The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (09:31): I present report No. 21 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 12 February 2018. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 6 February 2018.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 6 February 2018, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 12 February 2018, as follows:
Items for House of Representative
s Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS
'
BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and for related purposes. (Competition and Consumer Amendment (FreeRange Eggs) Bill 2018)
(Notice given 6 February 2018.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes. (Fair Work Amendment (Making Australia More Equal) Bill 2018)
(Notice given 6 February 2018.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 MR 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.
(Notice given 5 February 2018.)
Time allotted —20 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Buchholz —10 minutes.
Next Member speaking —10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
4 MR CHAMPION : To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that the $210 million funding cut to South Australian schools in 2018 and 2019 means that schools will face significant cuts, which the South Australian Government has estimated to include:
(a) $1,315,000 from Adelaide High School;
(b) $882,000 from Craigmore High School;
(c) $1,392,000 from Norwood Morialta High School;
(d) $1,114,000 from Gawler and District College B-12;
(e) $817,000 from Parafield Gardens High School;
(f) $1,226,000 from Paralowie School;
(g) $875,000 from Playford International College;
(h) $512,000 from Nailsworth Primary School;
(i) $731,000 from Glenelg Primary School;
(j) $24,000 from South Australian School for Vision Impaired;
(k) $1,165,000 from Roma Mitchell Secondary College;
(l) $426,000 from Port Noarlunga Primary School; and
(m) $863,000 from Thebarton Senior College; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to immediately reinstate the funding previously committed to South Australian schools.
(Notice given 6 February 2018.)
Time allotted —40 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Champion —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
5 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.
(Notice given 5 February 2018.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits —
Mr Crewther —10 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR VAN MANEN: To move—
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the importance of open trade and investment policies in growing the Australian economy and creating local jobs;
(2) commends the Government for leading efforts to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 nation (TPP-11) agreement;
(3) welcomes the recent conclusion of this landmark deal which will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone with a combined GDP of AUD $13.7 trillion;
(4) notes the significant opportunities offered by new trade agreements with Canada and Mexico and greater market access to Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei;
(5) recognises the importance of the agreement for Australia's farmers, manufacturers and service providers in increasing their competitiveness in overseas markets;
(6) notes indicative modelling by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which found that the TPP-11 agreement would boost Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent and exports by 4 per cent; and
(7) encourages the Parliament to work co-operatively to ratify the TPP-11 agreement so that Australian exporters can take advantage of the many benefits it delivers.
(Notice given 6 February 2018.)
Time allotted —30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr van Manen —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
2 MS MCGOWAN: To move—
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) among 15 rural research and development corporations which receive statutory levies partly matched by the Commonwealth, the representation of women is no higher than 44 per cent, is as low as 11 per cent, and averages 26 per cent;
(b) the Australian Institute of Company Directors (Institute) says its quest for 30 per cent female representation across ASX 200 boards by 2018 has stalled;
(c) the Institute's latest gender diversity report shows that as of 31 August 2017 there were 25.4 per cent female directors, only marginally higher than the
25.3 per cent reached at the end of 2016;
(d) at the time of the publication of the Institute's latest gender diversity report, 11 ASX 200 companies had no women on their boards; and
(e) the Institute says that the Government may be forced to intervene with quotas to force companies to appoint more female directors;
(2) acknowledges the Diversity in Agriculture Leadership Program (Program) initiative launched by the National Farmers' Federation and AACo on 15 October 2017, which asks organisations to commit to auditing the gender diversity within their leadership teams and pledge to make 'meaningful change' towards achieving enhanced gender equality; and
(3) calls on the:
(a) Government to support the Program and similar initiatives to ensure that companies appoint more female directors; and
(b) Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources to outline to the Parliament a plan to increase the representation of women to a minimum of 30 per cent on all agricultural boards over which the Government has some level of influence, including rural research and development corporations, agricultural committees, panels and councils.
(Notice given 24 October 2017.)
Time allotted —30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms McGowan —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
3 MR WALLACE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 8 million Australians live outside our capital cities; and
(b) while some regions like the Sunshine Coast are experiencing strong economic growth, others are not enjoying the same levels of economic activity;
(2) further notes that:
(a) many regions, including the Sunshine Coast, can supply substantially lower office accommodation costs and lower operating costs;
(b) regions such as the Sunshine Coast can offer a highly educated workforce, high quality business facilities, first class health and transport infrastructure, as well as innovative start-up communities;
(c) regions, including the Sunshine Coast, can offer lifestyle benefits like lower cost housing, short commute times and a family-friendly environment; and
(d) research suggests that highly skilled people are taking increasing account of lifestyle factors when choosing their employer;
(3) welcomes the Government's pursuit of a policy of decentralisation of public sector agencies, and the recent relocation of some parts of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to Wodonga; and
(4) encourages the Government to continue to explore further options for the relocation of Commonwealth agencies to the regions.
(Notice given 16 August 2017.)
Time allotted —30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Wallace —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking= 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
4 MS T. M. BUTLER: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Government's short-sighted $2.2 billion in cuts to universities are equivalent to more than 9,500 Australians missing out on a university place in 2018, and again in 2019;
(b) across the country this month, students will be attending university, with orientation periods beginning, and that these students are faced with more uncertainty about how the cuts will affect their student experience; and
(c) the Government's short-sighted cuts will hurt regional and outer metropolitan universities and their students the most; and
(2) calls on the Government to reverse its short-sighted, unfair cuts to universities, which are closing the door of opportunity to thousands of Australians.
(Notice given 6 February 2018.)
Time allotted —30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms T. M. Butler —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
5 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.
(Notice given 5 February 2018.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits —
Mr Zappia —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Federati on Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices — continued
6 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.
(Notice given 5 February 2018.)
Time allotted —55 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Leeser —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 11 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
7 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.
(Notice given 5 February 2018.)
Time allotted —50 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Thistlethwaite —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
8 MR ZIMMERMAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the release on 5 October 2017 of the Consular State of Play 2016-17 (State of Play), which provides an overview of the Government's provision of consular assistance to Australians in the last financial year;
(2) acknowledges the hard work and dedication of Australian consular officials who have provided high-quality assistance to Australians in distress in 12,454 cases during 2016-17;
(3) notes with concern that a significant number of Australian travellers are travelling overseas without insurance;
(4) reiterates the Minister for Foreign Affairs' remarks in launching the State of Play that if travellers cannot afford travel insurance, they cannot afford to travel;
(5) acknowledges that the Australian Government will provide consular assistance where possible, while noting there are limits to what it can do to assist Australians in trouble overseas; and
(6) calls on Australians to:
(a) draw on resources such as Australian Government Smartraveller advice to inform themselves about their destination; and
(b) purchase insurance appropriate to their activities and circumstances.
(Notice given 17 October 2017.)
Time allotted —30 minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Zimmerman —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
9 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.
(Notice given 5 February 2018.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits —
Mr Albanese —5 minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
BILLS
Identity-matching Services Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:32): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Identity-matching Services Bill 2018 implements the Intergovernmental Agreement on Identity Matching Services, which was agreed between the Prime Minister and the first ministers of all states and territories at the Special Meeting of the Council of Australian Governments on Counter-Terrorism of 5 October 2017.
Under this intergovernmental agreement, the Commonwealth and all states and territories agreed to preserve or introduce legislation to support the sharing of facial images and related identity information via a set of identity-matching services, for a range of national security, law enforcement, community safety and related purposes, while maintaining robust privacy safeguards.
The identity-matching services enabled by this bill will help to strengthen the integrity and security of Australia's identity infrastructure—the identity management systems of government agencies that issue the documents most commonly used by Australians to provide evidence of their identity, such as driver licences and passports.
These systems play an important role in preventing identity crime, which is one of the most common and costly crimes in our country.
By preventing identity crime, the identity-matching services enabled by this bill will help to protect the identities of everyday Australians from theft and misuse, and help those who have fallen victim to identity theft to more easily restore their compromised identities.
Identity theft is an issue that is of significant concern to many Australians—and with good reason. Around one in 20 Australians every year are the victims of identity crime, with an estimated annual cost of $2.2 billion.
In addition to financial losses, the consequences experienced by victims of identity crime can include mental health impacts, wrongful arrest, and significant emotional distress when attempting to restore a compromised identity.
Identity crime is also a key enabler of serious and organised crime, including terrorism.
Australians previously convicted of terrorism related offences are known to have used fake identities to purchase items such as ammunition, chemicals that can be used to manufacture explosives, and mobile phones to communicate anonymously to evade detection.
Identity crime is aided by the growing sophistication of criminal syndicates and the technology now able to support them in manufacturing fake identity documents.
Organised criminal groups are now producing false driver licence and other documents in bulk, often using similar technology to that available to the government issuing agency itself.
An operation by the joint Australian Federal Police and New South Wales Police Identity Security Strike Team found that the fraudulent identities seized from just one criminal syndicate were linked to:
29 high profile criminals linked to historic or ongoing illicit drug investigations,
more than $7 million in losses associated with fraud against individuals and financial institutions, and
more than $50 million in funds that were laundered offshore and were likely to be proceeds of crime.
These documents often have genuine biographic details, but a fraudulent photograph, and can therefore be difficult to detect. This is a particular problem for driver licences, which are the most commonly used photo identification documents in Australia and therefore are the most sought after by criminals.
For many years government agencies have been able to verify biographic information on driver licences and other identity documents such as passports by using the Document Verification Service (DVS).
However, name-based checking tools such as the DVS cannot detect documents that contain legitimate biographic details but with a substituted photo, nor can they identify an unknown person from a facial image.
The identity-matching services enabled by this bill will greatly assist our law enforcement and national security agencies by providing authorised agencies with the means to rapidly share and match facial images drawn from existing databases in order to identify unknown persons, and detect people using multiple fraudulent identities.
This will help our agencies to more quickly identify persons involved in a range of serious criminal activities, importantly, to bring them to justice.
Beyond the national security and law enforcement benefits, these identity-matching services can make government and private sector services more secure, accessible and convenient to citizens.
This supports the government's Digital Transformation Agenda and offers significant cost savings and greater identity assurance for private sector entities seeking to comply with anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing regulations.
The identity-matching services will also help to mitigate the impact of the 'black economy' and make it more difficult to use fraudulent identities to avoid legitimate taxation and other financial obligations.
The identity-matching services will also benefit victims of natural disasters who are seeking access to support, including those who have lost their identity documents.
By checking the person's photo against a passport or driver licence image, government agencies will be able to assist individuals to verify their identity in order to receive disaster relief payments, and assist them in replacing their lost or damaged government documents.
The identity-matching services will also make it harder for persons to obtain driver licences in false identities in an attempt to avoid traffic fines, demerit points or licence cancellations. This will improve road safety by increasing the detection and prosecution of these offences and deterring dangerous driving activity.
The bill will help deliver these benefits by providing explicit legal authority for the Department of Home Affairs to collect, use and disclose identification information in order to operate the technical systems that will facilitate the identity-matching services envisaged by the intergovernmental agreement.
The bill will authorise the Department of Home Affairs to operate a central interoperability hub, which is one of the technical systems that supports the identity-matching services.
This hub is not a database and does not conduct any facial biometric matching. Rather it acts like a router, transmitting matching requests received from user agencies to facial image databases. These databases conduct the matching using facial recognition software and return a response back via the hub.
The hub does not store any personal information, but retains certain data about transactions for auditing and oversight purposes.
This approach enables the matching of images between agencies that operate different facial recognition systems that otherwise may not be compatible.
The passport, visa and citizenship images that are used in the identity-matching services will continue to be held separately in databases by the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as the agencies that issue these documents.
Driver licence images will be made available via a National Driver Licence Facial Recognition Solution. This system will be hosted by the Department of Home Affairs on behalf of the states and territories in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement.
The system will consist of a database of driver licence images and information supplied by each state and territory, and a facial recognition system for biometric comparison of facial images against facial images in the database.
The design of the driver licence database will enable each state and territory authority to control access to its data via the identity-matching services, and it will not provide the Department of Home Affairs with the ability to view, modify or update identification information supplied by state and territory authorities.
The bill will authorise the Department of Home Affairs to collect, use and disclose identity information for the purposes of developing, operating and maintaining the identity matching services. The bill will define the scope of these services in terms of:
the types of information that may be used in the services,
the name and functions of the services,
the types of organisations that may use the services, and
the purpose for which the services may be provided.
Rather than enabling the use of any type of personal information, the bill defines, and therefore limits, the identification information that may be used in the services. In doing so, the bill excludes certain types of personal information from being used in the services, such as information about a person's political opinions or religious beliefs. This is to ensure that the department may collect, use and disclose only those types of information that are reasonably necessary in order to provide the identity-matching services.
The identity-matching services to be enabled by the bill will reflect those in the intergovernmental agreement.
These include a Face Verification Service that will help to verify a person's identity. In addition to preventing identity crime, this service will make it easier for people to prove their identity when they are applying for government services.
Use of the Face Verification Service will commence with government agencies, but the bill also enables the service to be provided to private sector organisations—for example, banks or telecommunications providers—that have regulatory customer identification requirements.
It is important to note that private sector organisations may use the Face Verification Service only with the consent of the person whose information is being verified.
The bill also provides for a Face Identification Service, which law enforcement and national security agencies will be able to use to identify unknown persons or detect persons using multiple fraudulent identities.
Recognising the increased privacy impacts of this service, its use will be constrained only to those agencies with national security, law enforcement or anti-corruption functions that are specifically listed in this bill.
The bill also provides for other identity-matching services that are designed for use by state and territory driver licensing authorities, to help improve the integrity of their data and licence-issuing processes.
In authorising the Department of Home Affairs to collect, use and disclose identification information for the purpose of providing the identity-matching services, the bill limits the department's provision of these services to certain defined 'identity or community protection activities'. These activities include:
preventing and detecting identity fraud
law enforcement
national security
protective security
community safety
road safety
verifying identity
Importantly, the bill does not provide any additional legislative authority for other agencies or organisations to collect personal information in order to use the services. These organisations will need to have a separate legal basis to support their use of the identity-matching services.
The bill provides a rule-making power to enable the Minister for Home Affairs to expand the types of identification information that may be used in the identity-matching services or to add new services in future. To ensure that the privacy and other human rights implications of these rules are taken into account, the bill requires these rules to be developed in consultation with the Information Commissioner and the Human Rights Commissioner. As legislative instruments, these rules will also be subject to parliamentary review.
To provide robust protections over the information used in the identity-matching services, the bill will provide for new criminal offences with penalties of two years imprisonment for unauthorised recording or disclosure of certain protected information. This includes identification used in the identity-matching services, as well as other information that relates to the security of the systems supporting the services.
These offences will apply to employees or other persons working on behalf of the Department of Home Affairs, defined as 'entrusted persons'. These offences will be in addition to existing offences for the misuse of personal information contained in a range of legislation which will continue to apply to the department and to the other agencies that use the identity-matching services.
The bill will also provide robust accountability and transparency measures to help maintain public confidence in the operation of the identity-matching services. These include annual reporting to parliament on the extent of use of the services by government agencies and private sector organisations, and a statutory review to be commenced within five years.
In conclusion, this bill will give effect to the commitments made by the Commonwealth in entering into the Intergovernmental Agreement on Identity Matching Services.
The identity-matching services enabled by the bill will help to reduce the impact of identity crime on the community, helping Australians to prove their identities more securely and easily.
They will also promote a range of law enforcement, national security and community safety outcomes, while providing robust privacy protections over the use of personal information.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms O'Dwyer.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Minister for Women and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (09:46): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Schedule 1 to this bill makes a number of regulatory improvements to Treasury portfolio laws.
This measure forms part of the government's regulatory reform agenda, which is focused on renewing our existing regulatory systems, to ensure that they are fit for purpose, flexible and capable of adapting to new business models as they emerge.
The regulatory improvements found in Schedule 1 include:
amending the superannuation laws to enable the Commissioner of Taxation to pay certain superannuation amounts directly to individuals with a terminal medical condition;
amending the Corporations Act 2001 to modify the notification and reporting obligations applying to certain corporations that have property in receivership or property in respect of which a controller is acting; and
repealing several inoperative Acts as well as amending the taxation laws to remove a number of inoperative or spent provisions.
These measures were previously introduced in Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day 2015) Bill 2015 and Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015 which lapsed on the calling of the 2016 election.
These amendments will reduce compliance costs for both individuals and business.
Schedule 2 to this bill extends tax relief for merging superannuation funds.
When superannuation funds merge, assets need to be transferred to the new merged fund. When these assets are transferred, tax liabilities could arise which would reduce the balances of superannuation members.
The tax relief allows superannuation funds to defer tax consequences on the transfer of assets to the new merged fund. It also allows the transfer of valuable tax losses made in previous years, which would otherwise be lost when funds merged. This tax relief has been in place since December 2008 and was due to lapse in July 2017. Extending the tax relief will ensure that tax isn't an impediment to superannuation funds merging where the mergers are otherwise in the best interests of members. It will also ensure that members' balances are protected when mergers take place.
Schedule 3 to this bill also provides ongoing funding, on a cost recovery basis, to the Gateway Network Governance Body to ensure the efficient operation of the Superannuation Transaction Network. This funding model continues the arrangements used to establish the Superannuation Transaction Network which will expire on 30 June 2018.
Schedule 4 to this bill transfers the regulatory role for early release of superannuation benefits on compassionate grounds from the Chief Executive Medicare (Department of Human Services) to the Commissioner of Taxation (Australian Taxation Office).
The transfer is intended to streamline the process around the release of these benefits to individuals through their superannuation fund. The ATO already administers several programs relating to the release of superannuation benefits and has existing interactions with both superannuation fund members and the superannuation industry.
Schedule 5 to this bill amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services) Act 1999, Tax Administration Act 1953 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997to give effect to the 2017-18 budget measure to improve the integrity of GST on certain kinds of property transactions.
This schedule is designed to protect GST revenue and stop tax evasion by unscrupulous property developers. From 1 July 2018, purchasers of new residential premises or new residential subdivisions will be responsible for remitting the GST on the purchase price directly to the Australian Taxation Office as part of the settlement process. Currently, purchasers of such properties pay the GST as part of the purchase price to the developers, who in turn are required to remit the GST to the ATO through their next business activity statement.
As the payment to the ATO can occur up to three months after collecting the GST, some developers exploit this time lag by 'phoenixing'—they dissolve their business and set up new entities to avoid remitting the GST to the ATO.
As an unsecured creditor, the ATO is unable to recover the GST owed because the company carrying the GST liability has been stripped of all its assets.
The level of this phoenixing to avoid paying GST has grown significantly over the last decade.
According to ATO data, over the past five years more than 3,700 individuals have been identified as engaged in this sort of activity. These individuals controlled over 12,000 insolvent entities responsible for $1.8 billion in debt written off. The insolvent entities also claimed $1.2 billion in GST credits between 2013 and 2017.
By making purchasers pay the GST to the ATO at the point of settlement, the measure will remove the time lag in GST payment, which is the main enabler of current evasion activity.
Contracts entered into before 1 July 2018 will not be affected by this change as long as the transaction settles before 1 July 2020. The government has worked closely with property developers, lawyers, conveyancers and financiers to develop an effective implementation model that also has minimal impact on the industry and on purchasers.
This schedule is part of a broader package of tax integrity measures that the government announced in the 2017-18 budget to ensure that all entities pay the right amount of tax. These measures include tackling GST fraud in the precious metals industry, improving the integrity of small business capital gains tax concessions, and toughening the multinational anti-avoidance law.
Full details of this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms O'Dwyer.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Minister for Women and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (09:53): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill enhances the integrity of Australia's tax system with the introduction of the government's response to the Black Economy Taskforce interim report.
The Turnbull government established the Black Economy Taskforce in December 2016 to develop a whole-of-government response for tackling the black economy.
The black economy extends from organised crime to individuals and businesses who operate outside the tax and regulatory system, understating their income and avoiding their obligations to report to the Australian Taxation Office.
More broadly, participation in the black economy undermines community trust in the tax system, creates an uneven playing field among competing businesses and results in the loss of government revenue.
The use of technology to hide income, and the non-reporting or understating of income by contractors, are two black economy activities targeted in this bill.
The Turnbull government is committed to improving tax fairness among businesses and strengthening the integrity of our tax system. We are committed to collecting tax properly payable from those who are dodging their liability.
Schedule 1 to this bill creates new offences to ban the manufacture, distribution, possession, sale and use of electronic sales suppression tools.
There is no legitimate reason for these tools. They remove transactions from electronic record keeping systems, falsify transactions to reduce the amount of each sale and modify GST taxable sales to GST non-taxable sales. And they leave no audit trail.
These new, strict liability offences target each stage of the supply chain manufacture and production, supply and use of electronic sales suppression tools. Heavy penalties can be imposed in order to deter the use of this technology across the supply chain.
Schedule 2 introduces compulsory reporting to the ATO by businesses operating in the courier and cleaning industries.
The Black Economy Taskforce identified that contractor payments in the courier and cleaning industries are areas of high risk for the non-reporting of income. The government is therefore extending the taxable payments reporting system to the courier and cleaning industries.
The taxable payments reporting system applies to entities holding an Australian Business Number that provide services in identified industries. These entities have to report annually to the ATO about payments they have made to contractors for undertaking those services for them, for example as a subcontractor. Reporting these payments will improve transparency to the ATO and bring the payments more into line with the compliance obligations on employers who must report the wages they pay.
The taxable payments reporting system has been successful. The implementation of that reporting system in the building and construction industry led to improvements in contractor compliance with GST and income disclosure.
The introduction of mandatory reporting of business-to-business payments for services within the courier and the cleaning industries will encourage correct disclosure of income. The payments the subcontractors receive will have been reported to the ATO by the businesses that acquired their services. The additional reporting will allow the ATO to target compliance activity.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by MrFletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities) (09:57): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
An important responsibility of the Australian government is to set road vehicle standards. The objective is that road vehicles delivered or used in transport in Australia for the first time meet community expectations—for safety, for environmental protection and for other important issues such as anti-theft and energy conservation features. That is why we impose nationally consistent standards that road vehicles must meet prior to being used in transport in Australia—known as the Australian Design Rules.
In 2017, over 1.2 million vehicles entered the Australian market for the first time—including passenger vehicles; heavy, medium and light commercial vehicles; motorcycles; and trailers. The vast majority of these were new vehicles fully compliant with the Australian Design Rules. Used imported vehicles comprise less than two per cent of vehicles entering the Australian market for the first time.
For over 27 years the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989, and its regulatory instruments, such as the Australian Design Rules, have set out the regulatory framework governing the importation and first supply of road vehicles in Australia.
There are important reasons for regulating these issues rather than leaving it to the market. Firstly, consumers cannot generally observe key features of a vehicle until they are directly tested (such as in the event of a crash). Secondly, society as a whole derives benefit from imposing restrictions (for example, to minimise road trauma or pollution) that a consumer would not necessarily consider when purchasing an unregulated vehicle.
The existing motor vehicle standards legislation was written in a different time, when much of today's vehicle technology was not available. Since the act's last comprehensive review—over 17 years ago—there have been significant changes in global and domestic automobile markets, improvements in vehicle technologies and a general shift in consumer expectations and vehicle preferences.
In the second reading speech for the original Motor Vehicle Standards Act, the minister at that time noted that some 2,500 people were killed on our roads annually. At that time there were 9.4 million vehicles registered for use on Australian roads. By the end of this year, there will be almost 19 million vehicles registered for use on Australian roads—growing at around two per cent per annum—and our annual road toll has reduced to less than 1,300—although, of course, that still remains far too high.
Mandated safety standard improvements—such as seatbelts, anti-lock braking systems and electronic stability control—have helped drive this reduction in road deaths. Even so, the continued economic cost to the community of road trauma is estimated at around $27 billion per annum, quite apart from its terrible human impact.
Safety technology has greatly improved—with airbags, electronic stability control and anti-lock braking systems now commonplace. We have also seen advances in engine emissions control and new anti-theft technologies such as immobilisers. Our cars and trucks today are faster, safer, lighter, cleaner and harder to steal than ever before.
But the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 has struggled to keep up with the changes in the marketplace. Amendments or administrative workarounds have been implemented to resolve market barrier problems, deal with new ways motor vehicles can reach the Australian market and meet changing consumer demands.
These isolated and incremental amendments to the legislation have contributed to complexity across the regulatory framework—making the act cumbersome to administer and difficult to interpret. In turn this imposes significant regulatory costs on businesses and consumers.
The future of motor vehicle transport is changing rapidly—and the way we regulate vehicles needs to allow for, and adapt to, this change. The Australian community expects vehicles that produce less harmful emissions and have greater fuel efficiency. We are seeing this already, in the global market and increasingly in the Australian market, through ever more fuel-efficient vehicles and also through the growing presence of electric vehicles and vehicles using other technologies, such as hydrogen.
We therefore need legislation which safeguards the safety, environmental performance and consumer protection features of the vehicles of today; but we also need legislation which can respond flexibly as motor vehicles evolve.
Today, the government is introducing the Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018—and a legislative package to safeguard our community, protect the consumer whilst providing choice, and improve the competitiveness of our road transport sector.
There are four accompanying bills, designed to deliver an efficient transition from the current arrangements to the new regulatory framework, and to allow the Commonwealth to recover the cost of supporting and administering a robust and efficient regulatory framework.
The objectives of the Road Vehicle Standards Bill, set out in section 3, are:
to set nationally consistent performance based standards for all road vehicles being provided in Australia; and
to provide consumers in Australia with a choice of safe, environmentally sound and secure road vehicles that can utilise global technological advancements.
These objectives capture the government's intentions—to strike a balance between applying appropriate safety, environmental performance and security standards to vehicles entering the Australian market for the first time and providing as much consumer choice as possible.
The bill replaces the current Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 and provides the regulatory platform for national vehicle standards that strengthen and modernise the current legislative framework. It allows a risk-based approach to regulatory practice while simplifying the approval and importation pathways for vehicles and improving access to a diverse range of vehicles for specialist use and enthusiast interests.
The title of the bill—Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018—reflects its coverage of all vehicles intended for use on our roads, which includes trailers and components used in approved road vehicles. The bill's coverage does not include motorised and other vehicles that are not intended for road use, such as tractors, quad bikes and on-site mining plant and equipment.
Principles
The design of the Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018 and its related bills, rules and regulations was guided by five principles.
The first principle is to provide legislation which is flexible and responsive, given how fast the motor vehicle is already changing and how fast it is expected to continue to change.
For example, the bill allows for incorporation of different material into the national road vehicle standards—ensuring more novel standards may be referenced alongside the traditional sources of vehicle standards. Standards relating to cybersecurity in autonomous vehicle fleets would be one such example.
The second principle is clear legislation. This bill reflects modern legal drafting standards to strengthen the existing regulatory framework, whilst improving transparency and decision-making. It has a structure that clearly lays out the pathways, and the tools supporting those pathways, in a way that citizens can reasonably understand and utilise.
The third principle is more choice of road vehicles for Australians. Australians continue to require some vehicles that are unable to meet the full complement of national standards. These vehicles may have enthusiast features, such as being rare, high performance, low emission or having accessibility features; or they may be designed to perform particular specialised jobs that fully compliant vehicles are not capable of achieving.
The bill simplifies and clarifies arrangements for the importation of vehicles granted concessions against the national standards by consolidating the current pathways into one concessional entry pathway. It also expands the range of vehicles that can be considered under the specialist and enthusiast vehicle provisions.
The fourth principle is improved compliance and enforcement powers to improve safety outcomes. A key challenge in the regulation of the provision of road vehicles is maintaining high levels of community benefit, whilst minimising compliance costs imposed on a diverse industry with diverse products.
The bill addresses this issue by delivering a flexible regulatory framework, with a graduated toolkit to monitor and enforce compliance with the rules. This is backed up with standard Commonwealth provisions on monitoring and enforcement powers contained in the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 and extension of the government's product safety recall powers to cover commercial vehicles not covered by the Australian Consumer Law.
The fifth principle is continuing support of harmonisation of Australian standards with international standards—a longstanding policy of Australian governments. Significant regulatory savings are possible through harmonising our national standards with international best practice vehicle standards. This has been a longstanding policy of Australian governments, supported by the 2014 Productivity Commission review of the automotive manufacturing sector and the 2015 Harper Competition Policy Review.
To put these design principles into effect, the bill introduces the following key changes to the way the government will regulate the provision of vehicles to the Australian market.
Establishment of a national Register of Approved Vehicles
The new legislation is structured around entry of an individual vehicle onto a national Register of Approved Vehicles, as the means by which its approval for provision to the Australian market is evidenced. The register replaces the current requirement for the physical attachment of a compliance plate to the vehicle as evidence of compliance with national vehicle standards.
The bill prohibits the provision of a road vehicle in Australia unless that vehicle is on the register or a relevant exception applies.
The bill and its supporting rules set out two pathways for entry of a road vehicle on the Register of Approved Vehicles.
The first pathway, the 'type approval' pathway, is for vehicles that are new and meet, or substantially meet, every requirement of the national standards. Manufacturers will also need to be able to prove consistency in production of that type of vehicle. The majority of road vehicles provided to the Australian market will enter onto the register through this pathway.
The second pathway, the 'concessional' pathway, provides for a limited range of new and used vehicles granted concessions on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis against full compliance with the Australian Design Rules. It consolidates the current range of separate pathways into one—providing the Australian community with access to road vehicles such as genuine specialist and enthusiast vehicles, classic and vintage vehicles and vehicles with a special purpose that cannot be fulfilled if they complied with the Australian Design Rules. The latter includes vehicles such as mobile cranes and emergency services vehicles.
The introduction of the Register of Approved Vehicles is important to support the improved compliance and enforcement powers contained in the new legislation. It will constitute an accurate source of data—and will provide a date stamp when a contravention of the bill may have occurred.
The register will also provide consumers with an easily accessible source of information about a vehicle they are interested in potentially purchasing—enabling them to check the pathway used when the vehicle was provided to the Australian market, and any conditions which applied.
To improve the security of a vehicle's identity, the instruments made under this bill will introduce a secure identification-marking requirement for all new road vehicles. This requirement will provide a significant deterrent to motor vehicle theft and rebirthing.
The new legislation also provides simplified arrangements for the importation of vehicles for a purpose other than general road use—such as to allow testing and evaluation by manufacturers or temporary use such as for race and rally events or for exhibition. These vehicles can be traded in the Australian marketplace, but will not be entered onto the Register of Approved Vehicles. As is the case now, the relevant state or territory registration authority will decide if such a vehicle will be allowed to operate on the roads of that state or territory, and under what circumstances.
Tools to support a vehicle's entry onto national Register of Approved Vehicles
The bill also provides for the regulatory oversight of arrangements that support these pathways, such as test facilities, registered automotive workshops, eligibility criteria for specialist and enthusiast vehicles and the introduction of independent vehicle compliance certification—to be known as authorised vehicle verifiers.
Under the existing act, the Registered Automotive Workshop Scheme has allowed a range of used specialist and enthusiast vehicles to be made available in Australia. The bill contains a revised scheme—expanding that range to new and used specialist and enthusiast vehicles. The revised scheme reduces regulatory and compliance costs by removing unnecessary testing and parts replacement requirements.
The bill expands the range of vehicle makes, models and variants which are eligible for importation as a specialist and enthusiast vehicle and therefore concessional entry onto the Register of Approved Vehicles. The rules to be made under this bill will define the eligibility criteria so that they better capture vehicles that are of a genuine specialist or enthusiast nature.
Every vehicle processed through the Registered Automotive Workshops Scheme will be verified by independent third party inspection before its entry onto the Register of Approved Vehicles. This is designed to improve consumer confidence in the vehicle's compliance with relevant standards.
The changes to specialist and enthusiast vehicle arrangements have been the subject of extensive consultation with affected stakeholders.
The rules will also improve the existing arrangements for importing classic and collectible vehicles. Under the bill a vehicle which is at least 25 years old can be imported. This replaces the current rule, which is that a vehicle manufactured before 1989 can be imported. The new arrangements have been developed in recognition of the low community risk of these vehicles, which typically have limited road use.
Recalls of road vehicles or approved road vehicle components
The bill will give the responsible minister the power to issue a notice for compulsory recalls of road vehicles and road vehicle components and sets the framework for voluntary recalls. The inclusion of this power will clarify current recall powers and responsibilities conducted under schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (that is, the Australian Consumer Law). The Australian Consumer Law only provides for recalls in relation to consumer goods—limiting the circumstances in which the government can initiate a compulsory road vehicle, or road vehicle component, recall.
To address these issues, the bill's recall provisions, modelled on those in the Australian Consumer Law, allow the responsible minister to act in relation to all road vehicles and road vehicle components, and in relation to safety issues and issue recalls relating to serious noncompliance with any national vehicle standard.
Modern regulatory compliance and enforcement provisions
The bill modernises and strengthens the existing regulatory framework whilst improving transparency and decision-making. It does not, however, significantly change the obligations on vehicle manufacturers and importers.
Under the bill, the conditions of an approval are assessed up-front and the approval is granted based on the ability of the applicant to meet those conditions. This will improve clarity and certainty for stakeholders.
The bill introduces a graduated range of enforcement options, including infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and criminal sanctions.
The bill does this by triggering provisions of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, providing a Commonwealth consistent set of provisions to deal with monitoring, investigation and the use of sanctions in the enforcement of legal obligations.
It is important to have a range of enforcement options that allow any contravention of the bill or conditions of approval to be addressed on a spectrum of seriousness. It gives the government the ability to effectively penalise those who deliberately breach laws and greater flexibility to deal with those who have inadvertently committed a breach.
Following extensive engagement over the past four years with all sectors of the automotive supply industry, state and territory governments and the general public, these bills represent a comprehensive modernisation of the Australian vehicle standards regulatory regime. In December of last year, I released for public consideration an exposure draft of the rules that will be made by this bill. While the key decisions concerning the new regulatory framework have been made, and are contained in this bill, I wanted to facilitate a further period of public consultation on the details of the rules before the bill is finalised here in the parliament. For the information of members, I have called for public comments on the provisions of the rules to be received by 16 February this year to further inform the forthcoming second reading debate. This bill ensures that Australia's national vehicle standards can respond to continuing change in the automotive sector. The bill aims to balance the government's commitment to the local automotive manufacturing industry, full-volume importers, franchise motor vehicle dealers, importers and converters of used vehicles, and consumers of genuine specialist and enthusiast vehicles. For Australian manufacturers and importers of full-volume vehicles, it means reduced red tape and streamlined certification processes. For Australian motoring enthusiasts, it means an increased range of specialist and enthusiast vehicles will become available, and reduced costs of regulatory compliance. For the Australian community more broadly, it means consumers can continue to have confidence in a motor vehicle regulatory system that promotes vehicles that are safe, produce less emissions and have appropriate anti-theft and energy conservation features.
Debate adjourned.
Road Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities) (10:19): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018, and its subsequent subordinate legislation, is a substantial modernisation of the legislation that regulates the importation and first supply of road vehicles in Australia. Changes contained in that bill will affect a wide range of businesses involved in the automotive sector, ranging from multinational vehicle manufacturers to small independent registered automotive workshops and individual consumers seeking to bring into the country a road vehicle for a special purpose.
While the bill does not materially change the current obligations on vehicle manufacturers and importers, it does realign the point at which conformance to those obligations is to be demonstrated and it introduces new regulatory tools.
The Australian government recognises that these changes will require a period of transition to enable entities involved in the provision of road vehicles to the Australian market to adapt their business models and achieve the smoothest possible transition to the new legislative framework.
The Road Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 contains transitional and consequential provisions to support the commencement of the Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018 when it replaces the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 as the Commonwealth's primary legislation for regulating road vehicles and certain road vehicle components.
Firstly, this bill repeals the old law—the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989—and makes provision for a 12-month transition period starting from the full commencement of the Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018. To complement that bill, this transitional bill will allow regulated industry stakeholders to make the necessary changes to transition to the new regulatory framework.
During the 12-month transitional period provided for under this bill, aspects of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act and related legislation will continue to have effect. The objective of this approach is that entities currently operating under the old law, particularly registered automotive workshops, are not disadvantaged by having to change their established operating practices at short notice, but instead have reasonable time to transfer to the new road vehicle standards legislation requirements.
Secondly, the bill makes consequential amendments to other Commonwealth legislation to reflect the repeal of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act and substitute relevant references to the Road Vehicle Standards Bill.
Thirdly, the bill provides clarity concerning compliance and enforcement powers during the transition period. The Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018 provides an improved regulatory toolkit, based on the Regulatory Powers Act 2014 (and subsequent amendments). This bill clarifies the application of these powers during the transition period.
Finally, this bill also provides incentives to certain approval holders to become early adopters of the new regulatory framework introduced by the Road Vehicle Standards Bill. It does this by enabling evidence submitted for their current approvals to support their applications for new approvals under the Road Vehicle Standards Bill.
Clear guidance will be provided to industry stakeholders and the general public to ensure they are aware of any rights or obligations which will apply.
Debate adjourned.
Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities) (10:24): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2018 provides for the imposition of charges for activities and services relating to the regulatory administration of the Road Vehicles Standards Bill 2018.
This bill, together with the Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2018 and the Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2018, will enable cost recovery of the costs associated with regulating the first provision of road vehicles to the Australian market. The bill stipulates that the amount of the charges is not set at a level that recovers more than the Commonwealth's likely costs in administering the road vehicle standards legislation.
Debate adjourned.
Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities) (10:25): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2018 provides for the imposition of charges for activities and services relating to the regulatory administration of the Road Vehicles Standards Bill 2018.
This bill, together with the Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2018 and the Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2018, will enable cost recovery of the costs associated with regulating the first provision of road vehicles to the Australian market. The bill stipulates that the amount of the charges is not set at a level that recovers more than the Commonwealth's likely costs in administering the road vehicle standards legislation.
Debate adjourned
Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities) (10:27): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2018 provides for the imposition of charges for activities and services relating to the regulatory administration of the Road Vehicles Standards Bill 2018.
This bill, together with the Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2018 and the Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2018, will enable cost recovery of the costs associated with regulating the first provision of road vehicles to the Australian market. The bill stipulates that the amount of the charges is not set at a level that recovers more than the Commonwealth's likely costs in administering the road vehicle standards legislation.
Debate adjourned.
Australian Passports Amendment (Identity-matching Services) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Bishop.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (10:29): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce theAustralian Passports Amendment (Identity-matching Services) Bill 2018.
This bill will provide a clear legal basis for ensuring that the foreign minister is able to direct the automation of the sharing of passport data for the purposes of national security. This legislation responds to the Commonwealth and the states and territories decision at a special meeting of the Council of Australian Governments on 5 October 2017.
These services are a key component in ensuring a nationally consistent approach to preventing and responding to national security threats, in particular terrorist threats. They will help protect Australians by making it easier for security and law enforcement agencies to identify people who are suspects or those who are victims of terrorist or other criminal activity—while maintaining robust privacy safeguards.
The services will also contribute to preventing and detecting identity fraud, and safeguard general law enforcement, national security, protective security, community safety, road safety and other identity verification measures.
Identity crime imposes significant economic costs through fraudulent financial and commercial transactions. It facilitates terrorist, narcotics and money-laundering offences. The services will make false identities more difficult to obtain and to use, and improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to detect fraudulent identities.
The bill will amend the Australian Passports Act 2005 to add a new purpose for disclosing personal information through automated means. This is consistent with sharing already occurring between Commonwealth agencies, namely to participate in a service to share or match information relating to the identity of an individual. The kind of service, and the persons to whom the service may disclose the information, will be specified in a minister's determination.
The bill also updates the Passports Act in line with comparable Commonwealth legislation to provide that the foreign minister may arrange for the automation of data-sharing with Commonwealth, state and territory agencies.
Automated disclosure of passport data will enable agencies to detect identify fraud and national security threats in real time.
This is particularly important in ensuring the safety of Australians attending large-scale events, such as the upcoming Commonwealth Games.
It will also enable the automation of other passport decisions such as decisions to renew passports where there is a match with facial images and biographical data already on file from previous passport applications.
Conclusion
The measures in this bill are timely and essential, especially in helping to protect Australians from criminal activity, including terrorism and identity crime.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
TARIFF PROPOSALS
Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2018
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity) (10:33): I move:
Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2018.
The customs tariff proposal that I have just tabled removes the customs duty rates applied to herbicides and pesticides imported under the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.
These amendments implement early outcomes of the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement announced by the Prime Minister and the President of Indonesia on 26 February 2017.
As a result of these amendments, eligible herbicides and pesticides imported under the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement will be subject to a 'free' rate of customs duty, as of 20 September last year.
All other parties to the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement that import significant amounts of these goods have a 'free' rate of customs duty through other trade agreements. As such Indonesia will be an important beneficiary of these amendments. Of course the other very important beneficiaries are Australian farmers, who are major users of pesticides and herbicides. As one of the most competitive nations on earth, our farmers are constantly needing to reduce their costs of production of agricultural products. This is an important initiative, as are all initiatives that reduce the costs for farmers to improve their efficiency and productivity. They, of course, will always jump on those opportunities, being an extraordinary farming sector that has always, for centuries, been effective and productive in what it does.
In exchange for this, Indonesia has agreed to reduce the tariff applied to Australian sugar to five per cent. We know how important it is for our sugar exporters to have the best possible markets. It's wonderful to have the minister for trade here at the table; he's playing an extraordinary role in helping and supporting Australian farmers access new markets. We are seeing daily the impact of this on the prices of commodities and in the benefits to farmers. I've got to say, as a farmer myself, I have been astounded at the progress that is being made in getting access to new markets for our products. This is a government that has been hugely supportive of the agricultural sector and the farming sector in Australia. The numbers are in; we are seeing it every day. This bill is just another step in that very, very important direction of giving every Australian farmer access to every possible market. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
CONDOLENCES
Cohen, Hon. Barry, AM
Report from Federation Chamber
Order of the day returned from Federation Chamber for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
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.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (10:37): The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (10:37): by leave—I move:
That Ms Ley and Ms Henderson be discharged from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and that, in their place, Mr Entsch and Mr Falinski be appointed as members of the committee.
Question agreed to.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) ( 10:38 ): The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator McKenzie has been discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
BILLS
Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (10:38): Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence: I wasn't able to participate in the debate reflecting on the loss of the former member for Robertson, Barry Cohen. Happily, though, I was able to attend his memorial service on Monday. I just want to place on the record my great admiration for him and his work both here and elsewhere. It was very extensive on both counts. He was a great representative of his community and he will be sadly missed.
The Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017 makes changes to strengthen Australia's current risk-based management approach of imported food to better protect the health of consumers. Labor supports the bill, because it recognises that, while Australia has a robust imported food safety system, it can always be improved and strengthened, especially as Australia imports greater amounts of food from other countries through our bilateral trade deals.
While we support and welcome the bill, we do lament that it hasn't arrived in this place at an earlier date, because it's a critical issue. Foodborne illnesses are serious and have major consequences when outbreaks occur. In 2010, for example, it was estimated that there were 4.1 million episodes of gastrointestinal foodborne illnesses and some 86 deaths in Australia. The economic costs of foodborne illnesses in Australia are also substantial. Doctor visits, treatments and days off work lost are reported to cost around $1.2 billion per year. The public does expect that, when foodborne illnesses occur, there are systems in place to deal with the suspected source as soon as possible and, of course, that responses can be put in place very quickly.
