 per cent each from Queensland and the ACT.
Nearly one in 10 have come from committees belonging to Regional Development Australia, an organisation and network working to identify regional issues, and their contributions are expected to identify themes across the regions.
Between August and November, hearings were held in Canberra; in the New South Wales cities of Orange and Newcastle (neighbouring my electorate of Paterson); in the Victorian cities of Bendigo and Wodonga; in the West Australian cities of Geraldton and Kalgoorlie; in the South Australian city of Murray Bridge; in the Tasmanian cities of Launceston and Burnie; and in Darwin, in the Northern Territory.
The committee has also held private briefings with the department of infrastructure and regional development and the Australian Public Service Commission.
An informal panel was convened to uncover the broad issues related to regional development and decentralisation, and we will likely hold another similar roundtable this year.
The committee intends to hold hearings in the coming months in Townsville, Toowoomba, Armidale and Canberra.
We've requested an extension to the May date for the final report given the quantity of evidence received. The goal will then be to craft recommendations for best-practice approaches to regional development so these can meaningfully inform government policy.
Research by the Regional Australia Institute says the main factors affecting regional communities and economies are: the global economy; technological change; the environment; and, importantly, population.
While governments can't control these things per se, they can provide the right political and policy settings to foster growth.
What we know is that integrated and collaborative approaches from all tiers of government are vital.
The Productivity Commission advises regional growth should be: led by local communities; aligned with regional strengths; supported by targeted investment; and guided by clear objectives and measurable performance indicators.
What is common to best-practice guidelines here and overseas is that regions must focus on their core advantages.
They must have buy-in growth strategies and support from government at all levels.
Regional growth can occur through the decentralisation of Commonwealth agencies and/or through incentivising corporations to decentralise, but it must be done carefully.
It is broadly agreed that technology is key, and that with good policy the benefits can outweigh the costs, but again it must be done with careful consideration.
In closing, I want to say what an honour it was to chair the Newcastle hearing of the committee, neighbouring my own electorate of Paterson in the New South Wales Hunter Valley, and hear from our local councils and organisations.
The Hunter—and I note the member for Hunter and shadow agriculture minister joins us in the chamber today—is the biggest regional economy in Australia. We know about regions because we are one of the most successful regions, with an economic output of nearly $100 billion a year and a population of more than 707,000 people.
We have enjoyed the fruits of the mining boom, but we have also been affected by its downturn, and the loss of big employers such as the hydro aluminium smelter in my home town of Kurri Kurri has had a cost.
As with many rural and regional areas, we have challenges finding work for our young people, with youth unemployment around 10 per cent, but as high as 21 per cent in recent years. While the Hunter has its unique challenges, it also has much in common with other regions we have visited.
I look forward to continuing my work with this committee and commend this report to the House.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (15:38): I thank the member for Paterson for those remarks, and I think it's important that perhaps someone from the government side as well make a presentation on this particular report, considering that the member for Groom has been promoted and will no longer be the chair of this committee.
We commenced the inquiry on 17 July 2017, and I refer to remarks that the member for Groom made at the time:
… the Committee's inquiry is wide ranging and will explore ways to increase the growth and prosperity of regional and rural Australia. While decentralisation of Commonwealth entities has been identified as a potential means to achieve this, the Committee wants to examine, more broadly, how public and private investment can assist in building and sustaining our regional communities.
It has become quite apparent to me through the course of this inquiry that there are no silver bullets. Of course we need private enterprise as well to be investing in these regions, because at the end of the day anything where the government supplies the jobs comes at the cost of other jobs in the economy somewhere, through taxation. So it's very important that we forge these partnerships.
We released an issues paper on 31 August, and that highlighted that we should be seeking to find the best-practice approaches to rural development, decentralisation of Commonwealth entities and corporate decentralisation—once again, that theme of finding more than just a way of moving government departments into the country, even though that is very important.
We called for submissions, and, as the member for Paterson said, 187 have been received. I thank all of those for the effort and time that they've put into those submissions. I particularly thank those that've made themselves available to the 11 inquiry days we've held—10 of those out of Canberra. As, of course, would behove a committee that is looking into decentralisation, we all thought it was very important that we get out of Canberra, that we go and visit the regions and that we talk to these organisations individually.
There are two distinct groups that we've seen large representations from: local government and the RDAs around Australia, which is not particularly surprising. These are both types of organisation that are deeply interested in the goings-on of our regional communities.
The committee has resolved to request an extension. There is a vast amount of material to work our way through, and so we are hoping to produce the final report on 31 May.
In particular, I would like to recognise the fact that the government seems to understand that this is a real opportunity for Australia. The government has directed the ministers to look at all their departments to see what functions it is that they perform that would not necessarily be easy to transport but that could be done not only at least as efficiently but even more efficiently by relocating to country regions. The ministers will all be reporting back to cabinet in due course on those moves. There is a set level of criteria in portfolios, which the minister is assessing.
I would also like to back up the member for Paterson's remarks and thank the former chair, the member for Groom, Dr John McVeigh, for his contribution in putting together this interim report. We will have to go on without him in the future.
I will remark on some of the people that've come before us. I was particularly pleased when we came to Murray Bridge in South Australia—it is not in my electorate but certainly some people from my electorate attended—that we had representations from Professor John Halsey, who is conducting the government's review into regional, remote and rural education, and that we had a representative from Eldercare, who told us about the difficulties presented in providing aged care in smaller rural communities. Both of those industries—education and aged care—are very good demonstrations of decentralisation of industry, so I was very pleased they were both there.
We heard some great contributions from others. Of particular interest was when we went to Orange and had a talk about the long-term benefits of the New South Wales government relocating the department of agriculture to Orange around 20 years ago. All of that has been very interesting. We've much more work to do, I look forward to continuing to work with the member for Paterson. Thank you very much for your indulgence.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (15:43): I seek leave to congratulate the committee.
Leave granted.
Mr FITZGIBBON: You will enjoy the contribution. I genuinely do want to congratulate members of the committee on both sides of the House. I have had many long conversations with the member for Paterson, who tells me the committee has worked very much in a bipartisan way. It's been a hardworking committee, with a lot of travel involved. I'm not sure the member for Paterson still likes me, because, when I asked her to do the job of being the deputy chair of what I thought was an important inquiry, not even I realised how much work and travel would be involved.
I remind the House that the committee very much grew out of the controversy over the forced relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to Armidale, but thankfully it was broadened to encapsulate regional development more generally. I'm delighted to hear the member say—my goodness! I can't remember your seat for some reason!
Mr Ramsey interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: Grey—thank you. Grey, of course. The member for Grey said it is complex and there are no silver bullets. That is absolutely true.
I note the reference the member for Paterson made to the work of the Regional Australia Institute, where it outlined the key drivers of growth in the regions. But it is also a reminder—and I won't abuse the indulgence of the leave that has been given—that there are no quick fixes. A political campaign—to somehow try to convince regional communities that the world would be their oyster if only a government agency or part of a government agency moved to their local area—can do no harm, but it can do harm to the agency and the agency's work. We don't create jobs in Australia by moving jobs from one place to another. And with respect to Canberra, when you move agencies out of Canberra, then you're impacting on all those regional communities around Canberra who are having somewhat of a renaissance as they become commuter towns, as residents go to and from Canberra on a daily basis.
I hope we as a parliament can move past the spin and the rhetoric about decentralisation. All agree we can embrace it where it can be done without adverse impact on the agency, entity or regulator involved, but also recognise that it's not about moving jobs from one place to another; it's about tapping into the key drivers of economic growth in the regions—and, importantly, promoting leadership. The RRI also told us, in some case studies, that the difference between some successful regions and not-so-successful regions or cities is the strength of community leadership. But if we're going to have stronger regions—and we all want that—we have to have all levels of government working together. We certainly have to work in a bipartisan manner, and I'm very pleased the committee is doing that. I lament the fact that so many have had to leave the committee, but, of course, that's the fault of no-one. I hope the committee, with this extension, can get on with its work and make some substantial policy recommendations.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (15:46): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (15:46): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (15:47): The only reason the government finally acted on banking was its own reptilian political survival instincts. It knew it had to do something—anything—if it was to survive, and as a result we have this timid creature, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017, the BEAR bill. It is not much, but Labor will not stand in its way because at least it's something. It's a first step in the journey of a thousand steps.
The bill gives APRA new and strengthened powers and an extra $4.2 million over four years, plus a further $1 million a year to enforce breaches. Costs are to be met by an increase in APRA financial institutions levies of $8.2 million over four years. There is an extra $1.1 million for Treasury to oversee a more accountable and competitive banking system of which the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, or BEAR, is part. The total change in average annual regulatory cost from the business-as-usual model is about $11½ million across the sector. That is a minuscule impost for a sector which in 2016 posted after-tax profits of more than $30 billion.
At its core, the BEAR will make certain individuals in banks, credit unions and the like, which are termed 'authorised deposit-taking institutions' or ADIs, legally accountable both for their decisions and for practices that occur under their authority. So if people under the supervision of these accountable persons do certain things that these people should have known about, the ADIs are held accountable for them. The intention is to get rid of the wriggle room for the slippery executives and directors who try to pass the buck onto subordinates or blame vague processes. And I welcome that. The BEAR requires ADIs and people with significant influence over conduct and behaviour to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity, and to carry out effectively the business activities for which they are responsible. The BEAR does this by creating a new definition of 'accountable person', who is a board member with oversight over the bank or ADI, or a senior executive with responsibility for management or control of significant or substantial parts or aspects of the business. Accountable persons must be located in the ADI, not on some beach resort in the Caymans, where they are uncontactable. In the case of an ADI group, they should be located in significant or substantial subsidiaries. Not all subsidiaries will have accountable persons located in them individually, but throughout an ADI group accountable persons must have clear lines of responsibility to cover all business activities of the group. ADIs will be required to tell APRA who its accountable persons are and clearly outline the responsibilities and duties of those people. When it comes to an ADI group, APRA must be given a clear map of who is responsible for what across the myriad business units. Again, the intention is: no place to hide.
The BEAR will require that up to 40 per cent of an accountable person's variable remuneration—what we loosely call 'bonuses'—is kept in reserve for four years so that it can be stripped from said person if they are found to have failed in their governance duties. In the case of CEOs, who one would think would all be accountable persons under the definitions of this bill, the reserved bonus amount will be 60 per cent, or up to 60 per cent, depending on the size of the institution. As a result of this requirement, I will not be at all surprised if we see a change in remuneration practices for senior executives. Perhaps base pay and allowances will end up being much bigger and much higher, and bonuses perhaps less generous. Time will tell.
APRA will be granted the power to disqualify with seven days notice, without court order and without giving reasons, any accountable person that APRA determines has failed to comply with their obligations under the BEAR. It will be important that APRA ensures that it operates within tight guidelines to ensure that its own officers act with the utmost care. The phrase 'who watches the watchers' comes to mind. While it is important that APRA be given the authority it needs to act swiftly and decisively, that should not be at the expense of natural justice.
Labor does not propose to stand in the way of this bill, and I am pleased that the government has accepted some of our amendments. But I do acknowledge the harbouring of some personal concern about handing APRA the authority to disqualify an accountable person, without giving that person a reason. That does not sit well with me. While the bill states that an accountable person, under notice of disqualification, must be given the opportunity to submit a defence, if they wish to do so, there is no minimum time provided for such submissions to be made, beyond the initial seven days notice, before the disqualification comes into effect. Unless I am missing something, it is entirely possible under this legislation that an accountable person can be given notice by APRA one Monday that they are under notice of disqualification, and for that disqualification to take effect the following Monday, with the accountable person not necessarily being informed of the reason for the action. That does not sit well with me at all. I would expect and hope that APRA will exercise discretion and ensure that accountable persons within its sights are afforded natural justice and, at the very least, told why they are about to lose their livelihood. It sets a worrisome precedent that anyone should be forced by a government instrument out of their profession, without the legal right to be told why.
As well as disqualification, accountable persons and ADIs can face significant civil penalties for breaching their obligations under the BEAR. Big banks could face penalties of up to $210 million. It sounds like a lot of money, but when we're talking about institutions that make billions of dollars in profits, I'm not sure that figure really hits the mark in terms of sending a message to the banks that they need to do the right thing.
The Treasurer introduced this legislation in September. It was promptly sent to a Senate review committee, which recommended that the bill be passed subject to its implementation being delayed by 12 months from legislative approval, which is in effect a practical delay of six months. Labor and cross-party senators, following input from smaller institutions and APRA, were concerned that those smaller and regional banks and ADIs would find the 1 July 2018 start date challenging to implement. So Labor is pleased that the government seems to have agreed, as I understand it, to this sensible recommendation for the delay.
You won't often find me in agreement with the Australian Bankers' Association, an organisation that is relentless in pursuing what is in the best interests of big banks' profitability, rather than what is in the best interests of bank customers, but I do find myself thinking it may have a point when it comes to one day expanding the scope of the BEAR. The ABA says, not unreasonably in my view, that as well as authorised deposit-taking institutions perhaps other financial institutions, such as insurance and superannuation firms, should come under the ambit of the BEAR. ABA CEO, Anna Bligh, notes that APRA's regulatory oversight already stretches to such bodies, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for the BEAR to encompass them too. Ms Bligh notes that banks recruit not only from other banks but also from the insurance sector and the superannuation sector. Employment is very mobile across the entire finance sector. It stands to reason, to me at least, that if the BEAR can strengthen accountability and ethical decision-making in the banking sector, then it should be able to do the same across the financial sector as a whole, and that's something that can perhaps be revisited once the BEAR is up and running.
As with all things, the devil will be in the detail, and we'll see how this process runs out once the legislation goes through the House and the parliament. Accountability and transparency are laudable goals that Labor always supports, often in the face of trenchant opposition from those opposite. We will always keep a close eye on the government to ensure that it brings to this place legislation that is even-handed and that works in the best interests of Australian consumers and not just Australian banks. Thank you.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (15:57): I would like to begin this small contribution to the debate by thanking Treasury, the minister, the Hon. Scott Morrison, and staff for taking on changes to legislation to address many of the recommendations that have been derived from a number of parliamentary inquiries where there is a clear direction for government to take. Such legislative application is an example of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017. This bill amends the Banking Act to establish a Banking Executive Accountability Regime, commonly known and frequently referred to in here as 'the BEAR'.
The BEAR is a strengthened responsibility and accountability framework for the most senior and influential executives and directors in banking groups. To support the BEAR, the bill gives the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority—APRA—new and strengthened powers. Contrary to some of the arguments presented by those opposite, this bill is not directing the boards of banks about the money to be paid to their executives. It is, however, a strengthening of the accountability of those very executives, making sure they do the job we expect them to do. This is about re-establishing the confidence and faith we had in our banks as an institution of reliability and the foundation stone of the economy of our nation. Over the last decade in particular, the awareness of the financial activities of our banking institutions has been growing, and there is increased scrutiny and pressure on those organisations. This legislation is part of a suite of changes in legislation and regulation to make our banking industry better.
Working on each issue in this industry has been a thorough and important process. It has, however, been misunderstood in the general public and, to some degree, by the media. Late in 2017, it became very apparent that the public expected a royal commission into banking, rather than the rock-steady changes to regulation. While those opposite say, by throwing it in the debate constantly, that this current bill relates directly to that royal commission, that is patently untrue. This work was already underway. May I remind those opposite: you can't bring in a new bill as a result of the royal commission inquiry until that inquiry is complete. Seriously, do not confuse our public. That banking royal commission is only just beginning.
The banking sector plays an essential role in promoting economic growth and a critical role in the lives of everyday Australians. In order for it to operate in an efficient, stable and fair way, the community has to trust that sector. In Australia, a series of incidents involving poor behaviour by banks over recent years has raised the question of whether there are emerging systemic issues that are undermining trust in our banks.
For more than four years I've been involved in lobbying the government for an investigation like or equal to a royal commission, because I'm well aware of the difficulties faced by so many Australians who've been victims of banking actions and policies. Strategies that I have heard and seen evidence of include the following, one of which is referred to as the bad banking strategy. During inquiries, some statements that resulted in the examination of banking executive behaviour were confusing and seemed to be deliberate misinformation. When asked if they manipulated loans and if this was a banking activity, the response would be something along the lines of: 'Well, what I can say at a general level is, as I've said before, there is absolutely no commercial advantage, and therefore no incentive whatsoever, for this bank or that bank to put borrowers in default. Both parties lose out. There is no incentive.' I've seen conclusive evidence that that, in fact, is not the case, and yet that is part of the inquiry. Homes and businesses have been lost over manipulated loan books with loan-to-value ratios being changed, yet the payments of those mortgages were continuing. There were dozens of other stories, yet no-one in the bank was responsible. There are farmers now living in other people's homes or transitioning in sheds. They were great farmers. What is wrong with our banking industry when the interests of the shareholders are held in much greater esteem than those of the customers?
We all know that the economy has a cycle. It has elastic terms which make economic downturns difficult to predict. However, we do not have (a) adequate rescue options for smaller customers and (b) regulations in place that prevent banks taking the decisions they have done in the past, which have led to very difficult financial circumstances.
Under the BEAR, banks and their most senior executives and directors will be expected to conduct their business and responsibilities with honesty, integrity, due skill, care and diligence. They'll need to deal with APRA in an open, constructive and cooperative way and prevent matters from arising that would adversely affect the authorised deposit-taking institution's prudential reputation or standing. Where these expectations are not met, APRA will be empowered to more easily disqualify the individuals, ensuring that banks' remuneration policies result in financial consequences for individuals. In fact, people have to take responsibility for the decisions over which they are in charge. APRA will be allowed to impose substantial fines on banks. Banks will be required to register individuals with APRA before appointing them as senior executives and directors. APRA will also get additional examination powers—albeit at a cost, but it's a good investment—which will help to investigate potential breaches of the BEAR.
Personally, I'd really like to see a process where bank executives, failed or successful, are not able to be part of ASIC, APRA or the ACCC, either before or after their banking executive career position. While that is a very personal view, it is not without basis. On many occasions, it was difficult during committee inquiries to get straight answers from different representatives, and it seemed that was a result of the interrelationship between past working experiences of those different organisations. In my opinion, they need to be quite separate.
Properly designed measures, such as the BEAR, will make part of our financial system safer, and we'll feel reassured that integrity is returning to an institution that we have held very precious until the recent past.
Reckless banking practices such as dangerous lending conditions are the responsibility of the banking executive. The board and the executives sign off on any policy change and they should be held accountable. The industry itself knows that the issue is not just a few bad apples. It is a chronic cultural function. They've admitted they need to change the culture, but they have yet to do that. It is to be a process of change. These mechanisms are intended to deter poor bank behaviour and ensure the banks and individuals are held to account, which is what the Australian nation expects of them.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (16:05): The changes to be brought about through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2017, the Banking Executive Accountability Regime and some related measures, have been driven by increased calls over many years now for intervention into the Australian banking sector. The call for increased government intervention into banking has been coming from a wide variety of voices across all sectors in our community. A key concern is the perception here that banking executives are not being properly held to account for the various scandals and mistreatment of customers emanating from Australian banks. For example, we've had the bank bill swap rate rigging scandal, which has now enveloped all four of our major Australian banks; we've had the AUSTRAC bank scandal with the Commonwealth Bank; and we've had many—in fact, way too many—examples of dodgy financial advice being handed out by our banks, or in fact customers being charged for that advice when it was not even provided. The introduction of a senior executive and director accountability regime is significant and it does recognise that it's about making the leaders of our banking sector responsible for the changes that are required in our banks and, in particular, for the cultural change that is required.
The government, in its explanatory memorandum, does point out that this scheme—the BEAR—comes about from a recommendation of the House Economics Committee, a committee of which I am a member. What the government seemed to skip over in its explanation in the explanatory memorandum is that this recommendation actually came from the opposition, not from its own members of the committee. But what the government has put together here doesn't quite go the full distance. It is actually quite limited. The committee recommendation was essentially based on the UK senior executive accountability regime, but, unlike that regime, which is about both consumer issues and prudential issues, the BEAR that is proposed by the government here is only about prudential ones. That is why we support it but we must also see it expanded. For, in truth, this isn't a real BEAR; it's a clayton's BEAR—it's the banking executive accountability regime you have when you aren't really having one. It's a bit like the government's banking royal commission.
The government appears also to have confused APRA, the prudential regulatory authority, with its consumer counterpart, ASIC. APRA is the prudential regulator in this country and is responsible for ensuring that banks, amongst others, do not undermine the integrity of our financial system and that, of course, they're able to pay out banking customers when they call on their funds. That is a very important role and it is key to this regime, as it should be. But ASIC, it also needs to be realised, is our key consumer focused regulator, looking at what the outcomes are for consumers and those that are purchasing financial products and using our banking sector, and that is the area that it has responsibility for regulating. So it's responsible for making sure that our banks do act fairly. For example, it is ASIC that is taking the bank bill swap case against the banks. It is ASIC that has been involved in the proceedings in relation to dodgy financial advice from our banks. So I do, in some regard, feel sorry for ASIC, because it's quite clear that, under this government, it's go-to financial regulator has become APRA, excluding ASIC from consideration—in fact, often not even asking it or consulting with it in relation to legislation just like this.
If we cast back to the flurry of these banking scandals, they were not prudential. The ones I mentioned before— in fact, none of the ones that we've seen—have been prudential. They have been customer-facing scandals and issues, and that's where we see the deficiency in this accountability regime. This deficiency has been acknowledged by ASIC in the evidence it's given to parliamentary committees—that this is a missing component of this regulatory regime when we compare it to the regimes that are in force in other places, such as the United Kingdom.
I will say that the government has taken on some of the initial feedback that was provided by stakeholders when it first proposed this legislation. So it has relooked at the application to banking subsidiaries. One of the key concerns was: what happens with insurers that sit under banks? It turns out in the process that the banks have largely sold off all of their insurance arms. They're clearly quite concerned. They've also clarified the role of directors in relation to the definition of accountable persons. They've set new start dates. They've tried to deal with the overlap between ASIC and APRA in its disqualification powers mainly to make sure that what they have proposed in this legislation would actually work. They have also dealt with the issue of the start date, as I said. Then there is the issue of how this will apply to small banks, and I'll come to that at the end.
The other issue that hasn't been addressed to anyone's confidence is the resourcing that this legislation is going to require from APRA. APRA is already very busy doing important work, making sure that the prudential regulation in this country is generally up to scratch and meeting world standards. It has been working with the Reserve Bank of Australia, looking at the level of household debt in this country and the changes that have been required, for example, to interest-only loans. Given that APRA is already going full pelt, to add this burden on top does require the government to make sure that they properly resource APRA to do the job that they're now asking them to do. However, if additional resources are not being given to APRA to enforce the new law that will be coming into place, the question has to be asked: is it the case that the government actually do not intend anything to happen under this legislation, that it is, as I said, a Clayton's piece of legislation that doesn't actually do the job? Or is it the case that, whilst they have put all of this in place, they have no intention of APRA doing any of the work, and they're happy for it to fail? Let me mark this term right here: we need to make sure that, if we're going to do these sorts of things, we resource the bodies that are going to be there to enforce them.
As I mentioned before, there is an issue about levelling the playing field between large banks and small banks, and that is why Labor have proposed that, in acknowledging this difference, we give a 12-month delay to the start date for our smaller banking institutions to comply with this new framework. As I'm sure everyone will appreciate, there is a world of difference between our large Australian banks—with their huge compliance teams and access to funds to be able to fund the lawyers to get these schemes and the internals that are required within the banks up to speed in order to comply with this law—and our smaller banks. For smaller banks, for smaller ADIs in Australia, to comply, it will take longer. They don't have that regulatory team just sitting there, waiting to go—though sometimes you do wonder about the large banks as well, given their rate of noncompliance of recent years. That is why Labor have proposed a very sensible amendment. As I said, we support the legislation. We just don't think it goes far enough. We've proposed an amendment to make sure that small banks are not disproportionately disadvantaged by the introduction of this regime.
As I mentioned before, the government has form, terrible form, when it comes to financial services legislation. We've had their attempts to rip up FOFA. We've had their superannuation backflips. We've had them refusing to hold a banking royal commission. We've had the crowd-sourced funding debacle, which they introduced legislation for, which no-one actually liked. They had to come back and fix it up, despite us telling them that at the time. We've had their attempt at multinational tax avoidance legislation, which doesn't even go halfway to doing the job. We've had ASIC and reviews calling for increased corporate penalties in this country for years and years and years, and the government have kept talking the talk but have never delivered the legislation to do it. We've had their attacks on the industry superannuation sector. And we've had the banking royal commission, which they finally announced, which, as I said, is a bit of a Clayton's royal commission, because they've given the terms of reference without any consultation with Labor, who have been calling for a royal commission for many years. They've effectively excluded looking at the regulatory part of the banking sector, which, in my view, means that they're not looking at the whole case for what is required for cultural change. You can't change the culture in Australian banking by just looking at the banking players. You've also got to look at the regulatory environment in which they play and the way in which their regulators operate.
The government has given the royal commission all of 12 months to get all of that work done. You would think that, after the amount of evidence and the countless inquiries that have happened through this parliament in relation to this issue, it would be abundantly clear that there is a lot of work to be done by a royal commission. By straddling it and really constraining it with a 12-month time frame shows just how much this government was trying to score political points by calling a royal commission and nullify a political issue that was hanging around its neck, instead of getting on with the work of making sure that financial regulation works properly in this country. Now we have the Claytons Banking Executive Accountability Regime. We thank the government for bringing it forward, but it doesn't actually deliver on what is needed. We all knew that this government was out of touch but, when it comes to financial services regulation, we now can see clearly, through the litany of failures through the term of this government, that it is clearly out of its depth as well.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:15): There is a problem with banks in this country. People do not trust them, and rightly so. Trust in the banks has been eroding for a very, very long time. People wonder why the Australian government gives the banks such a massive leg-up, by effectively underwriting the big banks' activities, because they know they're too big to fail, and then allows them to make world-leading record profits. Yet, at the same time, people find themselves going further and further into debt, paying more and more in bank fees every year, and they wonder where the bank profits are coming from. Well, the bank profits are coming from the people of Australia. The bank profits are coming from an overinflated housing market that sees the banks get rich from writing huge mortgages. The bubble keeps growing and growing and the people in the banks and those at the top keep doing better and better. People know something is wrong with the system.
The big part of the problem, the driver of the problem, is that what the banks pay themselves, their executives and the people at the top is not based on how happy customers are but is based solely, or in very large part, on how much money they make for their shareholders. It is based on whether or not they can find strategies to keep these world-leading record profits going, by hell or high water. So the people at the top of the banks have an interest in making as much money as possible and putting the community last. Money first, community last—that's the way the big banks run in this country, but they rely on the government to step in should they ever get into trouble, as they did during the global financial crisis.
The way the system works is that the salaries of so many of the people at the top are tied to the bonuses they make, which are based on how much profit the banks rein in. Because of this, we have this system and this bubble that is going to keep inflating and get bigger and bigger, unless action is taken. When you see the head of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, for example—an organisation that's been prosecuted in court for allegedly illegal activity—in 2016 have a base salary of $2.65 million and a total salary of $12.3 million, you see how much of a problem there is with this bonus culture inside the banks, where they are forced, by hell or high water, to find ways of making money out of everyday Australians, even if it puts Australians into further and further debt that ultimately they can't afford.
If the culture of an organisation starts at the top, we need to change the way that banking executives are paid. Start saying to them, 'You operate in this country under a social licence.' Everyone has to have a bank account now, whether you work or are unemployed or whatever you are. They have a steady stream of our money coming in and they have the government underwriting them, because they know they are too big to fail. Well, there's a quid pro quo, which is that you don't contribute to inequality in Australian society. You pay a reasonable amount, but no more.
This bill largely leaves all of that untouched. They'll still be able to get away with paying themselves enormous salaries and enormous bonuses, and it's that bonus culture that is putting Australians further and further into debt and seeing the banks continue to make a motza. So this bill can be supported for being a very small drop in the very big bucket that needs to be filled, if we are to regain trust in this country.
But one of the things we should do is seize the opportunity, now that the government has rediscovered that it's time we took on the banks and reined them in, to fix this bill. When this bill comes before the Senate, the Greens and Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, who has been paying very close attention to this and has been all over it like a rash for a very long time, will be introducing some amendments to give this bill some teeth. In this country we legislate for the minimum wage. It's not much, it puts people in poverty, but we legislate for the minimum wage. What we don't have are any controls at the other end. As a result we see these bank bosses who can earn over 100 times the average wage—not the minimum wage, the average wage. Is there any justification for the head of a bank to earn over 100 times the average wage in this country? There is not.
It is time to make Australia more equal, it is time to make the banks behave better and it is time to stop them contributing to inequality in this country, which is why the Greens will be moving to amend this bill. This bill should include hard caps on how much bank executives at the top are able to pay themselves. There is no reason that their base remuneration should be any more than 10 times the average national wage. That would start to make Australia a more equal place. I ask people who say that you can't go around restricting banks: what is the justification for someone in this country earning more than 10 times the average wage? Surely, after you've earned your first million dollars a year, what's the point of the rest of it? You're living a very comfortable life. What can be the justification for saying in Australia, in an egalitarian country, that we're quite happy, through government largesse and government support, to allow someone to earn $12 million a year? That is not what the banks are there for. That's not the social licence they operate under.
We'll move to say that the base rate should be limited to 10 times the average national wage, but, as I said, that variable bonus component is the real problem, and that should be limited to a further five times the average national wage. This will start to make Australia a more equal place again. You shouldn't shed a tear for the bank executives if those amendments get through, because they would still be able to earn over a million dollars. According to the Parliamentary Library, they'd still have $840,000 per annum as the cap for the base salary and about $420,000 per annum for the variable component. They could still count themselves millionaires, but they wouldn't be earning more than 10 times what the average Australian worker does. At a time when everyone else's wages are going backwards, the pay of bank executives is skyrocketing, their profits are skyrocketing and the shareholders, the people who own the banks, are doing very well out of it, but it's all at the expense of everyday people in Australia who are going further and further into debt and getting mortgages that they are struggling to meet, who are paying outrageous bank fees and who are getting advice from their banks about wealth management products that aren't in people's best interests but are just in the banks' best interests. We need to crack that nut and say to banks: 'You operate here under a social licence. We'll let you earn 10 times what the average person does, but above that is just unjustifiable greed that is coming at people's expense.'
When this bill passes the House, as I imagine it will, I hope that consideration is given in the Senate to giving it some teeth, because this bill sees a big problem and then really does nothing about it. It introduces some little moves around the edges but it is turning a blind eye to the core problem, which is that greed still drives this industry and still drives the pay structure in this industry. Until we start saying, 'You get remunerated for something close to the value of your work, not because you've been able to fleece a lot of money out of everyday Australians,' we will continue to have this problem. I commend the amendments that are to be moved in the Senate to this chamber and I hope this parliament won't just be seen to be saying something about the banks but will actually do something to rein in the obscene salaries that we're seeing.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:25): The bill before the House is less than what it seems and much less than what Australians need. I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the bill. In particular, I want to support the amendment moved by the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, and express some concerns and make two wider points relating to the issue of banking regulation and executive remuneration. The member for Kingsford Smith described the government's approach to regulation in this area as 'piecemeal'—and, characteristically, that was both accurate and generous. The bill before us amends the Banking Act and the APRA Act to put in place some new accountability obligations on executives of authorised deposit-taking institutions. To make this meaningful, the bill will put in place new penalty provisions and additional powers for APRA in the Banking Executive Accountability Regime.
This is a regime that is modelled on that which has been relatively recently put in place in the UK—and so far so good. The regime is much more limited in nature than that which has been introduced in the UK. In terms of its coverage, in terms of the industry and indeed conduct rules and the rest of it, there are things that are worthy of wider consideration through, in particular, the banking royal commission into which this government has been dragged kicking and screaming. This bill was put before the House prior to the government's concession to a royal commission in December last year. Looking at the terms of the bill before us, we could do much more to align the consequences of a failure to meet community standards with the expectations that lead to the social licence our banks have.
The bill before us, so far as it goes, achieves some reasonable objectives, particularly if the amendment moved by the shadow Treasurer is agreed to. But there are a couple of concerns I wish to put before the House. First and foremost, there are some on the government benches who clearly don't get it, who don't accept that there is a need for action. I've been very disturbed at reports that a number of government members feel there is no warrant for these sorts of measures. These members have not been paying attention to what has been going on in our banks—in particular, our big banks. I'm very disturbed by these reports, and I hope by their actions on the floor of this place they will prove them wrong.
I'm also concerned at reports about some in the banking industry. In an interview with the Treasurer published in the Fin Review today, I was concerned to read of reports that concerns were apparently expressed to Mr Hartzer in Davos that people don't see where the problem is. If this is the case, they haven't been looking very hard because clearly there are very significant and systemic issues in the Australian banking industry which require detailed and holistic review.
That takes me to the first of the two wider points I wish to mention briefly. Firstly, the government's signature and indeed only economic policy for growth is an enormous company tax cut. Secondly, the four biggest banks are already some of the most profitable businesses in Australia, so a giveaway to those banks would be enormous. That context is important when we're debating this piece of legislation because it reminds us of what is going on in the wider economy and that the piecemeal measures here are no substitute for wholesale reform, particularly in light of the litany of regulatory failures that the member for Burt has detailed.
What is required is a holistic review and widespread cultural change. That cultural change is needed more widely in the Australian business community beyond the banks, though the banks are the exemplars of worst practice. Last year I was pleased to put before the House a private member's bill looking at executive remuneration more generally. It highlighted the positive impact of Labor's two-strikes policy on restraining the extraordinary growth of salaries which has seen the top 0.1 per cent of Australian's income share increase exponentially—and, with that, their share of wealth grow even more. Other members have spoken about the bonus culture which is particularly prevalent in our big banks. These big issues remain.
I note that Malcolm Borland's comments have been referred to in the Bills Digest, very helpfully looking at the mystery of the lack of conformity of bonuses and executive remuneration generally with performance. The mystery has been unpacked quite a bit by such inquiries as that conducted by the Productivity Commission in 2009. There is a lot more work to be done to deal with the issues of banking culture and, indeed, with an executive remuneration system that remains too mysterious, not just for shareholders but also for the social licence it grants to those who are its beneficiaries.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (16:30): Firstly I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The Banking Executive Accountability Regime, or BEAR, as it has become colloquially known, which this government is implementing represents part of some of the most significant reform to our financial sector we've seen in some period of time.
This bill will increase the accountability of banks as authorised deposit-taking institutions, or ADIs, and their most senior executives and directors, restoring the community's trust and confidence in the institutions that play such a central role in our financial system and the wellbeing of all Australians. Schedule 1 of the bill introduces the BEAR. The BEAR imposes new, heightened accountability obligations for ADIs and their accountable persons. These obligations are focused on matters such as conducting businesses with honesty and integrity and with due care, skill and diligence; being open and cooperative in dealings with APRA, the regulator; and preventing matters arising that would adversely affect the prudential reputation or standing of the ADIs. These accountability obligations go to the heart of ensuring the community can have trust in ADIs and in the way they conduct their business.
ADIs will be required to register their accountable persons with APRA prior to appointment, ensuring APRA has greater visibility over the individuals taking up the roles that shape the conduct of ADIs. ADIs will also be required to provide accountability statements and accountability maps to APRA, ensuring there is a clear allocation of responsibility for an ADI's function to individual accountable persons. The bill also increases the consequences for ADIs and accountable persons that fail to meet the new heightened accountability obligations. These increased consequences will ensure that ADIs and their accountable persons have strong incentives to ensure they meet their obligations. Accountable persons will have a minimum amount of their variable remuneration deferred for at least four years, with the amount to be deferred based on the size of the ADI. ADIs will also be required to include in their remuneration policies provisions for the non-payment of deferred variable remuneration where an accountable person fails to comply with their accountability obligations. Ensuring there are financial consequences for accountable persons who do not meet their obligations will increase their focus on the long-term outcomes of their decisions. APRA will also be provided with stronger disqualification powers by being able to disqualify an accountable person directly rather than apply to the Federal Court. APRA disqualification decisions will be subject to merits and judicial review; however, the more streamlined powers will ensure that APRA can more readily respond where an accountable person does not comply with their accountability obligations.
The bill also introduces substantial new civil penalties for ADIs that breach many requirements of the BEAR that relate to prudential matters. These penalties will range from up to $10.5 million for small ADIs to up to $210 million for large ADIs. These civil penalties will put in place strong financial incentives for ADIs to ensure they meet their obligations under the BEAR. Finally, schedule 2 to the bill introduces a number of powers to allow APRA to examine witnesses. These powers will apply in relation to the entire Banking Act and will particularly support APRA's enforcement of the BEAR. They broadly replicate powers that APRA already has in relation to other institutions, including the superannuation sector.
Australia's financial system is strong and it is resilient. However, the series of issues in recent years—and prior to that—have demonstrated that it's not immune from problems. Banks have not always acted with the highest levels of integrity and accountability, which the community expects of them, and this has eroded trust in these institutions. That is why it is important that the BEAR commence as soon as possible: to ensure that accountability gaps in the banking sector are addressed promptly. For this reason, the BEAR will commence on 1 July 2018. That said, the government has provided for transitional arrangements for elements that will require longer to implement, such as the remuneration requirements and the accountability documentation.
Following meetings with APRA, the government had been developing additional transitional arrangements that would have provided APRA with the flexibility it needed to allow staged implementation for small ADIs and provide additional time, until at least 1 January 2019, for these entities to comply with the BEAR. I had held discussions with the chair of APRA some time last year that provided APRA with administrative flexibility to roll these measures out for small- and medium-sized ADIs. As a result, we are quite comfortable with suggestions and proposals that are being put forward that would recognise that formally in this legislation. This will allow APRA to focus on implementing the BEAR for the large ADIs, a key priority because of how many Australian customers are touched by these institutions. In discussions with the opposition, they have informed us that they will be proposing to delay the commencement of the BEAR for both small- and medium-sized ADIs until 1 July 2019 in order to facilitate the expeditious passage of these important and critical reforms. The government is happy to agree to this amendment. It is consistent with the administrative arrangements we were already seeking to put in place with APRA in any case.
It is vital that Australians see these reforms implemented and that these rules are legislated as soon as possible. We thank the opposition for their support, both in this chamber and in the other place, in ensuring this bill's expeditious passage through the parliament. These coalition government reforms are too important to delay. While we are reluctant to see any unnecessary delay, our first priority is protecting Australian banking customers and enshrining appropriate protections in legislation. This bill will ensure that the banks at the heart of our financial sector meet community expectations by clarifying accountability obligations, clarifying the responsibilities of senior executives and imposing more significant consequences where these obligations are not met. The BEAR will ensure the banks shift their focus to ensuring there is a strong outcome for all Australians and that they are accountable for all of those outcomes, including the stewardship of their important social licence. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (16:37): I move opposition amendment (1):
(1) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 32 (after line 20), at the end of the Part, add:
18 Application to small and medium ADIs
(1) Despite item 15 and subitem 16(1), Part IIAA of the Banking Act 1959 as inserted by this Act applies in relation to the following on and after 1 July 2019:
(a) a medium ADI;
(b) a small ADI;
(c) an accountable person of a medium ADI;
(d) an accountable person of a small ADI.
(2) Despite subitem (1), if:
(a) an accountable person's variable remuneration is payable under a contract entered into before the commencement of Part IIAA of the Banking Act 1959 as inserted by this Act; and
(b) apart from this subitem, the application of Division 4 of that Part in relation to the variable remuneration would result in an acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) from a person otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph);
that Division does not apply in relation to the variable remuneration to the extent that it would result in such an acquisition.
Note: Because this subitem prevents Division 4 of Part IIAA of the Banking Act 1959 from giving rise to such an acquisition of property in relation to variable remuneration payable under such a contract, compensation will not be payable under section 69E of that Act.
(3) Despite item 17, transitional requirements determined by APRA under that item apply in relation to a medium ADI, or a small ADI, on and after 1 July 2019.
As I flagged in my second reading debate speech, this amendment delays the implementation of the BEAR as it applies to small- and medium-sized authorised deposit-taking institutions until 1 July 2019. Those institutions will be those declared to be such by the Treasurer.
I think this is a sensible amendment. As I said before, small- and medium-sized enterprises, banks and other deposit-taking institutions play a vital role in improving competition in the financial sector. I think that would be something both sides of the House would agree with. Indeed, we would like to see more competition from small- and medium-sized enterprises in the banking and financial services space. It was going to be a very onerous task for these ADIs to comply with this by 1 July 2018, probably an impossible task, therefore this amendment is sensible. I appreciate the fact that the government will support this amendment. It's nice to win one occasionally. I commend it to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (16:39): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (16:39): Labor supports the Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017. A bill that proscribes false representations that a person is, or is acting on behalf of, a Commonwealth body is a necessary addition to the laws of the Commonwealth. This bill, which introduces two offences into the Criminal Code Act 1995 for persons who engage in conduct which results in a representation that a person is, or is acting on behalf of, a Commonwealth body, is a near mirror provision to the existing protections relating to impersonating a Commonwealth officer. The Labor Party supports legislation designed to proscribe unacceptable and false representations that a person is, or is acting on behalf of, a Commonwealth body. We've seen the damaging effect of falsehoods disseminated in election campaigns in recent years, and we strongly support measures that are designed to ensure that the Australian people have safeguards which protect the truthfulness of the information that's provided to them when they're deciding who their elected representatives will be.
There is in this bill both a primary offence and an aggravated offence. The primary offence in proposed section 150.1(1) provides that a person commits an offence if they engage in conduct which results in, or is reasonably capable of resulting in, a representation that the person is a Commonwealth body or is acting on behalf of, or with the authority of, a Commonwealth body. Though this offence does not set out a specific fault element, section 5.4 of the Criminal Code sets out that the fault elements will require that the person intends the conduct or that they are reckless as to whether or not the conduct will result in, or is reasonably capable of resulting in, a relevant false representation. The aggravated offence in proposed section 150.1(2) contains the same elements as the primary offence but also requires that the person engages in the conduct with the intention of (1) obtaining a gain, (2) causing a loss or (3) influencing the exercise of a public duty or function. The penalties for these offences range between a maximum of two years imprisonment for the primary offence and a maximum of five years for the aggravated offence. Further, conduct coming within the scope of one or both of the offences may be the subject of injunctive proceedings.
That said, it is a matter of some regret that this bill comes before the House having found its genesis in the government's and the Prime Minister's continuing petulant tantrum about their lacklustre 2016 election result. By approaching this matter in this way the government is again highlighting the real concern held by the Australian people that this government does not believe in and does not support Medicare, a Labor-designed institution that is critical to Australia's national healthcare system. In order to understand how we have arrived here we must travel back to election night on 2 July 2016. It was very late on election night—in fact, it was early the following morning—that the Prime Minister finally faced the Australian people and commenced the longest dummy spit in Australian political history. Mr Turnbull spent a full four-fifths of his election night speech railing against text messages and the Labor Party, trying in vain to prove his own leadership in the face of losing 14 seats at that election. It was 35 paragraphs of complaints before the Prime Minister turned to a meagre two paragraphs on what he and his government would do for the Australian people. These were the only paragraphs in his election night speech which attempted to set out what exactly the point of his government was. Unfortunately, for the Prime Minister, those two paragraphs are as vague in purpose as the last 18 months of his and his government's embarrassing tenure.
This House well remembers that the political purpose of this bill comes out of an election campaign in which the Prime Minister and the conservative parties of Australia ran a scurrilous and thoroughly dishonest scare campaign about Labor's negative gearing policy. We've learnt over the holidays from a freedom of information request that the Prime Minister and his Treasurer both held advice from the Commonwealth Treasury that predated the 2016 election campaign which stated unequivocally that reforms to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount would only see a modest downward impact on property prices. Yet that advice—formal advice from the Commonwealth Treasury—was recklessly ignored by a desperate government which spent six weeks prophesying apocalyptic events. It's in this context, the context of this government getting caught up in its own lies, that we arrive on the first day of a new parliamentary year.
While the Labor Party support this bill, we continue to hold reservations about the approach that the government has taken to the promulgation of this legislation. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters determined in December 2016 that it would conduct a further inquiry and make recommendations in early 2017 regarding the issues of impersonating a Commonwealth officer and Commonwealth entity. In neither the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters second interim report, published in March 2017, nor the third interim report, published in June 2017, did the committee provide a recommendation about the need for legislation in this policy area.
It's fair to say that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee received numerous submissions that expressed concerns that the new offences went beyond the stated policy intentions and that the scope of conduct caught by the bill had the potential to impact on freedom of expression. In particular, submitters expressed concerns about the adequacy of the protections for satirical, academic and artistic activities. At section 150.1(7), the exemption for satirical or academic purposes limits the use of the exemption to conduct engaged in solely for a genuine satirical, academic or artistic purpose. The use of the word 'solely' in the satirical exemption provision narrows the possible conduct that may be protected by the defence and fails to account for the fact that conduct that has a satirical, academic or artistic purpose may very well contribute in an entirely beneficial way to public debate and discussion.
Notwithstanding these concerns, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee stated:
The committee has weighed these concerns with the fact that the proposed offences almost mirror the current offences for impersonating a Commonwealth official, including the form in which the proposed exemption has been articulated.
It's to be hoped that these new offences do not operate in such a way as to gag legitimate criticism of governmental activity. Sadly, it's become the hallmark of this government that legislation has been brought before this House which overreaches and lacks the necessary conceptual clarity that's required for parliament to properly scrutinise and be satisfied that the legislation placed before it for enactment is necessary and proportionate to the objectives it seeks to achieve. Where, as was said with this bill, the drafting is 'lazy, confusing and ambiguous', the parliamentary task becomes more difficult. More importantly, when this bill becomes law, it has the potential to cause differing judicial interpretation and uncertainty as to the persons who, and in what circumstances, it may apply to.
One of the central purposes of statutory design is clarity. Ambiguity is an imposition on the rule of law and an undesirable feature of any legislation, particularly criminal legislation, which has the possibility of terms of imprisonment attached to it. In part, these regrettable conceptual and linguistic laws can be understood as the by-product of a government approach to legislating which is more interested in political pointscoring and the settling of perceived grievances than with the proper use of parliament and with the awesome responsibilities of parliamentarians as legislators. This parliament has many serious issues to debate and legislate on, and yet the government is determined again to expend the parliament's time on political pointscoring.
The Labor Party hopes that in future the government will follow proper parliamentary processes, consult widely, accept the advice of experts and develop legislation that is not solely designed to serve a political end. Labor supports the Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (16:49): This is the 'Mediscare' bill. This Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill is the bill that, if enacted, would send Labor operatives to jail for up to two years if they ever again try to impersonate a Commonwealth agency in order to try and steal an election from the Australian people with a lie. In the 2016 election campaign, Labor and its mates in the union movement made over one million mock Medicare cards, deliberately designed to look like the real thing, in order to trick people into believing that the coalition intended to privatise Medicare—to sell it off. Labor and, of course, unionised Labor had their people manning polling booths that said 'Save Medicare'; pushing literature, often quite aggressively, onto voters; and framed by Australian Council of Trade Unions funded and authorised placards also bearing the Medicare logo, declaring that the coalition would privatise Medicare. Labor even sent out a text message on the very morning of 2 July 2016, election day, that identified Medicare as the sender of the message, which said:
Mr Turnbull's plans to privatise Medicare will take us down the road of no return. Time is running out to save Medicare.
The Labor campaign was built almost exclusively on expanding the essential 'Mediscare' message—that the coalition would privatise Medicare.
Labor, right throughout the campaign, knew very well there was no plan to privatise Medicare. However, Labor also knew that there would be an electoral advantage if it could convince enough people, hoodwink enough people, that there was a plan to privatise Medicare. So it carefully prosecuted a preposterous lie—the biggest campaign lie, I dare say, in the history of politics in this country—and brought it to a climax of deception right on polling day to try and steal the election. And you know what? It nearly worked. It nearly worked, as Labor and its shady operatives have repeatedly boasted since. Sally McManus, now Secretary of the ACTU, and ACTU campaign director during the 2016 election, has boasted about the effectiveness of the 'Mediscare' campaign in winning votes for the Labor Party. She said:
Just look at the statistics—we got a 5.5 per cent swing in the seats we targeted.
And there were over 20 seats. The overall swing to Labor in the election was two per cent. In nine of the 13 seats that Labor won at the election, the margin was well within the 5½ per cent swing Labor said it achieved in seats targeted by the 'Mediscare' blitz. A couple more seats were just outside. So, if the 'Mediscare' lie had been accepted by only a few thousand more Australians, Labor would be in government today—on the back of a bold-faced lie that it sought to dupe voters into thinking was from Medicare itself. What a complete absence of decency and morality. What a stain on the principles of our democracy. In 2016, Labor decided that their policies couldn't win the election. Only a disgraceful, dishonest scare campaign could make up for their threadbare policy platform and give them any chance of winning. What complete losers you must perceive yourselves to be that you have to come up with such a vile distortion of the old adage 'whatever it takes'.
The opposition leader was comprehensively pinged for it mid-campaign, on the 7.30 program, and his response just underscores how slippery, how dishonest and how defeatist this whole thing was. Leigh Sales asked:
Isn't the message that you're sending with your hyperbole around Medicare that you don't think that the truth alone can win you the election?
She got some disassembling nonsense from the opposition leader in reply, so she tried again. Leigh Sales said:
… put your hand on your heart and look Australians in the eye and say that the Coalition has a policy to privatise Medicare?
Do you think the opposition leader did that? No, he didn't. He didn't, because he simply couldn't. Not once did the Leader of the Opposition have the guts to face off with Leigh Sales and go on the record to perpetrate the lie.
The Leader of the Opposition knew 'Mediscare' was a lie—after all, he was most assuredly at the table when Labor made it up. He also knew it was incredibly effective, so effective, in fact, that it quickly became the centrepiece of Labor's campaign. Indeed, the very next day after Leigh Sales' interview was the Labor Party's campaign launch in Penrith. It was billed as a 'save Medicare' rally, and it was where—surprise, surprise!—the opposition leader wasn't nearly as wary of the issue that he'd been dodging the night before. 'They're pretending,' the opposition leader told the rally in reference to the claim that privatising Medicare was in fact part of the coalition's plan. But, as we now know, it was in fact the opposition leader who was pretending. He was pretending that there was such a plan, because he knew there was not. Why was he pretending? The opposition leader was pretending simply because he knew that, if Labor could fool enough people, he may well become Prime Minister. Whatever it takes: forget about respecting the electorate, forget about being straight with the Australian people and forget about that old phrase we use 'fair dinkum'. Is this what today's Labor Party has become: to win at any cost, including the complete loss of one's morality? No matter how many lies and no matter how much political muckraking they have to wade through, it's all about whatever it takes.
That episode alone—those 24 hours in July 2016—epitomises precisely why the Australian Labor Party and this Leader of the Opposition are totally unfit for government. They are unfit to govern when they resort to tactics which usually belong to tin-pot dictatorships with make-believe, rigged elections. Any party and any leader so bereft of good ideas and good policies that they feel the need to deliberately concoct for the Australian people the likes of 'Mediscare', as their only hope of winning an election, is clearly unfit not only for government but also to represent even one solitary citizen of this great country.
The extraordinary thing is that Labor was so reliant on and so enamoured of this scam that by the halfway point it was effectively, and probably by design, the sole focus of virtually every aspect of Labor's national campaign and seat-by-seat campaigns. It was ramping up steadily, via a coordinated plan, ever building to a crescendo of fabrication. The opposition leader's bus that he used to tour the country underwent a mid-campaign repaint to emphasise the now all-pervasive 'Mediscare' theme. Election events for the opposition leader became almost exclusively rallies allegedly to save Medicare from, as we now know, a fictitious privatisation plan. And you know what? It almost worked.
And even more extraordinarily, without the measures contained in this bill, Labor would most assuredly do it all again if they had the opportunity. That's obvious from the lack of contrition, and indeed the bragging, that has been displayed time and again by Labor luminaries indulging in retrospectives on this issue. They defend it. They say it wasn't against the law to do what they did. They make the point that the Australian Federal Police, after the matter was referred to them, found that there had been no breach of Commonwealth statutes—no offence committed. And, indeed, there wasn't any such breach, because what Labor had done with this campaign was drive a truck through a loophole in the law—a loophole they had tested and no doubt determined was there, just waiting for them to exploit it.
It is illegal to impersonate a Commonwealth official. It is not illegal to impersonate an arm of the Commonwealth, an agency of the Commonwealth, such as, pointedly, Medicare. Labor's National Secretary, Noah Carroll, actually told the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that the 'Mediscare' text message was all about freedom of speech—political debate. He said, and I quote, 'This is a healthy thing.' He also said, and I quote directly from his evidence:
I do not think it necessarily mattered who people thought that message came from; I think the reality of it is that people believed it full stop. That is why it was effective.
Therefore, according to the man who will probably be running Labor's next federal campaign, together with this Leader of the Opposition, the message to their troops is: 'Whatever it takes. No matter how immoral it is, whatever it takes. If you can get away with it, never mind the truth; just do it.' That's their approach. 'If it effectively sways even short-lived opinion, then run with it.' That is their strategy. This is gutter politics. Unfortunately, it is also the politics of today's Australian Labor Party. This is the politics of wilful deception, akin to deliberately releasing a pernicious virus that exploits digital and social media, infecting whole electorates with a lie.
This bill before the House today aims to stop the Labor Party from ever being able to run such a campaign again. It extends the illegality of impersonating a Commonwealth officer to also include impersonating a Commonwealth agency such as Medicare. The maximum penalty for doing so will be two years in prison, which is commensurate with the current penalty for impersonation of a Commonwealth official. This bill also creates a mechanism for injunctions against such behaviour, which is important if in the future any political party or organisation attempts to run a similar deception campaign.
Can I also say it is immensely telling within the context of this debate that, if reports are right, Labor has indicated an amendment to the bill to make it a defence if offending communications—that is, communications falsely claiming to come from a Commonwealth body—are authorised under electoral legislation. Can you believe the guile of the Australian Labor Party? We assume they, on the one hand, accept the proposition that it should be unlawful to deliberately deceive the Australian people, but on the other they seek to add 'except where the lie is officially authorised during an election campaign'. Good God! Just how morally bankrupt has the Australian Labor Party become?
Australia requires the passage of this bill, with no self-serving amendments and no 'get out of jail free' cards. At the end of the day they can dodge all they like, but it is time they are held to account.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (17:04): The bill before the House, the Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017, creates a new offence. I want to say at the outset that the bill is not necessary. It creates a new offence of impersonating a Commonwealth office or agency. We'll support the bill, but we argue quite strenuously that it is not necessary. There are already sufficient powers and offences within the Commonwealth Criminal Code to cover the offences, if they could be proved, that the member for Fairfax complains so bitterly about. I will join the member for Fairfax in debate on this particular issue because his contribution to this debate made it absolutely clear that there is not a scintilla of public interest in the bill before the House. It is all about the private political interests of the Prime Minister and the woeful performance of his party in the 2016 election. They only just managed to fall across the line in the 2016 election, so they are now attempting to change the rules to make it harder for their opponents to campaign against them.
Let's join the member for Fairfax in his hyperbole about what the bill and the debate are really about. The member for Fairfax is trying to convince this chamber and the Australian people that we were not joined in an argument about the future of Medicare in the 2016 election. You would have to have been residing on another planet if you did not understand that Medicare and the woeful performance of the Abbott and Turnbull governments in relation to health care were not a central issue of concern to voters in the 2016 election.
Labor is rightfully very proud of the contribution of Medicare. February 1st marked the 33rd anniversary of the start of Medicare, a historic Hawke government achievement, following on from the landmark efforts of the Whitlam Labor government to introduce Medibank a decade earlier. It took two Labor governments more than two decades to embed what is now seen by all Australians as a birthright: the ability to access affordable, world-class health care in a GP, in a public hospital and also by accessing drugs that are listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Today the coalition like to paint themselves as friends of Medicare, but we know that, for the entirety of the period between May 2014 and that terrible election performance and the closure of polls in 2016, the government were doing everything within their power to dismantle and defund Medicare and its associated organisations. They claim that what Labor was saying about Medicare is not true. This is what Labor was saying about Medicare: the GP tax—
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
Mr STEPHEN JONES: If the minister at the table could keep his mouth closed for long enough he might learn something. I know that will be an enormous issue of restraint for the minister at the table. We told people that the GP tax, the Medicare rebate freeze, was going to lead to GP practices around the country stopping bulk billing. We told people the GP tax and the Medicare rebate freeze was going to lead to an increase in GP fees. Both of these things were happening at the very same time that the Prime Minister was standing up and talking to any TV camera that he could stick his head in front of and saying it was a lie. Even when we took photos to the Prime Minister, taken in my electorate, of GP surgeries that had signs on their windows saying—
Ms Collins: We had the same.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: and I hear the member for Franklin, who is here with me today, saying they were in her electorate as well—'This practice will no longer be bulk-billing, because of the government's GP Medicare rebate freeze,' still they said it was a lie. When it was discovered there was a secret process in train to privatise some of the billing functions, some of the IT functions and claim processing systems, and we brought this to the attention of the Australian people, still they said it was a lie. What the member for Fairfax, the minister and the member for Bradfield are trying to do today is use this elaborate legislative and parliamentary process to tell the people of Australia that they are mugs, that they cannot see the truth when it is clearly presented to them. That's what the member for Fairfax is saying: the people of Australia are mugs. We do not think the people of Australia are mugs. We think they know that they see in the Australian Labor Party a friend of Medicare and they see in the coalition a party which, since 1972, has taken every single opportunity available to it to try to dismantle and undermine the universality of Medicare. Australian people are not mugs, Sunshine; they get it and they found you out.
The coalition are attempting, by the introduction of this bill today, to detract attention from the fact that they do not have a plausible, credible, cohesive policy agenda when it comes to fighting corruption in government and in politics. Last week the Leader of the Opposition took the opportunity of an address to the National Press Club to announce that a future Shorten Labor government would introduce a National Integrity Commission. He made the observation that at every state level there is a broad based anti-corruption investigative body which is charged with the responsibility of weeding out and preventing corruption in public life, whether that be within the elected arm of government, the executive and administrative arm of government or even the judiciary. He made the observation that, in recent surveys of Commonwealth public servants, too many had said that they had seen misconduct, cronyism and nepotism within the administration of the Public Service: five per cent. Some might say that, compared to other countries around the world, five per cent is a pretty good result. I'm sure that any right-thinking member of this place would say five per cent is five per cent too many. Is there any surprise that, when you look at Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, Australia ranks 13th of 176 countries, but has dropped six places in six years?
Mr Ted O'Brien: Is that the CFMEU?
Mr Fletcher: It could've been Eddie Obeid's doing. It could've been the Health Services Union.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: I hear the minister at the table raise allegations of certain elected scoundrels who are now doing time in jail—not long enough in my view, but that's a matter for the New South Wales judiciary to determine.
Mr Fletcher: What about Ian Macdonald?
Mr STEPHEN JONES: I can guarantee you, friend, that I have more bugs to bear and bones to pick with the former MLC from New South Wales than you ever could, but the point to make on this is that the corruption was exposed by the New South Wales ICAC. It would be naive to suggest that corruption such as this stops at a state border. It would be naive to suggest that the corruption we saw with the Australian Wheat Board, with the bribes and kickbacks to rogue dictators in the Middle East, and the corruption we saw with the Reserve Bank subsidiary Securency were isolated incidents—or the serious corruption that's being alleged and unveiled in a recent Four Corners program about the administration of water licences and the allocation of water rights in New South Wales and Queensland. Only a fool—or perhaps the member for Fairfax or the member for Bradfield—would suggest these are isolated incidents or that the tendency to corruption stops at a state border.
If the members are serious about both the perception and the reality of corruption in public life, they will put aside this unnecessary bill, which is attempting to rewrite the history of the 2016 election, and join with Labor and introduce legislation in this session of parliament to create a broad based anticorruption body in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. That's what genuine legislation looks like. That is what a government that is truly committed to improving the tenure of public discourse, the administration of government and the conduct of politics in this country would do—not this nonsense which the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has said is unnecessary and duplicates existing offences. Quite rightly, the committee has come to these conclusions on the basis that this is nothing more than a political stunt, an attempt to rewrite the history of the 2016 election.
There was no sadder sight in Australian politics than the Prime Minister hiding behind the gilded gates of his Wentworth mansion too nervous to come out and face the media—let alone his own party, who were ropable because of his incompetent conduct of the 2016 election campaign. If the Prime Minister or the cabinet members who have approved this legislation are looking for a scapegoat, looking for an avenue through which to vent, I suggest they look at their own behaviour and not at the legitimate campaigning of Australian Labor, which has proudly campaigned on the virtues and the necessity of Medicare for over 33 years. The Australian people aren't mugs. They take offence when members opposite stand up in this place and say they were somehow conned into exercising their votes in the way they did at the 2016 election. Labor doesn't think the Australian people are mugs. We think they've got a pretty good read on what that mob over there want to do to Medicare and the plans they have for this country. So I ask the other side to step back and have a look at what we really need to do if we're going to address corruption and the perception of corruption in the Commonwealth government and its administration. Join with Labor and work with us to draft and bring into this place, in this session, a national integrity commission bill. We will all vote for it, and Australia will be a better place as a result of it.
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (17:19): The Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017 will amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to safeguard the Australian public from misrepresentation and false statements purportedly made on behalf of Commonwealth bodies. The government strongly condemns the impersonation of Commonwealth bodies and is committed to strengthening public confidence in all communications that come from them. Recognising the importance of this issue, this bill introduces new criminal offences and an injunction power to prevent people from impersonating a Commonwealth body. It is essential to a well-functioning democracy that the public have trust in the legitimacy of statements made by government bodies. That trust will be eroded if individuals are, with impunity, able to represent themselves as communicating on behalf of government bodies without any authorisation. Accordingly, this bill further safeguards the proper functioning of our system of government by introducing new offences for criminalised conduct where a person falsely represents themselves to be acting on behalf of, or with the authority of, a Commonwealth body. For the purposes of the new offences, a Commonwealth body could be a Commonwealth entity, a Commonwealth company, or any service, benefit, program or facility provided by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. These offences will capture false representations in relation to a broad range of government bodies and services, from the Australian Taxation Office through to Centrelink and, indeed, Medicare.
This bill seeks to address a possible gap in our criminal law, which means that impersonating a Commonwealth entity, company or service may not be appropriately criminalised. It is already a criminal offence to impersonate a Commonwealth official. It is less clear whether the current offences cover a person pretending to be, or acting on behalf of, a Commonwealth body, which is why the government has taken action. This bill introduces offences to ensure that the punishment reflects the person's state of mind in making the false representation. The primary offence covers circumstances where a person is reckless as to whether their conduct will result in, or will be reasonably capable of resulting in, a false representation. This conduct will be punishable by up to two years imprisonment. The amendments also create a new aggravated offence where a person holds out that they represent a Commonwealth body or service with the intent to obtain a gain, cause a loss or influence the exercise of a public duty. These penalties are commensurate with offences for impersonating a Commonwealth official. The bill contains safeguards to ensure that neither of these offences unduly limits freedom of expression.
The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which I am a member, has received reports concerning the impersonation of government entities and the potential for these misrepresentations to mislead voters. This has been well publicised with the 'Mediscare' experience in the last federal election. The committee received a number of submissions on this matter and was able to question those impacted by the 'Mediscare' texts and handouts that were seen at booths and sent on election day last year. Importantly, Noah Carroll, the National Secretary and Campaign Director of the Australian Labor Party, appeared before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters at public hearings here in Canberra. I will read the text message which we refer to:
Mr Turnbull's plans to privatise Medicare will take us down the road of no return. Time is running out to Save Medicare.
It's not the text message that's the problem; it's the fact that, in the field that would normally show who the sender is, the word 'Medicare' is there instead. That text message purports to come from Medicare itself. There is nothing wrong with the communication of that message, as long as the author, the sender, of that message is known. It was something that the Labor Party absolutely avoided on election day. This text message was sent out at about 11 am in the morning. There was plenty of time on election day for the Labor Party to admit that they were the sender. There was enough speculation in the media for them to confirm it, or to know that there was angst in the community about who the sender of this text message was, but they didn't. They remained silent. It was a strategy on their part to remain silent, to let it go all day while people were voting and to make them think it was a bona fide message from Medicare, when it certainly was not. We're supposed to believe this was all an accident by Labor. A spokesman for Queensland Labor said, after it was eventually confirmed that it was sent by Queensland Labor, that the message was not intended to indicate that it was a message from Medicare; rather, it was to identify the subject of the text. I think that's using absolute weasel words after the fact to say that it was not intended to indicate that it was a message from Medicare but, rather, to identify the subject of the text.
I've worked on campaigns and I have some admiration for all people who work on campaigns—people who work on Liberal Party campaigns and people who work on Labor Party campaigns. I can assure you that, when you send something to the printers, you check it; you double-check it; you proof it. When you send a text message, you test it. You send it to a small group of people. You make sure that the text message comes across exactly how you want it to come across. There was no doubt in this case that the Labor Party of Queensland wanted the field that would normally describe who the sender was to instead show 'Medicare', not because it was designed to be the subject of the text but because they wanted it to look like that, to fool voters into thinking it actually was from Medicare.
I've got greater confidence in the ability of the people that work for Queensland Labor. I think they're smart people; I think they've been too smart by half on this. There was no accident. It was an absolutely rolled-gold deception that they absolutely knew they were getting into. The fact that not even on election day itself could they admit that they were behind it actually proves the point that they were more happy in making sure that voters got this message thinking it was from Medicare, and after the election, when it didn't matter, they'd confess and say that it was from them. It scared people. It was inappropriate, and they should absolutely know better. It's a real shame in this House that Labor Party members opposite can't just admit that their campaigners pushed the envelope way too far and say: 'They pushed it way too far. We would never do it again.' But, no, instead they come into this House and defend it. They defend that action as completely appropriate. Mr Carroll said he thought there'd be no confusion at all, when he gave evidence to JSCEM. They wanted confusion; they wanted to hide the fact that they were the sender of the text message. As the member for Fairfax said, Labor has an attitude of 'whatever it takes', and we saw that alive and well in this incident.
This bill also enlivens the injunction provisions in the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. This will provide persons whose interests have been, or would be, affected by the false representation the opportunity to prevent such conduct by a court-issued injunction. The bill will enable affected persons to apply to the relevant court for an injunction to prevent conduct in contravention of the new offences in the Criminal Code. The purpose of this power is to enable affected persons to act swiftly, if needs be, to prevent conduct amounting to false representation of a Commonwealth agency. These amendments are critical to protecting Commonwealth bodies from criminal misrepresentation and to ensuring that the public has confidence in all communications that come from the Commonwealth government. Australian voters decide the future of our country. It is appropriate that we as parliamentarians give voters the tools to make informed decisions in an informed manner on polling day.
In conclusion, it is the government that is committed to ensuring that voters know who is communicating with them to influence their vote. These changes update the Commonwealth's authorisation regime for the 21st century. The bill increases transparency and accountability without imposing an undue burden on communication with voters. It removes that loophole that the Queensland Labor Party campaigners found and exploited—something that they got away with under the current law, something that they should admit crossed the boundaries of what is right in a campaign. And this law will stop them in future taking such deceptive action to use the good name of Commonwealth organisations, and the people who work for them, to advance their political interests, to advance their political campaign, to con mums and dads and elderly people into thinking that they're getting a message from a Commonwealth agency, when instead it was a tricky message from some tricky campaigners working for the tricky Labor Party in Brisbane. This bill also safeguards public trust in the legitimacy of statements made by Australian government bodies.
This government is committed to safeguarding the proper functioning of Australia's democracy and ensuring that Australians have trust in the validity of communications from government bodies. This bill will strengthen public confidence in all such communications and ensure that those who deceive the Australian public are ultimately captured by the law.
The parliament has been well served by the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which regularly examines aspects of our electoral system and the issues that arise from the conduct of national elections. I commend the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters under the chairmanship of Senator Linda Reynolds for its work to date in identifying the need to reform the authorisation regime and the Criminal Code. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (17:29): How do you know when there's a Liberal government in power? Amongst other things, there's no action on climate change, vulnerable people seeking asylum are demonised and tortured, inequality spirals, big business and the one per cent are given tax breaks, and there are a lot of old conservative people defending freedom of speech and the right to be a bigot. The Turnbull government has gone where no other conservative government has gone before. They're trumpeting nonstop about the inalienable right of freedom of speech, but beware, because, if you use that right to make fun of the government, you might end up in prison under this bill. This bill, if passed, would mean that, if a person:
… engages in conduct; and
(b) the conduct results in, or is reasonably capable of resulting in, a representation that the person:
(i) is a Commonwealth body; or
(ii) is acting on behalf of, or with the authority of, a Commonwealth body—
and you aren't one, that's jail for two years. The only protection given in this bill is that:
conduct does not include conduct engaged in solely—
I repeat, solely—
for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes.
In other words, if you're engaging in satire or academic research but you might have some other purpose, maybe a political purpose, you face jail time under this bill.
I have to ask the government: is this bill itself genuinely satirical? Is this a joke? If you're going to say the only people who can avoid jail time are the ones who engage in genuine satire, what is genuine satire? What's non-genuine satire? What test would one apply to determine the difference? Who will determine the difference if this bill becomes law? Will the government be creating a new body or a person to review satirical works that mention the Australian government or its representatives in order to determine whether the act has been contravened? Will the government be convening focus groups to whom they will show various satirical, academic or artistic conduct that they think might contravene the act to determine whether or not the conduct is genuine? What happens if someone is engaging in conduct not solely for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes? Who is defining the scope of the word 'solely'? Will someone be counting the comments in response to a particular story or video and creating a tally to determine whether or not the act has been contravened? Will the government be shutting down The Betoota Advocate? In their submission the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights ask:
… under the proposed legislative regime would each episode of Clarke and Dawe, The Chaser, The Juice Media's "Honest Government Ads"or Shaun Micallef's "Mad as Hell"need to be prefaced by explanations that the characters are not representing the federal government to avoid any risk of all concerned being jailed for up to 5 years?
You might think this is fanciful, except the government has already taken steps, before this bill has been passed, to haul people up for allegedly impersonating the Commonwealth government. Some members of this place might be aware of The Juice Media's hilarious work in their Honest Government Ads YouTube series. This series has gone viral many times. The reason it has such a wide reception is that it holds up a light to the chaos and dysfunction of our current federal government, using those dreaded weapons of satire and humour. These people have been on the receiving end of contact from a government department saying that some of the images they use potentially might confuse people and make them think they are actually speaking on the behalf of the government. I can sympathise with the government to some extent, because sometimes it is legitimately impossible to differentiate fact from fiction when this government implements policies. I can understand how the Australian public might be confused between a farce and this government. The Juice Media have made this point creatively many times in their popular videos.
Take, for example, the recent video produced by The Juice Media on the government's bungled Centrelink robo-debt fiasco. I remind you, as I read this out, that this is an organisation that has already been approached by the government to say, 'You potentially are impersonating government.' I think it's worth our looking closely at the content this bill apparently seeks to address, so that in this place, as MPs, we can exercise our due diligence and clearly comprehend the absurdity of this legislation. The Juice Media's video takes the form of a clearly mocked-up fake government ad, and the narrator, posing a Centrelink spokesperson, reads the following script to camera. I wish now, in the interests of accuracy, to quote from this satirical video for the Hansard, so that all members can cast a discerning eye over whether this material is genuinely satire or whether the producers face jail time, because that's what this bill is seeking to do: make the government the arbiter of what is satire and what isn't. Let's have some of it. I quote now from The Juice Media's video about the government's bungled Centrelink robo-debt programs:
Hello, I'm from Centrelink
Did you recently commit the crime of accessing social security?
If so, you will have received a polite letter from us over the Christmas holidays indicating that you might need to pay us a huge amount of money.
You may also receive a visit from our friendly debt-collectors.
Did you know that due to our recently introduced algorithm, at least 1 in 5 people who received our letter didn't actually owe us any money at all?
We knew this! We just thought it might be more fun to force you to prove yourself innocent. It's not like you bludgers have anything better to do.
But we're here to reassure you.
Centrelink's algorithm is not malfunctioning. It's doing just what we asked it to: sending out a clear message to poor people that this Government hates you.
Above all, it's distracting you from the actual bludgers who really know how to rort taxpayers.
That's why we're going after the most vulnerable people, like single-income mothers and people with disabilities ... rather than billionaires who stash their money in corporate tax havens; or the top third of companies in Australia that pay no tax; or ministers who blow public funds on private flights to their own weddings, parties and house-buying sprees...
If our efforts to ruin your life are causing you distress, call us on 13 24 68 and if you don't die of natural causes while waiting to speak to a real person, we'll gladly refer you to counselling. Just don't go to your local MP or the media.
Centrelink.
(Authorised by the Department of Inhumane Services and Tax-payer Rorts)
I can see how the public might be confused between this joke video which was released and this actual government, which itself has indeed been a joke with its mismanagement of so-called Centrelink debts. But such is the level of angst in this government that this organisation, Juice Media, has already been told to stop using certain logos and coats of arms because they are official Commonwealth property. So it makes us very worried that this is exactly what the government has in mind with this bill.
I will provide you with another example of such satirical material. So that the House can be properly briefed on exactly what this bill is dealing with, I offer another script from the same video, 'Honest Government Ads'. This video script was written and released in relation to the government's recent marriage equality plebiscite. The video inserts an 'H' in the word plebiscite, but not in a way that would be unparliamentary, I'm sure. Let me quote from that:
G'day I'm from the Australian Government.
Are you ready for the marriage equality Plebishite?!
A Plebishite is when we force the nation to come together and do something really plebby and shite: such as voting on whether certain members of our society deserve the same human rights as everyone else.
Cuz in Australia, WE decide who gets to have human rights (and who doesn't).
PLEBISH1TE!
We're not doing this to find out your opinion ...
We already know from actual surveys that 72% of you support marriage equality; and that this figure is even higher among young Australians (84%).
We're just doing this to please a bunch of dinosaurs from the Late Homophobic Era, who really don't want Australia to advance into the 21st century.
Which is why instead of having a vote in Parliament we're blowing tons of money on a non-binding, non-compulsory postal survey.
But hey, at least we'll be teaching millennials how to use stamps and envelopes.
As well as providing a national platform to vilify and demean LGBTI Australians and their children, in the process.
PLEB1SHITE!
By making it a postal vote, we've made it as hard as possible for those in favour of marriage equality to participate.
So why not just stay home in front of the telly and tune in to The Bachelor, watching heterosexuals flaunt their exclusive right to marriage under Australian law.
We'd especially like all you young Australians to NOT register by the deadline of August 24.
Because we know how much you hate us, so the last thing we want is for you to be ready to vote in the next federal election.
Marriage Equality.
Still not a thing in Australia!
(Authorised by the Department of No Leadership & Unnecessary Harm)
I think I am beginning to understand the government's concern with satire: it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to separate fact from fiction. The government, which already has organisations like this in its sights and has already sent them threatening correspondence, is now wanting to introduce a bill that, for the first time, will put people under penalty of jail time if the satire they engage in is not genuine but somehow impersonates the Commonwealth government. No wonder this government is worried!
All jokes aside, the reality is that, if this bill is passed, it will make producing such videos and writing such material potentially punishable by a jail term. For a government that purports to care about freedom of speech, that is not very funny at all. We are forced to ask these questions and quote these videos, which in turn shows us how ridiculous this bill really is and how poorly drafted it is. Surely this is one of the worst pieces of legislation in history to enter this place.
Genuine satire, solely for 'satirical, academic or artistic purposes'—these are very vague words being used in a provision that can result in people going to jail. This from a government that pretends to care about freedom of speech and individual liberties. Will we be able to look to the courts for inspiration and guidance about what these terms mean? No, because, as Dr Giordano Nanni of The Juice Media submitted to the inquiry:
There is a dearth of case law on what 'satire' even means in Australia …
Or is defined as. So, there is not much precedent to guide us and nothing in the bill. A fundamental flaw, as Mr Jeremy Gans pointed out in a submission to the inquiry, is that it :
… criminalises reasonable misunderstandings, rather than deception, in a context where reasonable misunderstandings (about the role and reach of Australia's federal government) are absolutely commonplace (and are widely recognised as such by all informed people.)
There are valid reasons to prohibit false representations of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth bodies. Of course there should be recourse for someone who, for example, calls someone up pretending to be from the tax office demanding payment, attempts to infiltrate a government organisation using false credentials or uses a false identity to extract information. But should someone be thrown in jail because they dress up like the Prime Minister and pretend to be Prime Minister Turnbull on YouTube, because they make a satirical video that is imitating government advertising? If someone dresses up like me and stands outside my well-signposted office in Melbourne and someone passing by or online thinks they are me, are we seriously saying that they could be thrown in jail? That's how this bill reads. This bill would not be out of place in North Korea. If you make fun of the faultless wise overlord of the universe, prepare to feel the crushing weight of the state as you are dragged away and imprisoned for your cheek and insolence.
The comparison reveals the true intent of the bill. This bill is really about power. In his seminal book Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky notes:
Humor is essential to a successful tactician, for the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule.
This bill is about cracking down on dissent. We are seeing the government do this elsewhere with people who dare to speak out—they are going to potentially lose their funding or their charitable status—and now they're doing it here as well to anyone who dares impersonate the government for the purpose of satire or art.
This is about avoiding criticism, avoiding scrutiny and avoiding ridicule. This bill reminds me of a petulant teenager who has had their feelings hurt and has just decided to lash out. The late great John Clarke deployed humour with devastating effect. Clarke would have impersonated countless prime ministers, ministers and public servants over the years and his marvellous critiques of the senselessness of government policy will live on forever in the Australian psyche. Under this legislation, Clarke's skill may have tripped him up. Someone who isn't political may have flicked on the television just in time to hear Bryan Dawe announce that he was interviewing the Treasurer. Of the millions of people who have watched Clarke and Dawe, there no doubt would have been some who genuinely believed John Clarke was the Treasurer. 'Throw him in jail,' says this mob. If it's not genuine satire, if it's done for a purpose that might have a political purpose, you lose your protection under this absurdly and poorly drafted bill.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that this bill would not be before us if some of the ridicule, the satire and the conduct directed at this government didn't hit as close to home as it has. To be ridiculed you have to do something ridiculous. Not only is this legislation ridiculous but the government trying to push it through is as well.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (17:44): We've just heard 15 minutes of absolute and complete red herrings, trying to create an excuse as to why the Greens think it is okay to subvert elections, to deny fair and true election results, through impersonating government bodies. Clause 150.1(7) clearly states:
conduct does not include conduct engaged in solely for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes. Would anyone think that the brilliant satire of John Clarke would not come under that definition?
That is what the Greens expect us to believe. They are trying to create a red herring in the debate about this bill.
Deputy Speaker, I'll tell you why this bill is most important. There can be nothing more critical in maintaining our democracy than that elections are fair and they are free and they are decided by the fair will and true desire of the Australian people. Nothing could be more important; no principle that we have to uphold in this House could be greater.
Yet at the last election, we saw the Australian Labor Party engage in a deceptive and fraudulent campaign to intentionally mislead and deceive the Australian public. They sent out messages—and they didn't just send the messages out; they actually put the spadework in; they put the groundwork in to try and convince the Australian people that perhaps the coalition was, absurdly, selling Medicare. How you could sell Medicare is simply beyond me. I remember standing at Jannali railway station during the last election campaign, and there was a large crowd of people going through and one guy yelled out, 'They're selling Medicare!' I thought to myself, 'That is just nonsense.' How could anyone actually believe that? But the Labor Party had been sowing the seeds for their campaign of deception and dishonesty. And we know, Deputy Speaker, that in the dying days of the last election they sent out perhaps thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of text messages purporting to be from a federal government agency—purporting to be from Medicare. It was a line-ball call as to whether they actually broke the law: if they had impersonated an officer of Medicare, they would have broken the law, but the way our laws were written, no-one expected that a political party would engage in such dishonest and deceptive conduct as the Australian Labor Party did at the last election.
That is why we must fix this law up—because, if we do not do this, who knows what cunning plan the Labor Party will come up with at the next election? Will they impersonate Centrelink? Will they impersonate Veterans' Affairs? Who knows? Do you know why we have to ask that question, Deputy Speaker? Because they showed no contrition whatsoever for their past misdeeds. You would think they would have been a little bit embarrassed, a little bit apologetic, and that they would have said, 'We are sorry that we tricked and misled thousands and thousands of Australians into believing that the coalition was going to sell Medicare; we are sorry.' But instead they came into this parliament and they wore it as a badge of honour. The Australian Labor Party wear as a badge of honour the fact that they deceived people at the last election. That is why this is so important.
We've seen time and time again that the Australian Labor Party have no respect for our democratic traditions. We've seen, with the citizenship issues, how they have no respect for the Constitution. Before parliament rose for Christmas, we saw the Australian Labor Party knowing full well that they had members of parliament on their side who would not be fit to sit under section 44. The coalition had done the right thing: the member for Bennelong had resigned from parliament because he was not able to prove 100 per cent that he complied with all of section 44 and went to a by-election. So we were short on this side of the parliament, and the Australian Labor Party took advantage of that, knowing full well that they had members, such as the former member for Batman, who should not have been here. That is the respect that the Australian Labor Party have for the Constitution. We've seen the respect that they have for our democracy. That's why this bill must be supported—because at the next election, even though people are going to be aware, we do not want to see a repeat of those tactics of dishonesty, by impersonating Medicare or going on to impersonate other government agencies.
I now turn to the specifics of the bill. The bill introduces new offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 to criminalise the impersonation of a Commonwealth body. Specifically, the offences will prohibit a person from falsely representing themselves to be, or to be acting on behalf of or with the authority of, a Commonwealth entity, company or service. So, to pretend that you are from Medicare or that you represent Medicare will be an offence. To pretend at election time that you are from Centrelink in order to frighten old-age pensioners will be an offence. To pretend that you are from Veterans' Affairs at election time in order to mislead and deceive the Australian public will be an offence, and so it should be.
These arrangements will cover the false representations in relation to a wide range of government bodies, including departments such as the Department of Health, Commonwealth corporations such as NBN Co, as well as Commonwealth services such as Centrelink and Medicare. The new offences will address a possible gap in our criminal law, which means that some conduct purportedly on behalf of a Commonwealth body has not been appropriately criminalised. The bill will promote public confidence in representations that come from Commonwealth bodies and, by doing so, safeguard the proper functioning of government. More importantly, they will safeguard the proper functioning of our elections—nothing could be more important.
The bill introduces both a primary and an aggravated offence to ensure that the punishment reflects a person's state of mind in making a false representation. I would say that a state of mind to deceive people at election time should be one of the highest levels of aggravated offence. Under the primary offence, a person who is reckless as to whether their conduct will result in a false representation that they are, or act on the behalf of, or with the authority of, a Commonwealth body will face up to two years imprisonment. Under the aggravated offence, a person who engages in such conduct with the intention of obtaining a gain, causing a loss or influencing the exercise of a public duty will face up to five years imprisonment. These penalties are consistent with those for other similar offences under the Criminal Code for impersonating a public Commonwealth official. It's a simple principle. There should be no difference between impersonating a Commonwealth official and impersonating a Commonwealth entity. That was the loophole that the Labor Party cynically exploited in order to deceive voters at the last election. That is the loophole that this legislation seeks to close, and I hope that we have full support from the opposition on this.
These amendments are essential to a well-functioning democracy where people can have trust—which they never had with the Labor Party at the last election—in the legitimacy and accuracy of statements that the Australian government makes. It is already a criminal offence to impersonate a public official such as a minister, a member of parliament or an employee of a government department. This exposes the complete red herring that we heard from the member for Melbourne when he was trying to create a reason to oppose this legislation, to try and enable those on the Left to engage in deception and dishonesty. The law is already there. It is already a criminal offence to impersonate a public official such as a minister or a member of parliament. That law exists at the moment. I'm not aware of any action under the existing legislation against any satirical comic or the like, or an artist or someone doing an artistic work. It is there in black and white. If the issues that the member for Melbourne talked about and the red herrings that he raised were a problem, they would have already occurred under the existing legislation. The fact is that they haven't, and it shows that his whole argument is nothing more than a complete red herring. The new offences will put the criminalisation of this conduct beyond doubt and ensure that those who create false representations in this way are punished with the full force of the law.
The new offences will capture various types of conduct including, but not limited to, writing a letter on a letterhead of a Commonwealth body, and sending an electronic communication, including an email or text message, imputed to be from or on behalf of a Commonwealth body—as we saw at the last election with hundreds of thousands of those text messages sent, organised and paid for on behalf of the Labor Party, purporting and creating the false and misleading impression that they were from Medicare when they were from the Australian Labor Party and were designed to deceive people. It will also be an offence to take out an advertisement in the name of a Commonwealth body or issue a publication in the name of a Commonwealth body.
None of these offences is intended to infringe the implied freedom of political communication or to unduly limit freedom of expression. The offences do not cover conduct that a person may engage in for, as I said before, genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes. They also do not affect comment or criticism of a Commonwealth body, provided this is done without falsely representing that the conduct is undertaken by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. To make the matter very clear, the legislation expressly states that the new offences do not apply to the extent, if any, that they infringe on political freedom of communication.
As I commence this debate, amongst everything that we do in this parliament, the most important task that we have is to uphold our democracy, and that requires that we have fair and free elections without fraud or deception. Political parties can advocate their cases. They can gild the lily, and they can make predictions of the future, but they cannot, and they should not, engage in deception. And that, sadly, is what we saw at the last election.
This is important legislation. It goes to the integrity of our political process. I would expect not only that every single member of the Labor Party that was elected at the last election, both here in the House of Representatives and the Senate, vote for this bill but that, when they do so, they show some contrition about the deception and the dishonesty that they showed at the last election. They should come into this parliament and they should apologise to the Australian public for that misleading and deceptive conduct. That, and support for this bill, would go a long way to show that the Australian Labor Party believe in our democracy and believe in fair and free elections. I hope that, when the vote is called, that is what we will see. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities) (17:58): I move:
That business intervening before Order of the Day No. 6, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (17:59): I'm very proud to stand in this chamber as the member representing the first community in Australia that had the gumption to attack one of the great social evils within its midst—in particular, excessive alcohol consumption. That community is Ceduna and the surrounding communities of Yalata, Oak Valley, Koonibba and a number of homeland communities around Ceduna. Ceduna isn't an Indigenous town as such—about 20 per cent of the population is Indigenous—and problem drinking is not just an Indigenous issue. That's why I was so proud of the community, with the charge led by their mayor, Allan Suter, and a number of Indigenous representatives who walked the mile with us and saw the introduction of the cashless welfare card in Ceduna.
I was very pleased with the interim report on the trial, which came down a little over 12 months ago, but was particularly pleased with the final report. The trial has been extended. I thank members opposite for their support of that extension, but I am incredibly mystified by their intention to try to deny the current legislation.
Let me tell you how good the cashless welfare card has been in Ceduna. It is extremely popular with the broader population, but also, from my interactions, with the majority of those who are on welfare, because the welfare card is so designed that it really won't impact on your lifestyle at all if you are managing your life well. If you are taking the payments that the Commonwealth gives you to care for yourself and your family in a correct manner, it will not have an impact. Increasingly in this world, as we all know, in the supermarket and in almost any shop you can just wave the card and it debits the account. One of the problems with the BasicsCard is that it came with a level of shame. The BasicsCard looks different—the blue card. When people that hold a BasicsCard go into a supermarket, everyone can see that they are on the blue card. But a cashless welfare card looks just like everybody else's debit card, so there is no shame. That's a great move forward.
So it is that I come to some of the key evaluations in the final report. In the first six months great improvements were made, with a reduction in alcohol and illegal drug use and gambling. After the wave 2 data, the second evaluation, we found that those reductions were not only sustained but also broadened, with a larger proportion of cashless debit card participants reporting reduced levels of those behaviours. I will start with one, being the reduction in gambling. For those people in the Australian community who gamble responsibly, it's a good thing—it is no problem if you manage it correctly. For those who have less disposable income to lose on gambling machines, there can be very harmful results for their families. If you are on a welfare payment, you must remember that that payment is for you to look after yourself and your primary responsibility—your family.
The intake of poker machines was shown to have dropped by 12 per cent. That does not sound like a big reduction, but the figures from the South Australian government survey actually cover another four communities besides Ceduna in the cashless welfare area. Those figures, which include Cummins, Lock, Streaky Bay and Elliston, where there are poker machine outlets, are likely to be much, much higher—I would suggest around a 50 per cent reduction, but certainly 40 per cent. That is considerable. The shops in the region have reported increased turnovers. In the case of Oak Valley, a remote Indigenous community some 300 kilometres out, there was one food truck every two weeks. Now there's a food truck every week. What a wonderful outcome for the people living in that community!
In the wave 1 examination, we found that 25 per cent reported they were drinking less frequently. In wave 2, that went to 41 per cent. In wave 2, people were asked how often they have more than six drinks on one occasion. Thirty-seven per cent more people said they are drinking less drinks than previously. Thirty-eight per cent of participants who reported drinking alcohol stated that they drank alcohol weekly or more often, which was a substantial reduction from the 63 per cent that were measured in wave 1, which we had considered to be a reduction on what existed prior to the welfare card. This is having an incredible impact.
Let me tell you a story, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was out in Ceduna—I visit it frequently—visiting the drying out centre about three or four years ago. They have a drying out centre there with 12 beds. I was talking to the staff—it was all quiet during the day—and I said, 'What was it like last night?' It was full. I asked, 'What was it like?' There were two couples. The men were bad enough. The women were far worse. That was the nursing staff's assessment. One lady was eight months pregnant, and she could not stop throwing up. Now, we know what damage fetal alcohol syndrome is causing in these communities. How can we stand in this place and deny a path that has shown it has effective results?
If this were a positive education type of touchy-feely thing that was working to the extent that these figures we are given tell us, it would be acclaimed not just in Australia but worldwide as an incredible breakthrough. That's why I'm so mystified, now that the Labor Party has walked away from what I thought was a very good mutual understanding that we would go softly, softly, consult with communities and build trust. It's worth pointing out that, when the 20 per cent designated figure was arrived at in Ceduna, we reached that by negotiation with the Ceduna community. It was suggested at one stage that 15 per cent of their income should be delivered in cash. They insisted on 20 per cent. The minister at the time, Minister Tudge, agreed to the 20 per cent. They had their fingers on this reform. I said to them at the time, 'You've got the chance, really, to set the parameters for the rest of Australia to address itself to.' And it has so happened. After that time Kununurra, of course, came on.
For so many things, across so many indicators, there have been great outcomes. In fact, it's really hard to find the flaw in the process. It comes back to this basic tenet that, if you're managing your income well and you're doing the right thing with your income, it won't affect you. As I said, 48 per cent of people are gambling less and 48 per cent of people are taking fewer drugs. I remember speaking to the mayor on one occasion. There was a little protest group and I said, 'Who's that over there?' He was a little dismissive but he said, 'I'll tell you who doesn't like this program. It's the drug dealers.' What a worry! The drug dealers don't like the cashless debit card, because, I can tell you, they don't carry around the little card reader. They're not interested in plastic sales. They're only interested in cash. So it is of great benefit. I've had approaches from a few people in the area who feel as though it's an infringement on their civil rights. One gentleman said that he can no longer buy meat from local farmers that has been killed on-farm. That's actually an illegal activity anyway, just quietly. People shouldn't be supplying meat to anyone from local farms, and certainly not for cash. If you're doing the right thing, it will not infringe.
As I have said before, I'm so proud of this community. They've really stuck their necks out. I said to them along the way: 'I believe you're forging a path for Australia. You are showing what may well become the way that welfare will be delivered right across the country because if it works in Ceduna, why on earth wouldn't it work in Port Augusta? And if it works in Port Augusta, why wouldn't it work in Adelaide? And if it works in Adelaide, why wouldn't it work in Sydney?' But it isn't as if the government has made a decision to do that. What it's doing is trialling this process around Australia. We've already got two communities participating that have a high Indigenous mix in their social profile, although Kununurra's Indigenous mix in their social profile is a little higher than Ceduna's. We also have Kalgoorlie, which is a bit of a step up, although its profile is a little less Indigenous, and Bundaberg is less so again. That's why it's so important to get this program into these areas and start knocking the barnacles off it. That's why it's been so good in Ceduna. When issues have come up in Ceduna, we've been able to address them quite quickly and then alter the template for what we might do in another place. I remember being contacted by an op shop. They said, 'We don't have a proper connection to be able to get the plastic card to work.' We managed to fix that quite quickly. These are the little teething issues.
I think there are some myths out there. I've been told anecdotally that a number of families and individuals have shifted from Ceduna to Port Augusta, around 500 kilometres away, to get away from the cashless welfare card. That's an absolute furphy, because you can't get away from it. If you are listed in a community at the time the cashless welfare card is implemented, you cannot just change your address and leave those requirements behind. And that cashless welfare card will work the same all over Australia. Sure, there are more things to be done with it. We will have to use more finesse in working on this card, which is why it's so important it now goes into larger communities with different social make-ups.
I fully support the card. I'm the member who has had to stick his neck out over this card. Let me tell you how popular it is: people from all over my electorate come up to me and say, 'You're on the right track.' We believe that people need to manage the income allocated to them from the taxpayer in a correct and proper manner; that they use it for their good health, their benefit and especially for the benefit of their families; that they manage those families correctly; that they get their kids to school, they get shoes on those kids' feet and they feed them correctly. It's hard to do that if you're feeding a drug habit, it's hard to do that if you're feeding money into poker machines and it's hard to do that if you're drunk all the time. This measure directly addresses those issues. Sure it comes with some challenges for some people, but they are the exact people who need our help. To shy away and turn our backs on them is a retrograde step. We need to step up to the plate.
I make the point that the progression to the cashless debit card in Ceduna came about as a result of the coroner's findings that six deaths in and around Indigenous communities in Ceduna happened basically because of overindulgence in alcohol. People were killed on the road; people died in unsheltered places. The report is a harrowing read, quite frankly. The community decided collectively that they had to do something about it. They had to stand up and be counted, which is why, as I said, I'm so proud of them. I strongly commend this bill, and I hope that those on the other side of this parliament will consider their stance and reconsider supporting the bill. Thank you.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (18:14): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. The matter of the cashless debit card is a complex one. Labor has consulted many communities and many key stakeholders from around the country. We've received a wide diversity of opinions from both communities and individuals within those communities. We have heard from some communities and individuals who strongly oppose the cashless debit card. We heard from some communities and some individuals who strongly support it. Labor understands that there are areas where there is a community desire to try something new to address drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and the implications of those things, but we also understand that not all communities want this. We understand that there are certain aspects of this measure which are arbitrary and unnecessary.
The member for Grey should support Labor's amendments because he has himself admitted that there are barnacles on this scheme that need knocking off. He said in his speech just a moment ago that there needs to be more finesse. He has actually admitted there are problems with the way in which this scheme is being implemented. He mentioned St Vincent de Paul. One of the things that Labor heard very much in relation to this card was the inability for it to be used at markets and in thrift shops. We've also heard that, when there was a power outage in one of these communities, it meant that people could not use this card for over a week.
But the other thing that really has convinced Labor to take the position that we are taking is that it is a blanket approach, and there is no way for people to come off that card if they are put onto it. There is no pathway. The evaluation that has been done in relation to this particular measure was one of the most flawed evaluations and pieces of work that I have read for a very long time. In fact, it admitted that the very purpose for which this card was set up—and that was to cut back and reduce violence—has not been achieved in the communities where it has been trialled.
This legislation stems from the 2017 budget, when the government proposed establishing trials of the cashless debit card in a further two locations from 1 September 2017. This bill proposes to allow the government to do this by repealing section 124PF of the Social Security (Administration) Act, which provides a number of limitations on the government's cashless debit card trials. Currently, the section has three relevant functions: first, for the existing trial to end on 30 June 2018; second, to limit the trial to three discrete trial areas; and, third, for the trial areas to encompass no more than 10,000 participants in total. These limitations mean that the government can establish one further trial site and all trials will end on 30 June this year. It will be up to the parliament to authorise additional trials above and beyond those prescribed under this section. Since the introduction of the existing trials, the government proposed establishing additional trial sites in the Goldfields of Western Australia and Bundaberg in Queensland.
Of course, Labor referred this bill to a Senate inquiry, appropriately, to allow for more comprehensive assessment of the efficacy of this bill. In particular, the Senate inquiry heard from communities in both existing trial sites, as well as in the proposed additional trial sites in Western Australia and Queensland. The Senate inquiry made a number of concerning findings. First, there was insufficient consultation with these communities; in particular, there was no clear framework or process to establish whether there was community desire for trials to be established in the relevant trial sites. That is very concerning, and it seemed to me to be one of the most fundamental points. Second, and just as concerning, was the finding that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the trials were effective. Third, the inquiry heard that the Orima evaluations of the trial, which I have just referred to and which the government has sought to rely on, were unreliable and were not based on any empirical methods of evaluation. As I said, it was a very poor evaluation and found that the card made no difference to the levels of violence in those communities. Labor is also concerned that the existing trials in Ceduna and Kalgoorlie have not been running long enough for substantive conclusions to be made.
It is clear that we require more rigorous and comprehensive information regarding the card's efficacy. Labor does not believe in a blanket approach to income management, and we do not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. We know that the vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances. We know that the vast majority of income support recipients require support on a temporary basis until such time as they are able to regain basic financial security. Labor supports community-driven approaches to tackling deep-seated social issues which perpetuate the cycle of poverty and violence. We believe in continued contact and consultation with communities with chronic unemployment in relation to income management and on whether the card is an appropriate measure for these communities.
We understand that some, not all, communities are simply so desperate to break the chronic cycle of unemployment and poverty and all that that means that they are open to trying measures such as the cashless debit card. To that end, Labor will support the use of the card where a community decides that this measure is what they wish to implement. From our discussions with local communities in Ceduna and East Kimberley, it seems as if some members of those communities wish for those trials to be extended. Labor will move to amend the bill to extend the end date of the trials to 30 June 2019 so that a proper and comprehensive evaluation can take place. Labor will not support the rollout of the card anywhere or at any time without important limitations.
The Liberals seek a blank cheque on this measure, and we are not prepared to provide that blank cheque. We do not believe in the vague and insufficiently credible evidence to justify the pursuit of these trials. The evidence and the evaluation that the government has sought to rely on for further trials is inconclusive at best, and there is some concern about the way in which those conclusions in that evaluation were arrived at. There simply is not credible evidence to support the establishment of further trials. We will not support the establishment of further trials in the Bundaberg or Goldfields regions or any further trials. However, as I've said, we are willing to move an amendment to existing trial sites so that there can be proper evaluation.
Labor understands that the complexity of chronic unemployment, poverty and entrenched social issues cannot and will not simply be solved by income management alone. With the many years that I have worked in the social services area, the human services area and the Indigenous area, I find that this is somehow being viewed by some members opposite as some sort of magic bullet. A cashless debit card is not a magic bullet to solve the many, many years of history of chronic and complex problems that exist in these communities. To paint it as such is nothing short of a scandal.
Labor will propose a number of amendments to this bill and to the use of this measure. As I have said previously, Labor will propose to amend the bill to ensure that the existing trial sites in Ceduna and East Kimberley be given the opportunity to extend their trials to 30 June 2019 to allow a comprehensive and proper evaluation. Labor will also propose an amendment to ensure that no new trial sites can be established, by proposing to reduce the provision from three trial sites to the existing two. This is a really important discussion. It is not up to people that will never be affected to make decisions on behalf of these communities. It is not up to the local council and it is not up to individual members of parliament—those people will not be put on income management. It is up to those people that will be affected by these measures to have a proper say. It is not clear how the decisions have been arrived at in relation to the Goldfields and Bundaberg, and that is unacceptable. We are questioning whether or not there has, in fact, been proper consultation and discussion with those who will be affected in those two proposed trial sites.
Labor will only consider the introduction of a new trial site if the Liberal government can show that they have an agreed, formal consultation process with the community as well as an agreed definition of 'consent'. How on earth can you apply these measures to thousands of people without those two things? Labor understands that the holistic, community-driven approach is the best way to address chronic poverty and unemployment, so Labor will propose the guarantee of funding for wraparound services in the trial sites formally within the legislation. This goes to my point that this is not a magic bullet.
Ensuring basic welfare for all Australians, broader than the social safety net in itself, is an important thing to understand. We do not believe that the Turnbull government can be trusted when it comes to income support. That has been seen in the way the Social Services portfolio has been managed. That includes things like the proposed introduction of drug testing, 22 million calls being unanswered in Centrelink and, of course, the robo-debt debacle.
I will conclude by saying this: the government proposes the cashless debit card not because it is genuinely interested in lifting up our most vulnerable citizens but because it seeks to perpetrate an inaccurate and unfair narrative: that our most vulnerable Australians cannot be trusted with their own spending needs. I urge the government to reflect on going out and supporting these new trial sites. I urge the government, and the members of the crossbench in particular, to give serious consideration to the amendments that Labor proposes for this bill. We are not for one moment saying that there aren't chronic problems. We aren't for one moment saying that there doesn't need to be government intervention in a very meaningful way in many of these communities. We know that employment is important to changing the life choices and chances for many people who are currently welfare dependent, but the thought that a cashless debit card is some sort of magic bullet that is going to fix all those social ills is absolutely a nonsense.
We have thought about this very deeply. We have consulted wisely. We have considered very, very carefully the position Labor is taking on this. It is not a position that we have come to quickly, and it is not a position that we have come to in some sort of a kneejerk reaction. It is a position that we have come to through proper consultation and discussion, as I have said, with the people currently on the cashless debit card or, as the government is proposing, in the communities of those additional trial sites. We're simply saying to the government: 'Look at these amendments. Consider them carefully. Let's make sure that any measures that are going to be addressing the deep-seated issues in those communities are measures that are going to work and that have the wrap-around services that make sure income management can be done in a way that gives people pride, options and choice.' None of those things exist in this current legislation. Labor is simply saying to the members of the government and the crossbench, 'Give serious consideration to these amendments.' It has been the result of a Senate inquiry. I oppose the bill as it currently stands.
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (18:29): Firstly, can I just say that I have great disappointment in the loss of the Labor Party's bipartisan support on this very important program, one which is clearly difficult to implement. It is a tough policy. I've admitted that publicly many times. I've also said on many occasions that it is not a magic bullet but it is a tool that we have in the toolbox. It is a policy which we can implement, and it's one which will make a great difference.
Can I say to the member for Barton: you missed one of the critical recommendations of the Senate inquiry, and that is the overall recommendation that the legislation should be supported. That was the outcome from the Senate inquiry.
It's not a blanket approach, and I'm going to talk specifically about my electorate, the electorate of Hinkler. It is not just the city of Bundaberg. It is the city of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay; it is the outlying areas such as Bargara, Childers, Woodgate and Booyal; and it is all of those smaller communities such as Toogoom and Burrum Heads. It does cover a very broad range. The consultation has been extensive, and I will talk about that in detail as we continue. It has extensive community support, and I'll talk about exactly how we managed to ascertain that early on before we worked forward with the Department of Social Services.
In terms of ways off the card, if you're on Newstart there's a very clear one: you can go to work. If you are employed, clearly you will not be on the card; you do not need Newstart. It is targeted specifically at those in my electorate who are aged 35 or under and are on particular payments, which we'll discuss a little bit later on. I say to those people in the Bundaberg area: we are continuing with the rollout. I'm disappointed that Labor is not supporting the recommendations for something which quite clearly works.
In terms of our community, I can only tell you that I was born there. It's part of my community. My family is there, I grew up there and my kids go to school there. I've had businesses there. I know extensively the difficulties we have, and I've got to tell you they've gotten worse. They've not gotten better; they have gotten worse. We need to do something which will make some changes, and the amendments proposed in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 will do that.
You don't have to believe me, as I'm sure the Labor Party won't. I can show you some absolute demonstrations from my local community, including the local press. The first one is an article in the Fraser Coast Chronicle by Blake Antrobus—this was last year—saying that $5 million a month is lost on pokies, just in the Fraser Coast. That is without Bundaberg. That's almost another $5 million, so some $10 million every single month for 12 months.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): Order! I remind the member not to use props in the House.
Mr PITT: Of course. I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will use it for reference only. This is just one front page: $10 million lost in pokies--$10 million. The second one was in the Bundaberg NewsMail: 'Ice rife in Bundy homes; Bundaberg the worst for parental drug abuse'. And then there's '$30K inheritance blown on drugs'. On the other side of the coin, on another front page, was a gentleman who was looking for 30 people to come and work at his scallop-shucking business—positions he just can't fill. So we have challenges on both sides of the coin: we have employment available that people simply won't do, and we have real challenges around drugs and alcohol. This is one way forward. It is a policy which is on the table that has been demonstrated to work. I can go on and on and on here. We have dozens and dozens. In fact, there were so many in the local newspapers that my staff couldn't give them all to me. There were literally dozens over a very short period of time—'Thief takes off with aunt's ashes' and 'Mother's horror as husband slain in home'. We need to do something about this.
I've said publicly, and I'll say it again, it is not a magic bullet. There is no way that we can address every single issue simply with this change in policy, but it will make a difference, because it has been shown to make a difference in the two trial sites. It quarantines 80 per cent of a person's welfare payment onto the card. As we've said, the remaining 20 per cent is available for cash. It is a debit card like every other debit card.
I notice that the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsay, spoke about the challenges when the power goes out. I've got to tell you that it's the same challenge for every other card. Regardless of which card you have in your wallet, if the machine won't work, none of them will work. This is quite simply something which people use regularly and, in fact, if you're under the age of 35 I would suggest that nearly everything goes onto your debit card—very, very few of them carry cash.
The Minister for Human Services at the time, Alan Tudge, announced Hinkler as the next trial site on 21 September. It was announced in the budget for those two new locations, and the proposal for my electorate is different. After extensive community consultation, what's been determined is quite simply that, if you are 35 years or under and you're on a payment—which is Newstart, youth allowance, jobseeker, parenting payment single or parenting payment partnered—you will be included in this rollout. That is substantial. In the Hinkler electorate, that is 6,711 individuals at the time that we put the data together. I recognise that is a lot, but we do need to do something about this, because here are the numbers. It's very straightforward. In my electorate, of those people who are under 30 and are on welfare today, 90 per cent had a parent who was also on welfare during the past 15 years, the majority of whom were on welfare for at least nine of those 15 years. The second one—and this is the most disturbing—is that it is projected that, without intervention, 57 per cent of those under 30 and on welfare will still be on income support in 10 years time.
We are failing a generation of children. We are failing them. Quite simply, this is something we can address, and we can do it with the cashless card, along with a lot of other measures. I've spoken about what we need to do for unemployment—how we drive infrastructure, how we continue to drive the economy. And along with the investment there'll be an additional $1 million for community services. That's on top of the already 70 federally funded services across the region, which includes drug and alcohol services, financial capability, employment, and family and children's programs. Earlier this year a further $½ million was dedicated to drug and alcohol programs. Surely we need to start to address the cause. We've got very bad statistics. We've got a very low demographic. In fact, the Local Government Association of Australia just put out its State of the regions report and the area of Wide Bay, the statistical region that includes my electorate and of course part of Wide Bay, Mr O'Brien's, indicated that this region has the lowest per capita income of anywhere in the country, at some $34,000—as it has had for some 20 years.