The outbreak of hepatitis A in 2015, which was linked to imported frozen berries at the time, exposed limitations with the current imported food regulatory system. Unfortunately, at the time, the then Minister for Agriculture, the member for New England, took aim at the importing country and indeed the importing company, and, having done that, then turned to his attention to food labelling. Food labelling is a separate issue and, I thought at the time, was somewhat of a distraction to the issue at hand. Mr Joyce said, on 18 February 2015, that he believed there should be clear country-of-origin labelling on all imported foods so consumers knew exactly where the product was coming from. He said that there was a review currently underway and he would be pushing for proper labelling to be implemented as quickly as possible and, as reported:
'We should have proper country of origin labelling,' Mr Joyce said. 'Maybe other countries are not as concerned about food safety as we are.' Mr Joyce urged Australians to seek out locally made products. He said, 'Buy Australian and save yourself a pain in the guts.'
The member for New England should have checked his facts, because the packages relating to the suspected contamination of frozen berries were clearly labelled 'Product of China', or words to that effect. Clearly, they showed the origin of those berries. He went further, claiming:
… labels were needed 'that clearly identifies unambiguously, as soon as you pick up a package, whether it is from our country with our strong ... sanitary requirements'.
'That is making sure that faecal contamination, which is a very polite word for poo, is not anywhere near your food, not going to be put in your mouth,' he added.
These were really childish comments from a minister seeking to distract from the failings of his own government—a government which had been in power for a considerable time then; it must have been at least two years.
The centre of these changes, of course, relate to beyond-the-border considerations. We can't expect to meet our aspirations on food safety at our border. The real work is done in the nation from which the imports come, so the relationships with these nations are very important. You can't expect to have the architecture and the rules in place without those strong relations—and those comments don't help in any way, shape or form—not to mention how important those relationships are strategically and in export terms. Those berries came from a country which was a critical export market for Australia. Childish comments like that, made on an issue where there had not been a conclusion in any way, don't help at all. So, sadly, rather than immediately leap to strengthen our importing rules, the then minister decided to play politics.
Here we are in 2018, three years on from the event, and we're finally debating new measures—again, measures that the opposition supports—to deal with these issues. Of course, it is a natural progression from the major biosecurity reforms—biosecurity previously having been known better as quarantine. Labor began those around 2013 or earlier, and these are natural progressions—the next step. It should not have taken until 2018 to be debating this bill in this House.
The thing that is most notable about Labor's reforms is a greater focus on beyond-border work, or beyond-our-country work, recognising that by the time we get to the border the risk-based system can't assure us or meet our aspirations. While supporting the bill, we do lament the slowness in these matters being dealt with.
I certainly regret the then minister's comments, his distraction and, of course, the fact that we're still not having a conversation about the labelling laws that came into place as a result of those events. There was great fanfare about them at the time. For a number of weeks, it seemed there that country-of-origin labelling was the most important thing this parliament was doing. I haven't heard a minister of the government talk about them for some time. I would suggest there has been negative fallout. I would challenge any member of this place to talk to their constituents and ask them what they think about the new country-of-origin labelling. I don't think they'd get much of a response. I don't think too many people have noticed them much, let alone have a view about how effective they have been.
But, in the rush to put in place the distraction from the government's own inadequacies on food importation, they got a few things wrong, obviously, because there are a whole range of articles complaining about the adverse impact on small Australian agrifood businesses like Brookfarm muesli in Byron Bay. They estimate that redesigning their 70 different packages would cost them around half a million dollars.
Further, health experts from Monash University are claiming that the new labels are not giving consumers the information they want and that it doesn't actually tell us where our food comes from, which is the key point. This was supposed to be a response to the flaws in our food importation system, but it's still not even telling people accurately where the food comes from. What it does tell us is that food is from Australia, and then it leaves you to guess where the rest of the ingredients are from—unless the product is totally from another country, and then it must be labelled as coming from that country. This was the case with the suspected contaminated berries, but, as I said, that was clearly labelled already.
My criticism is qualified, because I know these aren't easy issues. Country-of-origin labelling has been a conversation in the community for a long, long time, and the reason governments haven't fixed it well is that it's very, very difficult. But the additional point to that is that on the day the government made it sound simple and declared, in response to the berries contamination issue, that it was going to do it and do it properly this time, and it clearly hasn't been the case. Again, I lament the fact that that distraction was put in place, the policy was rushed and poorly done, the outcomes have been poor and they have had a significantly adverse impact on the business community.
I formally move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name. It's been seconded by the member for Fenner, and I thank him for that. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Turnbull Government has failed to implement effective policies in a timely manner to ensure that Australian agriculture is achieving its full potential".
The amendment seeks to make this a broader debate about the future of agricultural policy and invites us to offer some reflections on the performance of the government in this area over the course of almost the last five years now. It's not been a happy period for agriculture, in my view. I've had the great privilege of being in the portfolio since about July 2013, first as the minister, for just a short few months, and for the last four years also as the opposition spokesperson on agriculture.
I recall very vividly extending a hand of bipartisanship, both publicly and privately, to the minister of the day, the member for New England, because I could see so much opportunity but also so much challenge. I took the view that surely, if there's an area where we can establish some bipartisanship, it's in the production of our food and fibre, because the things that separate us in this area are not great, and conversation and dialogue and cooperation are the best way to close that gap. Obviously it won't happen in every aspect of public policy, but I thought there were great opportunities.
Unfortunately, that offer was never accepted by the member for New England. Rather, he decided that he'd make the best of the portfolio politically; he'd seek to divide rather than unite—in fact, try to perpetuate issues of disagreement in an attempt to, if you like, continue the war and try to paint a starker picture of the division between the opposition and the government on these issues—which was just a very, very disappointing approach, in my view. If he'd taken my extended hand of bipartisanship, I think we could have done a lot better in Australian agriculture over the last five years.
Sure, we've had some achievements in agriculture. The sector's creeping to around $60 billion in gross farm value. That's a pretty good outcome, although, if you have a look at the rate of our economic growth and measure it against other indices, it's just what you'd expect. It's what you'd expect or hope for, given the rising global demand for quality food, and of course we are a great producer of quality food. I regret, though, that Minister Joyce spent most of his time in this portfolio talking about commodity prices and taking credit for them—and beef and sheepmeat. He was always talking about the commodities that were going up, and he never mentioned the commodities that were going down. I could never quite understand that.
I think everyone in this place knows that, while government has a role, it's pretty dangerous for a minister to start taking credit for commodity price rises, because they tend to go up and down. The areas which he talked about most were, of course, going up because of drought-induced lack of supply. Demand was outstripping supply and of course, when that happens, the price rises. The problem with that, of course, is that the price rise is not sustainable, nor would you want it to be sustainable, because it's happened just by a failure in the market. So I found that somewhat lamentable.
The minister started his term as the minister for agriculture by announcing that he was going to do a white paper. In fact, he might have announced that before the election; I don't recall. We waited a long time for that white paper. I remember that at one point I was putting out a media response every week, expressing concern that another week had passed and we still hadn't seen an agriculture white paper. Of course, expectations built, as they do. The longer you wait, the better you might hope that the production of the paper might be. But, sadly, that wasn't the case.
We were waiting for a big-picture approach, a document that delivered some strategic vision and strategic guidance for the sector, some clear signals to investors about where the government was most keen to see investment flow, where it believed that our natural resources could produce the greatest possible return for both our farmers and our nation, and some big ideas about the challenges of climate, the drying continent, the allocation of our water resources and what we'd be able to do about emerging international competition as developing nations become more aggressive in our own export markets—many countries, of course, against which we find it difficult to compete. We were waiting for a document that recognises that our key competitive advantage is our reputation as a provider of clean green safe food and that if we were to lose that reputation our key competitive advantage would be gone. That would be a very difficult situation for our Australian exporters. As the global population goes to nine billion, what implications will that have for Australia? What will be the opportunities and the challenges? How might that impact on the decisions of consumers and those who set rules around consumer law around the world? We must reflect on the implications of our own population rising dramatically in the next 30 years or so, and changing consumer attitudes. There's obviously an increase in consumer choice around red meats, for example. This is a transformation that will continue exponentially in the out years. There are rising concerns about animal welfare. We have to think about what that means and how we make sure that our farm leaders are embracing that, understanding that and adapting to it.
Minister Joyce's response is to attack anyone who expresses a concern about animal welfare. You know what happens then. It's tit-for-tat and the issue becomes larger and larger and larger and more difficult to manage. Strong governments listen to people, acknowledge the concerns, recognise the concerns, identify and agree where the concerns are very valid. That is very important. You can't have a cooperative and, therefore, productive conversation if you're not recognising both sides of the debate. And then you must adjust policy in the hope of making sure that you can meet the expectations of concerned consumers without having an adverse impact on farm businesses. Of course that can be done.
When we put out our six-point plan for animal welfare before the last election, Minister Joyce attacked it—it was going to be the end of farming in this country as we know it! Unfortunately, the National Farmers' Federation rejected it too. Our farming leaders need to play a role here too. They need to look forward and see where the opportunities and challenges are. They need to recognise and observe changing consumer attitudes and work with us to adjust our practices and policies where we can to ensure that those issues are being accommodated. We thought we might have seen much more about our natural resources in the white paper—about how we allocate them to ensure we get the best possible return. Over time, it's going to become more challenging. You can have the debate about what's causing the climate to change, but it is changing. We need to mitigate climate change but also adapt to it. We need to help incentivise the embracing of and take-up of smarter land use practices. How do we use our soils and our water resources in a way that's more sustainable?
These things barely rated a mention in the white paper. Climate change, from memory, had two paragraphs—on what is possibly the biggest challenge facing our farm community! That takes me to drought. Drought got a fair mention in the white paper. It didn't say much about its causes or what's making it worse over time. But there were no big picture responses. When the pressure came on thereafter, what did we get? We got concessional loans. At a time when global interest rates are the lowest in living memory, Minister Joyce's only response was basically to give people more debt or the opportunity to transfer their debt. There's nothing wrong with concessional loans. Labor first introduced them in 2013 to deal with a serious debt problem in the farm sector. There is nothing wrong with them in isolation; but, as a total solution to such a protracted and worsening problem, they're not much of a solution at all. Of course, those farm concessional loans have been of limited success, which, of course, is what led us to the debate that we had in this place last night about the pork-barrel-boondoggle exercise with the Regional Investment Corporation. There is nothing much on those big-picture issues.
There is a little bit research and development—one of the most important challenges we face. It's not just about spending more money. It doesn't always have to be about spending more money. Spending more money is always nice, but just as important is making sure that we spend smarter and making sure that we're getting the maximum possible return and benefit not only from the public sector investment but also from the private sector investment. When I look at our research and development system, it may still be the best in the world. We like to think it is, because Labor put it in place back in the early nineties. It is respected around the globe. Just because it is still considered a good system doesn't mean it can't be improved; it can always be improved. The 2010 Productivity Commission inquiry recommended some changes—changes which weren't in place before Labor lost office and haven't been put in place by this government. I think they're worthy of a revisit. We don't have to reinvent the whole inquiry. It was in 2010; things have changed but not that much. I think those recommendations could be revisited.
I see a lot of siloing in our R&D system—in other words, not enough cross-sectoral work on issues. I don't see enough on biosecurity. Labor went to the last election promising to spend a significant amount of money on a biosecurity institute to give long-term sustainable planning in biosecurity. I see too many RDCs spending to their cap—that is, they spend until the public matching funds run out and then they stop spending, which is not an indicator of an optimal system. There is nothing in the white paper to address that. There is a little bit of extra money. I didn't mind the way it was spent, because the minister produced a sort of competitive arrangement. But we haven't heard much of it since, and I don't know that it's made any substantial change.
There is nothing much about our innovation rate. We're pretty good at R&D in this country in agriculture, but in innovation we're lagging. There is nothing really to address the freefall, really, of extension—in other words, getting the outcome of research and development down onto the farm. The states have largely withdrawn from that process, and nothing has been brought in to fill the vacuum.
We could be doing something about community concern about the various biotechnologies. Biotechnologies will be critical to us in meeting our aspirations in the agriculture sector. There is community concern around GM, in particular. We need to have that debate. Someone needs to show some leadership, acknowledge the concerns, bring people together so that people can have a conversation about them and have a better understanding of them. We need to have a debate based on the science, not the rhetoric and the ideology. But we see no leadership in that area whatsoever.
Market access is very, very important, but it's not everything in agriculture. As a government those on the other side always go back to access—the trade deals with Korea, Japan and China. They are important, of course, but we must also focus on domestic food production. We have enormous challenges in food production in this country. Focusing on trade access is important, but we need to keep our eye on what's happening here. While we export two-thirds of everything we grow, we can't take food security in the future for granted. We don't know what the world is going to look like in 40 years, strategically. We don't want to allow our food production systems to shut down in this country. We've seen the consequences of that. We've seen what has happened with gas when we get those policy settings wrong, and it can happen in food as well. If it happens in food, arguably, it would be even more important.
What we have seen from the government in the last five years is leadership grants to, for instance, the Cattle Council and the NFF. Taxpayers' money is being given to organisations. I don't deny them or necessarily regret the payment of these moneys, but I think there could be more transparency. We still don't know exactly who's been getting those leadership grants. We lost the secretary of the department—a highly qualified, respected public servant—because he challenged the minister when the minister doctored his Hansard. In forestry, we've only had report after report after report. We've had the boondoggle Regional Investment Corporation and the pork-barrel APVMA relocation, which has been a disaster for the agriculture sector and will continue to be a disaster. And remember the question time where the minister said he was going to destroy carp? I won't try to re-enact his performance here—and everyone will be happy about that. That was a program begun by Labor in government, and it will probably take another three decades to come to fruition. Minister Joyce had us believe it was going to happen the next day and that carp would be gone. I still don't know what that was all about.
There have been labour issues. Remember the backpacker tax? We never used to tax backpackers in this country. One of the reason we didn't is that we have significant labour shortages in the seasonal agricultural sectors in particular. In the end, the government wanted everyone to cheer them because they didn't introduce a backpacker tax as big as the one they were going to introduce in the first place. That was their big achievement. So we can notch that up as an achievement: the backpacker tax they put in place isn't as big as they proposed it would be. What have we seen on workforce issues since then? We've seen a tightening up of work visas, and we all cheer that, if there's a strategy to replace the labour. That should be our main focus: why aren't young Australians taking up these opportunities? Why are we so dependent on imported labour? That's what we should be asking ourselves. But we should not be putting the cart before the horse—just choking off the labour supply and then not having the workforce our growers so desperately need.
One of the minister's first acts, along with announcing his white paper, was the abolition of the COAG committee. We don't have a drought policy in this country. We don't even have an organising committee. The bulk of land management responsibility in this country rests with the states. You can't do good work in drought without the cooperation of the states. The intergovernmental agreement on drought is about to come to an end. Yet farmers are coming off farm household allowance after their three years. We don't really have anything beyond concessional loans. This is just a disaster. We've got fruit fly incursions into Tasmania for the first time. We've got white spot in prawns in Queensland for the first time. You never hear these government ministers talk about biosecurity.
In my short time as agriculture minister I learnt that the biggest responsibility for the ag minister is biosecurity. In fact, if you were doing the portfolio title properly, 'biosecurity' would be in the title, because probably 60 per cent of the work of the minister is around biosecurity. We hear lots about commodity prices, but we never hear anything about biosecurity. We're nothing without a strong biosecurity system. In fact, one of the first acts of the former agriculture minister was to abolish the position of Inspector-General of Biosecurity. Think about that: he abolished the position of Inspector-General of Biosecurity. After a war with us over it, he finally reinstated it—although, if my memory serves me correctly, the new inspector didn't quite have all the powers he or she had under Labor's regime. I might be checked on that, but certainly there was a significant attempt to undermine that position—something I will never understand.
So I regret the last four years or more. At a time when the challenges are so great with a changing climate and resource management issues, and the opportunities are so great with growing global food demand, agriculture should be facing golden times but, unfortunately— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is the amendment seconded?
Dr Leigh: I happily second the amendment and reserve my right speak.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) (11:09): by leave—I move:
That the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading because the bill as written is too broad, poorly drafted and has unintended consequences"
Dr ALY (Cowan) (11:10): I'm deeply concerned about the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017—deeply concerned. But before I get into those concerns I do want to start by making the point that the reason for this bill and the overarching intent of this bill—that being keeping Australians safe, ensuring that illegal items do not find their way into detention centres and detention facilities where they may pose a threat to detainees and workers, and meeting our duty of care to both detainees and workers—is a noble intent and, surely, one that should be pursued. Indeed, it is an intent that Labor supports, and we have iterated that we're willing to work with the government on addressing the issues presented.
However, I believe that the purpose of this parliament is not just to come up with solutions to address issues. It's also to ensure that those solutions that we develop here are executed—and are able to be executed—in ways that are purposeful, meaningful, responsive and effective. On all of those measures—purposeful, meaningful, responsive and effective—this bill fails. I strongly make the point that that is the reason that Labor is opposing this bill. It fails to address the issues that it is meant to address, in ways that are going to be effective.
The government has neglected to provide any substantial justification for the measures that are proposed in this bill, and those measures do not come on advice of either Serco or International Health and Medical Services—both of the main providers of services in detention centres and detention facilities—which begs the question: why is this bill even necessary, especially when we consider that items like drugs, weapons and child exploitation material should never have been allowed in immigration detention facilities in the first place?
Minister Dutton has serious questions to answer if he's been sitting on his hands for the last five years or so allowing this to occur unchecked during the term of the Abbott-Turnbull government. I find it rather extraordinary that a minister who consistently boasts about being tough on everything from vegemite sandwiches to crime and border security would preside over incidents in detention where illegal items, including drugs, have been allowed to enter into facilities. A coronial inquest into the death of a detainee at the Villawood detention centre heard evidence that a detainee had methamphetamine in his blood at the time of his death, despite having been in the immigration detention for more than 10 months. That particular case raises concerns and questions about how these incidents were allowed to occur in the first place.
As far as I can see, it's just another example of this minister's gross incompetence. He talks tough all right, but, when it comes to the crunch, he fronts up with legislation such as this that is too broad, badly written and ill thought out, and has some serious consequences. In fact the only thing that this legislation guarantees is more power to Minister Dutton—the man, I might add, who was named the worst-performing health minister in 35 years.
I would like to continue to very strongly make this point that I mentioned earlier: Labor do not oppose the prohibition of illegal items in immigration detention facilities; in fact, we support it. As my colleagues have iterated time and time again, we welcome and are willing to work with the government on developing an effective approach to addressing the issue of illegal items that are entering detention facilities. As I mentioned, what we oppose is this bill, because it is too broad and ineffective. We've given the government the opportunity to make a case for those elements of the bill, including the prohibition of non-illegal items, and explain why the instrument proposed would not be disallowable.
The Senate inquiry provided ample opportunity for the government and for the minister to tell all Australians why this bill is supposedly the 'you beaut, ripper' solution to the issue of illegal items in detention facilities, but what did the government and what did this minister do? Did they take the opportunity to defend the bill at all? Did they take the opportunity to stand up and explain to Australia why this bill is necessary in its current form? No, they didn't.
In fact, the Senate inquiry raised some very key concerns. I think it's worthwhile looking at some of those key concerns. Of the 82 submissions that were received by the Senate inquiry, an overwhelming majority—80, in fact—raised significant concerns about the bill in its current form. Those concerns include the broad and unchecked power of the immigration minister to make a legislative instrument to determine a thing to be prohibited; the poor drafting of the bill, resulting in a broad definition; the fact that measures in the bill are disproportionate to the stated risks; and the fact that the government have failed to demonstrate why they have not sought to address risks within immigration detention in other ways, and instead have adopted an approach that applies broad and restrictive rules to the whole detainee population. They raised concerns about the impact and use of sniffer dogs.
That the broad drafting of the bill is unclear on the circumstances in which detainees may be deprived of the opportunity to store and manage their own medication was raised as a concern. The provisions relating to strip searches were raised as being 'too broad'. The point was made that strip searches should occur only where there is reasonable suspicion that a detainee is in possession of an illegal substance. There was a concern that the broad drafting of the bill does not allow appropriate safeguards, and that the public phones provided currently are not adequate to ensure detainees have timely access to their legal representatives. In a situation where the minister deems mobile phones to be prohibited, that is going to exacerbate the situation even more.
All of these concerns that were raised in this Senate inquiry have been exacerbated by the lack of transparency about the rules and guidelines that visitors must follow when visiting immigration detention facilities. Some of the stakeholders reported that they have even been prevented from taking pens and documents for detainees to sign when visiting these facilities.
In response to that Senate inquiry, Labor senators authored a dissenting report. They made seven recommendations in that dissenting report. Without going into too much detail, I would like to outline those seven recommendations. The first recommendation was that the bill be amended, in accordance with the first recommendation of the Law Council of Australia, to narrowly confine the definition of 'prohibited thing'. This would address the concerns that the bill is too broad in its drafting. The second recommendation was to ensure that detainees are not prevented from possessing or using electronic devices, such as mobile phones, unless there is evidence that their removal is both necessary and proportionate. That would address the concerns that the bill is a disproportionate response to risk.
The third recommendation was to ensure that medications obtained under prescription or supplements recommended by a health practitioner are not caught by the provision and that the provision is directed only at narcotic or restricted substances. This again would address the concern that the bill is too broad in the determination of a prohibited item and would also ensure that we continue to maintain our duty of care to those people in detention with regard to their health and wellbeing, particularly where they have a right to manage their own medication.
The fourth recommendation in the dissenting report by Labor senators was that searches be limited to detainees' personal effects and rooms in cases where there is reasonable suspicion. The fifth recommendation expressly referred to the principle that detainees not be searched unless there is reasonable suspicion that illegal substances or items are in their possession. Again both of these are addressing those concerns raised in the Senate inquiry. I might add that 80 out of 82 submissions raised concerns about the powers in this bill being too broad and the bill itself being too broad and not effective. The sixth recommendation has to do with detector dogs. The seventh recommendation was:
Subject to the preceding recommendations, Labor Party senators recommend that the bill be passed.
So there is an intent by Labor that the purpose of this bill be addressed and that the reasons for this bill be addressed. I reiterate that our opposition is to the drafting of the bill, the extraordinary powers that this bill would give to Minister Dutton and the lack of explanation given by the government for the measures in this bill. We want to ensure the safety of detainees, staff and visitors in immigration detention and transit facilities but this legislation does go too far.
As I mentioned, 80 out of 82 submissions raised concerns, and I've been through those concerns. One of the greatest concerns is the idea of the reasoned negotiation of risk. Every measure we employ, particularly around security and keeping Australians safe, should be commensurate with risk. We can't ignore the reasoned negotiation of risk. We can't allow ourselves to become a country that responds to risk with ineffective broad policies that have unintended consequences and that also miss the mark in actually being purposeful and meaningful for the risk that they are trying to address.
There is no reasonable negotiation here in the bill and no rationale for the measures the government has proposed. It hasn't taken the opportunity to put forward a case. I've come to the conclusion that this happens to be part of the government's modus operandi here, because, time and time again, I'm seeing the government introduce measures that are neither reasonable nor effective, particularly in this space. The government has pointed to the risk of a changing immigration detention population profile as a rationale for these measures, but we don't know the extent of that risk, because the government and the minister operate—and continue to operate and insist on operating—behind a veil of secrecy. Minister Dutton justifies the absoluteness of his authority in the name of keeping Australians safe. Yet these measures are disproportionate by all accounts and are an example—just one example—of this minister's overreaching authority. The measures are ineffective. They do nothing to regulate the inconsistent visitor guidelines across the immigration network.
Labor will oppose this bill on the principles that I have outlined here today. But we are willing to continue to work with the government to ensure the safety of all Australians, as well as those in detention.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (11:25): Colleagues, I rise today to speak against the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017. I think it's poor law. My constituents have written to me asking me to speak against it. And, on a personal note, I think—as the member for Cowan has said—it's disproportionate. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's cruel. I ask the government and my colleagues on the government side and in the Senate to really reconsider their support for this legislation, for three reasons: it's poor law; it goes far too far; and it won't achieve its results.
As the member for Cowan so well outlined, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has done a report. I won't repeat the recommendations that you've so clearly outlined, Member for Cowan. As you remember, the Law Council of Australia has made some very clear recommendations, so I won't cover that ground.
What I'd like to do today is bring the voice of my constituents to parliament. These are people who have visited the immigration centres and have written to me about this, so this is the voice of real people in real time. The major problems that they have with this proposed legislation are the banning of mobile phones and the ridiculous suggestion that we revert to landlines; the blanket treatment of all detainees as criminals, when the minister himself says that 25 per cent of the people in the whole detention centre are there as noncriminals; the excessive power it gives the minister, as outlined; the use of detector dogs, which is so, so distasteful; and the subtlety of changing the names of the transition accommodation centres. We're now going to call them all 'immigration detention facilities'. I think it's from that name alone that we get a sense of what the government is trying to do here.
It gives me great pleasure to bring the voices of two of my constituents to parliament. One is an individual, Freida Andrews, who's a regular visitor to the detention centres. The other one is Rural Australians for Refugees, who made a submission to the inquiry. I'd like to put on record why they think this legislation is particularly onerous. Freida writes to me: 'Cathy, I'm writing to advise you of changes that have occurred to visiting regulations and procedures at the detention centre at the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation, MITA, in Broadmeadows. I have been visiting detainees in MITA since 2005 and have continued to remain in contact with them, both those who remain in detention and several who are now on community detention.' So she's got real skin in the game.
She outlines some of the areas where she's got particular concerns. One is movement of detainees. She says that all outside activities were stopped. Accommodation was segregated into separate units for men, women and families. Detainees were not permitted to mix with each other without making an application in writing. This meant that the only time they were able to mix with others held in other accommodation units was in visitors rooms. And, if they were required to attend outside appointments, these people, with no criminal charge, no sense of anything wrong other than seeking asylum, were accompanied by guards—and video surveillance and handcuffs were also used—to monitor them.
Freida also talks about visiting regulations. She's a visitor from north-east Victoria who travels to Melbourne to visit these detainees. She says, 'Applications to visit continue to be accepted by phone or email.' However, the number of detainees that could be visited has been significantly reduced. Session times were changed, with the first one being brought forward to 1.30 pm. Freida says, 'This presented some difficulties for me in terms of coordinating train and bus travel, particularly as the rule was that, if you arrived more than 30 minutes late, you were refused entry.' Everybody who uses public transport in north-east Victoria knows about our abominable public transport system and how it's more frequent than not that the train is late. No exemptions were permitted. 'This also applies to detainees,' Freida tells me. 'If they were not in the visitors room within the first 30 minutes of the visiting session, they were and are refused entry.' Only food that was to be consumed in the visitor's room was permitted.
She talks about gifts to detainees, and it is a common practice in rural and regional Australia that, when we visit people, we take gifts. Traditionally gifts from my community have been gifts of food—fresh food, well grown in our gardens. Freida says: 'Regulations in regard to food were again heightened in October 2017 and still apply. Food that can be taken in is limited to that which is commercially packaged, labelled, factory sealed and has a visible expiry date.' So no fresh food at all—what is that saying? That we farmers don't grow good food? That we won't accept good food? I had the opportunity to talk to the minister about this last night and he said, 'Look, we do it for security reasons.' That just points out to me that, in terms of security reasons, we're just going so overboard. Surely fresh food can be checked if it needs to be. It doesn't have to be wrapped up, and we certainly don't want to take in packaged food.
Freida also said the opportunity to leave a gift for a detainee became extremely difficult. This could have been clothing or shoes. Freida says: 'The detainee must first make a request in writing which is then submitted for approval. If approval is granted, leaving the gift for the detainee becomes a significant challenge. The gift can only be left at reception at restricted times, for example, Tuesday, Thursday or Saturday, between 9.30 and 11.30 am.' Freida says, 'This makes it almost impossible for people like myself who travel a considerable distance to visit to leave something that has been requested or is a gift for a detainee.' Why would we make it so hard?
Freida says applications to visit must be made by email, and she details all the rules there. She talks about how particularly difficult that can be. She's concerned for the families and friends of people held in detention who visit them—not only visits from my electorate, but their family and friends—who may not be able to comply with the requirement being enforced from 22 January. Not everybody has access to a computer or a device that enables them to make an online application, not everyone has the standard of English to be able to read or understand the complicated application forms, and not everyone has the necessary 100 points of identification that you need to become a visitor. So we've made it absolutely onerous, and everybody knows the benefit of visitors and why it's so important. Why have we made it so hard?
Freida goes on to talk about a whole lot of other problems, but that's probably enough just to give you a sense of how cruel and inhumane these rules have become and how we've worked against what surely is the objective of supporting people in detention—keeping them sane, building community connections and making it so that when asylum is granted they can move into the community with good relationships. We are absolutely working against that.
I'd like to now turn to some of the points made in the submission by Rural Australians for Refugees. Rural Australians for Refugees has over 70 branches throughout Australia, consisting of people living in rural communities who support people and those seeking asylum. Many, many of the members of Rural Australians for Refugees travel a significant distance, many on public transport, to visit people in these transit accommodation centres. I will just take a few minutes to talk about some of the issues that RAR sees. I totally on a personal level agree with this. The RAR submission says, 'Immigration detention is ideally for administrative purposes.' So, it's really important that we have the opportunity to put people in transit camps while we sort things out, but it shouldn't be punitive. If it is going to be punitive, if we decide that, then we have rules and regulations that must be followed. They are Australian rules and they've been hard-fought. My sense is that in these particular provisions before the House today we are ignoring the well-fought rule of law.
Many people feel, and I agree, that the conditions that we are imposing on these detention centres are in many cases worse than those in our prisons. There is a lack of a time limit on detention and limited oversight of detention. The lack of a time limit on detention and the issue of attention to people's cases remain two big areas of concern for RAR.
According to the latest departmental statistics, RAR says that, as of 31 July 2017:
…the average length of detention is 442 days, with 22 per cent of the detention population spending more than two years in detention.
No trial and no sense of guilt—just by force.
RAR also says:
While the number of children in onshore detention facilities has significantly dropped, there is still no legislation to prevent the detention of children, resulting in concerns that what this bill is seeking to implement can and will impact children.
RAR talks about the explanatory memorandum of the bill and the narrative justifying why we need to do it. But the narrative doesn't talk about the people who have legally, properly and rightly sought asylum. These are not illegals; it's their right to seek asylum. The bill fails to protect the rights of this group of people and requires them to face the same restrictive measures as those who might have committed crimes—and are assessed to be at high risk. Sure, they might be in detention centres, but putting everybody in the same basket is grossly unfair.
The RAR submission talks about the immigration minister's wide-ranging discretionary powers that already exist in relation to the visas of people in detention. They say that there's no limit and no option to review and challenge these decisions. The bill seeks to grant the minister yet more discretionary power to declare any item a prohibited thing and to prevent people in detention, and their visitors, from possessing prohibited things. We have a list of them here, which includes a mobile phone—heavens above! And we will be giving the minister the power to do more—not to come to parliament to do more, but do it by regulation.
Rural Australians for Refugees is concerned about the discriminatory policy that allows some in the immigration detention centres to have access to mobile phones, while at the same time not allowing people who have come by boat for asylum to have them—and so they continue. I can't see how members of parliament of goodwill could accept this.
The explanatory memorandum also mentions visits from family and friends as being a way of ensuring people in detention maintain contact with their support mechanisms. But members of Rural Australians for Refugees report that it is increasingly difficult for families to access detention facilities. Constantly changing rules and their inconsistent application, challenges to securing a visit and getting through the screening process make it really difficult for visitors to pursue.
Rural Australians for Refugees understand that the ADF plans to implement further restrictive policies regarding the number of visitors a person can see. Why make it so hard? I don't understand where we're coming from with all of this. Why treat everybody the same? Why make it really difficult? Why say that we as a nation need to be almost bullying to get the point of view across.
The bit that really upset me as I was reading about the powers that will be passed through this House, but I do hope will be stopped in the Senate, is the use of detector dogs. There are not many people in Australia who would forget the image of those dogs at the big union demonstration on the wharves a few years ago—the horror it produced in our hearts as we saw dogs on leashes being brought by police to attack unionists. As a nation we said, 'No, we don't do that.' Yet we're going to allow these detector dogs into immigration centres where people have been traumatised and abused. There is no warrant required, no oversight required, no reporting required, and no conviction of these people.
In closing, my call-out is that this is bad law. It's over the top. It's cruel. It's not the Australian way. We are much better than this. Minister, you are much better than this. Prime Minister, you are much better than this. Your government is much better than this. People on the government side, can I sincerely ask you before you vote on this legislation to actually check in with what you're doing, because I will hold you to account. Rural Australians for Refugees will hold you to account, and the Australian public will hold you to account, because this is very bad law.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (11:40): I was present in the chamber last night for the contribution of the member for Melbourne, which warrants a response. The Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017, which we are debating, raises serious issues and deserves serious consideration on its terms. It is disappointing, to say the very least, that the member for Melbourne chose to lecture the Labor Party on wider policy questions connected to immigration and asylum rather than examine the provisions in this bill. I will not be lectured by the member for Melbourne, nor by his party, and I say this to him and to them: if you are concerned to change this most difficult debate in Australia, changing its politics is as much your obligation as anyone else's. Now is not the time, much less the place, for seeking narrow partisan advantage. The provisions of this bill, the extraordinary powers that would be accorded the Minister for Home Affairs, deserve the full scrutiny of all of us in this place who profess our concern for human rights, particularly the human rights of very vulnerable people. So perhaps the member might reflect on this and on how change is effected and how we make a difference to the lives of others. It's to make just such a difference that brings me and my colleagues in the Labor Party into this place—a determination to build a better and fairer society for all, not to commentate nor to critique others.
It is in this context and in this spirit that I turn to the provisions of the bill before the House and raise my concerns with the bill as presented. It is the reason why I was so pleased to be able to second the amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Blair. May I also say that I was pleased to have been in the House for the contrasting contribution of my friend the member for Indi, who, as ever, made a passionate and thoughtful contribution, going to the real issues before us. I'm particularly pleased that, as well as expressing her deep concern for these issues, she gave voice to the concerns of her constituents, including those who have been in direct engagement with persons in immigration detention. I was struck and moved when she asked the question—rhetorically, I think—'Why would we make it so hard?' That is the nub of the debate going to the provisions in this bill. There are, I believe, some significant issues that we do need to address in relation to the management of immigration detention in Australia, particularly also outside of Australia. But why would we make it so hard?
I have spent some time in immigration detention facilities before and since being elected to this place. As a lawyer I have represented detainees, so I have some personal experience of the challenges of those in these centres communicating with those whom they need to speak with, like their lawyers; and I have, I hope, some appreciation of those challenges going to those whom they would prefer to be in contact with rather than their lawyers—their friends and their loved ones. So the rights that this bill would trammel aren't mere abstractions for me, as clearly is also the case for the member for Indi, and they shouldn't be for any of us.
Let us think, as we debate this bill, about the lives of those in immigration detention. Let us also think about the values that should animate the principal governing party, which I believe is still called the Liberal Party, which professes a concern for the individual and a belief in the rights of the individual. Yet, in this bill, just as in respect of the legislation dealing with the extension of the cashless welfare card, this government seems determined to treat people in very broad categories, without having regard for their individual circumstances. When it comes to the people in immigration detention, it is all well and good for the minister and government members to talk about the different nature of the cohort today. That is a significant consideration, but it is no warrant for the blanket application of wide-ranging coercive powers and restrictive provisions to classes of people without any consideration of their individual circumstances, much less their individual needs.
We have before us a bill which would amend the Migration Act to grant the minister the power, by legislative instrument, to declare certain items prohibited in detention centre facilities. It would also amend existing search and seizure powers in relation to these centres, including—and this is concerning—the use of dogs for the screening of people detained at centres, and visitors, as well as provide some new, statutory search powers. There are also some powers for screening visitors.
These are significant changes that deserve careful attention, in context. Part of that context is the broad Labor approach to this issue. Our attitude to this bill is that we accept that there are matters that require attention and some change to practice. We're up for a proper look at these issues—in this regard I will go through the recommendations by the Labor senators shortly—but, to do so, we must start again. This is no basis for dealing with the issues the government says it is interested in dealing with. In particular, we can't proceed without adequate information and advice from the department, or indeed without any information from the contractors who are responsible for so much which is at issue here. What we have is an approach by the government that would deprive a number of human beings of very limited, existing agency the use of mobile phones, in particular, to speak with family, legal representatives and support networks; and the ability to store and manage their own medication.
I'm also deeply concerned, like my colleagues, about the extension of search powers beyond reasonable cause. This is a step that we should not be taking lightly. When I think about this, I think about something extraordinary in the review process. I was very pleased to have been here while the member for Cowan detailed what the evidence that was submitted to the various Senate inquiries showed. There was not only the overwhelming body of concern and an indication to the government that it should pause and reflect and not proceed down this path but also, beyond that, something that I found quite extraordinary: Senator Macdonald was the author of recommendations which highlighted key human rights failures in that bill. Senator Macdonald is not known as a staunch advocate for the human rights of individuals, particularly those in these circumstance. I think that shows the extraordinary overreach that is contained in this bill—the extraordinary and uncheckable powers that would be provided to the Minister for Home Affairs if this bill were passed. That raises not only questions about the practical application of the provisions contained in this bill to those individuals in detention but also some troubling questions of principle which have been very effectively highlighted through the Senate committee process and brought into very clear relief by the very forceful submission provided by the Law Council of Australia. This is a submission that government members should pay very careful regard to.
Of the many rights affected here, I think the right to privacy would be very considerably affected by these provisions. We're talking about a cohort of people, many of whom have experienced significant trauma and, often, unimaginable loss, yet the government would put these people in the position where the only way of dealing with advancing their legal interests, as they are entitled to do, would be through a public phone, in full hearing of anyone else. After everything that such a person has gone through, surely the least we can do is provide some privacy and, of course, also recognise their unalienable right to autonomy.
Fundamentally, when we look at the breadth of our concerns, everything comes down to a couple of points. The first is accepting that some elements in the narrative of the government appear to warrant changes to enable the appropriate operation of these facilities to the extent that they are necessary. But there are huge issues with the manner in which powers are to be granted, going beyond the question of those particular powers. This is triply so—I think we've got to the double already—when we don't have adequate evidence from the department, or the contractors to the department, about the impact on practice. So we have this issue of principle, we have this impact on practice, we have the human rights of a group of vulnerable people and we have no meaningful answer from the government that deals with these questions. The government has not provided a compelling rationale to support the broad thrust of the provisions in this legislation and, in particular, has provided no basis to support the manner in which these additional requirements have been imposed.
We remember, unlike some in this debate, that immigration detention, regardless of the cohort composition, is not a prison. It cannot be talked of like prison. So, when we talk about changes in the cohort, let us remember that the individuals within this system should be treated as individuals, having regard to their individual circumstances and, of course, their individual rights. We should have regard to the breadth of evidence that has been provided—the 80 submissions the member for Cowan referred to—which highlighted the fundamental failings in the approach of the government to this difficult issue.
I refer all government members—and I note that few have participated in this debate here—to the submission of the Australian Human Rights Commission. I refer also to the Law Council's submission, which forms the basis of the seven recommendations that Labor senators made—the last one demonstrating our willingness to engage with the government to resolve any real issues that require legislative attention. What we have fundamentally said beyond that commitment to work through these issues in a bipartisan manner is the need to step through the fundamental failings that the Law Council have identified.
Our amendments, in large part, pick up those recommendations. Firstly, we say that we should be narrowing the definition of a prohibited thing and that this should be defined in statute rather than left to the whim of the minister of the day. It's the appropriate general course for issues of this nature, and there has been no warrant for a departure in this case—and it would be difficult to see why that would be the case. It should be a matter for legislation. It should not be something that is beyond our scrutiny when we are talking about a vulnerable cohort.
We also pick up, and urge government members to consider, the second recommendation. This goes to the issue of the autonomy that is provided for by accessing a mobile phone and similar devices, except in circumstances where removal has been demonstrated to be necessary and proportionate. This is a matter that was also picked up by the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Kaldor Centre, who made a very strong submission that touches on significant constitutional questions in terms of the implied right of political communication. This should be more effectively addressed by the government and provides yet more reason for the government to go back and start making the case again. But certainly, in making the case, it should be that people in immigration detention have adequate opportunities to communicate with people outside of detention, whether for the purposes of obtaining legal advice or simply to maintain the bonds of human contact that the member for Indi spoke so effectively about in her speech.
We also urge government members to look at the third recommendation of the Law Council of Australia. This is a simple one. I can't imagine why it is controversial. It says to ensure that medications obtained under prescription, and related supplements that are recommended, are not caught by the provision, and that these provisions are directed at, as appropriate, restricted substances only. Recommendation 4 of the Law Council of Australia is to limit searches of personal effects and rooms to cases where there is a reasonable suspicion of the possession of contraband. Recommendation 5 deals with a similar issue; it's about clarifying the basis upon which invasions of privacy could take place. Lastly, in terms of the Law Council recommendations, we recommend the bill be amended to ensure that detector dogs are able to be used, but not on detainees. Other speakers have detailed the trauma that has been occasioned by this.
So I say to government members: have regard to principle and have regard to the evidence, and do not proceed with this bill until these matters are attended to.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (11:55): I also rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017. I join my Labor colleagues in opposing this bill in its current form. Let's be clear: of course Labor supports the concept that security and safety of detainees, staff and visitors is an important issue, and that contraband must be kept out of these facilities. However, Labor does not support that this minister, Minister Dutton, should have broadly defined powers that do not have any safeguards, other than the minister himself. While we are willing to work with the government in order to ensure the safety of detainees, staff and visitors, we will not, on this side of the House, be a rubber stamp to give Minister Dutton unchecked power, as is proposed in this bill.
The bill in its current form gives Minister Dutton way too much power. It enables, for example, the minister to determine a prohibited thing by a legislative instrument that is not disallowable by the Senate. These concerns that have been raised are not limited to me and my Labor colleagues on this side of the House. In fact, there have been a number of third-party stakeholders who have raised significant concerns, and they've raised these concerns around unchecked ministerial power. One example is in the foreword of a report, released in 2017, by Liberty Victoria's Rights Advocacy Project that specifically examined the discretionary powers of the immigration minister.
The Hon. Ian Macphee—you will be familiar with him, Mr Deputy Speaker; he's a former immigration minister in the Fraser Liberal government—has expressed that he has serious reservations with regard to the unchecked ministerial power under this minister. He said:
… ministers now exercise power that is mostly beyond the review of judges. Such power should be exercised humanely and in accordance with morality, not absolute law … The law and its practice is now unjust. It is un-Australian.
The report itself went on to say that these powers would further allow an immigration minister to play God. The report said:
Those decisions are not made in a transparent way in accordance with fair processes; rather, the Minister is empowered to an alarming degree to make decisions based upon his whim, with scant regard for due process.
The report examined the number of acts administered by each minister, and the number of public interest or national interest powers that conferred largely undefined ministerial discretion. It found the Attorney-General, Australia's highest law officer, held 38 powers within 152 acts. The immigration minister, however, far exceeded all other ministers with 47 powers within 20 acts. No other minister, not even the Prime Minister, is given anywhere near as much unchecked power. And of course we know that Minister Dutton has successfully merged some of these powers even further, under the title of home affairs minister and within his new department.
If we are to genuinely hold fast to the fundamental and most basic principles of democracy and the rule of law, we cannot abide one minister having such broad personal power, the power to make such important decisions affecting people's most basic of rights, devoid of any transparency and accountability. In short, this is overreach; a continuation, if you will, of the empire building that we've seen by the Minister for Home Affairs, to use his new job title.
Let them call themselves what they will—he can call himself whatever he wants—but, regardless of whichever title they wish to give themselves, it is incumbent on this government to ensure the safety of detainees, staff and visitors in immigration detention and transit facilities whilst adhering to the rule of law. The Turnbull government has to take seriously their duty of care for people detained in, working in or visiting Australia's onshore immigration detention and transit facilities. But it is important that the Turnbull government gets the balance right and makes a fair and reasonable case for any items they wish to have prohibited. In ensuring the safety of these detainees, staff and visitors, Labor agrees, of course, that drugs, weapons and child exploitation material should not be allowed in immigration detention and transit centres. This is painfully obvious. But we know that drugs have, in fact, gotten through the security checks.
The tragic death of Robert Elan Peihopa in 2016 inside Villawood Immigration Detention Centre shows that allowing contraband into detention facilities has dire consequences. The coronial inquest into the death of Mr Peihopa found that he passed away from fatal cardiac arrhythmia and triggers of ingestion of methamphetamine in the hours before his death. He had been in detention for more than 10 months. These drugs—these things—should never be allowed in immigration detention facilities in the first place. The Minister for Home Affairs has serious questions to answer. If he's been sitting on his hands allowing this type of thing to occur unchecked for the three years in which he's been immigration minister, what has he been doing? Only one of the nine recommendations of the coronial inquest into the death of Mr Peihopa relates to enhanced search and seizure powers in immigration detention facilities. I specifically refer to recommendation 4, which states:
Search and seizure powers available at immigration detention facilities should be enhanced to (a) prevent the entry of illegal drugs into immigration detention centres and (b) detect illegal drugs which have entered immigration detention centres.
The other eight recommendations of the coronial inquest into Mr Peihopa's death relate to required improvements in the relationship, processes and information-sharing protocols between the department and its providers—Serco and International Health and Medical Services, IHMS—and other state bodies, including improvements to treatment and rehabilitation programs made available to detainees while in immigration detention centres. As I said earlier, Labor is willing to work with the government, in the national interest, of course, to strengthen search and seizure powers. However, measures must be proportionate to the risk, appropriate to the circumstances and necessary as proven by the evidence.
Serious concern about this bill has been raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. After Labor referred the bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for a Senate inquiry, the committee received submissions opposing the bill. Labor referred the bill to a Senate inquiry to give space to the government to make a case for why certain items should be prohibited, to allow stakeholders to consider and explain the impact of the changes on detainees and to ensure the legislation is appropriate and that there would be no unintended consequences. Of the 82 submissions to the Senate inquiry, 80 raised concerns about the bill as it is currently drafted. Only one raised conditional support for one aspect of the bill. The 82nd submission, if you like, from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, now the Department of Home Affairs, supported the bill. Surprise, surprise.
The submissions to the Senate inquiry raised significant concerns, and they came from a vast array of stakeholders: the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission, Legal Aid New South Wales, the Refugee Council of Australia, Rural Australians for Refugees, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Immigration Advice and Rights Centre, the Australian Association of Social Workers, Amnesty International Australia, Refugee Legal, Monash University Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre—that's just to name a few. The concerns raised by these organisations have been further exacerbated by the disturbing lack of transparency about the rules and guidelines visitors must follow when visiting immigration detention facilities. Some stakeholders have reported they have been prevented from taking pens and documents for detainees to sign into the visiting areas. It should be noted that neither Serco nor IHMS—the two providers for the department—made a submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill. They didn't even take the opportunity to make a case for why these broad powers are supposedly required for the good and orderly management of the immigration detention centres for which they are responsible.
Labor has listened and considered many of the concerns that have been raised. I've said that we've worked with the government, and we'll work with them if they are willing to consider restricting some of the provisions in this bill—for instance, the definition of 'prohibited thing'. It's too broad. Labor believes that the bill should be amended to narrowly confine the definition of 'prohibited thing' and that 'prohibited thing' should be defined in statute to enable appropriate parliamentary oversight.
Detainees should also not be prevented from possessing or using electronic devices, such as mobile phones, unless there is clear evidence that their removal is both necessary and proportionate. We should ensure that all people in immigration detention have adequate opportunity to communicate with people outside the centres.
Furthermore, medications obtained under prescription or supplements recommended by health practitioners should not be caught up by these provisions. The provisions should be directed only at narcotic or restricted substances. I think that's common sense.
The bill must also limit searches of detainees' personal effects and the rooms that they reside in to cases where there is reasonable suspicion that contraband is in the detainee's possession, along with expressly referring to the principle that detainees not be searched unless there is a reasonable suspicion that an illegal substance or items are in their possession and that strip searches be conducted only in exceptional circumstances.
We've heard some debate around the issue of sniffer dogs. They can be of valuable assistance in keeping contraband out of those centres, but there are concerns about the impact that the use of sniffer dogs will have on some vulnerable asylum seeker detainees in these centres, as dogs may have been used as an intimidation tool during persecution that they may have suffered in their country of origin. Labor believes the bill should ensure that detector dogs are able to be used in immigration detention and transit centres but are not permitted to be used directly on detainees.
If the government listens to these concerns and recommendations, Labor will, of course, consider supporting the government in passing the bill. But only with the aforementioned restrictions and amended provisions can we feel secure that these centres can properly keep detainees, staff and visitors safe rather than subjecting them to the government's or the minister's failures on the management of these centres. They don't like talking about these failures in managing these immigration detention centres. If Peter Dutton, the minister, wants to have these broad powers to ban certain items then he should have used the Senate inquiry to make a case as to why certain items need to be banned.
We have seen the minister's incompetence writ large—failures through the lens of his politicised narrative on this issue. Just last week an independent review of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, looking at the circumstances of the detention of two Australian citizens, was released under freedom of information laws. The review has revealed systematic problems in Minister Dutton's management of onshore detention centres, resulting in two Australian citizens being wrongly detained in immigration detention. Between 2016 and 2017 the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection wrongfully held two Australian citizens in immigration detention for 97 and 13 days respectively. I repeat: this government wrongfully held Australian citizens in immigration detention. For all Minister Dutton's arrogant swagger and bluster about management of these centres, border security and how strong he is on all of these matters, the incompetence is absolutely staggering.
This investigation exposed the failures by the minister to manage Australia's onshore immigration detention centres, and it included ignorance of critical information and a failure by a number of senior department officers to recognise that the individuals were Australian citizens. Staff involved did not have the fundamental level of knowledge required to perform their duties, and officers did not consistently demonstrate the requisite knowledge, understanding and skills to fairly and lawfully exercise their power to detain.
Evidence from this review found that resourcing issues and management's focus to address timeliness in delays, rather than ensuring the quality and lawfulness of the decisions, were at the root of these problems. Findings like these are why we need more transparency in the accountability of the Department of Home Affairs, not less. It's exactly why we need the government to fully explain and justify why Minister Dutton needs such unfettered and ill-defined powers. The incompetence, the failures and the lack of transparency are part of a broader and alarming pattern. The creation of the Department of Home Affairs further neglects responsibilities with regard to immigration. The fear-mongering and the securitisation of immigration policy disregard that this is fundamentally a social and economic area of policy about the management and facilitation of new migrants coming to our country and contributing economically, socially and culturally.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (12:10): From the start, I want to be clear. I don't want to see drugs in immigration detention centres. I don't want to see child exploitation material in immigration and transit centres. I don't want to see weapons in immigration detention centres. And I think we can all agree on those things. If they are in immigration detention centres today, it raises serious questions about the basic responsibility that the minister has to keep people safe. If there needs to be improved search and seizure powers, then we are willing to work with the government to take the appropriate and proportionate measures that are necessary based on proven evidence. But there are already wideranging powers under section 252 of the Migration Act. You'd have to wonder why more powers are needed. The Senate inquiry did not establish a case—the government did not put a case—around the need for these additional powers. You'd have to ask why the minister isn't able to control criminal activity within his detention centres under the current act and why he hasn't been able to take action against detention centre staff who are breaking the rules and profiting from the desperation of detainees.
The problem with the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill is that it gives the broadest possible powers to the minister to ban items in detention, to conduct searches and to change the rules at whim. This is at a time when we have unprecedented secrecy about what happens within the Immigration and Border Protection portfolio. This is about broad powers with no checks and balances on the Department of Home Affairs. One of the government's reasons for wanting these blanket bans on a range of items is based on the increased number of detainees in onshore immigration detention who have criminal convictions. These are people who've had their visas cancelled due to criminal activity proven in court. The argument goes that, to deal with the increased risk these people pose, all people in a detention centre should be subjected to the same restrictive practices. Yet more than 60 per cent of the current population of detention centres and transit centres are asylum seekers. These are overstayers or people who have not committed any criminal offence. So what the minister has failed to do—what the government has failed to do—is make a case for why the measures in this bill are required to be applied across the entire population in detention and immigration transit centres.
The measures in the bill are disproportionate to the stated risks and the government doesn't explain what it's done to address those risks in other ways rather than adopting broad and restrictive rules to the whole detainee population without considering the vulnerabilities and differences within that group. I am mindful of the teacher who punishes the whole class because one student hasn't handed in their homework. It's a one-size-fits-all approach that does more harm than good. Immigration detention, for most people, is for administrative purposes and is not punitive. Yet, perversely, many of the conditions that this bill wants to impose are already tougher, and will become more restrictive than, the conditions in prisons.
I want to look at the detail of what's being proposed here and why there are significant issues as it's currently written, including concerns about this bill from the Law Council of Australia, Legal Aid New South Wales, the Refugee Council of Australia, Amnesty International and, from my own electorate, the Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group. We are so concerned about the way the bill is written that we, and many of the submissions to the Senate inquiry, believe it should be started over.
Let's talk about the definition of a 'prohibited thing'. Currently, this includes illegal possessions such as narcotic drugs and child exploitation material. We agree these must be removed from centres, but we disagree with the minister's power to determine, by legislative instrument, what this category of prohibited things extends to. As the Law Council of Australia note in their submission on the bill, virtually any kind of item could be declared prohibited if the minister felt like it.
Concerns about this are exacerbated by the lack of transparency around the rules and guidelines visitors must follow now when visiting immigration detention facilities. I visited Villawood some years ago, and my recollection is of incredibly tight security. The regular visitors to Villawood from the Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group shared their experiences, these days, of constantly changing rules. From week to week there can be different criteria about the process they go through, the conditions they have to meet and who's allowed to visit. The most recent thing they told me is that last year visitors to detention centres were banned from bringing in fresh fruit, home-cooked food, board games, permission forms to seek professional help on a detainee's behalf and any paper or pens. They were all banned last year. Visitors now face draconian security measures and are only allowed to see one person at a time. Previously, visitors could inject some humanity for those facing indefinite detention by sharing fruit and food, playing board games and even celebrating birthdays. I'm quoting the Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group: 'We can't even take in a birthday cake or a piece of paper to record someone's birthday or phone number.' When you're banning birthday cake, you've really got to wonder how we've got to this point.
I note that these decisions regarding what counts as a prohibited item stand without any checks and balances to the minister's decision. They stand without any clear guidelines as to what exactly is an item that might be a risk to the health, safety or security of persons in the facility. They stand without any consideration of how the very law the Turnbull government proposes may further alienate and endanger those they're supposedly trying to keep safe.
There are already existing powers under section 252 of the Migration Act that allow officers to search for, and confiscate, dangerous items. I'm urged to ask why the minister desires even further rules, this further choking and veiled control over the privacy and lives of those in detention.
The explanatory memorandum given for this bill constantly referenced the few cases in which there had been violent crime and child exploitation material. Every one of us on this side has said that, while there must be measures introduced to ensure that these instances are not repeated, the entire body of immigration detention centres should not have to suffer at the discretion of a minister.
If you are going to change the rules, you need to take into account the first recommendation of the Law Council of Australia's submission—to narrow the definition of a prohibited thing—and, in accordance with the Legal Aid New South Wales proposal, make a prohibited thing defined in the statute to enable appropriate parliamentary oversight. There should not be these broad, sweeping, undefined provisions that are contained in this bill.
I want to talk about strip searches and room searches. This bill allows broad provisions relating to both those things with very few safeguards. I've already mentioned section 252 of the Migration Act, which relates to the screening and seizing powers authorised officers have in relation to people in detention and their visitors. It's worth understanding what is already allowed. I thank the Refugee Council of Australia for this list: sections 252, 252AA, 252A, 252C and 252G allow authorised officers to search and screen, without warrant, a person, their clothing and property, or conduct a strip search of a person in detention. This is to look for weapons and items that can be used to inflict bodily injury or to help the person to escape from the detention facility. They can also look for documents and other things that are evidence for cancelling a person's visa. Visitors can already be searched for items that can endanger the safety of people in detention and staff or that would disrupt the order of the facility. These are wide powers.
This bill wants to extend the law to search for prohibited items, which would include mobile phones. Surely there is something wrong with a strip search merely to find out whether or not a person is carrying a mobile phone or a SIM card. In examining the bill, the Senate committee concluded that the provisions are too broad and that strip searches of detainees should occur only when there is a reasonable suspicion that the detainee possesses an illegal substance or contraband. The Blue Mountains Refugee Support Group notes that:
… strip searches and draconian search provisions without search warrants, does not demonstrate the Australian values of decency and respect. It denies people who have fled to us for peace and safety, any sense of wellbeing and risks further traumatising them.
Let's talk about mobile phones. The government's explanatory memorandum details how mobile phones have enabled criminal activity within the immigration detention network, but fails to consider the positive impacts of mobile phones in the hands of people awaiting an administrative decision on their fate. Let me remind you of the mental health crisis within these detention centres: between January 2013 and August 2016 there were 1,730 recorded incidents of self-harm in immigration detention, according to the Australian Human Rights Commission. Imagine if we were to cut these same people off from the one link they have to family and external support networks. What if we were to take away the small sense of home that they find in these phone calls? One of my motivations for being in this place is to see that we better support people's mental health, so I cannot support a decision that deliberately worsens one vulnerable group's mental health. An already debilitatingly slow and lonely system is made worse for those who, in many instances, have done nothing wrong. What if, by taking their phones away, we make it even harder for them to contact legal representatives and assistance?
Amnesty International, an organisation which has visited many detention centres over many years, says its experience has been that landline and internet access has consistently proven to be inadequate in meeting the needs of people in detention, especially for people seeking asylum. In many facilities, access to computers and internet is based on rosters set by detention service providers, offering rigid timeslots that don't consider the time difference with people's countries of origin. There are many reports of family members trying, unsuccessfully, to contact loved ones in detention by going through the switchboard, and of lawyers trying to work within tight deadlines with their clients. Keep in mind that lawyers often need to speak to their clients about highly confidential and sensitive issues like rape and torture; a public phone booth with a queue of people behind you is not the ideal place for these conversations to happen. Every one of these concerns is echoed by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which has consistently argued there should be greater access to mobile phones for asylum seekers. In the absence of other appropriate communication options or direct intelligence relating to specific individuals, detainees should be allowed to have mobile phones.
I will talk briefly about access to medication. Individuals have a right to privacy and to manage their own health. The blanket ban on all medications once again unfairly impedes these rights, and innocent people are being punished for the mistakes of a few. When medications have been prescribed, detainees have the right to keep and administer these medications themselves. The people who are in detention for administrative purposes are already disempowered, and in fact we do them no benefit by turning them into even more institutionalised patients.
Finally, on sniffer dogs, we recognise that there is a role for detector dogs to be used in immigration detention and transit centres, but not when they are used on detainees. This was noted in recommendation 6 of Labor's Senate committee report. Clearly, the move to use sniffer dogs on detainees fails to respect the trauma and circumstances that someone seeking asylum may well have experienced. It only serves to further humiliate and traumatise those in centres.
We have a responsibility not to do more harm. But what we have here before us is a bill that further worsens the conditions of people who've undergone more pain or suffering than most of us can fathom. In a time where we should be restoring the human rights to those in detention, this seeks to demolish them. For this reason, I cannot support this bill.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (12:26): I rise to oppose the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017 in its current form. I will just speak briefly on this bill, and I will leave it to my colleague Senator Griff, in the other place, who will be seeking to move amendments to this bill and who also has carriage of the immigration portfolio on behalf of NXT and has done a huge amount of work on this bill.
The provisions of this bill are awash with ministerial executive overreach—overreach designed to allow the minister to deny any item of comfort or communication to asylum seekers in detention. For every piece of legislation brought to this place, we in this chamber must ask: what is the purpose of this bill? And for this bill I can see no purpose.
Now, it stands to reason that, where asylum seekers in Manus and Nauru are in possession of items that are illegal under Australian Commonwealth or state law, or even Papua New Guinean or Nauruan law, this possession should also be prohibited in detention centres. Illicit drugs, child pornography—none of these items should be in our detention centres, and I believe every member in this place agrees.
I also recognise the need to retain the existing powers in the Migration Act to remove weapons, as well as items which could be used to escape from immigration detention centres in Australia, from the possession of asylum seekers. However, if asylum seekers have items that are not weapons or otherwise illegal under Australian law, why should they be prohibited? Why should asylum seekers not be able to access items that are indeed legal? They are not in prison. I repeat: they are not in prison. The government has been at pains to say that they are free to come and go from detention facilities in Nauru and Manus. So why would we deny them simple liberties such as mobile phones to communicate, if they are not indeed prisoners?
As I've said previously, I cannot but agree with the simple principle that immigration detainees should not be able to possess items that are illegal under state or federal law. However, this bill is clearly much more than that. It gives unfettered power to the minister to prohibit any item he or she chooses, regardless of the reason for that prohibition.
I suspect that mobile phones, especially those with cameras, would be the first item to be considered on the minister's list should this legislation pass the parliament in its current form. Right now, there is limited knowledge of the conditions and events that happen, particularly on Manus and Nauru. We do not have freedom of the press there. We do not have parliamentary delegations. There is very little transparency. The only insight we truly have—for those of us who are concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers—is to follow a number of detainees on Twitter and other social media. It is the only way that the Australian community and indeed the global community—and, believe me, the global community is watching—have any understanding of what is truly happening on Manus and Nauru.
There is one man in particular that we rely upon, although there are many men, particularly on Manus, who are on social media. He's a Kurdish freelance journalist. His name is Behrouz Boochani. His communications on social media, I believe, are the only way we have some sort of window into life on Manus. I can imagine it takes great courage for Mr Boochani to speak out daily on social media about the real life on Manus, and this bill would silence him.
A core principle and aim of NXT is to pursue greater transparency and accountability in government. In its current form, this bill could be used by the minister or future ministers to thwart that aim. Therefore, we cannot support it.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (12:30): I rise to share my concerns also with regard to the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017. This bill, of course, purports to make detention centres safer, and, while Labor will always consider reasonable and proportionate proposals to improve safety and security in these centres, the government has fundamentally failed to make the case for this legislation. It compromises human rights, it creates harsh new search and seizure measures and it gives the minister unchecked power. It also continues this government's very concerning pattern of harsh, punitive policies against asylum seekers.
Since coming to power, those opposite have taken every opportunity to eliminate any remaining vestiges of compassion from this very sensitive policy area. I think it is a grave error to mistake compassion with some kind of sense that this is going soft on border control, which is the kind of rhetoric we've grown very used to, to be honest. And I've got no doubt that the minister and some members opposite might well try to distort contributions from this side of the House as some sign that, if you dare express compassion in a debate, that's somehow a sign of weakness. It's a very, very narrow-mindedly focused person who asserts that cruelty is somehow tantamount to being kind in the long run and compassion is somehow tantamount to being soft on security issues. I think that's a very limited and unhelpful debate that occurs very often in this House and, indeed, outside.
Certainly, there are many examples as to why Labor would be concerned about allowing unchecked powers to the minister, and I'll come to that again later in the debate. The government's record in terms of its mismanagement of offshore facilities—facilities, I might stress, that were designed to be regional transit processing centres but have instead become horrific places of indefinite detention. That is my definition of cruelty—when you indefinitely detain people in these centres. There have also been attempts to deprive asylum seekers of dignity and to intentionally delay processing.
The government has re-implemented Howard-era temporary protection visas, which only serve to keep people stuck in a permanent state of limbo. They've tried to stop asylum seekers from telling their stories, refused to answer questions and have shut journalists out of detention centres. They've rejected New Zealand's compassionate offer to provide a home to 150 refugees—an offer which, I note, was first made by the conservative New Zealand government. They've failed to respond to the Senate inquiry into the distressing reports of abuse, self-harm and neglect in both Nauru and Manus Island, and they've used every means at their disposal to dodge scrutiny and avoid accountability. They've completely abrogated their responsibility to find third party resettlement options for the remaining asylum seekers and they've engaged in a puerile campaign of dog whistling to whip up fear and anxiety in the community.
While this bill pretends to have safety and security at its very heart, closer examination suggests it's little more than an unwarranted attempt by this government to further punish vulnerable people and choke their channels of communication. This legislation allows the minister to define specific items as prohibited in detention centres through a legislative instrument. It comes on the back of last year's failed attempt by the Turnbull government to ban mobile phones in detention centres—a bid that was overturned by the Federal Court when it found that detention centre staff had no authority to confiscate mobile phones. This bill would also increase immigration officers' search and seizure powers within these facilities, and allow both strip searches and the use of dogs on detainees and visitors. It also indirectly empowers authorised officers to use force when conducting a search.
While the prohibited items that this legislation will create aren't defined in the explanatory memorandum, that memorandum says those prohibited items might include things like mobile phones, SIM cards, computers, medications and healthcare supplements, and offensive publications. The government argue that these things pose a larger risk to safety and security because of 'an increasing number of higher risk detainees', but they simply haven't made the case for this—especially since the new, harsher regime will, in fact, apply to all detainees. Thus, it unfairly penalises the many asylum seekers who have committed no crime whatsoever. Not only that, but, because these ministerial decisions wouldn't be disallowable, the normal opportunity for this parliament to object to and overturn any inappropriate regulations won't be available.
It's clear that the impact on detainees of having access to communication devices revoked would be severe. In these detention centres, a mobile phone isn't just a means of communication; it's really a lifeline to the world beyond the detention centre. It's a lifeline from a world that is incredibly traumatic and destabilised so much of the time. Detainees rely on mobile phones to stay in touch with their friends and families; they also need them to maintain contact with their lawyers. Removing them would significantly add to the stress and the mental and emotional harm they are already suffering in detention.
Labor is also very concerned about prohibiting medications or health supplements. We want to see strong protections here to ensure critical prescribed medications or supplements recommended by health practitioners are not included in this prohibited items list. While Labor will always consider reasonable measures to improve safety and security, we believe those prohibitions are totally unwarranted.
We also hold grave concerns about giving the minister broad, unchecked powers to declare pretty much anything he chooses to be banned while removing this parliament's critical right of review. Why should we trust this government and this minister when they have demonstrated time and time again utter incompetence in the management of our detention centres, and a callous disregard for the wellbeing and dignity of those people who are in them? This is a minister who has a record of campaigning relentlessly—and, we can see, quite successfully—to expand his own powers. He is quite content with running a continuous commentary on judicial decisions and practices. Most conservatives would normally respect the separation of powers that exist between judiciary and parliament, but not this minister. No, this is a minister who has built himself a mega-department in which to exercise these new, expanded powers. He's proven time and time again that he simply shouldn't be trusted with the expansion of unfettered power.
At best, this bill is poorly drafted. It is rushed and there are a raft of unintended consequences. At worst, this bill is an active attempt to deprive vulnerable asylum seekers of their human rights, while dodging parliamentary oversight. Labor referred this bill to the Senate for a thorough inquiry. There were around 82 submissions and more than 170 form letters received from around the country. They were nearly unanimous in having serious concerns about fundamental aspects of this bill, and the vast majority recommended it not be passed. Submitters to the inquiry shared their profound unease about the broad powers this bill bestows on the minister. They were deeply concerned that the minister could decree absolutely any item to be prohibited and that there would be no way for the parliament to object to or overrule these decisions.
Similar concerns were raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which is responsible for assessing proposed legislation against a set of standards regarding individual rights, liberties and obligations, the rule of law and, indeed, parliamentary scrutiny. In its Scrutiny Digest, the committee questioned 'the appropriateness of allowing significant policy matters to be dealt with by delegated legislation'. I must say I share these concerns. I'd also like to know why the minister isn't willing to be up-front about what it is he wants to prohibit. We've heard reports about items like pens and paper already being banned in the detention centres. Who's to say that these things won't be added to the list of prohibited items after the bill has passed the parliament? I'm persuaded that the measures required by this bill are utterly disproportionate to the demonstrated risk.
In its submission, Amnesty International noted that the High Court had found that mandatory detention of asylum seekers cannot be punitive. This bill, which imposes harsh restrictions on all detainees, demonstrably is punitive. It's important to remember that detention centres are not correctional facilities, and they should not be treated as such. As the Refugee Council of Australia points out, the bill applies 'the same set of restrictive policies to all people in detention, irrespective of their past history, risk rating and vulnerability, to mitigate the risk presented by some'. The Australian Human Rights Commission agrees that blanket decisions are inappropriate, saying that 'restrictions should only be imposed in individual cases in response to individual risk assessments'.
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee also had something to say on this. It said that the proposed amendments in the bill would apply to all immigration detainees equally, despite the fact that around half the detention population are not high-risk individuals. The committee's report found that the bill 'unduly trespasses on personal rights and liberties'. Notably absent in the inquiry were submissions supporting the government's position from the companies who actually run these detention facilities. Neither Serco nor IHMS chose to take the opportunity to make the case for why this increase in powers is necessary for good order within their facilities.
And it isn't just the Scrutiny of Bills Committee which has concerns about the impacts of the bill on the dignity and human rights of detainees. On this matter, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights wrote:
By introducing dog searches, warrantless searches and possibly depriving interns of mobile phones and medication, the bill allows the further traumatising and terrorising of innocent men, women and children. The behaviour which would be permitted under this legislation, apparently with no judicial oversight, is akin to the torture of innocent people.
That is the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights' assessment. The removal of mobile phones is also of particular concern to the Australian Human Rights Commission, which submitted that 'prohibiting the possession of mobile phones engages and limits a range of human rights', including those relating to privacy, freedom of expression and association, and protection of the family. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights also saw the expanded search and seizure powers as being in conflict with the right to freedom from torture and from cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to humane treatment in detention.
In summary, this is plagued with deeply worrying issues which must be rectified. Labor shares the concerns raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the hundreds of people who wrote submissions to the Senate inquiry. I won't support a bill that offers unchecked ministerial powers and removes parliamentary oversight. This bill can't come at the expense of due process or the humane treatment of asylum seekers.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (12:45): I rise to raise serious concerns about this bill, the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017, for a range of reasons. Of course it is admirable and sensible to seek to ensure the safety of people held within Australia's care. That's why people on this side of the House have been so outspoken in respect of failures to protect the safety and security of people in our care in offshore detention, for example. But the desire to protect people's safety should not lead us to absolve ourselves of the responsibilities that come with being legislators, and it should not lead us to delegate to a single individual the legislative authority of this parliament, particularly in this case, where what's sought is that sort of delegation without any legislative instruments that that individual makes being disallowed in this parliament.
This bill seeks to confer on the immigration minister the power to prohibit items in detention centres by legislative instrument and to make such legislative instruments as he considers appropriate, and to do so in a form of legislative instruments that are not disallowable by the parliament. In other words, it would allow the immigration minister to simply decide to issue an instrument that certain things are not able to be brought into detention centres, and this parliament would have no authority to then disallow that legislative instrument. That is obviously a concern, not because of the particular personality of the minister concerned but because no minister should be given that authority when it comes to this particular matter.
Immigration detention centres are not prisons. Immigration detention centres are not a form of punishment. Immigration detention centres are not places where people should be deprived of the usual amenity of life. A lot of the people—certainly not all of the people nor the majority of the people, but a lot of the people—in immigration detention centres have done nothing other than seek Australia's support and protection, having fled persecution or a reasonable fear of it. They're people who are already traumatised. They're people who have been through persecution at home. There's an example that was in the High Court in December of someone who had been seeking asylum in Australia, had been seeking our protection, who had been persecuted at home having converted to Christianity. That's a pretty common story. When we have asylum seekers in our detention centres, we should be seeking to respond and protect them with compassion and support, not seeking to make that form of detention punitive. The detention should be as short as possible. Refugee status determinations should be made in a timely way. People should obtain protection once their refugee status determination has been made and they should be treated with respect and with safety and security in the intervening period.
On the weekend I met a woman who had been born in 1932 and, at the age of seven, was an asylum seeker and then a refugee. In 1939 she escaped and she reached England, where she was described as a 'friendly alien from a hostile nation'.
We're now facing a very different set of circumstances many decades later. Nonetheless, we're still seeing situations where people are fleeing the risk of imminent death, are coming to completely strange countries and are seeking protection. I'm pleased we don't call them 'friendly aliens' any more, but I'm not pleased at the punitive and often unreasonable way in which people are treated having arrived here seeking our protection. There are plenty of examples of it.
I've spoken before about my concerns about the lack of safety and security in relation to offshore detention. I've supported Labor's policy at the last election of increasing funding to the UNHCR by $400 million so that the UNHCR could assist people in attaining refugee status determinations while still en route, rather than making the dangerous and risky decision to get onto a boat, with a view to avoiding people being in that very difficult situation.
I supported the reinstatement of 90-day targets for the processing of applications for refugee status determinations, which, unfortunately, this government removed when it came into office. It would just be preferable if people, instead of sitting on islands and in indefinite detention, losing hope, could obtain their status determination within 90 days, or at least a preliminary decision subject to appropriate review and appeal rights, of course.
I supported the reinclusion into our domestic law of references to the refugee convention, which this government was successful in having removed in 2014 with the support of the Senate crossbench. I opposed, as did Labor, the reintroduction of temporary protection visas, because I believe that when somebody has made it to a country of protection and has obtained a refugee status determination—has obtained a determination that they were fleeing persecution or a reasonable fear of it—we should let them start a new life and not leave them in limbo on a temporary visa. Imagine trying to get a job or a loan and not knowing whether you were going to be deported from the country in a few years time. You know as well as I do, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, because you've met many successful members of our communities who've come to Australia as refugees, that people who've fled persecution, people who've managed to get away and people who've had the wherewithal to start a new life are often entrepreneurial people who make a great contribution through businesses or social services or our community. I do wonder what we're forgoing as a nation by failing to increase the refugee intake and by failing to have stronger and more compassionate policies towards refugees. Like everyone on our side of the parliament, I've certainly had significant concerns and have spoken out about these issues in the past.
In the same batch of legislation in which the refugee convention wasexcised from domestic law—references to it were removed—we saw the introduction of the so called fast track process with a view to dealing with more of the applications for refugee status determinations that were extant at the time. That fast track process has very recently been in the courts. Again, I'd like to take the opportunity to raise serious concerns about it, because it's a process that denies procedural fairness to people based on the way that they got there—based not on the circumstances they left or the extent of the persecution that they faced, but just on their mode of arrival
I mentioned the case earlier of the man who said he'd left persecution because he had converted to Christianity. What happened in that case was he said: 'I'm a Christian now. I've converted. That's why I was persecuted. I go to church.' And there was a private conversation—he didn't know anything about it—where somebody cast doubt on his conversion because he hadn't been coming to church as much. The lawyers said that, if they'd asked him, he would have said he had moved house and was finding it more difficult to get to that same church. He would have gone and got other evidence to demonstrate his conversion, but he wasn't told about it, and that's under the fast track process.
It's important that we have procedural fairness for people when their rights are being considered and determined, particularly when the potential consequences are so prejudicial.. There have been a range of concerns that I and others have had in respect of policy responses to asylum seekers and refugees in this country, and it's in that context that this bill—which, as I said, seeks to confer on a minister, an individual, the right to make legislative instruments which are not disallowable by the parliament—is so concerning. That's giving a person a lot of power over the lives of hundreds of people who are being deprived of their liberty not for having committed a crime, not for having done anything illegal, but for having come to Australia to seek our protection, having fled persecution or a reasonable fear of it.
I've had some concerns about the operation of detention centres for some time. I visited the Brisbane immigration facility some time ago. Of course, I filled out a lot of paperwork to get in, brought my ID and went along to the facility. We were moved from the entrance point to a visitor facility. We weren't allowed to move around freely to talk to people. We were watched the whole time and we were brought to a little segregated area for visitors. It was quite new. Shortly after that visit, I started to hear from community groups, Christian groups, who were visiting—and I should say it was Reverend Pickering from the Uniting Church who took me along to the immigration detention centre that I visited, and I thank her for that—that the consequence of setting up this visitor centre, rather than allowing people to do what they used to do, which was meet with asylum seekers just in the common area people used for lunch or for gathering, was that there had been the imposition of a limit of two on the number of visits that someone could get per week—two visits per week.
We're not talking about criminals; we're not talking about prisoners. I'm not making any comment about what should happen with prisoners, but here we're talking about people who, as I said, have not been convicted of any crime. So we started to see a limit on the visitors that people could have. Traumatised people who had fled persecution were not able to get as much support as previously. I understand from the minister that that later increased to three visits per week, but the consequence of these sorts of arbitrary decisions around where visits can happen and how many can be allocated per week have real ramifications for the people living in these centres and waiting for an outcome of their situation.
We also learned that, in that particular detention centre, there had been a policy enforced that you had to get prior approval to bring any gifts of commercially packaged food. Again, we're not talking about prisoners; we're talking about people who are waiting for an outcome. Of course friends and family will want to bring food as gifts. After further inquiries, I was then told that, in fact, as well as there being this requirement for prior approval for bringing in a packet of Tim Tams or whatever, now there was a limit of two items of commercially prepared food. I heard stories of people not even being allowed to leave tea bags behind.
Of course I've raised these concerns and other concerns with the minister in previous items of correspondence, as I was already concerned about the arbitrary nature of decisions being made about the interaction between people waiting for their outcomes in immigration facilities and people in what I think the commissioner from the then immigration department described as the 'real world', which I thought was a pretty telling way of describing it. There are already some arbitrary constraints in relation to the engagement that people like me from the community can have with people inside immigration detention centres. So I'm concerned about this idea of providing a new right to the minister to decree such decisions by legislative instrument, issued without any need for recourse to this House or the other place about what might actually start to occur in the event that the minister does obtain that power.
You'd also be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, that this bill seeks to allow the prohibition of mobile phones within immigration detention centres. That is a concern that a number of my constituents have raised with me, and I anticipate that that will continue to be the case. They will also have concerns about any limitations on internet access and the ability of detainees to be able to communicate about what's happening in the facility, particularly given that, as I said, there have been some limits on visits from outsiders.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (13:00): In 2015 I gave a speech in this place in which I characterised Australia as having reached a 'pre police state'. In that speech I went into some detail, lamenting the concerns in the community at the way our democracy and our liberties have been diminished. I think I spoke on behalf of a great many members of the community: people who had seen, experienced, sensed or just suspected that our country was evolving in a negative way, that we could no longer take for granted things that we used to, and that the power of the state in this country was being extended beyond any reasonable limit.
I regret to say that, as I stand here today and talk about this bill, nothing has changed; in fact, if this bill were to become law then things will have worsened. Remember, this bill would allow: the minister to ban whatever he wants from immigration detention centres and to extend the existing screening search-and-seizure powers, including strip searches; areas of immigration detention to be searched without a warrant; and the use of detector dogs to screen not just detainees but even people visiting an immigration detention centre. In other words this bill goes beyond any reasonable attempt to improve the way activities are conducted in immigration detention centres.
In effect it goes another step closer to turning immigration detention centres into jails, but in some ways it goes beyond and is even worse than that, because at least the jails in all our jurisdictions conform to or sit within a framework of carefully considered laws and legislation. Before someone goes to jail, they would normally have been suspected of an offence, have been charged and have had their day in court, where they would have had legal representation. What goes on inside those prisons would be overseen by the state and territory governments.
In this case the government is seeking to go even further in the way it can, completely outside the justice system, grab hold of someone in the community and detain them indefinitely without charge. Those people in immigration detention centres haven't necessarily been suspected of any wrongdoing, haven't been charged with anything, haven't had a day in court and haven't had a chance to be legally represented; they are just jailed indefinitely without charge on the whim of a government official or the relevant minister in this government.
This is really alarming. When it comes to immigration matters and irregular immigration to this country, this government thinks it can act outside of any law. It thinks it can create these almost 'black sites' where it can just grab someone off the street and lock them up indefinitely without trial and with very few rights—even fewer, if this bill becomes law. There is no procedural fairness whatsoever. It is completely outside of any sort of proper legal framework and process.
Why on earth would the government want to do this and behave in this way? I think there are a number of reasons. It is another effort by the government to demonise people who are involved with immigration matters and, in particular, those who attempt to come to this country through irregular means. I am talking, of course, about asylum seekers in particular. But in doing that it is changing the whole immigration detention arrangement and ensuring that anyone in the community who is not an Australian citizen but is even merely suspected of something is thrown in one of these immigration detention centres. In a healthy and law-abiding country like Australia, if there is someone in the community of any nationality who is suspected on reasonable grounds of any wrongdoing—and the government likes to say it is suspected sex offenders, members of bikie gangs and whatnot—they should be charged and front court in Australia. What's this about putting them in mysterious immigration detention centres without trial, in some cases indefinitely—which is a punishment in itself—and then sending the problem to some other country? If someone has done something wrong according to Australian law in this country then we should deal with that matter in this country and they should front a court in this country. They certainly shouldn't be put in an immigration detention centre.
Some years ago now, in 2014, I approached the International Criminal Court to bring to their attention the concern of many Australians that a series of Australian governments had been in breach of the Rome statute. That series of Australian governments, including this one now, are guilty of crimes against humanity for a whole range of reasons. Article 7 of the Rome statute covers 'imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law', 'deportation or forcible transfer' of people, and other acts 'intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body and mental physical health'. That part of the Rome statute sounds as relevant today and as relevant to this bill as it has sounded on any number of occasions in recent years and during the terms of a number of governments in recent times.
I will be sending my concerns about this bill to the International Criminal Court as well, and they can add it to the file—and I suspect it is quite a hefty file. It does raise the question: when is an Australian government going to start acting like the government of a lucky, wealthy and civilised country? When is an Australian government going to start respecting international law when it comes to immigration matters? I have already spoken in a bit of detail there about how, in my opinion, a number of Australian governments have failed to comply with the Rome statute, which is an important international agreement we have signed up to. I think it is also self-evident that a series of Australian governments, including this government, are also failing to abide by the refugee convention, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
What is so hard about understanding the importance of international law? What is so hard about understanding that we have signed up to those agreements in good faith because we thought they were important and they are still important and we should still comply with them? It seems to be the case with Australian governments these days that international law is only important when it suits us. When it comes to immigration matters—in particular, irregular immigration to this country—it doesn't suit us, so we ignore it. In doing so, when it comes to immigration issues, this country has become a pariah among the community of nations. The way we deal with irregular immigrants to this country is simply unconscionable.
It is even more unconscionable when you think that the global situation of displaced people is even worse now than at any other time—far worse even than at the end of the Second World War. Looking at the UNHCR figures, there are 65.6 million people forcibly displaced worldwide, of whom more than 20 million are refugees and 10 million are stateless people. No wonder Turkey is hosting 2.9 million of these people, Pakistan 1.5 million, Lebanon one million, Iran about one million, Uganda about one million and Ethiopia three-quarters of a million. This is an enormous global challenge, and the burden is being shouldered by a small number of countries—and not ours. It is simply not good enough for this government and previous governments to crow and say, 'Oh, but we're the first or the second or the third best in the world when it comes to the number of people we take in through a humanitarian program.' That's cooking the books, because that's referring only to the percentage of people that are taken through the UNHCR program. It completely ignores the fact that millions more—tens of millions more—are displaced and are refugees.
We are not a generous country, and we are going to be a whole lot less generous if this bill becomes law. How dare the minister and the government think that it's appropriate to take these sorts of actions when it comes to immigration detention centres, which are mostly filled with people dealing with simple immigration matters? These centres are not full of sex offenders and bikies. They're full of regular people, many of whom are awaiting a simple immigration determination, often because they've attempted to come to Australia because they've been fleeing for their life.
This bill is unsupportable, and I certainly won't be supporting it. No wonder. Just in the last 12 months, I think I've counted five different episodes where the United Nations has criticised Australia. Some people in this place will say: 'Who cares about the United Nations? They're discredited.' Well, they are not discredited. At the end of the day, the United Nations is the best we've got. It is the one body where the community of nations can come together and speak as one. For this country to have been criticised, on my count, five times in the last 12 months because of our response to asylum seekers is simply unconscionable. In the last 12 months we've had the head of the UNHCR, no less, criticise Australia. We've had the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights criticise Australia. About a year ago a United Nations team in Papua New Guinea criticised our response to asylum seekers. The UN Human Rights Council criticised Australia's response to asylum seekers. Quite recently the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination criticised Australia.
I am proud of this country and I am proud of everything we have achieved and of what we can become, but I am ashamed of the way this country responds to asylum seekers. I am ashamed of the fact that we have mandatory detention, that we have offshore processing, and that we have tow-backs and temporary protection visas. I am ashamed of the fact that the Republic of Nauru is being used as a prison island for people, most of whom have simply tried to make it to Australia because they were fleeing for their lives. I am ashamed of the fact that there are hundreds of men on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea that have supposedly been released, only to do their best to survive in a hostile community—an understandably hostile community; they've got their own concerns about what these hundreds of men from other countries are suddenly doing wandering their streets and trying their best to live in substandard accommodation and facilities, with completely inadequate services provided for them. I am ashamed of all of this.
Mark my words: when the history books are written about this period in Australian history—the period from a few decades ago up until now, and particularly now—historians will lament the fact that this country responded to asylum seekers in the way it has. They are not going to say what a wonderful country we are because we stopped the boats. Those historians are going to lament the fact that we completely and utterly lost any respect for relevant international laws, that we became an international pariah, and that we had ministers and governments who thought it was okay to extend the screening, search and seizure powers, including strip searches, of people in immigration detention, to have dogs sniffing not just the inmates but even the people visiting them in what are effectively jails, to search without a warrant, to ban anything we want, and to, in effect, establish these black sites where we can dump any non-Australian citizen indefinitely without trial in dreadful circumstances and think it's okay. It's not okay. I hope and I expect the opposition will vote against this bill, and I'm sure a number of the crossbenchers are going to vote against it, including me.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (13:15): I rise to oppose the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017, and I do so consistent with my view over a long period of time that you can be tough on people smugglers without being weak on humanity. This piece of legislation seeks to impose draconian measures. It seeks to give the minister too much power and it undermines Australia's proud record as a nation of compassion, as a nation that respects human rights and as a nation that is prepared to treat people in a fundamentally decent way—to treat them with respect. That is what we all expect of every human being in the way that they relate to other human beings. That is what we teach our young people. It is what I got taught growing up as a young person in this country, both at home and in school.