So we need to address that. We need to ensure that there are jobs. But we also need to ensure that people are actually using their money on the requirements for life. I don't think any taxpayer would be offended that people are restricted in purchasing take-away alcohol, by not using the money provided by the taxpayer for the purchase of illicit substances or to pour down the throat of a pokie machine to the tune of $10 million a month in the region. I don't think that is unreasonable in any circumstance.
Regarding the community consultation, my office originally did some mail-outs, up until the announcement. We contacted 32,000 constituents to get an indication of their views. That's a substantial portion of an electorate of just over 100,000 voters—32,000, in the form of a direct mail-out. We phone polled about 500 people. We sent an additional 5,500 direct emails, and we had many calls both in and out of the office. To date the feedback we've received shows 75 per cent in favour of the cashless debit card being introduced, 23 per cent against and two per cent undecided. That was just from the initial consultation to determine whether there was support in the community for us to look at this very, very difficult policy—and it is a difficult policy—in terms of the rollout of the cashless card.
Minister Tudge put in a letter to the editor of the NewsMail, the local paper, on 12 October 2017 about the consultation that was conducted on top of that by the Department of Social Services. They are very professional people. This is the Public Service. It's what they do. They've already been involved in the trial rollouts in other areas. They understand where the difficulties are, and all of those have been addressed. We conducted 182 consultations across Hinkler. That is not 182 individuals; that is 182 meetings with groups and with some individuals who have difficulty working in a group, across the board with those frontline service providers. Importantly, 55 of those consultations were local service providers, those on the front line, with disadvantaged families. We consulted with over 70 community members through direct correspondence or meetings. We held two broad community information sessions, another 26 consultations with local church groups, 25 with local government and three meetings with the state government. We also consulted with the relevant peak bodies.
That was just at that date in October. They continue to work, they continue to push forward, talking to people who are affected and ensuring that this will be functional, that it will roll out correctly with as little difficulty as absolutely possible, because this is about one thing: ensuring better outcomes for our community—and not just the individuals but the children who are affected.
What shocked me was what's come out of this community consultation. I thought, 'Okay, perhaps it'll be an age demographic—those on Newstart.' But what came back, particularly from those frontline service providers, was that we must include parenting payment, because the people who are being affected the most are children. We've had the former local Labor state member come out and absolutely decry it: 'We don't have a problem.' Schools run breakfast clubs. In fact, they run so many breakfast clubs that the state Labor government had to put another $2 million into it—more money for these difficult issues.
If we want to talk about those people in the community who don't have a dog in this fight—and let's call it what it is—this is a difficult challenge for the idealists. This is about a practical outcome. One of those is a gentleman called Brian Courtice. Mr Courtice is the former federal Labor member for Hinkler, a very well known former member of the Labor Party, and he is 100 per cent supportive. I ask the rhetorical question: why is he so supportive? Because he knows what is happening to kids in our community. I can tell you that he is so supportive. He has written letters. He has spoken publicly. He has done media. He's been on TV and radio and all of those things because he is concerned about his community and exactly what is going on and he thinks this will help, and I agree with him. Now, I'm just the local member. I've worked there and I've lived there, but I don't deal with it on a day-to-day basis like our frontline community services. I'll be taking their advice, and their advice is that this will make a real difference.
I know that the member for Grey spoke about the Orima report, and I'm not going to buy into too much of that; I'll leave that as stated. But what we do know is that we have support from those people who are not idealists. I spoke about the gambling issue previously and about the amount of money that has been spent. I would like to make special mention of Deputy Mayor George Seymour in Hervey Bay. I know George. I get on with George quite well. He is an intelligent, passionate man who's concerned about his community. But on the one hand he is complaining about the amount of money we are pouring down the gullet of poker machines, and on the other hand he is not supportive of the cashless debit card. This is one way to make a real difference. If we are not here to do that, what is our role? We are local members, first and foremost, to represent our community and their interests and the difficulties that they continue to have. My community, I have to say, needs the support.
I say to the Labor Party: you don't need to believe me. You can believe our local newspapers. You can believe the former federal Labor member for Hinkler, Brian Courtice. You can believe all of those people in the community who are willing to put their names on a piece of paper, to stand up, to be involved, to be in the community reference group and to do media—and they have been absolutely pilloried. People on social media have been basically giving them a very hard time, with all the threats. I know every member of parliament gets threats. We all do; that is just part of the territory. But these are people who have basically been out serving our community for years, and they are telling me, the department and the minister that this is a way that we can address a real challenge in our community. So I would say to the Labor Party once again: please reconsider, because it is not your community which is being affected.; it is ours, and they are absolutely supportive.
I agree there are people out there who are idealistically opposed, and that is their right. This is a democratic country. They are entitled to protest and they are entitled to start their protest groups. But the overwhelming majority of the support in the community is for the cashless card—more than 70 per cent. In fact, I've never seen a policy of government, on either side, supported as strongly as this. It has been quite incredible. I get stopped on the street. I get pulled up by people who say: 'Please do not give up on this. It is something that we need to do.' I see them out there every single day. We take phone calls in my office constantly, from people saying: 'We've got to do this. It is necessary.'
Once again, can I just implore those opposite: please reconsider. We've spoken about the Senate inquiry. Their results were clear. They support the rollout of the cashless card in the additional areas. It is funded. It is in the budget. It is ready to go. There is an opportunity here to make a difference in a community which needs the help. We have an unemployment rate of around nine per cent and a youth unemployment rate of around 23 per cent. In fact, the adjusted unemployment rate, the one used by the Local Government Association—if you remove those on a disability pension, for example—is over 16 per cent, the worst in the country. I say to all of those who may be listening to this broadcast, and with absolute humility: we do need the help. This is one way we can do it.
I once again implore those opposite: please support this legislation. I know there are those in your group who are idealistically opposed, and they are entitled to that view, but listen to my communities, the people of Bundaberg, the people of Hervey Bay and the people of Hinkler, please. I support this bill wholeheartedly, and we need to have it passed. Thank you.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (18:44): I rise in this place today to tell the Turnbull government quite simply that the community in Herbert will not support the cashless debit card in our electorate. In fact, the people in Herbert would much prefer to have funds funnelled into prevention and early intervention strategies.
I have worked for 15 years in the community sector and dealt with many people with drug and alcohol problems and with people who are very vulnerable, and it has become incredibly clear to me that punishing people at the end of a very dreadfully complex and hard life journey is not the answer. The answer is in early intervention and prevention. The other interesting thing that I've learnt over those years is that unless people are invested in their own behavioural change nothing changes. To think that we can simply put a cashless card in someone's hand and they will change their behaviour and do what we want them to do is absolute nonsense.
However, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 does provide a framework for additional cashless debit card locations. But it does not enable the rollout of the card in any specific location without consultation with the people in communities who are most affected. All trials of the card would still require a legislative instrument to be tabled in parliament, and, as I have said, changes in behaviour do not come about through punishment. These instruments are disallowable, which means that the rollout of the card can be agreed to or opposed in specific locations and not others, taking into account the views and/or wishes of the community involved. This is an important point because it means that the potential passage of this bill will not automatically mean that the card can be just rolled out in Hervey Bay, for example. This can still be disallowed through a disallowable instrument in the Senate.
Labor will not support this card being rolled out without proper and due consultation with the communities involved. To have proper consultation before we implement such an expensive so-called solution, it is absolutely imperative that we have a decent evaluation so that we are aware of what we are aiming to achieve and whether it will actually work. It is unfair and completely ill informed to suggest that all people are the same and that success in one trial will deliver a one-size-fits-all solution to all communities. As is evident in my community, rolling out this card is a big decision for any community and for this parliament. It simply cannot be rushed without the express permission and consultation of the individual communities affected. It is also disappointing that the minister has not allowed the time for greater scrutiny and deliberation on this bill before bringing it on for debate today. Labor want to see the findings of the Senate inquiry before determining our final position and, whilst we know that there have been recommendations by the Senate, one of those recommendations was very clearly that there has not been proper and due process in evaluation.
Labor also wants time to conduct consultations with local community leaders in the newly proposed sites of Kalgoorlie, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. The government have not said when they will introduce the particular disallowable instruments that will enable the card to be put in place in these locations. Therefore, Labor reserves the right to support or oppose specific locations on a case-by-case basis. The Turnbull government is hell bent on targeting the most vulnerable citizens. The implementation of the card is an assumption that all those who are 35 years of age and under and receiving Newstart, youth allowance, jobseeker payments, parenting payment single or parenting payment partnered are using their money inappropriately. I ask the members of the Turnbull government: how would each of you feel if you were to be labelled an alcoholic? How would the members of this government feel about being automatically labelled a gambler? How would they feel about being labelled a drug addict? I assume that they would not be very impressed. Essentially, this is what the cashless debit card is doing to those who are already struggling to survive.
I represent the electorate of Herbert, which also includes the remote community of Palm Island. Palm Island is a small community of over 3,500 people. The island has an unemployment rate of over 29 per cent and an underemployment rate of 20 per cent. According to the 2016 census, 24.1 per cent of households on Palm Island had a weekly household income of less than $650. The census also showed that, of people aged 15 years and over on Palm Island, 74.9 per cent did unpaid domestic work in the week before the census.
Palm Island is a developing community and a hidden gem in North Queensland. Given that Palm Island doesn't have a big economy, people look at the debit card as a way back, certainly not a way forward. The Palm Island council and the residents of Palm Island want job creation. They want economic development opportunities. These are what they see as greater priorities for the island, and I have to say I agree.
Townsville has an unemployment rate of around 9.1 per cent and a youth unemployment rate around 20 per cent. To date we have seen no investment in our region by the Turnbull government, and after two years we are still waiting for a NAIF announcement. Palm Island, Townsville and the entirety of northern Australia need investment—investment in infrastructure projects, tourism and education—which will not only kick-start our economies but create employment with a number of new industries, hence reducing welfare payments because people will be employed.
Labor's position on the cashless welfare card trial has always been to support trial areas where the community has a desire to try something new to address the drug and alcohol abuse problems. I am always open to considering genuine efforts to assist and support people in my community who are struggling with drug dependency to access appropriate treatment. I don't believe that income support is best utilised to support a drug habit. However, vulnerable people's lives are very, very complex. There is no easy solution, and I can assure you punishment is not a solution. As community representatives, we must remember that we are talking about people's lives. There are entrenched social issues that cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. We must address the core issue—that is, establishing the flow-on of drug and alcohol abuse to occur. Issues such as children attending school, having a roof over your head, being able to afford to pay your bills and buy food and having access to health care would be a very good start.
The vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights conducted a review of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, which noted that the cashless debit card engages and limits three human rights: the right to social security, the right to a private life and the right to equality and nondiscrimination. By reducing a person's choice in how and where they access and spend their social security payments, the cashless debit card program limits the right to a private life.
Labor have said we will never support a blanket approach to income management. We will not support a trial where the community insists it does not want it. By talking with individual communities, we will make decisions on a location-by-location basis. That means that we will get regional solutions that suit regional communities.
Since introducing the legislation, the government has announced that the Goldfields in Western Australia will be a trial site, along with areas currently being trialled in the East Kimberley and in Ceduna, South Australia. Labor's consultations with the communities in the East Kimberley and Ceduna showed that the communities wanted the trial, and therefore Labor supported these trials being established. We also support an extension of these trials to ensure that adequate evaluation can take place. However, since the trials, there have been some community leaders in Kununurra shifting their support away from the cards because community solutions are crucial. This shift must be acknowledged by the government and taken into consideration. The government must act in favour of the communities' wants and needs. Labor will continue to consult with individual communities to ensure their requests are met, whilst addressing social hardships and challenges.
The Turnbull government released the evaluation of the trials on 1 September. The evaluation showed mixed results. There have been serious concerns regarding Kununurra and Ceduna particularly. If you look at the report, 78 per cent of people said there had been little to no change and some people said they were worse off. The Senate inquiry committee heard from the people of Kununurra, who stated that the card isn't working. Police reported increased levels of violence, and the NGOs in the town are reported as saying that kids were going hungry. You can't just put a card in place without anything else and expect conditions and behaviour to change, particularly when our first nations people within that area stated that they weren't asked about the card, they weren't consulted and they weren't asked for their opinion regarding solutions to address these complex issues.
Trials also require solid and robust evaluation. I have received numerous emails and messages from members of my community who are against the implementation of the cashless welfare card in Townsville. There is a grave fear of the invasion of privacy and that the cashless welfare card is a bandaid attempt at dealing with a more complex social matter. The people in my community would prefer the funding of this card to be implemented in other areas. I have mentioned the fact that early intervention and prevention is where we will make significant behavioural changes, coupled with education.
Townsville, for example, is on level 3 water restrictions and is in desperate need of water infrastructure investment. Federal Labor has pledged $100 million towards securing a long-term solution to Townsville's water needs, as well as $200 million towards developing hydro-electricity at the Burdekin Falls Dam. These are only two suggestions for where the money could be better spent in my region, where jobs could be created for people who are trying to survive on welfare. It is no mean feat to try and live your life, raise a family, pay your rent, put food on the table and get your kids educated on welfare.
If the government is looking for further suggestions as to how the money could be spent to address some of the prevention and early intervention strategies that have been raised in my community, I have a list as long as my arm and I would be very happy to pass it on.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah) (18:56): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, because, when an adult's right to unconditional welfare denies a child his or her right to sustenance, we have a problem. I don't think anyone who has looked at the situation in large parts of remote Australia and some parts of metropolitan Australia could possibly deny that we have a problem.
The purpose of this legislation is to extend and expand some trials which have been going on now for a couple of years. This is a legacy of the Abbott government, and I'm pleased that the Turnbull government wants to extend and expand the trials that my government began. I should, in speaking to this legislation, commend the former Minister for Human Services, Alan Tudge, who has certainly been the principal architect within government of these trials.
We do have a problem of welfare money being spent not on the essentials of life but on alcohol, drugs and gambling. We all know that there are many parts of Australia where, very regrettably, the booze, the drugs and the gambling are contributing to an epidemic of family dysfunction. For instance, in the Kimberley, which I'm reasonably familiar with from two trips to Kununurra over the last couple of years, the suicide rate is almost double the WA Indigenous average. In some parts of the Kimberley, domestic assault rates are 20 times the West Australian state average. This card is colour blind, although so far it has operated predominantly in Indigenous communities. I should say that, around the country, Indigenous women are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised from assault than non-Indigenous women, and almost 90 per cent of partner violence among Indigenous people is alcohol related. Even though in the Kimberley many Indigenous people don't drink at all, because they have seen the ravages of alcohol, per capita alcohol consumption is almost double the national average.
So there is a problem, and I doubt that anyone in this chamber, regardless of his or her ideological preconceptions, could possibly deny that there is a problem. And it is reasonable for this parliament to say that, particularly in places where local people want this cashless debit card, we should put it in place so that we can be absolutely sure that the vast majority of welfare spending is for the necessities of life. It's not for alcohol, it's not for drugs and it's not for gambling. It's for rent, it's for food, it's for clothing, it's for education, it's for health and it's for transport. And, let's face it, if you are a welfare dependent person, wouldn't you need 80 per cent plus of your welfare income to spend on the necessities of life? It's true that a single person on Newstart only gets $650 a fortnight, but a single parent with four children in private rental gets almost $2,150 a fortnight. The problem is that in too many cases not enough of this money is being spent where it should be spent.
The cashless debit card has a long history. You might remember that my government commissioned Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest to do a comprehensive report on ending Indigenous disadvantage. One of the principal recommendations of that report was the introduction of this cashless debit card. But, as members opposite were keen to stress, the government accepted that this should only be introduced where local leaders believed it was necessary for their communities. I want to congratulation the Indigenous leaders of Ceduna in South Australia and Kununurra in East Kimberley in Western Australia for their courage in saying that this cashless debit card would help their communities.
I've heard a suggestion opposite that the cashless card is somehow punishing people. That is dead wrong. The cashless debit card is an acceptance by the relevant community leaders that there is a problem. I'm not saying that everyone is an alcoholic, a gambler or an addict. I'm just saying that in this community there is a problem of people spending money suboptimally—sometimes through poor choices, sometimes perhaps because of a poor local culture—and that this is necessary in order to do the right thing by the most vulnerable people in those communities. There is no proposal from this government—not then, not now—to extend the card beyond communities where it is wanted. Down the track perhaps it might be good to extend it further, but that is not contemplated by this legislation. It is absolutely required by this legislation that it can only go where communities want it, and even under this legislation new trials will be subject to disallowance by this parliament.
So, Twiggy Forrest made the recommendation and the trials got under way in Kununurra and Ceduna. I saw Kununurra when the trial had been in place for just a couple of months. I was told by local police, local health workers, local community workers and local community leaders that the trial had made a very, very positive difference. In August last year back in Kununurra, when the trial had been place for 15 months, that message was repeated and reinforced. I perfectly accept that some members opposite might have had complaints from some individuals, but I have been there. I have spoken to people on the ground. I have spoken to welfare recipients. I have spoken to those who deal with the social problems that misuse of alcohol, drugs et cetera creates, and there is a near-universal view amongst the people on the ground that these trials must continue. In order for even the existing trials to continue, this legislation must pass, because if this legislation doesn't pass the existing trials will automatically terminate by law in the middle of this year. So it is essential for the continuation of the existing trials, let alone for new trials, for this legislation to pass.
While there was a fair bit of gratuitous abuse of the government from the member for Herbert, it was encouraging to hear her concession that Labor had not yet finalised its position. May I say that this is the kind of legislation, the kind of issue, where we should put our ideology to one side and ask ourselves what we can do as a parliament in practice to solve problems. Let's forget about whether we are pro free market or pro big government. Whether we believe that people are victims who need government help or they are responsible citizens who need to stand on their own two feet, let's put all that stuff aside for a moment and be practical. The most practical thing we can do in this parliament right now is to pass this legislation so that the existing trials can continue and even be expanded in the months ahead.
Yes, there have been some problems with the technology, but as we all know technology is improving all the time. I can't go to the petrol station with a government fuel card and buy anything other than fuel. It ought to be possible for technology to be further stroked and refined so that with the cashless debit card you can go to any store in Australia that takes a debit card and not be able to get out cash and not be able to buy alcohol or anything that is illegal or harmful. The technology will come good. It's better than it was and it will get better still, but the trial has to continue. It has to have the potential to be expanded. I should point out for the benefit of members opposite that none of this is about cutting spending. It's not about slashing welfare. It's simply about ensuring that existing welfare payments, existing Commonwealth spending, are as effective as possible, and that should be something that unites every single member in this House.
This is important legislation. It's carefully targeted legislation. It addresses a real problem that everyone here would say does need to be addressed, so I really do hope that members opposite will give this particular piece of legislation the careful and generous consideration, in the spirit of goodwill, that it deserves. We cannot have rivers of cash, particularly rivers of taxpayers' cash, turning into rivers of grog in some of the most difficult, marginalised and vulnerable communities of our country. This is no panacea. Yes, there are all sorts of other problems that won't be addressed by this legislation, but it will make a difference. On its own it won't get the kids to school. On its own it won't get the adults to work. But on its own it will help to make communities more safe, and that is a big step in the right direction to a better life for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
One of the things that please me most about this particular legislation is that the next two communities in line for the cashless debit card are much less predominantly Indigenous than the first two. Yes, there is a significant Indigenous issue in Kalgoorlie, but in Hervey Bay and Bundaberg the Indigenous welfare population is by no means the largest component of the group that would be impacted by this card. If you are someone doing the right thing by your family, you have nothing to fear and much to gain from this card. If you are failing to do the right thing by your family, this card will help you to be a better person and to do the right thing by the people who need you. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (19:10): I too rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. I will return in a minute to some of the comments made by the previous speakers from the government side, particularly the members for Warringah, Hinkler and Grey. But, just to put this in context, this is talking about expanding and continuing a trial of a cashless debit card, which is basically a card that, if you're on welfare, quarantines 80 per cent of the payments for government approved appropriate purchases such as rent, food, transportation and education, while 20 per cent of your welfare payments are able to be used as cash and for other things, whatever they might be.
The trials have taken place in Ceduna in South Australia, an area represented by the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, and also in the Kimberley. I particularly draw people interested in this topic to the comments by the member for Grey, a government representative who has seen the trial rolled out on the ground. I haven't heard from the member for Durack about the trial in her area, but I look forward to responses from those that have experienced it. Obviously the member for Hinkler has not had the trial rolled out in his area of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, but he has talked about community reaction to it. The Goldfields will be the later trials. That would effectively be at the whim of the government by a delegated instrument rather than necessarily consulting with the community.
I note that, of those opposite, the member for Warringah in particular was very proud of this policy being rolled out when he was Prime Minister—obviously not something that particularly affects the area of Warringah. It has had significant impacts on the Indigenous groups in Ceduna in the member for Grey's area and also in the Kimberley. I guess it's a bit of a philosophical argument as well as a practical solution. I certainly remember the member for Warringah talking about some of these areas and talking about living in remote parts of the Kimberley or even some of the APY Lands in South Australia as being a 'lifestyle choice' rather than a reflection of 65,000 years of connection with a particular part of Australia. The member for Warringah talked about the benefits that come from this.
I think there is a bit of an attempt to set up a false dichotomy here—that without the cashless debit card there can be no focus on how people are caring for their children. That is totally wrong. Anyone who's had any dealings with the department of child safety or even the police, for that matter, knows that any parent who is not providing their children with the necessities of life can be questioned under the Criminal Code, the Child Protection Act in Queensland and similar legislation in every other state or territory.
We have to understand what this is about. It may be motivated by the best intentions for the children; however, I would suggest that this legislation needs extra scrutiny, because it's going to significantly affect Australians. I think the member for Hinkler talked about how his electorate office was contacted by people—not like in a postal survey about marriage equality or anything like that, but just people picking up the phone.
I understand that there are community leaders in Ceduna, Bundaberg, Hervey Bay, the Goldfields and the Kimberley who indicate this should be trialled. We need to make sure that the community consultation is thorough, rather than rushed, because, without proper consultation and proper scrutiny, we will not necessarily achieve the best in any community. I think the member for Herbert touched on this from her experience of working with community groups. It's that concept of 'nothing about us without us'. Communities need to own the policy and how it will be rolled out, because it needs drivers. That's the curse of central government: of Canberra directing how 24.5 million Australians work. In this circumstance you need to make sure the local community understands it, owns it and has some responsibility for it.
Labor insisted that this bill be referred to a Senate committee to allow for proper scrutiny of the significant changes that this bill proposes, because it is a significant infringement—taking away the rights and dignity people have. We can dress it up and say, 'It's just another card in your wallet,' but it's much more than that, as we heard from the witnesses that gave evidence in that Senate inquiry. We need to have proper processes and proper scrutiny. This shouldn't be rushed, because, as I said, we need to balance taking away people's rights.
The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee tabled their report on this bill on 6 December last year. Committee members from the Labor Party and the Greens tabled dissenting reports where they criticised the bill. The government announced in their 2017 budget that it would roll out the cashless debit card in two further locations from 1 September last year. The proposed locations were the Goldfields in WA and the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region in Queensland. They are communities that do not have the same percentage of Indigenous Australians as the first two trial sites.
The bill does provides the framework for additional locations but doesn't specifically enable the rollout in those locations. The government would need to take a legislative instrument into parliament for further rollout. Legislative instruments are, of course, disallowable, so for any particular location there will be an opportunity for the parliament to support or oppose the rollout. That is an important point, but the government has not yet said when those disallowable instruments will be tabled in parliament.
Labor believes that there should not be any new trial sites introduced. Labor will seek to move an amendment in the Senate to that effect. Labor would only consider the introduction of the new trial site if the Liberals can demonstrate that they have an agreed, formal consultation process with the community and an agreed definition of 'consent'. They must also have established a comprehensive evidence base through a robust evaluation process.
Labor knows the damage that drug and alcohol abuse and gambling can do to individuals and communities. We know that this is a problem that needs to be tackled as a community, by a community. The Australian Drug Foundation has given some alarming statistics. By the age of 12 a child will have seen more than 1,300 alcohol ads on television. Parents are the most likely source of alcohol for 12- to 17-year-olds. Eight out of every 10 Australians over the age of 14 drink alcohol. One in 10 workers say they have experienced the negative effects of a co-worker's misuse of alcohol. One in five Australians over the age of 14 drinks at levels that puts them at risk of alcohol-related harm over their lifetime. Australians aged over 70 years are the most likely group to drink alcohol on a daily basis. Alcohol and other drugs cost Australian workplaces $6 billion per year in lost productivity. Illicit drug use is most common among people aged 20 to 40 years. The report Alcohol's burden of disease in Australia, released four years ago, found that alcohol causes 15 deaths and hospitalises 430 Australians every day, and the number of deaths in Australia caused by alcohol had increased 62 per cent in the 10 years prior to 2014. These are worrying statistics, particularly for those of us who have young children.
We need to tackle this problem. As the member for Herbert said, we need to tackle it with our communities. What works in the Kimberley won't necessarily work in Moreton. We know that income management alone will not solve entrenched social issues. Governments need to provide additional support for any communities participating in these trials. We supported the first cashless debit trials in the East Kimberley and Ceduna. I visited Ceduna during the trials and have met and spoken with some of the Indigenous Australians there over the years. Also, when my partner was a lawyer working with the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, she dealt with some of the members of that community. I'm reasonably familiar with the Ceduna community and I know about the rollout there, and I refer to the comments made by the member for Grey.
When I was on the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, I went to Ceduna as part of their inquiry. We heard from the officer in charge of Ceduna police station that boredom contributes to young people drinking, particularly in the sporting off-season or when parents are absent due to their own drinking. We certainly saw some of that in our visit to that community. We also heard about the dangers of humbugging. We know that income management was introduced into the Northern Territory in 2007 to minimise humbugging, to ensure that the funds intended for children's welfare were used for that purpose. The Australian Crime Commission, in their submission to the inquiry, said:
There is evidence to suggest that drinkers on income management are able to maintain high levels of consumption through the Indigenous domestic moral economy (demand sharing) and the substantial outflow and largesse from their drinking cohorts who are employed.
One of the inquiry's 23 recommendations was:
That all strategies developed or funded by the Commonwealth or other governments are developed in partnership with the relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and/or their organisations.
'Nothing about us without us.'
Labor supported the cashless debit card being rolled out in Ceduna because we consulted with community leaders and we secured additional funding for the wraparound services that are so essential. As so many speakers have mentioned, this is not a silver bullet. You need the wraparound services if the changes are to have any chance of success, particularly when it comes to drug and alcohol counselling services and increased mental health support services. I note that a memorandum of understanding was signed with the Ceduna region community leaders so that they owned the process.
Sadly, the evidence to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill was that people from the Goldfields and Bundaberg—the sites proposed for the new trials—felt disempowered by the consultation process and that it was not representative of their community. The state member for Bundaberg at the time, Leanne Donaldson, said the consultation process had been 'selective and secretive'. There was criticism to the Senate committee about consultation with the Indigenous community. A member of the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Aboriginal community said:
They weren't really consulted … Every time there is something happening and they want to consult Aboriginal people, they haven't got an Aboriginal person there to explain in simple terms what's going on.
Sadly, whilst we are supportive of the outcomes, we can't support the bill in its current form. At best, the evaluations conducted by Orima are inconclusive. Those evaluations were heavily criticised by academics in the field of social science. The current trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley have not been running long enough to provide sufficient conclusions about their success. Labor's own consultations with these communities have resulted in mixed feedback, with some community groups advocating support and others very critical of the impact on the community. Labor supports the current trials in Ceduna and East Kimberley continuing to the middle of 2019 so that conclusions can be drawn with confidence from the success or failure of the trials and what works best. Obviously the cashless debit card is not the only answer, as three previous speakers from the other side have said. It is also true to say that in some communities it is not the answer at all. Labor does not believe in a national rollout of the cashless debit card. Many communities are driving their own initiatives to tackle drug and alcohol abuse, and I particularly I mention my home town of St George, which has been dealing head-on with an ice problem. Labor wholeheartedly supports these local initiatives—local solutions, local empowerment.
Labor does understand that some communities want assistance to address chronic alcohol and drug related abuse, and it is important that we listen to those communities about what their needs are and how they think those needs should be addressed by them. We do not take the patronising view that all recipients of welfare are incapable of managing their personal finances. We know that the vast majority of welfare recipients are more than capable of controlling and managing their own finances. They are good citizens, doing the right thing by their families and communities. It is important we recognise that. It is also crucial that the wraparound services are provided for these communities where the trials are occurring. Labor calls on those opposite to support Labor's amendment for funding these critical wraparound services. Fairness is something that runs through Labor's veins—fairness for all Australians, whether they are millionaires or whether they receive welfare.
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (19:25): Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, like you, I am in our parliament to do everything I can to make lives better. I am in this place to empower people to take control of their lives and for the government, if need be, to co-invest in people's futures, to help aspirational Australians reach their full potential. This is my absolute focus when we consider social policy and our welfare system, and it is my focus when we consider the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017.
Sadly, the lazy application of cashless welfare in some cases is making lives worse, not better. Even in my own family, I have seen how drugs and welfare can mix and the detrimental impact that welfare as easy cash can have on families, particularly children. The cashless debit card is changing lives for the better. The strongly independent evaluation results of the trial tell us just how big the positive impact is. We know that the card is not a silver bullet, and we acknowledge that, but it is an important tool in the fight against alcohol and drug abuse and the violence and crime that comes with that.
This bill removes the current limitations on the cashless debit card to three discrete locations and no more than 10,000 people who are able to access the card, and it deletes the 30 June 2018 end date of the current program. Removing these limitations will support the extension of the cashless debit card in East Kimberley and Ceduna and enable the expansion of the card to further sites, including the Goldfields in Western Australia and Hinkler in Queensland. The trial of the cashless debit card in East Kimberley and Ceduna has been effective in reducing alcohol consumption, illegal drug use and gambling: 25 per cent of participants and 13 per cent of family members reported drinking alcohol less frequently; 32 per cent of participants and 15 per cent of family members reported gambling less; 24 per cent reported using illegal drugs less often; and 31 per cent reported being able to look after their children better and being able to save more money.
I don't just speak in this place as someone who has read reports. I think it is important as parliamentarians that we look firsthand at the issues that we are trying to solve. I visited Kununurra and Wyndham to see the trial of the cashless debit card. It was so important for my understanding to learn from community leaders and locals how the card was making their lives even better. I met with many people in Kununurra and Wyndham who supported the card, and I met with those who didn't. The number of pick-ups made by the Kununurra community patrol was almost 20 per cent lower last year compared to the year before. Admissions to the Wyndham sobering-up unit were 49 per cent lower than before the trial. Ambulance alcohol-related call-outs were down by 30 per cent, and sales at the Wyndham bottle shop had dropped by 40 per cent. It was really interesting that some sales were up. When I visited the supermarket, I asked what they were selling more of or less of. They reported that, as a result of the drop in the economy overall, sales were down, but there was one particular product that was still being sold in Wyndham at the same level, and that was baby products. The sales of baby products remained constant when other products in that same store were dropping as a result of the economic downturn.
I met with community leaders, who helped me get to the nuts and bolts of this policy. I sat with mums at the Wyndham Early Learning Activity Centre. I met with the chamber of commerce and a number of health and cultural organisations. When meeting with the police in Kununurra, I heard about the issues which they have to deal with day and night, but I was so pleased to hear that alcohol-fuelled call-outs were down. I spent a 12-hour overnight shift with the volunteers of the St John's Ambulance in Kununurra, who were out from 6 pm to 6 am. In Kununurra, the ambulance service is provided by volunteers, and in each and every one of the call-outs—which I can't go into detail about with you today—alcohol played a significant part. Alcohol played a part in the sickness and injuries of every visit we made. It played a part also in the haze of the information we received on some of the calls. Those volunteers don't have a full brief on the situation they're heading into because the information from the person dialling triple 0 is sketchy and inaccurate due to the influence of alcohol and drugs. Attendance with police protection is the norm, and ongoing conflict on— (Time expired)
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:29): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Australia Day
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (19:30): In recent times, there has been an increasing level of debate about the significance of Australia Day being held on 26 January. There is no doubt that this has the potential to be a divisive debate. Indeed, it looks like some in the commentariat are looking for an argument, not a solution. Finding a way forward is more important than re-running old arguments. Our nation needs to reconcile itself with the past as a precondition of creating a better future, one in which we all embrace a common vision of what it means to be Australian in the 21st century. Instead of emphasising our differences, let us create a platform for unity. Australia Day is a time for acknowledging both the good and the bad about our past, assessing where we are as a nation today and contemplating our vision for the future.
All Australians must acknowledge that this commemoration of the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788 is a difficult one for the First Australians. The arrival of Europeans disrupted the longest continuous civilisation on Earth and was accompanied by dispossession, violence, disease and trauma which are still felt today with the tragic gap in life expectancy, education and health outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It is understandable that many Indigenous Australians refer to 26 January as 'Survival Day'. Every Australia Day is a reminder that there is much unfinished business to achieve reconciliation, including recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in our Constitution, but also practical measures to close the gap on living standards, jobs, education and health outcomes.
The story of modern Australia is also one of migration since the 18th century. We are a nation which has welcomed millions of people from all parts of the globe, seeking a better life for themselves, their families and the generations to come. On Australia Day this year, as in other years, tens of thousands of people pledged their allegiance to our country and became citizens. Australia has been enriched by its multiculturalism—people who are loyal to Australia but have contributed their language, music, culture and of course food from their countries of birth. Australia has enormous natural advantages, but it is our people that make us the envy of the world and indeed 'the lucky country', and we're confident enough that it's only a matter of time before we have an Australian head of state.
One of the tasks of political leadership is to bring people together on the journey of change in a way that promotes unity and isolates division. It seems to me that the purpose of Australia Day—to consider Australia's past, present and future—provides an opportunity. I'm a strong supporter of constitutional change to recognise the First Australians, and I'm in favour of a republic. A referendum held on 26 January to recognise First Australians in our Constitution, along with a second question about the move to being a republic, would be an exciting opportunity to forge a path forward for Australia's future. It would mean Australia had a day that recognised our modern history of new arrivals; our continuous history of Indigenous Australians, dating back at least 65,000 years; and our declaration of confidence that we are a modern, independent state with an Australian as its head. I don't declare that this proposal is the idea, just an idea, to avert a divisive debate about when to celebrate Australia Day.
I note Noel Pearson's proposition in The Australian two weeks ago about celebrating both 25 January and 26 January. To me it has a certain logic because, increasingly, I witness more discussion about issues confronting the First Australians, past, present and future, around Australia Day. The Uluru Statement from the Heart has advanced a constructive proposal for a voice for first nations after extensive engagement, and that is not a proposal for a third chamber of parliament.
Australians want harmony based on mutual respect. The impasse on advancing reconciliation must be broken, and decision-makers, civil society and, most crucially, First Australians must be engaged in forging a new path forward. A necessary element will be ensuring that the First Australians have a sense of ownership over our national day of celebration.
Solomon Islands: International Development Assistance
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (19:34): The long-term friendship between Australia and the Solomon Islands is based on a shared history and common interests. We're both parliamentary democracies located in the Pacific and part of the Commonwealth and have national identities strongly shaped by World War II. Some of us in this parliament travelled to the Solomon Islands last month on a learning tour arranged by Save the Children Australia to see the delivery of Australian foreign aid.
The Solomon Islands, like Papua New Guinea, were granted independence in the seventies, and both nations have encountered their fair share of challenges since then. Twenty years after gaining independence, the Solomon Islands collapsed into civil war along ethnic lines. Responding to that crisis, in 2003, Australia led a coalition of police forces from across the Pacific to bring back stability. RAMSI, the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, was notably successful in re-establishing law and order. It formally ended last year, and I heard firsthand from many Solomon Islanders about their concerns that it was ending. However, transitional arrangements remain in place. Australia retains an unarmed AFP presence to advise and assist the Solomon Islands police, in addition to our other foreign aid programs and other support.
In addition to its leadership of RAMSI, Australia's been supporting the Solomon Islands through foreign aid and other advisory initiatives. From what I saw there, I believe it is in the interests of Australia and our region for Australia to continue those programs and to generally play as large a role as our friends want us to play in further developing their institutions of governance, justice and commerce.
The focus of the learning tour was education, the protection of children and women, and economic development. Foreign aid comprises more than 10 per cent of the Solomon Islands GDP, and most of that comes from Australia. This financial year, total Australian Official Development Assistance will be about $142 million, on top of the funding we contribute to important regional concerns such as disease prevention and the international fight against TB and malaria.
The majority of Australian foreign aid is delivered through not-for-profit organisations, usually international charities. For those of us familiar with the limitations of bureaucracy, the delivery of foreign aid by NGOs is to be welcomed so long as they stretch the aid dollar further and operate on the smell of an oily rag. I'm confident from what I saw that their efficiency and productivity is greater compared to direct delivery by Australian government agencies. Another benefit of using NGOs for aid delivery is that, through their charity work, they often have links or existing personnel in the local communities in developing nations. I'm confident from what I saw in communities around the Solomon Islands that their relationships are stronger and their capacity for local delivery is greater than that of our government agencies.
But, notwithstanding the delivery vehicle, I also reflected on broader questions about Australia's foreign aid. Is the money that Australia invests in the Solomon Islands worthwhile? Are we getting value for money? Would our scarce funds be better directed elsewhere, at home or abroad? What I witnessed on the ground was Australian aid making a difference and focused fairly tightly on what are the key building blocks for any society. Regarding economic development, I saw Australian aid empowering farmers, artisans and small businesses by setting up marketplaces and cooperatives that are functional and safe. I saw investments in the capital of emerging industries that may help to diversify an economy that still relies too heavily on some unsustainable practices in logging and fishing. Regarding the justice system, I saw the momentum built by 14 years of RAMSI evidenced by recent legal reforms and strong local efforts to end domestic violence and the exploitation of children. While we were there, the news headlines revealed the first major enforcement operations by the Solomon Islands government against those who practice sexual exploitation and child marriage in outlying provinces.
I conclude that Australians should be possibly more interested in the development of our near neighbours and friends in the Pacific, for clear moral reasons but, as well, for our own strategic benefit. Not only is Brisbane, for example, the gateway for travellers to and from most Pacific nations and for students; we have a sizeable Pacific community around Brisbane and Queensland, and a significant amount of Australia's foreign aid delivery and disaster relief is delivered via Brisbane. The success of our Pacific neighbours should also be Brisbane's success. If we can remember our shared history and build on our friendships and economic ties, we can see even more tourists travelling through Brisbane, even more students and future leaders studying here, closer friendships and more trade and commerce, benefiting our mutual prosperity.
Cowan Electorate: Health Care
Dr ALY (Cowan) (19:39): Every parent knows this story: that pit in your stomach as you watch your child struggle to breathe and with a soaring temperature that just won't go down. The midnight run to the hospital emergency department with your child in your arms, the fear and panic as you wait in the emergency department, and fighting off sleep as you sit by your child's bed into the early hours of the morning. I've been there too, because health services for families, young people and the elderly are one of the perpetual issues affecting all Australians.
Access to appropriate and timely health care is the right of every Australian. When I delivered my first speech in this chamber, over a year ago now, I spoke about the many challenges facing those in our outer suburbs. I spoke about economic inequalities and the fact that growing up in the outer suburbs means that you start life on an uneven playing field. I vowed to dedicate my parliamentary career to delivering the benefits of growth to the outer suburbs of Cowan—better services, better infrastructure, better schools and better access to health services.
For the people in Perth's northern suburbs, the Joondalup Health Campus is our hospital. But almost half of our local patients have to travel elsewhere, often as far as some of the southern suburbs, to get medical attention because Joondalup Health Campus doesn't have the resources it needs to cope with growing demand. I know the health professionals there are doing everything they can with the limited resources they have, and they do a fantastic job, but Joondalup Health Campus is under pressure. It needs $312 million for more emergency department beds, for new operating theatres, for a dedicated mental health unit and for a stroke unit.
The McGowan Labor government is pulling its weight, having committed $167 million to ensure that people in the northern suburbs are not left behind when it comes to health care, but the Turnbull government is ignoring the needs of our northern suburbs and hasn't committed any federal funding. That's why I'm taking this fight here to Canberra. Perth's northern suburbs are growing rapidly: it's estimated that in just four years hospital demand will outstrip capacity to deliver services in the suburbs.
But this isn't an issue for tomorrow. Right now, Joondalup has around the same number of emergency department presentations as Fiona Stanley Hospital but has just 56 emergency department beds compared to 70 at Fiona Stanley. Right now the hospital can only treat 58 per cent of local patients, which means that almost half of the patients in the northern suburbs can't get treatment at their local hospital. Hospital admissions have increased by 28 per cent in the past five years. Operations have increased by 60 per cent. Emergency presentations average 269 patients per day, an increase of 10 per cent. ED waiting times are significantly impacted: for category 3 presentations, only around 25 per cent are seen within the target of 30 minutes; for category 4 presentations, only 49 per cent are seen within 60 minutes. A better resourced emergency department will mean that the hospital can meet its target of 75 per cent for category 3 and 70 per cent for category 4.
In WA, only 44 per cent of stroke patients are treated in a stroke unit. In the northern suburbs, there are more than 3,000 people living with stroke who do not have access to a local stroke unit. Higher quality in hospital support for stroke patients is paramount to better outcomes for stroke survivors and delivers significant economic savings.
The privilege of the position we hold in this place is being able to take up causes like this and bring them here to Canberra to deliver better outcomes for our communities. I'm standing up for Cowan and I'm standing up for the needs of Australians in our outer suburbs to access timely and quality health services, and I ask: will this government do the same? Will the Prime Minister stand up for those in the outer suburbs of Perth, for the people of Cowan and for the people of every other outer suburb across this country and show them that this government too cares about their health services?
Mackellar Electorate: Schools
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (19:44): Late last year I was fortunate enough to visit the Forest High School as they celebrated the end of the school year, the achievements of their students and their positive impact on the community. I would like to give particular mention to Emma Beukers, who started a Cupcakes 4 a Cure campaign, selling cupcakes to raise money for The Kids' Cancer Project. The school as a whole was quick to embrace the initiative, raising nearly $1,000 in only one day. Congratulations to Emma and the Forest High School community for getting behind such a brilliant grassroots initiative with such enthusiasm. Thank you also to principal Ms Rosemary McDowall for allowing me to be part of such a special occasion, and congratulations on such a great year.
To round off 2017, I joined the Sydney Japanese International School in Terrey Hills to highlight the impressive achievements of their students and their school community throughout the year. The school very clearly continued in their commitment to enrich the lives not only of their students but of the wider community through education. Hosting a readathon on their annual charity day, the school supported the invaluable work of the Room to Read foundation, advocating for the importance of literacy amongst youth in Australia and raising money to aid the development of vital literacy skills in developing countries. I would like to congratulate the principal, Jodie Hoenig, and the school as a whole for their generous commitment to ensuring our future remains a bright and compassionate one.
In December I was honoured to join the Oxford Falls Grammar School's senior award ceremony as they recognised the astounding academic and extracurricular achievements of their students in 2017, under the guidance of principal Dr Peter Downey. A shout-out to the year 12 students who achieved impressive HSC results, with 35 students making it on to the distinguished achievers list. Particular congratulations to Joshua Spiller, Rebecca Barlow, Cameron Gain, Isabella Luciani and Elyse Morris for achieving band 6 results in multiple subjects. You all should be exceptionally proud of your hard work and outstanding results.
On 12 December last year, I attended Elanora Heights Public School's presentation day to recognise the hard work and the academic, sporting and leadership achievements of their students and the school community as a whole. Throughout the year, principal Mrs Leesa Martin has set an exceptional example for her students, and the school community has rallied behind countless local charities. Through their generous Christmas gift appeal, the school supported Stewart House, Bear Cottage, Mona Vale paediatrics and Dalwood Spilstead Service. Congratulations are also in order for the school's choir students for an outstanding performance in the appropriately named Schools Spectacular.
At last year's Avalon Public School presentation day, I was proud to join the school community to celebrate a brilliant 2017. Students excelled in all areas: in academics, in sport, and in demonstrating active leadership. Talented local dancers from the school enjoyed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, performing in the Sydney Super Dome for the Schools Spectacular. The school community showed their solidarity for victims of domestic violence by raising nearly $800 for the White Ribbon Foundation. I would like to thank principal Mr Andy Rankin for inviting me to such a special event and congratulate the school on a fantastic year.
Thank you to principal Jane Ferris for inviting me along to Pittwater High School's annual presentation night at the end of last year—and what a year it was! Pittwater High School achieved brilliant results in the HSC, with 31 students making it onto the distinguished achievers list—a commendable result for the school, the teachers and above all the students, who should all be very proud of their hard work and dedication to their studies. Special congratulations to Kain Thompson, who placed in the top 20 in the state for PDHPE. (Time expired)
South Australian State Election: Nick Xenophon Team
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (19:49): Previously in this place I've given a few speeches about the undemocratic nature of the Nick Xenophon Team, about how four people control this party, about how there are many members of this party who are deemed associate members and who don't have any voting rights and about how there are weird clauses—unknown in any other political party that I know of—in the Nick Xenophon Team constitution which talk about the demise of the party's namesake and what might happen to the party's nomenclature in such an event. What we've found with this party is that it is a personality cult: those who worship at the altar of St Nick are gifted great office, in some instances, and those who don't are excommunicated from the party. And there are many people like that in the South Australian state parliament—Ann Bressington and, after her, Mr John Darley. We have seen recently that Mr Tim Storer, who was a Senate candidate at the previous election, has now been found out of favour and is arguing in the High Court regarding the Senate position.
On the weekend, on Sunday, 4 February, Mr Matthew Abraham, a very well known journalist both here and in Adelaide, wrote about the Nick Xenophon Team—sorry, the SA-BEST team's latest iteration—and the headline is 'If you want, Nick can change the situation'. In it, he compares Mr Xenophon to Arthur Daley from the TV show Minder—I'm sure you would remember that show, Mr Speaker. Mr Abraham says that, unlike the fictional Arthur, Mr Nick Xenophon is neither unscrupulous nor a crook, but he does have a natural—how shall we put this—flair when it comes to stumping up campaign cash: 'Want to run? Mr Xenophon "could be so good for you".' As I understand it, there might be some exceptions, but the rule seems to be that each and every SA-BEST candidate has to stump up $20,000 in order to fund their campaign. It talks about how this is being operated. In the event that it's not actually $20,000 cash up front, you can take out a loan from Mr Xenophon, who has taken out a $600,000 mortgage, according to this article—a direct funding arrangement between the leader and his candidate. Mr Abraham notes that one business source said that both major parties have a more hands-off approach when funding individual campaigns, and that what this arrangement does is to tie those candidates—if they're successful and elected—completely to their leader's bandwagon because, through some arrangement—we don't know what that arrangement will be—they have to pay Mr Xenophon back.
This sets up a very difficult situation. We are all aware that people get candidate-itis when they run for public office, and sometimes that particular disease is warranted, and people make great sacrifices, and they are elected to this place and to other parliaments, and it all goes swimmingly well. But, more often than not, people run for office, get very excited, sure they're going to win—and they're unsuccessful. What political parties frequently do is talk such people out of spending large amounts of their own money to try and get elected to public office and urge them to be more prudent in their views. Mr Xenophon, I think, is taking advantage of people who are not schooled in politics and who are liable to get candidate's disease in such a circumstance.
Mr Speaker, you can see how this arrangement—with candidates entering into loans of up to $20,000, which is a small fortune for working people—might mean that they find themselves in a sort of political Ponzi scheme, in a situation where they're funding this loan, in effect, that Mr Xenophon has taken out, which may later be paid for by public financing; we don't know. It sets up a very, very strange set of arrangements indeed. I think that Mr Xenophon, now running in the South Australian state election, should front up to the public about what these arrangements are so that people might vote with some confidence for candidates and know candidates are not going to be beholden to their leader in a financial way—either to him personally or to the party which shares his name.
Canning Electorate
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (19:54): It's my belief that security is the precondition for prosperity. To be truly free, we must first be secure. The people of Canning are concerned about three types of security. They are concerned about national, economic and cultural security. I know this because last year I held 29 town hall meetings and spoke to 1,000 electors face-to-face about their priorities for our region. That's over 30 hours of direct conversation with electors in Canning. And their message was very clear: they want government to continue to provide essential services and keep them safe but otherwise stay out of their lives. I agree that government is most effective when its sole focus is setting the right conditions for the nation and its people to flourish. As such, my priorities as the member for Canning are: (1) ensuring Australia's security; (2) fighting for better local infrastructure, services and jobs; and (3) sticking up for Australian values.
At a time of great uncertainty and division it is important that we affirm the values that make this country so great. It is right that we should celebrate our democratic traditions: the rule of law, our political institutions and our shared belief in the innate worth of all people. We must guard those values jealously. I will steadfastly oppose the political correctness that seeks to undermine our national culture, and I oppose the politics of repudiation expressed most recently in the attacks on Australia Day. I'm not ashamed of our country, our flag or the heritage we have inherited; our task is to celebrate the common good and preserve it for future generations.
Last week I shared these views and priorities with my constituents in the January newsletter. The response I received was unambiguous. Marguerite from Waroona wrote: 'We want to keep our Australian values and do not want to lose our identity. We must keep our country safe and keep our borders secure.' Ray from Mundijong said, 'We cannot surrender our life to political correctness.' Del from Stake Hill noted, 'Totally agree with your stand for strong infrastructure, jobs and Australian values.' And Terry and Sue from Dudley Park wrote, 'You have our backing and may your vision for a secure Australia be achieved.' Countless others in my electorate and around Australia share their sentiments. I always assure my constituents that their feedback is being heard. While those opposite have closed their ears to the masses of concerned Australians, I can say with confidence that we on this side of the House are listening.
The coalition government will continue to protect our borders while at the same time welcoming people who wish to build a new life in Australia—people who want to obey our laws, respect our culture and contribute meaningfully to civil society. We will continue to strengthen our police and security agencies so that we can defeat those who would seek to undermine and harm Australians. We will scrutinise foreign investment, recognising that all Australians have a stake in the future of this country. And we will support local jobs and businesses by providing incentives for growth.
I wish to elaborate on that last point. 2017 ended with very good news for Canning. The Department of Employment has reported that unemployment has dropped from 10.7 per cent to 6.5 per cent in Mandurah and from 10.7 per cent to 6.5 per cent in the Shire of Murray—all over a period of 12 months. The federal government has made it easier for local businesses to hire new staff through its small business tax cuts. By reducing red tape and extending the small business instant asset write-off, we are offering businesses greater financial flexibility. Service providers in the Peel region have also been working hard to help jobseekers get back on their feet. In particular, Mandurah employment facilitator Maryanne Baker, one of only five around Australia, has been invaluable. She has run job fairs and is connecting local businesses like Madora Bay Glass with jobseekers and young people like Harley, who is now a full-time apprentice working for them. Government programs such as PaTH are alleviating youth unemployment and the Stronger Transitions program will provide assistance for retrenched workers looking to jump-start their career. Clearly, there are many people in Canning hard at work to ensure our region's security and prosperity. I'm proud to work alongside them in this task.
House adjourned at 19:59
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Crewther to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that modem slavery continues to devastate the lives of millions of people, with latest estimates of over 40 million people impacted across the world, including over 4,000 people in Australia;
(2) acknowledges that the Government has one of the strongest responses to combat human trafficking and slavery around the world, delivered under the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery 2015-19;
(3) notes that the Government:
(a) remains committed to continuing to improve this response and recognises the importance of partnering with those on the frontline to combat this abhorrent crime;
(b) initiated the inquiry into Australia establishing modern slavery legislation, led by the Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which released its interim report in August 2017 making a number of recommendations and statements of in-principle support, and
(c) following extensive consultation with business and civil society, and taking into account the Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee's recommendations in its December 2017 final report, will introduce targeted legislation requiring large businesses to report on the actions they are taking to address modern slavery in their supply chains; and
(4) calls on the House to support the Government's modern slavery legislation when it is brought before the Parliament.
Mr Crewther to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that commemorations are underway for the eighty-fifth anniversary of Holodomor, to mark an enforced famine in Ukraine caused by the deliberate actions of Joseph Stalin's Communist Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
(2) recalls that it is estimated that up to seven million Ukrainians starved to death as a result of Stalin's policies in 1932 and 1933 alone;
(3) condemns these acts aimed at destroying the national, cultural, religious and democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people;
(4) condemns all similar acts during the twentieth century as the ultimate manifestations of racial, ethnic or religious hatred and violence;
(5) honours the memory of those who lost their lives during Holodomor;
(6) joins the Australian Ukrainian community and the international community in commemorating this tragic milestone under the motto Ukraine Remembers—The World Acknowledges;
(7) recognises the importance of remembering and learning from such dark chapters in human history to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not allowed to be repeated; and
(8) pays its respects to the Australian Ukrainians that lived through this tragedy and have told their horrific stories.
Mr Crewther to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) genocide is a crime under international law, which has been enacted into Australian law through Division 268 of the Australian Criminal Code;
(b) the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic found that ISIL committed, and is continuing to commit, genocide against the Yazidis; and
(c) the Iraqi Council of Ministers, United Nations institutions, and many parliaments have recognised that ISIL's crimes against the Yazidis constitute genocide;
(2) welcomes the Australian Government's decisive action in resettling Yazidi refugees;
(3) condemns the continuing genocide perpetrated against Yazidis by ISIL;
(4) calls for an investigation by Iraqi and international organisations into the disappearance of Yazidi women and children taken as captives by ISIL, and for continued support for the international coalition to defeat ISIL and liberate Yazidis in ISIL captivity;
(5) recognises the importance of justice for Yazidi victims and survivors of ISIL and calls on the Australian Government to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of ISIL's crimes against the Yazidis where possible in Australian courts, including by providing mutual legal assistance, and supporting other national, international and/or hybrid investigations and prosecutions of crimes committed by ISIL against Yazidis;
(6) calls on the Australian Government to continue supporting the formation of an Investigative Team pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2379 (2017) and, once established, to support it in the collection, preservation and storage of evidence of acts that may amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide; and
(7) supports the:
(a) continued efforts to defeat ISIL militarily and ideologically via de-radicalisation and countering violent extremism programs;
(b) continued consideration of the plight of the Yazidis in the development of Australian humanitarian policies and programs;
(c) continued provision of psychological and other social support services for Yazidi refugees living in Australia;
(d) right of the Yazidis and all minorities to live in peace, safety and freedom in Syria and Iraq and to participate in relevant political processes; and
(e) protection of Yazidis, Christians and other minorities in Iraq, under United Nations supervision and in cooperation with relevant authorities and minorities.