This legislation seeks to amend the Migration Act to allow the immigration minister to determine a 'thing' as prohibited in relation to immigration detention facilities and detainees. What a 'thing' is is not given any serious definition. The bill would provide for a minister, on a whim, to determine that something was a 'thing' and therefore to be excluded, without any recourse to review or sensible action after the event. Were legislation to come before this chamber outlawing the presence of 'things' that should not be in detention centres or anywhere else for that matter, like weapons, drugs and child pornography—things that are either dangerous to detainees or to other people, or abhorrent to all—the opposition would be very sympathetic to the fact that the government is suggesting that these things have been available while this government has been in office.
I am reminded that the time they have been in office is approaching five years now. They've had a term and a half in office, but, from their rhetoric, you would think they were much more comfortable on this side of the House. They behave each and every day like an opposition in exile on the government benches rather than a government that actually has the capacity to govern truly in the national interest, that has the capacity to bring Australians together and that has the capacity to forge a common path to support national unity. They are a government that is always looking for division, always looking for a wedge and always looking, with great hyperbole, for a way to present itself as being the only thing standing between order and chaos in this country. Well, in fact, this bill would advance chaos. It would undermine our respect for proper legal processes.
The bill amends search and seizure powers, including the use of detector or sniffer dogs, for screening of detainees and visitors. It would apply a new statutory power to search facilities operated by or for the Commonwealth in order to enforce both existing and new prohibitions. It is an example of legislative overreach—not the first one we've seen from the former immigration minister and now Minister for Home Affairs. The products that were identified in the minister's introductory speech—as I said, drugs, weapons and child exploitation material—should never be found in detention centres or anywhere else. The people working to protect our borders should have the proper powers to search for and remove contraband.
The fact is that, whilst Labor is certainly willing to work with the government to strengthen search and seizure powers, measures must be proportionate to the risk, appropriate to the circumstances and necessary as proven by the evidence. That's one of the reasons why we supported the referral of this legislation for inquiry. That inquiry found that overwhelmingly the submissions, which came forward from a whole range of organisations, opposed the bill as it is currently drafted. Indeed, there were 82 submissions made to the Senate inquiry and, of those, 80 submissions raised concerns about the bill as it is currently drafted.
The organisations include the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission, Legal Aid New South Wales, FECCA, the Refugee Advice and Casework Service, the UNSW Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, the Refugee Council of Australia, Rural Australians for Refugees, the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre, the National Justice Project, the Australian Association of Social Workers, Amnesty International Australia, Refugee Legal, Monash University Castan Centre for Human Rights Law and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre. All of these organisations, diverse as they are, were united in identifying weaknesses in this legislation.
The evidence from the Senate inquiry found that this bill is an overreach by the minister, who wants to grant himself unchecked power by being able to prohibit any items, without making a case for it and in a way that avoids parliamentary scrutiny. This is really sloppy legislation. As someone who has had experience in the area of transport security, with regard to aviation in particular, I know that you must always be accountable for what you're doing. This bill seeks to remove that and would allow the minister virtually unfettered power to determine that something was literally a thing that should be prohibited and without proper review. The bill, indeed, would allow the minister to determine a thing as prohibited without discrimination. It then seeks to amend the search and seizure powers of authorised border protection officers and their assistants to search for, confiscate and destroy those things deemed to be prohibited by the minister. The definition of a prohibited item under this legislation may include anything if it might—not that it will—be considered a risk to the health, safety or security of persons in a detention facility or to the order of the facility itself. Examples include mobile phones, SIM cards, computer tablets, medications, healthcare supplements, food and literature.
There are a range of people in detention here. As of 31 October last year, there were 1,264 people in onshore immigration detention. Of those, 462 related to character cancellations under section 501; 324 were irregular maritime arrivals; and 478 were the other detention group, including visa overstayers, noncitizens who have breached visa conditions and travellers who didn't get through the immigration clearance system. Currently, visitors to immigration detention and transit facilities must pass through a metal detector or be 'wanded' with a metal detector, but officers don't have the power to ask visitors to empty their pockets or deploy a sniffer dog or search a visitor if they have a reasonable suspicion that the visitor is carrying contraband.
In February 2017, the government banned mobile phones in immigration detention centres, but a detainee was successful in obtaining an injunction from the Federal Court. They were successful because the court found that officers didn't have that authority. The department appealed the injunction to the Federal Court in August, and they lost. This is a government that has lost, because at times they haven't sought to change the law before they have tried to act as if the law had been changed. On this occasion, they are trying to change the law but they are doing so in a way which is so sloppy, and it goes to the politics of this issue.
For reasons that are perhaps beyond my own comprehension, I agreed to do an interview with the Daily Telegraph yesterday, with Miranda Devine, who is someone with very strong views across a range of issues. One of the things that she put to me in that interview was: 'It's actually putting out a very tough line that seems not to be very kind or human in order to stop the people smugglers having a product to sell, in order to stop the boats.' What that is doing, be it the advocates for the government or the government itself—sometimes the advocates are a bit more up-front than the government—is not really about sending a message to the people smugglers or to asylum seekers; it is about sending a domestic message. It is about sending a domestic message for political purposes in order to be, as Miranda Devine put to me, not very human, essentially, towards fellow human beings. That was the question put to me. I think we are a better country than that. I think we can do much better than that. I think we can be very tough on people smugglers, without resorting to, as a conscious decision, treating people as less than human; that should be our objective. In response to that, I said: 'What you seem to be suggesting is that we would consciously mistreat people in order to send a message. I hope it is not the government's policy. They certainly say it isn't.' The amendments in this message, in my view, are aimed at sending that domestic political message. It is clouded by pretending that it is about sending a message somewhere else. It is really about a domestic political message, putting up something that no-one with any sense of compassion or decency, no-one who has been raised with a view that we have a responsibility to be kind to others and to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated—as a philosopher who many on the other side say they follow said most famously—would do. That is why this legislation is, frankly, unsupportable. We are quite happy to support measures that are appropriate. We have no problem with that whatsoever, but this legislation simply goes too far, and that is why it is not worthy of support.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Keilty, Ms Patricia 'Trish'
Mr HILL (Bruce) (13:30): I rise on a happy note. I warmly and loudly congratulate Trish Keilty on winning the City of Greater Dandenong Citizen of the Year award for her amazing work at Avocare. Some months ago I had the pleasure of touring Avocare with the member for Isaacs. It's an incredible facility. Trish in fact founded this charity over 14 years ago, in 2003. It has now been serving the people of Dandenong for over a decade, supporting local charities to provide care for struggling families, the elderly and the disenfranchised. Trish and her team have managed all this while never receiving any direct or untied government funding at any level. Their workforce includes unemployed people, who learn employability and industry based skills while also supporting the community. There is this incredible map—I wish I could table it, but that's not permitted at this time in the House—which shows 100-plus charities that Avocare provides assistance and distribution to, not just in Dandenong but across the whole south-east of Melbourne. They partner with Foodbank to provide much-needed food relief to the local community. They are the lead partner in the distribution of 421,000 kilograms of food.
Trish's compassion and energy are palpable and shine through whenever you meet her. It is typical, when Trish received this award, that the first thing she did was acknowledge the work of others and the other volunteers, but I congratulate Trish Keilty and the team at Avocare, and urge them to keep up the work.
Ferris, Mr Dean
Mr HOGAN (Page) (13:31): To many people Dean Ferris is an Australian champion motocross rider who has travelled the world; to us he's a homegrown inspiration, proving that with hard work and dedication you can conquer the world. Dean grew up on a property near Kyogle with his parents, Christina and Peter; his brother, Leeon; and his sister, Veronica. It was on this property that he learned to ride motorbikes from the very young age of four. His love for motorbikes and motocross only grew as he got older and fulfilled his childhood dream of being a professional motocross racer. In 2017 Dean secured his second consecutive Australian motocross championship, where he also made history as the most successful Australian motocross national rider ever, when he won nine out of 10 rounds. He has also won a motocross grand prix, being one of only four Australians ever to do so. He has been all over the world, both representing Australia in the Motocross of Nations and racing for factory teams in Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Europe. Dean is currently back in Kyogle with his partner, Renae, and their daughter, Myah. He just received the Sportsperson of the Year award at the Kyogle Australia Day awards ceremony, which I was fortunate enough to attend. Congratulations, Dean.
Health Care
Mr HART (Bass) (13:33): Thanks to a leaked COAG document, we now know the Prime Minister's secret pre-budget hospital plan, which will lock in seven years of public hospital cuts. This five-year deal offers no new money for public hospitals and leaves the states locked into their current, inadequate funding arrangements until 2025. In my home state of Tasmania we are facing a health crisis; the last thing we need is more cuts to health funding. Surgery and emergency room waiting times have blown out. This week I received a letter from one of my constituents, desperate for assistance. She is on the public waiting list for a knee replacement. This is a person with no cartilage in her right knee. She suffers from chronic pain and is unable to stand for any period of time, limiting her day-to-day activities. When she last inquired about the waiting period for her surgery, she was told it would be eight years. This is entirely unacceptable. Her call to my office was a last resort. She told me:
The thought of living like this for another eight years terrifies me.
The Tasmanian Liberal government's cut of $210 million from our hospitals in their first budget was a bridge too far. Tasmanians have been suffering for this ever since. Whenever Liberals get a chance, they cut health. We've seen it in Tasmania and we're seeing it again with this Prime Minister's secret plan. Labor will invest in health, putting patients first and fixing our health crisis.
Australia Day
Domestic and Family Violence
Australia Day Awards
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:34): Australia Day is a wonderful day to celebrate, to commemorate and to reflect on our history—the great times, the achievements and, of course, the very dark times. I want to put on record my very strong support for Australia Day being 26 January and express my disappointment with the campaign, particularly from the Greens, to change the date.
Also, I wish to make it very clear, after chairing an inquiry into family violence law reform, that it's very disappointing that, after many weeks of calling on the Greens to support the bipartisan recommendations which were made, we've still not had any strong support at all from the Greens for the very significant efforts that we've made to implement very strong reform, building on the significant reforms that have already been introduced by the Turnbull government.
Australia Day is also a great day to celebrate great Australians. I want to put on record my congratulations to Robert Charles, Barrie Provan, Paul Hemming, Lyn Harris, Pat Collins, Roger Allen, Peter Mansfield, Jan Kinloch and Therese McKenney, all of whom received Australia Day honours. Congratulations particularly to Robert Charles, my Corangamite FEC chairman for the last eight years, a wonderful Australian. He made such a great contribution to the Army Reserve, Fort Queenscliff and Lifeline. Congratulations to Robert. (Time expired)
Chan, Mrs Janet
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:36): It is with a great degree of honour and a great degree of sorrow that I rise to speak of a true learning champion and teaching champion in Mrs Janet Chan. It is an absolute privilege to have known her. She was a loving daughter, wife, mother and grandmother and a great friend to many in our local community, particularly to the teachers, students and families at Plumpton Public School. Janet served as the principal of Plumpton Public School from 2001 to 2013, was also principal of Tregear and Sackville Street public schools and was awarded life membership of the New South Wales Primary Principals' Association in 2015. Importantly, Janet was an incredible educator who moulded the futures of our young children. Her dedication and passion for the cause stood out every time I had an opportunity to be in her presence.
Aged 62, Janet sadly lost a battle with throat cancer in late October last year. I had the pleasure of attending Plumpton Public School's school presentation assembly last December, where the school unveiled a bell in memory of Janet. We also heard a humbling and touching speech from Principal Maureen Larkin, who mentioned: 'Janet's contribution to public education just cannot be measured. She was held in such high esteem by all who knew her.' There is a moving saying engraved inside the bell: 'What a beautiful difference a single life can make.' That is certainly true in Janet's case.
Sincere condolences go to Janet's husband, Michael, and her children, grandchildren and family. Thank you for all you did for our community and may you rest in peace, Janet Chan.
Queensland: Dental Health
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:38): Up in Queensland we have a classic workplace go-slow that the CFMEU would be proud of! We're seeing dental care not being given by the Queensland government, due to a pathetic sideline melee that needs to be sorted out, and long ago. Governments rely on funding from each other, and Queensland gets about $30 million on top of the $190 million of state money for dental care, but the Queensland government are unhappy that they're not getting enough money. We're talking about the raisins in the bun. It's time to stop squeezing the pipe in Queensland and refusing to sign on, because every other state has signed on to fund dental care in Queensland except Queensland, and it's not happening.
I have a pensioner in my electorate who was told to wait six weeks, when she can't chew on one side of her face, who was not given a voucher, simply because of the bickering between Queensland and the Commonwealth. 'Move on' is the clear message. Victoria has a dental program about the same size as Queensland's, but it delivers 20 per cent more services for the same amount of money. Now, Queensland's a larger state, but it's time to stop using excuses. It is given $192 million, plus $30 million of federal money. Get the dental care going. Queensland holding out helps no-one. Punishing pensioners helps no-one. We have a well-funded dental system nationwide. It's good enough for every other state. It should be good enough for Queensland.
Black Saturday Bushfires: Ninth Anniversary
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (13:39): On the morning of today's date in 2009, north-westerly winds in excess of 100 kilometres an hour scoured our state, bringing hot, dry air from Central Australia. The storm helped create the most perfect fire conditions at the end of a long, hot and dry week in the midst of a drought. As I stood in the shed painting a car, stupidly, in 47-degree heat, I was unaware of the disaster unfolding three kilometres away. In Saunders Road an electrical fault started what would become the Kilmore East fire at 11.47. This fire spread through the forestry plantation across the Hume Highway at approximately the same time that we are standing here now talking. The fire burnt through Wandong and reached Mount Disappointment at approximately 3 pm. Strong winds blew the fire towards Humevale and Kinglake at speeds of up to 200 kilometres an hour, with embers causing spot fires 20 to 40 kilometres away. Between 3.30 and 7 pm the fire entered Kinglake National Park and continued on to Strathewen, St Andrews, Kinglake, Kinglake West, Chum Creek, Steels Creek, Arthurs Creek, Flowerdale, Broadford, Healesville and Toolangi.
In this fire, 119 people died and 232 were hospitalised. The towns of Kinglake, Marysville, Narbethong, Flowerdale and Strathewen were nearly completely razed, while many other towns suffered serious damage. The total area destroyed was half a million kilometres—the size of a small country. The energy that Black Saturday fire released is equivalent to 1,500 atomic bombs of the size of the one that was dropped on Hiroshima. The most significant fire, the Kinglake fire complex, was named after the merging of the two fires of Kilmore and Murrindindi. The extreme temperatures and wind created convection clouds above the flames, which further fuelled the fire and propelled embers far beyond the fire front.
By the end of this day, 173 lives were lost and many were to follow, and over 2,000 homes were lost. As we reflect, we give thanks to all the Australians who stood up and supported our communities like never before. We remember, reflect and never forget. (Time expired)
Petrie Electorate: Roads
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (13:41): I want to speak about an important road in my electorate of Petrie that needs upgrade, the Linkfield Road overpass that crosses Gympie Arterial Road. The Linkfield Road overpass crosses Carseldine, Bald Hills and Bridgeman Downs. It's a high-growth area. This road is in need of urgent upgrade by the state Labor Palaszczuk government. It hasn't had any money spent in that area for several years. The last time the road was upgraded was by the Newman government. They upgraded the Linkfield Road through Bracken Ridge and across rail line along with the Brisbane City Council. The roads need upgrading across the Bruce Highway. Labor have been in power in Queensland for 25 years of the last 30 and they have spent absolutely nothing in the outskirts of Brisbane.
At least 40 residents of Carseldine, Bald Hills and Bridgeman Downs have contacted me saying, 'Luke, this road really needs upgrading.' I'm writing to the state minister, Mark Bailey, to make sure that they see this as a priority. They only fixate on the centre of Brisbane. They've got the blinkers on. They are talking about Cross River Rail, but they could get hundreds of extra infrastructure projects done on the outskirts of Brisbane or in the Moreton Bay region. Time's up; the state government need to deliver for the outskirts of Brisbane.
Gambling
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (13:42): As Tasmania prepares to vote to remove poker machines from hotels and clubs, it is disgusting to see the blatant lies the poker machine industry is peddling—for instance, the lie that jobs will be lost, the lie that these are loveable little businesses, the lie that people will switch to online gambling, the lie that the state relies on the tax revenue from poker machines and the lie that gambling addiction isn't a problem. The fact is that $1 million spent on gambling creates three jobs, but spent on drinks and food it creates up to 20.
The fact is that poker machines are big business, raking in millions of dollars a year, like at the Elwick Hotel in my electorate, where each machine harvests nearly $150,000 annually. The fact is that experience elsewhere proves that poker machine addicts don't switch to online gambling when access to the machines is restricted; the fact is that gambling addiction costs Tasmania about three times the poker machine tax collected; and the fact is that gambling addiction in the state is going up, not down. This is an industry that preys on vulnerable people and is built on lies. It's all bad, and the worst offenders are the big poker machine barons like Federal Group and Woolworths. They should be ashamed of themselves, and this election is a chance for Tasmania to put them in their place.
Swan Electorate: Citizenship
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:44): As did many from this chamber and the Senate—perhaps with the exception of the Australian Greens—I spent my Australia Day attending the citizenship ceremonies hosted by local councils in my electorate of Swan to welcome our newest Aussies on our national day, 26 January. The City of South Perth held a magnificent Australia Day ceremony at Sir James Mitchell Park, which borders the Swan River—which my electorate is named after—with a flyover by the Australian Air Force. The City of Belmont held their citizenship ceremony at the Belmont RSL, a fitting place to remind us of the sacrifices made so that all Australians, new and old, are able to enjoy the freedoms of our great nation. All of the conferees were proud as punch to finally be able to call themselves Aussies. Each and every one of them had a fantastic morning, and I'm sure that they'll look fondly on this memory for years to come.
A recent poll conducted by AMES Australia found that over 80 per cent of new migrants—yes, 80 per cent—believe Australia Day is an important day for our nation. Many of my constituents agree and have called our office to say they're disgusted by the Greens' subversive attack on our national date and our Australian values cherished by the majority of Australians. Instead of working on real solutions to close the gap and address issues affecting Indigenous Australians, the Greens are encouraging divisiveness. Australia Day is a day for all Australians. We unite, pay thanks and celebrate our great nation. I would like to pay tribute to the City of South Perth, who actually confirmed last year that they will continue to hold Australia Day ceremonies on 26 January.
Health Care
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (13:45): This week, I received a heartbreaking letter from one of my constituents, a 33-year-old father of young twin boys under the age of two and husband of a grade III brain cancer survivor, Emma. He wrote to me about the experience of Emma being found to have cancer and what they went through in terms of treatment at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and then overseas in Seattle, where they went to get proton radiation therapy, a targeted therapy not yet available in Australia.
While they were in Seattle, they also went through a period where they received medicinal cannabis support in order to help her health condition. He has outlined to me how difficult it has been to get that treatment legally here in Australia because of the limited operation of it. This is something where I think the government, with its support for exports, has received congratulations across the board. They need to look at this and we need to make sure that people aren't forced into accessing this treatment through illegal— (Time expired)
Employment
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:47): Even as a proud Sydneysider, I'm happy to concede that the Melbourne Cricket Ground is the spiritual home of Australian sport. To see this magnificent stadium filled to its capacity is a sight to behold, and the MCG actually helps us visualise the over 400,000 new jobs created in this economy last year. For every one of those 400,000 jobs, we could fill every seat in the MCG four times over and still have people left over. And the vast majority of those 400,000 jobs were full-time—over 300,000 of them. Seventy per cent were in the private sector, and in my electorate of Hughes, which I proudly represent, the unemployment is down to 2.7 per cent.
What's the secret? The secret is that on this side of the House we understand that it is not government that creates jobs; it is the private sector. No-one expressed this better than President Reagan, who would have turned 107 yesterday, when he said—and listen to this, on the other side:
We who live in free market societies believe growth, prosperity and, ultimately, human fulfilment are created from the bottom up, not from the government down.
By reducing government spending, honouring the commitment to a balanced budget, reducing tax rates to encourage productive investment and personal savings, and eliminating excessive governance, we are convinced that we will enter a new era of sustained prosperity. (Time expired)
Parramatta Electorate: Thai Pongal
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:48): Last month, Parramatta celebrated Thai Pongal. Thai Pongal is a four-day harvest festival where the Tamil community come together to give thanks for a successful harvest and to celebrate life. I look forward usually to songs, dancing, poetry and fun every year. Unfortunately, this year in January, I was camping out in the desert, where there's no phone signal. I took a couple of weeks west of the Nullarbor, so I missed the Pongal celebrations, but I want to acknowledge the events that took place in my electorate. The Jaffna Hindu College Old Boys' Association once again celebrated in Civic Park, and I thank the vice president, Sivabalasingam Rishikesan, for the invitation. Thanks also go to John Kennedy from the Sydney Tamil Manram for the invitation to Pongal Vizha this year. I'm sorry to have missed that too. And, last but not least, my apologies to Parramatta's Community Migrant Resource Centre for missing the huge celebrations in Centenary Square. I was particularly upset about this one, but luckily I was able to watch the beautiful performances through Facebook Live when I returned.
Better late than never, we will be celebrating Thai Pongal in parliament next week. I will be hosting our annual Thai Pongal celebrations with the Tamil Arts and Culture Association. Thanks goes to Anagan Babu and his team of volunteers for all the work they have done in the lead-up to the event. I know it's going to be wonderful. I hope everyone who celebrated Pongal had a great time with family and friends, and I'm really looking forward to celebrating next week here in the parliament.
Capricornia Electorate: Sexual Assault Services
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Chief Nationals Whip) (13:50): I wish I did not have to raise this issue, but I simply cannot leave it uncovered. Reports from a number of concerned constituents in my electorate of Capricornia have highlighted a grave under-resourcing in the Queensland health system. It has come to my knowledge that access to appropriate care for sexual assault victims is simply not being afforded to them in Central Queensland. This simply is not good enough.
In a country like Australia, we have an expectation that, when the chips are down and we are truly in need, we will be cared for. Unfortunately, right now in CQ, this does not extend to victims of sexual assault. Where there were once 14 properly trained professionals, there is now just one. This leaves just one person to service an area roughly double the size of Tasmania. Victims are having to travel hundreds of kilometres to receive care and examinations, and are at times left alone in a room, waiting for assistance, reflecting on their recent trauma. This leads to victims deciding to 'give it a miss', leaving them without proper care and leaving the perpetrators of these heinous crimes with a 'get out of jail free' card.
Despite federal funding continuing to grow, the Labor state government has let Central Queensland down, in a most horrific fashion. I call on Annastacia Palaszczuk and Steven Miles to fix this disgraceful negligence as a matter of urgency. Nobody should be denied care in a situation as desperate as that which these poor people find themselves in.
Western Australia: Goods and Services Tax
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (13:52): The Turnbull government have sold out Western Australians yet again! They told us that only they had a plan to deal with WA's unfair share of the GST, which has now been exposed as a complete farce. Liberal federal government ministers from South Australia are telling the media that, regardless of what the Productivity Commission proposes, the Turnbull government will not be changing the GST distribution. Well, which is it? After all the rhetoric and all the promises, it would appear that the government does not in fact have a plan to help WA.
My Labor colleagues and I are acutely aware of the adverse effect when there's a sudden drop in your share of GST, especially when the then state Treasurer, now the member for Pearce, made a completely unfounded assumption that it wouldn't happen. Thankfully for WA, and for South Australia, Labor actually has a plan that leaves no state worse off. Labor understands that West Aussies are getting a raw deal, and the federal Labor Party has committed to a $1.6 billion fair share fund for Western Australia. This fund will be used to build train lines, roads and other vital infrastructure our state needs, which, under the Turnbull Liberal government, will not happen.
Critically also, South Australia, Tasmania and other states will not be left worse off under Labor—unlike under the Liberals. Meanwhile, where are the federal WA Liberals? I'll tell you—they're doing nothing for Western Australia.
Berowra Electorate: Toastmasters
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:53): As parliamentarians, public speaking is part of our profession, so it was great to get a few pointers on my recent visits to the Toastmasters clubs at Berowra and Elouera in my electorate. Toastmasters aims to develop confident public speakers through a supportive learning environment. These two clubs in my electorate attract a wide variety of people, from seasoned speakers to those looking to face their fears. The Toastmasters experience has the ability to change lives, as is exemplified by the Berowra president, Peter Sheehan, who says it took him 30 years to develop the courage to join Toastmasters. Thanks to an environment that promotes patience, practice and positivity, Peter saw an immediate benefit. The impact of his lifelong stutter dramatically lessened, and, after being nurtured as a newcomer, he's now helping others himself. Aptly assisted by fellow members Jackie Beattie, Jason Smith and Elissa Macdonald, Peter presides over a club creating confidence where it once may have been lacking. It was terrific to see firsthand how welcoming they were to new member Erin McAlister as she proudly delivered her first speech. The excellent Elouera club in Thornleigh this year celebrates 25 years. In December, I was warmly welcomed to the club by Mary Wang and her team, including Sam Wong, Ramani Warusevitaneamani and Feng Cai, who invited me to share how becoming a parliamentarian has changed my speaking style.
During my time with both clubs I found myself in an environment which emphasised learning in a fun and relaxed manner. Their not-for-profit work seeks to create confident communities, particularly among out multicultural communities. I congratulate both clubs.
Schools
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:55): Schools have gone back across the country—preps and year 7s. We've had the commercial television stations with beautiful footage of kids starting primary school and secondary school. We've also been blasted by a government advertising campaign for its cheap discount-quality schools program that is selling out our kids. There are 58 schools in Lalor that have returned this year, and they are starting this year $8 million short, this year alone, on what Labor would deliver. That is $365½ million short for the state of Victoria across the next two years.
Eighty-six per cent of the Turnbull government's cuts are to the state sector. Low-fee Catholic schools will have 12 per cent of cuts. Independent schools, including some elite high-fee schools, will get two per cent of cuts. This is just not good enough from this government. It's not good enough at all. We need a Labor government to deliver the appropriate level of funding for our schools—the level of funding that our kids deserve and that our country needs—and a chance at equity and a chance for every child in this country to get the same sort of start.
Agriculture Industry
Ms LEY (Farrer) (13:56): I rise today with both a challenge and an invitation for my city-based parliamentary colleagues. Do the young people in your electorates really know about Aussie farming? Do they know that Australian agriculture has over 85,000 farm businesses, 99 per cent of which are Australian owned or operated. Every single one of them produces enough food to feed 600 people.
Well, I have just the Aussie woman for you. Right here in Parliament House today is Aimee Snowden from the New South Wales Murray River community of Tocumwal. Aimee is the brains behind Little Brick Farmers, which celebrates Australian agriculture through unique photos of farmers imagined and created from Lego. She's sometimes called the Lego Lady.
I'm delighted to note she's officially an ABC Heywire trailblazer. Heywire's aim is to put young Australians at the centre of conversations which can shape their communities. Can I congratulate all the trailblazers here for the great tales they have to tell on so many important issues. Aimee's hope is that her pictorial stories, via a blog and a Facebook page, can be shared amongst every community, city and country, to ensure our kids know exactly where their milk and bread comes from. She can even come to you. By speaking at career expos and school events, Aimee is providing our young people with stories, information and resources to encourage them to pursue careers in agriculture. Yes, it's about jobs and growth, but it's also about the city and the country pulling together to be the best we can possibly be.
Black Saturday Bushfires: Ninth Anniversary
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (13:58): It was on this day in 2009 that 173 people perished in the flames of Black Saturday, 40 people suffered very serious injuries and 3,500 properties were destroyed. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction, I remember the burnt-out car wrecks, with melted steel—it looked like a war zone. I remember the public meetings, the stories of life, death, anger, grief and shock, and people wondering how on earth they would start again. There are whole towns whose history will be forever divided into before and after that terrible day in February 2009.
Today we remember everyone who fought the long struggle to rebuild and who fought with insurance or underinsurance or none at all. We mourn all the loved ones lost, yet Black Saturday reminded us there is nothing ordinary about everyday Australians. We saw the very best of our people: the heroism of the voluntary and professional emergency services, and the generosity and optimism of the Lions Clubs, Rotary, scouts, girl guides, school communities, church groups and football and netball clubs. There were so many good-hearted Australians who gave their time and energy to help people get back on their feet and make shattered communities whole. Nothing can ever restore these communities to the way they were before the fire, but I know that the bravery of those who've worked so hard will stay with me forever. Finally, let us remember those who were lost and hold those who grieve in our hearts.
The SPEAKER: I would briefly associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. As someone who represents an electorate that was deeply affected by the Black Saturday fires, I certainly remember the Leader of the Opposition in his previous capacity, and the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition, being out there in the days after those tragic fires.
Canning Electorate: Roads
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (14:00): In March last year the opposition leader—I beg your pardon, the member for Grayndler—said that the former WA state Labor government did many great things for the people of Western Australia, including the Tonkin Highway. I can only assume that it has been a while since the member for Grayndler has been to WA, because, if he had, he would know that the Tonkin Highway is far from complete. In my electorate of Canning the residents of Serpentine Jarrahdale, the fastest growing local government in the country, tell me they have been waiting more than 20 years for the Tonkin Highway to be built south past Thomas Road. They are still waiting. In December I took the Minister for Finance out to Serpentine Jarrahdale to show him why they need the project done now. Unlike the member for Grayndler, we understand that the Tonkin Highway won't be finished until it is built southwards. I note the WA Premier, Mark McGowan, wrote in The West Australian today:
Investment in infrastructure is critical in growing the economy, generating new jobs and supporting sustainable and vibrant communities.
I was pleased to read this, because that is exactly what building the Tonkin Highway south will do. It will reroute heavy haulage trucks away from main streets, making local roads safer, particularly in Byford. It will give a boost to the local economy, stimulating industry in the centre of the Peel region. This will create countless local jobs, particularly for young Australians looking to get into a trade. We need to get this road built soon. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Batman Electorate
Issue of Writ
The SPEAKER (14:01): I inform the House that today I issued a writ for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Batman in the state of Victoria to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of David Feeney. The dates in connection with the by-election are fixed as follows: close of rolls, Wednesday 14 February, 2018; close of nominations, Thursday, 22 February, 2018; date of polling, Saturday 17 March, 2018; return of writ, on or before Friday, 18 May, 2018.
CONDOLENCES
Walker, Mr Ronald Joseph, AC, CBE
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:02): I rise to acknowledge and mourn the passing of Ron Walker. Ron was a man of tremendous drive and focus, a dedicated servant of his state, his country and his city. He was a great Australian and magnificent Melburnian. He towered over us all in life, and in death his legacy will loom large over his beloved city. Ron helped Melbourne become the city it was always destined to be. We will not see his like again. There is no better reminder of his contribution to public life than Melbourne. So many of its drawcards and the vibrancy and confidence of the city itself were inspired by his energy and vision. Melbourne's status as a centre of major sporting and cultural events owes much to Ron's passion for Formula One, having famously lured the coveted grand prix back from Adelaide in the 1990s. His oversight of the building of the iconic Crown Casino and key role in winning the 2006 Commonwealth Games brought a dynamism and a depth to Melbourne, a thriving international city.
Ron was a self-made man, a true entrepreneur who began his business career washing cars. He led many lives, and his passions and interests were wide-ranging: politics, business, the arts, medical research, philanthropy. From the early days of his financial success Ron was committed to sharing his good fortune. His contribution, as honourable members—particularly members of the Liberal Party—and Victorians know, was never just financial. He always gave of himself. When he committed to something, he was all in, boots and all. You didn't just get a financial backer; you got an advocate, an ideas man, a visionary, a friend and a good counsel. His time in politics, as a Melbourne city councillor and later as lord mayor, was short, but he didn't need government office to serve his state. His commitment was woven through everything he did. He was honoured in many ways—Officer of the Order of Australia, the Centenary Medal and Companion of the Order of Australia to name just a few.
Ron was honorary federal treasurer of the Liberal Party. As his successor in that role, I can say with authority it is the worst job in politics! Ron kept the party afloat in some very tough times—including, generously, from his own resources. There was never a more effective fundraiser. He was as persuasive as he was persistent. He even persuaded me to succeed him! He led by example and when, as often happened, friends tried to escape him as election day approached—well, how could you outrun someone with a stride like Ron Walker's. Ron encouraged me at every stage of my political career. He was a wise mentor, generous to a fault, always enthusiastic and never disheartened.
When Ron was diagnosed with cancer and given months to live, he railed against that fate. 'I don't want to die. I still have things to do,' he said. He found an experimental but very costly treatment in the United States—and it worked. His refusal to lie down brought another six years in which to do all those things he had wanted to do—and one of those was to ensure that everyone had access to the same cancer treatment he did. His advocacy was tireless, right up until the drug was listed on the PBS in 2015. It revealed a side of Ron that he didn't advertise widely—an understanding that with great wealth came a duty to those who are not so fortunate. There are many, many examples of his philanthropy that the public will never know. I place on record the acknowledgement and thanks of this parliament and our nation for his lifetime of service. To his wife, Barbara, and their family, I offer the heartfelt sympathy of the parliament and the nation.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): Towards the end of last year I was walking through Sydney Airport, heading back to Melbourne for the day, when I got tooted by one of those little motorised carts. It was Ron Walker riding on the back. He had a half-smile on his face, a twinkle in his eyes and was probably going about 150 kilometres slower than he would have liked. By the time I boarded the plane, he was already settled in his trademark spot, '1ALPHA', right next to his beloved Barbara. I assumed he was tired, and I knew he had been in the fight of his life. I thought that, like most of us when we get on a flight, he would want to rest on the trip home. So I said hello and took my seat; I didn't give it much more thought. Soon after, the flight attendant came and said that Mr Walker was wondering if I could spare a minute to chat. We only had a brief conversation—it was politically encouraging, I acknowledge!—but I was very touched by the gesture. I thought it was a measure of the man—warm and courteous, the mind still firing with ideas, still a keen observer and an analyst of the national political contest.
Mr Speaker, like you, I am a Melburnian, born and raised. Like everyone proud to call Melbourne home, Ron Walker has been omnipresent in our lives for decades. From my earliest memories of life in Melbourne as a primary school student there was Moomba, there was World of Sports on TV and there was 'Big Ron', the Lord Mayor of Melbourne—in all his regalia, of course. Regardless of one's politics, you'd have to acknowledge the difference that Ron made to Melbourne. The Prime Minister has dealt with his accomplishments for his beloved Liberal Party. I would like to talk a little bit about the transformation his vision helped to drive in Melbourne.
Ron undoubtedly loved Melbourne and he wanted to give the world a chance to fall in love with this marvellous city. I am sure in days to come there will be a discussion about how the city can honour his contribution to its success. Perhaps it will be a plaque, a statue, a car race, a hospital—something that carries the Walker name. But I think the simple truth is that there are already monuments to Ron Walker everywhere—the Australian Grand Prix, the revitalised South Bank, the world-class facilities built for the 2006 Commonwealth Games, and the tourists who come to watch the Bledisloe Cup or the President's Cup. There are the thousands of lives that he's changed through his generosity—from saving the Walwa bush hospital to championing Keytruda for cancer sufferers and following up a call he heard on the Neil Mitchell show and chipping in some money for someone doing it tough.
But perhaps the most powerful and enduring change that Ron helped to achieve was a change in mindset. From the hard times of recession, he helped restore Melbourne's faith in itself as a global destination, a city that could boldly bid for world events, confident that we could put on a world-class show in Melbourne.
Ron's love of his home town was perhaps even bigger than his lifelong loyalty to the Liberal Party. In John Ferguson's generous tribute to Ron in The Australian,he told the story of how, within hours of Steve Bracks being sworn in as Premier in 1999, Ron Walker called. I recognise Victorian Labor has spent some years targeting Ron's support for the Victorian Liberals, so Bracksy had no idea what to expect. Ron began with a simple statement: 'I am happy to serve your government and support you.' Mr Melbourne indeed!
When Ron first fought and beat cancer in 2012, he said, 'I didn't want to die. I had things to do.' I suspect, even last week, as his valiant fight against illness drew to a close, he still had things to do. For a man with Ron's drive and energy, his zest for life and his love of family, there's always more to do.
Today we can say with certainty that he loved his family, he lived life to the full and he had done more than enough for his city, for others and for our nation. May he rest in peace.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:11): by leave—I move:
That further statements on indulgence on the death of Ronald Joseph Walker AC, CBE be permitted in Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Negative Gearing
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:11): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Productivity Commission has found that the government's intervention in the housing sector delivers a windfall gain for banks. Up to half of this gain is paid for by taxpayers, as interest on investment loans is tax deductible. Therefore, Prime Minister, by refusing to reform negative gearing, isn't the government giving banks an annual bonus of half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money? When will the Prime Minister put people ahead of the big banks?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:12): The parliament has just passed the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, which is holding banking executives to account—an initiative of this government. Labor never did it. And, of course, we've imposed a major bank levy, which has made an important contribution to bringing the budget back into balance.
Let me start with what the honourable member said about negative gearing. When Labor first proposed their utterly unfair and discriminatory ban on people earning wages, salaries or professional income from offsetting that against net rental or business losses, they said this was all about bringing down the price of housing, which was too high. That is what they said it was all about. Now they say it wouldn't affect the price of housing at all.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: He says, 'No, they don't.' They do. Only one per cent, I think, they said—barely a ripple, they are proposing. What the Labor Party is proposing in its ban on negative gearing is the most ill-thought-out tax grab you can imagine.
For our part, we have no doubt that it would hit the housing market with a sledgehammer, with very, very negative consequences. But let's leave opinions on the value of real estate to one side. Let's look at how Labor discriminate against the very people they claim to represent. More than two-thirds of the people who file negative gearing claims are middle-income Australians: nurses, teachers and policemen.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: You can hear the Labor Party sneering about it—scoffing and scorning. That is where most of the negative gearing claims are made. And who, under Labor's plan, will be able to continue to offset net business losses? Who will be able to continue negative gearing? Not the wage earner, not the salary earner, not the professional person—no policemen, no teachers. Who will be doing it? Wealthy people with large investment incomes. So, the very people Labor claims to champion they are abandoning, and the people they claim to be taking on are the ones who will benefit from the market, from the greater opportunities afforded by yet another ill-thought Labor policy. They're such hopeless generals they can't even manage a class war. (Time expired)
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen will find it hard to stay in the chamber if he keeps interjecting. I refer him to his several warnings yesterday.
Economy
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister: Will the Prime Minister update the House as to how the government's economic plan is creating jobs for hardworking Australians, including those in my electorate of Chisholm? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:15): I thank the honourable member for her question. She's proud to be part of a government that is providing the economic leadership that is utterly lacking from members opposite and that is so necessary to ensure that Australians have the opportunities they deserve now and in the future. We are growing the economy and creating jobs—403,000 jobs last year, the largest jobs growth in any year on record. That strong economy enables us to fund all the services Australians need, whether it is education, whether it is health, whether it is infrastructure or whether it is national security.
Lower business taxes are vitally important to maintaining this momentum. We want to drive investment further, create more jobs and create more better-paid jobs. Planet Innovation is an advanced medical device manufacturer in the honourable member's electorate. It's created more than 100 jobs in the last 18 months by tripling its exports. They now want to use or take advantage of the lower business taxes we've delivered to increase investment, expand exports further and create more jobs. Their experience is matched by that of thousands of firms around the nation. That's what our business tax cuts for small and medium businesses are delivering: more investment, more jobs, more economic growth.
The Leader of the Opposition announced at a dinner with the BCA recently that he was going to take them on. He was declaring war on business. Well, we've just seen—my previous answer—how jumbled his efforts are. His motives definitely are to take on business, but he's not just holding business back; he is going to destroy jobs. Look at what they're doing with water right now. Labor is going to vote with the Greens to withdraw their support for the Basin Plan, a once bipartisan plan of which the member for Watson was a great supporter. When we lost government in 2007 the responsibility for water went from me over to the Labor Party—first Senator Wong, then the member for Watson, who became a great supporter of the Basin Plan. And he's now going to vote down in the Senate the outcome of the Northern Basin Review that he initiated, and immediately destroy hundreds and subsequently thousands of jobs. He's going to create financial and investment uncertainty and threaten jobs right across the basin. And of course it's not just there, but right across the country. What about their war on the Galilee Basin? Labor has abandoned the people they claim to represent. They've abandoned the workers of Australia. (Time expired)
Negative Gearing
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:19): My question is to the Treasurer. The Productivity Commission has found that the government's interventions into the housing sector deliver a windfall gain for the banks and that up to half of this gain is paid for by taxpayers because of negative gearing. Why should Australians, including young Australians who are struggling to buy their first home, pay for an annual bonus of $½ billion to the banks because this government refuses to reform negative gearing?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:19): I thank the member for the question. He perhaps should have given it to the member for Lilley, because this is what the member for Lilley said about negative gearing. He was asked by Jon Faine—my good friend and our good friend:
Why not adopt the measure to quarantine negative gearing losses offset against income from just that investment?
Treasurer Swan—that's the transcript:
Well, I've never accepted that view, and I think it would be disastrous in the current environment.
Mr Faine said:
Politically disastrous or economically disastrous?
Treasurer Swan said:
No, economically disastrous to do anything on negative gearing and indeed, that's what the—
Henry—
Review says.
The problem with the Labor Party is that they can never hold to one position on the economy at any time.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: They are saying it was nine years ago. Apparently housing affordability wasn't a problem nine years ago, Mr Speaker. I can tell you, anyone who sought to buy a house in Sydney in the last 50 years has known something about housing affordability. The Labor Party have held out this measure as something of a panacea. This government took action through the regulator over several years, but particularly last year, and that saw the growth in house prices in Sydney decelerate from 17 per cent to one per cent. That is the approach we took. The approach proposed by the shadow Treasurer is now, on top of that, to bring about negative gearing's abolition, and not only that but to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent. He wants to do that on a house price now growing in Sydney at only one per cent. How far does the shadow Treasurer want the property prices of mum and dad homes to fall in this country as a result of their reckless policies?
But it goes further. He knows that his capital gains tax policy doesn't just apply to housing. They are going to increase the capital gains tax by 50 per cent on retail shops, on factories and on share transactions. At a time like this, when superannuants are worried about the impact of global share markets, the Labor Party is out there saying, 'I want to whack up a big, fat tax on people's share earnings.'
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: Now, he blinks and he blusters. All I know about this shadow Treasurer and this Leader of the Opposition is that they couldn't find an economic compass between them.
Economy
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (14:22): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on why it is important for the government to deliver on its economic plan to drive growth and generate more jobs for hardworking Australians? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:22): I thank the member for Wide Bay for his question and his support, as there is the support from all members on this side of the House, for the government's strong plan to grow our economy for jobs and growth. We have a plan for jobs and growth and we are sticking to it on this side of the House, because we know how important it is to stick to strong plans that deliver on the ground for Australians, and our plan for growing jobs and growth in this country is working. The results are there: over 400,000 jobs last year, 1,100 jobs a day; and the lowest level of welfare dependency for the working-age population in this country in 25 years. There is more to do, and this government has a plan to get on and do it.
As I just reminded the House then, Labor have lost their economic compass. They cannot find their way around the economy. They used to believe in things. The shadow Treasurer once famously said:
… it's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.
Yet, when we ask him to vote for it, he evaporates. His economic credibility simply evaporates.
Labor are running out of excuses for their opposition to the government's plan to reduce the tax burden on business. We have the member for Rankin, who went out there and said the Trump tax cuts have nothing to do with lifting growth in the economy. Only hours later, the IMF comes out and puts up its global growth forecast—the world forecast for growth—on the back of the Trump tax cuts. On top of that, the shadow Treasurer says, 'We can't afford it.' So why did the shadow Treasurer say back in 2013, 'We currently can't afford it'? He praised the UK government—and I quote—for reducing company taxes to 21 per cent when the United Kingdom was 'facing a much tougher fiscal situation'. We had the Leader of the Opposition say in 2011 that cutting the company tax rate is an important step. The deficit that he had at that time in government was $41 billion and rising.
They say it's unaffordable. The shadow Treasurer says that we can't have company tax cuts and retain our AAA credit rating. Well, S&P hit that out of the park when they confirmed our AAA credit rating with a budget that included our company tax cuts. The shadow Treasurer's economic compass cannot find true north, because, when you believe in nothing, no-one will believe in you.
Banking and Financial Services
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:25): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out abandoning the four-pillars policy which would allow the big four banks to merge and get even bigger and more powerful?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:25): The four-pillars policy has for many years been part of the financial sector policy of Australian governments of both sides, and I expect it will remain so for many years. I can assure you that we have no intention of contemplating mergers between the big four banks.
Defence Industry
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (14:26): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Minister, I really welcome your announcement that Defence is entering negotiations with Thales Australia for the continued operation of the factories in Benalla and Mulwala. This provides certainty to 640 workers at Thales and a supply chain of 130 small to medium enterprises. Minister, will you please commit to continuing support of the growth of the existing defence industry in Indi, including the BAE Systems' bid for Land 400?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:26): I say at the outset that it's a nice try from the member for Indi to get me to talk about a tender, which is close to completion, for the Land 400 project, which is the combat reconnaissance vehicle project worth about $4 billion to $5 billion to the Australian economy over time. I will avoid breaking the tender, particularly at this late stage. But, in terms of the very good announcement that we've made in the last 24 hours about the munitions factories at Benalla and Mulwala, I'm sure that the member for Farrer would also have liked to have had the opportunity to ask this question because Benalla and Mulwala of course cross the electorates of Indi and Farrer.
It's a very important announcement. It secures 640 jobs for people in regional Victoria and New South Wales and, as you said in your question, 130 businesses across the supply chain. It's a success story in defence industry because many years ago the munitions factories were looking down the barrel, quite frankly—pardon the pun—because of the ancient nature of some of their facilities. We've invested in the manufacturing facilities in your electorate and in the member for Farrer's electorate and now the munitions factories there are the most modern in the world. They are about 1,050 hectares. They create propellants and explosives, which they export now to 17 different countries around the world, as well as providing the Australian defence requirements. They are a success story. Rather than waiting until 2019-20 to start negotiations with Thales Australia for the next five-year contract, or however long that contract might be, we wanted to give certainty to the families of the highly skilled workers in Benalla and Mulwala to be able to make decisions about their futures, so they are able to make their own decisions about their future and their family's future.
It's very good. It also indicates that the government's $200 billion investment in the military capability of our defence forces is really starting to pay significant dividends. We need to have our own sovereign capabilities in terms of propellants and explosives. We want to see that being able to be exported to our friends and allies around the world. The defence industry policy of the government, working with the defence export strategy that the Prime Minister and I announced late in January this year, is starting to see dividends for workers and businesses on the ground. So it's good news for both the electorates of Farrer and Indi. I wish the negotiations the very best. I'm sure they'll end up ensuring that those jobs will stay in place in the future and that the highly technical, sophisticated workers who have their livelihoods in defence industry will continue to do so.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:29): I'd like to inform the House that we've just had join us in the chamber this afternoon the Rt Hon. Trevor Mallard, Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament, and His Excellency Mr Chris Seed, the New Zealand High Commissioner. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you both.
Honourable members: Hear, hear.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Infrastructure
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (14:30): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government's investment of $75 billion in infrastructure for regional and metropolitan Australia is driving job opportunities for hardworking Australians? Is he aware of any threats to those job opportunities across Australia?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Leader of The Nationals) (14:30): I thank the honourable member for his question and note his advocacy not only for infrastructure projects in the seat of Dawson but also for such things as the sugar code in the cane industry. It's obviously of great importance that we see the investment that's happening in the seat of Dawson. For MackayRing Road stage 1, there is close to half a billion dollars and 34 jobs. For the pavement widening from Bowen to St Lawrence, there is another $12 million. The Haughton River Floodplainupgrade, which we are currently discussing with the member for Dawson, is well in excess of half a billion dollars. The Vantassel Street toCludin Street duplication, the Sandy Gully Bridge upgrade, the Yellow Gin Creek bridge upgrade, the Sandy Corner to Collinsons Lagoon realignment and raising—close to $1.3 billion of capital investment in the seat of Dawson. I would like to acknowledge the hard work that the member for Dawson has done in bringing about more than 1,700 jobs to his area in this Bruce Highway upgrade.
Of course, the Bruce Highway upgrade in itself is a multiple-billion-dollar investment in our nation—$8.5 billion will be the total cost. It goes towards a vision for this nation that goes beyond the seat of Dawson. Our vision is to have a sealed road for the capacity of the traffic that travels along it from the top of Cape York to the bottom of Victoria. This is more than just a pipedream. On the Peninsula Development Road, we've sealed close to 400 kilometres of that 600-kilometre route. We acknowledge that there is still in excess of 400 kilometres of dirt road that goes north from Weipa. We also see the work we are doing on the Midland Highway in Tasmania.
This is a government with a vision for our nation. We know that with good infrastructure come jobs and the development of our nation. Likewise we have a vision that goes from the north-east to the south-west, with such things as the upgrade of the Outback Way. With a combination of beef roads and the $100 million investment in the section between Laverton and Winton, we can have the capacity of a sealed road that goes from Cairns down to Perth. This gives us the capabilities in the future to further open up the mineral precincts around Laverton and also to create an intermodal hub at Alice Springs, bringing further economic growth there.
I think it is incredibly important that this nation has a vision for these forms of infrastructure projects. It is imperative, if we are to develop this nation away from its crescent form, which goes from Brisbane around to Adelaide, that we have the infrastructure projects such as the upgrade of the Bruce Highway, such as the upgrade of the Pacific Highway, such as the Outback Way connecting Winton to Laverton, creating the first sealed road across our nation, and such as the Inland Rail. That is the form of infrastructure that takes our nation to a higher level.
Taxation
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:33): My question is to the Prime Minister. Last year company profits increased by 20 per cent but average wages for Australians only rose by two per cent. At a time when workers are not getting their fair share, how can the Prime Minister possibly expect Australians to believe that a Trump-style $65-billion tax giveaway will trickle down to the pay packets of millions of ordinary Aussie workers?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:34): I thank the honourable member for his question. This once-upon-a-time powerful advocate for company tax cuts driving investment, productivity and higher wages, this Leader of the Opposition, now says that the proposition that lower business taxes result in more investment, more employment and higher wages is a fairytale. It's always good to look out for fairytales. And the Leader of the Opposition is quite capable, obviously—we see it all the time—of doing a 180 degrees on his own views. But what about the 2010 budget, written by the member for Lilley and of course ably assisted by the member for Rankin? I reckon the member for Rankin wrote this bit. He said:
The reduction in the company tax rate is expected to increase GDP by 0.4 per cent in the long run. Together with the resource tax reforms, this will lead to a long run increase in GDP of around 0.7 per cent and increase real after tax wages by 1.1 per cent. Over time this will lead to an increase in investment. This in turn will flow through to higher real wages for Australians.
That part of this 2010 budget overview has now been dismissed as a fairytale by the Leader of the Opposition. I have to say, to be fair to the Leader of the Opposition, that the document is not entirely without fairytale content.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL: I'm referring particularly to page 4 of the 2010 budget summary, which says 'returning to surplus three years early'—back to surplus—before every major advanced economy. So the Leader of the Opposition has missed the real fairytale, and the real fairytale is there and everywhere—and that is that the Labor Party is capable of economic management.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith is now warned. We're on track for the next step, if she continues to interject.
Economy
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to make Australia more competitive in the global economy? How does this compare with the actions of other countries?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:37): I thank the member for Canning for his question and for his powerful advocacy for more jobs in his electorate. Australia is an export oriented market economy. We're dependent on trade and investment for economic growth and more jobs. To ensure that our companies and businesses can remain competitive, the Turnbull government is proposing to cut corporate tax rates alongside what is happening globally, and it's instructive to see what comparable economies are doing.
Last year I was in Dublin and I was told constantly about the huge economic resurgence in Ireland as a result of cutting their corporate tax rate to 12½ per cent. Last month I was in the United States, and business leaders spoke about the surge in business confidence and the new jobs as a result of the Trump administration's announcement that corporate tax rates will be cut to 21 per cent. In the United Kingdom the government is aiming for a corporate tax rate of 17 per cent. Across Europe they are cutting their corporate tax rates—for example, in France and Belgium. So our competitors, our trading partners, are cutting corporate tax rates, and, if we do not act, Australia will have the second-highest corporate tax rate in the OECD. These other nations, our competitors, are cutting corporate tax rates because they know it leads to more investment and more jobs.
The Turnbull government have announced that we will aim to reduce our corporate tax rate to 25 per cent, and that was the policy of the Labor Party. I'm reminded that on 22 September 2015 the shadow Treasurer said that Labor accepts that company tax hurts workers most—that 'Labor accepts that company tax falls hardest on workers, and aims for a 25 per cent company tax rate to spur economic growth'. That was the view of the shadow Treasurer expressing Labor's economic plans.
Today, to listen to the Leader of the Opposition and his captain's pick for the seat of Batman talking about their economic plan of opposing corporate tax cuts, of re-regulating the labour market, of considering nationalising the electricity grid and of attacking private sectors, you'd have to believe that the Leader of the Opposition is now inspired by the populist socialism of Venezuela. What we are hearing from the Leader of the Opposition is more Hugo Chavez and far less Bob Hawke and Paul Keating.
Taxation
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Productivity Commission has found that the government's intervention in the housing sector, through APRA, has, led to 'a windfall gain' for the banking sector. Up to half of this gain is in effect being paid for by taxpayers, as interest on investment loans is tax deductible. The commission estimates the cost borne by taxpayers as a result was up to $500 million a year. Does the Prime Minister agree or disagree?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:40): I don't agree. No, I don't agree. I'd be very happy for the shadow Treasurer, given he is so interested in Treasury briefings, to have a briefing on this from Treasury, if you'd like. I can make my own assessment of these things, as I do. And it is for this simple reason: the Productivity Commission's report does not provide a costing on this at all, as the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition should know. The Productivity Commission's report does not take into account the fact that price growth in housing, say, in Sydney, has fallen from 17 per cent to one per cent, and as a result those interest-only loans under a higher price growth environment means they would have borrowed a lot more. They don't take into account the substitution effects. They don't take into account the behavioural effects.
If what they are saying is true, then every time the Reserve Bank decides either to lift or to lower cash rates, that is somehow a cost to the taxpayer, either up or down. If the government had not taken the action through the regulator to ensure that we dealt with the heated investor activity, particularly in the Sydney and Melbourne markets, in the way that we did and that is being opposed by the opposition, the Reserve Bank would have had greater pressure on it to lift the cash rate. So the Labor Party is saying, 'No, what you should have done is you should have allowed the pressure to fall on the Reserve Bank to deal with problems in the Sydney and Melbourne housing markets by putting up the cash rate on the entire economy.'
The shadow Treasurer is economically illiterate. He has no understanding of the operations of property markets or any other markets. He may once have believed these things. He may once have understood them, but the economic re-education program that he has been put through by the Leader of the Opposition means he has abandoned all of these things. But it's going to catch up with them, because when you go around telling your audience what they want to hear in too many places it ends up catching up with you. We're going to see that in the Batman by-election.
I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition attending the border protection debates down there in Batman. I look forward to him thumping the table and telling them how tough he is on the borders, down there in—
Mr Shorten: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer has strayed off the topic of the question.
Mr MORRISON: I confess I did, Mr Speaker. But the Leader of the Opposition—
The SPEAKER: Yes, rather dramatically—
Mr MORRISON: has strayed off the topic of the economy for his entire time in the job. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:43): I'd like to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mrs Natasha Griggs, the former member for Solomon. On behalf of the House, a warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:43): My question is to 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 to the nation's economic growth and the creation of jobs for hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any risks to these benefits?
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (14:44): I thank the member for Leichhardt for his ongoing interest in the TPP 11 and what this government's been able to achieve in terms of trade deals. His interest builds on the interest of many members on this side—in fact, all members on this side—who are committed to opening up export markets for Australia and making sure, as a direct consequence, we drive economic growth and, importantly, jobs. The member for Leichhardt can be justifiably proud of some outstanding examples of export success from his electorate. For example, crocodile leather from the member for Leichhardt's electorate is used to create Hermes bags—iconic bags.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr CIOBO: There'd be quite a lot on your side with Hermes bags; make no mistake about that! But this speaks to the fact that Australian exporters are stepping up to the plate in global value chains and making sure that they are at the forefront. That's part of the reason why as a government we are so steadfastly committed to opening up trade export opportunities. But it's not just our word that people can take for granted; it's the fact that, for example, the CEO of the National Farmers' Federation, Tony Mahar, said of the TPP 11:
It has great potential to drive job-creating growth across the Australian economy.
This is a sentiment that we're hearing right around the country. The Minerals Council of Australia said of the TPP 11 that it will 'help ease cost-of-living pressures on Australian consumers'. That's what this government stands for: creating economic growth, driving jobs and easing the cost-of-living pressures for Australian families. And we will continue to deliver on that.
Over the last two days, I've spoken about how the Australian Labor Party stands in the way of good trade deals. We know they get the big calls wrong on trade. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow trade minister both said the TPP 11 was dead. We heard Ged Kearney, Labor's candidate in Batman, making comments like some kind of rabid Green about how the TPP 11 was going to be bad. The fact is that anti-trade rhetoric from the Australian Labor Party is endemic. Just in January of this year, we heard this: 'The Turnbull government's latest Trans-Pacific trade deal will bring us closer to having the status of a Third World economy.' That is the comment from the president of the AMWU and former president of the Queensland Labor Party. The fact is that Labor's loony-Left, anti-trade rhetoric isn't just confined to winning a by-election; it runs deep in the veins of the Australian Labor Party. It's the reason why they field loony-Left candidates like Ged Kearney. It's the reason they get the big calls wrong on trade. It's the reason why the Australian people know that they can't trust this Leader of the Opposition or Labor to get the trade calls right, because Labor won't— (Time expired)
Taxation
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (14:47): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that this conservative government has delivered the worst pay conditions for working Australians since records began? When Australians are already suffering from the worst pay conditions on record, why does this Prime Minister have legislation in the Senate right now to increase the tax on someone earning $60,000 by $300 every year?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:48): I gather the honourable member wants to know why we have legislation in the Senate to increase the Medicare levy, and the answer is: to pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Remember that? The reason we are doing that is that the Labor Party did not fund it. That's the reason we're doing it. We're doing it so that the parents of disabled children, who are concerned whether there will be the money in place to pay for their children's care after they're gone, will know that the money is there, the funding is secure and the NDIS is guaranteed.
Labor's approach to the NDIS has been fraudulent. They have claimed some kind of moral high ground for supporting it and then failed recklessly to pay for it. They have mocked the families of disabled children. They have mocked them by seeking to elicit their praise and thanks for a disability insurance scheme they wouldn't pay for. The Labor Party should stop its hypocrisy and should get behind that legislation and pay for that great, compassionate national enterprise.
National Security
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of maintaining a national consistent approach to border protection policy? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:49): I thank the honourable member for his question. I acknowledge the great work that he's doing in his electorate, and this is a very important issue not only to Western Australians but to all Australians. Most Australians would realise that you can't have a state-by-state approach to national border protection policy. That would be a disaster. We know the last time that there was a disaster in the border protection policy it was presided over by Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and then Kevin Rudd again. The Leader of the Opposition sat around the cabinet table in each of those administrations, and he presided over 50,000 people coming on 800 boats and 1,200 people tragically drowning at sea. But it seems that they haven't learnt their lesson, because the Labor Party now is proposing a Melbourne version of Operation Sovereign Borders and a Brisbane version of Operation Sovereign Borders.
The thing is that there is a national press gallery. We see them up here today and acknowledge their presence; we thank them for the work that they do. They're going to hear the messages from the Leader of the Opposition in Melbourne, and it's going to be a very different message from the message the Leader of the Opposition is speaking in Longman. If you're up in Bribie Island or Wamuran or Caboolture, you would be very angry to hear the Leader of the Opposition saying one thing in Victoria but the complete opposite in Queensland. I'm not sure how the Leader of the Opposition is going to reconcile this, but I know how those in Indonesia and Vietnam and the people smugglers elsewhere across the region will interpret it. They will hear the message, as they did—the confused message from the Leader of the Opposition at Christmastime when he said you could just usher these people into New Zealand without consequences. The people smugglers will hear a divided message from Labor again, and they will see through the weakness of this Leader of the Opposition as they saw through the weakness and the duplicity of Labor leaders past.
The reality is that you need to have a strong and united position, a national position, in relation to staring down the scourge of people smugglers. We have not had a death at sea for over three years because of the success of Operation Sovereign Borders, and we aren't going to start now. We've not got children in detention. We got 8,000 children out of detention put into detention by Labor, and we aren't going to allow the boats to recommence and see those children go back into detention. So when the duplicity starts, when you hear this Leader of the Opposition speaking out of one side of his mouth in Victoria and the other side of his mouth when he is up in Caboolture, Bribie Island or Wamuran, see through his lies. See through what he's saying. The Australian public get it when they look at this Leader of the Opposition. They know that he's shady. They know that he's not straight up and down. They know that he doesn't speak the truth. The Australian public worked it out with Rudd and Gillard, and they are getting from this Leader of the Opposition exactly the same vibe. (Time expired)
Bereavement Allowance
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (14:52): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How many people will be worse off under this conservative government's plan to axe the bereavement allowance to grieving widows and other vulnerable Australians?
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Social Services) (14:53): Can I thank the member for her question. It's funny because yesterday—
Mr Bowen: It's not funny.
Mr TEHAN: No, no, it is funny, because yesterday we had a similar line of questioning. Halfway through question time, the member ran out, and I thought: 'Oh, that's interesting. She must be going to put out a press release.' So when I got out of question time I said to my office, 'Has the shadow minister put out a press release?' They had a quick look and they couldn't find anything. I said, 'I'm sure that'd be the tactic she'd use,' so I said, 'Have a look again.' They said: 'Yes, there is something there. It's been done with the shadow Treasurer.' I said, 'That's interesting. So what does it say?' It referred to 'the L-plate minister'.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TEHAN: I'll get to your answer.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
Mr Burke: Unsurprisingly, the point of order is on direct relevance. There was no preamble to this question. It is a very specific question about how many people will be affected by the government's plans for the bereavement allowance. At this moment he has not been relevant to that in any way.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Jagajaga not to interject; I'm listening to the Manager of Opposition Business. I thank him for his point of order. Having looked at the clock, I have to say to the minister: whilst I allow preambles, we are more than a third of the way through the question. The preamble needs to come to a conclusion, and he needs to bring himself to the question that was asked.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr TEHAN: No, I wasn't referring to the widows; I was referring to the shadow minister, and if you will stop interjecting, I'll get to the point.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting. I've asked the minister to bring himself to the question.
Mr Shorten: Phone a friend.
Mr TEHAN: I'm not phoning a friend, as the opposition leader has said.
An opposition member: Keep going, mate.
Mr TEHAN: Keep interjecting! Keep it coming!
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition and members on my left will cease interjecting.
Mr TEHAN: The shadow minister has the issue, when she refers to an L-plate minister. What I would say to the shadow minister is, 'Dear, I don't want you in the car with me while I'm learning to drive!'
The SPEAKER: We will go to the next question.
Water
Mr PASIN (Barker) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Minister, can you update the House on action the coalition government is taking to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan? Are you aware of any alternative approaches which threaten the delivery of the plan and which will place the jobs that it helps underpin in jeopardy?
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:57): I thank the honourable member for his question. He knows full well the importance of delivering this plan on time and in full. Sadly, I have to advise the House that the Basin Plan has never before been so fragile as it is today. Yesterday the member for Watson advised me that he will join the Greens in disallowing the Northern Basin Review. This will put in jeopardy the full implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a plan that the member for Watson created. The Northern Basin Review was created by the member for Watson. The outcomes of that Northern Basin Review have been in the public domain since November 2016, yet at five to midnight he decides to say that more work needs to be done on the Northern Basin Review, some 14 months after it was outlined. I don't buy it. This is more about politics than leadership. Those of us that have been honoured to be elected to this place wonder sometimes why there is a political discord across this nation, why this nation doesn't trust its elected leaders: it is due to times like this, where people put politics ahead of the real leadership that is required to deliver this plan.
These are real people's lives that we are playing with, people that I have known, sat with and listened to. The farmers, the hardened men that I have respected, that are better men than the member for Watson and I, sat there with fear and tears in their eyes about the uncertainty for their family, about their future and what they are able to achieve in their life. Or the small businesses in those irrigation communities that have worked for 40 years to build up businesses to use as their superannuation, and now they're worthless. Or the young agronomist who has had a start in life and wants to have a go and put on a second agronomist, but because of the uncertainty he can't, so he works 16 hours a day to make a living, to the point of absolute exhaustion, and rolls his utility. He just about kills himself, which would leave his family and children behind. These are real stories we are talking about. This is about leadership at this moment. This nation expects us, as leaders, to deliver this plan. If this nation and this parliament have descended into politics over leadership and people, then I pity you and I pity what you've become.
Ms Burney interjecting—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The members for Barton and Chifley might figure out in a couple of minutes that they're preventing me calling the member for Franklin. The member for Franklin has the call.
Tasmania: Biosecurity
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. In recent months, we've seen the devastating agricultural impacts of fruit fly in Tasmania for the first time ever, coming after the Hodgman government slashed Tasmania's biosecurity budget. Doesn't this outbreak simply confirm that the biosecurity failures of this conservative government, and the conservative Hodgman government in Tasmania, are causing real harm to Tasmania's fruit-growing industry and the thousands of jobs in my state that rely on it?
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (15:01): I thank the honourable member for her question, although it's misguided in a lot of its substance. The reality is the Hodgman government have announced $2 million of funding to address the outbreak of fruit fly in Tasmania. They're putting real money on the ground, delivering real things and supporting the agricultural sector in Tasmania. They're working with us, as the federal government, to ensure that we maintain access into those markets that are so important, to give the real returns to those farmers in Tasmania, and to take advantage of the free trade agreements that we've put in place and that you're scared of.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned.
Mr LITTLEPROUD: The reality is we are making real inroads into delivering on biosecurity—to the extent that, under the agricultural competitiveness white paper, we committed $200 million as a national government to ensure that we live up to our responsibilities. I'm proud to say that the Hodgman Liberal government are also undertaking their responsibilities by implementing a $2 million implementation fund to fight fruit flies. That's real action; that's delivery. That's what real governments do: we don't talk about it; we act on it.
Welfare Reform
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (15:02): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the action the government is taking to assist welfare recipients with drug, alcohol and gambling addictions? Is the minister aware of any measures to expand those programs, particularly in my electorate of O'Connor?
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Social Services) (15:02): I thank the member for his question, and note that he has always been a strong advocate for those in his local community. In September last year, the Prime Minister and the then Minister for Human Services visited the member for O'Connor and spoke with communities in the Goldfields about the cashless debit card. I acknowledge the former Minister for Human Services and the commitment that he showed to the cashless debit card and getting these trials up and running.
These communities told them about their experiences with domestic violence—
An opposition member: Just table your notes!
Mr TEHAN: I don't think we should be funny about this.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TEHAN: They told them about their experiences with domestic violence, with alcoholism and with drug abuse. And they met with a councillor from the Coolgardie shire who recounted her experiences about how young children have their futures destroyed when money isn't spent on food, on clothes and on the necessities that we take for granted. She spoke to them on behalf of her community, about how they wanted to try the cashless debit card. And after seeing what it has done for others in Ceduna and the East Kimberley, the government is committed—and I'm sure, in every way, everyone in this parliament is committed—to reducing the social harm caused by welfare fuelled alcohol abuse, drug abuse and gambling in areas with high levels of welfare dependency.
We are trying new programs and policies because we want to find a solution, and the welfare card is working. Forty-eight per cent of drug takers are using fewer drugs, forty-one per cent of those who have alcohol issues are drinking less and forty-eight per cent of gamblers are gambling less. While the government appreciates the support that's been provided by the opposition on the continuation of the trials in Ceduna and East Kimberley, we call on them to support the expansion of the card to additional communities. We will see the best results when we all work together on these issues. These trials are working, and we want to roll them out, and continue to roll them out, including in the seat of the member for Hinkler. We ask for the opposition's support in continuing to do these trials, and we do so in a bipartisan manner.
Child Care
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Productivity Commission has confirmed that, since this conservative government came to office, families are paying over $2,000 more a year for child care. Now this Prime Minister is introducing childcare changes which will leave 279,000 families worse off. Just how much more will these 279,000 families have to pay because the Prime Minister doesn't understand the cost-of-living pressures facing families?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:06): I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member overlooks the fact that the government's childcare reforms have created additional opportunities for Australian families on low and middle incomes to access child care. The simple fact of the matter is that over a million families are benefiting from our childcare reforms. The Labor Party opposed them. They are means tested. There are families on high incomes that are no longer getting a benefit. We have done that to ensure that the help is where it is most needed, and it is ensuring that more Australian families can stay connected to the workforce when their children are small.
You can see that this is all part of our consistent policy to create more jobs and more opportunities: 403,000 jobs in the last year, 75 per cent of them full-time, with the highest female participation rate in our history. What we are determined to do is ensure that more families are better able to manage that work-life balance, to be with their children—especially when they're small—to stay connected to the workforce and to not suffer the consequences of a long absence from the workforce that, as we all know, is tough on both fathers and mothers, but is especially tough on mothers. Our childcare reforms are historic, equitable and generous, and the honourable member should be backing them instead of trying to find fault where none exists.
Energy
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to strengthen the electricity market and reduce pressure on power prices so that hardworking Australian families and businesses can get ahead? What are the risks with alternative approaches?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (15:09): I thank the honourable member for Boothby for her question. I know that she is focused on delivering lower power prices for households and businesses across her electorate, including Patritti Wines in Dover Gardens, which is a fourth-generation family-owned business which employs around 30 people. The members on this side of the House from South Australia, including from Barker, Sturt and Grey, know that in South Australia, because of the faults of the Weatherill government, on average power prices are 20 per cent more than across the rest of the country.
That is why we have taken action to intervene in the gas market, and the ACCC has reported that prices have come down by up to 50 per cent. That is why we have passed legislation to abolish the limited merits review to stop the gaming of the system by the networks. That is why we've reached a deal with the retailers to get a better deal for millions of Australians on their power bills. That's why we're investing in storage, in Snowy 2.0, and Cultana in the Upper Spencer Gulf in South Australia. That's why we have accepted the recommendation of the independent experts on the National Energy Guarantee, which, compared to the Labor Party's emissions intensity scheme, will see the average Australian household $300 a year better off.
I'm asked: am I aware of any alternative approaches? I know that the member for Port Adelaide has been a bit preoccupied as of late—too busy with his backroom buffoonery. He knows that, when the Labor Party was last in office, power prices went up 100 per cent. He knows that the Labor Party is proposing a new tax on electricity, with the emissions intensity scheme, that the Labor Party has a reckless 50 per cent renewable energy target and that the Labor Party is proposing cutting emissions across the economy by 45 per cent but has no plan and no detail. No wonder the Business Council of Australia has called their proposal 'risky and unnecessary'. But most of all, the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party want to take the disaster and the dangerous experiment of South Australia national. That is what the Labor Party want to do. It hasn't learnt about the mistakes of Labor governments in South Australia, and now in Victoria. Only the coalition, with its National Energy Guarantee, with its investments in storage, with its deal with the retailers and with its intervention in the gas markets can deliver more affordable and reliable power for all Australians.
Molan, Senator Jim
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answers yesterday about Senator Molan. Is the Prime Minister aware that, last year, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom publicly rebuked President Trump for sharing material from the same racist and bigoted group that Senator Molan has shared? If the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can rebuke the President of the United States for sharing material from Britain First, why can't the Prime Minister of Australia publicly rebuke his most junior backbencher for doing exactly the same thing?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:12): I suppose we can be pleased that the member for Isaacs did not repeat the scurrilous attacks on Major General Molan that we saw yesterday—the disgraceful attacks on a great Australian, a great Australian soldier, who has defended and fought for the values and the freedoms we enjoy in this parliament. Senator Molan has taken down all of those postings. He has closed his Twitter account and taken down all of those postings. He has made a public statement about it, regretting that he posted them in the first place.
Workplace Relations
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (15:13): My question is—
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar can resume his seat. The member for Whitlam can leave his seat and leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Whitlam then left the chamber.
Mr FALINSKI: My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Businesses, the Workplace, and Deregulation. Will the minister outline for the House why it is important for employer and employee organisations to always act in the best interests of their members? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr LAUNDY (Reid—Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace, and Deregulation) (15:14): I thank the member for Mackellar for the question. It is vital that employer and employee organisations always act in the best interests of their members, and that is exactly why the Turnbull coalition government established the Registered Organisations Commission. And why is it needed? Just this week, we have learnt that George Clarke, who was the New South Wales state president of the Transport Workers Union, the TWU, has resigned in protest. But, not only has he resigned in protest, he has given an insight into exactly the reasons why this commission was necessary. On his way out the door, he's let loose with a great spray. He has come out publicly and blown the whistle on the expenditure of members' money by the management of the TWU. He has said that the New South Wales TWU state secretary, Mr Richard Olsen, has spent members' money in a list of ways, and some of them are as follows. Thousands of members' dollars on long lunches. Thousands of members' dollars on overseas trips for officials. Thousands of members' dollars—and I don't understand this one—on black vinyl lounges, but at least it wasn't leather, so he was probably saving the members some money! Thousands of dollars on legal fees and thousands of dollars on political donations, including donations to the member for Greenway's campaign, which were not properly authorised. It's all sounding very familiar, isn't it? But this part's not familiar. What has Mr Olsen done? Mr Clarke has broken the silence, he's quit in disgust, and he's said himself, 'We are a robust union, but there are guys treating it like it's their union, not members' money.' To add insult to injury—I don't believe the gall of Mr Olsen—the TWU are planning a new $2 million headquarters. And what's Mr Olsen going to do after spending all the members' money? He's been there 16 months, and he's going to name the building after himself! It is going to be Richard Olsen House! You cannot make this stuff up; Richard Olsen House, the new state premises for the New South Wales Transport Workers' Union.
The sad part is, while I've taken the micky out of this, this stuff actually goes on. It's exactly why we established the Registered Organisations Commission and exactly why we passed legislation through this place about corrupting benefits. Union members pay their membership fees in good faith, and union officials should act in good faith as well. And if they don't, they should bloody well be held to account!
Mr Turnbull: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Prime Minister. I ask the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace, and Deregulation to come back and withdraw that last comment, please.
Mr Laundy: I withdraw.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:17): 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.
COMMITTEES
Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation
Reporting Date
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:18): by leave—I move:
That the resolution of appointment of the House Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation be amended to replace "final report no later than 28 February 2018" in paragraph 13 with "final report no later than 31 May 2018".
Question agreed to.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Member for Longman
Ms LAMB (Longman) (15:18): There've been attacks on me by a number of ministers, including yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister, during question time and on social media. These attacks go to whether I took reasonable steps to renounce my UK citizenship prior to nominating for office. I can only answer by providing the House and the Australian people a deeply personal part of my story. I'm proud to be the member for Longman. I'm also proud to be a member of the Labor Party. After I put up my hand to be a candidate at the 2016 election, I received a call letting me know that I may hold entitlement of citizenship to another country. I asked for my party's assistance, and I received it. I received it immediately. I completed the forms required by the UK Home Office and I paid the required fee. I posted this by registered post with the required supporting documents. I waited for the fee to be processed, and my payment was accepted. Then I was nominated.
The administrative process that followed requested I provide some additional documents. One request was if I had ever held a British passport. For the record, I have never held a British passport. In fact I've never been to the UK in my life. Another request was for a copy of my parents' marriage certificate. I was advised that I did not have a legal right to obtain a copy of my parents' marriage certificate. My mother has that legal entitlement, as would my dad if he were still alive, but sadly he left us far too early in life.
I want to explain to the House why I can't obtain a copy of my parents' marriage certificate. It's a complex and traumatic story—a story that I don't usually share. One day, when I was around six years old, my mum dropped me off at school and she never came back to pick me up. I don't remember every detail of what happened afterwards. I remember lots of tears. I remember lots of confusion. I remember my dad trying to explain. I remember, some time later, dad taking me to the train station late one evening to collect my mother. I thought she was going to come home. The train came, the train went and there was no sign of her. So we went home.
I remember one day going outside the front of the mill gates. We lived on the mill grounds in Mackay in North Queensland. I remember there being a small store and a petrol bowser out the front. A car turned up. I think it was a Torana. It's funny how these little things stick in your mind, isn't it? I remember that part. My mother got out, words were exchanged and then my mother drove away. My dad was now a single parent—an amazing man, whose example I try to live up to every day of my life.
My mother wasn't at my seventh birthday or the birthday after that. She wasn't there to help when I brought my fourth son home from hospital to meet his brothers. She wasn't there for my school graduation. She wasn't there last year for my youngest son's graduation when he was 17—in fact, they have never met. She wasn't there to help me campaign. She wasn't there to celebrate when we won. She wasn't there to support me when I needed it. Many years ago, we made an attempt to build a relationship, but, regrettably, that failed. I don't know what was going on in my mum's life back then. I don't know what was going on when she dropped me off and never came back. I don't know what's going on in her life now—I have no idea. The fact is that we don't have a relationship. I imagine she carries her share of pain and trauma—and, if it is anything like mine, I wouldn't wish that on anybody.
I don't speak about this trauma. So, when people ask me why I couldn't just call my mother, well, this is why, and I hope this story gives you the answer. I would rather not share this story with my closest friends, let alone the Parliament of Australia. But telling people it was deeply personal circumstances wasn't enough for the political attacks to back off. So now it's been said, and the good people of my electorate of Longman need to hear it. The fact is that my mum is not around to grant me access to her marriage certificate, and my dad passed away nearly 20 years ago and spent the decade before that unable to care for himself and needing 24-hour care.
These are not things I find easy to re-live. This is not a story to gain sympathy. I don't speak out of hatred for my mother. I carry hurt, I carry disappointment and, it would be fair to say, I still carry a fair bit of anger. This story is about explaining, as simply as I can, that that extra document that the UK Home Office requested after they received my renunciation, my parents' marriage certificate, is a document I was advised I do not have a legal entitlement to obtain.
I would simply ask those opposite: take a moment and think about the circumstances. Think about the consequences of attacks like this on my family: my family, who like so many other families are studying, who are working—working weekends and nights; my family, who work hard, pay their fair share of tax—they're single parents; my family, who are tradies and hospitality workers. My family, like every other family in my community, are good people. They are good people, and they do not deserve to have the media digging through their lives or turning up on their doorsteps. Yes, I put my hand up for public life, but they didn't.
These attacks have caused pain and opened up wounds that have never healed—wounds inflicted on a very confused six-year-old little girl. I've fought that pain my whole life, but I can tell you now that there are bigger fights I care about, and that's why I'm here, and that's the fight I want to continue on behalf of the people of Longman.
In December last year I voted yes to end uncertainty this parliament had over a number of members in this House. I did this, confident in more than 40 pages of evidence of reasonable and necessary steps I took, knowing that a letter from the UK HO advising they could not be satisfied that I'm a British citizen has been disclosed, and knowing that three independent barristers, including a retired justice of the Federal Court of Australia, have resoundingly agreed that I took all reasonable steps to renounce my citizenship and that I was validly elected to parliament and am eligible to sit in this House. I remain confident I took all reasonable steps to renounce my citizenship, and nothing will change. Everything to see has been shown, except now I've been forced to rip that bandaid off a very painful story—painful to me and painful to my family.
The simple fact is that not all families look like the Australian version of Little House on the Prairie, let me tell you. In fact, most don't. Families are complex, they face challenges and sometimes, just sometimes, for whatever reason they're just like mine. Thank you.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Schools
The SPEAKER (15:28): I have received a letter from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government cutting billions of dollars from Australian schools.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:28): Of course, all of us in this place acknowledge the member for Longman and her incredibly brave speech. It's impossible to speak after her without acknowledging that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I'm sure that you would remember, as many on this side do, when the Prime Minister and the education minister proudly unveiled their new schools funding calculator after they'd made changes to the schools funding arrangements. It didn't last very long. It got taken down quick smart, because what that schools funding calculator allowed schools to do is look up how much worse off they would be under the government's changed funding arrangements. It was down for five months. It's finally been replaced by something that doesn't really allow us to compare apples with apples. This whole exercise has been about covering up for the fact that those opposite are cutting billions of dollars from our schools.
Just this week, we've released information from the Parliamentary Budget Office and the National Catholic Education Commission that shows just how much worse off schools will be over the next two years. In fact, over the next two years alone—this year, calendar year 2018; and calendar year 2019—Australian schools will be $2.19 billion worse off than they would be under Labor's funding arrangements. The extraordinary thing about this is that the cuts don't hit every sector equally, do they? In fact, the cuts hurt the poorest kids in the poorest schools the most. If you look at the cut to public schools of $1.88 billion over the next two years, that is 86 per cent of the total value of the cuts. Guess what? Public school kids are 66 per cent of the kids, so the largest share of the cuts by far, a disproportionately large share of the cuts, hits public schools. Public schools get 86 per cent of the cuts, Catholic schools get 12 per cent of the cuts and independent schools get just two per cent of the cuts. How does that work?
In South Australia, this has been a really incredible hit to the schools budget—$210 million cut from South Australian schools over the next two years alone. Government schools losing—
Mr Tudge interjecting—
Ms PLIBERSEK: It's in the budget papers, you moron.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): Order! The member for Sydney will withdraw.
Ms PLIBERSEK: I withdraw. I withdraw the name. One of the things that are extraordinary about this is we've got a Liberal South Australian education minister who has cut $210 million from South Australian schools, but who helped him do it? Who allowed him to do it? It was the Xenophon Team's votes in the Senate that allowed these cuts to hit South Australian schools. It wouldn't be such a surprise, because you've got an ex-Liberal and a bunch of ex-Liberals helping a Liberal government cut the budget in schools, except here is a letter from then senator Nick Xenophon firmly promising—hand on heart, no equivocation—that he would never agree to cut the schools funding package that Labor delivered. The letter states:
I write to reiterate in the strongest possible terms, the commitment of the Nick Xenophon Team in relation to the implementation of the Gonski funding model … we stand by full implementation and full funding of Gonski. In particular we support the current system of indexation—
the current system of indexation—
and will oppose any moves to change it.
Well, he didn't oppose the moves. He backed them right in through here and through the Senate, and they would not have got through the Senate without the backing of the Nick Xenophon Team. He writes to principals:
I look forward to working with you and your members to ensure Gonski funding is defended and maintained for the future of Australia's children.
This same man seeks to be the member for Hartley. What does this do to schools in the electorate of Hartley? Norwood Morialta High School will lose $1.4 million over the next two years. That is a lot of cakes he's going to have to buy at the cake stall; it's a lot of sausages at the sausage sizzle that the local member is going to have to make up for. It's a few pieces of art at the art fete they might have, as many schools do. What about East Marden Primary School? Every year, they have a fundraising effort where they sell voucher booklets to raise money. How many voucher booklets is the member for Hartley, Mr Xenophon—if he is successful—going to have to buy to replace the $640,000 cut from this school this year and next year? This year and next year, $640,000 will be cut from this school. This contrasts, of course, with the Weatherill government, which has been investing in schools, with 800 new teachers and $1 billion of infrastructure upgrades in recent years. It is the largest ever spend by a South Australian government, with Norwood Morialta High School getting an extra $30 million and East Marden an extra $7½ million.
We are absolutely committed to reversing every dollar of the funding cuts that this Liberal government, with the help of the Nick Xenophon Team, smashed through this parliament—every single dollar restored. But I have to say that this is not theoretical future funding that we are talking about; these cuts are hitting this year. The Liberal government shoved these cuts through this parliament with the help of the Nick Xenophon Team. If that money had been allowed to flow to South Australia as intended, $210 million would have paid for 280 more school support officers, 186 more speech therapists, 203 new counsellors and 505 new teachers. Imagine the difference that would make in South Australian schools if those opposite hadn't cut the original funding that the South Australian government had signed up to and expected quite rightly to receive from the federal government because they had a signed deal with the federal government.
And all this while it's not just South Australia that's being affected. Tasmania will lose $68 million over the next two years alone. Think about the difference $68 million makes in Tasmanian schools. And those are not our figures; that is what the Liberal Deputy Premier says is the cut to Tasmanian schools. Nevertheless, he's prepared to back in the cut because he'd rather suck up to his friends in Canberra than stand up for Tasmanian schoolchildren. That's why Tasmania needs a government led by Bec White to actually stand up for Tasmanian schoolchildren.
This extra funding is critical to our schools. It's this extra funding that has been cut by those opposite that means more one-on-one attention for kids who are struggling, help to identify the kids that are struggling, help to make sure they catch up, help to make sure their literacy and numeracy is first rate. It means extra investment in science and coding—making sure they have the specialist teachers to teach these specialist subjects. It means more extension activities for kids who are gifted and talented. It means more help with the basics and more help for all of the enrichment that makes a school experience a great school experience. We should expect to deliver the best education in the world to Australian schoolchildren, not rip the guts out of school kids' education as those opposite are doing.