Mr Leeser to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the Order of Australia is the highest national honour award and the pre-eminent way Australians recognise the achievements and service of their fellow citizens;
(2) recognises that since being established by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1975, there have been more than 500 recipients of Companion of the Order of Australia, almost 3,000 awarded Officers of the Order of Australia, more than 10,000 inducted as Members of the Order of Australia and more than 23,000 honoured as recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia;
(3) notes the almost 900 recipients in the General Division of the Order of Australia on Australia Day in 2018, from an array of fields including education, arts, sport, science and social work; and
(4) encourages all Members to congratulate recipients from their electorates on this immense achievement.
Mr Buchholz to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) approximately 16,000 Australians fought in the Boer War in contingents raised by the Australian colonies or the Commonwealth Government (after 1901), or joined British and South African colonial units;
(b) Australians, Lieutenants Harry 'Breaker' Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton served as volunteers in a South African irregular unit, the Bushveldt Carbineers, under British Military Command;
(c) Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton were found guilty at their courts martial for the death of 12 Boer prisoners even though they pleaded their actions were in accordance with orders of their British superiors; and
(d) Lieutenants Morant and Handcock were executed on 27 February 1902, and Lieutenant Witton's sentence commuted to life imprisonment, but he was released from prison in 1904 after representations from the then Australian Government and British parliamentarians, including Winston Churchill;
(2) acknowledges:
(a) that Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton were convicted of committing a serious crime;
(b) the serious deficiencies in the handling of the legal case against the three men, including the right to appeal their sentences by their legal advocate, Major James Francis Thomas, the opportunity to seek intervention by the Australian Government and to contact their families to inform them of their plight;
(c) the failure of British Military Command to implement the recommendations for mercy made by the courts martial to be applied equally to these men;
(d) the findings of respected legal figures and community leaders who support this assessment; and
(e) the ongoing emotional suffering this case has caused the descendants of Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton; and
(3) expresses:
(a) sincere regret that Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton were denied procedural fairness contrary to law and acknowledges that this had cruel and unjust consequences; and
(b) sympathy to the descendants of these men as they were not tried and sentenced in accordance with the law of 1902.
Mr Albanese to move:
That this House:
(1) observes:
(a) United Nations World Radio Day (WRD) on 13 February 2018;
(b) this year's WRD theme of 'Radio and Sports' which calls on us to:
(i) celebrate the role of radio in promoting Australian sports and the inspiring stories of our high achieving sportspeople and teams;
(ii) support and promote the grassroots sports that anchor us within our communities;
(iii) be inspired by the stories that challenge gender stereotypes; and
(iv) equally cover both men's and women's sports events;
(2) recognises the:
(a) unique ability of sport to unite and inspire Australians of all backgrounds, and the iconic nature of many Australian sporting events;
(b) power of radio to unite, inform, and entertain Australians throughout the nation and across commercial, public and community broadcasting;
(c) particular importance of publicly funded radio in regional and remote Australia, especially during natural disasters;
(d) critical importance of publicly funded radio for our culturally and linguistically diverse communities through the SBS; and
(e) role of community broadcasters in nurturing new Australian talent including sports broadcasters, journalists and producers;
(3) acknowledges:
(a) the significant disparity between the coverage of men's and women's sports in Australia in radio broadcasting, as well as television, print and online; and
(b) the need to address this disparity to encourage greater participation in women's sports and to recognise the achievements of our women athletes; and
(4) calls for:
(a) commercial, public and community radio broadcasters to cover more women's sports and to ensure there is a diversity of voices in sports commentary; and
(b) greater recognition of the extraordinary achievements of our women's sports teams in the media, including by ensuring equal public funding.
Mr Thistlethwaite to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) in 1999, the 30th General Conference of UNESCO proclaimed annual observance of International Mother Language Day (IMLD) on 21 February; and
(b) about 200 different languages are spoken throughout Australia;
(2) acknowledges:
(a) the significance of preserving Indigenous languages as a link to Indigenous culture and histories and as an expression of identity;
(b) the social, cultural and economic benefits of multilingualism to the Australian community; and
(c) that encouraging Australians to learn a language other than English should be a priority for all levels of government; and
(3) calls on the Government to observe IMLD on 21 February across Australia and to promote the preservation and protection of all languages used by the people around the world through:
(a) promoting the active participation, revitalisation and maintenance of local Indigenous languages;
(b) continuing the National Library of Australia's collection of oral history and available Alphabets of spoken languages as a means of preserving the multi‑lingual inheritance of the people of Australia; and
(c) supporting second language instruction in Australian educational institutions.
Mr Zappia to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Government has delayed release of the Productivity Commission's review of the GST distribution until after the South Australian state election on 17 March 2018;
(b) the Productivity Commission's draft report recommended changes to the distribution of GST revenue that would see South Australia lose up to $557 million in the first year alone;
(c) South Australia did not receive one new dollar of infrastructure funding in the 2017-18 budget;
(d) education funding to South Australia has been cut by $210 million by the Government; and
(e) the Government's failure to support Holden has resulted in thousands of job losses in South Australia; and
(2) calls on the Government to provide South Australia with its fair share of Commonwealth funding and to release the Productivity Commission's report prior to 17 March.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Private Health Insurance
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:30): Several days ago I received an email from a resident of my electorate, and I want to read part of it. It says:
I have been a dialysis patient and disability pensioner for 24 years. I have no chance of getting a kidney transplant. I attend a private dialysis clinic so as not to strain the public health system. Private health subscriptions are increasing at a faster rate than my pension is. I am struggling financially.
That's a real story of a real person who is struggling to meet her health needs.
Since 2013, in the past five years under this coalition government, private health insurance costs have risen by 27 per cent, adding over $1,000 per annum in cost to most families. Over the same period, CPI increases have been about 10 per cent. In other words, private health insurance costs have increased by about 2½ times the CPI rise.
The increases come at a time when private health insurers are making healthy profits. Last year they made $1.8 billion, with some of the biggest health insurance providers making a return of over 20 per cent on their money. Even more concerning is that around 40 per cent of policies now contain exclusions—compared with just 8.6 per cent 10 years ago. So families are effectively paying a lot more and getting a lot less. Not surprisingly, people are dropping their private health insurance. In 2017, private hospital coverage dropped to the lowest level since 2011. It is important to note that the private health insurance industry receives around $6 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies.
Enough is enough, and I am pleased to see that a Shorten Labor government will cap the increases in private health insurance for two years. Labor will also task the Productivity Commission with the most significant review of the private health system in 20 years, to ensure that private health insurance provides value for money. For people in regional, rural and remote Australia—where private health insurance take-up rates are already about 10 per cent lower than for the rest of the country and where health status is much worse than in the cities—Labor's commitment to cap private health insurance rates to two per cent will make a welcome difference. It is time that Australians got value for their health dollars, and under this government what we have seen is, time and time again, the cost of health increasing and the services decreasing.
Norman, Mr Robert John
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (10:33): You don't meet many people in your life who are gifted enough to inspire change in business in a community and who leave a long-lasting impression on all of those that they meet. Robert John Norman, commonly known as 'Bob' is one of those men. On 18 January 2018, a great life came to end; a sudden shock to his family and community, who were told of Bob's passing at the age of 70. I would like to pay tribute to Bob for his outstanding leadership and honour, and for the many great achievements and legacies he has left behind for the people of Cairns in Far North Queensland.
Bob was a man that kept his word. He was a tough man and he didn't back down when he knew what was fair. But he was a funny man, a kind man and very much a family man. At the age of 8, Bob entered the world of commerce when he established the world's first insurance company whose charter read, 'Hereby RJ Norman signs this contract to insure you from explosions while making inventions.' So it is no surprise Bob had a clever mind and aspired to many great things throughout his life.
Bob's passion was flying. He purchased one of the first R22 helicopters to come to the region and had innumerable hair-raising stories of adventure. I must admit I flew to quite a few places with Bob when I was first preselected in 1995. During that time, it gave me an opportunity to gain a great insight into a very special man. Through that, our friendship developed, and it's one for which I'll always be grateful.
Along with other positions he held, Bob was heavily involved in the Cairns Chamber of Commerce. He was the chair for quite a number of years. He was on the board of James Cook University, where he lobbied endlessly for independent status of our university. And the last public role Bob held was the chair of the regional hospital board where he rolled up his sleeves and set about cutting through the red tape and bureaucracy to make the region's hospital one of the best performers in the state.
Bob leaves behind the love of his life, Di, and their five children, Bobby, Sarah, Fiona, James and Edward, and his grandchildren, William, Henry, Stella, Leo, Elliot, Thomas and Grace. Bob Norman, you created a great legacy that will continue for future generations. You will be sorely missed, but your memory, of course, will always live on. Rest in peace, my friend.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Mr JOSH WILSON ( Fremantle ) ( 10:36 ): It's no surprise that the ABC continues to be far and away the most trusted source of news in this country, including in my electorate of Fremantle. It's no surprise that Australians from every part of this continent look to the ABC for essential information, especially in rural and regional areas. I know that the ABC has a distinctive function in WA, as the largest and most remote state in the Federation. But, despite promising there would be no cuts to the ABC, the truth is that under this government more than $250 million of funding has been ripped out and more than 600 jobs have been lost, and that damage has been disproportionately inflicted on the ABC in the west.
Way back in 1974, 8.3 per cent of the ABC workforce was based in WA—remembering that we have about 10 per cent of the population. Last year, that was down to 4.6 per cent, and under this government ABC staff numbers in WA have plummeted. It's not because new technology has made jobs or tasks redundant; it's because jobs are being centralised unnecessarily in Sydney and Melbourne and because local services and capacity are being dropped. In WA at present, there is no front-of-house reception, there is no general manager position and there are no workplace relations, human resources or finance personnel, which makes life hard for WA staff, especially when there's a three-hour time difference. And in rural WA, which is one-third of the continent, there is no WA reporter for Landline. Instead, a Sydney-based reporter is flown across three times a year.
There is currently no outside broadcast capability in WA. If the OB van is requested and approved for use, it is literally driven across the Nullarbor. And when bureaus around Australia were asked to pitch for new programs through the ABC Content Fund, WA got exactly zero projects. Indeed, all were in Sydney and Melbourne.
ABC staff are being asked to maintain an incredible tradition of service and quality while made subject to relentless restructuring, redeployment and job losses. They are regularly under fire from those who don't like independent journalism, who don't like scrutiny, who don't believe in climate change and who think there shouldn't be a fair examination of those in privilege and power, and yet they push on doing work that is intrinsic to who we are and intrinsic to how this nation works at its best.
I want to pay tribute to the work of the Community and Public Sector Union across Australia, but particularly the WA branch of the CPSU and its regional secretary, my friend, Sue Bowers. The CPSU continues to fight with, and on behalf of, ABC staff but, in essence, they are fighting on our behalf in defence of Australia's national broadcaster. They are fighting on our behalf in defence of a foundation stone of our democracy and our culture. People should never forget that the Abbott-Turnbull government promised they wouldn't touch funding to the ABC. That was a lie. Our ABC has been damaged, and we are all the poorer for that.
Defence Industry
Mr EVANS ( Brisbane ) ( 10:39 ): Two hundred billion dollars—that's the headline number regarding the federal government's investments in our defence capabilities. It's a significant investment, demonstrating this government's commitment to ensuring our Defence forces are best equipped to face an uncertain global future. I want to explain for a moment what this means in a local sense, in an electorate like Brisbane. There's a business in Brisbane, in Fortitude Valley, called EPE. They're at the forefront of protective equipment for our police and our defence forces. EPE is leading the world when it comes to fields like bomb detection, diffusing and protection, counterdrone technology, chemical hazard control, unmanned vehicles, and tactical and surveillance equipment. Their work ensures that our defence forces can be amongst the best protected around the world. I recently toured this business with its director, Warwick Penrose, and I gained some insights into many emerging and important technologies that not only increase the defence of our own armed forces but help to protect all of us as civilians. One example is that EPE recently received a grant from our Defence Innovation Hub for its AMULET ground-penetrating radar. In laymen's terms, this is putting new technology onto unmanned, robotic vehicles so that they can detect IEDs through the ground. It means, in practice, that our Defence Force members can find and disarm explosives while keeping a safe distance. EPE have a steadily-growing number of supply contracts with other defence forces and other police services around the world, meaning that Australian technology is helping to protect the lives of our neighbours and our close friends right around the world. EPE now generates over $50 million in export revenue. They're just one of the small and medium businesses that are benefiting from the government's renewed focus on growing our defence industries.
There has been some recent news commentary around the idea of Australia growing its exports from our defence industries, and some of that commentary is based, I suppose, on a false undergraduate yearning that we might live in a different world but also on the incorrect view that a defence industry means just making bombs. Actually, Australia's defence industry is far more advanced and diversified than that. EPE is just one example where growing our defence industry exports means that people right around the world are better protected, including from new and emerging threats like IEDs and drones. EPE has a very important future and I look forward to watching the business succeed and grow. All Australians should be proud that Aussie ingenuity is leading the world when it comes to defensive technologies and, on a local level, when businesses like EPE succeed, it means local jobs and especially high-end manufacturing and technological jobs in places like Brisbane.
Energy
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (10:42): On 28 January this year, constituents in a number of suburbs in my electorate experienced power outages on a day when the maximum temperature soared past 40 degrees and the minimum barely fell below 30. It sucked. It was uncomfortable, and it was dangerous for the elderly and the vulnerable in our community who are exposed to heat stress. I was angry and frustrated on behalf of my constituents. The cause of these outages was substation fuse faults in the local distribution network operated by private companies. I share Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews' frustration and his view that those outages were unacceptable and that those responsible should be held accountable. I was even angrier, though, to see insult added to injury when opportunistic conservative members of parliament started a cascade of patently false statements suggesting that these outages were a result of a lack of generation supply created by the Victorian state government.
As the Australian Energy Market Operator made clear on that day, while Victoria did experience its highest operational demand ever on the night of 28 January, the system still had 1,384 megawatts in reserve. Despite this, the Liberal opposition leader, Matthew Guy, tweeted:
Power out? 40,000 homes are now without power in 37 degree heat. Daniel Andrews Labor allowed a power station to close just to get Green preferences - politics over policy ...
Politics over policy indeed! Matthew Guy knows that 50 Hazelwoods wouldn't have made a difference to the outages that my constituents experienced on that day. Why did he make this knowingly false statement to the Victorian public and why did Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce back it up, even after the state government regulators and energy companies had all publicly made the cause of these outages clear? Conservatives have become used to misleading themselves and each other in the climate change debate and are now taking the same ideologically impervious approach to network regulation. Blind ideology won't help you run your electricity network. If conservatives can't even tell the difference between generation infrastructure and distribution infrastructure, how could they ever deliver network security, let alone lower prices and emissions? If they do know the difference and are deliberately misleading the public, how could anyone trust them to take anything but the most politically opportunistic response?
Labor know that energy policy is serious business with serious consequences. We know that the National Electricity Market is not working for Australian consumers. A Labor government will implement a plan to modernise Australia's electricity system that puts households and other energy users ahead of the big power companies and that puts downward pressure on prices and carbon emissions, and we'll be up-front and honest with the Australian public while we do it.
Australia Day Awards
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (10:45): This Australia Day, once again, those who go above and beyond in their contributions to our community were recognised with Order of Australia awards. Emeritus Professor Russell Duncan Lansbury became an Officer of the Order of Australia for his distinguished service to industrial relations education as an academic, notably at the University of Sydney. His contribution spanned across research and authorship, to contributions to international arbitration foundations, all the way to mentoring young academics. The professor also volunteers at the Wayside Chapel and guides tours through the botanic gardens of New South Wales.
Mrs Dorothy May Isaksen became a Member of the Order of Australia for her significant service to the Parliament of New South Wales, as an advocate for gender equality in politics, as a mentor and to the community at large. While we may not have been on the same side of politics, it is an honour to recognise Dorothy for her truly lifelong commitment to public service through politics. In the community, Dorothy has shown a willingness to get involved and contribute beyond the spotlight. Notably, I would like to recognise her work with the Manly Warringah Women's Resource Centre and the war widows.
Ms Catherine Anne Butler received a Medal of the Order of Australia for being a tireless advocate for refugees, for continuing to do an incredible job supporting the local Tibetan community and for her work on multicultural services in community health.
Mr Peter William Crombie was recognised with a Medal of the Order of Australia for his services to athletics. A competitive and distinguished sprinter himself, he has dedicated his energy to giving back to the athletics community. Having worked with Peter to secure funding for our local Narrabeen athletics track, I know how passionate he is about the sport.
Mr Angus Donald Gordon received a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to environmental management and planning and to the community. Angus is a member of the coastal expert panel advising the New South Wales Minister for Planning. At the Royal Prince Alfred Yacht Club, the former commodore showed leadership and passion for involving young children, especially those with a disability, in sailing.
Reverend Ivan Alexander Roberts was recognised with a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the Uniting Church in Australia and to the Myall Creek Memorial. I'd like to highlight the reverend's work on cross-cultural and interfaith unity within our religious communities as fundamentally important work.
Thank you, on behalf of our community, for your service and for choosing to dedicate yourselves to a greater cause.
Calwell Electorate: Roxburgh Park Football Club
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (10:48): I rise today to congratulate Roxburgh Park Football Club on being named Victorian Good Sports Club of the Year. I commend the club for the important work they have done and continue to do in creating social cohesion and harmony in our diverse local community. Last Monday, the club's committee and its players all got the opportunity to celebrate this success with an official awards presentation to the Roxburgh Park Football Club by the Alcohol and Drug Foundation's Good Sports program. The event also gave me a chance to sit with club committee members, including Mr Trevor Gladman, Mr Arthur McLarty, Mr John Short and Ms Pam Caruso, who recently left the committee, though she's still a very instrumental part of the club's family. We got an opportunity to discuss the success of the programs so far as well as the future programs they plan on building on and delivering.
About five years ago, Roxburgh Park Football Club identified the need to change the culture of their club for the safety of their players and families but also due to the changing nature of the community. They began by introducing workshops designed to tackle domestic violence, educating their players on the effects of drugs and alcohol and ensuring their club was pretty much female friendly by introducing a women's team and an under-18 youth girls team. The importance of female participation has seen an equal split of male and female members on the committee, with six male and six female committee members. The football club has run community involvement days, bringing together people from non-English-speaking backgrounds to explain the benefits of joining a sporting club, such as the Roxburgh Park footy club, and has worked with the local Dianella health centre to attract newly arrived migrants and refugees to Aussie rules football.
It is this tireless advocating that the club does to include the most disadvantaged in my community that I'm very proud of. The club constantly looks at ways to ensure newly arrived migrants, refugees, the elderly and, in particular, the disabled and disabled young people become members and are included in the sporting activities which in turn creates an active, healthy, family friendly and positive community in my electorate. When it was announced last year that they'd won the award, committee member Trevor Gladman said, 'This award means vindication for a lot of hard work put in by the committee to change the culture of our football club. It also means that the strides we have taken are paying off and that we are on the right path moving forward.' Roxburgh Park footy club is definitely on the right path moving forward and, as we discussed last week, they will make a very big effort to try to include into the sports club many of the hundreds of newly arrived refugees that Calwell has received from Syria and Iraq. I congratulate them.
Bradfield Electorate: Edgeworth David Community Garden
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities) (10:51): I rise to speak about the Edgeworth David Community Garden in Hornsby. A little over a year ago I had the chance to visit the garden, meet some of the volunteers and formally announce the grant of $13,782 that they had received under the Stronger Communities Program. Last weekend I had the chance to go and visit again to see the progress that they're making. I was extremely impressed at the amount that has been done and the rich array of plants that are being grown. I saw the pumpkins, the watermelons, the silverbeet, the zucchinis, the string beans, the passionfruit. I was particularly impressed with the worm farm and the amount of effort going into composting. But the thing that impressed me was the enthusiasm of the community volunteers who were present. There was quite an age range. The oldest volunteer there was, I think, aged 82, and she was so absorbed in her work that she was only prepared to stop and speak to me for just a few moments before she got back to the hard work of keeping the compost being processed.
It was interesting to speak with the volunteers, particularly some of the leaders of the group: Bronwyn O'Rourke, the secretary, Simon Kennedy, the community engagement coordinator, and Julian Baezavellaneda, who works with Catholic Care and has been involved in bringing a number of their residents to the Edgeworth David Community Garden to become involved in it. The first point they all made was that the grant they received under the Stronger Communities Program was very important for the things it was able to fund, including the fact that the permaculture garden is now wheelchair accessibility. It also funded some of the work towards a shed, which has now been built, although I do want to commend all the volunteers, because the shed itself was found on a nearby housing site that was about to be demolished and they persuaded the demolition crew to give them the shed. They managed to cart the shed back to the site of the garden, and it looks terrific after a lot of volunteer labour to put it together, with the help of that excellent organisation, the Hornsby Men's Shed. Some of the people there helped them put the shed together.
I also want to acknowledge Hornsby council, who really supported the Edgeworth David Community Garden. The thing about the Stronger Communities Program is that it is designed to catalyse activities in our communities. It's not designed to fund the totality of a project; it's designed to encourage those involved in putting together a project to get funds from other sources as well. They've done this very successfully, and they emphasised to me how important the grant had been in building their credibility with other organisations like the council. Congratulations to all those involved with the Edgeworth David Community Garden. What you've achieved in just over 12 months is very, very impressive.
Wenham, Professor Stuart
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (10:54): I pay tribute to Professor Stuart Wenham of the University of New South Wales who, unfortunately, recently lost his battle with melanoma. If you have solar panels on your rooftop then you've benefitted from the work of Professor Wenham. Literally, this man has changed the lives of millions of people throughout the world. He is remembered as the 'Einstein of the solar world' and was Director of the Centre of Excellence for Advanced Silicon Photovoltaics and Photonics at the University of New South Wales. Professor Wenham was a fearless innovator at the forefront of the field, having co-invented suites of solar cell technologies which have had a major impact on renewable energy generation throughout the world.
Professor Wenham was respected around the world for his research and pioneering inventions such as the advanced hydrogenation and hydrogen passivation technology which has allowed efficiency of solar cells to be boosted a hundredfold. With his friend and colleague Professor Martin Green he produced the world's best solar cells. In 1999 they received the Australia Prize for science from Prime Minister Howard for their work, they received the CSIRO Medal for research and their work has been named in the top 100 Australian inventions of the 20th century.
Professor Wenham also helped secure partnerships between the University of New South Wales and some of the biggest silicon producers, who've sought to utilise his technology in production lines. These companies include Suntech Power, BP Solar and Samsung, who have an annual photovoltaic production valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars, helping to make the industry one of the world's fasting growing in the energy sector. Professor Wenham was a true giant of the field, helping secure $8 million in funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency for his UNSW team to further improve commercial solar cells just weeks before his passing on 23 December last year.
A memorial service to Professor Wenham was held at the university on 8 January. Hundreds of people, from all around the world, attended to pay tribute to this giant of the solar world. He will be very, very sadly missed. Professor Wenham loved engineering, graduating with a university medal in electrical energy. He loved his tennis and was a devote Christian at the Menai Illawong Uniting Church.
Many people leave a lasting legacy to the world. Professor Wenham's will be in solar cell technology and renewable energy. I offer my condolences to his partner, Ran, and his children, Alison, Paul and Laura.
Australia Day
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (10:57): On 26 January we celebrated Australia Day, which is the day for all Australians to celebrate our peaceful, free and democratic nation. It's a day when we celebrate and recognise our Indigenous heritage, our British heritage, our migrant heritage and the fact that we are one of the most diverse and successful countries in the world. I was privileged to spend the day in my electorate of Boothby recognising our new citizens who have made a commitment to Australia and our way of life and acknowledging our local residents and organisations who have tirelessly served our community. I was delighted to personally welcome the new citizens of the City of Mitcham, the City of Marion and the City of Onkaparinga, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, at ceremonies across Boothby.
We welcome migrants from across the world, including from India, Zambia, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Nepal, Turkey and Thailand. These residents contribute their unique skills, experiences and culture to our community, enriching us all. I extend my warmest congratulations to all new citizens—in particular, to those who joined our community of Boothby on Australia Day. Strong communities are characterised by the many committed volunteers and organisations found within it. My electorate of Boothby is no exception. That's why I was honoured and humbled to hear about the selfless work of all of this year's nominees for local citizenship awards across the councils in my electorate.
I would like to recognise and thank all the nominees for their service and acknowledge their contribution to our community, as recognised by my local mayors on behalf of our councils. They are: Mayor Glenn Spear of Mitcham, Mayor Kris Hanna of Marion, Deputy Mayor Amanda Wilson on behalf of Mayor Stephen Patterson of Holdfast Bay, and Mayor Lorraine Rosenberg of the City of Onkaparinga.
I would particularly like to recognise community groups and individuals in Boothby who won awards. I was delighted to see community groups like the Blackwood Action Group recognised by the City of Mitcham for their annual Christmas tree festival; the Marion Swimming Club, recognised by the City of Marion as sports team of the year; and the Brighton Jetty Sculptures event in the City of Holdfast Bay. The awards also recognise the work of individuals and young citizens, including local artist Sue Norman, who was the recipient of the City of Holdfast Bay community recognition award.
Finally, sincere congratulations to the citizen of the year winners: for the City of Mitcham, orthopaedic surgeon Professor Jegan Krishnan; for the City of Marion, RSL volunteer Ray Trenordon; for Holdfast Bay, Rotary Club president Robert Harding; and dual recipients and veteran volunteers Brian Dempsey and Bill Threadgold for the City of Onkaparinga. Thank you to all of our groups and individuals for the wonderful work they do as volunteers for our community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has now concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Myanmar: Rakhine State
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (11:01): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Amnesty International has evidence that hundreds of Rohingya women, men and children have been killed since the escalation of a violent assault in Northern Arakan/Rakhine State, Myanmar, since 25 August 2017;
(b) the United Nations has estimated that since August 2017, over 589,000 Rohingyas have been forced to flee to refugee camps in Bangladesh;
(c) there are at least another 20,000 Rohingyas being detained at the borders;
(d) the United Nations Human Rights Council has witnessed accounts and heard testimonies of the Myanmar security force setting villages on fire and injuring, torturing, raping, killing and executing innocent victims;
(e) 214 villages have been destroyed through fire and will be taken over by the Myanmar Government because burnt land becomes government-managed land;
(f) the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, has called these government attacks 'a textbook example of ethnic cleansing';
(g) approximately 600,000 people are still deadlocked inside Rakhine State with limited access to food, medical care or humanitarian assistance;
(h) despite the history of the Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine region extending back to the post-colonial era, this community has been denied citizenship and most basic government services since 1982; and
(i) the treatment of Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine region is an issue that deeply concerns the Australian community; and
(2) urges:
(a) the Government of Myanmar to:
(i) recommit to the pursuit of peace and national reconciliation; and
(ii) allow access to all parts of Rakhine State to allow for the provision of humanitarian aid;
(b) the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs to:
(i) do everything in her power to help alleviate the suffering in Rakhine State;
(ii) lead the push for a strong United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the violence in Rakhine State; and
(iii) work to establish an independent United Nations investigation into human rights abuses in Myanmar; and
(c) the Australian Government to:
(i) support unimpeded humanitarian access to the Rohingya population;
(ii) maintain pressure on the Myanmar Government, particularly the military and security forces, by condemning the persecution, attacks, killings and human rights abuses of the Rohingyas; and
(iii) stand up for the moderate voices in Myanmar which are being widely suppressed by the threat of persecution by the Myanmar military.
Deputy Speaker Buchholz, I'm very grateful for the opportunity to speak on this very important motion which seeks to raise the ongoing humanitarian crisis of the Rohingyas in the Rakhine province in Myanmar, as they remain displaced in camps on the Bangladesh border. There are an estimated 850,000 refugees, men, women and children, with over half a million of them arriving since August last year.
We're only just seeing the extent of the atrocities as they are being revealed to us by the international media, the aid agencies and the parliamentarians who have visited the refugee camps. UNICEF reports that almost 60 per cent of the refugees living in tents and temporary shelters are children, and 21 per cent are children under five years of age. In its report, UNICEF speaks of the Rohingya children as outcasts and desperate. The children face a perilous future. They have witnessed unspeakable atrocities as they fled their homes. They are suffering from malnutrition. Many have been separated from their families and are in desperate need of vaccinations, sanitation, food, counselling and schooling. The UN Secretary-General, the US Secretary of State and many others around the world have condemned Myanmar's ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, and we must also condemn this. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report widespread acts of sexual violence and rape perpetrated by men wearing security uniforms, and describe seeing children being beaten to death, ruthless killings and the destruction of homes and property.
Myanmar has a long history of dehumanising the Rohingya. It refuses to recognise their nationality and to grant them many rights on an equal basis with other citizens. This abhorrent denial facilitates the violence and accompanies the treatment that the Rohingya have experienced as recently, of course, as August last year. Displacement and persecution is an all too familiar story, so much so that Australia has in recent years received many Rohingya refugees, and many are living in my home state of Victoria. According to the ABS, there are currently about 2,000 Rohingya living in Australia. The Australian Burmese Rohingya Organisation—ABRO—who I met with, tell me that they are facing significant barriers for their own successful resettlement in Australia, and this includes finding work and access to adequate English language training. Despite their own personal challenges here, they can never be at ease whilst their family and friends continue to suffer back home. They have been very active in calling out the recent atrocities perpetrated by Myanmar security forces, and, following the most recent mass displacement of Rohingyas, they are calling on the Australian government to increase our refugee intake of Rohingyas and to work hard to guarantee third-country resettlement for those we cannot settle here.
Australia has a very special relationship with Myanmar. We are one of its three major donors for economic development and building capacity for democracy. We must and we do have the capacity to press the government of Myanmar to cease persecuting the Rohingya minority. It's not only our duty as a country that values human rights and democracy but also our responsibility to ensure that Australian aid money to Myanmar is benefiting and building capacity for all, without exception and without discrimination. We need to send a strong message to Myanmar that we will not tolerate these human rights violations. Our duty is to ensure that the Myanmar government upholds its duty of care to the Rohingya people—a duty of care that can allow them to return home and to live in safety and without fear of further persecution.
I want to commend Oxfam's work in providing relief to over 185,000 Rohingya people. They, along with Save the Children, have provided many briefings to us in this place about the situation in the camps, and I want to thank them for their candour. These wonderful agencies require our continued support so that this crisis does not deepen further. On a local level, I'd like to commend the work of Hasene Australia, a local charity in my electorate. Last year this organisation helped raised $57,000 for the crisis and sent volunteers overseas who are providing more than 6,000 families with food, shelter and financial support.
I want to welcome the steps announced by Myanmar's government to work with Bangladesh to repatriate many of the refugees. However, I join with ABRO and other NGOs who remind us that many of the people have been repatriated before. Any new plans for repatriation must be voluntary and must be undertaken alongside effective security protection for the returnees. Oxfam reports that many refugees, especially women, remain deeply traumatised by their experiences and are gravely concerned about being forcibly returned to the birthplace of their trauma.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (11:06): I second the motion. Elie Wiesel, the great Jewish writer who survived Auschwitz and wrote the book Night, quoted:
When adults wage war, children perish.
I was, I guess, a witness to some of that a few weeks ago when I was in Cox's Bazar at the Rohingya refugee camps. The striking thing that confronts us firstly is the number of children there—children with smiles on their faces but dirt on their faces, barefoot and running around, at risk of a major disease outbreak in 60 days when the monsoon season comes—who are the victims of this trauma. People might say to me, 'Why would a member for regional Victoria be interested in the children in the refugee camp at Cox's Bazar?' I say to them that we are the beneficiaries of a very robust and prosperous country and that very robust and prosperous country affords us great opportunity but also great responsibility, and that is to ensure that the values that we hold dear are reflected in other parts of the world.
It is warming to my heart to know that Australia is the third-largest donor to the refugee camps in Cox's Bazar. I was able to go there with Senator Lisa Singh from the Australian Labor Party to see the work that took place. Senator Singh and I co-chair the Parliamentary Friends of UNICEF. I want to reflect on what I saw—a story of what is the worst of humanity, coupled with some of the best of humanity. The worst of humanity, which is quite confronting, was to hear the stories of women who were raped by soldiers whilst they watched their husbands being hung. They didn't want to take their eyes away from their husbands as they died because they wanted to at least give some sort of support. Rape was used as an act of terror. It is not the case that 600,000 or 700,000 people shift for small atrocities; they shift because they are fleeing for their life. We heard stories of the unfolding crisis of 40,000 babies that might be born. Those women are carrying those babies not knowing if they were fathered by their now dead husbands or if they were fathered as a result of rape. The aid organisations have to think through how they will deal with the issues of abandonment if those babies turn out to be fathered as a result of rape.
Standing on a hill, looking as far as the eye could see, you could see a bamboo and tent city that essentially was forest six months ago, showing the rapidness with which people had arrived—they were basically starving after trekking up to eight days. We were told how, with 60 days before the monsoon season, they needed to shift 80,000 people from areas where they are at risk of landslide when the rain starts. We heard that drainage needs to be put in place in order to ensure that disease doesn't perpetrate through that group of people.
But we also saw the compassion of our aid workers. Can I just say on the record: I saw no waste. The great criticism that Australians make is of the waste that's in the aid program, but I saw no waste. I saw hardworking, diligent people. A lady said to me—she's from Perth and has been involved in the aid program work for a long time—that she cries at a Kleenex tissue ad, but, she said, 'I can't cry here because that doesn't help these people. I'm here to work. I'm here to make people's lives better.' They are doing a tremendous job, on things like sanitation—100 people to a toilet—and water supply. I have to say that the farmer in me—I have set up water supplies on my own farm—got talking about bar pressure and pumps and how to set water up. We saw medicine and we saw also education.
The challenge, of course, is: what is the future for those people? People without hope cannot be left to stagnate. And this is the challenge, because the Myanmar government doesn't want to take them back. They don't want to go back in a hurry. The Bangladesh government doesn't want to absorb them, and I think there is probably a real discussion to be had about the way the World Bank and the countries of the world create trading zones, investment and opportunities. I don't think that these people are going to be going back to Myanmar in a hurry. It's simply not safe. Ultimately, we need to create hope for these people because, otherwise, it does sadly become a breeding ground for disenchanted young men and women.
I say we should be proud of Australia's contribution, but, of course, we will need to do more. It was a privilege to go with such hardworking people. We saw the worst of humanity, but we also saw the best of it.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (11:11): I'm pleased to join the member for Calwell and to follow the member for Mallee on such an important issue in our parliament. I note the member for Lilley, the member for Gellibrand and the member for Newcastle will also be speaking on this important issue. We've heard the figures about the number of Rohingya refugees who have had to flee Myanmar over the course of the last 12 months. Following a brutal outbreak of violence in late August, the crisis, of course, has worsened—the crisis faced by the minority Rohingya Muslim community has escalated. We heard from the member for Mallee of his recent trip. I've spoken to the member for Gellibrand about what he saw on his trip. I too would join those members in commending the work of Save the Children in this crisis.
It was reported in late August that over 650,000 members of this community have taken refuge in Cox's Bazar in southern Bangladesh, after having been forced to flee their homes in Myanmar's northern Rakhine province. As others have noted, people don't flee in those numbers because they're economic refugees; they flee in those numbers because they are terrified for their lives. This has added to the extraordinary numbers of displaced people around the globe. On February 3 it was reported that five mass graves were found holding the bodies of Rohingya Muslims, and we know that in the future we will be looking back on this and standing in this place discussing the atrocities uncovered. The United Nations has described the situation as a textbook example of ethnic cleansing, and what we need to do now is to be part of the solution, in terms of both diplomacy and aid, to support those people who have fled and to put pressure through diplomatic processes to ensure that these atrocities cease. In December, Doctors without Borders reported that at least 6,700 people had died in 2017, approximately 730 of whom were children younger than five years of age, and that these deaths were attributable to the attacks in Rakhine. Sitting in Australia, it is difficult to imagine the impact that kind of terror might have.
The provision of aid for the refugees is absolutely critical. We need to remind the Myanmar government of their duty and their duty of care towards these people. We need to be part of that diplomatic pressure, but we also need to be part of the solution. We need to ensure that these hundreds of thousands of people are getting the targeted support that they need in Bangladesh. We need to ensure that people have access to vaccinations, to education, to trauma counselling and, most importantly, to shelter and safety, in the first order.
We've heard again today about the monsoons coming, and about the work that will need to be done to ensure safety and shelter for those who are already there as well as to ensure that no more need flee. SBS News reported on 3 February that an estimated 80,000 tents in the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh will have to be repositioned due to the upcoming monsoon season. This is a current issue that needs to be addressed immediately. Like others in this place, I am proud that Australia is part of that solution, with the $31 million that we have contributed to assist in this crisis.
It is difficult to be in Australia and to think about the pressures that those people are under. It certainly gives us a clear focus on the issues facing us globally. It gives us cause to think about the contributions that we as a country can make to assist the millions of displaced people across the globe at this point in time. But, as the member for Calwell noted, this one matters to a population, particularly in Victoria, of those who are already here. Their hearts break, and we need to give them the support that they need as well as ensure that we are giving support to those who are doing the work on the ground supporting these people.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (11:16): I thank the member for Calwell for moving this important motion today. The exodus of the Rohingya people from the northern Arakan and the Rakhine state of Myanmar—and the persecution, attacks, killings and human rights abuses that precipitated it—is a humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions, which is unfolding in our own region. United Nations officials have described the crimes committed against Rohingya as a 'textbook example of ethnic cleansing'. Human Rights Watch called them 'crimes against humanity'.
Those who have been able to escape this terror confront a new horror—trying to survive in the extraordinarily overcrowded and under-resourced refugee camps of Cox's Bazar in Bangladesh. In the time between the tabling of this motion last year and today's parliamentary debate, the number of Rohingya forced to flee into refugee camps in Bangladesh has increased to over 650,000. It is the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world.
I want to thank one of my constituents, Mat Tinkler, from Save the Children, for telling me about the reality of life in these conditions at the Cox's Bazar refugee camp, after his recent visit to the site. Those who arrive at Cox's Bazar have frequently been walking on foot for days, sometimes weeks, in the face of aggressive persecution during their escape. As a result, they are often exhausted, sick and starving—not to mention traumatised and separated from family members. Almost 70 per cent of those arriving are children or pregnant and breastfeeding women. The provision of food and clean water, shelter and sanitation, medical care and protective services for children to so many vulnerable people arriving in this short a period of time is extremely challenging. Many more lives are being lost in these camps as a result. The fate of hundreds of thousands of human beings is currently in the balance.
There are many things that the international community, the Australian government and the general public can do in response to this crisis. I want to recognise Senator Singh, from the other place, and the member for Mallee for their recent visit to Cox's Bazar and their work in helping to raise awareness of this crisis with UNICEF. I want to also congratulate the ABC for its Myanmar-Bangladesh crisis appeal.
On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I want to echo, in this chamber and in this debate, the call of our shadow minister for foreign affairs. We call for the full implementation of the Kofi Annan report and the recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, which seek to prevent violence, maintain peace and foster reconciliation. We call on the government to work to establish an independent UN investigation into human rights abuses in Myanmar and to continue holding the government of Myanmar, especially the military, to account for their conduct, and for their continued obligation to respect the human rights of all people. We call for the government to support unimpeded humanitarian access to the camps in Bangladesh and to work closely with our regional partners on medium- and long-term responses to the refugee crisis, seeking to ensure that the Rohingya population has a secure place to live in peace. The situation presents State Counsellor and Nobel Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and the government more broadly, with an opportunity to exercise moral authority to protect the human rights of the country's citizens and to mediate a peaceful resolution to the current crisis. We believe it is in Myanmar's own interests for this conflict to be responded to and fairly resolved.
I want to add to this a comment about the importance of the government and the general public investing in Australian aid to support not only the immediate humanitarian needs of those affected by this crisis but also the longer-term development needs of those impacted by violence in the Rakhine State, including support for Rohingya refugees who may wish to return to Myanmar on a voluntary basis in the future, when and if it is safe to do so. I encourage my constituents to donate to the aid agencies who are providing humanitarian support on the ground in these refugee camps, including the Australian Red Cross, Australia for UNHCR, Save the Children and many more.
The current crisis has been building for many years. And, like the Rwandan crisis of a generation ago, in the future people will look back on this crisis and judge the actions taken by the international community to protect the lives of the human beings caught in the middle of it. That is why in April last year I travelled to the Rakhine State in Myanmar to meet with Rohingya people living in the internally displaced persons camps and to hear the stories of Rohingya refugees living elsewhere in the region, in Malaysia and Thailand. Even at that time, before the present catastrophe, it was clear to me that the relationship between the Rohingya and the broader Myanmar community and the government held the seeds of a future catastrophe. I heard many stories of the horrible conditions confronting Rohingya in the Rakhine State—the official and social persecution they faced and the heartbreaking stories of loss that resulted from it.
I wonder what has become of the many people I met in the Rohingya community in the Rakhine State last April. I know that the least I owe them is to add my voice to the call in this parliament for the Australian community and the Australian public to do everything we can to support the services being provided in Cox's Bazar today.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:22): I want to start by thanking the member for Calwell for bringing this motion on the Rakhine State in Myanmar before the House of Representatives. From many of the contributions you can tell the depth of concern that is rightly being reflected in the House today, and I think it's very fitting that on our first day back in parliament we're debating this topic. And I'd like to frame my comments today around a visit I made last November to Cox's Bazar, where I accompanied the CEO of Oxfam, Dr Helen Szoke, and the CEO of CARE Australia, Sally Moyle, and their respective teams in order to try to understand firsthand the situation facing Rohingya refugees fleeing the north Rakhine State across to Bangladesh.
Whilst intellectually I thought I was prepared for that visit and had done my reading and talked to as many people as I could, absolutely nothing could have prepared me for the sight of Cox's Bazar. To describe this as the fastest-growing humanitarian crisis simply as a matter of fact does little to really portray the situation in Bangladesh right now, and I would like upfront to send the most sincere thanks to the Bangladeshi government, who have, notwithstanding the very poor nature of their country and the struggles of their own people, displayed the most extraordinarily generous spirit in providing a safe haven for Rohingya people fleeing persecution and violence from the north of Rakhine State.
I had the real pleasure of meeting with many women parliamentarians whilst I was in Bangladesh. I was able to send my personal thanks for their generosity. At a time when many member states in the world are pulling up the drawbridges of their communities and closing their borders, this has not been the approach of the Bangladeshi government. As I said, notwithstanding the fact that they have their own deep challenges when it comes to looking after their own citizens, they have never blinked or even contemplated the possibility of not providing safe haven and assistance for the Rohingya refugees.
We owe the Bangladeshi government enormous thanks and enormous gratitude. Every ounce of support is needed that the Australian government can provide to the Bangladeshi government and to the humanitarian actors who are, thankfully, in Cox's Bazaar in large numbers to ensure that there is some emergency aid being delivered to the men, women and children in those camps. The role they play is so essential. Like my colleagues before me, I absolutely encourage Australians to donate, to contribute in any way they can, to that appeal. Unlike with many natural disaster appeals, a lot of people struggle to understand what is happening in this particular situation. So I don't think we've seen the generosity that we normally see from Australians—and, indeed, from other nations around the world—in providing some additional financial assistance. I thank the Australian government for the contribution we have made there, but it is a drop in the ocean. I don't think we should kid ourselves otherwise.
Certainly I know from my discussions with people in those camps there won't be repatriations any time soon without some assurance that there will be safe places for them to return to. That they are able to return to their ancestral lands and villages, not some so-called temporary camp closed off somewhere, is absolutely vital. That is not to mention the question of citizenship, which remains a core issue that needs to be redressed.
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (11:27): This is a massive humanitarian crisis. When it comes to humanitarian crises, they don't get much bigger than this. It is occurring with great speed. Some 688,000 Rohingyas have been forced to flee to refugee camps in Bangladesh since August 2017, and those who remain are subject to ethnic cleansing. I think we've all seen the pictures of villages on fire and people being tortured, and we know that there are reports of rapes, killings and executions. This is a massive tragedy.
In the area in which I live, we have something like five per cent of Australia's Rohingya population. I've had the privilege to meet with members of the Rohingya community and their advocates, both in my electorate and here in parliament. I've heard, time and time again, the harrowing stories from a people who have been denied their identity and denied their statehood. These are people who have escaped persecution and terror but whose fear for their lives and the lives of their families is seared into their brows. Last year, I met with Mohammed Sadek, a young Rohingya refugee living in my local area. He spoke about the escalation of violence in Myanmar, the killing of his people and the systemic burning of villages. He urged this parliament to take quick and decisive action before, as he put it, the Rohingya as a people are exterminated in Myanmar. I also went to a rally outside Parliament House, a year or so ago, organised by Nor Zaman, another impressive local young Rohingya leader. He spent 15 years in a refugee camp before he managed to come to Australia. He's currently in his early 30s, and he's fighting the fight for his people and his family who have been left behind.
That activity and that activism from Rohingya in this country are vital in informing the Australian people and, most particularly, the people in this parliament of the urgency before us to do something to assist the refugees and, more importantly, to do something for those who are left behind, and then, of course, a plan for the future if these people are to be dealt with in a decent way outside the borders of modern Myanmar.
In 1948, when Myanmar gained independence from the British, the Rohingya people were promised an autonomous state, but they were rebuffed by the new leadership. The persecution of the Rohingya people continued through subsequent decades. Rohingya social and political organisations were closed, privately-owned Rohingya businesses were transferred to the government and Rohingya people were subject of forced labour, arbitrary detention and physical assault. So there have been concerted policies of discrimination against the Rohingya people for decades, and there are now more than one million of them. They are subject to a health crisis. Harvard University researchers have described a vicious cycle that begins with poor health in infancy that then feeds into malnutrition, waterborne illnesses and so on. And Rohingya children are denied a public education, which exposes an entire generation of Rohingya to the risk of illiteracy.
The recent escalation is of a different order to all of that past discrimination, because in August last year—described in testimony to the UN Human Rights Council as the assault, torture, rape and murder of innocent Rohingya people—there was a huge escalation of persecution of Rohingya in that country. In a horrifying example of disproportionate response, after a series of small attacks on police and army posts in August, Myanmar's military launched a catastrophic wave of so-called clearance operations. Of course, we now know what that means.
The task before the Australian government and the task before the United Nations is urgent—the violence continues. Our government, and I know they are working on this, has a responsibility to do everything they possibly can to change the behaviour of the authorities in Myanmar and to participate in developing a plan for the future for a group of people who've been excluded, persecuted and who are now the subject of ethnic cleansing. The task before us is urgent.
Debate adjourned.
City Deals
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (11:32): I move:
That this House:
(1) welcomes the Government's action to make our cities better places to live in and do business through ongoing City Deal developments in Townsville, Launceston, Western Sydney and Darwin;
(2) notes that:
(a) City Deals:
(i) bring together all three levels of Government to develop collective plans for growth with a focus on jobs, housing, transport and the environment; and
(ii) are already delivering firm commitments and real benefits for communities, including the $250 million North Queensland Stadium, the Townsville Eastern Access Rail Corridor, movement of the University of Tasmania's main campus and the rejuvenation of the CBD in Launceston; and
(b) further benefits through City Deals are under development, including the Western Sydney Housing Package and the redevelopment of Paterson Barracks in Launceston;
(3) commends the Government for continuing to encourage and pursue new City Deals with other regional cities around Australia, including areas such as the Sunshine Coast; and
(4) encourages state and territory governments and local councils in regional cities, especially on the Sunshine Coast, to work closely with their local Members of Parliament and the Assistant
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Georganas: I second the motion.
Mr WALLACE: Last week I held 14 listening posts around my electorate. I spoke to scores of people in Landsborough, Mooloolah, Bellvista, Mooloolaba, Glass House Mountains, Golden Beach, Kawana Waters, Eudlo, Caloundra, Beerwah, Currimundi, Maleny and Peachester. It was instructive and energising. The people of Fisher are full of fantastic ideas and useful feedback, and I intend to speak about the issues that they raised throughout the coming sitting weeks.
As I move this motion, one theme that emerged from my listening posts comes to mind. The people of Fisher want their three tiers of government—federal, state and local—to work together. They are not interested in what tier of government has jurisdiction over a particular issue or which of us is in charge. The people of Fisher want us to cooperate as a team in their best interests and to get on with the job of delivering the infrastructure they need.
It's for this reason that the government identified the City Deals concept as one which could make a real difference for our changing communities. In early 2016 the then Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation released our cities agenda as one of the very first priorities of the new Turnbull government. This agenda, in effect, declared the Commonwealth's door open for state premiers, local mayors and the private sector to join us in a coordinated and effective approach to long-term planning. This government has provided a platform for cooperative long-term infrastructure investment, both public and private, which can help our urban economies to grow. In an era of what has been called 'Punch and Judy' politics, where fast news cycles, limited media resources and social media outrage encourage a partisan point-scoring approach, this was a bold agenda and one for which the government should be congratulated.
City Deals incorporate the best of the Turnbull government's approach to policy development. Each deal is founded on a defined area and clear outcomes, specific investments linked to specific reform, clear governance and accountability, private and public sector partnership, and the measurement of that performance. That is how to deliver lasting change, and I am pleased to say that we are already starting to see the benefits of this approach. We have seen work begin on the new, $250 million North Queensland Stadium under the Townsville City Deal. Local companies have taken up six major contracts on the project, already bringing hundreds of jobs to the community. Two hundred and sixty million dollars has been committed in Launceston to move the University of Tasmania's campus into the city centre and create not only a vibrant and innovative community but 2,700 new jobs. We should welcome, in particular, the fact that the first City Deals have been negotiated with regional cities like Launceston and Townsville. Throughout Australia, many of our regional centres, like my own, are growing and leaving behind their increasingly outdated infrastructure. In others, economic shifts have left communities in need of a new and bold vision which will ensure their prosperity for future generations. For both, City Deals have the potential to create the transformative change that they need. The regions have, rightly, been a focus of the City Deals agenda to date, and they should continue to be in the future.
On that note, I'm happy to able to add for the record that, since I gave notice of this motion, the government has announced that two additional City Deals are progressing toward being established—one in Hobart and another welcome deal with the regional Victorian community of Geelong.
Ms Henderson: Hear, hear!
Mr WALLACE: I'm glad to see that the member for Corangamite will be speaking shortly about that process, which I know she has worked very hard to establish.
As the minister looks ahead to the next deal, I would ask him to consider that, however it might be structured, the Sunshine Coast is a perfect candidate for involvement. We have a rapidly-growing population and high levels of private investment. We have important infrastructure projects, like upgrades to the North Coast rail, which could transform our region's prosperity, a unitary local council and a unified group of hardworking state and federal representatives, one of whom joins me here today—and he'll no doubt expand on this motion. (Time expired)
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (11:38): Investment in infrastructure is crucial to delivering better outcomes for Australians and boosting economic growth now and into the future. Building a prosperous, livable Australia demands consistent long-term planning to give certainty to business and communities across the country. That is why Labor is focused on developing our cities in conjunction with governments of all levels and across political divides to ensure that we can remain not only gateways to the global economy but also some of the most livable places in the world. As we have seen around the world, it is critical to adopt broadly supported, long-term plans to give the certainty required to attract private sector investment and deliver the outcomes that Australians deserve.
The consensus for achieving these outcomes from planning bodies, researchers and governments around the world is that the establishment of a single governing body that oversees a coordinated policy package for cities is the best way of delivering these results. This vehicle should be funded by all levels of government and operate like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. That's why Labor when in government created the Major Cities Unit, to bring together a broad range of stakeholders and communities to ensure the best result for cities across the nation. This government, in contrast, has abolished this unit and replaced it with an ineffective and underfunded City Deals initiative. This lack of funding is indicative of this government's infrastructure failings. With an underspend of close to $4 billion over the last three years, this government is failing on infrastructure. Let me repeat that: this government has underspent on its commitments to infrastructure by $4 billion in the last three years alone. They are utter hypocrites on this.
Labor took infrastructure spending to some of its strongest levels since Federation and had spent more as a percentage of GDP than any other OECD country by the time we left office. The City Deals being rolled out by this government in typical Turnbull government fashion are a desperate attempt to detract from their poor track record on infrastructure. City Deals have been highly successful around the world and have the potential to be effective in Australia as well, but they've been starved of funding and the commitment they require to be effective.
The City Deals that have been announced by this government are hardly true City Deals at all. The Launceston and Townsville City Deals are a direct response to infrastructure projects Labor had already committed to with Townsville Stadium and the University of Tasmania. The Western Sydney, Hobart and Northern Territory City Deals are yet to be supported or signed at this stage and are simply all talk. We know that the government is out of touch with the infrastructure needs of Australia. That is why these City Deals have become such a mess. On one hand, the government claims to offer a holistic solution to the issues facing growing cities, but all the while it butchered the National Broadband Network and ignored the growing impacts of climate change. On top of this, there has been little consultation with Labor, either federally or at a state level, to ensure continuity of the City Deals. Labor, on the other hand, knows how City Deals have achieved outcomes elsewhere.
The approach adopted by the coalition will simply not work. To maximise the potential of our great cities, we need to bring together a wide range of relevant partners and work with them to form plans which address all the major issues facing cities in a productive and inclusive way. We cannot afford to say that we cannot invest in renewable energy because it doesn't suit our policy goals or that we won't facilitate reliable, fast internet because it's someone else's fault. It is the responsibility of governments to tackle all these issues head-on. Communities across Australia are looking for leadership on these issues.