And why are they doing it? This is the bit that really gets me. Why are they doing it? So they can give $65 billion of big business tax cuts that they hope will one day trickle down. Well, history has taught us something different, hasn't it—$65 billion of big business tax cuts straight to the pockets of overseas shareholders instead of properly funding our schools so that our kids get every assistance. We want every Australian child to get a great education. We want every Australian school to be a great school. And it is appalling that those opposite have cut $2.19 billion this year and next year from our schools. The cuts hit public schools and Catholic schools the hardest And what are those opposite doing? They are still defending it. They are not even embarrassed. They should go and face their school communities and explain themselves.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (15:38): Contrary to the claims of those opposite, the Turnbull government is delivering record Commonwealth investment in Australian schools. There are no cuts to school funding. Labor are well aware that there are no cuts to funding, but they continue their own special version of events. So let me say once again that there are no cuts to school funding. There are a few things that I'd like to put on the record again today. I know that I have previously put them on the record, but they do need to be said and said again so that those opposite understand exactly what is happening with school funding, which is that there are no cuts.
I believe the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham, has done an outstanding job with school funding, as he has done with the entire education portfolio. The Quality Schools package is going to deliver an extra $25.3 billion in recurrent funding for Australian schools over the next 10 years from 2018 through to 2027. That's on top of the 2016-17 budget settings. This brings the total Commonwealth recurrent funding to $249.8 billion over the period 2018 to 2027. For the first time, real needs based funding is going to be provided, and that will grow from $17.5 billion in 2017 to $31.1 billion in 2027.
This government is providing record levels of funding, and we're doing that because we understand how important school education is to our young people. But also—and I have said this many times in this place—we see education as a highway from child care and preschool, through to schools and potentially into vocational education and higher education. It is a highway, a journey, that our young people undertake, and it's very important that we get school funding right. But it's also very important that we make sure the money put into education funding is used appropriately and wisely. We know that each child in Australia deserves the support and opportunity to succeed. They deserve schools that are well and fairly funded and that encourage the highest academic standards. David Gonski has agreed to lead a new inquiry into improving the results of Australian students. The review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools will provide advice on how this extra Commonwealth funding should be used by Australian schools to improve student achievement and school performance. The review will make recommendations on the most effective teaching and learning strategies to reverse declining results and to seek to raise the performance of schools and students. David Gonski will be providing his report to government very soon.
There are two issues. One is funding, and there are probably some things that I'd like to add on that before I actually discuss a little bit more the reason why we have to make sure that we are giving students at school the opportunity to do well and succeed. I actually want to talk about the funding that is going to each of the sectors, but I'm going to clarify what appears to be some Labor confusion over the funding distribution across all sectors. Let me start by saying that states and territories are responsible for the overall quality of school education in their jurisdictions. States and territories are also the major funders of schools. While they provide the majority of funding to public schools, the Australian government is the majority funder of non-government schools. At the sector level, current government funding, both Commonwealth and state and territory, accounts for 94 per cent of funding for government schools, 73 per cent of funding for Catholic schools and 42 per cent of funding for independent schools.
In dollar figure terms for each of the sectors, the government sector will receive a total of $33.65 billion over the period 2018 to 2021, which is over $2 billion extra and growth of 27.6 per cent. Over the next decade, the government sector will receive a total of $104.5 billion, meaning an additional $5.9 billion, which is growth of 79.6 per cent. The Catholic sector will receive a total of $28.44 billion over the period 2018 to 2021, which is over $1 billion extra and growth of 15.1 per cent. Over the next decade, the Catholic sector will receive a total of $81.89 billion, meaning an additional $3.23 billion, which is growth of 48.8 per cent. The independent sector will receive a total of $21 billion over the period 2018 to 2021, which is over $1 billion extra and growth of 22.8 per cent. Over the next decade, the independent sector will receive a total of $63.42 billion, meaning an additional $3.16 billion, which is growth of 66.9 per cent. So they are significant increases, and it's clear that there are no cuts to school funding.
I indicated previously not only that it is important that we get the funding right but also that how that funding is used is important, and it's important because we want to give our young people, our school students, every opportunity to succeed and do well, so that they are able to go on to life after school—whether that's going directly into employment or following a vocational education pathway or perhaps going on to university.
If we want to talk about funding cuts, when Labor was in government they ripped $1.2 billion out of vocational education, when they did multiple cuts to employer incentives over, effectively, a 12-month period. That crippled the sector—particularly in the non-trade areas, where we had a significant decline. In fact, the single biggest decline over a 12-month period was under the last 12 months of the Labor government. So it was a significant ripping of funding out of the vocational education sector.
We are now in a position where, because of that, we have a significant issue in the vocational education sector, where—if I use apprentices as an example—we cannot attract enough people into the sector to meet our current skill needs, let alone our future skill needs. The Turnbull government, in last year's budget, announced the $1.5 billion Skilling Australians Fund. It is designed to inject much-needed funds into the apprenticeship space. When I speak about apprenticeships, I'm talking about Australian apprenticeships, so it includes apprentices and trainees. We know that a lot of work needs to be done just to start to lift us up to the levels we were at back in 2012-13 because, in some areas, we know that we are going to be experiencing high growth. The disability sector, for example, and health and ageing are some priority areas for us where we know that we need to make sure that we have people who are properly skilled for the future. So the $1.5 billion Skilling Australians Fund will put a much-needed injection of funding in there and deal with the fact that we have a shortfall in apprentices. We're looking at, over a four-year period, supporting an additional 300,000 apprentices, at the pre-apprenticeship level, the apprenticeship level and the post-apprenticeship—the higher apprenticeship—level, and that is to make sure that we will be meeting our trades and non-trades needs and our trainee needs into the future.
That is only a small snapshot of some of the work that needs to be done in vocational education, but some of that work is so needed because of the damage that the Labor Party did to vocational education when it was last in government. So the coalition government has put a lot of time, effort and resources into making sure that we look at the education system as a whole. As I indicated previously, I believe the work that Senator Birmingham has done has been truly outstanding. He has looked at education as a whole. He has done a lot of work in the school space in particular. The announcements that he has made will address the funding issues—will get rid of the 27 deals that Labor put in place that distorted the funding to the various sectors of school education. He has dealt with that. He has come up with a proposal. He has engaged with David Gonski to make sure that the funding that has been put in is going to be well used into the future.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:48): It was interesting listening to the assistant minister at the table, because in one breath she said, 'There've been no cuts; there've been no changes—nothing to see here,' and then, in the next breath, she says, 'Look, we changed the system because Labor's system wasn't right.' Well, it's time the assistant minister called it for what it is. The truth is that the government ripped up the agreements with the states and territories when it came to school funding. They ripped them up. And they got into government and said, 'We will not honour this,' despite having, at the election in 2013, run with: 'We will match Labor dollar for dollar.' Of course, when they got into government they ripped it up.
What that has meant is that, coming into 2018-19, $210 million has been ripped from South Australian schools. There are so many schools in my electorate that are missing out as a result. Just in the state seat of Black, a very important state seat, Hallett Cove East Primary School is going to miss out on $340,000, while Hallett Cove school will miss out on $1 million. These are serious cuts to schools in 2018-19. No matter how many times the government says that these are not cuts, they are cuts. The funding was written into agreements, signed by states and territories, but the then opposition—now the government—said they would abide by them but, when they got in, they ripped them up. If there wasn't any change and there weren't any cuts, as the assistant minister suggested, then why did we vote in the parliament about it? Why did we actually vote to change legislation about how we fund our schools? We voted because this government ripped up the agreement to fund our schools and, as a result, it cut billions from our schools.
Now, we are facing a state election in South Australia and, when it comes to state elections, there's always a lot of discussion about education. I'm sure the opposition leader Steven Marshall has been talking about education. Although I have not heard much about it, but what was he doing when this government was voting to rip money out of schools? He was silent. He didn't say a word—not a peep from that mouth. But I'm not surprised about that because he hasn't been very vocal in sticking up for South Australia against this government in so many areas.
I was surprised about the way that the Nick Xenophon Team voted, because they say they are the champion of education. I wasn't surprised the Nick Xenophon Team did a deal with the Liberal Party—that was not surprising. In fact, the Nick Xenophon Team has done many deals with the Liberal Party, including the changes to child care that will leave 279,000 families worse off. In South Australia, that equates to 16,037 families worse off. That is what the Nick Xenophon Team voted for when it came to childcare changes. So I wasn't surprised that they voted and did a deal with the Liberal Party. I was surprised about the Nick Xenophon Team's vote, because of this letter which came out just before the 2016 election. He wrote it to the Australian Education Union, saying: 'I write to reiterate in the strongest possible terms the commitment of the Nick Xenophon Team in relation to the implementation of the Gonski funding model. In particular, we support the current system of indexation and will oppose any moves to change it.' Then they came into the parliament hoping that no-one in South Australia would notice, hoping that over in Canberra it wouldn't get back to South Australia, and they voted to cut money from our schools.
This is what we are facing here. We are facing a Liberal government that teams up with the crossbench to cut money from South Australian schools. In this state election, the issue of education should come up, and voters should very clearly think about which party will be best for South Australian schools. Who will stand up to Canberra and this Liberal government to fight for South Australian schools—not come in here and cut $210 million from our schools? Every school is affected. In fact, 86 per cent of public schools will be affected. The government needs to be held to account. This cut will hurt schools, it will hurt children and it will hurt families.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (15:53): I must confess that the federal government here feels somewhat like a third wheel in this Labor Party attack on Nick Xenophon and South Australia. All the South Australian MPs are sitting up there, like free-range eggs, popped in there so that they can be on TV tonight. You are hoping that more than five people from Adelaide are actually listening. Well, for those who are listening, if you guys have some quarrel with Nick Xenophon, why don't we surrender some additional time for you to go on with five-minute bleats about how much you hate the Xenophon party. Clearly, today's debate is only about the South Australians consuming a little bit of oxygen in Canberra in the hope of helping their state colleagues.
For anyone whose notice it might have escaped, this complete preoccupation with cuts is just an ongoing Labor Party tactic dating back to the 'Mediscare' cuts campaign. Isn't it ironic? It hasn't escaped anyone's attention on this side that the once great Labor Party, the great social policy reformers of this nation, have been reduced to being whingers about cuts. It doesn't matter what it is in the area of social policy, they've completely abdicated the quality debate and all they can talk about is cuts. That actually does this nation a great disservice. This fetish with how many dollars of funding there are while completely ignoring how it's spent lets everyone down. It lets down their voters; it lets down policymakers; it lets down the nation—because we're not improving our schools one bit as long as we're quibbling over dollars.
Let's go right back to why we say cuts are a fairytale and Labor keep talking about cuts. It's because the word 'cuts' works very well for Labor voters, and they keep saying it because it keeps revving up the troops. The reality is, of course, that in education the $17 billion we spend every year will go to $31 billion in the next 10 years. That's a 77 per cent increase, but, of course, over in Labor land, we call that a 'negative 77 per cent cut' and everyone understands what we're talking about. That's an extra $25 billion this year, amounting to $250 billion in total being spent over those 10 years.
For those who are listening and bothered by this internecine battle between South Australian Labor and Nick Xenophon, I want to point out what is self-evident. That is that, when we agreed in 2013 to your funding proposals, we did so over the four-year forward estimates. No government can be bothered with what happens in years 5 and 6 because it's not in the Treasury papers. The reality is it's called 'funny money'. The reality is it's called 'the never-never'. Five and six years in advance, the great convenience was that Julia Gillard never had to worry about that money because she never had to find it in the first place. So Labor's denominator, Labor's starting point for cuts, is imaginary amounts of money which Treasury never had to find, and they never managed to find them because they desperately wanted Wayne Swan to minimise the deficit in the 2012-13 and 2013-14 years.
The education debate is about a globalising workforce. It's about a digitally enabled workforce and how we train them and teach them. It's about the impact of our interventions on progress and growth. It's about whole-of-school initiatives that can improve graduate performance. It's about how we define success. These are the things that this great parliament should be focusing on, not these ridiculous fairytales about cuts, which, I'll confess, are initially very attractive to Labor voters. But those mums and dads out there, when they learn those cuts are imaginary numbers and, in reality, the funding's going the other way, feel deceived by that party. They feel utterly deceived when they're told about it. To honestly improve educational performance in schools, we need a focus on quality that isn't happening here. What this government has, of course, is the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, solid recommendations about setting high standards and strengthening measures for quality teacher outputs, reconstituting the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, overhauling the way we accredit initial teacher education programs and getting universities to really focus on evidence based pedagogical approaches.
While we have that party over there, where the only thing they know about education is when the next P&C meeting is, we will never have a debate about quality. While you're worried about the South Australian election, you'll never engage in this big picture. So listen, I urge you, to the Association of Independent Schools of New South Wales chief executive, who said it's time to stop the bickering. It's time for the Labor Party to stop egging on parts of Catholic education to complain about cuts when they know overall, when leaders within Catholic education know and independent schools know as well, as does the rest of Australia, that there are nothing but massive education funding increases for this nation. (Time expired)
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (15:59): It was interesting listening to the previous speaker, the Liberal from Queensland, because he trotted out the exact same excuses that Nick Xenophon has been trotting out in the face of these cuts. A cut is a cut is a cut. If, in your first budget, as Mr Hockey did, you own up to these cuts, it's a bit hard to deny them years and years later. It's a $210 million cut. That is what's happening. And guess what? The government on their corflutes, without compromise, excuse or caveat, put up dollar-for-dollar matching: 'We're going to match dollar for dollar in education.'
Then they get into government and they change things. But the only reason they can change things is because the Nick Xenophon Team, and St Nick himself, broke his promise. We know what happened: he wrote to the Education Union before the election and said, 'I write to reiterate in the strongest possible terms the commitment of the Nick Xenophon Team in relation to the implementation of the Gonski funding model.' Then he talks about his colleagues—Griff, Kakoschke-Moore, Sharkie—who will stand by full implementation and full funding of Gonski. What do they do when they're elected to this place? I'll tell you: they voted 57 times to cut funding to South Australian schools and national schools. What damage did it do to schools in my local electorate? I'll tell you. At Craigmore High School, in the seat of Elizabeth, it means a cut of $880,000 over two years. At the South Downs Primary School, the school that my mum taught at many years ago, before she got pregnant with me: $116,000 over those two years. At the Mark Oliphant College: $1.2 million. That's rounded; it's actually an extra $77,000 on top of that. Parafield Gardens High School: $817,000. Virginia Primary: $290,000. I've got a whole page of cuts. So don't tell us they're not real cuts. Don't tell us they don't really make a difference. They make a difference to Craigmore High School. They make a big difference to South Downs Primary School. And they make a big difference to country schools as well. In Greenock Primary: $95,000 over those two years. At Kapunda High School, where I studied: $425,000 over those two years.
Being raised in a country town, I can tell you something. The one thing they dislike more than people who lie—they really dislike people who don't keep their word in the country—but they don't like sanctimonious hypocrites, either. And we know that St Nick, lately of Hartley in South Australia, but who has run for every other political office in South Australia as well—is a sanctimonious hypocrite, because he goes on and on about trust in the political system. He goes on and on about 'breaking the two-party duopoly' and the new politics of centrism, and how it's going to liberate us from all of the sins of politics. But the truth is that he said one thing before an election and did another thing after the election, which had a dramatic effect not just on communities, not just on South Australians in Craigmore or South Downs, but all over. Generations of children are going to go to schools which have inadequate funding, because these cuts get locked in and they roll on. The same way higher funding, as was originally implemented in the Gonski package, would have had an upwards effect on kids' education.
We know there's an election, and we know that a new politics is being offered by St Nick of Hartley. But let me tell you something: a vote for SA-BEST, a vote for the Nick Xenophon Team, is a worthless vote, because he'll say one thing before an election—he'll do anything: any media stunt, anything to get his head on TV; he'll say and do anything with any stakeholder—and then after the election he'll do dirty deals with the Liberal Party, because deep down he's a Liberal. He's just got a grudge against the local Liberal Party, who wouldn't let him into Adelaide's student union many moons ago.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (16:04): I want to describe a plan. It's a plan for human beings to travel to Mars and establish a new colony. It's going to cost more than several trillion dollars. It's called the Trekonian plan. But I don't actually have the money to follow this plan. I'll just tell everybody about the plan and hope they're so convinced that if I tell them often enough they'll know it's going to be true. This is exactly the same as the fantasy funding proposed by the Labor Party at the last two elections for their grandiose plan for educational change—which was unfunded, putting it in the same place as my science fiction plan to get humans to Mars. Really, I would think that, by now, this rubbish would be exactly where it belongs—in the shredding bin. There are no cuts to school funding. How can you cut something that never existed?
The Quality Schools package will deliver an extra $25.3 billion in recurrent funding for Australian schools over the next 10 years. I am so tired of the blatant misrepresentation of information. The opposition keep bleating about cuts, cuts, cuts—but it's a cut to nothing. It was never committed. Our total Commonwealth recurrent funding is $249.8 billion over about 10 years. For the first time, real needs based funding will be provided, and it grows from $17.5 billion to $31.1 billion. Nationally, funding per student for all sectors will continue to increase. This is growing. This is an increase. This is more money for our children. By 2027, students with the same needs in the same sector will have the same level of support from the Commonwealth, regardless of the state or the territory where they live, their background or the choice of school their parents make. As a condition of funding, the states and territories have to pull their weight. They have to co-invest in education. When they say, 'Oh, the federal government's putting in money—okay, we'll take ours out,' that is not good enough. We have to fix that.
The new funding is part of a $192 million funding boost for our regions. It's so good that this is actually going to happen. We're delivering a school system that is entirely focused on students and what they need most. This means more resources for one-on-one time with teachers and new or existing initiatives such as specialist teachers or targeted intervention programs, which have been so successful over the last four years, and which Labor and Liberal agreed to fund.
Under our plan, we're delivering, overall, 6.4 per cent average annual growth per student, for each of our children. Our needs based funding plan has been endorsed by everyone, including David Gonski—the name that has been thrown around from one end of parliament to the other. Our needs based education funding for students includes not only those with a disability—which is fairly obvious—but also those living in regional, rural or remote locations. And there's consideration of children in lower socioeconomic communities, and also funding to help close the gap for our Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander kids.
For students with a disability, there'll be an increase of about $22.7 million from this year through to 2027—an 83.5 per cent increase. Increase, increase—it's going up. Students in regional, rural and remote locations will again see an increased investment, from $3.9 billion to $7.2 billion. That's an increase—getting bigger—of 84.8 per cent. More than 750,000 students will be better off with this needs based funding. I mentioned Indigenous students: around 218,000 young students will be benefiting from this far better, targeted, increased investment, from $285.6 million last year to $547.9 million in 2027. That's a 91.9 per cent increase.
Australia is now amongst the highest investors in school education in the OECD. The most important aspect of education is, of course, investment. But the most recent research is that teachers must be part of the formula for better educational outcomes. I know—I was one. The rationalisation and nationalisation of increased funding is critical for our children. That's fact, not fantasy. Making sure the states and territories commit as well—that's critical, and it's fact, not fantasy. Making sure there's money to fund the investment is essential—that's fact, not fantasy.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:09): As a result of the Turnbull government's $210 million funding cut to South Australian schools, 38 schools in my electorate are going to lose $16 million over the next couple of years. That includes schools like Modbury High School, which will lose $750,000; Banksia Park International High School, which will lose $765,000; The Heights School, which will lose $1.1 million; Roma Mitchell Secondary College, which will lose $1.2 million; and Golden Grove High School, which will lose $1.2 million. I singled those five schools out of the 38 for this reason: they are all secondary schools and they are all schools that meet and deal with students with high needs. These are the schools that most of our new arrivals who live in the north-eastern suburbs will go to. They are schools that cater for children with a disability, and these are the schools that need all the support they can get, yet their funding has been cut by this government.
I could talk about the other 34 schools, but clearly time will not allow me to do so. These are the schools, like most public schools, where the lower income families send their children. Unfortunately, it's always been the ideological view of this federal government and previous coalition governments that they are not responsible for the funding of public schools in this country. Clearly, that is the attitude of the member for Boothby, the member for Grey, the member for Barker and the member for Sturt, who are not standing up to their government in respect of these cuts, which they know are being perpetrated on the schools in the areas that they represent. Rather than come into this place and say that they oppose the Turnbull government's cuts, they are simply remaining silent. It was interesting to see that they were given approval to be let off the leash to come out and oppose the GST cuts to South Australia, but they're not prepared to come in here and oppose the education funding cuts to South Australia. It's also interesting that the cuts come from a minister who comes from South Australia, and the minister previous to him was also from South Australia, yet both of them have turned their backs on South Australians. As we've heard, it wasn't just them; it was also the Nick Xenophon Team that supported those cuts when they went through this parliament—the team that claims to stand up and support the battlers of South Australia. I can tell all people in this place that the battlers are the ones who predominantly rely on the public schools of our nation.
Despite all of the denials and protestations about the increased funding that we're going to see from the Turnbull government, the reality is that the funding cuts are there. They are real, and South Australia will get $210 million less than they would otherwise have got under the agreement that was previously made between South Australia and the federal government.
It's also true that funding does matter to schools. It's not just the school itself where the funding matters. If schools are denied funding, they in turn have to put up their fees and charges for the families of the students who come to their schools. Again, we're talking about families who come mainly from low-income areas. These are families who have had to deal with living increases, health funding increases, in many cases cuts to their working hours, and stagnant wages, as we heard again in question time today. Yet they will be forced to increase the fees that they pay for their children to go to school.
Because of these funding cuts, the schools will have little choice but to increase their fees, but more insulting is that the education funding cuts that have been made by the Turnbull government are made at a time when the government says, 'We can afford $65 billion in business tax cuts.' Clearly, this is a government that has its priorities wrong, because the return on investing in education is much greater, and will always be much greater, than the return that the government will get by providing tax cuts. I think every smart country knows that, and we're seeing that. The smart countries of the world have always invested first and foremost in their education systems.
Labor will take this issue right through to the next election, because Labor members do care about education, and we oppose the position taken by this government. It's not just in schools. We go to our universities and we see billions of dollars cut there. We go to the TAFEs and we see some $3 billion cut there. Then we go to the education system more broadly and there's $17 billion of cuts there. Enough is enough, and this government's got its priorities wrong. (Time expired)
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (16:14): Well, they're still at it—or, maybe more accurately, they're at it again. The member for Sydney—apparently now fully recovered after a public shaming last year by the ABC Fact Check for her misleading statements on education funding—is back and, it appears, is as undeterred by the facts as ever.
Last year—it was only six months ago, I think—Labor was here trying on these same misleading lines about billions being cut from schools and education funding. Here's exactly what ABC Fact Check had to say regarding those claims:
RMIT ABC Fact Check takes a deep dive into the figures.
The verdict
Ms Plibersek's claim is misleading: the Government is not cutting $22 billion from schools.
Commonwealth budgets set out spending over a four year period.
According to the 2017-18 budget handed down on May 9, Commonwealth schools funding will continue to rise every year.
So the Labor claims here are misleading, according to ABC Fact Check. It really is quite remarkable to hear the member for Sydney—and so many of her South Australian colleagues, for some reason!—coming back here today to repeat those same old discredited lines. Australians are now on high alert, sadly, when it comes to Labor misleading them: 'Mediscare', school cuts, and the list goes on. There's a pattern there of lines which have been found, again and again, to be misleading by ABC Fact Check.
We know that those on the opposite side know nothing about business. Barely any of them have set foot inside anything other than the union movement, and even fewer of them have been into that half of Australia that exists in the small business sector. So it's going to come as news to them—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr EVANS: They're getting quite exercised by this. Apparently it's alarming to hear that half of the world out there is in that small business private sector. It's going to come as big news to them to learn that, if they were engaged in trade or commerce themselves and the Australian Consumer Law applied to them, misleading claims like that would be unlawful. They would be breaking the law if they were a business engaged in trade or commerce and making claims which were found to be misleading. It's really a sign of the times. Labor are now running on empty, it appears. They are so bereft of something new to complain about that they are falling back on those lines they used to fail to deliver here last year, trying to maintain this sense of confected and unending outrage.
I'm going to take just one moment to jump into some of the state figures to prove why this is so misleading. I want to go to the Queensland numbers. I know those opposite want to talk about South Australia, but total funding to the state of Queensland under this government's schools funding increases. It goes up each and every year. For state schools it is $1.6 billion this year. That's a bigger number than last year. And the amount goes up—up, not down—each and every year from now until 2027. By that stage it will have increased by about 50 per cent, to $2.4 billion in total. The exact same logic applies to the independent and the Catholic schools sector in Queensland where the federal government, rather than the state government, is the predominant funder. So it's going up every single year, not down.
The same is true in South Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, what can you tell me about these numbers—$1.1 billion, $1.2 billion, $1.3 billion? They're going up each year, not down. Those are the funding figures under this government's schools funding for schools in South Australia.
In conclusion, these are the same old, tired lines from Labor—'misleading', as ABC Fact Check says. The only difference now is trying to link some of those lines to minor parties in South Australia. That's the only new bit here. I wonder: is something happening in South Australia soon, perhaps? It possibly suggests how poor Labor polling is in South Australia in the lead-up to the state election. I'm sure everybody noted how many of the Labor speakers here today were indeed from the state of South Australia. Well, sorry, Labor Party. I'm going to let the minor parties defend themselves, but I suspect they'll have some views quite similar to mine. All this episode shows is why the crossbenchers shouldn't trust Labor. It shows why South Australians and Queenslanders shouldn't trust Labor. It shows why teachers, parents and students shouldn't trust Labor. Their credibility on this issue of cuts is at an all-time low, like the boy who cried wolf.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (16:19): I, too, rise to join my colleagues on this very important matter of public importance. It's interesting to hear the member for Brisbane opposite talk about how this is all a scare tactic and a scare campaign. The real speech he would have loved to have made is: 'Let's privatise every single school. Let's sell them to off to multinationals and let private industry, business and commerce run them.' That's the guts of what those on the other side would really like to see.
On this side of the House, we have a long tradition of supporting education—from the Whitlam era, and even before then—and we continue to do so. We did so in 2012, when we came up with the Gonski report et cetera, and implemented a great system that would have seen fairness in every school and every school's funding based on its needs. I recall very well during the 2013 campaign how those opposite were jumping up and down saying: 'Us too! Us too! We're supporting this. This is exactly what we're going to do as well. Nothing to worry about, Australian public voters, we will be doing the exact same thing as the Labor Party.' They said this about many other things, which they also reneged on once they won the federal election in 2013.
Education is another example of where those opposite say one thing before an election and then do something completely different. In South Australia, state schools will be losing $210 million in the next two years alone—$210 million! We're here to condemn this government for reneging on this and for taking money away from some of the poorest schools in South Australia, including some in my electorate. If you have a look at the sectors nationally and compare the figures provided by the Parliamentary Budget Office—the PBO—and the National Catholic Education Commission, you will see government schools will lose $1.88 billion, Catholic schools will lose $250.6 million and independent schools will lose $53.5 million. It's a total of $2.19 billion. And 86 per cent are cuts to public schools—86 per cent. That is a shame. Some of the schools in South Australia are literally losing more than $1 million in funding. Public schools cop a massive 86 per cent of the cuts nationally.
In my electorate, there are two schools that come to mind: Glenelg Primary School is down $731,000, and Thebarton Senior College is down $863,000. These are schools that do very important work. They take in kids with disabilities; they have special programs to assist children who have learning difficulties. Taking away $731,000 from Glenelg will make a big difference to those students, and it will make a big difference to the way that school operates. As we heard the member for Makin say, the only way these schools can survive is by putting up their fees; therefore, parents who are in some of the most vulnerable areas, in some of the poorest areas, of our suburbs will be paying more for school fees. Maybe I should let that sink in.
There is another school in my electorate, the School for Vision Impaired, which does some magnificent work assisting children with vision impairment. It's getting a cut of $24,000. That lot on the other side may think that $24,000 is not a lot, but for a family and a child trying to deal with vision impairment, this could be the difference between receiving and not receiving the latest Braille books or an iPad to help them learn in already difficult circumstances. That shows how low this government will go.
Henley High School in my electorate is suffering a cut of $1.2 million—the largest cut faced by a school in the electorate of Hindmarsh, and the seventh-largest cut of 511 schools in South Australia. Henley are doing some great work with STEM. They do intense learning in STEM subjects, in science, technology et cetera, and all of that will be affected by these cuts.
Cowandilla Primary School, which I'm very proud to say is my old primary school, will have $403,000 cut from it. It's a great school. We visited there recently with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten. We looked at their STEM program, and some of the great work they're doing with young students. This is a school that has had, for many years, a great tradition of working with new arrivals—from kids that had come straight off the boat in the sixties, right through to today. This cut will have a massive effect on a school that needs every single cent to help it cope with students that have difficulties with learning and with many other things. (Time expired)
Mr GEE (Calare) (16:24): Well, wherever Nick Xenophon is this afternoon, he must be pretty chuffed and smiling, knowing that he has you people opposite so spooked about what's going on in South Australia that you've had to devote such a large part of the parliamentary day to trying to bash him up. How embarrassing is it that you could come in here and do that in our national parliament! But hypocrisy and those opposite really go hand in hand.
Those opposite have a very poor record of delivering on educational reform. Who could forget the glory days of Building the Education Revolution, for example? Remember that corker? Oh, yes. They were big on talk, but the delivery was absolutely appalling, with school halls that weren't fit for the schools that they were implemented in, overinflated prices, and building work that should have been carried out by local builders that wasn't—it was all done by out-of-town people. So, whilst they all talk a good game, in practice, the delivery always falls apart—and so it was with the Gonski reforms.
Let's have a little bit of a walk through the history pages about Gonski and how it came into being. We've had to clean up another Labor Party mess. We all know that, back in the days of Julia Gillard, when she was trying to get those states signed up, she was writing cheques that she knew she would never have to cash. She was out to save her political skin. And everyone was out there saying, 'Come in, spinner; we'll take your cheques!' But none of it was ever funded, which was very unfortunate. She was so desperate to do deals, she was stitching them up left, right and centre. She did 27 separate deals.
But the worst part of it, to my way of thinking, was that the broken system which the Gillard government implemented wasn't fair. It wasn't fair, because it valued disadvantaged students in different states differently. It didn't treat all Australians the same way. A child in one state who was suffering disadvantage was worth less to the government in terms of spending than a child suffering the same disadvantage in another state. So they, the champions of equity and equality, totally distorted and corrupted the needs based funding system. We in country Australia like it, because country schools are the biggest winners. But none of it was ever funded. It was Monopoly money. It was bouncy, rubbery cheques.
So the coalition government have had to step in, as we always do—we do it every time—to clean up the economic mess that the opposition created, with $23.5 billion in new funding over the next 10 years. It's not pie-in-the-sky stuff; the funding is kicked in straightaway and everyone's a winner, because it's properly funded and you know you're going to get your money. Over the next 10 years, recurrent funding for South Australia will total $16.7 billion and, over the next 10 years, recurrent funding per student for South Australia will grow, on average, by 4.6 per cent each year. That's real money. That's real increases in all of these schools. In my electorate, it's funding increases for every school in our electorate. Needs based funding is important. It's something that we can all get behind, and I support it. But I also support having it fully funded—not just writing cheques that a government knows it will never have to cash.
The great thing about these new reforms is they're backed by David Gonski himself. People call it Gonski 2.0. I call it 'the real Gonski', because it's real money and real funding. And it's going to flow through to all of our students, particularly in country Australia. We've got some of the most disadvantaged schools in the nation in our rural seats. Over the next decade, there's going to be an estimated $58.5 billion in Commonwealth recurrent funding for regional, rural and remote schools. Of this, an estimated $5.8 billion is provided through the location loading over this period. So you're looking at 750,000 country students benefiting from this—and it's real money and it's money that's locked in.
And it's not just rural schools; so many other schools right around Australia are benefiting from these funding reforms. For example, over the next 10 years, Commonwealth recurrent funding per student for New South Wales will grow, on average, by 4.1 per cent every year. The funding increases are real. If you look at some of the schools in my electorate you see, for example, that Canobolas Rural Technology High School is getting a funding increase over the next decade of over 50 per cent—an increase of over 50 per cent for a school that does marvellous work. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): The time allotted for this discussion has now concluded.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Kiribati and the Kingdom of Tonga
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (16:29): I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Kiribati and the Kingdom of Tonga from 25 June to 2 July 2017, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mr GEORGANAS: As I said, this was a delegation to the island of Kiribati and the Kingdom of Tonga on 25 June to 2 July 2017. The leader of the delegation was Senator Ian Macdonald. The rest of the delegation consisted of Mr Milton Dick MP, the member for Oxley; me; Senator John Williams, the senator for New South Wales; and our delegation secretary, Gerry McNally, whom I would like to thank on behalf of the committee for all his hard work in ensuring that we got to places on time and that we were organised with papers et cetera.
This was a trip to one of the most remote islands in the world, Kiribati. The report that I have tabled will outline the key activities and observations of the delegation's visit to Kiribati and our visit to the Kingdom of Tonga, which was a few days after we went to Kiribati. We looked at many things such as stronger partnerships on economic growth and security in the region and stronger relationships between people.
The program was intended to look at how we could assist and what we are doing to assist some of our closest neighbours. We had meetings with fisheries in Kiribati. We discussed marine security and training, tourism, culture and health. We attended family violence centres, where Australian NGOs were working. It was interesting to see the work that Australian volunteers do in these places, which is absolutely crucial to these nations. It was wonderful to see the volunteers contributing on the ground. We had one-on-one meetings in Tonga with some of our Australian aid workers, who told us about the wonderful projects there and how Australian foreign aid is assisting the nation to build itself to ensure that it becomes economically viable.
It was also interesting to notice the connections that many people in Kiribati and in Tonga have to Australia through relatives, people-to-people contacts and the different agencies. One of the things that were highlighted in this delegation trip was the absolute necessity of the work that we do. We also saw how climate change is having a real effect there. It is affecting Kiribati today, as we speak, with rising seas. They've had to build seawalls. After a few years, those seawalls are gone and they have to build more seawalls. It was interesting to see that people were already being evacuated from Kiribati to Fiji because of climate change. One of the things that I took away from this delegation was the absolute necessity of Australian foreign aid to some of our closest neighbours. If we want a stable region, this aid is very important and should continue.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2018
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment.
COMMITTEES
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ) (16:33): Mr Speaker has received advice that Senator Abetz has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (16:35): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading because the bill as written is too broad, poorly drafted and has unintended consequences"
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (16:36): In summing up, I want to thank members for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017. This bill enables the department to provide a safe and secure environment for people accommodated in, visiting or working in immigration detention facilities. It will strengthen search and seizure powers in the Migration Act, including the use of detector dogs in order for authorised officers to restrict from immigration detention facilities things that might pose a risk. These things include, but aren't limited to, mobile phones, SIM cards, narcotic drugs and child pornography.
In 2014, the coalition government strengthened section 501 of the Migration Act to better protect the Australian community from foreign nationals who commit serious crimes. These changes have allowed us to cancel the visas of more than 3,300 foreign criminals who were putting the Australian community at risk. Since these changes were enacted, we've cancelled the visas of 60 murderers, 228 child sex offenders and 160 organised crime figures. This action has meant an increase in criminals being held in immigration detention. More than half of the detainee population consists of high-risk cohorts. These cohorts have significant criminal histories, including child sex offences, links to criminal gangs such as outlaw motorcycle gangs and other organised crime groups, or they represent an unacceptable risk to the Australian community. These criminals often have serious behavioural issues and pose a critical threat to the health, safety, security and order of our detention network.
The government won't tolerate behaviour that's illegal or that threatens the stability of detention facilities, placing our officers, visitors or detainees at risk. At the moment, the existing arrangements are inadequate to manage the increasing risk of contraband in detention, such as narcotic drugs and the use of mobile phones for the commission of criminal activity. Mobile phones in immigration detention facilities are enabling criminal behaviour in a range of ways. Examples of these include drug distribution within detention facilities, maintenance of criminal enterprise in and out of detention facilities, facilitation of threats between detainees and accessing child pornography. Owners of mobile phones are also being subjected to standover tactics, including the theft of the phone itself. Phones have also become a commodity of exchange, because currently illegal maritime arrival detainees are not themselves permitted mobile phones but all other detainees are. So mobile phones are now being used as a type of currency in these facilities.
In November 2016, the Commonwealth Ombudsman conducted an own motion investigation into the use of restricted practices within IDFs, a document which the Labor Party refers to in almost every debate relating to immigration. The investigation noted that the legislative framework that supports the good order and welfare of the detention network is not robust and relies heavily on common-law and case-law precedents to support detention operations. For example, officers have increasingly relied on the common law as the basis for taking certain action to manage risks and maintain control of immigration detention facilities—for example, searching accommodation areas within detention facilities.
The bill provides express statutory authority for authorised officers to conduct searches and seize things in order to restrict certain things from the detention environment. This includes things that could be used to facilitate criminal activity and threats of escape, organise disturbances or access child pornography.
In 2007 Labor introduced legislative amendments to the character provisions of the act to strengthen the department's ability to effectively maintain good order within immigration detention facilities and to empower staff to take the necessary action required to maintain the order of these facilities. This bill will ensure that the department's officers can carry out their responsibilities properly, minimising unacceptable risks to the health, safety and security of people in immigration detention facilities and to the order of these facilities.
I note that the shadow minister has moved a second reading amendment and note in advance that the government will not be supporting this amendment. As with many of the actions of the shadow minister, there appears to have been a lot of bluff and bluster in his contribution to the debate but little substance. This is most obviously illustrated through his second reading amendment, which failed to address any of the Labor Party's so-called concerns with the bill and instead just sought to shut down debate on this very important issue.
Under Labor, in 2013, 99 per cent of people in immigration detention were illegal maritime arrivals. This was due to Labor's border security failure, which resulted, as we all know, in 50,000 arrivals on over 800 boats and over 8,000 children put in detention.
It may not suit the shadow minister, but the coalition has cleaned up this mess. Now there are fewer than 1,300 people held in detention. In fact, the detention cohort has changed so much that now half of the detainee population consists of the high-risk cohorts which I've just spoken about. This changed nature of the detention population has seen an increase in illegal activity in immigration detention. So, to effectively manage these new risks posed to the safety of the men and women of the ABF, as well as other detainees, by this high-risk cohort, we must equip our ABF with the sufficient powers that they need. Despite the inconsistent mutterings of the shadow minister proclaiming that Labor's committed to keeping Australians safe, on one hand, the Labor Party stands in the way of providing our ABF with those important powers for this very difficult, high-risk cohort.
The government's committed to providing a safe and secure environment for people accommodated in, visiting and—most importantly—working at an immigration detention facility. We'll work constructively with the crossbench and any party—I repeat: any party—which is serious about this important work. I therefore commend this bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Blair has moved that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [16:48]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The House divided. [16:55]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (17:03): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (17:03): I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017. This bill has been a little while coming before the parliament, but it's good that it's finally here. This legislation puts in place a number of measures announced in last year's May budget, including measures around further price disclosure reform.
Let me start by saying that making medicines more affordable for Australians is always good news. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is one of the hallmarks of Australia's universal healthcare system, a system that is the envy of many countries across the world. Labor is incredibly proud of the PBS. It was first established in 1948 by the Chifley government and has been in place in various iterations ever since. Labor fought to create the PBS, has always fought to strengthen the PBS and will always fight to protect the PBS. It's only through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that most Australians can afford to access the medicines that they need.
I will say from the outset that we will be supporting this bill. The price reductions enabled by this bill will deliver savings to the budget and price reductions to consumers. But we note serious concerns that the government have not been up-front with Australians about whether they have already spent the savings that were negotiated as part of this bill. This bill represents about $1.8 billion in savings, but, with new listings in last year's budget and throughout the year, it is possible that these funds have in fact already been spent. The government need to be clear about that.
This bill builds on the work of the previous Labor government around pricing of medicines and which applicable medicines are reduced on the PBS. This bill continues that work by making a number of changes to pricing of medicines and drugs. The existing five per cent reduction that applies for single-brand drugs on the F1 formulary on their fifth anniversary of listing will be extended for another two years, now applying until April 2020.
There is the introduction of two new anniversary price reductions for drugs on F1: a 10 per cent reduction after 10 years of listing on the PBS and a further five per cent reduction after 15 years of listing. On 1 June 2018, medicines that have already reached the 10-year or 15-year anniversary by that date will be subject to catch-up reductions, and subsequent anniversary reduction days will occur on 1 April each year.
The bill increases the price reduction that applies on listing the first additional new brand of a medicine. When a first new competing brand is listed alongside an existing brand of an F1 drug, both immediately have their prices reduced. This bill will increase the reduction from 15 per cent to 25 per cent.
The bill adds new provisions around ministerial direction for price reductions, with previous price reductions able to be taken into account before a statutory price reduction is applied.
The bill also adds a new measure around price disclosure arrangements. These arrangements mean that drug companies must report data on sales, with the sale price information used to adjust the price for all brands of a medicine. The new measure provides that, after a medicine has had seven full cycles of price disclosure data collection and reduction days, the threshold for price disclosure price reductions will increase from the current 10 per cent to 30 per cent.
Finally, the bill allows a company to list another version of its own originator brand without being subject to a new brand price reduction.
Of course, we are very pleased that the reforms we introduced in government are continuing to help Australians access more-affordable medicines. But there are questions about whether the government are being honest about whether they have already spent money from our previous savings and from these savings. As PharmaDispatch noted after MYEFO:
Confirmation of the aggregate spend on new medicines confirms the $1.8 billion in savings negotiated by the sector—
and represented in this bill—
and supposedly set aside to fund new listings, is gone.
It actually remains unclear whether the $1.8 billion really existed in the first place given the Budget papers released in May shows it was used as a savings to improve the government's bottom line.
Labor has repeatedly questioned the government on the existence of these savings, but they have failed to provide adequate information.
Of course, these changes are built on previous reforms made by Labor to improve the budget bottom line and make medicines more affordable for Australians. In 2007, Labor introduced price disclosure arrangements, making further changes in 2013 to speed up the time in which applicable medicines are reduced on the PBS, saving money for both consumers and the government. The 2007 and 2010 PBS reforms, coupled with the introduction of simplified price disclosure in 2013, have achieved savings in excess of $20 billion to 2017-18 and put the PBS on a sustainable pathway.
Of course, we are pleased that the reforms we introduced in government are continuing to help Australians access more-affordable medicine. But Australians have every right to ask the government what they have done with these PBS savings. They have only listed a fraction of the $20 billion handed to them under Labor's reforms, so they need to explain where the missing $14 billion has gone. The minister likes to praise the work that he has done in listing new medicines—and I also want to acknowledge in particular his predecessor, the previous health minister, for the work that she did in listing medicines. It is the business of government to do so. But lauding that the government are doing so within the budget context does beg the question: if you're doing that, where has the $20 billion, all up, gone?
Labor is very proud of its record in fighting for affordable medicines for all Australians. The Labor government approved the listing of over $6 billion worth of new medicines and vaccines, adding more than 780 new medicines to the PBS Life Saving Drugs Program and vaccines to the National Immunisation Program. This included funding 36 new or amended listings on the PBS to treat more than 17 types of cancer, at a cost of $2 billion. We've been fighting against the government's attempts to make medicines more expensive from the moment they were introduced—changes that would have made medicines more expensive for every Australian across the country.