A multitude of regions are suffering from inaction because of the government in this space. Rolling out an infrastructure approach in such an arbitrary way across this vast country is insufficient. If this government truly believes in the idea of City Deals, it should come to the table with Labor, the crossbench and key stakeholders and figure out a way to deliver what is needed, not just to where it needs votes. In my electorate, there is a range of projects that could provide immediate and long-term benefits for the Hunter and Central Coast regions, which are being ignored by the government. Any further development of a City Deal program by the federal government needs to go through a review process with the goal of constructing a scheme that has support from both sides of politics and all levels of government. Labor knows this and is keen to work not only with the rest of the parliament but also COAG and the private sector to make all our great cities liveable, affordable and productive.
Labor has a proud record of investing in cities and creating both essential infrastructure projects and living spaces to improve quality of life. We want to continue to build on our long-held view that the Commonwealth can improve our cities by providing direct investment and policy leadership to other levels of government. On the other hand, all we see from the government are buzzwords, talk, more talk and more announcements of deals with no follow-through. Australia and our cities—in fact, our regions as a whole—deserve better.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (11:43): It's my great pleasure to rise on this motion to celebrate the wonderful policy announcements that have been made by the Turnbull government, including by the Prime Minister two weeks ago when we announced a City Deal for the Geelong region, including our magnificent Great Ocean Road. We heard from the member for Shortland another reason to not vote for Labor at the next election: the Labor Party does not agree with City Deals, even though Labor governments around the nation have warmly embraced this model, which brings together the federal government, state governments and local governments to drive investment and confidence, particularly in infrastructure spending.
It was certainly a great day when we announced our City Deal. There is great excitement from all of the stakeholders—from the local councils, the Committee for Geelong, the Geelong Chamber of Commerce, the chambers of commerce of Apollo Bay and Colac, and the many other stakeholders, including G21. Our City Deal will build on the very significant investment that we have already made in very large, major infrastructure projects across our region: half a billion dollars or so in major rail upgrades, the duplication of the Princess Highway and the upgrade of the Great Ocean Road—a project that the previous Labor government did not support.
If I take onboard the member for Shortland's rhetoric in relation to infrastructure spending, I would say, 'Look at the announcement of our government last year on the regional rail upgrade.' The Commonwealth, the Turnbull government, announced $1.42 billion in regional upgrades, including $225 million—a quarter of a billion dollars—in the Corangamite electorate. Guess what the state Labor's contribution was to that? It was a paltry $150 million. Over the weekend I called on the Daniel Andrews government to match our contribution. We have to drive major infrastructure development and investment into Victoria. One of the biggest reasons it is not happening as it should is that the projects aren't there. We have been waiting two years for a business plan for a regional rail upgrade and the duplication of the rail between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds. We are seeing Daniel Andrews put Victorians on the slow train over that project.
If you consider the Victorian government's and past federal Labor's investment in the Regional Rail Link, it has become an absolute disaster—$4 billion in the Regional Rail Link and it is standing room only. Geelong commuters have been put last on that project. We all know about the abhorrent decision to cancel the East West Link, a project previously supported by the likes of the Leader of the Opposition. Now Daniel Andrews has spent $1.2 billion to cancel that project, which is an absolute disgrace.
We are very proud of our city deal for Geelong, which will also embrace the Great Ocean Road economy, which is such an important part of our region. It builds on the very significant investments we've made in rail but also in state roads. Again, we had to drive this and bring the state Labor government to the table on state road investment. There was: $10 million in total for the Hamilton Highway; $440 million for the Murray Basin Rail Project; $600,000 for the Midland Highway; $3.5 million for the Port of Geelong Access Improvement Package; $600,000 for Grubb Road, the planning for the duplication of Grubb Road in Ocean Grove; and a total of $363 million to duplicate the Princes Highway between Winchelsea and Colac, along with the $100 million in total for the Great Ocean Road upgrade. So we are incredibly proud of the infrastructure investments in our region.
Our city deal is a wonderful policy brought forward by this government. We've now heard that Labor is condemning this policy, which is very regrettable. It's another indication of the Labor Party's wild swing to the Left. I expect also that we'll see a repeat of the performance we saw in 2008, when the Labor Party rejected a deal between Avalon Airport and AirAsia X to allow AirAsia X to fly into Avalon. It was with great pride, yesterday, that Avalon Airport announced it will become an international airport—with great support from our government. It was a very proud day for all Corangamite residents and residents in the Geelong region.
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (11:48): To quote Elvis: 'A little less talk, a little more action, please.' I heard the member for Corangamite say, 'We've made these recommendations,' 'We've made these promises,' and 'We've made these announcements.' But we don't see that they've done anything. They've been in government for five years and they want to come in here—day in, day out—and keep condemning Bill Shorten and the opposition as though they are in charge. I say, let us be in charge. We'll move further than talking points and being a talking head standing up here and talking about what you're going to do and start doing something for the people of this country.
Western Sydney, where I'm from, is home to two million Australians. We are part of this City Deals program. We have hardworking, generous, vibrant communities that contribute to the huge success of our city, our state and our country. We are the third-largest economy, but not enough is being done to support the people I get to represent here. City Deals are designed to bring together the three levels of government, the community and private enterprise in order to create city and place based partnerships.
To have a successful city deal we need a shared vision for growth, reform and improvement, a negotiated and customised approach across the whole of government, transformative investment rather than just saying we're going to do something and writing it on a piece of paper somewhere, institutional and governance reforms for sustained improvement, innovative financing and value capture. But what is the reality for me and for the people living in Western Sydney? We are waiting. We are waiting on the detail; we are waiting on the collaboration. I regularly get to meet with the mayor and the general manager of the city council. We have no detail. They've been asked to sign away on a deal that they've not seen the full effects of and asked to sign on the dotted line without any kind of consultation whatsoever.
City Deals looks great on paper. It's what is going to happen on the ground that will be what makes the difference and what will make a difference to the people who live, work and play in Western Sydney. How out of touch could this mob be when they say they just want the councils to sign off and accept what they're getting! The New South Wales Liberals are spending $2.5 billion on rebuilding stadiums. I was there for a Western Sydney Wanderers game with 10,000 people in a stadium that seats 90,000, and they're complaining that these people have to wait too long to queue up for a pie. What I would say is: try being a patient in the Nepean Hospital, the hospital that is the most under pressure hospital in New South Wales. Try waiting for a surgery; try waiting to have your kid's tonsils taken out. You are waiting for over a year, watching your child in pain, watching them go through infection after infection, missing school time, missing social time and missing crucial development time. And this lot is worried about waiting in a queue for a pie. Give me a break.
The people of Western Sydney and Lindsay need investment. We need trains—and preferably, if we're not being too wishful in our thinking here, trains that run on time, are air-conditioned and are not at standing room only when they arrive to pick up passengers at Penrith train station. The changes to the train timetable add about 15 minutes for commuters already spending over an hour commuting one way. We need the north-south rail link to support growth for Western Sydney and open up a huge economic opportunity by linking the north and the south. We need long overdue public transport links for those who live in these areas and have suffered a public transport deficit. We need equitable—not equal but equitable—access to transport. Western Sydney needs investment in the Outer Sydney Orbital, the M9, which needs to be done without more tolls. We are already facing a cost of living that is two per cent higher than that of our cousins who live closer to the city. The new M4 toll, the toll we already pay for, is back for another 43 years, and you only need to drive down that road to see that people are not using it, because they cannot afford the extra cost burden that it adds each year to their already burdensome and bulging household budget.
We already have a major jobs and infrastructure deficit. To improve people's lifestyles and the outcomes for their families and themselves, we need jobs that people only have to commute half an hour for. Workers in Lindsay who are based in Sydney face a two-hour commute one way. That's an extra four hours a day just commuting to and from work. I often get the Western Sydney slag stereotype and people saying that people in my electorate don't work hard enough. When you add four hours to their already eight-hour work day, they are working incredibly hard under incredible pressure. Western Sydney needs a city deal that serves them, is made by them and is represented by them. People sitting at the table making decisions about Western Sydney should be from Western Sydney. We should not be lectured to by those in the east telling us what we deserve.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (11:53): I'm delighted that the parliament has begun for 2018. Already the Labor Party is claiming Bill Shorten is Elvis Presley, if you were to take it from the former Speaker and this ludicrous claim that the coalition government is only talking and not acting on infrastructure. To put that to rest, take just my part of the world, the Sunshine Coast. There is over $920 million of construction currently underway on the Bruce Highway north of Caloundra Road. There is $187 million currently under business case—money already allocated—for the Maroochydore interchange. There is a $181 million concessional loan for an upgrade of the Sunshine Coast Airport and a quarter of a million dollars for a full feasibility study to bring an optic cable onto the Sunshine Coast. This is real money, real delivery, real infrastructure. That is precisely what the Turnbull government continues to deliver.
But we're here today in support of a motion put by my colleague the member for Fisher in relation to City Deals. Now, as my colleague laid out very articulately, how often do we as parliamentarians hear people bemoan the fact that the three tiers of government often don't work together? How often do we hear people talk about the need for greater vision and long-term thinking? I've been hearing that all my life. People are crying out for governments to have vision, for tiers of government to work together and for the private sector and the community to engage with government in the delivery of those visions.
In comes the Turnbull coalition government and its Smart Cities framework, and it is precisely that aim which this framework delivers on. It does so with three pillars: one being smart investment; another, smart technology; and, lastly, smart policy. With smart investment you see, through the Smart Cities Plan framework, encouragement for us to leverage our balance sheet and pursue innovative financing options, including value capture. With smart technology you see the need for us to use data, particularly what's referred to as 'big data', and the need for us to have greater technological solutions. With smart policy you see ideas such as the city plan, or, as we otherwise refer to it, City Deals.
Already the Turnbull government has delivered in this regard, with deals done for Townsville and Launceston; Western Sydney is underway; and MOUs were signed recently for Geelong and Hobart. You see, what we have reflected in the City Deals process is the opportunity not just for those three tiers of government to work together but also to unlock more capital from the private sector. We have the opportunity to actually have capital cities or regions establish a very set vision for what their future is and then pull on every lever possible to deliver on that vision. You see a consultative approach which means the community is carried along with its leaders. This is precisely what the City Deals process delivers.
I would also make the point that, true to this coalition government's DNA, City Deals are being considered not just for capital cities but also for regional areas. That is why I also support the member for Fisher's interest in the Sunshine Coast as a potential area for a City Deal—an area that I believe can be the healthiest place on earth; a simple vision. But we are a region, like many across Australia, that does struggle with high population growth—and, of course, one of our pain points is in fact a lack of housing affordability. In fact, the least affordable place in Australia happens to be my region. Now, how we solve some of these bigger problems is a conundrum that not one tier of government can deal with; you require all three to work together. You require the private sector. You require the community. That is precisely what the City Deal construct delivers on, and it's why I stand here today in support.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (11:58): Making our cities a better place to live and to work sounds like a very noble idea. But, after doing some in-depth research on the Western Sydney City Deal, which took about two minutes because of the complete lack of detail, I had a bit of a flashback. I pictured my children expectantly waiting to unwrap a Kinder Surprise, and then opening their Kinder Surprise to find that, actually, there was nothing inside of it. You can imagine the disappointment, because this is something that's not just about the chocolate; it's about what comes inside. If they'd wanted chocolate, they could have gone for a chocolate frog. So, okay, they still get chocolate, but, sadly, it's a really hollow experience—and that, for me, pretty much sums up these so-called City Deals. There's a lot of expectation—it's beautiful packaging—but it's pretty empty inside.
As the member for Macquarie, which encompasses the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, time and time again our Kinder Surprises don't have a toy. Sometimes we don't even get the chocolate; we just get the foil, the words on the outside telling us what's inside and how great it's going to be—but usually it's great for everybody but us. From trains to bridges to housing to health care, we are expected to continually make sacrifices for the benefit of those not as west as us. We're too far west to benefit from investment in the city but too close to the city to be compensated through regional funding and grants, and so my community continues to run second. The City Deals program is no exception. There is no clear process, there is no clear source of funding and there are no clear outcomes. There is real apprehension that the City Deals funding will be targeted towards Penrith and other identified strategic centres in the west, like Blacktown, Liverpool and Campbelltown, rather than the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury. This is particularly the case given the focus in the draft District Plans that the Greater Sydney Commission's devised and the limited attention paid to the local government areas that don't have strategic centres or major employment centres. The New South Wales government indicates that these draft plans will form the basis of the City Deals agreements.
Let's be clear—neither the Blue Mountains nor the Hawkesbury is even identified in the key western city map in the Greater Sydney Commission draft plan. Now, that's the one on page 26, in case you're looking. There is not a mention of the Blue Mountains or Hawkesbury on that map. It doesn't even bother giving them a name, or in the definition of what the western city is—so you can understand our concerns. Are we just the backyard? Thanks to flood plains and world heritage, you can't shove more houses in us.
How will the lack of recognition affect obtaining funding from this western City Deal? The hefty Western Sydney City Deal document—all one page of it—talks about improved environmental and liveability outcomes. Yet, at the very first hurdle, this objective will not be achieved because this government is not putting a curfew on Badgerys Creek airport. How does the government's promise of improved environmental and liveability outcomes happen as a result of aircraft noise 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They're not even interested in us maintaining our current liveability, let alone improving it.
This is not personal opinion. This is reality. We are close enough to the site of Western Sydney Airport to be under a noisy flight path and have planes flying over our beautiful World Heritage Area and quaint villages at all hours, but we are too far away to benefit from any job creation or improved infrastructure and investment. If we are to be lumbered with an airport that reduces our liveability, I would support the comments by Blue Mountains City Council in its City Deal submission, that it is reasonable to expect that there is some return for the impacts from Western Sydney Airport. One that would be essential is that the rail connection between the airport and St Marys be an integral part of the package, and be delivered from day 1. As for the Hawkesbury, the need is great. If the City Deals are to have any substance at all they must address the need for investment in new flood resilient bridges, without destroying the very thing that makes the Hawkesbury liveable: its agricultural and its heritage. While it says little about the Windsor-Richmond area, it does talks about improving cultural experiences. If you can't use a deal like this to save the oldest public square in Australia and convict-made infrastructure, then it isn't a deal worth having.
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (12:03): The one thing we know about City Deals is that everybody wants one. I have certainly heard contributions this morning. Everyone seems keen to get their City Deal, and that includes me. I am here supporting the private member's business put forward by Mr Wallace, the member for Fisher—although I do have a few problems with section 3 in that I don't think the Sunshine Coast should be the priority for City Deals across the country. I spoke with the shareholding minister, Angus Taylor, about six months ago about the potential for putting together a regional deal which uses more than just one town or just one city to try and include more numbers and, of course, find those areas in the economy that we can absolutely build on and drive what is essential, particularly in regional areas of our country, and that is jobs.
My region of Hinkler is based around the two major cities of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, but Wide Bay-Burnett has a population of around 270,000 people. The three cities in that region are: Bundaberg, at around 93,000; Hervey, at 52,000 and the city of Maryborough, which is in the seat of Wide Bay, at around 28,000. That's around 173,000 individuals in the population just in that triangle.
What you may not know is that we also have some levels, some numbers and some statistics which are not that strong and not that supportive. They are around unemployment and median income. In fact, a recent report that was put out by the Local Government Association identified the area of Wide Bay as, once again, being the area of the lowest per capita income in this country, as it has been for some 20 years. As the local member, I find that unacceptable. As a member of the federal parliament I know that there are places here, ministries and buckets of money that can change policies and make a difference to people. That is our purpose as members of parliament. We are here to try and advantage and move forward our constituents and the people we represent.
A City Deal for those regions is a great opportunity. We can build on our strengths. Around Bundaberg those are in agriculture, and around Hervey Bay—the best place in the country to see whales—they are in tourism. Then there is the great Fraser Island, just on the outside of my electorate, and the city of Maryborough, which of course is one of the greatest industrial workhorses in this nation. It is a wonderful industrial city in the seat of Wide Bay, and I acknowledge the member for Wide Bay, Llew O'Brien. But we definitely need some help. The numbers are not strong. This place is somewhere where we can do something about it. The unemployment rate adjusted—what's called the NIEIR unemployment rate, which excludes disability pensions in the region—is at 16.7 per cent. It is the highest in the country. I find that unacceptable. It has been in the top three for some 20 years. To have a per capita income of some $34,000—just $34,000—is also unacceptable. We need to drive jobs into that region, and the cities program provides those opportunities.
So I would say to the shareholding minister, who obviously changed before Christmas, that we're coming to see you. We did some great work with Angus Taylor in building this up. I think there is an opportunity to put those three cities together and put together a deal which builds across all levels of government. The people I represent are sick of the arguments between the state government and the federal government and between local government and state government. The good thing about a City Deal is that it puts those three layers of government together and commits them to a plan. It commits them to delivering money, to delivering services and to delivering infrastructure.
I have seen dozens of reports, and I know there are more reports underway. We don't need more reports. What we need is infrastructure and high-paying jobs. The potential is there. We can build around the Bundaberg port. We can build more infrastructure for tourism into that great city of Hervey Bay. We can absolutely look to build a level 5 training hospital in the city of Bundaberg that can service over 300,000 people from Rockhampton to Gympie. The evidence that's been put before me is that we are transferring over 1,000 patients via the RFDS to Brisbane every single year because we cannot provide those essential peak services from medical specialists. So we absolutely need to act on that. Unfortunately, the stench from 'Dr Death', Jayant Patel, at the Bundaberg Hospital still hangs around our local hospitals. I congratulate our local hospitals. They work so hard, and we are here to support them.
There are opportunities around our port, our hospitals and our tourism, but we need to put those structures together—and this is one way that we can do it. I again encourage the minister—who I am meeting with this week—to get this on the table. This year, 2018, needs to be the year of delivery. The people I represent are tired of talk. They want action. Our job is to deliver for them and to make their lives better, and these opportunities are here and here now.
Mr HART (Bass) (12:08): I'm very pleased to be able to speak on this motion today because Launceston, in my electorate of Bass, is one of the four regional locations that will benefit from ongoing City Deal developments. It is, however, vitally important to note that the genesis of the Launceston City Deal was the Labor commitment to the UTAS transformation project, a project which is about much more than infrastructure and buildings but has the opportunity to transform educational outcomes in northern Tasmania. I've spoken often about how strategic investment in northern Tasmania can unlock the potential for a renewed focus on industry, advanced manufacturing and innovation, which will in turn provide a clear pathway for greater educational and economic opportunities for the region. This is, on the one hand, a return to the proud heritage of northern Tasmania and also a repositioning of Tasmania as part of a smart, innovative, decentralised digital future.
The scope of the city deal needs to be unpacked, as it were, to understand its significant potential to make positive change in my community: firstly, the relocation of the University of Tasmania's Newnham campus to the new site at Inveresk, transforming the city centre and broader region and establishing Launceston as a vibrant university city; secondly, the implementation of the City Heart Project, revitalising the CBD through improved public spaces, transport and signage, allowing for greater support of events and improved business capability; and the redevelopment of the heritage listed Paterson Barracks, which will also be progressed under the city deal. I really emphasise the importance of the delivery of the Northern Suburbs Revitalisation Plan, because this is an area of historical disadvantage. It's necessary to improve employment, infrastructure, public space, transport and land use in the city's north and implement this through to 2022.
Finally, we need to establish a Tamar Estuary management task force to oversee the development of a river health action plan by the end of 2017. This will involve investment of $2 million in priority actions identified in the river health action plan to reduce pollution in the Tamar Estuary. It is also vitally important to note that Labor at the last election committed $75 million towards a Launceston sewerage improvement plan, something that was not matched by the coalition government. Notwithstanding that, the city deal is an opportunity for the benefit of long-term investment to flow into northern Tasmania.
It's vitally important that government is held accountable, particularly this government, with respect to its commitments under the city deal. As with many large and complex projects, it's important to engage with and address community concerns. There are some, for example, who question the wisdom of the move of the university campus to the Inveresk site, citing, for example, issues with traffic and flood mitigation and the importance for UTAS to maintain its commitment to academic courses and research on the northern campus rather than the significant cost of the development of the new campus.
I have consistently urged those who are concerned about these matters to engage with UTAS and also with the Launceston City Council consultation and master planning processes, particularly with respect to the issues of traffic and local amenity. The parties to the funding deeds will be held accountable to ensure that the northern Tasmanian community is able to maximise the benefits associated with the city deal. I'm very pleased to note the commitment by a majority Rebecca White Labor government, if elected, to a comprehensive traffic modelling study in the greater Launceston area and the replacement of the Charles Street Bridge, a particular choke point in traffic from the Launceston CBD to the northern suburbs. The Labor northern Tasmania package also includes support for important projects such as reimagining the gorge and aspects of Launceston City Council's future plans for City Heart, including connectivity between the CBD and Inveresk. Above all, the Launceston City Deal is an opportunity for Launceston to take its place as one of the great regional cities in Australia, if not the world, with a vibrant academic community closely linked with industry, the cultural heritage of the region respected and celebrated and, most importantly, the elevation of education as the key driver of both economic growth and a sense of community.
It's perfectly appropriate that we have the shadow minister here when we're talking about infrastructure and about this government's failure when it comes to delivering on infrastructure. When it comes to infrastructure, everything it touches is either delayed or underrealised. It is vitally important that the promise of this city deal is realised. We have in Northern Tasmania, particularly in my electorate of Bass, an area that has great potential, but it needs to realise that potential through increased educational attainment and the delivery of key infrastructure.
Debate adjourned.
Aviation Rescue and Firefighting Services
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:13): I move:
That this House:
(1) declares:
(a) its support for the vital work performed each and every day by the highly trained professionals providing aviation rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) services to ensure the safety of the flying public;
(b) that the ARFF service is particularly important to the safe operation of airports in regional Australia where it also responds to non-aviation emergencies within its local communities; and
(c) that the presence of the ARFF service is key to safeguarding the safety and security at major metropolitan and regional airports around the country, which is critical for international and domestic tourism; and
(2) calls on the Government to reject any proposal to increase the threshold for the provision of ARFF services at airports from the existing 350,000 passenger movements annually, noting that this would preclude the establishment of these services at Proserpine Whitsunday Coast Airport and lead to the removal of these services from the following regional communities: Ballina; Coffs Harbour; Ayres Rock; Gladstone; Hamilton Island; Broome; Karratha; Newman; and Port Hedland.
Firefighting services at our nation's airports are critical to the safety of travellers. Our nation has an excellent record when it comes to aviation safety. We also have a strong commitment to investment in the emergency services that would be necessary in the event of an accident. Indeed, in 2009, as transport minister in the Labor government, I was proud to deliver a $70 million program to upgrade fire trucks at our nation's busiest airports. It included 33 new trucks, new fire stations at Perth and Maroochydore, new vehicles to meet the needs of the A380 and fire alarm monitoring at 20 locations nationwide.
Safety is also critical at our smaller regional airports. In 2014, the aviation rescue and firefighting services responded to some 6,700 calls relating to airport emergency assistance. That's why I today, through this motion, am calling upon the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to reject the absurd proposal for a reduction in firefighting capacity at regional airports. Current Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulations require an aviation fire and rescue service at every Australian airport that has at least 350,000 passengers travelling through it each year. However, CASA has recently accepted recommendations from an infrastructure department aviation rescue and firefighting services regulatory policy review which would weaken this standard. Going forward, the threshold would rise to 500,000 passenger movements a year. This idea makes no sense. The minister for transport should reject it today in the interests of safety and regional economic development. Under the international standards and regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization, aviation firefighters are specifically trained. They must be stationed to be able to respond within three minutes to an aircraft crash or fire for the best chance of rescue. Our existing standards and thresholds on provision of aerodrome rescue and firefighting services reflect Australia's commitment to ICAO standards and recommended practices, including article 9.2.1, which provides that rescue and firefighting equipment and services shall be provided at an aerodrome.
Let's look in practical terms at what the acceptance of this proposal would mean for regional communities that rely upon jobs in tourism and regional aviation to get access to capital cities. Here are some airports that have aviation rescue and firefighting services and are below the 500,000 passenger threshold: Ballina, Coffs Harbour, Ayers Rock, Gladstone, Hamilton Island, Broome, Karratha, Newman and Port Hedland. I understand that, under pressure from local communities and Labor, the government's considering maintaining firefighting services at these airports and then imposing a new threshold from here on in. That, of course, would be good for those airports and communities that have fought to maintain these services, including, of course, the union that represents them. However, it would lead to a two-tiered system. In the future, airports with passenger movements between 350,000 and 500,000 per year would not be provided with firefighting facilities. Other airports are on the cusp of meeting this criterion, including Proserpine. It should have an aviation firefighting service established because 353,000 passengers passed through that airport last year. The government must today state clearly that the Proserpine airport will be provided with rescue and firefighting services. Just make a decision and support this community.
The change being contemplated should be rejected. Anyone who has had the privilege of being a minister in a government knows that, from time to time, bad ideas come forward from the bureaucracy. Some of them, once rejected, keep coming back again and again. This is one of those ideas. It first came to my attention when I was a minister and I banished it. It was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now. These are issues upon which the minister for transport, who's new to the portfolio, needs to deliver. The fact is that, across the board, issues of aviation safety—the safety of the travelling public—have been bipartisan issues. That needs to continue to be the case. The minister should rule out these proposals today and do it urgently in the interests of those communities, in the interests of firefighting in Australia and in the interests of regional economic development in those communities.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Is the motion seconded?
Mrs Elliot: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (12:19): The motion before us is nothing more than a scare campaign and an old one at that. It suggests that aviation firefighting services are going to be removed from a number of airports in my electorate: Hamilton Island and Proserpine. But I note that the speech that was delivered was pretty different to the motion that's before us, and that's because the member has realised that both those claims are false. They were false two years ago, and they're still false today.
The previous minister for transport, the member for Gippsland, published a media release on 16 December 2016, and these were the key points:
Future requirements for Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (ARFFS) to be based on safety risk assessment
The modernised regulatory framework will adopt a more systems and outcome-based approach to regulation
Existing ARFFS regional airport operations will continue to operate under current arrangements.
The minister went on to say:
The Australian Government has no plans to close ARFFS at regional airports. In relation to existing ARFFS locations at our regional airports, these will continue to operate under current arrangements, which is appropriate as several of these ARFFS operations and facilities have only been established in the last few years.
It can't be clearer than that. Existing services, including those at Proserpine and Hamilton Island, will remain untouched. So claims in this motion about losing services at many different places—Ballina, Coffs Harbour, Ayers Rock, Gladstone, Broome, Karratha, Newman, Port Hedland and Hamilton Island—are all hogwash. It's a scare campaign which was debunked more than two years ago.
As far as Proserpine's Whitsunday Coast Airport is concerned, the shadow minister has claimed in this motion that any change would preclude the establishment of firefighting services at that airport. Again, it's not true. The establishment of services at Proserpine is already in progress. I understand the case is being presented to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority this very week. The process will see services established at Proserpine, making it an existing service. As such, that service will be grandfathered if any regulatory changes are made. So there's no problem.
Passenger movements at the Whitsunday Coast Airport have already reached 350,000. They're soon going to pass 500,000, with the airport forecasting 900,000 passenger movements a year by 2035. I'm very proud to say that the Whitsunday Coast Airport, which is the Proserpine airport, not only is the fastest growing airport in my electorate but is recognised as one of the fastest growing airports in the whole country. Its growth is a reflection of the quality tourism we're offering in the Whitsundays and the good economic management and vision exhibited by the owners of the airport, the Whitsunday Regional Council. I pay tribute to Mayor Andrew Willcox for that. This vision includes a push for international flights into the airport, which would provide an automatic trigger for the provision of aviation rescue and firefighting services anyway.
When this issue was first raised, the aviation branch of the United Firefighters Union of Australia contacted me with their concerns about the regulatory policy review consultation paper and I had a look into it. The union, in its submission to that paper, was the only stakeholder that was against those changes, and they asked me for my support in lobbing against the changes on the grounds that services and jobs would be lost locally. I agree with those sentiments. I don't want to see any local jobs lost. In fact, I want to see jobs created through an expanding airport, aviation and tourism industry. I also didn't want to see safety services cut at any of my airports, especially one predominantly serving the tourism market. As a result, I sought assurances way back then—several years ago, two elections ago—from the then minister for transport that services would not be cut. At that time, I was assured by the minister, publicly, that those services would not be cut. For whatever reason, we've had the Labor Party come in here and try to breathe life into a badly beaten scare campaign. I once against sought assurances from the new minister this very morning as to what is going on. I am told that the same assurances I was given then are alive now. The policy has not changed.
This motion is a sham, but I will agree with one point in it, and that is the first point. I do support the vital work that is being performed each and every day by highly trained professionals providing aviation, rescue and firefighting services on Hamilton Island and elsewhere around this country—and the ones who will come onboard in Proserpine. They ensure the safety of the flying public. For tourism based airports, such as the Whitsunday Coast Airport and Hamilton Island Airport, that is critical. These individuals do a great job providing important services. They deserve better than being told that they're going to lose their jobs as part of some scare campaign, because they are not. Hamilton Island aviation firefighting services are safe, and aviation firefighting services will be established at Proserpine. They continue to do a great job, and I support the government's stance to keep those jobs.
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (12:24): I rise to speak today in support of the motion by the member for Grayndler, which acknowledges the vital work performed in our regional airports by the highly-trained professionals who provide aviation rescue and firefighting services. One of those airports is in Ballina, in my electorate of Richmond. The Ballina shire is, very rightly, a popular and busy tourist destination. It is a major gateway to the beautiful New South Wales Northern Rivers. Ballina airport sees approximately 490,000 passengers through the terminal each year. The safety of passengers, locals and international tourists, and airport staff at these facilities is paramount. I commend the aviation rescue and firefighting service, whose highly-trained professionals provide services that ensure the safety of everyone who passes through airports all over Australia, including Ballina.
Currently, under Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulations, airports require a minimum of 350,000 passengers each year to be eligible for the establishment and maintenance of this important firefighting service. Now the Turnbull government proposes to raise the threshold to a minimum of 500,000 passengers per year. This will adversely affect rural and regional airports around Australia—including Ballina—by making them ineligible for this important aviation rescue and firefighting service. This has come about as a result of a large review undertaken by the department. And now the government is intending to implement recommendations that include raising that threshold to 500,000 passengers per year. Quite frankly, this decision will adversely affect the same people that nearly every other government decision so adversely affects: people in regional and rural areas.
The disestablishment of this service is even more dangerous than simply cutting a safety initiative. Aviation Rescue Fire Fighters receive very specialist training to deal with the unique issues experienced at an airport. They are trained in the necessity of responding to an aircraft blaze within three minutes to ensure the survival of everyone on board. They are painfully aware that a response after that time significantly lowers the possibility of saving passengers, crew and airport staff involved in such an emergency. If the threshold for determining the provision of these firefighters has changed, many rural airports, including Ballina, will be denied access to this specialised, efficient and vital service. The service may then be provided by non-aviation agencies that could operate below the stringent standard set down by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. It is a real concern. In addition to Ballina, many popular tourist spots would, potentially, have their main airports affected. The safety ramifications are wide ranging. Indeed, the flow-on effects could be monumental.
We rightly pride ourselves on our record with tourism in Australia, and airport and aircraft safety is a major part of that success. So why would the government even think about jeopardising aircraft safety at this time? We want to be able to reassure all those passengers at airports, including those in regional and rural communities, that our areas are safe places of travel for business or holidays. In many areas, it is also important to remember that aviation rescue and firefighting services provide assistance in non-aviation emergencies.
On this note, I would like to acknowledge Ballina Shire Council, who have been diligently lobbying for support in other firefighting areas within the shire, and I wish to commend the council on their efforts in appealing to the New South Wales state emergency minister regarding the urgent need for full-time firefighters at Ballina fire station. This ongoing request for assistance has been largely met with a refusal to fix the situation. I commend the council for their important role in continuing advocacy for adequate and appropriate emergency services in the region.
In this instance, their advocacy includes calling for enough permanent and full-time firefighters to work with the on-call firefighters. Council has stressed this many times with the minister: that it is necessary to ensure adequate coverage for Ballina and the surrounding communities. They have been advocating strongly for this, and I call upon the state government to listen to their concerns and meet them. Once again, we have Liberal and National governments, both at state and federal levels, looking at making harsh cuts that would directly affect the lives of those living in regional Australia. The Turnbull government have all the wrong priorities. They are pursuing these cruel cuts to aviation firefighting while giving tax cuts to multimillionaires and big business. Wrong priorities. As for the New South Wales government, they also have the wrong priorities. They can find $2.5 billion to rebuild city sports stadiums but can't fund full-time firefighters in Ballina. Quite frankly, it really is a disgrace.
I do not want to see passengers from within Australia and overseas lose confidence in their ability to fly safely into airports like Ballina and into our region as a result of these direct cuts by the Turnbull government. I'm not willing to stand by and watch this happen in my electorate of Richmond. It will be detrimental for our local economy. That's why I proudly support the motion put forward by the member for Grayndler.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (12:29): I, too, rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Grayndler to acknowledge and support the Australian rescue and firefighting teams around the nation. Situated in the middle of the Hindmarsh electorate, over at the Adelaide airport, is one of the largest employers of people in the state of South Australia. We see the wonderful, professional staff who keep things safe and running and get us on flights to our destinations on time: the air traffic controllers, the baggage handlers, the security staff, the AFP, Borderforce, the check-in staff, the cleaners, the Qantas employees, the Virgin staff and the Jetstar staff, who are all good Australian Services Union members. The guys we hope not to see but are there in case of emergency are the hardworking men and women who sometimes work in dangerous situations: the Australian rescue firefighters. The ARFF service 26 of the busiest airports in Australia. In 2014, they responded to 6,700 aircraft and airport emergency assistance requests. This included spills, aircraft emergencies and even turnbacks and perimeter security issues. That equates to around 18 issues each and every day around the country.
Some of the callouts are more severe than others, of course, but how many times do we hear about these dedicated individuals in the press or on TV? We don't hear much about them—maybe a few times a year, if we're lucky. These guys do not rest. If there's an emergency on Christmas morning, who do you think is out there? They are. If there's a wheel that won't deploy, forcing a turnback in the middle of the night, it's those wonderful firefighters who do the rescue. Who will be there? They will be there. If there's a fuel spill from a refilling plane at 5 in the morning, they will be there. Adelaide Airport is a category 9 airport. Categories dictate the required amount of water and foam that is needed to be carried, the response times, the water discharges, the rates and the number of personnel. The categories range from six to 10.
The motion that the member for Grayndler has moved calls on the government to reject any proposals to increase the threshold provision for firefighter services at airports from the existing 350,000 passenger movements annually, noting that this would preclude the establishment of these services at many regional airports. In South Australia, for example, is Port Lincoln, Mount Gambier, Whyalla and even the growing airport of Kangaroo Island. They service many tourists going to tourist destinations. As we heard the member for Richmond say, we want our tourists to feel safe when they're taking off and landing at airports. That's why this is so important. Why should big cities be safer while our regional areas suffer? All regional MPs in the south should strongly support the motion put forward by the member for Grayndler.
Why am I speaking on the importance of firefighters? It's because of Adelaide Airport. I want to remind the government of a particular question in writing that I submitted last year regarding PFOS and PFOA, which have been used by airport firefighters around Australia—in fact, around the world—for many years. These chemicals have been banned worldwide. We know that wonderful workers have been suffering the effects of being exposed to these chemicals for many years, including at Adelaide Airport. I put a question on notice but have yet to receive an answer back from the minister. These chemicals have been proven to have harmed the environment—that's why they've been banned—and they are potentially harmful to workers. Many firefighters were exposed to these chemicals. I have been meeting with them in my electorate for a number of months, trying to ensure that they get some medical checks—that they get their blood tested on a regular basis to see the level at which the chemicals are flowing through their bodies. The workers have been exposed to chemicals through no fault of their own and we should stand up for them. The firefighters keep us safe when we fly and ensure that, if there is an emergency, they're the first ones there. It's no coincidence that I haven't received a letter back— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): As there are no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Deputy Speaker) (12:34): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the important contribution that the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (Efic) makes to supporting Australian exporters;
(2) notes the recent passage of the Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2016 through the Parliament with bipartisan support, helping Efic keep pace with Australia’s changing exports; and
(3) commends the Government for issuing a new Statement of Expectations for Efic, re-enabling it to support onshore resource projects, and related infrastructure.
Efic is focused on the export finance needs of Australian exporters, especially the needs of small and medium-size exporters. This focus is paying dividends. Efic has provided around 260 small to medium enterprises with over $350 million of financial support in the last three years. Total exports supported from these projects had a value exceeding $1.8 billion. Efic's mandate is to operate in the market gap when the private sector is either unwilling or unable to finance otherwise commercially viable export transactions, and it is quite often the newer, emerging businesses that struggle to find that finance when they need it.
We all know this happens a lot in the small to medium enterprise sector. But SMEs are not the only group that sometimes suffers from a market gap in the availability of finance. In September 2017, Minister Ciobo announced changes to the mandate of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, Efic, to permit Efic, Australia's official export credit agency, to support a wider range of Australian exporters. Now, subject to careful consideration, Efic is able to once again support onshore resource projects and related infrastructure where there is a demonstrated market gap in the availability of private sector finance. This is a reversal of a ban applied in the previous statement of expectations issued in 2014, which prevented Efic from funding onshore resource projects. Back then the decision was to rule out resource-related onshore lending by Efic, a decision which was taken in the context of the time, when bank lending for resources was strong. There was a risk of Efic competing with and crowding out private sector banks in projects that the market would fund anyway.
But times have changed, and there is an increasing number of resource projects in some market segments facing difficulties obtaining private market finance for otherwise viable projects. Quite often, when thought goes to what sorts of projects, the Carmichael coal mine in Central Queensland is the one that comes to the fore, largely due to the promotion of the issue by the extremist groups and others. But I would like to draw the House's attention to a project in my electorate at Dubbo, which is the Alkane Resources project. It's a rare earth project that will provide products that are very, very useful in modern industries—in renewable energy, IT and defence. The project is around the minerals zirconium, hafnium, niobium and other rare earths. This project, which has a 70-year life span, will have between 300 and 400 jobs in construction for 18 to 24 months. It creates 250 permanent jobs, most of them locally sourced. That is approximately $50 million per annum in salaries and wages. There will be royalties to the state of $9.5 million per annum plus a payroll to the state of $34 million per annum and corporate tax to the Commonwealth of $70 million per annum, as well as local council rates and community payments of around $2 million per annum. There is a lot of flow-on to other industries as well. The changes to the guidelines for Efic will mean that projects like the Alkane Resources Toongi project near Dubbo and others will be able to get that funding to get them up off the ground and, ultimately, lead to quite significant contributions to our economy. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Tim Wilson: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (12:40): It's interesting to be rising today to speak on this motion, given the likely origins of this new statement of expectations and its likely trajectory. Here we are, just a day after the member for McPherson, in her role as the government's Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, confirmed that the federal government won't provide funds to help Adani build infrastructure for its proposed coalmine in Queensland's Galilee Basin. This comes on the heels of recent disturbing reports that pollution samples relating to the environmental impact of the mine may well have been doctored. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, Labor is growing increasingly sceptical over this project.
It's clear, at the very least, that the project should not be reliant on the Turnbull government handing a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money to a mining billionaire. So it's fitting, then, that today, a day after one line of funding was shut off, a government that's fought so hard for millionaires and multinationals should ask the House to give it a pat on the back for opening up an alternative source of taxpayer dollars for a project like Adani's. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation usually provides funds to help Australian exporters expand, but with the stroke of a pen the minister has made it possible for Efic to fund the kinds of projects it was not intended to fund.
Let's look at the timing of this decision. On 29 August last year, Australia's Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Steven Ciobo, met with Gautam Adani in India. A week or so later, on 7 September, Minister Ciobo changed the Efic investment mandate and its statement of expectations to allow investment in onshore resources projects. The next day, 8 September, Minister Ciobo and Deputy Prime Minister Joyce wrote to top Chinese officials to vouch for Indian giant Adani and its proposed megamine in Central Queensland—that was because Adani had turned to Chinese state owned banks to seek financing for its $16.5 billion project. Australian banks have said that they won't fund the Adani coalmine. They recognise that world coal demand is falling. They recognise, too, that the impact of Adani could well be, as the member for Shortland has pointed out, to cost mining jobs in the Hunter region. So, to assist, Minister Joyce and Minister Ciobo sent a letter to the chairman of China's National Development and Reform Commission, saying they welcomed, 'foreign lending to support the development of major projects in Australia'.
Now we skip forward six weeks and we have Efic during an estimates hearing on 26 October denying it had any such contact with Adani. Five days later, Minister Ciobo confirmed on Sky that he'd changed Efic's statement of expectations, allowing the body to provide federal money to onshore resource projects. By late December, when we were all ready for a quiet summer of books and beaches, questions on notice came back from the Senate and confirmed that Efic had in fact spoken with Adani and had informed the minister's office of that contact. This contradicts the evidence given by Efic at the estimates hearing.
So that's what we know, but we don't know when Adani first contacted Efic or whether the minister's office asked Efic to communicate with Adani. What it looks like is that last year, when the chances of dollars flowing from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility were growing slimmer and slimmer, the Turnbull government was working on a second option to fund that project.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (12:44): Efic is focused on the export finance Australian exporters need, not just to, obviously, export goods and services to the world but to particularly help those mighty giants of our nation, the foundation of our enterprise, small- and medium-sized exporters, to be able to build their capacity to sell the benefits, the wealth and the opportunity of this nation to the world. Of course, that focus pays dividends. Efic has provided around 260 SMEs with over $350 million of financial support in the last three years. The total exports supported were valued at $1.8 billion—not just $1.8 billion of goods sent around the world, but $1.8 billion that delivered jobs to Australians and built this nation's future.
In the wonderful electorate of Goldstein, many businesses have also benefited. For instance, SOS Hydration received a loan of $100,000 in July of last year—a company that I have met with in the past. Their wonderful entrepreneurs are providing an innovative Australian product and are taking it to the globe under Andrew Shaw and his team. Grande Exhibitions in Black Rock, with the innovation effort of Bruce Peterson, also received $100,000 a few years ago, and the Australian Pacific Touring company received a million-dollar loan in 2011 under Geoff McGeary.
Efic is already doing a good job in helping our exporters. During the course of the last financial year, Efic provided over 110 SME exporters with over $155 million in funding. However, Efic could do more to help Australian exporters. Among other things, the change in the legislation being provided gives more businesses the ability to secure Efic financing. Previously, Efic could only provide a guarantee for a loan from another bank for certain types of exporters of Australian goods and services. This change saves these businesses time and money by allowing them to borrow directly from Efic. But, more critically, it is also part of the drive of recognising not just the past and the present but also the future of the Australian economy. It particularly embraces the opportunity to give exporters in the services sector the chance to be able to realise their opportunity is part of our region.
Just consider the case of a WA geosciences company which exports innovative Australian geology and geophysics services and software. Following on from its international success, the company needed additional working capital to expand its offices in the UK, US and Malaysia. Expansion of its offices was important for driving more sales, its business growth and, of course, creating jobs for Australians overseas. The company's bank was unwilling to provide the finance so it contacted Efic for support. Efic was able to provide guarantees for bank loans, but this process could have been simpler, quicker and more efficient. The changes in this bill mean that this company would have been eligible for a loan from Efic.
Importantly, the legislative changes included a legislative stipulation to ensure there are more Australian jobs where Efic supports Australian businesses to expand overseas. It was already Efic policy that applicants for its overseas direct investment financing product must not use it to fund the outsourcing of jobs. The changes required businesses to certify in writing their reasonable belief that Efic's support for overseas direct investment will actually grow and result in an increase in the number of people employed in Australia by their business or affiliates. That is not a straightforward task because Australia is not an island continent producing finished goods. We are part of a global supply chain exporting goods and services to the world. But the government is committed to unlocking Efic's potential to support the operation and administration of government financing arrangements. Efic already provides fee-for-service support to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. The changes in this bill enable Efic to provide its specialist financial services to a wider range of Commonwealth entities and companies on a fee-for-service basis—subject, of course, to ministerial approval. But what it actually means is that Efic now sits at the heart and potential of Australia's future export interests. and the physical development of this great island continent.
In summary, the changes in the bill, combined with the change in the Statement of Expectations, benefit a wide range of Australian exporters, including SMEs, as they seek to export innovative online products, sell intellectual property and the wealth of this nation in our mines, expand their reach overseas and grow jobs at home. They make it easier for Efic to support our exporters and their contribution to the growth of Australian jobs and the promotion of trade, tourism and investment interests in the Goldstein electorate in the great state of Victoria, and covering the whole of this Commonwealth of Australia as part of building its future for future generations.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 12:49 to 16:00
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
New South Wales: Roads
Mr GEE (Calare) (16:00): One of the reasons I entered this parliament was to bridge the great divide between the city and the country. Our electorate lies on the western side of the Great Dividing Range—the 'sandstone curtain', as we call it. It not only is a physical divide between the city and the country but also, for many in the regions, represents a divide of opportunity, of representation, of development and of population between those east of it and those west of it. The great divide exists in education, in access to medical services and in social disadvantage. We in central-western New South Wales want our region to grow and prosper so that it continues to provide an unbeatable quality of life for generations to come. There is no better way to literally bridge the great divide than to build a new expressway over the top of it or, indeed, tunnel underneath it—or both. Sydney is bursting at the seams. With each passing week its suburbs march closer to the mountains. An expressway from Sydney's north-west into Lithgow, in the vicinity of the Bells Line of Road, would open up the communities of the west. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent on the Pacific Highway upgrade; it's costing over $50 million per kilometre. We in the central-west don't dispute that it's needed, but we believe that it's time western New South Wales got its fair share. Let's not dither for another generation. This project needs to happen, and all levels of government should be supporting it. The renewed push for an expressway into central-western New South Wales is on.
Tasmania: Schools
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (16:01): The Tasmanian Liberal government have been crowing about record education spending, but the government, Deputy Speaker Claydon, are lying, because it turns out that they've actually been cutting money from education for years. Indeed, the Productivity Commission's report on government services in 2018, which was released last week, cuts through the spin and tells us the real story about how much the Tasmanian government spends on education. It found that real Tasmanian government expenditure on public schools has been slashed from $846 million in 2012-13 to $844 million in 2013-14, $833 million in 2014-15 and $811 million in 2015-16. That's a cut of $35 million in just three years. Imagine how many teachers, classroom resources and vital programs, such as music and art, that could buy. It's no surprise, then, that the Australian Education Union are reporting that there are fewer teachers and bigger class sizes in Tasmanian state schools. An AEU survey also found teachers and parents dipping into their own pockets to help pay for stationery, classroom supplies, library resources and even school maintenance. It's simply disgraceful for the minister, Jeremy Rockliff, to try to pull the wool over Tasmanians' eyes and to use federal Gonski money to claim record investment. The reality is that Tasmanian government education funding has been going down, and for the minister to claim otherwise makes him a bold-faced liar.
Australia Day
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (16:03): I was delighted on Australia Day to be able to present community Australia Day awards in my electorate of Menzies for the 23rd year running. Indeed, some 600 people joined me at the Manningham Function Centre to honour 55 locals for their volunteer service to the community. People from organisations such as Doncare; the various service clubs in the electorate; two members of the local Victoria Police, for their work with the community; congregations and faith groups; and many other charitable and volunteer organisations were represented. In addition to Lou Bougias, whom I mentioned in a statement in the House earlier this afternoon for his outstanding heroic achievements in relation to the Bourke Street tragedy in January 2017, I was able to present the Manningham Perpetual Trophy to the Warrandyte Riverside Market committee, who conduct a community market on the lovely banks of the Yarra River at Warrandyte on a monthly basis, and also present one of the Australian flags which the Speaker makes available to all members to the Doncaster Squadron of the Air League. I congratulate all of the recipients. As I say, it's an indication of the wonderful, tireless work that people do for years and decades to help others in the local community.
Brand Electorate: Schools
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (16:04): Nearly 60 schools across the electorate of Brand opened their doors last week to welcome new and old students to the new school year. Our growing community has two new primary schools this year: Honeywood Primary School in Wandi, headed by Maria Cook, and Wellard Primary School in Wellard, headed by Geoff Miller. I would like to wish Maria and Geoff and all the teachers and other staff at the school all the best as they grow these new schools into places of learning and create lasting memories for all the children who get to call them their schools. I was so pleased to have the chance to attend the official opening of the Wellard Primary School and chat with parents and students who can now walk to school in this great new facility close to their homes. It was a very happy occasion with much enthusiasm and was embraced widely by the nearby community.
For other schools, from Kwinana to Singleton and everywhere in between, lunch boxes and bags were packed before kids from kindy to year 12 headed off to one of the most important and formative places of their lives: their school. They will spend time in a school community that is made up of many people—teachers, of course, but also education assistants, gardeners, cleaners and administrators—who all work to ensure students receive the best school education and the best school experience possible. Unfortunately, not all communities in Brand have access to the infrastructure today's students and their families rely on to complement their in-school learning. Unfortunately, for families in Port Kennedy, Warnbro, Secret Harbour, Baldivis and Wellard with children at school, TAFE or uni, the NBN is yet to be delivered, leaving many without consistent internet access. It's a crying shame, and it's this government's fault.
Chisholm Electorate: Blessing of the Waters
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (16:06): One of the great joys of being a member of parliament is attending marvellous events which celebrate our vibrant multicultural communities. To commence 2018, I was honoured to represent Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, a self-proclaimed philhellene, at the 34th annual Theophania, the Blessing of the Waters festival, at Port Melbourne, which pays homage to the baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan. Indeed, the work of the Greek Orthodox Church and Greek community in Australia is remarkable on the tradition that goes back thousands of years and it ensures that the Greek language and culture remain alive in Australia and around the world. I would like to acknowledge two people who were at the event: Reverend George Adamakis, parish priest of Sts Anargiri parish in Oakleigh, for his tireless work as spiritual leader of the Chisholm Greek community as well as of the broader community and its surrounds, and also His Grace Bishop Ezekiel for his great dedication to the Greek community.
Australians of Greek heritage have greatly influenced and enhanced our national Australian story and play prominent roles in politics, business, science and the arts. As an Australian of proud migrant heritage, it is also a great personal honour to have been appointed the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Greece Group under the Turnbull government. I again congratulate the Greek community of Chisholm and Melbourne on a wonderful Theophania and look forward to a 2018 filled with warm and festive community celebrations, including the Lonsdale Street festival in the heart of Melbourne, coming up this weekend.
Workplace Relations
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:07): Although I did not make the Theophania this year, I was very pleased that one of my constituents was successful in swimming out and grabbing the cross. So I'm pleased to have been in the chamber for the previous member's contribution. I'm here because a couple of weeks ago I made a promise. I made a promise to a group of workers, many of whom I'm very proud to represent in this place. They work at Australian Paper. Unfortunately, they've not been working at Australian Paper for some weeks now. I'd hoped not to be required to make this speech, but I'm very proud of their resolve, standing up for their hard-won conditions, and also, along with their union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, standing up for the conditions of all workers. What's happened to them is what's happening to workers all around Australia—workers at places like Murdoch University, maintenance workers down in Longford in Gippsland and workers everywhere else where employers are simply not bargaining in good faith. This demonstrates that our rules are not fit for purpose. They're not fit for the corporate morality which is too dominant in Australia today.
I draw the attention of members of the House to those workers at Australian Paper, workers who late last year worked overtime to ensure that Australians could vote in the postal survey to deliver marriage equality. They deserve to be treated with dignity and decency by their employers, and I pay tribute to the union—to Margie, the shop steward, to Dean, the organiser, and to Cindy O'Connor—and to Ged Kearney, the Labor candidate for Batman, who is standing with them now and always.
Mallee Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (16:09): The people who live in my patch work very hard, and often the things that we're trying to get for them are basic infrastructure so that we can get the products that they produce to the marketplace. We can make sure they can make a phone call—some of those basic things. But there are also things that make rural communities liveable. I just want to say to the people who live in Mildura, I'm going to fight very hard so you can get $10 million towards an indoor basketball stadium. These are poorer kids who are playing basketball every Saturday morning, and the courts are just used flat-out. There is value in investing in community infrastructure. They build communities, they give people that sense of a great place to live and, if we can have more kids more active more often, we'll have a healthier society.
The other thing I want to get is $5.2 million for the Swan Hill riverfront development. Swan Hill's a beautiful town but, if you drive through Swan Hill, you forget that it's next to a river. We want to open that up and link those two things. The other thing for Horsham is $8.8 million to expand the Wimmera intermodal freight hub. It's something that the previous member, John Forrest, was very passionate about. It's a success. It's essentially taking shipping containers of a high-value product, keeping them in the country, putting them on a rail and sending them straight to port. It's been built and it's now overloaded. It's now full, which is testimony to our economic activity, but we need to expand it so we need some more money. They are things I'm going to fight for. Good people in our part of the world need good projects, and I'm here to work with them to make sure they're delivered.
Australia Day
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:10): On 26 January, people all over Parramatta got together to mark Australia Day. They got together with friends and family to reflect or celebrate. My local councils hosted a number of citizenship ceremonies this year, with almost 750 people in the electorate pledging themselves to Australia. I also hosted one, which is always an incredible pleasure as, for many, the ceremony marks a very special day in their lives.
Once again, the City of Parramatta Council organised a festival in Parramatta Park, and it was humming when I got down there before lunch. I also celebrated with the Maltese Community Council, where we recognised the members of the Australian-Maltese community who had received Orders of Australia. Thank you to the President, Emanuel Camilleri, for the invitation to participate, and congratulations to the most recipient participants, Charlie Mifsud and George Bartolo. The United Australian Lebanese Movement threw a wonderful Australia Day awards ceremony and cocktail party where we celebrated the achievements and contributions of the Australian-Lebanese community. It was the 20th year for the event and they show no sign of running out of extraordinary Australians to honour.