While much of this bill focuses on enabling price changes for medicines and drugs—which, as I said, is something we support—it also makes a notable change to the pharmacy location rules. Since 1990, rules have existed to limit how close a new pharmacy can be to an existing pharmacy. These rules have a sunset clause in the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement. This bill will remove the sunset clause, meaning existing arrangements will continue post 2020. Labor will not stand in the way of this change. In the context of this legislation, I'd like to note the important role of pharmacists as custodians of the PBS and in the National Medicines Policy.
This legislation needs to be considered in the context of the government's overall approach to health—because, while we welcome cheaper medicines, this is a government which consistently puts the health of Australians last. When it comes to prevention, to out-of-pocket costs, to primary health and to public hospitals, this government continues to drag our health system backwards.
While there are several elements of this year's budget Labor remains critical of, we welcome the resolution of a number of outstanding issues which were hanging over the sector, including dropping the proposal to increase the PBS co-payment by $5 for general patients and 80c for concessional patients. As we have said, more affordable medicines are good for the budget and for consumers, and we acknowledge the work of industry in agreeing to the savings contained in this bill. While we will support this bill, we will continue to note our concerns that the government is not being up-front about whether the savings have already been spent. The government's language around reinvesting the $1.8 billion in savings is way too soft. Any additional savings realised through the agreement with Medicines Australia or negotiated in the future should be reinvested in new medicines. Labor is incredibly proud of the PBS, and we will always fight for it. The government must guarantee that every dollar of savings generated by the passage of this bill will be reinvested in new medicines. Of course, affordability of medicines is only one aspect of overall health costs. The fact is that, under this government, Australians are paying more for their health and their budgets are increasingly stretched. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr DRUM (Murray—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (17:13): by leave—I move:
That the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (17:13): I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) is of the opinion that with Government debt soaring ever higher, it's time the Turnbull Government abandoned its plan to give big business a multi-billion tax cut;
(2) notes that the Government is debating legislative fixes that are a result of its slapdash approach to policy making; and
(3) calls on the Government to commit to a post-implementation review of this measure".
Labor will support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2017, but we will not do so without calling the attention of this House to the Treasurer's litany of mistakes.
Just over 21 years ago, English Premier League side Southampton fielded a substitute player, Ali Dia, who had just arrived at the injury-depleted side with virtually unknown footballing credentials. In a match Southampton lost 2-0, Dia himself was substituted after a shocking performance and released from his contract within two weeks. As it turned out, he'd bluffed his way into the job by getting a university friend to impersonate Ballon d'Or winner George Weah in a phone call to manager Graeme Souness to extol the player's skills. Souness's misplaced faith was mocked for decades to come. The player whom Dia replaced, Matt Le Tissier, spoke of the new substitute's performance in the following terms:
He ran around the pitch like Bambi on ice. It was very, very embarrassing to watch.
Souness defended the decision on the basis that his playing stocks were depleted, but nonetheless confessed that the experience was 'a kick in the bollocks'.
As noted by Richard Cooke in The Monthly, the dire fiasco was in part a symptom of the pre-internet era. But what makes the experience of Southampton understandable, if not entirely defensible, is that they dealt with the roster situation swiftly. The contrast with the Turnbull government couldn't be clearer. Southampton addressed the issue within two weeks. We've had this Treasurer in his role for two years. We've seen the Treasurer slip and slide on policy positions like Bambi on ice, making mistakes with disheartening regularity. An error-prone history prefaces the bill before us today—a legislative fix to the unintended consequence of the government's rushed and poorly implemented tax plan. It is embarrassing to watch the Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services having to introduce legislation to clarify who's eligible for the lower corporate tax rate for small and medium businesses.
Let me be clear. Labor supports the small business tax cut. We just wish the government could have got it right the first time—or the second time. But, as I'll go on to discuss, it's taken the government three times to get this one right. But I'm afraid it's not the first time the Treasurer has messed up. He has 10 greatest hits on the muck-up table. No. 1 is his 15 per cent GST. In February 2016, when the tax white paper process had been abandoned, the Treasurer switched his focus to a 50 per cent hike on the GST. The Prime Minister started to back away but the Treasurer persisted—and after the conclusion of Senate estimates he dropped out GST modelling to the papers. But ultimately the Treasurer was rolled by the Prime Minister when the two of them realised—as the Australian community had known for years—that the GST is a regressive tax.
Then there was greatest hit No. 2, negative gearing excesses and hysteria. When Labor announced our carefully calibrated and prospective policy to restrict negative gearing to new dwellings and halve the capital gains tax discount, the Liberal Party didn't quite know what to do with itself. This was a policy supported by Joe Hockey in his outgoing speech, by Jeff Kennett and by Mike Baird. While waiting for guidance from the backbench, it seemed like the Treasurer might have considered negative gearing reforms. He appeared on Channel Seven's Sunrise program. When Kochie asked, 'Does it go too far?' the Treasurer said, 'There are excesses.' Kochie said, 'Does it need to be reformed?' The Treasurer: 'There are excesses.'
But then the Treasurer started to crab-walk away. At the National Press Club, he walked away from reforming negative gearing despite the fact it was clear that such reforms are needed. And he soon began embracing outright hysteria about Labor's negative gearing reforms, trumpeting a BIS Shrapnel report that, he purported, modelled Labor policy. BIS Shrapnel, to their credit, clarified to The Australian Financial Review:
The assumptions were set several months ago, and the analysis done late last year, well before Labor announced its policy. Therefore the assumptions do not align with Labor's policy.
The Treasurer could have picked up some warning signs in the report, which referred to Australia's GDP as $190 billion—well short of the true answer then of $1.6 trillion. The Grattan Institute's John Daley said:
Voters should be asking themselves whether a responsible government would rely on this sort of nonsense in a public policy debate.
But we now know that the Treasurer was sitting on analysis from his own department which sat in a desk, or maybe a filing cabinet somewhere in Fyshwick, for two years, until he was ordered to release it under freedom of information laws. That analysis stated:
In the long term, increases in taxation on rental property could have a relatively modest downward impact on property prices.
Why wasn't it heeded? The Treasurer said:
I didn't agree with them …
That's why. The Treasurer may be entitled to his own opinion, but the public are entitled to the facts.
Then there's No. 3, the timing of the budget. Having been sidelined on the tax white paper, GST and concerns over negative gearing, the Treasurer was going to stand firm on the date of the 2016 budget. Amid speculation that it might change, the Treasurer was asked if the scheduled date of 10 May 2016 was going ahead, and he said, 'That is the planning we have in place.' It wasn't. The Treasurer was rolled by the Prime Minister, who decided to bring forward the budget in a decision all to do with politics rather than policy, and advised the new timing via a cabinet teleconference.
Then there's No. 4, the hole in the Liberals' black hole claims. In the 2016 election, the longest in living memory, the government attempted to peddle dodgy numbers about Labor's policy. Journalists discovered, within a matter of minutes of the Treasurer releasing those numbers, a $19 billion mistake in their claims about a policy released by Labor just days before. The Treasurer was later reduced to giving himself a $35 billion variance in his statement about Labor's costings.
Then there's No. 5, the omnishambles. In 2016, we saw the Treasurer demonstrate that, while the Liberals are good with division, they're not quite so good with addition. The Treasurer, extraordinarily, produced numbers which had stuff-ups in them, with the acting secretary of Treasury seemingly bullied into releasing a statement saying the wrong numbers were 'due to a computational error'. We then had the Treasurer, in April last year, with extraordinary chutzpah, responding to the tax office's court victory over Chevron by tweeting:
Chevron will pay more than $300m to the ATO proving the govt's program of tax avoidance funding and new measures is working
But here's the thing: the Liberals voted against the very laws that the tax office used to take on Chevron. Specifically, in 2012, the coalition voted against the then Labor government's Tax Laws Amendment (Cross-Border Transfer Pricing) Bill (No. 1) 2012. At the time, they claimed the law was retrospective. In reality, it simply clarified the operation of our tax laws and ensured that multinationals couldn't exploit loopholes. If the Liberals had had their way, the budget would be $300 million worse off. If the Treasurer was being honest, he would have tweeted: 'I got it wrong in 2012. I'm glad Labor did the right thing, and this judgement is based on Labor laws that I voted against.'
But they continue to make this same argument. Late last year, during Senate estimates, the Australian Taxation Office confirmed that none of the $4 billion clawed back from multinational firms over the previous financial year could be attributed to Liberal laws, despite their repeated attempts to claim otherwise. The most diligent Senator Ketter asked the tax office's international deputy commissioner, Mark Konza:
In terms of the $4 billion that you announced was raised on 23 August for the last financial year, I'm interested in knowing how much of that is directly attributable to the multinational anti-avoidance law?
Mr Konza replied:
The answer is nil. The multinational anti-avoidance law only came in in 2016. The $4 billion concerned audits that went back as far as 2008 …
So the Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services have been telling blatant untruths when they've claimed it was their policy responsible for cracking down on multinational tax dodging. To top it off, the government spent $8 million in advertising their multinational policies. That is $8 million more than the revenue that we know to have been raised by those laws.
One revenue measure the government can take credit for is the bank levy, but from the get-go they couldn't even clarify simple details, such as whether the levy was tax deductible. The Treasurer's office issued a statement in the weeks following the budget announcement that included the statement, 'The government believes the bank's figures support Treasury revenue forecasts of $6.2 billion over the budget forward estimates.' But, a month later, testimony at the Senate Economics Legislation Committee confirmed a $2 billion budget black hole in the government's bank levy. The Treasurer refuses to release modelling backing the $6.2 billion claim—but he's always willing to release material that makes false claims.
That brings us to false claim No. 6, the pretend analysis of Labor's policies. Last year, the Parliamentary Budget Office took the extraordinary step of issuing a correction about claims made in the media. The Treasurer had been peddling modelling—fictitious numbers about Labor's tax policies—to favoured journalists and claiming that these numbers were from the Parliamentary Budget Office, but they weren't. As the Parliamentary Budget Office said:
References in the media this morning to modelling being released today by the Parliamentary Budget Office are incorrect. The analysis reported in the media this morning was not conducted by the PBO.
Then there is No. 7: the Treasurer's talk of lowering tax while he's trying to raise it. The Treasurer has regularly put on the garb of a low-tax crusader, wrapped himself in the cape of a man who is keen on cutting income tax for middle Australia. If you're a millionaire or a multinational then the Treasurer is there to back you, but seven million Australians face a tax hike under this Treasurer. At a time of low wage growth, at a time when this government is supporting cutting penalty rates and at a time when we are seeing the safety net, as the member for Gorton has pointed out, moving from 16 per cent of workers to 24 per cent of workers, the Treasurer sees fit to whack Australians earning as little as $21,000 with a hike in the Medicare levy. A worker on $60,000—a police officer or a teacher—will pay an extra $300 a year in income taxes under the Liberals compared to Labor.
Labor believe in progressive taxes. We support the reintroduction of the deficit levy on the basis that the debt has continued to increase and the deficit hasn't gone away. Why should the only temporary measure to get the budget back in surplus be the one that hits the top end of town? We would raise over $4 billion more than the government by increasing the Medicare levy only for those earning more than $87,000 a year and keeping the deficit levy on those income earners earning more than $180,000. Nine-tenths of that reintroduction of the deficit levy would be paid by the top one per cent, a group of Australians who have seen their share of income double in the past generation. The Medicare levy above $21,000 is a flat tax. When you ask a hairdresser and a surgeon to each pay 0.5 per cent of their income, that's a flat tax. Progressive taxes reflect the reality that a billionaire has greater capacity than a battler to pay for schools, roads and hospitals. With inequality as high as it has been in three-quarters of a century we don't need more flat taxes in Australia.
Then there is No. 8: the Treasurer's analysis of inequality. Earlier I paraphrased the great American professor turned senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who enjoyed saying to opponents, 'You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.' The Treasurer has claimed that inequality has 'actually got better', but experts from around the world, from Oxfam to the Reserve Bank of Australia, have confirmed what many Australians already know—that inequality is indeed increasing. The Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that, since 1975, real wages have grown by 72 per cent for the top 10th but 23 per cent for the bottom 10th. The labour income share in the economy has fallen from 75 per cent in 1975 to 60 per cent today. Fat profits; skinny pay cheques.
The Treasurer tells us that we should look at the Gini coefficient. Let's do just that. Peter Whiteford shows that the Gini in 1981-82 was 0.27 but by 2013-14 it had risen to either 0.3 or 0.33, depending on whether you use the Melbourne Institute's Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey or the Australian Bureau of Statistics income surveys. Either way, the Gini is up. My own estimates of pre-tax Gini coefficients for men from 1942 to 2010 show that we have seen a fall in the Gini coefficient from about 0.35 in the early 1940s to 0.27 in the early 1980s and then back in the region of 0.36 to 0.38 by the 2000s.
The top one per cent income shares are up. The top one per cent wealth shares are up. The share of national income held by the rich list is up. But the facts didn't stop the Treasurer using taxpayer money to mail out an 80-page glossy to Australian CEOs trumpeting Treasury analysis on inequality and wage growth. Will he release it? I don't think so.
Then there is No. 9—the Treasurer's own goals on company tax cuts. In December 2017, Treasury analysis commissioned by the Treasurer and released late on a Friday afternoon again clearly demonstrated that, for companies with a turnover of more than $50 million, workers are not remunerated in line with their productivity. This came on the back of OECD analysis earlier this year showing that Australia lagged most other OECD economies when it came to workers getting a fair share of productivity gains. This selective release of data late on a Friday is characteristic of the way in which this government operates. While this House was passing the historic same-sex marriage laws at the end of last year, the Turnbull government released tax transparency data. They didn't want the public to ever see these data. They voted against the laws and tried to get rid of them. The figures showed that one in three large firms in Australia pay no tax, including more than 100 firms that reported more than a billion dollars in total income.
And then there's No. 10—the bill we are debating today: base rate entities, patch-up on a patch-up. As I have noted, Labor have always supported a lower tax rate for small businesses with a turnover of up to $2 million. So we need to make sure that the eligibility rules for the lower rate are right. But we have had concerns being raised as far back as September 2016 about the applicability of these laws. Bodies such as The Tax Institute and the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, while welcoming the clarification, have recommended a post-implementation review of the legislation, possibly by the Treasury or the Board of Taxation. We hope the government heeds their calls. Support for this technical amendment has no further implications for Labor's position on the threshold at which a lower company tax rate applies. This is simply about clarity in the operation of tax laws, as long as a two-tiered company tax rate stands.
Under the measures contained in this bill, if more than 80 per cent of a company's assessable income is of a passive nature, for example, rents or dividends, they won't be eligible for the lower rate. Many of these entities are known as 'bucket companies', associated with discretionary trusts. The legislative patch-up is a result of the government's poor implementation of their $65 billion corporate tax giveaway. Indeed, it's extraordinary that as debt continues to soar—and those who have received their paperwork back from last year's tax return will have seen gross debt now at $501 billion—the Turnbull government refuses to abandon the rest of its plans to give some of the biggest companies in the world a huge tax cut.
In the case of the eligibility for passive investment, eligibility for lower tax thresholds was always intended to be contingent on 'carrying on a business'. The receipt of passive investment income hadn't been regarded as enough for a taxpayer to be able to demonstrate that. The government claims that, during the phase-up of company revenue tax thresholds, there was no intention for passive companies to receive lower tax rates. That has been Labor's understanding as well. Passive income entities would only be eligible for the same tax rate as other corporate entities if and when the corporate tax rate was uniform for all entities, which on the government's current schedule would be the 2023-24 income tax year at 27.5 per cent. Interestingly, the government are silent on why they exclude passive income entities during the phase-in period of their tax cut but include them at full implementation. No policy case has been given, which is rather telling.
As I noted, the tax practitioner consternation began in 2016, and in July last year the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services finally commented on the issue but didn't comment in a way that suggested she took those concerns seriously. Instead, she described the industry's concerns as 'premature'. The government was too focused instead on tax cuts for millionaires and multinationals. The detail of getting a small business tax cut right wasn't a priority, despite the fact that a small business tax cut had bipartisan support. In September 2017, we finally saw the government admitting that it had made a blunder. But, as we understand it, this bill is about to be amended by the government. They are going to patch up their patch-up. This is another omnishambles from a government that has shown its inability to get the detail right. If you're not focused on getting the detail right for small businesses, how can Australians have confidence in economic leadership in this country?
When the now Prime Minister rolled his predecessor, he said some of the key reasons for doing so were the loss of 30 Newspolls in a row—how's that going for you, Prime Minister?—and the lack of economic leadership. And as this bill has shown, Australia is failing to get the economic leadership from this government that it was promised. The government has failed to provide timely clarity to businesses and tax practitioners this year to avoid the chaos that flowed through at tax time last year. They are amending their own amending bill, admitting yet again that they haven't been able to get the detail right on the status of passive income.
Labor will support the government fixing their blunders. Let's face it, that's a lot of what we do on this side of the House—that is, try to save the government from making more blunders. Yet again we've seen this Treasurer unable to sort out the details, and a revenue minister who can't work out whether or not Labor's plans will send up or send down house prices. Yet again they're not focused on the detail of implementation. Labor will support this bill, this patch-up of a patch-up, but we shake our heads in so doing.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (17:37): I found it very difficult to follow the member for Fenner's logic there, typically criticising the government. One thing that he failed to mention, despite his apparent background in economics, is that Australia is in fact a free market economy and, therefore, it needs to be competitive. He did not touch on what's happening in the United States, despite the fact that the reduction in corporate tax rates being introduced in the United States is going to have a devastating impact on the Australian economy, unless we respond accordingly. Indeed, we need to ensure that we make Australia even more competitive than it is today because, at the end of the day, that will provide jobs as it means companies can maintain and reinvest more of their profits.
I am happy to be here to talk about this topic, because believe it or not I'm one of those odd ones in this House who actually gets pretty excited by tax law. I find it particularly exciting when a federal coalition government is working hard to reform tax law, albeit often in the face of perverse partisan resistance, which is what we have seen from the member for Fenner. Our aim is to better support our competitiveness in capital markets and ultimately create more jobs. These are real jobs, and this government has achieved record growth because of these real jobs. As we have heard time and time again over the last few days: 403,000 new jobs were created across the Australian economy last year—403,000 jobs! That is more than 1,100 jobs created each and every day, more than three-quarters of which were full time. That's an outstanding achievement, and this government's hard-won tax reforms are a big part of that success. The bill before the House simply seeks to build on that momentum by ensuring the government's Enterprise Tax Plan is targeted to deliver job-creating stimulus, precisely where and when it will do the most good, with minimal waste and unnecessary expense to the taxpayer.
This House is well aware of the government's broad strategy to help guide and drive reforms—precisely targeted reforms that deliver real incentives for the job creators of the new economy, the innovative businesses and the visionary entrepreneurs. The Enterprise Tax Plan No. 1, which recently passed into law, and the Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2, which is currently before the parliament, are both key ingredients of the government's core strategy, which continues to drive jobs and growth across the economy. The genius of the government's plan has been to comprehensively reject the chaos and operational dysfunction of the Rudd and Gillard governments by imposing a carefully coordinated alignment of programs and outcomes across key portfolios.
A perfect example of such alignment is how the Enterprise Tax Plan nicely complements the Turnbull government's signature National Innovation and Science Agenda, both working together to support new and existing enterprises, and to encourage job opportunities and growth right across our national economy. This is an agenda that commits government to support a smart future. It's an agenda to advance Australia's international competitiveness and help us become a leading smart economy within that global international political economy. This is a new and rapidly evolving economy that requires new skills and delivers new opportunities, not only to lift the living standards of Australians but to firmly stamp our brand on a century just brimming with promise. This bill is part of that vision, as it helps to ensure both the efficacy and integrity of the government's cornerstone Enterprise Tax Plan. This is a great plan, the key concept of which has again been endorsed by no less than the International Monetary Fund. And that, of course, directly contradicts the economics that we heard from the la-la land of the member for Fenner in his address, just before mine.
The January 2018 update to the IMF World economic outlook reveals that half of the expected lift in global growth, up to an estimated 3.9 per cent over 2018-19, will be due to the effects of the Trump tax package, which sends US corporate tax rates plummeting to just 21 per cent. Does this tell us that lower corporate tax rates stimulate economic growth? Well, yes, it does—of course it does—but there's a sting in the tail with this one for us. The recent IMF report analysed the impact of a drop in the US tax rate on global growth, while an analysis from last year also released by the IMF suggests that the US tax cut would reduce Australia's GDP by one per cent and threaten the sustainability of Australia's tax system unless we respond. And it's not just the IMF. As eminently credible as that organisation is, this assessment is also consistent with the Australian Treasury's analysis. Treasury finds that the negative consequences to Australia of the US corporate tax cuts 'could be offset by the implementation of the government's Enterprise Tax Plan'. The Treasury and the IMF—surely this crucial debate should be at its end, yet the opposition continues to try to fight the government's tax plans.
Labor have been caught out, pure and simple—caught out on their self-serving attempt to deny Australians the clear benefits of the government's plan. After months of misleading claims and self-righteous hyperbole, especially from their leader, who is desperately trying to fan the flames of class envy for an upcoming by-election and to feed his own personal ambition, Labor's position has been exposed as an utter sham and is now laid bare for all to see. After all, who could reasonably deny the common sense, the sheer logic of the government's enterprise tax plan? By gradually folding in predetermined corporate tax cuts to benefit higher turnover thresholds through to 2023-24, when thresholds are removed, Australia's corporate tax system will remain competitive compared to overseas markets and ensure critical capital inflows are maintained. While the natural bias of those opposite is to favour a command economy, the fact is we operate in a highly competitive free market global economy, and compete we must.
The additional benefit of the government's plan is to give more Australian businesses the ability to retain and invest their profits, to innovate and grow, and ultimately to employ more of our fellow Australians. The measures outlined in this bill will help do just that. This bill ensures that companies who have more than 80 per cent of their assessable income as passive income will not qualify for the lower 27.5 per cent corporate tax rate introduced as part of the government's enterprise tax plan no. 1. This new measure replaces the previous 'carry on a business' test as a prerequisite to access the lower rate and will apply from the current 2017-18 financial year onwards. However, subject to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 passing this parliament without critical amendment, the lower corporate rate will then apply comprehensively to all companies from 2023-24. I fully support this measure, principally because it complements the government's strategy of applying the initial corporate tax cut directly at the coalface for those small and medium businesses best able to grow and create the jobs that will help deliver a more sustained spending burst to reinforce the consumer economy before the scaffolding of the higher corporate tax rate is completely removed in 2023-24 at the conclusion of the threshold phase.
This bill will determine eligibility for the lower corporate tax rate by imposing a new passive income test to effectively exclude those companies that derive most—defined as over 80 per cent—of their income from passive sources, such as interest, dividends, rents and so on, from assessing that lower rate. This is far different from what we hear defined by those opposite, far from the wild and reckless claims of the Labor Party. The bill being debated today further demonstrates just how targeted and balanced the government's comprehensive enterprise tax plan actually is. The second tranche of this plan, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017, drives home this reform with a further reduction in the corporate tax rate to 25 per cent for all corporate entities by 2026-27. This will complete the task of ensuring Australia's corporate tax rate remains globally competitive, allowing Australian businesses to attract investment, employ more Australians and confidently base their future planning on a 25 per cent tax rate—a rate, I might add, that Treasury modelling indicates would generate a sustained increase of over one per cent to Australia's long-term GDP.
Rather than looking after the top end of town, as the Labor Party pretends to argue, this is actually a multi-staged tax reform package that benefits all Australians, a reform that is essential to our prosperity and competitiveness as a nation and as a people. It's worth noting that Australia has slipped 12 places in the overall Institute of Management Development World Competitiveness Ranking to 21st in the last seven years, from 2011 to 2017. As an aside, the House may be interested to know that China gained seven places in the 2017 listing to claim 18th spot, the second largest jump up the listing. For those who may be interested, the largest jump came from Kazakhstan, which went from 47 to 32.
So the cold reality is that Australia must become more competitive. Any Australian government, or opposition for that matter, that puts our global competitiveness at risk, either in our ability to attract capital or in our ability to export goods and services, compromises the prosperity and wellbeing of every Australian. Unlike the Labor Party, this coalition government both acknowledges and respects Australia's place in the world. We are relentless in our ambition to implement sensible, well-considered policy to better leverage Australia's global position and to improve the security and standard of living of all Australians. It's for this reason that I commend the bill to the House.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (17:51): If there were any bill that we have considered in the last few months in this House that goes to the confidence of this government, the bill before us would be it. This is a bill that attempts to fix a problem with the government's key centrepiece policy, which is its big business tax cut. This policy has been around since it was announced in 2016 and then legislated in 2017. It has problems that tax agents and business have been warning the government of since 2016. Today, in 2018, seven months into the financial year, we have come into this House to deal with an amendment to fix a problem in this financial year. After businesses have made their decisions and judgements and after accountants have made plans based on the law as it is, seven months into the financial year, we're making an adjustment to something that was well known and could have been foreseen way back in 2016.
Let's look at what this is all about today. Passive investment companies, sometimes called bucket companies, earn their income through passive investments. Through inadvertently neglecting to address those kinds of companies in their original legislation, the government have allowed those companies to benefit from the business tax cut. That was never the intention. This little piece of legislation today, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2017, attempts to address that. It is very dry reading. It contains great new acronyms, like BREPI, the base rate entity passive income. The story of how this inadvertent error in their drafting has been hanging around since 2016 without action is really quite instructive, because it tells you a great deal about the government's sloppy work up-front and their inability to listen to people, to listen to experts. The criticism has been absolutely consistent since 2016. The incompetence here is really quite extraordinary.
We heard the previous speaker talk about how wonderful this will be. As I said before, this is the only policy that this government has. By the government's own figures—never mind the member for Fairfax claiming we made the figures up—this one-point plan will provide a one per cent increase in 20 years time. That's a $2 a day increase in wages in 20 years time. That's it. That's the benefit. So there is $65 billion for that benefit, on the government's figures—not my figures, not some commentator's figures, but their figures. So the policy itself isn't actually competent.
Before I move on, I point out that the vast majority of businesses that invest in Australia come from countries with lower business tax rates than ours, so they're investing in Australia because they wish to invest in Australia. If tax rates themselves were the answer then it would be impossible to have a situation where the vast majority of investors in Australia come from regimes with lower business tax rates, not higher.
But let's talk about exactly how this happened, because this is really quite interesting. I'm actually going to go through the time line, because that's the key to pointing out exactly how incompetent this is. I'm not going to go right back to the beginning. I'm going to go back to 1 August last year, seven months ago, when TheAustralianFinancial Review reported:
Tax time has been plunged into chaos by uncertainty over which companies are eligible for the lower tax rate of 27.5 per cent but the nation's biggest accounting bodies are split over what should be done.
Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand is demanding the Turnbull government end the uncertainty with a legislative fix when Parliament returns next week.
"Because Australia's tax system is based on self-assessment, it is up to taxpayers and their advisers to lodge tax returns based on what they think they should be paying," Chartered Accountants' tax leader Michael Croker said.
"But without clarity we will see differing tax calculations for taxpayers in similar circumstances, impacting their tax, franked dividends and accounts."
That was 1 August last year. That wasn't the beginning of it; it was actually much earlier than that.
The tax cuts plan was announced way back in 2016. Shortly after it was announced on 27 September 2016, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand raised concerns with the Senate Economics Legislation Committee about uncertainty as to whether passive investment companies were eligible for the government's then proposed tax cut. That was September. It was passed just before the budget in May, so that's eight months before the bill actually hit this House for its final debate. Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand were already raising concerns about whether passive investment companies and bucket companies, as they're affectionately known, would be eligible for the proposed tax cut. It is really clear that the government never intended that passive investment companies would receive the tax cut; it was designed for operating businesses that were working out there.
On 15 March 2017, the ATO issued a draft ruling on an unrelated matter, containing a footnote with what amounts to a definition of 'carrying on a business'. That kind of sat there, and the accountants out there in the field, the accounting peak bodies, realised that that might have an impact and started contacting the government and making comments. The enterprise tax bill was ultimately passed on 9 May 2017, but without this issue of eligibility being addressed either legislatively or through public guidance from the ATO.
On 4 July 2017, the Financial Review wrote an article that passive investment companies, including bucket companies associated with family trusts, would become eligible due to the ATO's apparent view of the definition of 'carrying on a business'. By 17 July, it was already in the media. It had been raised nearly 10 months earlier by the peak bodies, and now 10 months later it had hit The Australian Financial Review. It was well and truly out there. Then Minister O'Dwyer issued a press release stating:
Reports today that the Australian Taxation Office … has broadened the interpretation of company tax cuts are premature.
That was July 2017. The Australian reported:
The Turnbull government has been forced into urgent action to close a … loophole that could have opened a tax windfall for wealthy families … saying it may have no choice but to introduce new legislation.
That was July last year, at the beginning of the tax year, of which we're now in the seventh month. At the beginning of the tax year, there was already media coverage by some of the more respected newspapers in this field, and peak bodies had been talking about it for eight months. It was the beginning of the tax year in which this law applied.
Senior BDO tax partner Tony Sloan replied in July in an article in The Australian that the government has a problem here:
The ATO does not take dictation from politicians. There is a mountain of tax cases that support the ATO's interpretation of the measures that ushered in the tax cuts.
There was quite a debate going on out there about this. The article goes on to say:
Since 2015, the federal government has reduced the company tax rate for smaller companies … Mr Sloan says the legislation that introduced the tax cuts was "too broad" to exclude passive family investment companies.
So people who interpreted the tax law for clients out there in the field were saying it as well. Peak bodies had been saying it for eight months. The media was reporting on it. The ATO had made a ruling. The financial year had just begun. And, now, seven months later, finally, the government is acting by introducing this bill. Mr Sloan went on to say:
The ATO is actually acting in good faith here, and applying the law as it is currently drafted.
If the law doesn't work, the government will have to fix it. That could mean having to change the tax measures as they stand through changes to the tax cut legislation. The government can try to bend the tax office on this, but they can't snap them in half.
Then, on 1 August, the Financial Review put out the article that I read earlier.
It was also mentioned in this House in September 2017. The shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, said in this House in September 2017:
I mentioned, before, the matter of competence, which is something that leaves the Labor Party plenty to talk about … In relation specifically to corporate tax and the legislation before the House, we have seen very considerable confusion over recent weeks about the government's approach: which businesses are eligible; the contrasts between active trading businesses; companies holding passive investments. You would have thought that, on the centrepiece of economic policy which was announced in last year's budget, the government could've got the detail right. But here we have, in this case, the minister for revenue playing desperate catch-up, saying: 'Oh, no, you've misunderstood the law. That's not what we mean.' Well, there are plenty of experts out there who will point out that the legislation, in their reading of it, has a different impact from the one that the minister for revenue and the government would assert it has. So it goes to the heart of the competence of the government—let alone their wrong priorities—that they have not been able to get that policy detail right.
That was September last year—at least a year after the tax cuts were announced and at least a year after the peak bodies started saying that it would be a problem.
On 18 September, the government finally released draft legislation for Treasury consultation. The submissions to the Treasury website haven't been published, but some of the submitters sent them to the opposition. The Tax Institute, for example, noted that the broader issues of defining 'carries on a business' applies only to tax rate matters and not in other applications of law. So what we've got now are experts in tax law pointing out that we have different definitions. We have 'carries on a business' generally and, for this particular aspect of tax law, there's another one.
And, again, I would say that we are seven months into a financial year and we're discussing a piece of legislation that fixes a problem which was known eight months before the start of this financial year. For all the talk on the other side about certainty and how you have to give business certainty—come on! It is ridiculous that we're dealing with this. It is 20 or 21 months since this problem was identified and we're now talking about saying to businesses that have organised their tax affairs, made plans based on the law as it is and talked to their accountants that the last seven months and the decisions they have made are now going to be completely rewritten. We support the rewriting of it, by the way. We support the closing of this loophole. But I just point out to the other side of this House how frequently they talk about certainty and their understanding of the importance of making sure that business has a known playing field in which to operate. They talk about that. They know that. They don't deliver it. When it comes to delivering in this House, all of those rules and all of that understanding of the need for business to know what the rules are go out the window. It's not because they choose to throw them out the window; it's because they don't work hard enough and they're just not competent when it comes to consulting with business.
And this morning there was another one. This morning, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2017 was tabled. So now we have another amendment to this amendment. Now, it turns out, the definition of 'interest' for the purpose of passive income needs a special definition for this section of tax law. So now we have a special definition of 'business activity' and a special definition of 'interest', because they didn't get this right in the first place. Again, I know from sitting in committees and talking to the members opposite that they know how important it is to reduce the number of definitions—not to have more tax law definitions so that every time you turn around you have to think, 'Does that definition mean this or that?' depending on which bit of law you're reading. This is quite absurd. We're also seeing in the submissions that the experts out there don't think it's over yet. They think that, at some point fairly soon, the Commissioner of Taxation will have to issue further advice on the definitions of rent and royalties.
What we're talking about here is not some tiny little bit of policy or legislation; we're talking about the only piece of policy that the government has designed to make this economy grow—by one per cent over 20 years. That's it. This is the centrepiece. This is the thing they talk about over and over again. This is all they have, and they couldn't get it right. Seven months into a financial year, 20 months after the problem was first raised, we're walking in here and discussing an amendment which will affect what businesses have done over the last seven months, the structures they've set up and the decisions they've made. This is incompetence. We don't need anything more than this little piece of amendment that we have here in front of us—the two, rather—to make a judgement on the competence of this government, and it's very, very poor.
Debate adjourned.
Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (18:06): It's a great pleasure to provide some comments on behalf of the opposition in the second reading debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016. I do so noting that the bill before the parliament is not a subject of controversy; it's part of the ongoing work of this parliament that most of the public don't get to see, where both sides of politics work pretty collaboratively together. Some of the measures here are tidying up legal issues. There are some minor improvements to aspects of the way the law works, and so Labor will be supporting the bill. Labor supports the many measures in this bill which will improve and resolve some inconsistencies and issues in our federal criminal laws, particularly with regard to international crime cooperation. The bulk of the bill implements improvements to Commonwealth legislation to assist international crime cooperation, including additional assistance to the International Criminal Court and international war crimes tribunals; further alignment of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act; and some changes related to extradition and foreign evidence.
This first and central change makes some arrangements that will be more suitable to the collaboration between international bodies and Australia's law enforcement agencies. Australia's capacity to provide assistance to the International Criminal Court and international war crimes tribunals in criminal matters is currently more limited than our ability to assist foreign countries. That's problematic, because most of the public would be aware that the internationally created crime bodies are often UN organisations which we as a country should feel very comfortable dealing with. We perhaps need to think carefully about how we engage with some foreign governments who have very different judicial standards and systems, so it doesn't make sense that it's harder for us to engage with those very robust international bodies than it is for us to engage with foreign countries. This bill will amend various Commonwealth acts to ensure that the formal and informal assistance which we can currently provide to foreign countries can be provided to the International Criminal Court and to international war crimes tribunals.
The International Criminal Court is a core aspect of justice in a global world. It prosecutes and brings to justice those responsible for some of the worst crimes against humanity: genocides, war crimes and these sorts of things. As a state party to the Rome statute, Australia has a very clear obligation to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court's investigations and prosecutions. International war crimes tribunals try those accused of committing atrocities and crimes against humanity during war. Australia can and should assist tribunals to perform that critical work, and some of the amendments contained in this bill are an important way in which we can support the work of those two organisations.
Importantly, this assistance will be subject to the same pressure that currently applies to the assistance that we provide to foreign countries. This means that the use of powers under the acts before us will be subject to the same safeguards as apply for foreign and domestic law enforcement purposes. And I'll note that the Law Council of Australia, which was the only stakeholder to make a substantive contribution on the proposal before us, was supportive of the amendments that we're passing through this process. Labor also supports these amendments, which I believe will strengthen our ability to assist these international bodies.
The assistance that we provide to international criminal justice organisations is not the only aspect of the bill which is of interest to Labor. The bill also tackles the issue of slavery. As shadow minister for justice, I speak on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, and we are very passionate about the issue of eradication of slavery and slavery-like offences. Human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices are very serious crimes—not to diminish the fact that they are clear, gross and grave abuses of human rights. We know that these crimes are happening right here in Australia. At every opportunity that I'm given to speak about these issues, I talk to Australians about the fact that we know there are more than 4,000 people living in this incredible, beautiful, free country of ours who are existing in slavery-like conditions.
I am horrified by the consistent media reports that highlight the scourge of worker exploitation in Australia. You need only open a newspaper and perhaps every few days or every few weeks you will come upon an explosive story, one that should shock every Australian, about workers who are being paid as little as $3 an hour. We hear stories of this incredibly awful practice of forced marriage, which is happening in suburbs like some of those that I represent as the member for Hotham. Forced marriage refers to the practice where often young people who are usually in a family environment have a marriage arranged for them. Often they're not even aware of the marriage. Some of the stories that my staff and I have been exposed to concern young people being told that they're going on a holiday, perhaps in the country of birth of their parents, and they're very much looking forward to the holiday. They arrive in the foreign country, only to find that a marriage has been arranged by the parents and they're actually there for their wedding. I don't need to note that that is absolutely contrary to the fundamental human rights of the people concerned and to our values here in Australia. I'm very passionate about looking into what we can do, and there is a lot more we can do to assist those who are in that circumstance.
I want to make mention of the circumstances of some of the 4,000 or so people who are trapped in slavery right here in Australia right now. This story is very typical of the ones I hear. It's the story of a woman who came to Australia to work as a housekeeper. She worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week. The family she was living with took her passport away from her. They told her they were taking it to apply for her permanent visa, and she believed up till that point that the family she was living with were trying to assist her, trying to help her. But instead they kept her passport, and she remained there trapped, working for three years without pay. It is amazing to think that, in the suburbs of Australia, this sort of thing is happening. This is just one of many examples I could provide of this horrifying issue, which is just too prevalent in Australia.
Labor has a really proud track record on these issues. In government, Labor passed the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act 2013 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection And Other Measures) Act 2013, which strengthened Australia's ability to prosecute offenders and protect victims. A key provision of the slavery act that was passed by Labor was the introduction of new offences of forced marriage, forced labour, harbouring a person for the purposes of furthering an offence of trafficking, and organ trafficking. All of these offences were included in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The bill today will make some minor changes, which will support Labor's work in this area. I am passionately committed to continuing to improve our criminal law in this area.
The reality is that having good laws is sometimes not enough. We need to make sure that critical organisations like the Australian Federal Police are sufficiently resourced to fight these battles out on the streets of our country. Unfortunately, what we see on the other side of the chamber is $184 million in cuts to the Australian Federal Police over the forward estimates.
Currently, section 270.10 of the Criminal Code sets out matters to which a trier of fact may have regard in determining whether an alleged victim of a slavery-like offence has been coerced, threatened or deceived. This bill will expand the list of matters that the court is allowed to consider to looking at the economic relationship with the parties who may have committed this crime; and the terms of any contract or agreement not just between the alleged victim and the alleged offender but also between the alleged victim, the alleged offender or a family member of the alleged victim or alleged offender and any other person. This change is important because it covers situations where family members might pledge the services of another family member.
This change will also allow courts to consider the extent of the victim's social or physical dependence not just on the offender but also on another person. Unfortunately, so many of the instances of slavery, slavery-like conditions or forced marriage do have that key ingredient of economic dependence, and I'm pleased to see that the government has moved forward with a bill that will take that change into the federal criminal law.
The disappointing fact is that despite the prevalence of modern slavery in Australia we are struggling to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes, and it's really important for the chamber to note this. It's not good enough—and we should all be aware of this—for us to just have laws which prohibit slavery. That is not legislators doing their job, because if we do not provide support for the enforcement of these laws then crimes go on in the community. Just having the right thing written on a piece of paper does not protect any Australian unless it's absolutely clear that there are enforcement capabilities to ensure that the law is being followed, and that is part of what is lacking in this system today.
Labor is absolutely committed to protecting and supporting the victims of serious Commonwealth offences, such as slavery and human trafficking. This has been another area where I think the parliament needs to pick up its act a little bit. That's why, in government, Labor passed the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Act 2013. This act provided a range of supports and protections for vulnerable witnesses, including disallowing inappropriate or aggressive cross-examination of witnesses who are deemed to be very vulnerable; facilitating the use of video recordings, so witnesses are not having to be in a strange place to appear in front of someone who may have perpetrated a crime; and, in addition, enabling a vulnerable witness some additional protections.
Schedule 5 of this bill will amend the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Act 2013 to extend those supports that I've just described to proceedings commenced after the commencement of schedule 5 of the bill. These victims are some of the most vulnerable in society. They deserve support and assistance when they go through this incredibly brave process of going through the criminal justice system and seeking a just outcome for all Australians.
Schedule 5 of the bill will amend the Crimes Act to ensure that the publishing without leave of the court of any matter that identifies, or is likely to identify, a child witness or adult vulnerable complainant also extends to child complainants. I know it goes without saying that both sides of the chamber would be fundamentally committed to protecting children who have to participate in justice proceedings against people who've committed crimes against them and others close to them. Given the particular vulnerability of child complainants, it's absolutely right and proper that we correct this omission where, effectively, vulnerable adults have been provided protections that were not available to child complainants. The aspects of this bill that seek to rectify that are strongly supported by Labor.
In its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, the CDPP provided a practical example of why it is important to include child complainants amongst those to whom the protection against identification applies. I'll briefly quote from their submission:
It is not unusual for online child exploitation matters prosecuted by the CDPP to involve victims who are not witnesses in the proceedings. This is because the commission of the crime can often be proved by digital means, without recourse to sworn evidence from a child. In other cases the child (for example, an infant) is not of an age where evidence could be given, or is overseas or is not otherwise available to give evidence.
Anti-Slavery Australia has noted in relation to the changes that we've discussed that many human trafficking and slavery related offence victims fear that their safety will be compromised by assisting authorities with investigation and prosecution, and that this fear can be a significant impediment to successful prosecutions. I note this issue for the range of ministers on the government side and shadow ministers on our side who are involved in this critical area of law. It is a major problem if we have created a situation where bringing justice for victims—for all Australians—when people have broken our federal criminal law, is done in such a way as to not encourage victims to share their story with police and others. I think there's a good argument that, under the current arrangements we have in place for people who are potential victims of slavery, we're actually doing just that.
As I said in my introduction, this is a worthy and sensible piece of legislation, and it tackles some issues that are of great importance to Labor. It far from completes our work. I've touched on some of the areas where I think there's pretty urgent need for law reform to provide better protection for Australians and others around the world.
Last year, I was very proud to stand alongside the Leader of the Opposition and representatives of the union movement, the business sector and non-profits to outline Labor's commitment to an Australian modern slavery act. It is Labor's view that this is a crucial area of reform for our country which, for the first time, would make it clear to big companies operating in our jurisdiction that they are responsible for what happens in their supply chain, and that we have a clear expectation, as a parliament and as a community, that forces them to make sure that they are not benefiting, in one way or another, from people who are trapped in slavery.