Thank you, also to the president of the United India Association, John Kennedy, for allowing me to share your very special triple-treat event celebrating Australia Day, India Republic Day and the Australian-Indian HSC high achievers. My apologies to both the City of Parramatta and Cumberland councils for not being able to squeeze your official celebrations into a packed day. My apologies, also, to Mustafa Hamed and Faydi Saddik for not being able to make your event.
National Integrity Commission
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:12): I think the calls for a new national corruption body are wrong. Australia has one of the best justice systems in the world. We have a system where everybody is treated equally before the law whether you're a blue-collar worker, a politician or a CEO. The support pillars of this system are a police force that is resourced and vested with powers to pursue allegations of wrongdoing, a criminal justice system that treats every Australian equally and free, a strong press that is able to report without fear or favour. We have 26 other bodies oversighting government and business. A national corruption body would set up a separate system that would undermine the principle of one justice system for every Australian by introducing a separate and different system for politicians. If there's an allegation of wrongdoing or corruption, it should be the police that investigate and prosecute, and the courts that bring the verdict.
Look at the few but well-publicised cases of corruption in Australia in recent years. It was actually the brilliant investigative journalism of Kate McClymont of TheSydney Morning Herald that did more than any corruption body to shine a light on Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald. It was ultimately the New South Wales Court of Appeal that heard and upheld the convictions against Obeid. Former Labor minister Andrew Theophanous's crimes and corruption were reported by the media, investigated by the police and ultimately punished with jail by the Victorian county court—not a corruption body.
If you're a blue-collar worker and you commit a crime, you should be heard and punished by the courts. If you're a CEO and you commit a crime, you should be heard and punished by the courts. If you're a politician and you commit a crime, you should be treated like every other Australian and be heard and punished by the courts.
Australia Day
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:14): I want to congratulate the Illawarra and Southern Highlands Australia Day award winners. In particular, from Shellharbour there was Kiki Cuda, who was the youngest ever winner of the Shellharbour Young Citizen of the Year at the age of 12, recognising her tremendous work for charity. There was Dave Williamson, otherwise known as Scooter Dave, who travels over nine kilometres each day on his mobility scooter to help keep our community clean and tidy. From Wollongong, there was Ebony Austin, the Young Citizen of the Year, recognising her contribution to dance. A friend and colleague and local businesswoman Vicki Tiegs was awarded the Wollongong Citizen of the Year and joint Senior Citizens of the Year are David North and Annette Beaufils.
From the Wingecarribee Shire, I want to recognise Aunty Wendy Lotter, who spent 25 years working with the local community to strengthen links between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Young Citizen of the Year, 17-year-old William Koek, a Rotary member, has shown an outstanding commitment to his community at such a young age, particularly to those in need. There were many people from the district who were also recognised in the Australia Day Honours List, including Gordon Bradbery, Dr Gregory Clark, Captain John Philip Stevenson, Lieutenant-Colonel Philip Badcock, Don Briggs, Janice Jones, Paul Shanahan, Reverend Father Francis Tran and Jeanne Villani. They are great Australians and great ambassadors for our region. I recognise and congratulate them all.
Annual Health Check
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (16:15): As we welcomed in the year 2018, many Australians made resolutions at the beginning of the new year: getting into shape, reading more or learning a new language. It's still early, but I hope everyone's still committed to their resolutions. For those who didn't make one, one resolution that could be made this year is to take their health a little bit more seriously. There are a few simple things we can do to stay healthier and happier for longer. I encourage Australians—in particular, men—to go and see their doctors or their local pharmacists and have their blood pressure checked to prevent a number of the strokes which occur every year. Stroke is a disease which impacts one in six, and high blood pressure is the key factor that can be easily managed. Around four million Australians have high blood pressure and many of us don't even realise it. One way to know if it's a health issue is by going to your local doctor or your local pharmacist and simply having it checked. I also encourage men over the age of 50—or 40, if they've got family history of prostate cancer—to head to the doctor and get tested with the new PSA testing. This blood test is used to measure the levels of a protein, called the prostate-specific antigen. It will show whether there might be a problem with the prostate gland. I encourage Australians to book their annual check-up with their local doctor or their local pharmacist to maintain their health. I wish everyone a happy and safe year.
Payday Loans
Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:17): Today is 'payday mayday'. The front page of today's Courier-Mail says it all. As the cost of living dramatically rises under this government, 1.8 million households are now financially distressed and over 650,000 families have turned to payday loans just to get by. Both of those figures have doubled in the past decade. In return, Australians are paying interest rates as high as 884 per cent for household goods like fridges and washing machines, which would normally cost $350 but end up costing consumers almost $4,000 because of loan sharks looking to rip off vulnerable Australian families. And, whilst hundreds of thousands of people across Australia are being taken advantage of, the government sits by and does nothing. Despite endorsing the 24 recommendations from its own committee almost two years ago, we're yet to see any action from the government to step in and protect vulnerable Australian families.
We hear of stories like that of Trina Begg from Inala in my electorate who, after five years of a traumatic debt spiral where she took out hundreds of short-term loans and paid off tens of thousands of dollars in ridiculous interest rates, is only now back on her feet. Earlier today, I had the pleasure of meeting with the CEO of the Consumer Action Law Centre and his colleagues, who are at the forefront of advocating for these families. For two years, the minister has sat on her hands and has been missing in action on these important reforms. Today I call on the government to listen to the community activists and make sure they start protecting vulnerable Australians.
Dunkley Electorate: Australia Day
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (16:18): I was honoured to participate again this year in the Australia Day citizenship ceremonies hosted by both the Frankston City Council and the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. Well done, in particular, to: Frankston Citizen of the Year, Cheryl Myers; Senior Citizen of the Year, Hilary Poad; and Young Citizen of the Year, Eilis Peters; as well as the Rotary Club of Frankston for receiving the Community Event of the Year Award for the Seaford Farmers Market. Rotary this year celebrated the market's 10th anniversary. I'm proud to be a Frankston Rotary member and to help out at their great barbecues, with which they've raised $500,000 for the community over the last 10 years. Mornington Peninsula Shire Citizen of the Year, Karen Fankhauser, Young Citizen of the Year, Matthew Mayne, and Community Event of the Year, the 125th Anniversary of Mornington Football Club Tragedy, were also acknowledged as prominent contributors to the community. Former councillor Bill Goodrem and the Dolphin Research Institute were also recognised for their lengthy service and ongoing work. It struck me during both ceremonies how much this day means to those becoming citizens. You can't fail to be inspired by their enthusiasm and love for Australia.
Infrastructure
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (16:20): During the recent Christmas break, one of the most illustrative political farces was the naming—or I should say the misnaming—of one of Sydney Harbour's new ferries by the New South Wales Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Mr Andrew Constance. While it kept many people amused for a few days, the saga of lies, bluster and wastage of public money is tragic rather than comic, to my view. My electorate of Macarthur is undergoing rapid change from what was once a rural area to a high-density urban area with high-rise units lining the railways and rapid development of new housing estates to the north, to the south and to the east. The state government has recently approved further high-rise development along the rail corridor to the east. However, one element that's been missing and completely absent is that of public transport infrastructure and planning for it. All transport experts agree that a rail link to Western Sydney Airport is essential, yet Mr Constance has repeatedly said that there will not be a rail link until many, many years in the future. I call on Mr Paul Fletcher, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities, to bypass the New South Wales minister for transport and deal directly with the New South Wales government to get a rail link to the Western Sydney Airport as soon as possible so that it's there on day one. It is urgent that the planning and the building start now and not years in the future.
Dunkley Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (16:21): Today I also wanted to make my colleagues aware of the fantastic work of another dedicated Dunkley local, Mrs Gillian Tolley of Mornington, who on Australia Day was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the general division. Gillian received the OAM for services to conservation and the environment. Her involvement in and commitment to our environment on the Mornington Peninsula is extensive. Gillian belongs to the National Trust of Australia, through which she instigated the Endeavour Fern Gully regeneration and rehabilitation project. She has been a committee member of the Mornington Peninsula branch since 1999, was president from 2007 to 2009 and has been vice-president since 2009, and she also currently serves as the membership coordinator. Gillian's involvement with local environmental groups spans several other organisations, including the Tanti Creek and the Mills Beach-Mornington Landcare groups. The Mornington Peninsula is extremely fortunate to have people like Gillian who are so committed to the conservation of our beautiful local environment and coastline and whose leadership is not only a driving force for volunteer work in Dunkley but also an inspiration for our whole community. Congratulations again, Gillian.
Afghanistan
Mr HILL (Bruce) (16:22): I rise to condemn the horror of the ongoing and devastating violence in Kabul, Afghanistan, because, of course, many Australians are currently serving and working in Kabul right now, and many Australian Afghans in my electorate have been shocked and touched directly by the recent violence. It's important that we don't ever become immune to these acts or accept them as normal. All such acts must be condemned, and I'm particularly shocked by the most recent attacks, where trusted institutions have been used by the Taliban and Islamic State to inflict death. An ambulance filled with explosives was driven into a crowd, killing more than 100 people and wounding over 200. The shocking attack on the Save the Children office comes on top of more than 100 attacks on health facilities elsewhere in the country. Organisations like the Red Cross are pulling out of some areas, leaving thousands without care. This latest reign of terror must be confronted. I was particularly sad to read an article that someone sent me saying that some people in Kabul now are so scared that they're carrying notes in their pockets with details such as their name, address, age and blood type and phone numbers of loved ones in case they're the next victims.
I was in Kabul in October 2016 with the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, but I don't feel that I actually visited the place. It's frustrating and dissatisfying to be ferried around in combat gear in a Bushmaster, not allowed to experience the city. So I hope one day that I can visit again and be able to walk around with the people. In the meantime, Australia stands with the Afghan people in solidarity, maintaining our commitment to help build and strengthen the state.
Dawson Electorate: Cyclone Debbie
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (15:09): It is over 10 months, almost, since Cyclone Debbie crossed the coast in the Whitsundays. The problem is that not all the insurance claims have yet been settled and, along with that, there are still places that are damaged and that have not been fixed. We're currently in another cyclone season, and this is just not on. The level of cases has dropped. I, and other members of the community, particularly the Whitsunday Neighbourhood Centre, have been able to resolve a lot, but the industry response has been abysmal. It's been woeful. There have been problems with assessors, with builders and with all the rest of it, but, ultimately, it's in the hands of the insurance industry, though.
Another problem is worsening, and that's the problem of insurance premiums. It's affecting everywhere north of the tropic of Capricorn. The insurance industry told me the last time premiums rose that they were pricing the risk right. Well, if they were pricing the risk right then, why, after another cyclone, are premiums going up again?
I've got to say that there's fantastic work being done by members of the community, including Margaret Shaw and the Greater Whitsunday Alliance, but more needs to be done by government at all levels. We need to stop insurers from cherrypicking the market and force them back into North Queensland, so there is competition in the market and we can get fair prices for North Queenslanders.
Herbert Electorate: JCU Townsville Fire
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (16:26): I stand here today, very proudly, to congratulate the JCU Townsville Fire on an outstanding win in the 2017-18 Women's National Basketball League championship. Once again, women are leading the way. As a season ticket holder, I had the pleasure of attending the final on Sunday, 21 January 2018 at Townsville RSL Stadium. Congratulations to the JCU Fire on three grand final wins in four years. That is a magnificent achievement.
Championship wins don't just happen; they are won by great teams. My sincere congratulations go to every player in the team led by six-time MVP Suzy Batkovic, coach Claudia Brassard and the coaching and support team. Great teams also need strong and competent management, and that is exactly what general manager Richard Goodbody and his team have provided the JCU Fire. The JCU Fire has put Townsville squarely on the map as a powerhouse for women's basketball, and that is great news for our city and our economy. The Fire are not just a great women's basketball championship team, they are excellent role models for young women in our community, as they are committed to the development of strong young women. They constantly give up their time to support local community groups, including our schools. The JCU Fire have been in five finals in seven years, and I think that is absolutely extraordinary for a female team.
Brisbane Electorate: Spirit of Life Boutique
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (16:27): I love visiting small businesses for everything they represent: effort, enterprise, jobs and local opportunities. I recently met with a small business owner Debra Taylor, who owns and operators a shop called Spirit of Life Boutique in Clayfield. A speech that involves a male politician explaining his presence in a bra shop could go a number of ways, but Spirit of Life Boutique is no ordinary store. They specialise in fashion for women who've undergone a mastectomy. Debra runs a small business on the one hand but, in my mind, it is just as much a community service.
Every year, thanks to the Cancer Council of Queensland providing her with referrals and facilities, Debra hits the road and travels to regional Queensland with her products to reach women who can't afford to travel into Brisbane. I'm no expert on these things, but my impression is that their range isn't drab, functional or hospital-grade. This is true fashion that will give a confidence boost, dignity and style; it goes a long way to replacing some of those things that cancer takes away from some women.
I helped Debra resolve an issue she had with a government agency in terms of the time it was taking to have her invoices paid. Cash flow is vitally important to every small business out there, and I note in passing this government's recent reforms to ensure that government agencies do pay their bills to small business on time. We need to do everything that we can to support small businesses. They're the backbone of our economy.
Wills Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (16:29): I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate two members of the community in my electorate of Wills who were inducted into the Order of Australia on Australia Day this year. I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate Denise Cauchi OAM of Brunswick East, who received a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the multicultural community and to human rights. She began her career as a journalist and then Denise turned focus to human rights advocacy, international development and social justice activism. She's had a career defined by her focus on peace and dealing with armed conflict.
I also congratulate Graeme Walker OAM of Brunswick East—it's a very good suburb for people who are getting plaudits!—who received a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the air freight transport sector. He's had an executive career in a number of large logistics companies across that period of his career, and I would like to recognise Graeme's service on other community boards and committees, including the Royal Melbourne Hospital, and the John Fawkner Private Hospital, which is also located in my electorate.
These people join a select group of inductees to our unique Australian honours system. Wills, which is my electorate in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, is a wonderful and diverse electorate. It gives me great pleasure to know that people such as these call Wills home. They make a positive contribution to the social fabric of our community and to this country. They are deserving recipients and we're all the better for their efforts and contribution to our nation. Remarkable people! As their representative, I congratulate them on their service.
Daley, Mr Patrick John OAM
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (16:30): I rise to speak about a person I am honoured to call a friend, a friend who has over five decades made contribution after contribution to our community. I speak, of course, of Patrick John Daley. If any of you have not been subjected to a Pat Daley phone call yet, you don't know what you're missing. Reminiscent of a verbal blitzkrieg, it is short and sharp and ends with the words, 'Right, we've covered all the issues and I'm going back to the bunker.' So when on Australia Day he received a Medal of the Order of Australia my only surprise was that he had not been awarded it several decades ago. His contributions include being a member of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drugs and a management committee member of the National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, and having roles with the Salvation Army. Pat was an officer in the New South Wales Police Force and was one of the driving forces behind the establishment and operation of Neighbourhood Watch.
While Pat has been off saving the world, his wife, Alana, has been quietly educating many of the children of the Northern Beaches as a teacher and principal in numerous schools. Patrick, congratulations on your award. Even though I know you don't care about recognition, we care and appreciate all that you have done.
Central Victoria: General Practice
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:32): There's a growing problem that we've got in central Victoria: we are facing a new GP shortage because of repeated government policy failures. The health minister and the government will tell you that bulk billing rates are up, even in the electorate of Bendigo. This is true. But what the government doesn't tell you is the increasing gap fee that patients are now having to pay for general practice services. We are now left with only a handful of clinics that don't charge a gap fee. Because they don't charge a gap fee, they are now struggling to attract doctors to work for them. They are struggling to recruit more GPs, required to keep their practices open on weekends—in particular, the Healthworks practices that service a very low socioeconomic area of my electorate in Kangaroo Flat and Golden Square. The manager and owner of these practices, Dr Alan Hall, has come out publicly to say we need to be put back on the District of Workforce Shortage list, the list which allows them to recruit overseas doctors to work in Bendigo. These are the people who are willing to work in clinics where they don't get to charge a gap fee. I've written to the health minister on several occasions as well, supporting the GPs in my electorate and the clinics, calling for Bendigo to be added back to the District of Workforce Shortage list.
Leichhardt Electorate: Daintree River Ferry
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (16:33): For five days, at the end of this month, the Daintree River Ferry will be dry-docked to allow for an inspection to take place. While not forgoing the safety importance of any inspection on the vessel, it is the residents, small businesses, farmers, workers and schoolchildren whose only access is the ferry, day in and day out, who will be severely impacted. Cape Tribulation farmer Jeremy Blockey summed up the situation perfectly: fruitgrowers who pick two or three days a week this time of year will not be able to get their produce to market. Tradies living north of the river who commute south to work: how will they get their utes and toolboxes across? Tourism operators, like Sheena Walshaw of Jungle Surfing Canopy Tours, now have to cancel bookings of accommodation facilities and refund thousands of dollars.
The Douglas Shire Council believe that they have implemented enough mechanisms to ensure that residents and visitors are not disadvantaged, but three weeks notice of a closure date with no community consultation is not acceptable. I call on the Douglas Shire Council not to underestimate the importance of the community across the river and put in place a second ferry, an alternative, for that period of time. In fact, a recommendation that came out in the council's own feasibility study in 2004 recommended a second ferry. This will not only ensure that this will not occur again but also increase the capacity of tourists, cut down the resident waiting times and increase economic sustainability for the community in the Daintree.
Western Australia: Infrastructure
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (16:35): When I was a kid we marvelled at the stunts of Evel Knievel, but I can tell you that Evel Knievel had nothing on the member for Tangney, who continues to promote a stunt that is bigger and emptier than the Grand Canyon. He continues to say that there is $1.2 billion in the budget for the Perth Freight Link, when he knows there is not one single dollar. It is nothing but a cynical accounting trick. It is fake money for a fake project. Evel Knievel, to his credit, had more than a few tricks. The member for Tangney, sadly, is stuck at one. He first played this tune in 2016, he kept it up all through last year and here we are in 2018 and he is tuning up the old violin for another go. You would think that voters and constituents in Tangney would deserve a bit more than that. Certainly WA deserves more than cynical game-playing, because the passenger and freight transport issues in the south metro region are very real.
The Perth Freight Link, a private toll road that wouldn't reach the port, was never going to solve those issues. There are studies which show that there would be the same number of trucks on the Leach Highway within a decade. That's why Labor clawed back the $1.6 billion from that pointless money pit and we'll now see the upgrade of High Street, the creation of the North Lake Road bridge and the Cockburn-Thornlie rail link, among other projects that reduce congestion and improve safety. That's why Labor is putting more freight on rail and looking at future capacity in the outer harbour—real projects and real solutions with real funding. I invite the member for Tangney to join me in the real world one of these days.
Boothby Electorate: Brighton Jetty Sculptures
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (16:36): On Wednesday, 24 January, I was delighted to attend the launch of a wonderful community event in my electorate of Boothby—the 11th annual Brighton Jetty Sculptures. This major fundraising event for the Brighton Surf Lifesaving Club showcases local artistic talent along our beautiful beach at Brighton. Once again, there was a sea of talent this year. I congratulate all of the winners and entrants in this year's event. It was fantastic to see so many of our community members down at the foreshore supporting and enjoying our local artists and the surf club.
I congratulate and thank the Brighton Surf Lifesaving Club and President Chris Parsons, major sponsor and wonder local business, Patritti Wines and Ines Patritti, the City of Holdfast Bay, all the event partners, the incredibly hardworking organising committee, led by chairman Glen Millar and head curator Colleen Slattery, and original founder and committee member Karen Donaldson for putting together another successful event. The Brighton Jetty Sculptures could not happen without these tireless volunteers and all of their support crew, who braved the hot weather to ensure an enjoyable and safe event for all who attended.
The event concluded yesterday with the annual Brighton Jetty Classic, South Australia's largest open water swim and street festival. The classic attracts more than 1,000 entries across a range of events, including a 100-metre family swim and the flagship 1,500 metre race. Special thanks to all the surf lifesavers and volunteers who were on hand to support all participants in and out of the water.
Barton Electorate: 1st Hurstville Scout Group
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (16:38): I rise today to pay tribute to the 1st Hurstville Scout Group. In August I had the privilege to meet group leaders John Dwyer and Helen Dwyer. The group is preparing to celebrate 110 years of continuous service to the St George community in 2018. I am told it is the oldest scout group in Australia. I am very proud to have the 1st Hurstville Scout Group in the electorate of Barton. The group comprises some 100 young people aged between six and 26 years old, and they are supported by a dedicated and talented group of volunteer leaders.
It is an incredibly active group in our local community, participating in things like Anzac Day festivities, Australia Day council citizenship ceremonies, Graffiti Removal Day, National Tree Day, Relay For Life, NAIDOC Week and a host of other community events and adventure activities. The group provides—as the scout groups across New South Wales, Australia and around the world provide—great peer-to-peer mentoring and promotes healthy outdoors activities. In these activities, young people in our communities can gain confidence, learn problem solving and develop leadership skills. Scouts Australia provide a wonderful community service and purpose across New South Wales, Australia and the world, engaging young people and building resilience and confidence. I want to congratulate the 1st Hurstville Scout Group on their 110th anniversary.
Bennelong Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:40): Australia Day is a time for us to recognise many of the vital people at the heart of our community who set a fine example for us all to follow. I would like to mention two of these people here today: Ken Bock of Carlingford and Sam Mugavero of Ermington, who were both awarded the Order of Australia medal for their service to the community.
Ken has devoted his time to a number of different community groups and organisations, including the New South Wales branch of the Australia-Britain Society and the Anglican parish at Epping, where he has served in varying executive positions. Ken has also worked as a volunteer announcer and presenter at Radio 2RPH for over 20 years and, as an amateur, performed with the Castle Hill Players, the Hunter's Hill Players and the Pymble Players.
Sam Mugavero has contributed extensively to the Italian community of New South Wales. Sam has held a number of posts within the Italian community and its organisations, including serving as president and fundraiser for the AGIRA Association of New South Wales. He has also organised cultural trips to Italy. He is the founder and editor of Il Ficodindia,a bimonthly newsletter for the Italian community in Australia and overseas.
It is this selfless generosity that enriches our communities but also our nation more broadly. Ken and Sam deserve recognition and praise for the work they have undertaken. I am pleased to have seen these two members of Bennelong receive the Medal of the Order of Australia—so well deserved.
Argy, Dr Fred
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:41): On 2 January, Australia lost one of our great economists, Fred Argy. Fred worked originally in business before completing a Bachelor of Economics in 1956 and a Master of Economics in 1960. He then pursued a distinguished career in the Public Service, advising governments from Menzies to Keating. He held a range of distinguished positions, including the Deputy Secretary (Labour Economics) of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Australian Ambassador to the OECD in Paris. After retiring from the Public Service, he continued to serve as a project director for CEDA and as President of the Economics Society of Australia.
Nicholas Gruen wrote of Fred:
Fred Argy was a lovely guy. Affable, generous both publicly and privately, selfless and self-effacing.
I enjoyed his books, in particular Where to from here? Australian egalitarianism under threat, which inspired me to write Battlers and Billionaires and was cited by the shadow Treasurer in 'The case for opportunity', a speech in 2016.
My heart goes out to Fred's widow, Ida Argy, his wife of 60 years, and to his grandson, Nicholas Argy, who tragically lost his father Stephen some years ago. In Nicholas, I see the qualities that I so loved in Fred—an integrity, an honesty, a commitment to public service, a questing after truth and a desire to make Australia even better.
Moore Electorate: Roads
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:43): Improving east-west traffic connectivity between the residential and commercial areas within my electorate and beyond is one of my key priorities. Construction works are well advanced on the widening of the Reid and Tonkin highways, which includes the construction of grade-separated flyover bridges as part of the NorthLink WA project.
This $894 million investment in road infrastructure by the federal government will improve access by the residents of Moore to Perth airport and other major industrial areas. Providing a more direct access to the airport and commercial areas will improve business, tourism and local employment opportunities, as travelling time is significantly reduced by up to 20 minutes.
The federal government is also investing in the widening of Wanneroo Road to a dual carriageway north of Joondalup Drive to Flynn Drive to further improve access to the Neerabup industrial area. The 3.2 kilometre widening is in progress and is expected to cost $31 million.
In addition, the federal government is funding the construction of bridges over Wanneroo Road at the Joondalup Drive and Ocean Reef Road intersections to replace traffic lights, with grade-separated flyovers eliminating traffic congestion. Employment self-sufficiency remains one of the most important priorities in my electorate, as the creation of more local jobs will minimise the need for residents to commute long distances to work each day.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The time being 4.45 pm, and in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Plastic Bags
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (16:45): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) plastic bags are detrimental to the environment;
(b) Australians use an estimated 5 billion plastic bags a year, which represents over 20 million bags used every day;
(c) research has indicated that as of 2013, approximately 5 trillion pieces of plastic have been floating in our world's oceans—these are mostly microplastics of less than 5 millimetres in size and are regularly eaten by marine life, through which they enter the global food chain and are consumed by humans;
(d) thousands of marine mammals and seabirds die every year around the world as a result of plastic litter;
(e) plastic bags are particularly bad for the environment because they take from between 20 and 1,000 years to biodegrade and can travel long distances via air and water;
(f) South Australia led the nation with the phasing out of lightweight non-biodegradable plastic shopping bags, which state legislation defines as a carry bag, the body of which comprises (in whole or in part) polyethylene with a thickness of less than 35 microns and includes handles;
(g) South Australia's ban on plastic shopping bags came into force on 4 May 2009; and
(h) the South Australian Environmental Protection Authority estimates that the state's ban on plastic shopping bags has resulted in almost 400 million fewer plastic bags in that state each year; and
(2) calls on the:
(a) state governments yet to enact a ban on lightweight non-biodegradable plastic shopping bags to do so with speed and urgency; and
(b) Australian Government to work with the state Governments to implement a national ban on lightweight non-biodegradable plastic shopping bags by the end of 2018.
Last year, students from Kangaroo Island Community Education, in my electorate, shared their research with me about the impact we humans have on the environment. The year 4 and 5 students were so passionate about the environment that they started several local environmental initiatives, including a clean-up at the local beach and a soft-plastics bin in their schoolyard. In Australian classrooms, our children are taught how human activity is contributing to the deterioration of our environment. In our own households, so often it is our children who are leading the way by encouraging their families to make more environmentally friendly choices.
The class I visited also investigated and reported on a number of different environmental schemes, including the importance of a national plastic bag ban across Australia. The class explored the issue further than the ban, identifying what they could do in their own households to reduce waste and correctly recycle soft plastics. It's so important that we get rid of soft plastics because all of our marine life seem to see them as jellyfish, and we are killing our marine animals. I want to sincerely thank the students of Kangaroo Island Community Education; their infectious enthusiasm encouraged me to put forward this important motion.
South Australia was the first state, in 2009, to introduce a widespread ban on single-use plastic shopping bags. On average, these lightweight single-use bags are only used for a total of 12 minutes. Scientific research cited by the World Economic Forum indicates that, as of 2013, approximately 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic are floating in the world's oceans. The forum has predicted that this number will rise to a phenomenal 250 trillion tonnes in 2025. EcoWatch now estimate that 40 per cent of the world's ocean surface contains plastic debris. Each single-use plastic bag takes between 20 and 1,000 years to biodegrade. Because of their lightweight nature they are also prone to travelling long distances via air and water. These non-biodegradable plastic bags are killing thousands of marine animals every year and are causing irreversible damage to our marine ecosystems.
A 2011 review by researchers at the University of South Australia on the South Australian ban found that approximately 80 per cent of the community supported the ban on plastic bags in my state and that twice as many households now regularly carry their own reusable bags to the shops compared to before the ban came into effect. Another key conclusion of the 2011 review was that consideration should be given to extend the ban to cover other types of plastics, especially those that are thicker and heavier.
I'm encouraged by the states and territories which have already implemented this ban, including the ACT, the Northern Territory and Tasmania. I note that Queensland and Western Australia have committed to banning the bag this year. Banning plastic bags is not a new phenomenon. Single-use plastic bags have been banned nationally in several countries around the world, including Morocco, Italy and Belgium, and many other nations have localised or partial bans, such as Canada, the United States, Brazil and Botswana.
Last year, I wrote to both the New South Wales and Victorian premiers, urging them to join the rest of the country in banning the plastic bag. A plastic bag ban is not a difficult policy, because they can simply look at what South Australia has done and adopt our comprehensive policies on this. We have essentially blazed the trail for Victoria and New South Wales. I was encouraged by the comments from the Victorian environment minister to reduce the impact of plastic bags in Victoria. I understand that the Victorian parliament has now made a commitment to ban the plastic bag and is currently undertaking a consultation process. However, I must say that I was incredibly disappointed with the New South Wales Premier's response to me. She welcomed the leadership of Woolworths, Coles and Harris Farm Markets to phase out single-use plastic bags but was then pointedly silent about committing to any such leadership herself. I would urge the Premier of New South Wales to consult with her community. This can be done, and it is the most populous state in our nation.
Reusable and biodegradable bags have been around for some time and are affordable alternatives. A ban on lightweight single-use plastic bags provides a clear incentive for people to use materials kinder to our environment. Implementing a single-use plastic bag ban in every state and territory sends a strong, consistent message that all Australians will make small changes. We are an island nation. We are surrounded by water and we must do better to take care of our marine environment. I strongly support those states and territories who already have their bans on bags or are in the process of heading towards that, and again I strongly encourage the New South Wales government to take a leadership role in this. It can be done. For nine years in South Australia we have had a plastic bag ban, and it's about time that our most populous state join the team.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Ms McGowan: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (16:51): Just recently a young Manly West local, Nicola, wrote to me with a very upsetting story. She was out for a run on the local foreshore when she came across a dead hawksbill sea turtle. The turtle had died after eating a plastic bag. This is a common death for many turtles these days, and it's a horrible one. The awful thing is that this turtle was just one of the many dead marine animals she has seen since she moved into the area only seven months ago. According to UNESCO, plastic debris kills over a million sea birds and over 100,000 marine animals every year. Meanwhile, according to Keep Australia Beautiful data, there has been an increase in litter around the bayside area.
Clearly, something needs to be done. It heartens me to know that so many locals use their own time to go along the waterfront and pick up rubbish left behind by others. Local volunteer groups do regular litter clean-ups in the area. One constituent tells me that he fills up bags of rubbish during daily walks, but when he returns the next day it has all returned. As Keep Australia Beautiful's CEO, David Curtin, said to me: 'If all we ever do is pick up after litterbugs, we will always be cleaning up. Education is the key.'
There are already some fantastic education programs in place in my electorate. The Moreton Bay Discovery Centre is a great educational resource for the community. I was happy to secure $400,000 for the centre's construction and fit-out. The centre is an important tourism hub that will teach locals and visitors to the area how to keep Moreton Bay healthy for local marine life. It will also run a Moreton Bay discovery children's program when it opens. This is a great way to teach children the importance of protecting the bay. Another great initiative in Bonner is the renowned Tangalooma EcoMarines program, which includes an early learning centre program for preschool children.
This government supports moves by a number of states, including Queensland from 1 July, to phase out single-use plastic bags. We also welcome industry moves to do the same. Coles and Woolworths have announced that they will no longer be using single-use plastic bags by the end of 2018. At the Manly Harbour Village markets in my electorate, stall holders have reusable fabric shopping bags available for customers. The Manly Harbour Village Chamber of Commerce is also in discussions with the village traders about using fabric shopping bags.
The Minister for the Environment and Energy has said it's inevitable that Australia will be free of single-use plastic bags over time. Until then, I intend to do my part. I will be launching a 'clean up the bay' initiative and working alongside local environment groups to keep the bayside beautiful and rubbish-free for marine life. I have plans to get as many locals involved as possible. Together we can clean up and teach others to be inspired to do the same.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:54): In my speech today I would like to thank the member for Mayo and the member for Bonner on their really important initiative that we've brought to this House and to thank the member for Mayo for the work that she does for her communities, particularly with schools, listening to what they say and then bringing these topics to parliament. I'd also like to acknowledge the work done by the government of Victoria and the many individuals and community groups in my electorate who are taking a lead in this area through the Boomerang Bags movement.
I say to the Victorian government, thank you for your work. It's acknowledged and appreciated. In October 2017, the Labor government committed to banning single-use, lightweight plastic bags. They invited input from all Victorians on how to design a ban that's fair, effective and lasting. I do like it when our Victorian government consults with the community on such an important topic. The survey closed on 29 January, and we're expecting the results to be collated and analysed by early March. We look forward to that information.
Today I'd like to talk in particular about the many, many groups in my electorate and the work they're doing on not only understanding about plastic bags but also recycling, including the Boomerang Bags movement. Deputy Speaker Claydon, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Boomerang Bags movement, but co-founders Tania Potts and Jordyn de Boer up in Burleigh Heads got the idea happening. Now, thanks to amazing supporters all around the country, community groups and individuals are coming together and making bags. To do a bit of a call out for my electorate, in Alexandra, down in the south end of my electorate in the Goulburn Valley, between 300 and 400 bags have been sewn and distributed. In Bright, the P-12 secondary college has taken the lead. In Beechworth, between 3,500 and 5,000 bags were distributed in 2017. In Benalla, 80 bags have been made. In the Kiewa Valley, which is a small rural dairy community, 50 bags have been made. Down in the Kinglake area, a thousand bags have been sewn, with an aim of 3,000 to reach their ultimate goal of zero plastic bags in Kinglake. In Mansfield, the CWA—Country Women's Association—has joined up with the Up2Us Landcare group, and they've made 150 bags, which have been given out right around the community. In Moyhu, another small rural horticultural community, people have got together and made 50 bags. In Mount Beauty, in Tawonga, people have been meeting twice a week, and they've sewn 430 bags—a huge effort! Myrtleford has made 80 bags. Wangaratta—I love you, Wangaratta, for what you've done—went to the mills that make material and got the material that was going to be sent to landfill. They rescued that material; they stopped it going to landfill. They've made over 3,000 plastic bags. They actually stopped that plastic landfill, so that's a terrific effort.
In Yackandandah, my local community, over 500 recycled bags have been made. It's been great because they've been working with our local FoodWorks supermarket which, way ahead of the team, came out and said that they weren't going to have any more plastic bags. On the weekend, I was in Yackandandah. I had my recycled bag. Everyone has been putting their bags together in the big bin, and people can help themselves. It's working superbly—from Yarck to Yea, Bonnie Doon and Wodonga.
I'll finish with Wodonga and its Sustainable Activity Centre. Not only are they making recycled material bags; they also have a repair cafe. It's not about plastic bags; it's about making sure that things that have broken down can get fixed and don't get put into landfill. They've also got a battery collection service there.
It gives me such hope, Member for Mayo. We're calling on a top-down approach from the government to get their act together, and we're absolutely being led by our communities, doing all this bottom-up work. They're getting out there, they're solutions focused and they're doing what our communities do so well—they're taking the lead, and they're calling on us now, as members of parliament, to get our government to do what it needs to do. So thank you very much for bringing this really important motion to the parliament. I'm really pleased that you've written to the different states to say, 'Get your act together.' We're looking for the Commonwealth to continue to play a lead role in this. It gives me great pleasure to support this motion.
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (16:59): I agree very strongly with the call for action at the end of this motion. It's why I fought so hard for one of my election commitments, which involves catching rubbish in the Brisbane River before it moves out to Moreton Bay and the open ocean. I also want to say, with a great deal of respect to all honourable members speaking on this topic, whose passion should be commended and that matches my own passion, that this motion could be further developed in its approach and its language not just around the sentiments but when it comes to considering the options at play and the practical solutions in front of us. So I want to use my time today to very constructively put on the record some considerations that might help to advance this parliamentary debate from where the policy's been in recent years to where it is now, having regard to the science and the evidence and some of my knowledge from the industry I used to work in before coming to this place.
Plastic bags are detrimental to the environment. Logically, the next question has to be: if we propose to ban them, what are the substitutes that people will turn to, and are they more, or less, detrimental? Paper bags, for instance, can use far more water and electricity, depending on their make, and therefore can have a worse carbon footprint. And those synthetic bags that a lot of retailers sell now are probably the heaviest and most resource-intensive of all the options. If we use them enough times, ultimately they become a better option for the environment. But the evidence suggests that at this stage people aren't presently using them nearly enough times, on average, to make them the best choice. Heavier-grade plastics, on the other hand, do use more plastic than lightweight single-use plastic bags, so they can take as long or longer to degrade. Yet the facts suggest that because they're heavier they don't travel as easily through the air or through the water, so they're much less likely to enter the waterways and the open ocean. That's why schemes such as those introduced in South Australia and the ACT particularly focus their efforts on phasing out lightweight, single-use plastic bags, allowing retailers and customers to substitute other plastic bags, like heavier-grade plastics or indeed biodegradable or compostable plastics.
And that's an issue I want to mention in passing. I've said consistently in other debates in this place, from burqa bans to night-life lockouts, that calls for blanket bans can sometimes be a clunky, poor choice for policymakers—always motivated by good intentions but too often giving rise to unintended consequences. Sometimes better and more sophisticated or nuanced policy responses are available. In this case, I want to inform honourable members that I'm onboard with this concept of phasing out, specifically, lightweight plastic bags, so long as we also help consumers, especially poor consumers, who might end up paying a bit more, and industry, especially small businesses, to transition and gain the best awareness they can as to substitutes, which we can show are better overall.
One further note on that in passing: honourable members need to know that South Australia was the pioneer in this place. Some of the definitions around biodegradability and compostability have moved on since then, and all of us in this place maybe should be suggesting that South Australia and other states really look at that fund that this government put aside recently, in the last budget, to assist all the states to upgrade their laws and achieve harmony between the different laws to make sure that we don't end up with that impact of different laws and red tape across different states.
And I want to point out that some of the numbers in this motion I think might not be quite right. One bag per person per day—in other words, about 20 million bags a day—was certainly what some studies showed about 10 years ago. More recent studies showed that it's probably about halved since then, and mostly that's due to education and awareness around the community, as well as some of the bans that have already been instituted in some of the minor jurisdictions.
In conclusion, I want to express very fine sentiments with respect to this motion. If honourable members come to me, for instance, with a firm proposal to put some resources behind the research and evidence gathering done on plastic bags and, in particular, their substitutes—which is very possible with the agencies out there—which helps the industry, potentially, and small business in particular to transition. In that way we won't inadvertently undermine the competitive neutrality between different retailers or between big and small businesses and their ability to transition. It also helps the states to achieve uniform, consistent laws across the country, which then would very likely attract cross-party support, including from me, because it would have the makings of a genuine, workable way forward.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (17:04): I rise to speak in support of the motion by the member for Mayo on plastic bags and commend her for it. I'm old enough to remember a time before we brought our shopping home in lightweight plastic bags, when the shop assistant carefully packed the goods into a large brown paper bag. Now, I know brown paper bags don't have a good history in Queensland, because they were always breaking, if the goods were too heavy, or disintegrating, if the cold goods turned the paper soggy. Lightweight plastic bags were a revolution—easy to carry and very strong—but few turned their minds to what would happen to those plastic bags after we used them or reused them.
Australians use an astounding five billion bags a year. In Queensland alone, 900 million single-use plastic shopping bags are used annually. What happens to those 900 million bags? The majority end up in landfill, where they will take up to 1,000 years to biodegrade. Shamefully, 16 million of them end up as litter. Not only does that make our community spaces untidy but plastic bags are ingested by wildlife. The plastic doesn't break down in an animal's digestive system and can actually cause it to starve. Ninety per cent of seabird species and 30 per cent of sea turtles have ingested plastic debris. As Queensland is home to the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef, one of the Seven Natural Wonders of the World, this is a shameful tragedy. The Great Barrier Reef is home to six of the world's seven species of marine turtle.
Polluting our precious environment is not only environmentally bad but also economically bad. The Great Barrier Reef is a huge drawcard for tourists in the Sunshine State, and experiencing the beautiful marine life is a highlight of any reef visit. Tourism directly and indirectly employs 225,000 Queenslanders and contributes nearly $13 billion to our economy.
The Queensland government has recognised the importance of protecting our natural resources like the Great Barrier Reef. In 2016, the Palaszczuk government released a discussion paper on implementing a ban of lightweight plastic bags. It received more than 26,000 submissions, and 96 per cent of the respondents supported introducing a ban and 60 per cent of respondents also supported widening the ban to include biodegradable bags. The Palaszczuk government has listened to Queenslanders. From 1 July this year, lightweight plastic shopping bags will be banned. I congratulate the Queensland Labor government for joining the other states and territories that have already banned plastic bags, but I especially congratulate Queensland for bravely going even further than the other states. Queensland is now leading the way by also including biodegradable bags under this ban. Biodegradable bans can be as dangerous for wildlife and as bad for the environment as lightweight plastic shopping bags. There are certain conditions that need to be met for biodegradable plastic bags to break down—firstly, a temperature of 50 degrees Celsius, which is not a temperature ever found in our oceans. As biodegradable bags don't float, they sink to the bottom of the ocean, where they will never be exposed to the UV rays that help break them down. In fact, the conditions necessary to break them down are never found anywhere. Instead, they just break into ever-smaller particles which make their way into our oceans, our waterways and our wildlife. So it makes sense to ban biodegradable bags. There is no sense moving away from harmful plastic shopping bags to just replace them with biodegradable bags that are only slightly less harmful. The Queensland government has allowed for a transition period before the ban comes into effect on 1 July. It is hoped that Queenslanders will wholeheartedly embrace the transition away from harmful plastic bags. I encourage my fellow Queenslanders to make the change to environmentally friendly, reusable bags—for example, like this one I'm holding. Do it today. There's no reason to wait until 1 July to stop using plastic bags. Make it a part of your shopping routine. Collect the reusable bags before you leave home or store them in your car. Don't forget them when you're going to the shops. It is better for the Queensland environment, it is better for our economy and, obviously, it's better for the planet.
I encourage the New South Wales state government, which is now, sadly—can you believe it?—the only state or territory government not to implement a ban on plastic bags, to not delay any further. It's just like the State of Origin: you can't beat us—but now, this time, you can join us.
Banning plastic bags is necessary. Plastic bags litter. They pose a real threat to the land and marine environments and, obviously, to our economy and the tourism associated with it. All Australians benefit from protecting our fragile environment. Again, I commend the member for Mayo for this motion.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (17:09): When Windsor Public School student Lily Spies was nine years old last year, she did a project at school on single-use plastic bags and their impact on the environment. The harmful effects that they had so moved her that, like the member who moved this motion, she saw something had to be done. She was a key speaker at Hawkesbury City Council when it considered a motion last July to ban plastic bags. The motion was successful, and there was a commitment by the council to advocate at a state and federal level for a ban. Lily—more to the point—now 10, has not stopped her campaigning to address environmental issues in her school and also at a local government level and in the wider community. She's inspired. Her work has been noticed, and it was a delight to be there to see Lily as a co-winner of the Environmental Award at the Hawkesbury City Council's Australia Day Awards—and all because Lily saw that plastic bags were not the way to go.
Like Lily, many people of the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains area have long been committed to protecting our beautiful local environment. There's no doubt that the use of plastic bags in local businesses and supermarkets has come to the forefront, and there's already action being taken. I know many of us here have talked about remembering the pre-plastic bag days—that does date us—when you did get a paper bag for your groceries. Organisations such as the Hawkesbury Environment Network, the Ban the Bag Blue Mountains group, Boomerang Bags, in both the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains, and local councillors in both the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury have all been vocal and committed to phasing out the use of plastic bags in our area.
Many of our retailers already offer paper and cloth bags, in spite of there being no all-over New South Wales policy on this. I must note the great effort by the Springwood Chamber of Commerce and the shopkeepers there, who, as part of their 'shop local' push, have come up with a local, cloth bag that people can use time and time again. They, and many others in my electorate of Macquarie, know that the plastic bags stocked at the checkout and stowed away under our sinks have far-reaching impacts when they hit our environment. The estimated 520 million bags that Australians use each day contribute to the 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic in our oceans. I don't need to explain the devastating impact that it has on wildlife, and I think a simple photo of a sea turtle that has ingested plastic really says it all. A third of our sea turtles and half of our seabirds have ingested plastic, according to the CSIRO. Indeed, our community groups, our businesses and the government initiatives that have already occurred in some states recognise the importance of removing plastic from the natural environment. We already spend around $4 million a year, by the way, to clean up littered bags.
Most Australian states have made a move. South Australia was the first to enact the ban in 2009, so that's nearly a decade of a ban. Under their plan, the plastic bags of less than 35 microns in thickness, with handles, were prohibited. This left shoppers with a choice: to either bring their own reusable bags to the counter or pay up to 25 cents per biodegradable bag. It's a pretty simple scheme. Since then, the South Australian Environmental Protection Authority has estimated that the measures have resulted in 400 million fewer plastic bags in that state. These changes were welcomed by the people of South Australia, with nine in 10 shoppers choosing to take reusable bags to the supermarket after the ban.
The ACT has followed suit in banning non-biodegradable bags in 2010. They've found that the ban has reduced the volume of plastic bag waste in landfill by a third. And I certainly know I have to remember to take my green bags with me when I do my shop before parliament sits for a week. When reviewing the ban in 2013, the ACT government found that almost three-quarters of constituents wanted to keep the ban in place. So New South Wales remains the only state that refuses to commit to banning the bag, with both Queensland and Western Australia having recently come on board.
It doesn't need to be something that is left purely to the states. We, as a federal parliament, should be actively improving how we look after the environment and working with the states so that there's no reason we couldn't achieve a national ban by the end of the year. I'm quite aware that this isn't necessarily the most exciting piece of environmental legislation, but it is one that we know would make a difference. I think encouraging these changes is something that this parliament can do.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
ThinkUKnow
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (17:14): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the:
(a) importance of educating and protecting our children in the online space; and
(b) work of the Australian Federal Police through the ThinkUKnow program, a free, evidence based cyber safety program, to provide educational presentations to parents, carers and teachers, and students across Australia;
(2) congratulates the Australian Government on passing the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Act 2017, also known as Carly’s Law, which targets online predators preparing or planning to cause harm to, procure or engage in sexual activity with a child; and
(3) recognises the new law is a testament to Sonya Ryan, who has advocated for this since her 15 year old daughter Carly was murdered a decade ago by an online predator posing as a teenage boy.
Safer Internet Day is tomorrow. The internet is the most fantastic tool. I can't imagine how anybody would do without it at all. But the internet and social media can also be a risky place. It also provides a unique tool for bullying, like nothing we've seen before. It can be vicious, it's immediate, it's global and frequently permanent in a way that we've not seen historically. I want to see young people being safe and enjoying their time online, which is why I've worked for many years in cybersafety presentations for schoolchildren, because self-protection is critical. The AFP and state and territory police deliver ThinkUKnow. There have been 17,031 presentations to 127,449 students across Australia. What a great job. Thank you to every local police officer who's delivering those presentations. Volunteers delivered 22,493 presentations to parents, carers and teachers.
When I look at the ThinkUKnow resources, I find I can use a number of their overheads in my cybersafety presentations to school groups, parents, community groups, because education is a key to managing online risks. 'Cyberbullying—what it is' is one of the overheads I use from ThinkUKnow, as well as 'The effects of cyberbullying', 'Why people cyberbully', 'How young people can help their friends who are being cyberbullied' and 'How to stay in control'. What ThinkUKnow tell a young person is: 'Don't start it. Don't start cyberbullying. Think before you hit "send" or "post" when you're posting something mean. Don't be part of it. Say no if someone tries to involve you in cyberbullying, and don't let it get out of control. Talk to someone—a trusted adult, the kids' helpline, parents, police or a teacher.' Cyberbullying ruins lives and costs lives.
I read an article in The West Australian which said that children as young as three are addicted to smartphones and tablets. Seventeen per cent of children under three and 36 per cent of preschoolers have their own smart device. The Child Health Poll by the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne said that, on average, children spend 32 hours a week on devices and 43 per cent use devices at bedtime. I read a global report from DQ Institute that said that kids aged eight to 12 spent 32 hours on devices per week for entertainment and 15 per cent of those had accessed pornography online, 11 per cent actually met online strangers and seven per cent had sent or received sexual content.
I say to the parents: 'What do you know about what your children are doing online? What social networks and apps and games are they using? What are the risks of these? Do you talk to your children about what they're doing and what they're seeing online? Do you know about Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Musically, WhatsApp, Skype, Twitter, Periscope, happn, Messenger, Pokemon Go, Tinder and Kik? Do you know much about the age restrictions on games like Call of Duty, Minecraft, Candy Crush and Clash of Clans?' There's a wonderful new ThinkUKnow resource called the SOS Guide to Cybersafety for parents, and I would encourage parents to look at this and use it.
I want to congratulate, again, Sonya Ryan, who established the Carly Ryan Foundation. We now have Carly's Law, and that's as a result of much work by Sonya. It's a law that targets online predators who have the purpose of delivering sexual harm and sexual activity with a child. That's what it's aimed at. That's what caused Carly's death, and it was done online. A man was pretending to be a teenager. He was actually 50-plus-year-old online predator, Garry Francis Newman. I thank Sonya for all her work, and she isn't stopping, which is really good.
I look at the ThinkUKnow Top Tips page. It says:
Start the cyber safety conversation with your child and let them teach you about what they do online.
... take an interest in how your child uses technology. Why not have a go and trial the apps yourself—
the ones that I've mentioned and the ones your children are using—
Speak with your child about respectful relationships—
and that includes online relationships.
Create a Family Online Safety Contract.
In the SOS guide there's a basic family contract. There's one in the guide that you could actually visit at the ThinkUKnow website—thinkuknow.org.au—and have a look at that as well. It's a simple contract in which the family decides how the devices are going to be used, what they'll agree to and what rules they have as a family. One of the other tips is 'Know what your kids are doing online, who they are friends with and who they may be talking to.' That's all part of thinkuknow.org.au.
I also believe very strongly that in this place the platforms really need to take far more responsibility for what's happening. I read recently that Facebook is used by 95 per cent of young adults. Eighty-nine per cent of all internet searches are done on Google. Between Facebook and Google, that's two-thirds of all online spending, as well, especially in the ad space. Google and Apple together provide 99 per cent of mobile phone operating systems. When you look at this reach, and the responsibility that goes with that market power and market dominance, it really is an issue where I believe the platforms need to take far more responsibility.
I also want to talk about some of the experiences of young people. When I do presentations and talk to them, I ask them questions. One of the questions I ask them is whether they've ever been bullied online in any form. Irrespective of the age of the class, there is always a proportion of young people in each class who put their hands up. Those proportions vary in relation to what age the young people are and sometimes where that school is.
My second question can then be, 'Can you talk to your mum and dad about the things that you're seeing and doing online? Can you talk to them about whether you're scared, whether you're worried, whether there's content sent to you that upsets you or scares you?' A proportion of the young people say yes, and a proportion in each class say no. I also encourage them to find their trusted adult, if they can't talk to mum or dad: that important person in their life who's going to help them with what they're doing online when they come across things that they're not sure about or that keep them awake at night.
The third and most worrying question for me, which helps to drive me in what I do, is the question about how many of them have been to meet in person people they've only first met online. It's really concerning to me that it's very unusual, in the hundreds of presentations that I've done, to have a class where no children put their hand up. I always get young people who have the courage—it's a silent survey, so no-one else can see what they're saying—to put their hands up. More and more of these young people are actually going to meet, in person, people they've only met online. That's the very issue that Carly Ryan faced, because the person she thought was Brandon Kane was Gary Francis Newman. He was the online predator.
With young people accepting friends online—so many of them, to be on Facebook, are supposed to be 13. But I had a young eight-year-old who was very happy to admit to me that he had 250 friends on Facebook. I know that a proportion of those people are pretending to be a different age. They're using a different profile photo. And they are deliberately befriending that child for a number of reasons.
So I want to say to all parents, please get involved in this space. Please have wonderful conversations and talk to your kids and listen to your children. They can tell you so much about online, about devices and about what they're doing, but they certainly need the guidance of parents in what they come across. The contract that's in the SOS document is really useful. And I cannot stress to parents too much: have the conversation early. When you hear about the three-year-olds who have smartphones and iPhones and devices—they're very young to have a conversation, but there still needs to be a conversation about how this device will be used, when it will be used and what it will be used for. It's something where the younger generation has something to teach older generations, and certainly we need to help them to be safe and happy in what they do online. So please get involved.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Hastie: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (17:25): I rise to support this motion, and I would just like to take a moment to commend the great work that the member for Forrest does in educating young people. The member for Forrest is saving lives, absolutely. I also commend the member for Forrest's work in advocating very strongly in this parliament and ensuring this parliament knows the importance of keeping our children safe online.
The Nick Xenophon Team was also instrumental in bringing about Carly's Law with the government. We worked very closely with the government to ensure Carly's Law got through the parliament, because Carly was a bright and beautiful young girl in my electorate and she had her life taken away from her. That was 10 years ago. She was 15 years of age. The member for Forrest has already told Carly's story. It was a 50-year-old paedophile who lied to her. He was pretending to be a sensitive and charismatic 18-year-old musician, but he was not.
The problem in that case is that, until the passing of Carly's Law, none of the murderer's online behaviour was illegal. When this paedophile was finally arrested for Carly's murder, detectives found him at home chatting to a 14-year-old girl in Western Australia using one of 200 fake online identities he'd created to meet young girls. Carly's Law makes it an offence to prepare or plan to cause harm, procure or engage in sexual activity with a person under 16 years of age, and this includes lying about your age online as part of that process.
Earlier versions of this bill were introduced by my colleagues, former senators Nick Xenophon and Skye Kakoschke-Moore. The government's version of Carly's Law was achieved in consultation with my former Senate colleagues, with the aim of avoiding any of the unintended consequences raised during the Senate inquiry process in relation to those earlier versions.
Carly's Law closes some identified gaps in existing legislation. Just a month after this legislation was passed last year, police in South Australia arrested a man who was allegedly pretending to be a teenage girl online in order to groom a minor. Through this law, we have prevented harm to at least one child, and I have no doubt we have given police another tool to prevent harm to thousands more.
Carly's Law is a legacy, and it's just part of the work accomplished by the Nick Xenophon Team in supporting the Carly Ryan Foundation, which, month after month, is cobbling together pennies so that they can continue the great work that they do. This foundation was set up by Carly's mother, Sonya, in 2010 to raise awareness among young people of online dangers. It is an organisation run entirely by volunteers. Sonya gives presentations at schools and is often approached by young people to share their online experiences. I have been present at some of those presentations and you could hear a pin drop in the room, which is quite unusual in a room full of teenagers. Sonya does what she can to support young people and she steers them in the appropriate direction for help. Fortunately, there is more assistance today, including the Australian Federal Police cyber safety program ThinkUKnow, and it is, indeed, an excellent program. But governments can only do so much.
A fortnight ago, I was invited to the official launch of a new business in my electorate, called Cybersafe Families. Cybersafe Families is operated by Chris and Michelle Greene from the Adelaide Hills. They draw on more than 20 years of experience working in the education, counselling and technology sectors. They draw on their experiences as parents. Cybersafe Families provides a range of education, training and counselling services to help young families, and it has been certified by the eSafety Commissioner.
Government has an important role to play in cyber safety awareness, but parents need to step up too. As a parent, I know it's not always easy. Years ago, when my children were young, we were told to keep the computer in a safe place. We were told to tell our children about stranger danger and about ensuring that in the park they weren't talking to strangers, but ultimately, with iPhones, we are letting strangers into our homes. That has happened in my family too, with my daughter singing into a hairbrush and putting things on YouTube to share with her friends. I had to have that very awkward conversation with her about who exactly is watching and what their intentions were.
So I would like to close by commending the member for Forrest for what she is doing with this, and I hope that we continue to keep these conversations going in the parliament. We must remain ever-vigilant, as members of parliament and as parents, in ensuring that our most vulnerable young Australians have a safe and secure and happy childhood.
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (17:30): When I graduated from high school in 2000, only 18 years ago, the world was a very different place. All my assignments were written by hand, we didn't use laptops in the classroom, and the internet had no place in our research or homework. Only 10 years ago in 2008, things were still quite different—smart phones hadn't yet entered our daily lives, Facebook was still fairly new to the world and Netflix was only starting to take hold in America. The internet and mobile technology are revolutionising how we live our lives. I raise this because it is important for us to understand how technology is changing the daily lives of every young person in Australia.
When I speak at primary and high schools in Canning, I often ask the students if they own a phone or tablet or if they have access to a computer in their bedroom. Without fail, I am greeted by a multitude of hands. Students do not know a world without the internet. Most of them have no experience of life without instant access to almost limitless content and worldwide communication—all within arm's reach. This, of course, presents incredible opportunities but also great risks. It highlights why it is so important that our kids are taught how to navigate the online space safely.
We can all do our part to promote smart online behaviour. I have started holding cybersafety talks at schools in Canning, and I acknowledge the member for Forrest's leadership in this area, encouraging other members of parliament to do the same. So far I've visited Austin Cove Baptist College, Serpentine Jarrahdale Grammar School and Marri Grove Primary School. In each class, we've discussed the dangers of sharing private information, what to do if someone asks you for rude pictures, hacking and cyberbullying. I am pleased to say that in every case the students have taken the topic seriously and thoughtfully.
I know that many parents are worried about the internet and their children. We need to be vigilant and creative in how we introduce and guide our kids online, because the truth is that they're digital natives and we are not. For teachers and parents looking for resources, I encourage you to explore the website ThinkUKnow. ThinkUKnow is a partnership between the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Bank, Microsoft, Datacom, all state and territory police agencies, and Neighbourhood Watch Australasia. ThinkUKnow provides help and reporting for young people online, but it also has resources for teachers and advice for parents.
For worried parents, I want to reassure you this government is taking action to protect your kids from online threats. The internet is difficult to govern and police, and so we need laws that reflect our modern times. For that very reason, we passed the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Act last year. This amendment to the Criminal Code is designed to specifically target and criminalise online acts of sexual grooming and coercion. The act is designed to target people who misrepresent their age online, to deceive and harm underage children. For example, it will capture social media users lying about their age, profession or an event, in an attempt to lure a child to a meeting for the purposes of causing that child harm, or procuring or engaging in sexual activity with a child. The offence will also capture preparatory conduct, irrespective of whether a child is communicated with or identified. For example, if a predator has created a social media profile with the intention of using that profile to establish an online relationship to harm or engage in sexual activity with a child, they can be captured by this offence before any harm comes to the child.
The internet poses unprecedented challenges and opportunities. Our kids are on the front-line of the digital revolution. We need to do everything we can to ensure they are supported in this new world, and I support the work that the coalition government is doing in this area.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (17:34): I rise today to support the motion put forward by the member for Forrest and recommit Labor's pledge to work collaboratively to keep our children safe and, in this instance, particularly online. As we've heard, the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill that was passed by members in this place last year has, sadly, a long and painful history to its becoming law in this country. The bill, known as Carly's law, is the result of the tragic tale of Carly Ryan, who, at the age of 15, was lured by online predators to her tragic death. She was found murdered in Port Elliot on 20 February 2007. Carly's story is truly heartbreaking. At the sentencing of Carly's murderer in 2009, her brave mother, Sonya Ryan, told the court about the last time she saw her daughter alive in February 2007. The court heard Carly told her mother she was going to stay with a friend for a couple of nights. Sonya said her daughter hugged her four times and called out 'Love you!' as she walked away from their Adelaide Hills house. Since that time, Sonya has been at the forefront of a mission to keep Australian kids safe online, and this bill is just one of the many accomplishments she's made during that time.
This bill will now allow police to intervene to stop an online predator at an earlier stage and thus play a greater preventive role. It also amends the Criminal Code to insert a new offence of an adult using a carriage service to prepare or plan to cause harm to, engage in sexual activity with, or procure for a sexual activity a person under the age of 16. This is the fifth version of Carly's law that has been introduced to parliament, with the previous four attempts at legislation having been introduced by the Nick Xenophon Team, who are to be commended for their commitment to Sonya Ryan's cause in this bill. I also acknowledge and want to pay tribute to the dedication shown by the member for Forrest and her continued work for this cause over an extended period of time, and I know she has given hundreds of cybersafety presentations to schoolchildren.
The challenge of keeping kids safe online is by no means a small task. The stats on online safety are scary. There is a 50 per cent chance that if your child is in a chat room designated for underage children the stranger he or she is talking to is a sexual predator logged in under a false identity. Sexual predators especially enjoy the use of private messaging, private chat rooms and the webcam to make advances towards their victims, and surveys show, sadly, that one in five of our kids will receive sexual advances while online but less than 25 per cent of them will inform a parent or adult. Responsibility lies upon all of us to ensure that children are aware, informed and educated about the risk of being online. It's why I was proud to host the Oxley community e-safety forum in August last year with the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. Hosted by Woodcrest State College and attended by students, parents, community representatives and members of the Queensland Police Service, the forum provided advice and strategies to minimise the risk of cyberbullying and unwanted online contact and threats. I was pleased to hear Ms Inman Grant speak about the strategies and tactics that children, parents and schools can take to minimise these risks. In a 21st century world it has never more important to equip children, young people and parents with the skills needed to stay safe online.
Today, I also want to acknowledge the Queensland Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, and her government for taking a strong stance in protecting children online with last week's cyberbullying roundtable in Brisbane, and I look forward to this being added to the COAG agenda, hopefully this week. At the roundtable, the Premier and a cross-section of stakeholders and experts discussed a range of measures, including additional funding for towns to support Kids Helpline and Parentline services to combat cyberbullying. These and other measures will be put forward by the Premier at COAG on Friday this week, and I am really looking forward to seeing the federal and state governments working together across party lines to keep our kids safe online.
For many children and teenagers, their online life is an important part of their social identity. But only by working together can we make the online world safer for our children and young people. Australia is doing all it can to keep our kids safe online. However, the constant threat of online bullying and predators is always evolving. We must continue to be vigilant and to look out for our children when they are active online. I pay tribute to the amazing work done by the Carly Ryan Foundation and encourage all children and parents to do all they can to stay safe online. They deserve nothing less.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (17:39): In what has become a cruel reality of the social media world we live in, the word 'bullying' is now trending. The convergence of these two terms highlights, in my opinion, the sad state of affairs we have reached. While the social media revolution is providing us with opportunities in business and in play, there are certainly concerns about how it is affecting people throughout our society. I am sick to my stomach every time I hear about yet another young life ruined or ended by the fallout caused by online bullying. I am not alone either, with dozens adding their voices to the public debate since the tragic death of Amy Jayne 'Dolly' Everett last month. Dolly's sad story has become an icon for the devastating effect that bullying can have on a family. To lose such a vibrant soul, so young, with so much life yet to live, is shocking to the rest of us just as it is to her devastated family. As a mother of two daughters, my heart breaks to imagine what Dolly's parents have been through. If it is possible to take a positive from such a disaster, it is that this tragedy has spawned something of a groundswell—a movement powered by a collective mindset that says, 'Enough is enough.' We have to do something and we have to do something now.
Just days after Dolly's death made global headlines, a concerned mother in my electorate of Capricornia had a similarly chilling experience. This mother, whom I will refer to as 'Katrina', had been aware of a certain level of bullying being aimed at her daughter but was certainly not prepared for the shocking discovery that awaited. Katrina's daughter initially had harassment directed at her on the live video platform 'live.ly'. It then moved to Sarahah, which she said almost every young person in her daughter's social circle had downloaded. Sarahah is marketed as a feedback app, allowing customers or clients to provide anonymous comments about a business or a service. It can, unfortunately, though, be used to direct abuse at people, providing the bully their perfect tool. The cloak of being anonymous provides a perfect cover for the cowardly attacks of a bully. Katrina said, 'When she was told to kill herself, I couldn't sleep, I was so worried about her. It was when I was lying awake at night that I knew I had to take action and wrote the petition.' Katrina says social media giants such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, and smaller developers, need to take more responsibility in the fight against cyberbullies and uncovering the perpetrators. She said, 'They can't hide behind privacy concerns and it's up to them to track down the perpetrators. Surely it's not that hard for them.'
I would like to emphasise my absolute support for Katrina in her fight to have this realised. I have met with her personally and am in awe of her passion and her success in relation to her petition. Katrina's change.org petition calls on Apple and Google to stop providing anonymous apps like Sarahah. The petition launched with the goal of reaching 5,000 signatures. Today, Katrina's petition now has over 204,000 signatures. This just shows how important this subject is to people.
Bullying does not just affect our kids, either. Men, women, boys and girls—we are all at risk of having bullies try it on. If there's one line of work that places you at risk, it's working in this place, but, as I've said before, I'm old enough and tough enough to deal with it, or ignore the slings and arrows, and I know that anonymous comment isn't worth reading. The sad fact is, though, that not everyone has this knowledge. For some, a simple insult can cut to the core. I am committed to doing what I can to provide leadership and a listening ear when it comes to how we tackle this insidious problem. A world where cyberbullying is a historical term is a world I want to be part of, and it starts here today.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (17:43): I want to acknowledge the member for Forrest for bringing what I think is a really important motion before the House this afternoon. One of the driving passions of my life has been the welfare of Australian children. I believe, and the Australian Labor Party believes, that there is no higher duty of parliamentarians than keeping Australian children safe. The sixth of February is Safer Internet Day, a day when we can come together to create a safer and better internet where everyone is empowered to use technology safely and respectfully. I am very pleased to be speaking today on this motion, which recognises the critical importance of educating and protecting our children as they make a life online.
The growth of the internet represents extraordinary opportunity for our children. It provides a treasure trove of information, culture and stories for children to access. It helps our teachers and educators access the very best resources for their students. It allows families to keep in touch no matter where they are in world. All of these things are worth celebrating. But as a parent of two boys—who are one and four and who I know are going to be growing up in a world that I couldn't have imagined as a child—and as a parliamentarian I am keenly aware of the threats that exist to children online; they are very real, they are very common, they are very present.
In my role as the shadow minister for justice I have the great privilege of working with some of the organisations that spend their daily lives trying to protect Australian children. One of them is the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, which, the chamber will be aware, was created by Walter Mikac in the aftermath of the tragic death of his two girls. That organisation is fond of saying that protecting children online is the child protection issue of our era. I don't think there's a parent in this country that doesn't agree with this. In my role as shadow minister for justice I am exposed to what is the very worst end of this—the criminal end of this. There are children right around this country who are exposed to cyberbullying. I saw one terrifying statistic which said that of children aged eight to 12 about half have experienced cyberbullying online. In my work I have to deal with, at the worst end of the spectrum, online child abuse and child exploitation materials. As I said, these threats are real. It's not a figment of the imagination to try to keep people afraid; they're real, they're there and we do have to manage them as a parliament.
There is growing acknowledgement of the devastating effect of cyberbullying on the wellbeing of children in this country. Previous speakers have spoken to the tragic death of Dolly Everett last month, which I know shocked all Australians. It was a painful and heartbreaking reminder that online threats to children can be fatal. When we hear about the prevalence of these threats, I think we see the need for this parliament to act. Some of the previous speakers have talked about some of the legislative issues. I want to speak specifically about the education of Australian children to try to help them protect themselves against these threats. We can pass all the laws we want in this parliament, but there are specific issues which relate to the internet that make protecting children really hard. One of the really obvious ones is that a lot of the worst offenders who are facilitating this type of conduct are companies which are incorporated and registered overseas. We can try to send them notices to take things down from the internet, but it's not always effective, so we do need to come back to this point about empowering children.
Labor was very proud to put in place the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and it echoed the importance of providing kids with education and the tools to try to protect themselves on the internet. That commission recommended increased online safety education for children. That report was handed down a while ago, and I am keenly awaiting the government's response to it. This is the most profound, fundamental, sweeping review of child protection that has ever been conducted in Australia, and I am very much looking forward to a constructive debate with the government to talk about how we can make sure that the recommendations of that commission become Australian law.
In the remaining seconds, I want to note some of the people who are working in this space who I think deserve particular acknowledgement. One of those is Sonya Ryan, whose daughter Carly was tragically taken from her in circumstances that really are my worst nightmare for my own children. Sonya Ryan has used the tragic death of her daughter to protect other Australian children through the creation of the Carly Ryan Foundation. I want to acknowledge the work of that foundation and also the Australian Federal Police officers who are doing so much in their daily lives to try to protect the children that we are all so much responsible for.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (17:49): I'm very pleased to take this opportunity to speak on this important motion moved by the member for Forrest, who we all know has a very, very keen interest in the safety of children online. I know that she regularly takes the time to deliver online safety presentations for school children and for parents. She has fought in this place, within the Liberal-National party room and also in this parliament, for better protections for children in the online world. She was a driving force behind this government's passing of the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Act 2017. That law, which is also known as Carly's Law, is another step toward greater online security, and it recognises that preparing to commit an offence is something that should be viewed as an offence within itself. Carly's Law is proactive legislation and it targets online predators before they have the opportunity to harm an innocent child. Rather than wait for a heinous act to be committed, this offence relates to preparations for that act. It relates to the grooming work that these predators do in preparation to cause harm to procure or engage in sexual activity with a child. It allows law enforcement officers to take action against predators sooner and with greater consequences, including imprisonment for up to 10 years.
This legislation is commonly referred to, as I said, as Carly's Law in honour of Carly Ryan, who at the age of 15 was groomed by an online predator who later assaulted and killed her. I had the honour of meeting Carly's mother, Sonya, a very, very brave woman in Mackay, and she said that she never wanted to see another mother go through what she was forced to endure. So she started up The Carly Ryan Foundation which raises awareness in children, teenagers in particular, about the dangers of online predators. She also started an online petition through Change.org, securing more than 95,000 signatures, I'm told, advocating for legislative changes which resulted in Carly's Law. She's looking at others as well.
There's more to online safety than just catching, preventing and punishing predators—it's very important though. But in addition to ensuring we have these strong laws to protect children online, the Liberal-National government has introduced a number of other initiatives to empower parents and children to use the online space with greater safety. In 2015, the government passed the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Act. This law created the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner, which is a one-stop shop for online safety. It allows the reporting of serious cyberbullying and illegal content. It also allows for providing resources for parents and educators to help protect privacy online and show them how to get image-based abuse removed from the internet.
The Australian Federal Police, the great men and women who work for us in that agency, also have a program called ThinkUKnow. It provides cybersafety education for mums and dads, for carers and for teachers. These presentations cover online grooming. They also cover a range of other online safety issues: sexting, as it's colloquially known; privacy; inappropriate online behaviours; identity theft and fraud. The ThinkUKnow program has been running for a number of years now and, in 2015-16, it delivered more than one presentation every day—a total of 386 presentations in the year reaching more than 10,000 parents, carers and teachers.
The internet has opened up this vast new possibility: a world that grows in size and complexity every year. It opens up enormous capacity for good things: entertainment, communication, commerce and education. It's hard to imagine the world without online capability, but with those benefits come these risks. The anonymity of the internet provided a perfect cover for the predator Garry Newman—the man convicted of assaulting and murdering Carly Ryan—a 50-year-old paedophile. He was able to present himself online as an 18-year-old muso. He could present himself as having the same interests as the victim and carefully manipulate them into trusting him. He created a fake online profile, a fake name, a fake photo—all of this is done easily in the online environment. We need to target it, we need to stop it and we need to protect our children.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Cambodian Elections
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (17:54): I 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.
Cambodia has reached a point of deep political crisis. I'm sorry to say that since this motion was submitted in October the situation in Cambodia has only deteriorated. The 2017 Democracy Index, released on 31 January this year, ranked Cambodia 124th out of 167 countries, sliding 12 places down the index in just 12 months. The report described Cambodia as a de facto one-party state, a development that has been expected by those who've been watching Cambodia's political decline for some time now. The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index ranked Cambodia 112 out of 113 for 2017, ranked above only Venezuela, pointing to the extreme government overreach, denial of fundamental rights and deep corruption present in the Hun Sen regime. Mr Kem Sokha, the imprisoned opposition leader of the now disbanded Cambodia National Rescue Party, the CNRP, is in jail because of a speech he gave here in Australia several years ago. He was denied bail just last week for so-called security concerns, while his health has deteriorated in detention. The guarantee of Mr Sokha's right to due process is under extreme doubt, given comments from the regime about Mr Sokha's presumed guilt. Kem Sokha must be released immediately.
Hun Sen's regime has also forced the closure of a foreign non-government organisation and has targeted media companies, including radio stations and the main independent English language newspaper, The Cambodia Daily, which has been forced to close after 24 years. Media suppression is reaching extreme levels as Hun Sen moves to silence the voices of his fellow Cambodians and those who speak against his regime, as is his suppression of local NGOs and trade unions. Hun Sen has increased his grip on the nation and its freedoms, rejecting the labelling of Cambodia as authoritarian by the Democracy Index with his stunning statement, 'Nobody can topple Hun Sen except Hun Sen.'
Australia has a solemn duty to the Cambodian people and to our own values of democracy and freedom to oppose the anti-democratic actions in the lead-up to Cambodia's June general elections. Australia, as most Australians know, played an integral role in the Paris peace accords, promising to safeguard the process of transitioning Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge regime and, most especially, guaranteeing free and fair elections. This element of the peace accords remains woefully unfulfilled.
In October last year I met with the CNRP former leader, Mr Sam Rainsy, who emphasised that this situation is not business as usual, despite a long history of concerning actions by the Hun Sen regime. These latest outrages are undeniably an escalation by the regime and must be met with diplomatic resistance at the highest levels. Other nations have already moved against Hun Sen's regime, with the United States recently denying visas to Cambodian officials and 'individuals involved in undermining democracy in Cambodia' since December in a move to push the regime to reinstate the CNRP, to release Mr Kem Sokha and to lift media restrictions in Cambodia. The European Parliament, meanwhile, adopted a resolution calling for a list of individuals responsible for the dissolution of the opposition and other serious human rights violations in Cambodia, with a view to imposing possible visa restrictions and asset freezes on them.
I call on this parliament to acknowledge that Australia has an important role to play in safeguarding and furthering Cambodian democracy. The current actions of the Hun Sen regime seriously threaten that process. Australia must make it clear that we support the Cambodian people and their right to have their voices heard. In the coming weeks Mr Sam Rainsy will be speaking at the Press Club, and I urge members of this parliament to carefully consider his words. Mr Rainsy and other Cambodian leaders of the CNRP have recently founded a Cambodia National Rescue Movement to advocate for Mr Kem Sokha and other political prisoners, including Australian filmmaker James Ricketson, and to agitate for the reinstatement of the CNRP to ensure that the Cambodian people have a genuine choice at the elections in June. The restoration of Cambodia's fledgling democracy is vital to the ongoing freedom, safety and growth of Cambodia and its people. Australia must take a strong position and stand by our convictions put forward in the 1991 peace accords. I commend this motion to the parliament.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Is there a seconder for this motion?
Ms O'Neil: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (17:59): As the chamber may be aware, I'm the chair of Parliamentary Friends of Cambodia. I took on this responsibility because I know how important and longstanding the relationship between our two nations is. Australia and Cambodia have well-established links, with diplomatic ties spanning 66 years. At a personal level, around 60,000 citizens of Cambodian descent call Australia their home, and a growing cohort of self-funded Cambodians are choosing Australia as their study-abroad destination. Since 1994 there have been 700 Cambodians studying in Australia under the federal government's scholarships program.
Diplomatically, Australia played a leading role in the Cambodian peace process during the mid to late 1980s as Cambodia recovered from the Khmer Rouge period. It was the Australian government that developed a plan for the UN to have a role in peacekeeping and electoral monitoring and to take a major role in the administration of Cambodia to ensure a neutral political environment ahead of those elections. In 1992 that plan came together when the UN transitional authority in Cambodia, UNTAC, entered the country to monitor the ceasefire and cessation of external military assistance. UNTAC organised and conducted elections and worked with the various parties to administer Cambodia until the elections were complete. It was Australia's Lieutenant General John Sanderson who led the multinational UNTAC peacekeeping force. Australia also contributed large numbers of troops, civilian police officers, electoral officials and administrators to this effort.
Diplomatic exchanges continue today. Just last year, in March, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific visited Cambodia, while Vice Chief of the Defence Force Admiral Griggs visited in July. The current Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs also recently visited the country, whilst senior Cambodian ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, recently visited Australia. As part of this ongoing relationship, Australia has a steadfast commitment to Cambodia's development as a democracy. The Australian government has shown that it is deeply concerned by Cambodia's political situation, particularly actions to restrict free media, constrain civil society and repress political opposition ahead of the 2018 national election. The government indeed made a strong early statement expressing concern about these political developments in Cambodia. Reflecting this, Foreign Minister Bishop issued a media release on 17 November 2017 in which she stated:
Australia is deeply concerned by the dissolution of Cambodia’s main opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), and the banning of CNRP parliamentarians and officials from engaging in politics for five years.
This development has serious implications for democracy in Cambodia. It is the culmination of a series of troubling actions, including reduced access to free media, restrictions on civil society and intimidation of the opposition, specifically the detention of CNRP Leader Kem Sokha.
… … …
As a friend of Cambodia, Australia urges the Cambodian Government to allow all its citizens to exercise their democratic rights, particularly ahead of the 2018 national election.
This came in addition to more than a year of active, ongoing efforts to support the development of Cambodia as a democracy.
The Australian Embassy in Phnom Penh issued a statement on 27 February 2017 specifically expressing the government's concerns about amendments to Cambodia's law on political parties. The government made further direct representations, including at ambassador level, at senior levels of government both before and after the law was passed. Senator Fierravanti-Wells also raised our concerns in her meeting with the Cambodian foreign minister during her visit in 2017. I understand that the Australian government continues to urge the Cambodian government to allow all its citizens to exercise their democratic rights, particularly ahead of the 29 July 2018 national election.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (18:04): I rise today, in sadness and in anger, to express my deep concerns about the ongoing human rights abuses that are occurring in Cambodia. I do so because I hold this incredibly great privilege of representing so many thousands of Cambodian Australians in this parliament. MPs will note that this is not the first time I've stood in the parliament and raised these issues. In September 2017 I addressed a public gathering of hundreds of Cambodian Australians at Springvale town hall. Last year I and other members of parliament addressed a similar public gathering here on the lawns of Parliament House. I stood alongside the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mu Sochua, here at Parliament House, as she expressed her deepest distress and sadness about what is a growing political crisis in Cambodia.
The reason I am again on my feet on this critically important issue for our region is that nothing is changing. In fact, things are getting worse by the minute. We know that Cambodia has a general election due on 29 June 2018. We are not doing enough as a parliament, we are not doing enough as a country, to make absolutely clear our view to the Cambodian government that there must be a guarantee of free and fair elections in Cambodia in June this year. The current Cambodian Prime Minister, Hun Sen, stated late last year that the 2018 national election result does not require international recognition to be valid. This is the latest sign of his determination to continue to hold power after almost 33 years in office. I spoke last year about what I regard as an absolute outrage against democracy, when the opposition party in Cambodia was disbanded and the seats held by those opposition party leaders were distributed amongst other parties. Over half of Cambodia's opposition MPs fled the country.
Cambodia became a multiparty democracy in 1993. There was a flourishing of democracy. Since then, there have been people who want to hold power in Cambodia, who continue to try to suppress freedom of expression and the political rights of the Cambodian people. Last year, the Cambodian opposition leader, Kem Sokha, was arrested on so-called treason charges. He was charged with treason on the basis of a speech that he made in Melbourne, in my electorate, back in 2013. In July 2013, the last general election was held in Cambodia.
There was a fear that those elections would not be held fairly, and that was founded reasonably, I think, on the unwillingness of the Cambodian government to implement the recommendations on corruption and electoral fraud that had been made by the United Nations in 2012, and the fact that Sam Rainsy, the opposition leader in Cambodia, was not give a free right to stand in that election. What we saw, in that instance, was that the election quickly turned to civil unrest. The worst example of that was a perfectly peaceful protest, regarding an industrial relations issue in Cambodia, where union members were shot at and killed by police who were acting under the instruction of the Cambodian government. After that, 20,000 people marched in protest against these actions, and they were met with some very heavy-handed treatment.
We love democracy in this country, but we don't understand the fight that goes on in countries in our region to have the most basic rights—rights that we take completely for granted in this country. The Cambodian people have had to put up with more than any people around the world should ever have to deal with. The Khmer Rouge ruled that country in the most violent and oppressive way for a long time. Australia was pivotal in trying to establish a free and fair democracy in that country. We did so much to try to make this happen, and one of my predecessors representing the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, Gareth Evans, when he was foreign minister, was critical in bringing about democratic rule in Cambodia.
People thought that the Cambodians wouldn't come out to vote because they would be so scared—these were very reasonable fears—of violence. But people who were there on the day of the first free democratic election in Cambodia speak with such emotion about having gone to polling booths and having seen lines of hundreds of people waiting for hours at a time for the opportunity to have their say.
That was a country on the rise. What we are demanding is that Cambodia go back to the path towards democracy—a full and fair democracy. That is what I will continue to pressure the government to ask for and demand from the Cambodians.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (18:09): I also rise to speak about the deteriorating human rights situation in Cambodia. With the upcoming national elections this year, many groups and individuals have been subjected to extreme intimidation by the government simply for exercising their right to peaceful assembly and political expression on matters relating to government policy. Most recently, Prime Minister Hun Sen has directed the Interior Minister shut down the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights. This all appears to be linked to the politically motivated prosecution of opposition leader Kem Sokha and the dissolution of the main opposition party by the Cambodian Supreme Court. To put this in perspective, I'd quote the analogy used by Elaine Pearson, the Australian Director of Human Rights Watch: 'It would be like Bill Shorten being exiled, Tanya Plibersek put in jail, the High Court dissolving the Labor Party and every Labor MP barred from holding office for a period of five years.'
I've been made aware of these serious and ongoing attacks against freedom and democracy in Cambodia by many concerned Australian-Cambodians living in my electorate. They've shared with me the story of their struggles when they were forced to flee their homeland during the period of the Khmer Rouge in the seventies and eighties. Now, once again, they fear the rise and excesses of an autocratic government. Swathiek, a lawyer and Cambodian community leader, succinctly captures the spirit and concerns of the Cambodian-Australians regarding the re-emergence of a one-party state when he says: 'There are now similarities with the justice system under Pol Pot, where there was no independent judicial processes. The courts merely do the bidding of the dictator—these days, that of Hun Sen.' This is a major setback to democracy and human rights in Cambodia, and clearly designed to reinforce the autocratic rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen. The valued and principled work of the international community in the lead-up to the Paris Peace Accords is systemically being unravelled and Cambodia heads towards, once again, being an autocratic state. Professor Gareth Evans, formerly Australia's foreign affairs minister and one of the principal architects of the Paris Peace Accords, has emphasised the need for action to be taken on an international scale, saying: 'Cambodia is at peace in the sense that a civil war is over, but it is a bit of a wasteland so far as any kind of adherence to democratic and human-rights principles are concerned.'
These recent developments in Cambodia are not happening in a vacuum but are accompanied by a broad-based crackdown by the government against any critical or independent voices. This includes the closure of the fiercely independent newspaper, The Cambodian Daily, and various radio stations that happened to broadcast Radio Free Asia or Voice Of America. In speaking about the scale of Hun Sen's crackdown on freedom and democracy, Brad Adams, the Asian director of Human Rights Watch, said:
The prime minister is showing his fear not only of free elections, but of free expression and association.
In order to address the deteriorating human rights situation in Cambodia and to allow an environment of free and fair elections, Australia needs to take an active role as part of a very concerned international community. I think there's a certain imperative to this, given that Australia is and remains a major aid donor to Cambodia. Given our seat on the UN Human Rights Council, Australia should play a forthright role as we develop closer economic ties with countries in the Asia-Pacific. We should use our influence to enhance human rights and to promote genuine democratic principles, which, in turn, quite frankly, can help open up new economic opportunities for these countries and improve the lives of their people.
I'd like to conclude on the words used by Gareth Evans at the very signing of the Paris Peace Accords when he said:
Peace and freedom are not prizes which, once gained, can never be lost. … Their foundations must be sunk deep into the bedrock of political stability, economic prosperity and above all else, the observance of human rights.
As part of a concerned international community, we do have a role to play in this, and we certainly do need to voice the views of all those Cambodian-Australians who we have the honour to represent.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (18:14): As the member for Fowler has said, we have spoken on this matter in the past in this house, and we had thought that, perhaps, the situation would improve. Far from having improved, the situation in Cambodia has very much gone backwards. We now have the remarkable situation that the leader of the opposition has been arrested and charged with treason by the Cambodian government. It is right and proper that this house say that is completely unacceptable. We have a key interest in this country for a number of reasons: Cambodia is an important part of our region, we have a strong and vibrant Cambodian-Australian population and, importantly, Australia played a key role at the Paris peace accords. It is also that legacy which this house should protect.
On 16 November, the country's supreme court dissolved the opposition party, the Cambodian National Rescue Party, eliminating any real challenge to the government and any parliamentary scrutiny. Its seats in parliament were simply allocated to other political parties. Of course, as a part of that, 118 of the party's senior officials will be banned from politics for five years. The party's 489 commune chiefs, elected at the June 2017 local elections, have also lost their positions. As the member for Fowler also said, The Cambodian Daily newspaper has been closed down, issued a very large tax notice and given days to pay in a completely transparent and successful attempt to shut it down. This is no longer a democracy. There can be no suggestion made that this is, in any way, a functioning democracy. Authoritarianism is no longer creeping in Cambodia. It is here, existing, and it cannot be allowed to continue in this way. It's a fact that we need a viable opposition in Cambodia and a viable free press for the people of Cambodia to express their will in parliamentary elections. Any elections held in the current environment will be nothing less than a farce.
Next week, Sam Rainsy, one of the leaders of the opposition, will be in Australia and will address the National Press Club. With the agreement of the chief whip, I hope to attend that address. I'm sure the chief whip would like to attend as well, if we can manage to leave the parliament. Mr Rainsy's counterpart, as leader and co-founder of the opposition, sits in prison. Mr Rainsy, while not in prison, is exiled. This is a very important meeting that Sam Rainsy is undertaking this week. He's also attending a function in our local community on Sunday, which I also will be attending with the local Cambodian community, in order to thank the local Cambodian community for their steadfast support and to spread his thoughts on the best way forward. He has been exiled on trumped-up charges while leader of the CNRP.
An affront to democracy anywhere is an attack on democracy everywhere. The Paris peace accords were one of the great foreign-policy breakthroughs of the late 20th century. They have been a success story. But that success is no longer. The Paris peace accords are no longer in effect. Hun Sen has taken power—not through peaceful means and not through democratic means. He has simply taken power. The people of Cambodia deserve better than that. They may or may not want Hun Sen to continue as Prime Minister—that's a matter for them—but they should be able to express that will at the ballot box. Newspapers and other media should be able to express their concerns. We must continue to place pressure on the Cambodian government to act in accordance with international law and with the Paris peace accords.
The Australian government has a range of options and methods available to it. It's a matter for the government of the day as to how it takes those up. These are always difficult matters. But we do urge the government, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in particular, to meet with the Cambodian community, to hear their concerns and to listen to their proposals—to not ignore the status of Cambodia. We must be active in the tradition of Australia in the Paris peace negotiations, in the tradition of Australia as a good international citizen and in the tradition of Australia as a country which stands up for democracy wherever it may be, particularly in our region.
We have a role to play. We have an obligation, as Australians, as does the Australian government, to stand up for those good people of Cambodia who are being sent to prison for no crime other than expressing their political will. It cannot be allowed to stand.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Taxation and Superannuation
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (18:20): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises positive effect of the Government's measures to assist more hard working Australians to:
(a) earn more through the tax system, in particular by:
(i) legislating tax cuts for middle income earners to ensure they are not pushed into the second highest tax bracket;
(ii) introducing to Parliament the Enterprise Tax Plan, which will extend small business tax concessions to businesses up to $10 million from the outdated $2 million threshold; and
(iii) supporting employers to invest more, provide more hours and increase wages through a more competitive international tax rate;
(b) save more for their retirement through increased flexibility in the superannuation system, in particular by:
(i) abolishing the so called '10 per cent rule', which prevents anyone earning more than 10 per cent of their income from salary and wages from claiming a deduction for personal superannuation contributions; and
(ii) introducing catch up concessional contributions to provide assistance to those—particularly women—who have interrupted work patterns, whether to raise children, look after elderly parents, or seek to boost their retirement savings just before retirement; and
(2) notes with deep concern that the Opposition:
(a) refuses to support tax relief for small business, while at the same time advocating tax cuts for foreign workers;
(b) seeks to abolish measures to improve the retirement savings of hard working Australians, particularly those on low incomes and with interrupted work patterns; and
(c) has no plan for jobs and growth, despite having previously advocated for a more competitive tax rate for employers.
It is a pleasure to stand in this chamber today and speak about the government's positive measures that we are seeking to implement to assist hardworking Australians, in particular in relation to the tax system and the tax cuts for middle-income earners but also in the area of superannuation. The government is committed to substantial economic reforms with the sole purpose of putting more money into the pockets of hardworking Australians. Everything we are doing is designed to reduce the financial burden on families and ensure that Australians are not punished for working hard and can retain more of the money they earn. That is why the government is focused on keeping taxes as low as they possibly can be.
We are doing this through good economic reform that provides tax relief to middle-income Australians. By increasing the middle-income tax bracket from $80,000 to $87,000, more than half a million full-time wage earners will be better off. This tax relief will prevent taxpayers from moving onto the higher 37 per cent marginal tax rate and keep the average full-time wage earners in the lower tax bracket of 32½ per cent for longer. This tax relief will save individuals some $315 a year and demonstrates that, where possible, the government is focused on rewarding and encouraging hardworking Australians. We want to see people take the opportunity to pick up that extra shift, to take that promotion or to get a higher-paying job. We want to see their efforts rewarded; they should not be worrying about the fact that they'll be pushed into a higher tax bracket as a result.
The challenge for any government is to ensure that as many people as possible are contributing to a stronger economy and participating in work. We have seen that over the past 12 months with record growth in jobs in our economy. Over 400,000 jobs were created by the economy over the past 12 months. That is a wonderful reflection of the fact that, as a government, we are seeking to put in place, and have put in place, positive measures which create the incentive for business to grow and invest and, through business growth and investment, the opportunity for people to get a job as these businesses grow and take advantage of the opportunities that have been provided.
We have also sought to help small-business owners, employees and contractors better save for their retirement by abolishing the so-called '10 per cent rule', which prevented anyone earning more than 10 per cent of their income from salary and wages from claiming a deduction on personal superannuation contributions. This will help more people claim a tax deduction for personal contributions to superannuation, benefiting some 800,000 Australians—in particular, people who are freelancers, self-employed contractors and individuals employed by small business. We know that this is critically important because many of these people put everything they have back into their businesses to continue to grow them. Giving them now the opportunity to save for retirement through superannuation gives them another incentive to build and grow their business but also, importantly, accumulate the savings and the funds for when they want to retire so they have financial security in retirement and they are not relying just on the sale of that business.
The ability to accumulate savings during their working life is critically important. That is what these changes allow these people to do. They're helping individuals through the tax cuts or the more flexible superannuation measures. We can see that through supporting people who take these opportunities and in the economic growth it provides through the small-business tax concessions we introduced previously. We are helping build and create opportunities for all Australians.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Chester: I second the motion.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (18:25): I think this is a truly outrageous motion. It's outrageous and it's insulting. By introducing this motion to the chamber the member for Forde is showing an absolute contempt for Australians. I know that people in places where I live, like Caboolture, Narangba, Bribie and Dakabin, see through a motion like this. They know where the government's priorities lie, and they're not fooled.
They know that when government talk about tax cuts they're only speaking for the top end of town—the rich and the multinational corporations. They're not speaking for them. They're not speaking for typical families just like them. If they were, they'd be saying something completely different. If they were speaking for them, they'd be talking about how people have been struggling for years and years. Electricity prices are out of control. Private health insurance premiums are not doing any better. They'd be talking about how they need to work harder for ordinary Australians. If the government were speaking for everyday Australians, they would be saying how it's a completely outrageous idea to increase the taxes of Australians earning less than $87,000 a year while they give millionaires and big businesses a handout. What they'd also be talking about is how unfair it is that wage growth has fallen so far behind inflation. What they'd be talking about is the rising cost of living.
Instead, the member for Forde and his government are shouting and screaming about how they want to cut the hard-earned pay of working Australians. They've been shouting and screaming so loudly that they haven't been listening to the countless Australians who are speaking up, calling on them to stop the cuts to things like penalty rates. In this motion that the member for Forde has presented here today he notes that, through legislation, the government want to ensure that middle-income earners aren't pushed into a higher tax bracket. Finally, we've found something that this government will succeed in: if you stop people from earning more, they won't move into a higher tax bracket. It's not a very traditional way of making someone pay fewer taxes, I admit that, but I see the logic. If you earn less income, you'll pay less income tax. If the government asked any regular Australian what they thought of this, they wouldn't get the response they would like to hear; they wouldn't hear resounding support or the jubilant cries of people dancing in the street. What they'd hear is, 'No.' And they'd hear it again and again.
I say to the member for Forde: what you should do is listen, because when you listen you hear things. What you'd hear Australians saying is what they really want: a fairer tax system. They want to see a government that cracks down on multinational companies avoiding paying their share. They want to see shifty tax loopholes that can be exploited by the top end of town closed down—unfair loopholes like income splitting through discretionary trusts or unlimited deductions for high-priced accountants to minimise your tax. The government would hear that regular Australians don't want $37 billion of their money subsidising property investors. They want to see that money going to health. They want to see that money going to education. The government would hear that, while both the government and its trusty old ally One Nation support throwing $65 billion of taxpayers' money at big business, the bulk of which will be sent overseas to foreign investors, it isn't such a good idea in the eyes of the public when people back home in communities like mine are struggling just to get by.
This government has spent years with their fingers in their ears, trying their hardest to avoid listening to the hard truths, trying to avoid hearing what regular Australians want. But, whether they want to hear it or not, they will hear soon enough. When Australia goes to the polls, whether it's this year or next, they will hear loud and clear. They'll hear what Australians want, and what they want is fairness. They want fairness that can only come from a courageous and imaginative government, and we know what that government is. It's a Labor government.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (18:30): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Forde. It's great to see the member for Gippsland in the chamber as well. I haven't seen him in here for a while, but it's great to have him back in here. I'm here to support the motion moved by the member for Forde, and an excellent motion it is. I know that, like me and many members on this side of the chamber, the member for Forde gets small business and he gets big business—and we know what the difference is. Those on the other side think it's about turnover and they want to set the bar at $2 million. Setting it at that amount is a perfect example of how Labor just don't understand business, and that's why their leader has declared war on business.
I will start off with a quote from the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon: 'It would be a better thing if Australia's corporate tax was more competitive.' Well, we don't have an argument with that; we all agree with that. But, as always with Labor, you don't listen to what they say; you watch what they actually do. It's not about what they say; it's what they do. We on this side of the chamber agree it would be better for Australia and everyday, hardworking Australians if our corporate tax rate was more internationally competitive. The opposition doesn't even have to take our word for it. The Treasury and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development agree. A competitive corporate tax rate benefits Australia and all Australians.
Just last year, the United States slashed its corporate tax rate from one of the highest in the developed world to one of the lowest. It has gone from five basis points above ours to nine basis points below our corporate tax rate. Research conducted by the International Monetary Fund through the World Economic Outlook analysis shows that the US tax cuts will threaten the sustainability of the Australian tax system if we choose to not respond to the changes in the international market. Never fear, the coalition has a plan—the enterprise tax plan—which Treasury has confirmed could, in effect, offset the changes that will result from the US corporate tax cuts. Instead of shrinking our GDP by one per cent, the Treasury suggests we could gain a one per cent increase in our permanent GDP. In dollar terms, that represents more than $12 billion. Those on this side of the chamber understand the need to ensure there is more money in the pockets of Australian businesses, small, medium and large, which then will end up in the pockets of employees, in that there'll be more employees.
Australian businesses are, without doubt, the engine room of our economy. By reducing corporate tax rates, we're providing businesses with the opportunity to re-invest and use that money to hire more people. We've already seen just how much of a positive impact the enterprise tax plan is having. Over three-quarters of the 400,000 jobs created in 2017 were full time. These tax cuts are vital to ensuring we can create jobs for each and every Australian. It is time that the opposition followed the words of the member for McMahon and worked with this government to deliver a competitive corporate tax rate rather than played politics with our economy and the wellbeing of Australians. It is this government that has done what those opposite have never done. We on this side have given tax relief to middle Australia to ensure more money is in the pockets of those who need it.
As a Liberal, I'm of the firm belief it is better if you decide how to spend your money rather than have it taken in tax and decided for you. Under this government, half a million Aussies have been kept from moving to the second-highest tax bracket. That means more in the pockets of those who need it. As the Prime Minister affirmed again just last week in Toowoomba, this government will add more tax relief for Australians to ensure there is more money in the pockets of hardworking Aussies where it belongs. This is in stark contrast to Labor in Australia and abroad. If you look at Jeremy Corbyn and Jacinda Ardern, who went to elections with plans for higher taxes on working families, they are no different to the member for Maribyrnong and member for McMahon, who want more from Australian families.
This government understands the need to support and reward hardworking Australians to help them prepare for life after work. This government knows super is the nest egg for millions of hardworking Aussies, and that is why it removed the 10 per cent rule—a rule that was made to do nothing but impede those planning for their retirement to ensure they can support themselves through later life. This government has gone further to support those who plan and save for their retirement, by allowing catch-up concessional contributions to their super provider. This will provide assistance to those who have interrupted work patterns, most notable for this are women who leave the workforce to raise and care for children. I have more to say but I would like to state that I support the motion by the member for Forde. It is an excellent motion.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (18:35): Just before Christmas I received an email from a constituent, a bloke in his 50s, who needs both of his hips replaced as he's in quite a bit of pain. He was told by the local hospital that the hip replacement would take place in June last year. He's still waiting. Because of the Abbott and Turnbull government's cuts to hospital funding and because of the freeze to the Medicare rebate, the hospital system in Australia is under massive pressure, and people like this bloke who wrote to me are suffering.
Australian families are suffering. They feel that they're losing the cost-of-living battle. Electricity prices have doubled since this government came to office. Health insurance premiums just keep going up and up every year. The cost of child care has risen recently. As for housing, rents and house prices in the electorate I represent, they are astronomical. Under this government 330,000 pensioners have had a cut to their age pension. The government is now trying to axe the energy supplement, which was put in place to help those pensioners get through this difficult period when electricity prices keep increasing. The costs of goods and services are rising, yet wages aren't keeping pace. Annual wage growth has been stuck at two per cent, stubbornly, for the last few years. That's why families and pensioners are falling behind. Incomes aren't keeping pace with the cost of living.
If you're an Australian business, it's a very different story—particularly if you're a large corporation, for whom profits have been increasing handsomely over the course of the last two years. In fact, if you look at the share of economic growth and income in our country, you will see the profits share of GDP over the course of the last two years has increased by two per cent, while the wages share—the workers' share—has decreased by two per cent. Corporate profits are up; real wages are down. What is the Turnbull government doing as a result of that? Well, it's increasing taxes for workers and families throughout the country, by increasing the Medicare levy by half a per cent. That will put more pressure on household budgets.
But what is the government doing for large corporations? They're, of course, getting a tax cut! This is despite the fact that the most recent disclosure from the Australian Taxation Office of the 2,000 largest Australian corporations indicates that 732 of them—or 36 per cent—pay absolutely no tax at all! One of them earned $16 billion from its Australian operations and paid zero tax in Australia! The Turnbull government believes that these corporations deserve a tax cut and that Australian workers should pay more!
The other issue is: who benefits from this company tax cut? It's overwhelmingly foreigners. Because of the operation of dividend imputation and Australian domestic shareholders paying tax through their company and receiving a franking credit for that, it's foreigners who get the biggest benefit from this corporate tax cut. So there we have it! With a $23.6 billion budget deficit, with the Abbott and Turnbull government cutting services to hospitals, to schools and to universities, with the government cutting investment in infrastructure, and with foreigners getting an advantage through tax cuts, what is this government doing? It is making life harder for families, pensioners, for workers while giving corporations and big business a tax cut. No wonder 46 per cent of Australians disapprove of this tax corporate tax cut planned by the Turnbull government. Only 24 per cent approve, while 46 per cent disapprove! It is foreigners who are getting the big benefits from these tax cuts. Australian workers are going to pay for the tax cuts, which are going to end up in the pockets of foreigners and give them a big advantage. It's no wonder people like the gentleman who emailed me about his hip pain and the fact that he can't get a hip replacement and the average Australian worker and their family are struggling to get by. The average pensioner is struggling to put the heater on in winter or the air-conditioning on in summer because they can't afford to pay the electricity bill. They aren't too happy with the Turnbull government and aren't too overjoyed by the fact that this government is going to give a massive tax break to large corporations at the expense of Australian workers.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (18:40): It's a great pleasure to follow on from the ramblings of the previous speaker with the opportunity to talk very explicitly about what this government is doing to build the economic potential of Australia and to build its future. It's one where every single person, whatever their role in society, has a role to play. More than that, the business and entrepreneurial spirit that sits at the heart of this great nation—and, I might add, at the heart of the great electorate of Goldstein—is essential, and we must unleash it to see the realisation of this country's best days ahead.
Since 2001, Australia has gone from having one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world to having one of the highest. It is much to our detriment because, as a country that has always relied on importing capital, we as a destination need to be attractive in an increasingly globally competitive marketplace so that we can deliver Australians jobs. If we wish to maintain our high living standards and begin to improve wages, to actually see wage growth, which is something that we on this side of the chamber desperately want to see in the interests of households, families and people trying to make a good wicket and have a go, then this needs to change.
The government's enterprise tax plan is doing just that. It is already achieving outcomes for more Australians. Just look at what has been happening in the economy since the election of the Turnbull government, where you're seeing 1,000 jobs created every single day. It's something that any government of any political hue would be immensely proud of and be able to stand up and celebrate as part of building this country's future. It's enabling Australian businesses to reinvest more of their earnings in employing more Australians and growing their enterprises so they can go on and hire more Australians and not just give them their first chance at a job but also keep people in jobs throughout different stages of their lives.
For businesses with an annual turnover of up to $50 million—there's 3.2 million of them employing 6.7 million Australians—we have reduced company tax to 27.5 per cent. It's the lowest level in 50 years. I'm one of those people who've openly declared that they don't think 27.5 per cent is low enough. I'd like to see us go lower, and not just on company tax. I'd like to see wholesale tax reform that sends personal income taxes in precisely the same direction. By changing the tax rate and getting it down to the lowest level in 50 years under the Turnbull government, as well having as the $20,000 instant asset write-off, it is allowing businesses to reinvest in themselves, their energy and their potential and to back themselves to be able to create job opportunities for Australians.
In the great electorate of Goldstein, businesses can be assured that the government is focused, rightly, on unleashing their potential and their employees' potential. We have thousands of small businesses, mums and dads, who have made a good wicket for themselves and who have dared and tried to do something different. There are so many of them. When you go to local markets you see particularly mums—young women—who are doing a wonderful job of investing in themselves. People like Jack and Jules, who are, I think, based in Sandringham or maybe Hampton, are making reusable bags to take to the supermarket. I use them in not just the Goldstein electorate; they are so good I even brought them up to Canberra. Of course, they have a plastic bag ban up here, so you need something to help you on the weekend when you go shopping for food. People are innovating everywhere. There are local candle companies. As well, of course, there are people who are investing in larger businesses, creating jobs not just in Goldstein but across the nation.
Think about Integrated Bulk Systems Australia, a specialist bulk materials handling company that operates in the mining, resources, industrial and chemical industries; Elmark Trading, who are brake and clutch specialists in Highett; Top Titles of Brighton; RK Tech Studio in Brighton; Duram Products Australia in Caulfield South; Jarmans Carpet Repairs in Hampton; JL Carpentry Services in Hampton East; the Ulysses Bookstore in Sandringham—certainly a business I have frequented in the past; Towerheath, based in Highett; Alain Luminaries in Highett; the Bayside Brewing Company in Black Rock—I know that's one many people on the other side of the House would like; and Bygate Marine Service in Bentleigh. They are among so many more that bring this wonderful community alive. The tax plan will allow these businesses not just to grow their opportunities in Goldstein and not just to increase the number of customers that they can serve but also to take their businesses, goods and services to the world. That's what we want to see: the opportunity for growth for every single Australian. I commend the plan to the House.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (18:45): It might be a new year, but this is not a new government that has learned anything over the Christmas break. Here we have before us the same hypocritical, short-sighted, small-minded, trickle-down-economics-preaching government that the Australian people have had to put up with for almost five years now. It is a government that's not concerned with helping families, a government that's not concerned with helping pensioners and a government that's not concerned with helping students but a government that is hell-bent on ramming through unaffordable, ill-conceived and unrequired tax cuts to billionaires and the big banks, whilst everyday Australian families see their childcare support payments cut, their school funding cut, assistance for pensioners cut and support for university students cut. This government's credibility is wafer thin at best.
When it comes to the proposed personal tax cuts, as put forward by the member for Forde just a few moments ago, Deloitte Access Economics partner Chris Richardson said, 'Here we go again, a government lagging in the polls looks set to leave behind a poison pill,' and that the Turnbull government's 'battlers budget' risks undermining economic stability. We've also heard from global ratings agency Standard & Poor's, which maintained its 'negative outlook' on Australia and warned there was still 'significant uncertainty' over the budget's return to surplus and that the government position was still too risky to justify tax cuts. Not even the Prime Minister seemed sure of the government's plan when yesterday we saw him get into a pickle on the ABC's Insiders program, not seeming to understand that the government's plan to hit low- and middle-income earners with a Medicare levy increase will actually result in an increase in personal tax. So, while the Prime Minister and the Treasurer dangle income tax rhetoric at every opportunity, their actions will actually see seven million Australians worse off by $1.7 billion per year. We have also seen in the past few weeks the Prime Minister and the Treasurer crowing their three-word slogan 'jobs and growth', but scratch the surface and it's easy to see that the government have failed as economic managers and, with $65 billion worth of tax handouts to big businesses, they continue to fail the Australian people.
I want to put some facts on the table. We've got a government that has delivered an all-time high of $516.9 billion in government debt. Remember the debt and deficit emergency and the debt trucks? Let's put that into perspective. With $516.9 billion in government debt, it's gone up, not down, over the last five years. It has gone up by an incredible $243 billion since the 2013 election and in the government's own midyear economic forecast was projected to still climb, to $583 billion in 2021. We have a budget deficit of $20 billion, up from a forecast $15 billion when the Treasurer delivered his first budget, and a real-time loss of wages to Australian workers with the cuts to penalty rates on 1 July. The government is overseeing record low growth and overseeing a 75-year high for inequality. So let's not have any more talk that the coalition are good economic managers. Debt is up. Inequality is up. That's what we're seeing time and time again. This is not a government of jobs and growth. It is a government that is out of touch.
So what's the government's answer? The only trickle-down solution they've got is to give an unwarranted $65 billion tax cut to the big banks and big businesses. That's right. Go out into the member's electorate and say, 'Do you support big banks and multinationals getting tax cuts at the expense of investing in education and health services?' I know what the answer is in my community. Last year, company profits rose by more than 30 per cent while wages only rose by 1.5 per cent, leaving the share of wages in national income at 51.5 per cent, the equal lowest level since the 1960s.
Don't take my word for it. Even the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Philip Lowe, is on the record as saying Australia's economy is suffering a crisis in wage growth. The government is effectively sending the wages of working Australians backwards whilst giving handouts to the companies which employ them and which are making record profits. It's no wonder that my local paper today highlighted the fact that we are at an all-time high when it comes to payday lenders in this country, because people simply cannot pay their bills. Over 600,000 households rely on those payday loans and 1.8 million households are now declared financially distressed. This government's record, when it comes to delivering real wage growth and when it comes to delivering the spoils of economic growth, is found to be wanting. The community that I represent and communities right across Australia deserve much better than the trickle-down economics that this government is delivering.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (18:50): At the heart of Liberal tradition is the importance of the individual. The tradition manifests itself in economic policy in the following way: the individuals, not the government, know what is best for them; governments should take from the individual in the form of taxation only what is needed for essential services and no more; and governments should be frugal with public money for that money belongs to the individual and not the government itself. Therefore, when it comes to government, one of the ways in which Liberal philosophy manifests is in our desire to reduce the burden of regulation and taxation on the individual. We owe it to Australians to give them as much support as possible, while taking as little tax back as is responsible. The government is not a wealth creator, so nor should it be a wealth taker. This is not to diminish the significance of tax in funding services which are vital to our society, but our philosophy recognises that the role of government is to create the conditions in which the individual can succeed and do his or her best.
Former Prime Minister John Howard and former Treasurer Peter Costello led the country for nearly 12 years, winning a record total of four elections. Their popularity with voters is in large part explained by an economic agenda that advanced Australia. The introduction of the new tax system, with the GST as its central plank, was a fundamental measure that introduced a GST, reduced tax on income and shifted it to spending. Instead of punishing people for working and earning, Howard and Costello flattened the income tax system, energising the economy. Instead of taking more tax, Howard and Costello fought for a fairer tax system. This saw the provision of the largest tax relief in Australia's history, with cuts in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. The Howard-Costello government eliminated Labor's $96 billion of government's debt. They oversaw a GDP growth rate of 3.6 per cent per year, on average, and an increase in average household income between 1994 and 2007 of 50 per cent. These achievements were not the results of higher taxes but, rather, the product of a fiscal program that actually cut taxes. The Howard government's success was based on its firm commitment to Liberal values. That's a tradition that continues today.
The motion from my friend, the member for Forde, reminds us that the Turnbull government has demonstrated a continuing commitment to reduce the tax burden on hardworking Australians. We've legislated tax cuts for middle-income earners so that they're not caught by bracket creep, lifting the $80,000 middle-income tax threshold to $87,000. We've also legislated small business tax cuts to their lowest level in 50 years: 27½ per cent for a business with a turnover of up to $25 million. They'll also benefit businesses with a turnover of $50 million by 1 July this year.
As a result of the government's policies, 3.2 million businesses, employing 6.7 million Australians, will pay less tax. There's more relief in sight when this rate is reduced even further to 25 per cent by 2026. We legislated instant asset write-offs for small business which saw 300,000 small businesses last year instantly deduct machinery and equipment from their tax bills. The temporary deficit levy, which sought to address Labor's damning debt legacy, has been removed as promised. We recognised the rising cost of living and responded with tax cuts, the National Energy Guarantee that will cut power bills and a housing plan that improves affordability. Everything we're delivering seeks to limit the burden on families and increase money in their pockets.
Labor, in contrast, is seeking to increase the burden on the taxpayer. The opposition leader said that business should expect nothing from a Shorten Labor government, and the proof is in their policy. Their policy punishes any small business with a turnover above $2 million, slugging them with a 30 per cent corporate tax rate, which is a full five percentage points higher than what we're seeking to cut over the next decade. Their policy punishes individuals with a top tax rate of 49.5 per cent, making the temporary deficit levy permanent. Their policies amount to $160 billion of new taxes, not just on income but on housing, electricity, small business and investment. There's a clear divide between a coalition committed to keeping taxes as low as they can be and an opposition that believes in trying to tax its way to prosperity. Australia's company tax rates compare unfavourably to jurisdictions like the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore, among many others, but Labor has no plan to increase our competitiveness.
In my maiden speech I argued that Canberra collects too much tax, and I'm pleased to see the progress we've made in cutting taxes in the past 18 months. Promisingly, more tax relief is in sight for middle-income Australian families. Under past and present coalition governments, Australians have reaped the rewards for their hard work. There is more hard work for us as parliamentarians to do so that this may continue, but the people of Australia should know that the coalition government is committed to their cause.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (18:55): I'm trying to work out whether this motion demonstrates that the member for Forde is completely out of touch and not paying attention or whether it is truly an exquisite and subtle piece of satire. I choose to believe the latter, so congratulations to the member for Forde for making us all laugh at this motion, which claims that the government is seeking to reduce the tax burden on hardworking Australians. This is at the very time this government has, before this very parliament, legislation that seeks to increase income taxes for everyone who earns $21,000 or more. This increase in taxes that the Turnbull government is seeking to impose would mean a worker on $55,000 would pay an extra $275 in taxes a year, while someone on $80,000 would face an extra $400. You'd have to admit that claiming that the Turnbull government is seeking to reduce the tax burden on hardworking Australians simply doesn't stack up, if you look at the objective reality of the thing.
Speaking of hardworking Australians, what about hardworking Queenslanders? What about the proposal that's currently on the table to change the GST so that my state, Queensland, will lose around $1.5 billion in GST revenue? That's 5,000 teachers, 5,000 nurses, 3,000 police and more than 1,100 firies, if you want the equivalent of $1.5 billion in GST. What's the Turnbull government doing about this? Is the Turnbull government coming out and saying, 'No, we're not going ahead with this plan; we're not going to take $1.5 billion in GST revenue away from Queensland'? Of course not. We've heard nothing from the Prime Minister that indicates he is taking seriously what harm this would do to the state of Queensland. In my electorate of Griffith—which is in the inner suburbs on the south side of the river—we don't want to see a situation where Queensland's budget is cut by $1.5 billion because of this government failing to stand up for the interests of Queenslanders. And where are the Liberal and National Party MPs? Why are they not banging down the door of the Prime Minister's office, demanding Queensland's fair share of GST revenue? Why are the Queensland members of the LNP not demanding that Queensland not suffer this $1.5 billion in cuts to GST revenue?
The member for Forde's from Queensland, obviously, given that Forde is around the Logan area. I didn't hear him stand up in this debate when he moved this motion and say: 'You know what I want? I want Queensland to not lose $1.5 billion in GST revenue.' He did not do that at all. You know why? The Queensland LNP federal members are absolutely nobbled when it comes to standing up to the Prime Minister and demanding their fair share of GST revenue.
The Turnbull government is perfectly happy—and Senator Canavan is perfectly happy—to go around talking about the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund, which is great, except nothing's been spent from it. They're not doing anything with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund to benefit my state, and it's been ongoing for a number of years. That's all fine and well. You can have these loan funds, you can put this money aside—better if you actually spent it on some infrastructure projects rather than just saying you are going to, of course—but it would be really great if those Queensland senators and members from the Liberal and National parties did the right thing not by their own preselections, not by their own party line, not by the Turnbull government, but by the people who elected them and put them there in the first place: the people of Queensland. I don't want to see fewer teachers or nurses or police or firefighters because this government is full of LNP members from Queensland who don't have the gumption to stand up to the Prime Minister and demand our fair share of GST revenue.
To add insult to injury, this motion is being moved, claiming that the LNP government is somehow doing a great job for Australians in relation to tax and superannuation, at the same time as this government is trying to give away $65 billion in revenue to big end of town corporates; at the same time as they're complaining that millionaires have to pay too much tax. That's what the context is for this motion. I might say that it's also at the same time as they're cutting $17 billion from schools funding and $2.2 billion from universities funding. It's also at a time when more than 2,000 families in my electorate are going to be worse off because of this government's childcare changes. It's also at a time when the government has refused to extend the universal access for kindy beyond the end of 2019. It's an absolute shame.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:01
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Broadband
(Question No. 810 - Amended)
Mrs Elliot asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , in writing , on 4 September 2017 :
In respect of the Prime Minister's election promise that every Australian would have access to the NBN by 2016, (a) why has the rollout in regional and rural areas, including in the electoral division of Richmond, been delayed by up to three years, (b) why will over 30,000 premises in the electoral division of Richmond not have access to the NBN for more than two years, (c) why are there delays in regional and rural Australia, and (d) what measures is the Minister taking to address these delays.
Mr Fletcher: The amended answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Australian Government has put the National Broadband Network (NBN) on track to provide high‑speed broadband services to every home and business in Australia by 2020. This is much quicker than would have been the case under the previous Government. The Strategic Review released just a few months after the September 2013 election showed that the project was in a fundamentally worse position than the previous Government had at any time disclosed to Parliament or the Australian public. Three years into the rollout it was two years behind schedule. At that time the then Shareholder Ministers for NBN Co Limited (nbn) advised that the accumulated delays and state of the nbn company meant the Government's aim of ensuring nationwide access to fast broadband by 2016 could not be achieved.
(a) The rollout in regional and rural areas has not been delayed. By 7 September 2017, 81 per cent of homes and businesses outside major urban areas were in ready for service areas or had network construction underway. The rollout to homes and businesses to be served by fixed wireless and satellite is particularly advanced, with over three‑quarters of premises to be served by fixed wireless now able to order services and all premises eligible for satellite across the country able to connect to Sky Muster satellite services since April 2016.
(b) It is not correct that there will be 30,000 premises awaiting NBN access in the electorate of Richmond in two years' time. As at 7 September 2017, just under 37,000 homes and businesses, were already able to access services in the electorate. By the end of 2018 just over 21,000 additional premises are expected to be in ready for service areas with the remaining premises (fewer than 8,000 homes and businesses) mainly expected to be able to order services during the first half of 2019. This means that almost all premises in the electorate of Richmond will be able to connect to an NBN service by the middle of 2019.
(c) As noted above, the rollout is progressing very well in regional Australia. Naturally there are some changes in timing as nbn coordinates the massive logistics involved in a project of this size. Since 2017, nbn has been advising when locations can expect to be able to order services. Prior to that, the company had been advising when network construction would commence. There is an intrinsic time gap between these two points as in most cases network construction begins well before services will become available.
(d) The Government has already taken prudent steps to allow the network to be rolled out as quickly as possible. This has included giving nbn flexibility in network design, installing a highly experienced board and management team and providing ongoing funding through a loan to allow the company to focus on the rollout at this point in network construction.
Insurance Premiums
(Question No. 814)
Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, in writing, on
6 September 2017 -
In respect of the Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce report which the Minister received in November 2015 (a) when will the Government response be released, and(b) why was this response not provided by 30 June 2016, as committed to in a media release dated
4 March 2016.
Ms O'Dwyer: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The Government released its formal reponse to the Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce on Monday, 18 December 2017.
(b) The Government carefully considered the findings of the Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce, which considered the issue of insurance affordability in northern Australia, and all options available in detail before releasing its formal response. The issues reviewed in the report are complex and the Government, as is appropriate, took the necessary time to work with all levels of government, the insurance industry and residents and business owners before releasing its formal response.
To date, the Government has provided the following responses to the issues raised in the Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce:
A North Queensland Insurance Comparison Website, announced in the 2014-15 Budget and operational since March 2015, that provides comparison information on available home buildings and contents policy features and indicative premiums for nearly 800 Queensland towns and suburbs north of Rockhampton, including coastal and inland regions.
$12.5 million for the development and management of a strata title inspection scheme in north Queensland, announced in the 2014-15 Budget, which will be undertaken by James Cook University and commencing in 2018.
$7.9 million to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to undertake an inquiry into the monitoring of insurance premiums in northern Australia, announced in the 2017-18 Budget. The ACCC will monitor and report on prices, costs and profits in the insurance market for home, contents and strata insurance in northern Australia, with a particular focus on the impact of natural catastrophe risk. The ACCC released an issues paper for consultation in October 2017 and will hold public hearings over the next month. The ACCC will provide its first report to the Government by 30 November 2018.
The Government has responded to the Senate Inquiry into the General Insurance Industry and, as recommended by the Committee, will proceed with reforms to place downward pressure on insurance premiums through increased accountability and transparency within the industry, as well as proposals to increase consumer understanding of insurance, which were recommended as part of the Senate Inquiry into the General Insurance Industry. These include:
o Ensuring consumers are treated fairly through the General Insurance Code of Practice.
o Extending the unfair contract term provisions to contracts of insurance with proposals to be released in early 2018.
o Improving consumer understanding of insurance products as part of the of the National Financial Literacy Strategy; and
o Developing proposals to improve consumers' understanding and access to information through better transparency and enhanced disclosure practices in the insurance sector.
In addition to these initiatives, the Australian Government has, over the past decade contributed over $10.5 billion under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements to support recovery efforts nationally. Of this, more than $9 billion has been provided to Queensland.
Since 2013, the Australian Government has committed more than $30 million to the Queensland Government under the National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience to support local projects that build the disaster resilience of Queensland communities.
The Government remains committed to working with all stakeholders to develop solutions that will lead to sustainable reductions in premium levels, promote a competitive insurance market and make a recognisable difference for consumers in northern Australia. However, as the problem of insurance affordability in northern Australia is a complex issue and requires action by all stakeholders, the Government continues to urge state and territory governments to abolish inefficient stamp duties, strata commissions and other levies on general insurance premiums. These taxes increase the cost of insurance for policyholders and can lead to under or non-insurance. Removal of these taxes by Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory would see an immediate reduction in insurance premiums for policyholders - for instance, in Queensland, the stamp duty removal would mean a nine per cent reduction immediately. The Government will continue to make the case for the elimination of these taxes with state and territory governments in a range of forums.
I have included a copy of my latest media release about these matters.
Media Release
Monday, 18 December 2017
GOVERNMENT RESPONDS TO NORTHERN AUSTRALIA INSURANCE
PREMIUMS TASKFORCE AND GENERAL INSURANCE SENATE INQUIRY
The Turnbull Government has today announced its formal response to the Final Report of the Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce (the Taskforce), along with its response to the Senate Inquiry into the General Insurance Industry.
The Taskforce was asked to consider the feasibility of options to lower insurance premiums in areas subject to high cyclone risk and released its Final Report publicly in March 2016. In its assessment of policy options, the Taskforce found that mitigation activities to reduce the risk of damage from cyclones are the only way to reduce premiums on a sustainable basis. The Government accepts this finding, and will not intervene directly in the insurance market.
Instead, the Government is proceeding with a set of important reforms to place downward pressure on insurance premiums through increased accountability and transparency within the industry, as well as proposals to increase consumer understanding of insurance, which were recommended as part of the Senate Inquiry into the General Insurance Industry. These include:
Ensuring consumers are treated fairly through the General Insurance Code of Practice. The code sets out the standards that general insurers must meet when providing services to customers and timeframes for insurers to respond to claims, complaints and requests for information from customers. The Government calls on the Insurance Council of Australia to expedite work on reforming the Code.
Extending the unfair contract term provisions to contracts of insurance with proposals to be released in early 2018.
Tasking the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) with developing options to. improve consumer understanding of insurance products as part of the development of a financial literacy strategy, and to work with industry on its ability to provide guidance to consumers on their insurance needs.
Tasking the Commonwealth Treasury with developing proposals to improve consumers' understanding and access to information through better transparency and enhanced disclosure practices in the insurance sector.
While these reforms will result in a fairer and more efficient insurance sector, the Government remains focused on the ability for communities in northern Australia to have access to affordable insurance, securing their ability to rebuild following natural catastrophes.
The Government has already acted on a number of recommendations in the Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce Report:
Established a North Queensland Insurance Comparison Website, announced in the 2014-15 Budget and operational since March 2015, that provides comparison information on available home buildings and contents policy features and indicative premiums for nearly 800 Queensland towns and suburbs north of Rockhampton, including coastal and inland regions.
Provided $12.5 million for the development and management of a strata title inspection scheme in north Queensland, announced in the 2014-15 Budget, which will be undertaken byJames Cook University and commencing in 2018.
Provided $7.9 million to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to undertake an inquiry into the monitoring of insurance premiums in northern Australia, announced in the 2017-18 Budget. The ACCC will monitor and report on prices, costs and profits in the insurance market for home, contents and strata insurance in northern Australia, with a particular focus on the impact of natural catastrophe risk. The ACCC released an issues paper for consultation in October 2017 and has held eight public forums across northern Australia. The ACCC will provide its first report to the Government by 30 November 2018.
In addition to these initiatives, the Australian Government has, over the past decade, contributed over $10.5 billion under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements to support recovery efforts nationally. Of this, more than $9 billion has been provided to Queensland.
Since 2013, the Australian Government has committed more than $30 million to the Queensland Government under the National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience to support local projects that build the disaster resilience of Queensland communities.
Tackling the problem of insurance affordability in northern Australia is a complex issue and requires action by all stakeholders, including state and territory governments, insurance companies, business and residents.
The Government continues to urge the Western Australian, Queensland and the Northern Territory governments to abolish inefficient stamp duties, strata commissions and other levies on general insurance premiums. These taxes increase the cost of insurance for policyholders and can lead to under or non-insurance. Removal of these taxes by the Western Australian, Queensland and the Northern Territory governments would see an immediate reduction in insurance premiums for policyholders. For instance, in Queensland, the stamp duty removal would mean a nine per cent reduction immediately.
The Government also continues to urge the Queensland Government to review strata title legislation and its impact on insurance premiums.
The Government also continues to encourage insurers to better meet consumer needs in northern
Australia and monitor progress through regular consultation with industry. Insurers must also contribute to reducing the cost of premiums by developing more innovative insurance products as well as by better recognising the reduction in risk from the mitigation work that is undertaken by households.
The Government remains committed to working with all stakeholders to develop solutions that will lead to sustainable reductions in premium levels, promote a competitive insurance market and a recognisable difference for consumers across Australia.
Australian Taxation Office
(Question No. 820)
Dr Leigh (1) Has there been a delay in the release of the 2014-15 individual sample file (taxation statistics, 2 per cent sample of records) by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO); if so, (a) what is the cause of the delay, and (b) has the Government sought or received correspondence from the ATO on this incident and its impact, if so, will he provide it.(2) On what dates were the previous three sample files released.(3) When will the 2014-15 individual sample file be released.
Ms O'Dwyer: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) (a & b)
The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) has released new guidelines for the release of sensitive unit record level data. The guidelines are intended to ensure that such data is "protected to the highest standard". As part of the guidelines, the ATO are required to engage a data privacy expert to review its methodology with a view to ensuring the risk of re-identification is sufficiently low. The ATO takes seriously the protection of data and is working to ensure all releases of data comply with PM&C's guidelines and the law.
(2) |
|
||||||||||
(3) The ATO is working to ensure all releases of data comply with PM&C's guidelines and the law.
Employment
(Question No. 828)
Mr Katter asked the Minister representing the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, in writing, on 16 October 2017:
A constituent has reported repeated occurrences of job seekers listing the constituent's business as a job opportunity, attending the induction (at significant time and cost to the business) and then not turning up for any days of work and the business has not been contacted for a compliance check. After a welfare recipient notifies Centrelink that they are seeking a job opportunity, will he ensure welfare compliance is undertaken by Centrelink calling businesses to confirm recipients of job seeker income support turn up to work.
Mr Pyne: T he Minister for Jobs and Innovation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
Failure to take up an offer of employment is deemed a serious failure. If an employment service provider becomes aware that a job seeker on income support has failed to take up suitable work offered to them, without reasonable excuse, the provider must report this to the Department of Human Services. Where the Department of Human Services determines a failure has occurred, an eight-week non-payment penalty period will be applied.
As not all employment offered to the job seeker is known to employment providers, prospective employers can also report any potential employees, who are welfare recipients, that fail to attend a job interview, refuse the offer of suitable employment or act inappropriately at a job interview.
If the details provided by the employer are sufficient for the Department of Jobs and Small Business to identify the job seeker, this information will be forwarded to their employment service provider to take appropriate action, which may result in a financial penalty being applied by Centrelink.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
(Question No. 829)
Mr Katter asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 16 October 2017 –
In respect of the announcement that Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has appointed three CEOs as panel members to conduct the prudential inquiry into the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA):
(1) Is he aware of the negative perception around the track record of those appointed to the panel, that it is a case of the people that have created the problem, now judging themselves and their own class of people.(2) Will he review the decision to appoint these panel members, as each of them comes from a CEO position, the new power group that runs society and pays themselves obscene amounts of money, and they are perceived as being from the group of people they are now going to judge.
Mr Morrison: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) announced on 28 August that it would establish an independent prudential inquiry into the CBA. Terms of reference were released 8 September 2017. APRA appointed Dr John Laker AO, Chairman of the Banking and Finance Oath, Professor Graeme Samuel AC, Professorial Fellow in the Monash Business School, and company director Jillian Broadbent AO to undertake the inquiry. The Government supports APRA's actions.
ANSWER TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION ON NOTICE
QUESTION NO: |
HOR829 (PQ17-000028) |
Date asked: |
16 October 2017 |
Asked by: |
Katter, Bob |
deadline for submission to minister's office |
10 December 2017 |
Date due for tabling: |
14 December 2017 |
Subject: |
In respect of the announcement that Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has appointed three CEOs as panel members to conduct the prudential inquiry into the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) |
Contact officer name and number |
Nghi Luu 6263 2540 |
Group responsible: |
Financial System Division |
Clearance officer: |
Nghi Luu |
Background: |
|
Medicare
(Question No. 830)
Mr Katter asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 16 October 2017 –
In respect of the decision to raise the Medicare levy from 2.0 per cent to 2.5 per cent on 1 July 2019—a 25 per cent increase—and given the Medicare levy is calculated from total income (not income after deductions), so it is directly tied to wage increases, can he explain why Medicare levy increases are not in line with CPI, where a 1.5 per cent CPI increase would instead see the Medicare levy increase from 2 per cent to 2.02 per cent.
Mr Morrison: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Medicare levy is not directly tied to wage increases. The Medicare levy is payable at a rate of 2 per cent of a person's taxable income (after deductions are taken into account).
The Turnbull Government has introduced legislation into Parliament – the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 - which will fully fund our contribution to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), giving Australians with permanent and significant disability, and their families and carers, certainty that this vital service will be there for them into the future.
By the time the NDIS is fully rolled out, it will transform the lives of around 460,000 Australians who are living with disability, and their families.
To help fund the scheme, the Government is asking Australians to contribute, with the Medicare levy rate to be increased by half a percentage point from 2 to 2.5 per cent of taxable income from 1 July 2019. This means that one-fifth of the revenue raised by the Medicare levy, along with any underspends within the NDIS, will be directed to the NDIS Savings Fund.
The Government's decision to increase the Medicare levy rate from 1 July 2019 reflects the fact that Australians have a role to play, in accordance with their capacity, to ensure this important program is secure for current and future generations.
Low income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy through the low income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners. The current exemptions from the Medicare levy will also remain in place.
The following people will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy (in part or in full, depending on their family situation): people who are entitled to full free medical treatment for all conditions under defence force arrangements or Veterans' Affairs Repatriations Health Card (Gold Card), blind pensioners, low-income earners, non-residents for tax purposes and Medicare exemption certificate recipients.
The decision to increase the Medicare levy rate from 2 to 2.5 per cent from 1 July 2019 is to secure the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). This will ensure that all Australians contribute – according to their capacity – to funding the NDIS, thereby making it secure for current and future generations.
Migration Program
(Question No. 831)
Mr Danby asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 16 October 2017 –
Given the Productivity Commission's most recent public Migration Program data on taxes paid by immigrants only covers 2015-16, has further modelling based on current assumptions been done to show the tax base of immigrants (by each visa stream) on consolidated revenue; if so, can the Minister provide it.
Mr Morrison: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Government has not undertaken further modelling of the impact of immigrants (by each visa stream) on consolidated revenue.
However, you may be interested in information published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics from the Personal Income Tax and Migrants Integrated Dataset (PITMID). The PITMID provides detailed income information of migrants by visa stream from 2009-10 to 2013-14.
Further information can be found in Personal Income of Migrants, Australia, 2013-14 (cat. No. 3418.0), available for download from http://www.abs.gov.au/.
National Forest Industries Plan
(Question No. 832)
Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 16 October 2017:
In respect of the National Forest Industries Plan to be developed by the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources as announced by the Prime Minister on 12 September 2017, (a) who will be engaged to develop the Plan, (b) what will be the cost of developing the Plan, (c) have funds been allocated for the development process of the Plan, (d) when is the Plan due for completion, (e) will consultation be undertaken during the development of the Plan; if so, with whom, (f) who will have input into the Plan, (g) will there be a discussion paper for comment prior to finalisation of the Plan, (h) what areas of the forest industry will be covered under the Plan, (i) who will be tasked with implementing the Plan, and (j) what is the timeframe for the implementation of the Plan.
Mr Littleproud: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Department of Agriculture and Water Resources.
(b) Development of the plan will be funded from within existing departmental resources.
(c) See (b).
(d) The second half of 2018.
(e) Yes, with the forest industry and state and territory agencies.
(f) See (e).
(g) Not necessary.
(h) The plan will cover all parts of the forest industry from growing of both native forests and plantations through to processing of forest products.
(i) Implementation, including timing and responsibilities, will be settled during the plan's development.
(j) See (i).
National Injury Insurance Scheme
(Question No. 833)
Dr Leigh the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, in writing, on 16 October 2017 ‑
Can she provide (a) a timeline for the past two years of COAG consideration of the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NISS),
(b) the proposed timeline for future COAG consideration of the NIIS,
(c) the minutes and/or details of COAG's progress on the 'general accident' stream of the NIIS, and
(d) the commitment to an 'implementation review' of the 'general accident' stream on behalf of COAG, and the details therein (including matters of consideration for implementation).
Ms O'Dwyer: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) On 30 November 2016, a COAG Consultation Regulation Impact Statement for the workplace accidents stream was released on the Office of Best Practice Regulation's website.
On 9 June 2017, COAG leaders agreed with Treasurers' advice not to proceed with a medical treatment stream of the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) at this time. Leaders asked Treasurers to review the cost implications of this decision in the context of the Productivity Commission Review of NDIS Costs. Leaders also asked Treasurers, in consultation with the Disability Reform Council, for advice on a general accident stream of the NIIS for the first COAG of 2018.
On 22 June 2017, a COAG Decision Regulatory Impact Statement for the motor vehicle stream was released on the Office of Best Practice Regulation's website.
(b) On 9 June 2017, COAG asked Treasurers, in consultation with the Disability Reform Council, for advice on a general accident stream of the NIIS for the first COAG of 2018.
(c) Refer to (a).
(d) Treasurers are currently preparing advice on a general accident stream of the NIIS for the first COAG of 2018, noting that a general accident NIIS is yet to be agreed.
Seasonal Work Incentives Trial
(Question No. 834)
Ms Sharkie: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, in writing, on 17 October 2017:
(1) Has any material promoting the Seasonal Work Incentives Trial (Trial) been distributed; if so, (a) to whom, and (b) how.(2) What is the total budget for the promotion of the Trial.(3) What steps have been taken to date to inform (a) jobactive, (b) Transition to Work, and (c) Disability Employment Services providers, of the Trial.
Mr Pyne The Minister for Jobs and Innovation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) Has any material promoting the Seasonal Work Incentives Trial (Trial) been distributed; if so (a) to whom, and (b) how?
(a) The promotion of the Seasonal Work Incentives Trial is supported by a communication and engagement strategy and a suite of communications products, including a promotional kit.
Information on the Seasonal Work Incentives Trial, including the promotional kit, has been distributed to peak and regional horticultural bodies, employers, growers and unemployed people in regional areas in all States and the Northern Territory.
The National Employment Services Association, Jobs Australia, employment services providers, and the Department of Jobs and Small Business are utilising the promotional kit to publicise the Seasonal Work Incentives Trial.
(b) A first round of Information sessions on the Seasonal Work Incentives Trial were held in all States and the Northern Territory from 25 May 2017 until 20 July 2017.
Additional information sessions were held in all States and Territories during September, October, and November 2017 as part of the ongoing promotion of the Trial. These sessions were advertised on local radio and in local newspapers.
Communications products have also been made available on the Department's Employment Provider Portal, website and on www.jobsearch.gov.au.
The Department of Jobs and Small Business is actively seeking opportunities to promote the Seasonal Work Incentives Trial with Employment providers, peak and regional horticultural bodies, growers and unemployed people.
(2) What is the total budget for the promotion of the Trial?
The then Department of Employment received $50,000 in the 2016–17 financial year.
(3) What steps have been taken to date to inform (a) jobactive, (b) Transition to Work, and (c) Disability Employment Service Providers, of the Trial.
Communications products supporting the Trial, including a promotional kit were developed and have been disseminated to all jobactive, Transition to Work and Disability Employment Services Providers.
Guidelines on the operation of the Trial and details of the changes made to the Department of Jobs and Small Business's systems to support the Trial have been made available to jobactive, Transition to Work and Disability Employment Services Providers on the Department's Employment Provider Portal.
The Department of Jobs and Small Business provides ongoing communication about the Trial to jobactive, Transition to Work and Disability Employment Services Providers through monthly letters to Chief Executive Officers, webinars, Provider Portal notices and regular Account Manager communications.
jobactive, Transition to Work and Disability Employment Services Providers were invited to and have attended information sessions on the Trial.
Human Rights
(Question No. 835)
Ms Sharkie To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 17 October 2017:
(1) What is the Government's official position on ethnic cleansing.
(2) In respect of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution on the Extension of the mandate of the independent international fact-finding mission on Myanmar (A/HRC/36/L.31/Rev.1), did the Government seek to change the draft wording in the resolution from 'calling for an end to such violations and abuses' to 'calling for an end to violence'; if so, why.
(3) Does Australia need to wait until the UNHRC fact-finding mission is complete to ascertain the scale of human rights violations and abuses in and around Rakhine State in Myanmar, or does it possess an independent capacity within her department to undertake such an analysis; if the latter, has an analysis been done and if so, what did it conclude about these human rights violations and abuses, including how the Government characterises them.
(4) What diplomatic and humanitarian steps is the Government taking to help avoid an even larger scale human rights tragedy from occurring in this area.
(5) Given the past effectiveness of sanctions, is the Government considering the reintroduction of an arms embargo or other sanctions to help signal concern about human right abuses and violations in this area.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the Honourable Member's question is as follows:
(1) The Australian Government's clear position is that perpetrators of serious international crimes must be held to account. This means investigating and, where appropriate, prosecuting such persons in accordance with international standards.
(2) Yes.
The Australian Government's rationale in proposing this change was to avoid language that could have been interpreted as pre-judging the outcomes of the fact-finding mission (in particular, what had occurred and who was responsible for events in Rakhine State); and thereby make the Government of Myanmar's cooperation with the mission less likely. The proposed change was consistent with concerns expressed by other delegations. Co-sponsors accepted the Australian Government's reasoning and agreed to the change in language as a way of maintaining the fact-finding mission's impartiality and giving it the best opportunity to gain access to Myanmar.
During negotiations, the Australian Government supported the inclusion of stronger language, including: a reference to the concerns expressed by the UN Secretary-General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; a call for full and unhindered humanitarian access to Rakhine State; and the prompt, safe and voluntary return of all refugees and displaced persons. The Australian Government also supported an amendment to the decision requesting the fact-finding mission hold an interactive dialogue with member states at, and present its final report to, the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly (in addition to holding an interactive dialogue and presenting its final report to the UN Human Rights Council).
On 21 September 2017, the Australian Government co-sponsored the UN Human Rights Council decision extending the mandate of the independent international fact-finding mission on Myanmar by six months, to September 2018. The Australian Government also co-sponsored the original resolution establishing the fact-finding mission, on 24 March 2017.
The Australian Government supports the fact-finding mission as a means of providing an independent account of what has occurred in Rakhine State, and has consistently called on the Government of Myanmar to cooperate with the mission.
(3) Ongoing restrictions on international access make it difficult to ascertain reliably the scale of human rights violations and abuses in northern Rakhine State and responsibility for them. Based on reporting from the UN and human rights organisations, it seems clear that abuses have occurred.
The Australian Government, through the Australian Embassy in Yangon, is monitoring the situation to the extent it can. This includes by liaising with international partners. The Australian Government has called for the lifting of Myanmar's restrictions on international access to northern Rakhine State, in order to facilitate an assessment of what has occurred and the delivery of humanitarian assistance at the speed and scale required.
(4) The Australian Government has repeatedly called for an end to violence in Rakhine State, the protection of civilians, unfettered access for humanitarian actors, the safe, dignified and voluntary return of refugees, and accountability for human rights abuses.
The Australian Government has conveyed its concerns directly to the Government of Myanmar and the military; via six public statements (issued on 29 August 2017; 5 September 2017; 9 September 2017; 19 September 2017; 23 October 2017; and 11 November 2017), including four from the Minister for Foreign Affairs; and through interventions in multilateral forums, including at the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly. The Prime Minister (on 12 November) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (on 29 November) have raised Australia's concerns directly with State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi.
To promote accountability, the Australian Government co-sponsored a decision at the UN Human Rights Council on 21 September 2017 extending the mandate of the independent international fact-finding mission on Myanmar by six months, to September 2018. The Australian Government also co-sponsored the original resolution establishing the fact-finding mission, on 24 March 2017.
On 16 November 2017, Australia voted for an Organisation of Islamic Cooperation-led resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar at the UN General Assembly. The resolution calls for an end to violence in Rakhine State; full and unhindered humanitarian access; voluntary and sustainable refugee returns; Myanmar's cooperation with the UN Fact-Finding Mission; and implementation of the recommendations of the
Kofi Annan-led Advisory Commission on Rakhine State.
To help address humanitarian needs in Bangladesh and Myanmar, the Australian Government, since 5 September 2017, has announced $30 million in new humanitarian funding (making Australia one of the largest donors to the crisis). This funding will go towards providing food, clean water, shelter and essential health services for those in need. It will also help treat children from malnutrition, create safe and secure areas for vulnerable women, and provide maternal health services.
On 11 November 2017, the Minister for Foreign Affairs launched a four-week joint appeal with eight leading humanitarian agencies to help raise public contributions to support those people who have been displaced by the recent violence in Rakhine State. Under this appeal, the Australian Government will match donations to the Australian Red Cross and Australia for UNHCR (the UN refugee agency) up to a total of $5 million.
The Australian Government is working closely with regional partners, particularly Indonesia, to respond to the crisis, including: exploring opportunities for joint humanitarian aid delivery to Bangladesh; and holding consultations with members of the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime.
(5) Australia maintains autonomous sanctions on Myanmar in the form of an arms embargo due to concerns about ongoing conflict, weapons proliferation and human rights. This prohibits the export of arms and related matériel, and associated services, to Myanmar. Australia does not sell weapons to, or conduct joint military exercises with, Myanmar.
The Australian Government is constantly reviewing what measures, and what sort of engagement, will help to achieve the best results on the ground in Myanmar.
Banking and Financial Services
(Question No. 836)
Ms Sharkie asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 18 October 2017.
(1) Has the Government considered adopting a 'Glass-Steagall' style separation of Australia's banking system; if so, what were the conclusions; if not, why not.(2) What actions is the Government taking to guard against the collapse of 'too big to fail' financial institutions.(3) Is it a possibility that the Government will provide major financial support to Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions (ADIs) in the event of a severe financial or economic shock or downturn; if so, what steps is it taking to avoid the socialisation of ADI losses.
Mr Morrison: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) The US 'Glass-Steagall' legislation required the separation of investment banking from retail and commercial banking.
The Australian financial system already exhibits a high degree of structural separation. Australia's major banks dominate retail and commercial banking, but do not have large investment banking businesses.
By contrast, foreign bank branches play a major role in investment banking but only have a small presence in retail and commercial banking.
(2) The new crisis management powers include resolution planning powers which will allow APRA to pre-position ADIs for resolution so they are better prepared for any future crises. Adequate resolution planning reduces the likelihood of a disorderly and costly financial crisis eventuating and minimises the potential impact of such event on the community.
Capital levels are important as they provide banks a safety buffer to absorb financial shocks. The more capital banks hold, the better equipped they are to absorb losses in the event of a shock.
The Government has supported APRA's efforts to ensure the capital levels of our banks are 'unquestionably strong' in its response to Recommendation 1 of the Financial Sector Inquiry.
(3) Deposits in Australian ADIs continue to be protected by the Government under the Financial Claims Scheme (FCS). In the event of a bank failure, the FCS ensures the return of Australian deposits (up to $250,000).
The introduction of new crisis management powers for APRA will provide a clearer framework for more efficient resolutions to financial crises (including increasing the likelihood of private sector resolutions). The legislation will ensure that APRA has the necessary powers to resolve an ADI in a way that protects the interests of depositors, as well as the stability of the financial system.
ANSWER TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION ON NOTICE
QUESTION NO: |
HOR836 (PQ17-000032) |
Date asked: |
18 October 2017 |
Asked by: |
Sharkie, Rebekha |
deadline for submission to minister's office |
|
Date due for tabling: |
16 December 2017 |
Subject: |
Government Consideration regarding the Banking System |
Contact officer name and number |
Patrick Mahony, 02 6263 3237 |
Group responsible: |
Financial System Division |
Clearance officer: |
Diane Brown |
Background: |
|
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Employee Share Schemes) Act 2015
(Question No. 837)
Dr Leigh asked the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, in writing, on 18 October 2017 —
In respect of my letter dated 5 June 2015 to the then Assistant Treasurer signalling the potential for an amendment to the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Employee Share Schemes) Bill 2015 that would provide for continued deferred taxation after employment ceases where the circumstances for the cessation are beyond the employee's control (ie, redundancy, illness, or injury), could he confirm
(a) receipt of the letter,
(b) whether the Government considered the merits of the proposal,
(c) the Government's position on the proposal, and
(d) whether The Treasury was tasked with
(i) modelling the proposal as an amendment, and
(ii) providing any revenue estimates and advice.
Ms O'Dwyer: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) – (b) The Government confirms receipt of the letter and considered the issues raised in the letter as part of its reforms to employee share schemes (ESS) that came into effect on 1 July 2015.
(c) – (d) The Government's position is reflected in theTax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Employment Share Schemes) Bill 2015.
Cider
(Question No. 842)
Ms Sharkie asked the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, in writing, on 23 October 2017 ‑
(1) Why is cider prepared from the juice or must of fruits other than apples and pears not included in the definition of cider under Standard 2.7.3 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.(2) Why is raspberry, blackberry and blueberry cider currently classified as other excisable beverage not exceeding 10 per cent by volume of alcohol under the Excise Tariff Act 1921 when cider is included in the definition of 'wine' under the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 (thereby, not attracting excise duty).(3) Will the Minister consider including cider prepared from the juice or must of fruits other than apples and pears (such as raspberries, blackberries and blueberries) as a class of beverage exempt from excise duty under the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999; if not, why not.
Ms O'Dwyer: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code is a matter for the Health portfolio.
(2) Cider with flavours or juice added to it such as raspberry, blackberry or blueberry, does not meet the definition of cider under the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999.
(3) The Government has recently considered alcohol taxation, with measures announced in the 2016-17 Budget.
National Security
(Question No. 845)
Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 26 October 2017:
(1) From 1 September 2013, how many citizens from foreign countries made it to the Australian border and were turned back after national security concerns were discovered 'in flight'.
(2) What were the departure and arrival points for these travellers.
(3) How many of these travellers were discovered to have national security concerns after clearing customs, and which airports did they enter.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
Where a non-citizen arriving at the Australian border is determined as having a non bona fide reason for entering the country, they are subject to removal from Australia. For operational reasons, a further breakdown of the grounds for refusal of entry into Australia is not able to be provided.
Aviation
(Question No. 847)
Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 26 October 2017:
Have the Australian Federal Police or Australian Border Force requested further resources be allocated to Adelaide Airport or other airports around the country; if so, (a) what were the specific requests, and (b) have any such requests been actioned.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
No request for additional resources has been made. Questions related to the Australian Federal Police resourcing at Australian airports should be directed to that agency.
National Security
(Question No. 848)
Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 26 October 2017:
(1) How many Counter Terrorism Unit Officers are based at airports around Australia.
(2) Has the Australian Border Force requested additional resources at Australian airports; if so, have any such requests been actioned.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
1. There are over 120 Counter Terrorism Unit officers located nationally.
2. No request for additional resources has been made.
Asbestos
(Question No. 865)
Mr Zappia asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 5 December 2017:
How many people in Australia are living with mesothelioma or another asbestos related disease, and are the numbers increasing.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
There is no single data source that can provide the number of people living in Australia with mesothelioma in 2017. However, the data that are available is as follows.
As at 31 May 2017, the Australian Mesothelioma Registry (AMR) had received
700 notifications of people newly diagnosed with mesothelioma between 1 January and 31 December 2016. 1
The average life expectancy following diagnosis with mesothelioma is nine months.1
In the period 2009-2013, the five-year relative survival at diagnosis of mesothelioma was 5.8 per cent.2
At the end of 2012, 498 people were alive who had been diagnosed with mesothelioma in the previous year (1-year prevalence).2
At the end of 2012, 877 people were alive who had been diagnosed with mesothelioma in the previous 5 years (5-year prevalence).2
Asbestos-related diseases include malignant diseases such as lung cancer, and
non-malignant diseases such as asbestosis. The number of people living with
asbestos-related diseases in Australia other than mesothelioma is unknown.
Since 1982, there has been a rising trend in newly diagnosed cases of mesothelioma in Australia. To date, the highest overall number of new cases was reported in 2014 (756). A decline is seen in recent years (2015 to 2016), however, this may be due to delays in notifications of mesothelioma cases to the AMR rather than a real decline in incidence.1
Research on the number of historical and projected cases of mesothelioma diagnosed in Australia suggests that Australia is currently experiencing the peak of reported cases (due to past occupational use of asbestos), and that the number should decrease noticeably after 2020. The incidence of non-occupational mesothelioma appears to be rising and is not projected to peak until at least 2030.3
1 The Australian Mesothelioma Registry Report 2016.
2 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2017. Cancer in Australia 2017. Cancer series no.101.
Cat. no. CAN 100. Canberra.
3 Future projections of the burden of mesothelioma in Australia. Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Report – 03-2016.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
(Question No. 866)
Mr Zappia asked the former Minister for Social Services, the Hon Christian Porter MP, in writing on 5 December 2017:
How many new jobs have been created since 1 July 2017 that are directly linked to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The number of jobs created since 1 July 2017 that are directly linked to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is not readily identifiable from available data sources.
In its October 2017 Study Report on NDIS Costs, the Productivity Commission stated that "the consensus is that the workforce will need to increase by between 60,000 - 90,000 full‑time equivalent employees (FTE) – or roughly double in size" by full Scheme in 2019-20. See www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/ndis-costs/report.
Jerusalem
(Question No. 868)
Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 5 December 2017:
(1) Was there a vote in the United Nations General Assembly on 30 November 2017 concerning the city of Jerusalem; if so, (a) did the ensuing resolution refer to one of the main holy places in Jerusalem, namely the Temple Mount, only by its Islamic name, the Haram al Sharif, and (b) is it a fact that (i) Canada and the United States voted against the resolution, and (ii) Australia abstained from voting.
(2) If Australia abstained from voting, how can this be justified given Australia's previously announced criticism of UNESCO for using only Islamic names for holy sites in Jerusalem, which the Government said 'could be seen as an attempt to alter the status quo at these Jewish and Islamic holy sites'
Ms Julie Bishop: the answer to the Honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Yes. (a) Yes. (b) Yes.
(2) Australia abstained again in 2017 on this resolution, unlike the Labor Government which voted in support in 2011 and 2012. The Government was concerned about the reference in the resolution to the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif by its arabic name only.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 869)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
To ask the Minister for Social Services - In 2016-17, what total sum was spent by his department on credit card (a) interest, and (b) fees.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In 2016-17, the total sum spent by the Department of Social Services on credit card interest and fees was nil.
Minister for Social Services
(Question No. 870)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 6 December 2017:
(1) In 2016-17, what sum was spent on the Minister for Social Services' (a) domestic travel, and (b) international travel.
(2) Of this, (a) on what dates and to what locations did the Minister for Social Services travel, (b) how many departmental staff accompanied the Minister for Social Services on this travel, and (c) what was the purpose of the travel.
Mr Morrison: The Minister for Finance has supplied the answer to the honourable member's question:
The Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA) regularly publishes reports detailing usage of work expenses by Senators and Members including details of domestic and international travel by Ministers.
The reports are available on the IPEA website: www.ipea.gov.au.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 871)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
In 2016-17, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment of his ministerial staff, and what goods were replaced?
Mr Tehan: The answer provided by my predecessor, the Hon Christian Porter MP, to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department of Social Services was not required to replace any lost, stolen or misplaced equipment for Minister Porter's ministerial staff in 2016-17.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 872)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
To ask the Minister for Social Services - What sum was spent by his department on advertising and associated services in 2016-17, and what policy areas did this relate to.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In 2016-17, the Department spent $5,429,005.09 including GST on advertising.
Policy |
(GST Excl) $ |
GST $ |
(GST Incl) $ |
National Centre for Longitudinal Data Centre Management Website advertising and elect printing |
$29,328.34 |
$2,932.83 |
$32,261.17 |
National Disability Awards |
$8,521.61 |
$852.16 |
$9,373.77 |
Cashless Debit Card |
$5,032.48 |
$503.25 |
$5,535.73 |
Business Services Wage Assessment Tool |
$13,780.00 |
$1,378.00 |
$15,158.00 |
Harmony Day |
$6,735.13 |
$673.51 |
$7,408.64 |
National Disability Insurance Scheme |
$12,444.19 |
$1,244.42 |
$13,688.61 |
Volunteer Grants program |
$30,631.34 |
$3,063.13 |
$33,694.47 |
National Campaign – Violence Against Women |
$4,699,019.50 |
$469,901.95 |
$5,168,921.45 |
Staff recruitment |
$129,966.59 |
$12,996.66 |
$142,963.25 |
Total Advertising Expenditure |
$4,935,459.18 |
$493,545.91 |
$5,429,005.09 |
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 873)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
To ask the Minister for Social Services - What sum was spent on promotional material and merchandise for his department in 2016-17, and of this, (a) what types of promotional material and merchandise were produced, and (b) what policy areas did this relate to.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In 2016-17, the Department spent $12,523 including GST on promotional products. This comprised:
Item type |
Quantity purchased |
Purpose |
Expenditure $ (GST incl) |
Expenditure $ (GST ex) |
Lanyards Card holders Tote bags Pens |
1,100 700 700 700 |
Items for the National Centre for Longitudinal Data conference |
$10,340 |
$9,400 |
Lapel Badges |
2,500 |
Harmony Day promotion |
$2,183 |
$1,985 |
Total |
|
|
$12,523 |
$11,385 |
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 874)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
What sum was spent on replenishing his drinks cabinet in 2016-17, on what date were these purchases made, and what was purchased?
Mr Tehan: The answer provided by my predecessor, the Hon Christian Porter MP, to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Minister Porter does not have a drinks cabinet.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 875)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
Were there any instances of fraud or theft detected by his department from (a) internal sources, or (b) external sources, that incurred costs to his department in 2016-17; if so, (i) what fraud or theft took place, (ii) when did the fraud or theft take place, (iii) what was the cost to his department of this fraud or theft, and (iv) what action has been taken to prevent such theft or fraud occurring again?
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department of Social Services (DSS) created one external investigation case relating to fraud during 2016-17. The matter in question related to the Emergency Relief Program and fraudulent use of program funds. It was identified that two staff of the provider in question were the perpetrators of this fraud. The fraud occurred between April and July 2016 and the total amount defrauded from the department was $52,630, which was fully recovered from the provider. The provider in question has strengthened internal controls, increased spot-checking, increased reporting and monthly resetting of database passwords.
No internal investigation cases were created relating to fraud or theft in 2016-17.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 876)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
To ask the Minister for Social Services – In respect of staff in his department, (a) how many redundancies were made in 2016-17, (b) in what area(s) were these redundancies, and (c) what was the cost of payments associated with these redundancies.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) There were 92 voluntary redundancy payments made to staff in 2016-17.
(b) The representation of voluntary redundancies for each state is as follows:
State |
Number of employees |
ACT |
59 |
NSW |
9 |
Vic |
6 |
TAS |
6 |
SA |
0 |
WA |
6 |
NT |
1 |
QLD |
5 |
TOTAL |
92 |
(c) The cost of the voluntary redundancies in the 2016-17 financial year was $6.402 million.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 877)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
To ask the Minister for Social Services - What sum was spent by his department on market research and associated services in 2016-17, and what policy areas did this inform.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The 2016-17 Annual Report notes in 2016-17 the Department spent $1,398,129 including GST on market research. The Annual Report also identifies the policy areas for each line of expenditure.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 878)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
To ask the Minister for Social Services - In respect of the use of (a) consultants, and (b) contractors, by his department in 2016-17, (i) what total sum was spent, (ii) what services were provided, and (iii) which firms provided the services.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(i) The department's consultant and contractor expenses for the 2016-17 financial year were $14.091 million for consultants and $122.422 million for contractors.
(ii) and (iii) Details of the firms engaged by the department valued at $10,000 or more in 2016-17, including a description of the services provided, are available on the AusTender website (https://www.tenders.gov.au).
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 879)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
In respect of labour hire firms contracted by his department in 2016-17, (a) how many positions were filled using casual staff from labour hire firms, (b) what sum was spent on the provision of these casual staff, and (c) what roles did these casual staff fill?
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
For the 2016-17 financial year:
a) Approximately 700 staff were employed through labour hire, temporary contracts and contractual service arrangements;
b) Expenditure was approximately $120 million; and
c) Details of contracts entered into by the Department of Social Services valued at $10,000 or more are publicly available on the AusTender website (https://www.tenders.gov.au/).
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 880)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
To ask the Minister for Social Services - In respect of costs for departmental media, what sum was spent on drones in 2016-17.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
For the 2016-17 financial year, the Department did not spend any money on drones.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 881)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
To ask the Minister for Social Services - In respect of costs for departmental staff, what sum has been spent on (a) gym, and (b) pool, memberships in 2016-17, and was this part of an enterprise agreement entitlement.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) No funds were spent on gym memberships for departmental staff in 2016-17.
(b) No funds were spent on pool memberships for departmental staff in 2016-17.
The Department of Social Services Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018 does not provide for payment of gym or pool memberships.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 882)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
To ask the Minister for Social Services - What sum did his ministerial office spend on office furniture in 2016-17.
Mr Tehan: The answer provided by my predecessor, the Hon Christian Porter MP, to the honourable member's question is as follows:
After receiving advice from the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, I can confirm that zero funds were expended on office furniture for my Commonwealth Parliamentary Office suite for the period 2016-17.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 883)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
What sum did his department spend on the end of 2016-17 party.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department's expenditure on an end of 2016-17 party was nil, as it did not hold an end of 2016-17 party.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 884)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
What sum has been spent on media and public speaking training for Ministers within his portfolio since 2014.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Since 2014, the Department has not paid for any media and public speaking training for Ministers within my portfolio.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 885)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
In respect of costs for departmental media, what sum was spent on (a) external social media and marketing consultants and/or agencies, (b) boosting or sponsoring Facebook posts, (c) boosting twitter posts, (d) advertising on YouTube, (e) advertising on Google, (f) advertising on snapchat, and (g) sponsored Instagram posts.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In the 2016-17 financial year, the Department spent the following on social media, excluding GST:
a. External social media and marketing consultants and/or agencies - $177,160.00
b. Boosting and sponsoring Facebook posts - $1,069,394.88
c. Boosting twitter posts - $200,000.00
d. Advertising on YouTube - $163,498.87
e. Advertising on Google - $111,954.32
f. Advertising on snapchat - $0.00
g. Sponsored Instagram posts - $0.00
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 886)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
In respect of non '.gov.au' domain names for his department, (a) what sum was spent on domain names owned by his department in 2016‑17, (b) how many domain names are owned by his department, (c) what are their URLs, and (d) why does his department own these domain names.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Renewal for basicscard.com.au for 2 Years AUD $153.98 inc GST (04 Aug 2016)
TOTAL = $153.98
(b) Three non '.gov.au' domain names are owned by the Department of Social Services.
(c) The registered domains are: basicscard.com.au, idpwd.com.au and dssnews.net.au.
(d) The non '.gov.au' domains are used for the following purposes:
basicscard.com.au is registered for brand protection only and is not used as an active URL for any website.
dpwd.com.au is used for the International Day for People with a Disability website. The domain was first registered in 2008 and has been extensively used in communication for many years.
dssnews.net.au is not used as a URL for any departmental website, but is instead used by the Department's third party mailing provider to send external communications to our stakeholders who have self-subscribed to a DSS mailing list.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 887)
Mr Keogh: asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
In respect of ministerial office expenses, what sum was spent on portrait photos of him in 2016-17?
Mr Tehan: The answer provided by my predecessor, the Hon Christian Porter MP, to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Minister Porter has not spent any money on portrait photos in 2016-17.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 889)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
In respect of ministerial office expenses in 2016-17, (a) what sum was spent on the use of private dining rooms, and (b) where were these dinners held?
Mr Tehan: The answer provided by my predecessor, the Hon Christian Porter MP, to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Minister Porter did not spend any money on private dining rooms in 2016-17.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 890)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
In respect of departmental office expenses, (a) what sum was spent on the use of private dining rooms, and (b) where were these dinners held.
Mr Tehan: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The department's office expenses are not tracked to this level of detail in the finance system. To obtain this level of detail would require an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources.
Department of Social Services
(Question No. 891)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Social Services in writing on 6 December 2017:
Were there any instances of cyber security breaches within his ministerial office concerning the hacking of (a) mobile phones, (b) social media accounts; if so, what sum did it cost to (i) investigate, and (ii) remedy, these breaches?
Mr Tehan: The answer provided by my predecessor, the Hon Christian Porter MP, to the honourable member's question is as follows:
There are no records of the Department of Social Services assisting Minister Porter's Office concerning the hacking of mobile phones or social media accounts.