It's often said that an object that any of us in this chamber might touch, perhaps even every day, would have been touched by a slave at some point in its production—that is how prevalent slavery is around the world. In fact, there are more people today who are enslaved than there have ever been at any point in human history. That is an issue that, I believe, this chamber has cause to consider very seriously. It's important that our laws stay up to date, and, to ensure we tackle crime both in Australia and abroad, Labor is fully supportive of the bill before the House. I'm pleased to make that contribution on behalf of my party.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel, Deputy Leader of the House and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) (18:22): by leave—I move:
That the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2016 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017
Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (18:23): I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the failure of the Government to protect local jobs by failing to legislate strict labour market testing".
The Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 and the Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 seek to amend the Migration Act 1958 to provide a framework to collect an additional levy from employers accessing workers under the temporary and permanent employer-sponsored migration programs. These charges apply to the temporary skill shortage visa, which replaces the temporary work (skilled) subclass 457 visa in March, the Employer Nomination Scheme subclass 186 visa, and the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme subclass 187 visa.
Labor agrees that an additional levy on temporary skilled visas is a reasonable skilled migration policy to ensure local workers get the first shot at local jobs. The proposed legislative changes have potential impacts on Australian jobs, businesses and people seeking the opportunity to work in Australia, as well as industry bodies, unions and TAFEs. Given the complex nature of the Migration Act, Labor refers all amendments to a Senate inquiry for further scrutiny. These changes warrant further consultation and investigation, which is why these bills were referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment. The Senate inquiry was an opportunity for those affected to raise their concerns about the unintended consequences of the recent changes to skilled migration, including the government's rushed policy announcements. Labor believes there are deficiencies in the government's bill in respect of labour market testing, and I will be moving detailed amendments in due course to address the government's failures.
As mentioned, the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 provides a framework to collect nomination training contribution charges from employers accessing workers under the temporary and permanent employee sponsored migration programs. The bill allows the immigration minister to determine the manner in which labour market testing must be undertaken for a nominated position, including the kinds of evidence that must accompany a visa application by legislative instrument. These powers, as per the new subsection, may include the language to be used in advertising, the advertising period, the period prior to nomination in which the advertisement must occur and the duration of advertising.
The charges bill encloses the nomination training contribution charge or a levy payable under a new section. It also sets a charge limit for the nomination training contribution charge and provides for the indexation of the charge limit. As outlined in the new section 9, it is $8,000 for a nomination relating to a temporary visa and $5,000 for a nomination in relation to a permanent visa. The nomination training contribution charge will be payable by persons seeking to nominate a worker for a visa prescribed in the Migration Regulations. These are not the charges for a temporary skilled visa but, rather, a maximum or capped nomination training and contribution charge.
I note that the Commonwealth cannot be liable to pay Commonwealth taxes or fees. The new section of the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 makes the Commonwealth notionally liable to pay the levy. States and territories are not exempt from paying the levy, as per clause 3 of the charges bill. The revenue collected from this levy will go towards the Skilling Australians Fund—a training fund administered by the Department of Education and Training for the funding of apprenticeships and traineeships.
Regulations under the Migration Act prescribe the different charges for the different kinds of visas available under Australia's visa system. The 2017 budget detailed the government's planned charges for skilled visas. For businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million per annum they are $1,200 per visa per year for a temporary skill shortage visa and a one-off payment of $3,000 for each employee sponsored for a permanent employer nomination scheme subclass 186 visa or a regional sponsored migration scheme subclass 187 visa. For businesses with a turnover of more than $10 million per year, the charges are $1,800 per visa per year for a temporary skill shortage visa and a one-off payment of $5,000 for each employee sponsored for a permanent employer nomination scheme subclass 186 visa or a regional sponsored migration scheme subclass 187 visa.
Proper skills and training funding means Australians—especially young Australians or Australians in our regions—can have the expertise which leads to meaningful work and a real living wage. I see young people in my electorate of Blair in south-east Queensland going to TAFE Queensland South West learning a mechanical trade or taking part in training in the nursing precinct in Bundamba—a Diploma of Nursing. Young Australians could be skilling themselves for a career in the cybersecurity industry, the shipbuilding industry or the hospitality or tourism industry. However, under this government, TAFE campuses have closed in towns and regional centres across Australia. Courses have been scaled back, and fees have increased. In December, statistics from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research showed the number of apprentices and trainees in training was down by 4.7 per cent in the period from June 2016 to June 2017. According to the same statistics, there have been 144,510 fewer apprentices in training since the Liberal and National parties formed government and occupied the Treasury benches in September 2013. That is 144,510 fewer apprentices on this government's watch.
The bills before the House introduce a levy on skilled visas, which has significant financial implications. The government expects their levy to generate $1.2 billion over the forward estimates, which will go towards the Skilling Australians Fund. Given the levy will not be charged until March this year, the government is providing an additional $261.2 million to the Skilling Australians Fund in the 2017-18 financial year. Despite these figures and any argument the government would attempt to convince you to believe, the Abbott-Turnbull government ripped $2.8 billion out of TAFE, skills and training over the past five years. This gutting of skills and training funding includes a $637 million cut in the last budget. There was a 30 per cent drop nationally in government funded training in TAFE between 2013 and 2016. It's a very poor track record from the conservative parties, which leads Labor to have reservations about how much revenue the measures being introduced in these bills will raise.
The government have been unwilling to release the details of the modelling they used to determine the estimated $1.2 billion from the proposed visa levy over the forward estimates. Besides some offsetting funding they're supplementing the fund with, because it's taken the government a year to introduce this measure, the Skilling Australians Fund is relying solely on revenue raised from the levy for skilled migrant visas. Treasury testified during the Senate inquiry:
We try our hardest to come up with what is a reasonable estimate of this fund and in this case it's particularly challenging. There were a lot of policy changes going on at the same time so it was difficult …
The government's rushed skilled migration announcements put undue pressure on the departments involved. This is not good policy development and not good governance. Treasury conceded during the public hearing of the inquiry:
The level of funding may change due to the number of visas that are issued and the number of levy fees that are paid from time to time.
If the number of visas goes down, so will the funding for skills. This is not a reliable model for skills and training funding. This is not a reliable model to build a skilled Australian workforce. The government's model does not guarantee skills and training funding. The ACTU testified at the Senate inquiry as follows:
In the absence of real transparency and firm commitments from the federal government about guaranteed levels of VET funding, the measures proposed by these bills will simply never be enough.
The government needs to invest in education, skills and training more than ever, and Australia really needs it. But this is an out-of-touch government doing precisely the opposite. The government's announcements about the Skilling Australians Fund have made no reference to supporting TAFE. Labor's commitment to TAFE is unequivocal—we believe that TAFE is the backbone of our skills and training sector. I know my colleague Senator Doug Cameron has fought passionately for TAFE and its future while attacking the government's negligence, incompetence and ineptitude in this area.
The out-of-touch Turnbull government consistently washes its hands of this issue of national importance. The immigration minister, the Prime Minister and the whole of the Turnbull government have had clear and repeated failures on their watch when it comes to skilled migration policies. The government rushed to make their skilled migration announcements in April 2017 before they were quickly denounced, even by a governmental official, as a dog's breakfast, according to media reports. It's a political stunt and subsequent revisions which the minister and the Prime Minister tried to dress up as substantial changes sent waves of uncertainty through the business, innovation and education sectors. This proved the Turnbull government can't be trusted with Australian jobs, skills and training. The measures outlined in the bills before the House today were trumpeted in last year's budget and are being debated here about nine months later.
I have met with many stakeholders who have expressed their concerns about how they weren't consulted by the Turnbull government before these sweeping changes were announced. This failure to consult became a clear and consistent theme during the Senate inquiry. At the public hearing not one witness testified they were consulted about a levy on temporary work visas, nor the creation of a Skilling Australians Fund, nor the cost of the levy before the government announced this policy in April 2017. The Australian Chamber Commerce and Industry stated: 'Were we consulted about the quantum of the levy? In other words were we aware what that levy would be set at when it was set out in the budget in 2017? No. The level of the levy was a surprise to us,' according to the Chamber of Commerce. TAFE Directors Australia stated: 'We have not been consulted nor has the government been clear about what its agenda is for the training sector nationally.' The Department of Education and Training stated in questions on notice: 'Trade unions have not been specifically consulted on this Skilling Australians Fund.' Treasury answered in questions on notice: 'Prior to the announcement of the Skilling Australians Fund, Treasury did not undertake any consultations on this measure.'
The Treasury—responsible for modelling the $1.2 billion in revenue, which the government believes their visa levies will bring in for the Skilling Australians Fund—did not undertake any consultations whatsoever about the measure. We have already heard how Treasury tried their hardest to make their best estimates, and that's what they said—their best estimates. We have a genuine cause for concern if no proper consultation was undertaken by the government or their departments.
Can the Turnbull government and their poor performance and track record in this area be trusted? The Turnbull government claim they will achieve a target of 300,000 apprenticeships and traineeships over the next four years using the Skilling Australians Fund. How are we supposed to believe this out-of-touch government when apprentices and trainees in training have dropped by over 140,000, including 40,000 trade trainees and apprentices, since the Liberal and National parties have come to office—40,000 in the trades; 140,000 nationally. This is a government without any robust or reliable plan for skills and training. It has no plan for the future, and certainly no plan for TAFE. The current Prime Minister seems focused on his job, and the immigration minister on the Prime Minister's job.
A Shorten Labor government would restore integrity to the skilled migrations program and commit to building a skilled Australian workforce. With underemployment at record highs and young people across the country struggling to find work, it's only fair that Australians get the first crack at local jobs. The bills before the House today outline some requirements for labour market testing, but they're broad and undefined. Labor market testing requires employers who are wanting to bring in overseas workers to test the local labour market first. This is to make sure that there are no suitably qualified and experienced local workers readily available to fill those positions prior to bringing in overseas workers. Labor's private member's bill, Migration Amendment (Putting Local Workers First) Bill 2016, introduced more rigorous requirements for labour market tests to be incorporated into legislation, such as the requirement that jobs be advertised for a minimum of four weeks and a ban on job advertisements that target only overseas workers and exclude Australians. The provisions in the government's amendments before the House rely on us trusting in the minister's work abilities, and his intention is simply not good enough. I will address some of these concerns during the consideration in detail stage.
We have not seen any proposed legislative instruments under this legislation, and the immigration minister has not offered or proffered any detail on how labour market testing requirements could possibly change for the better. The ACTU testified to the Senate inquiry: 'We suspect that government is not serious about a proper labour market testing regime at all. We're not satisfied the changes in the bill will tighten labour market testing.' If the immigration minister has failed to legislate strict labour market testing across occupations and skilled visas during his three years on the job, what would lead us to believe this tick-and-flick minister would start legislating them now?
By comparison, Labor will establish an Australian skills authority, an independent labour market testing body, to advise government on current skill shortages and future skill needs. Labor's Australian skills authority will be responsible for creating one skills shortage occupation list in consultation with industry, unions, higher education, the TAFE sector, and state and local government. This is to ensure that skilled visas are only made available when there's a genuine skills gap that can't be met with local workers.
Labor will not waive labour market testing requirements for any new free trade agreements, unlike the loopholes the Liberals undertook in relation to trade deals with China, Japan and South Korea. The Turnbull government is relying solely on skilled visa fees to train local workers. Labor will work to get as many of these occupations as possible off the skill shortage occupation list as soon as possible by establishing a new skill-up training fund to support training that fills skill shortages. To ensure Australia's continued growth and prosperity, Labor agrees we must set a clear price signal to employers wanting to use temporary overseas workers ahead of training locals. This is part of our announced skilled migration policy.
Unlike the conservatives, only Labor will guarantee secure and stable skills and training, by reversing the Turnbull government's $637 million cut to the skills budget and investing $100 million in rebuilding TAFE. Labor will also ensure at least one in 10 jobs on Commonwealth funded projects are done by an apprentice. The impact of the Turnbull government's ill-conceived policy, devoid of all forms of consultation, also exposes how innovation was set to be forced overseas, preventing businesses' access to talent needed to help build our economy. At the same time as putting local jobs first, Labor is not closing the door to bringing the best and brightest talent to this country that will help build our economy. Labor has led the way by announcing a four-year smart visa with pathways to permanent residence for the very best educators, innovators and researchers of global standing in science, medicine, academia, research and technology. In government, Labor will take advice from the Australian skills authority to determine the skills and areas of speciality available for this visa.
What the government has done is simply not good enough. This week The Australian reported that a co-founder of Atlassian, one of Australia's most successful software companies, now worth more than $12 billion, was calling for the government to introduce a visa for high-skilled foreign workers that can help generate jobs in Australia. A co-founder of this company, Scott Farquhar, said:
Being Australian, I want to make sure Australia can become a global tech hub. I think we can, but it does involve trying to bring some of the best and brightest people from around the world to work here.
Labor's smart visa is essential to remain a world leader in innovation, medical and scientific research, and high-tech industries. It is clear that Labor's measures are better and far more comprehensive than the government's.
I have already moved a second reading amendment outlining the government's failure to protect local jobs by failing to legislate strict labour market testing. When it comes to the consideration in detail stage, I will be moving detailed amendments to attempt to fix the government's failures, because labour market testing means putting local workers first and giving them the first shot at local jobs. If the out-of-touch Turnbull government won't do that, Labor will protect them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): Is the amendment seconded?
Dr Mike Kelly: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later.
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (18:44): I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017. It's a great pleasure to speak on this bill, simply because, as someone who has been the recipient of trade training in a regional centre, I remember with great fondness my first day of work at a local sugar mill, the Fairymead mill—which, of course, is not there anymore—on 13 January 1987. When we compare that to the levels of training and skills that are needed in our current workforce across the country, clearly this is something which we need to address. In fact, the sugar mill I went into was a unionised workforce with very strict demarcation and, I have to say, very strong Labor morals. There was an outrage at the time that I was employed, because the company in question—which I won't name here, because they're still a very large part of the community—put on only 23 apprentices, down from 46. Unfortunately, that organisation now employs none. We find ourselves in a difficult position. In my maiden speech. I spoke about the fact that, if we do not manage to transfer the skills from our existing workforce to our new workforce through apprentice training and all of those types of training opportunities, there'll be a great loss of corporate knowledge in this country.
There are many out there who think that an electrician is an electrician, a fitter and turner is a fitter and turner, and a guy with a welder is just a boilermaker, but there are so many classifications amongst all of those trade descriptions, whose skills take years to build. They are master tradespeople. If we do not transfer those skills, they'll be lost. If I look at my own experience in a sugar-milling operation, there were people in that organisation who were experts in particular areas—whether it be a boiler, a fugal or a sugar-milling trade—and those skills can't be replaced on the run from people around the country who have worked in other areas. We need to ensure that there is enough funding and job opportunities provided to bring those skills on for the youth of this nation.
These are long overdue changes. The amendment has three key aspects. It will require employers who nominate a worker under temporary and permanent skilled migration programs to pay the nomination training contribution, because training costs money. Unfortunately, in this country we have moved in a direction where people simply do not hire apprentices. In my local region there were always dozens of carpenters, builders and plumbers that would put on someone they knew—a friend, an associate or someone that was related to them—on the basis that they could deliver them a skill. In certain industries they knew that, if they built their skilled workforce, in the long term that was in the interests of their business. When they moved to other places, those skills advanced, and, if they came back, that was fantastic.
It allows the nominations to be accepted from persons that have applied to be an approved sponsor, and allows the minister to determine by legislative instrument the manner in which labour market testing in relation to the nominated position must be undertaken. There'll be changes in the visa categories, but the key here is that businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million will pay $1,200 per year for each temporary overseas worker and a one-off Skilling Australians Fund levy of $3,000 for each permanent overseas worker. If you have an annual turnover of $10 million or more, it's $1,800 and a one-off payment of $5,000. This is absolutely critical, because in recent years the increase in apprentice wages—and I certainly wish them well—has made it very difficult for small businesses in particular to employ apprentices in those trades.
As someone who has run a business, who built a registered training organisation from the ground up and was heavily involved for 15 or 20 years, I know the reality is very straightforward: small businesses in particular have to be able to afford the apprentices they have under their supervision. If they cannot, they just don't employ them. That is to the detriment of everyone: their business, the youth who are looking for work and our economy moving forward. We need to ensure those opportunities can be filled. This is an additional 300,000 apprenticeships over the next four years, and I think that is an outstanding result. This is something which is desperately needed, particularly in regional areas.
We all know that the economy is going through a transition into a far more technical arena. When I speak to employers, the challenge that they have, particularly around apprentices, is ensuring they can find the candidate that has done the right training through high school—particularly around STEM, because there is more and more argument for STEM support before they go to TAFE or before they go to a technical trade—and the one with the right aptitude. Unfortunately, the anecdotal feedback my office and I are receiving is that, around year 2, things get very difficult and we lose an awful number of people who have commenced, so the completion rate has become absolutely appalling.
We're looking to reverse the decline in Australian apprentices in training and to restore those numbers. In the long-term, we need to ensure that opportunity is around the country—not just in capital cities but also in the regions. As we all know—and the member for Riverina is sitting here at the dispatch box—people who are raised and trained in the regions tend to stay there rather than migrating to the cities where we find a lot of the population is siloing. Without those skills, it's very difficult to produce the food, the fibre and the things we trade as a nation, which are essential to our economy and essential to providing highly-paid and highly-skilled jobs in the regions.
It's unfortunate and it disappoints me a great deal that the biggest ever annual decline in apprentices in training occurred, unfortunately, under the previous Labor government, between June 2012 and June 2013, when the apprentice numbers collapsed by 110,000 or 22 per cent. Over the life of Labor's national partnership agreement, apprenticeship numbers in Australia halved. In my electorate of Hinkler, there was a drop of 38 per cent from 2011 to 2016, and that is quite simply unacceptable. I spoke in this place this week about the challenges that my electorate faces, particularly around the fact that we continue to be the lowest median income statistical area in the country. We also have an unacceptably high level of unemployment, particularly for youth. This fund will help us address those challenges. But this is not a one-way street. It takes two to tango, and we need businesses to be willing and absolutely encouraged to employ apprentices and trainees. Without the support of business, this will simply not work. That is very, very straightforward.
Figures from the National Centres for Vocational Education Research show that in 2011 there were approximately 8,800 people training in my electorate of Hinkler, with 1,400 commencements and 1,000 completions. That was, of course, earlier on in 2011. Compare that to the figures of December 2016: 5,400 in training, 850 commencements and just 600 completions. As a proportion of the population of Hinkler aged 15 to 74 years, the 2016 figures represent about five per cent in training, just under one per cent commencing training and about half a per cent in completions. In Queensland, for the same period, it was seven per cent for commencing training, and completions were slightly higher, at 0.7 per cent. The numbers for the nation were six per cent, one per cent and 0.6 per cent respectively. In 2011, the comparable figures represent almost nine per cent in training, 1.4 per cent commencing and one per cent for completions. There are different averages around the country, but the numbers are very, very stark.
In recent weeks I have spoken to a number of large employers in my region, trying to encourage them to take on apprentices—and they're interested. They are very long-term organisations and they have been committed to our region for decades. In fact, some of them were some of the highest apprentice trainers in the country. I'm a recipient of that training. I was very fortunate to actually get an opportunity, and I want to ensure that we can provide that opportunity for our youth now, for the people who are completing high school and are looking for an opportunity and—if I can be very frank—don't want to go to university. We need to admit to ourselves and to everyone else that not everybody wants to go to university. If you do a trade, you can earn incredibly good money. You can run your own business. If you want to work in the resources industry, you can do very long hours and earn incredible salaries. But you cannot do that if you don't get the initial opportunity and if you don't complete. This fund is about trying to ensure that we can get that done.
In my electorate, it's nearly all small businesses. I would really like to see a focus on the money from this fund being provided to small business, in particular, because they are passionate people who work long hours and they don't have the time to sit around doing assessments and doing the paperwork that's necessary. With the change in the way that training and skills are assessed, it's no longer simply the case that the apprentice goes off for a seven-week block at the local TAFE. They can be trained and assessed of a night-time. They can be done individually. They can be assessed locally onsite. All of those changes have changed the way that vocational training is being delivered. There are a number of reasons for the reduction in the number of apprentices taken on, but regulatory processes, more red tape and more costs absolutely contribute to that reduction.
If the Australian government, the federal parliament, cannot make the changes necessary, then why are we here? This is a good proposal. It is a substantial proposal. And the challenge, of course, is the 457 visas versus the use of Australian workers. Now, I'm fairly pragmatic, and my practical view is very straightforward. I think we need to get the balance right. We need to get the balance right, and the reality is that the balance hasn't been right. But what do you say to someone in a regional area who runs a business that might employ 30 people who requires one critical staff member? Without that critical staff member, their business closes. If they can gain that through a 457 and provide 30 people with employment, then that's something we should support. But what we should not support is people who might rort the system to their benefit and not the benefit of the people of this country.
It is absolutely essential that we continue to put Australian workers first. This fund will help do that. The Skilling Australians Fund will seek to achieve much greater training completion rates by investing in more than 50,000 pre-apprenticeship places. But, as I said earlier, we need to ensure that we get the right candidates, who've got the right mindset and who have done the right training, in particular in secondary school and through high school, and we can get them to complete. There is nothing more disappointing, not only for an apprentice or a trainee but for the business, than for them to get halfway through and quit, because they lose all of the skills they've gained.
The absolute reality is very straightforward. For a business operator, the people in the trades, particularly in heavy industry, start to become viable as an employee in terms of payment by the time they get to around their third year or halfway through the third year. That's just the nature of training and the development of skills. It can't be done overnight. We need to ensure that we get them through and we get them completions and they do have somewhere to go for a job. This fund is absolutely critical to making that happen.
So I'd say to the opposition: please support it, because there are people out there, particularly in regional Australia, who straightforwardly need the help. They absolutely need the assistance. I'm still astounded at the number of reductions of apprentices and trainees, particularly in regional areas. We can continue to reach out to business. We can encourage them to put people on. We can ensure that they are supported, that there are people out there who can help them with red tape and everything else. But without this fund it becomes far more difficult.
This nation was built on the hard work of a lot of people. It has been an incredibly successful country. As the economy transitions, we need to transition with it. One of the ways to do that is to continue to build our workforce and its skills and its capability and its experience. I spoke about this in my maiden speech in 2013 and about the loss to our economy of those master tradespeople and their skills. The time is here. The time is now. We need to take the opportunity. I absolutely support the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and I would encourage those opposite to do the same.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (18:57): Can I firstly acknowledge the contribution by the member for Hinkler. Despite a number of points where he sought to reflect on our former government—and I'm happy to go to those points—I have to say I agree with everything he said in relation to ensuring that we look after Australian workers and ensure that, where there are legitimate opportunities for Australian workers, they have to be given the first opportunity for that work.
I have to say that the member for Hinkler should still be a member of the executive government. The way in which the member for Hinkler has been treated by the Deputy Prime Minister in particular is quite shameful, to be honest. When we listened to the contribution he made today in this debate, it was testament to the fact that he was a member of the executive government.
But I think it's very important to note for the record that Labor has always supported a more rigorous approach to labour market testing to ensure that the 457 visa was applied properly. The fact is that in June 2013, when I was the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, we introduced a bill to this place to regulate and to enforce compliance around labour market testing, and those then in opposition, who are now in government, voted against that bill. The shadow minister at the time, the member for Cook, the now Treasurer, stood up and attacked the legislation, saying we should not choke the program, namely the 457 visa.
The now Treasurer, as then shadow minister for immigration, opposed our legislation to introduce labour market testing. The bill itself was not as strong as we would have liked, because we were dealing with the crossbenchers in a situation where we were a minority government. But the Liberal Party opposed that legislation, and they vowed to repeal the legislation if they were elected. Where is that legislation now? It's still on our statute books, and it's relied upon by the current government—the same government which, when in opposition, said it was a bad bill. That's the first thing I'd say.
The second thing I'd say is that the bill before us is moving in the right direction after the government has chosen to do an absolute 180-degree turn on 457s, but it's not rigorous enough. That's why Shayne Neumann, the shadow minister for immigration, made it clear in his contribution to this debate that we want to see incorporated into this bill the provisions of the private member's bill introduced into this place by the Leader of the Opposition. If the government are absolutely genuine about looking after Australian workers, giving them opportunities first, and providing opportunities for apprentices and young workers, and workers in every part of the labour market, they will support the amendments moved by Labor. Without those amendments, we will see loopholes continue and we will see Australian workers missing out on those opportunities. So there is no point in the government proposing a change to the arrangements if they're not going to be effective. That's what was made clear in the shadow minister's contribution earlier.
Quite frankly, I have to say there's a credibility problem. How can Labor believe the Minister for Home Affairs when he voted against the legislation we introduced in 2013? How can we believe the Prime Minister believes in this legislation and wants to see real change to provide opportunities to workers in regional Australia and other parts of this great nation if he voted against the legislation we introduced in June 2013 that was actually seeking to introduce labour market testing for this program? How, indeed, can we believe the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and, indeed, the home affairs minister? They lined up against legislation that was going to regulate and improve the program to ensure that there'd been an effort to look for local workers before you could get a 457 applicant to take that job.
Labor support the 457 program, but we do so to ensure that that program fills legitimate shortages in the labour market. That's why we have insisted that the amendments that are being proposed by the shadow minister are, indeed, accepted by the government. If the government's rhetoric means anything, they will support improvements to the bill, which of course are provisions that are contained within the private member's bill put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten.
So, clearly, the government have come a long way in almost five years. Five years ago, when in opposition, they said any regulation on 457 was choking the program. That's what Scott Morrison, the Treasurer, said back then when he was shadow minister. He said that any regulation that we were proposing would choke the program. And yet, in government, they kept the legislation. There were no efforts to repeal it. Now they're saying they want to improve it, but who could trust them, given their rhetoric and the attack and the accusations of racism by the then shadow minister for immigration, the now Treasurer, that I had to deal with when he was opposing the bill that we introduced into this place in June 2013? So, quite frankly, it's a long way from the rhetoric of the then shadow minister for immigration, the now Treasurer. The government's come a long way rhetorically, but we are concerned that the construction of this bill will still allow for opportunities where locals are going to miss out.
If we're going to ensure the integrity of the program and its effectiveness in genuinely supplying workers on a temporary basis who are needed to fill skill shortages, we need to get the framework right. That's what the shadow minister for immigration is proposing in this debate, and that's why he has moved amendments on behalf of Labor to say that we support the direction of the bill, but it's not strong enough, and there needs to be more rigour around labour market testing. It would then be acceptable to Labor.
I think it is important to note, given the importance of this debate, that the government, when in opposition, opposed any and every effort we made to improve the system. Indeed, in that debate back in June 2013 the then shadow minister for immigration, the member for Cook, indicated that I'd proposed that there were at least 10,000 positions being rorted. I was attacked for that. Subsequently, because we empowered the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate breaches of 457, we found that my estimation at the time and the calculations we made extrapolating from the existing data was an underestimation of the rorting of 457s. If I'd had more information at hand at the time, I would have known it was closer to 30,000 breaches of 457 applications. So I was wrong; I underestimated the breaches. But I was being attacked for allegedly overestimating those breaches to the program.
So we feel vindicated that our legislation—which the then opposition, and now government, threatened to repeal—has withstood the test of time. It was never enough, but we were dealing with the crossbench because we had a completely belligerent and resistant opposition. I couldn't deal with the shadow minister, who's now the Treasurer, because he refused to agree with the contention that we had to toughen up the application of the 457 program. Now the government, having voted against the legislation when it was last in opposition—and, of course, having attacked us for 'racism', which was an obscene allegation made against Labor members—expects us to believe it has a totally different view on this.
I have to say that, without the amendments we're proposing, this will be a very weak bill. This is a stunt by the Minister for Home Affairs. This really does smack of poll driven legislation. The late converts to making sure we have a proper 457 program have been told that the 457 program is not entirely popular in regional areas because there's been abuse of the program, and there's been an attempt to fix it by virtue of this legislation. I'm very happy to see that the Liberal Party has now chosen to support the contention that we need to have some rigour, but we do need to ensure that we improve the labour market testing, which would have been my intention at the time I introduced the original legislation if we'd had the support of the other major party. Instead, I had to negotiate with the crossbench, and the Liberal Party was totally opposed to the idea that there was anything wrong with the 457 program.
Let's be very clear here. Temporary visas are important. They're an important supplement to our labour market, and they'll always be an important supplement. There are occasions when we need to ensure that people do have limited work rights when they are in this country. They may be students who are studying here—and our students have reciprocal rights overseas. They may be holiday-makers who are spending much of their money in our economy. They're in demand, particularly in regional areas. Farmers have a great need for labour in certain periods of the year, and they do rely upon these temporary visas. But what we can't have is an abuse of the visa program, a gaming of temporary visas. Not only will that ultimately lead to more problems and accusations of abuse but it will be to the detriment of those young workers in this country who need jobs. So we need to get the balance right.
In relation to the skilled visa—namely, the 457 visa—it is a vital visa. As the member for Hinkler said, we do need, on occasion, an individual with a particular set of skills to come in under that visa if there is a shortage in the labour market. We do need to ensure that we provide companies the opportunities to fill vacancies with particular skills that are in short supply in this country under that program, but it shouldn't be the case that it's the first option. It should be the last resort. It should be after we've explored opportunities to give people with the skills here a chance of getting that job. And then, of course, we should be seeking to use such programs to supplement our labour market to ensure that our businesses can thrive through additional skills which are in short supply in this country. Over the longer term, as the member for Hinkler said, we should be looking at trends and at where the skills shortages will be and making sure that we're investing in skills and training in areas of emerging demand in the labour market. We need to ensure that we do a better job at anticipating where the demands in the labour market are and that our vocational training providers, in particular TAFE, and our tertiary institutions do a better job at providing the skills, the knowledge and the capabilities that our citizens need to acquire to have the skills and qualifications in those areas of demand.
Too often, people are acquiring skills in areas which are disappearing from the labour market, or where 50 people are competing for one job. We must do better at understanding the nature of the labour market, the way it's changing. Our institutions and government must do better at matching up the skills and the skill demands so that we don't have to rely indefinitely, in perpetuity, upon temporary visas to supply skills. There will always be a need to slot people in and use those programs in a very considered manner, but it should not be the first port of call. It should not be that we are too lazy to work out where the demands are in our labour market, that we are too lazy to anticipate the emerging skill areas and that we don't train our own people but just continue to look overseas for those temporary options.
We're a country that was built on immigration. We require people to continue to come here to make this country a better place. It is a great country, which, of course, welcomes people from every continent. Our story is a great story to tell. We need to get that right but, in doing so, we should not use temporary visas in a way that will either prevent Australian workers from getting the opportunity to get jobs or displace those workers who are desperate to find sufficient work to look after their families and their communities.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (19:12): I will start with a positive observation that the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 is not completely terrible. I think that's an important thing to remark on. I've spoken on a number of pieces of legislation introduced by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection since joining this House. It did take me a little while to realise that you do have to be sceptical, because much of the legislation which this minister brings to the House is not serious; it's designed for stunts. Throw a bit of red meat to the right-wing base. Try a bit of leftie baiting, as he has told the world he likes to do. I think the first piece that I spoke on was an outrageous bill, which has hopefully died a death stuck in the Senate, where the minister tried to claim for himself a power buried in a little clause there to kick people out on a visa revalidation based on the class of race. So you could pick people of a particular race and just invalidate their visas. And who could forget the university-level grammar test to become a citizen of this country? If he were brave enough to come and dine in Melbourne, we could have a further chat about those bills.
This bill is not terrible, because, as has been well-remarked upon by previous speakers, it finally picks up the thrust of a lot of Labor policy, which we've been saying uphill, down dale, regarding temporary skilled visas. I will say at the outset, while we are finishing the positive bits, that I come to this debate as someone who fully recognises there is a positive, important and often critical role for temporary skilled migration and, indeed, permanent skilled migration to supplement our labour force. Before I entered the parliament, I worked in the Victorian Public Service and for some time had responsibility for the skilled and business migration programs as a public servant working for both sides of politics, so I well understand the labour market analysis which needs to underlie these kinds of decisions and the import to the economy and to businesses of a well-targeted program where there are genuine skills shortages.
However, as always, you do have to look for the concerns in the bill and also understand the context. So the positive bit is the commonsense approach of using levies—higher levies, I would argue, as is our policy, as Senate committees have recommended. Indeed, Senate committees have recommended much higher levies than are proposed by the government, and my personal view is that there is a case for higher levies. But you use those levies to send a price signal. Imagine you're the employer and you're sitting there thinking: 'Well, I've got this skill gap. I kind of need someone to do this.' The easy option, too often, is just to sponsor someone—to go overseas and pluck someone in. Indeed, unscrupulous employers love that, as we've heard in previous bills—'protecting vulnerable workers', a misnomer if ever there was one for a bill—because there is a greater ability to exploit vulnerable temporary migrants using their temporary migration status.
It is too easy to reach overseas and sponsor someone instead of doing the right thing and training a local, looking for someone in the firm and thinking, 'Well, we can invest a few grand and train them up for that job.' By unashamedly using levies to send that price signal to employers to take it into account, it puts the acid on them to do the right thing by Australians and Australian workers. And obviously, it's a pretty logical thing to say that then the funds raised should be used to boost and supplement the skills and training market. So there is no problem with the principle, but there are two fundamental concerns about this bill which the shadow minister's amendments are seeking to address.
The first one is, again, quite a familiar trick for this government—the pea-and-thimble trick: 'We'll give with one hand; we'll take with the other. Nothing to see here. Don't look over there.' If you take the estimates seriously and even believe them, we might raise about $1.2 billion over four years. So we'll put these levies in. If you get enough temporary skilled migrants coming into the country and enough people paying these levies, you might raise $1.2 billion. You might not, though, of course, but you might, but you might not, but you might. Actually, the context is that $1.2 billion comes on the back of cuts of $2.8 billion to the training system. So the funds raised from this bill don't go even halfway to making up the damage that the government has caused through its cuts to the training system. The Abbott-Turnbull-Joyce government, or maybe one day the Abbott-Turnbull-Chester government—long live the revolution! We'll see how the member for Wide Bay votes on that. He's a thoughtful man; no doubt he's got a view. We'll talk about that another time. But $2.8 billion has been cut from the skills and training budget over five years, including $637 million in the last budget, What that has led to—and these are important figures; they're not contested figures; they're facts—is 140,000 fewer trainees and apprenticeships, including 41,000 fewer trade apprentices. This is a bandaid; you cut with one hand and you give with another. It's the same modus operandi: 'We'll cut $29 billion of school funding, or make it $27 billion, or make it $17 billion. But, magically, we'll call that a $10 billion boost.' We could get onto taxes, but that's a different topic, with the one-point tax plan.
With this bill, the Skilling Australians Fund could well be better named the 'cutting a bit less from the skills and training system and picking up a bit of Labor policy and hoping everyone won't notice' bill. Even if the government's projections are right—and there are doubts over their numbers—if the visa numbers go down, if you don't get enough temporary skilled migrants coming in, then you don't have enough money to fund the training system. I was just handed the Bills Digest which came out today, and I was looking through it in the time available. In the Bills Digest, the Australian government's comments are very clear:
From 2018-19, amounts available to the States from the Skilling Australians Fund will be determined by the revenue paid into the Fund.
So, if we don't get enough temporary migrants coming into the country, there's not enough money in the fund to fund the skills and training contributions that the Commonwealth has promised to the states, and they haven't promised to make up that funding. So it's getting kind of perverse, isn't it? If you don't get enough temporary migrants coming into the country, you don't have enough money to train Australians. Indeed, Professor Peter Noonan, who I actually know from a former life, a professorial fellow and one of the doyens of the Australian vocational training market, has summed it up very well in his submission. Perversely:
… revenue for the fund will be highest when skilled migration is highest, and lowest when employment of locally skilled workers is highest. That means the revenue stream for the fund will be counter-cyclical to the purpose for which it was established: to increase the proportion of locally trained workers and to lessen the reliance on temporary skilled migration visas.
So there's clearly going to be a problem there, and it sounds a pretty dumb and shaky foundation to me, anyway, to design the basis of the government's skills and training fund. For such a critical social and economic function as training skilled workers, maybe that's something the government could reflect on and realise they've got it wrong. Indeed, Labor's approach of saying, 'These funds should supplement, should boost, funding available, not form all of the funding available to the skills and training system,' is a better approach.
I was also struck by the data in the Bills Digest, which sets out starkly—clearly, indeed—that there are 22 trade worker occupations on the major national skills shortages list: air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics, automotive electricians, roof tilers, sheet metal trades workers, solid plasterers, panelbeaters, fibrous plasterers, telecommunications trades workers—the list goes on. So, really, on the back of enormous cuts to the apprenticeship system, which have driven down apprenticeship numbers in this country, we're leaving the whole funding foundation of restoring that and fixing that problem to bringing in more temporary workers. As the Bills Digest quite well acknowledges, although there are other factors—of course, people make judgements about employment prospects—undeniably, as apprentices are engaged by employers with funding and other support from government, then the number of apprentices and trainees is also influenced by the Commonwealth, and state and territory, funding decisions. So there it is.
The second big problem, apart from the pea-and-thimble, give with one hand, take with the other aspect of the bill, is the labour market testing. The track record of this government—as the previous speaker, the member for Gorton, who's been the minister for the portfolio, knows well—indicates that this will be a sham. Labor's made this clear for years. I've spoken on other bills, other matters, with the shadow minister for immigration. There is the nonsense of the minister's fake crackdown on 457s—you fiddle the occupation lists. We had a war on antique dealers and goat herders, or goat farmers. The minister was doing something with goats—I'm not sure. He was stopping the goats! There was a war on all these occupations that no-one had actually used for 10 years. So you take these occupations off that no-one actually uses and say you've had a crackdown but refuse to detail proper labour market testing. The record speaks for itself.
Labor in government had clear, firm, tough rules to say that, if you wanted to get a foreign worker, before you could do that, you had to test the labour market, and do that properly, and see if there was anyone in Australia—anyone, anywhere—ready to do that job. Only then could you pick up the option of using the temporary skilled migration system. Okay, that sounds pretty good. What about the proposition at the heart of this? It's good to be clear on the principle. I reckon this one passes the pub test. If you guys are in doubt—I know sometimes that's the case—you could have a plebiscite. You could have a survey. You could check this proposition, which is: before you get a foreign worker, you should try properly to find or train an Australian worker. It's a proposition. Have a plebiscite. I note the member for Wide Bay is nodding, and I applaud you; I thank you for your support. It's a fair test; it's a commonsense test. As I said, it passes the pub test. So why is it so hard? Why is there this big say/do gap? We say one thing. Perhaps if we say 'tax cuts' enough, someone will stop focusing on the fact that they actually just raised taxes for most Australians—unless you're a high income earner, of course; they're special. It's blindly ideological. There's a pattern if you're this government: 'We hate scrutiny.'
It is important to mention the trade agreements, because, for all this waffle that 'we'll do some labour market testing', the minister wants power to introduce some regulations to say what the rules for labour market testing might be. We are not going to tell you what they are right now. It might be an ad on Facebook for five minutes between midnight and 1 am in Mildura, targeted there. That might satisfy his rules; we just don't know. The government has got this pattern of signing trade agreements. They talk this rubbish that somehow we are opposed to all trade agreements and that we are trashing the Hawke and Keating legacy. They're getting obsessed with the Hawke and Keating legacy—they're a little bit jealous. It is founded on this notion that all trade agreements are good. Just because they happen to get a deal, we should sign it, without scrutiny of the benefits, even if it embeds exempting labour market testing.
Let's say the minister did the right thing and put in place some proper rules, through the regulations, for labour market testing—not funny little sham ones but proper rules. The trade agreements that they're busy signing up now would override them. You could still bring in foreign workers using the trade agreements and not be subject to labour market testing.
The government is being dishonest in this, but I did see one submission which I'll at least call out as being honest. If you want to try to understand the basis of the government's ideological objection to proper labour market testing, I was captured by the submission by ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I don't agree with it, but at least they are honest. Everyone knows the fluid boundaries, the porous boundaries, between the people who often work for the Liberal government and work for ACCI—and that's fine; that's a thing—but their submission is at least honest and gives a good insight. They're often peas in a pod—like they were on penalty rates: 'Cut penalty rates; that's a good thing,' says ACCI, and off goes the government, 'Yeah, that's a good thing.' The ACCI submission very clearly says that we should abolish all labour market testing—all of it—because we should just trust employers. They said that labour market testing is:
… akin to asking employers to walk through wet cement—it is time consuming through the requirement (i) to advertise even when the employer knows through past experience there is no skilled worker suitable to meet their business need—
It could have been five years ago and they didn’t have a good time, so they'll just sponsor some temporary migrant workers.
That contrasts, I think, a little unfavourably with Labor's approach—a sensible approach—as was set out in the bill that the Leader of the Opposition introduced. The government could have supported that and not have done this Road to Damascus fake conversion to labour market testing. We had proper requirements in that bill. We had things like a mandatory requirement for all jobs to be advertised as part of labour market testing—you actually have to advertise them; a requirement that jobs be advertised for a minimum of four weeks—not five minutes on Facebook; a requirement—this is important when you have a look at ACCI's submission—that labour market testing should have been conducted no less than four months before you nominate a temporary skilled visa worker; a ban on the job advertisements that we've seen which target only overseas workers or specified visa classes to the exclusion of Australian citizens; and a crackdown on job ads—and this one is important, because we're seeing this in other industries and I've spoken before on it—that set unrealistic or unwarranted skills and experience requirements for vacant positions. There are some fake ads that say, 'We think you need 72 years of experience and four PhDs.' Or we hear: 'We couldn't find someone, so we'll just have to go overseas and look for someone,' or 'We couldn't find them there, but we just sponsored someone anyway.' We've seen examples of this kind of rorting going on.
So there is this blind ideology, this hatred of labour market testing. There's no basis to trust this government and say, 'Pass this. We'll give the minister a power. We'll trust you, Minister for Home Affairs and immigration and whatever else you can grab next week in the cabinet reshuffle, to introduce some good rules on labour market testing. We'll ignore the war on goat herders and antiques. We'll ignore all that and we'll trust you to do the right thing.' We say, 'No; there's a better way. You could mandate proper requirements for labour market testing in these laws, you could accept sensible changes, and you could put your money where your mouth is and do the right thing by Australian workers.'
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (19:27): In the few minutes that I have before we adjourn tonight, I will take the opportunity to reflect on what the previous speaker has said and actually add to it. The government is asking us to trust the Minister for Home Affairs with labour market testing. Do they really think Australian workers and the Australian people are going to buy that? This is a man who stood in here at question time yesterday, looked up in the gallery and had a go at some coalminers—called them thugs and said they were going to break arms on construction sites. The guy clearly is so blinded by his hatred for organised labour and blinded by his hatred for hardworking Queenslanders, so in it for the kill and so in it for the hunt, that he turns up to the gallery—
Mr Dick interjecting—
Ms CHESTERS: He can't be independent; he can't be biased—and he's the person that this government wants to put in charge of labour market testing! Labour market testing is critical when it comes to: 'Do we or do we not need overseas temporary migrant workers in this country?' The whole premise of a temporary migrant worker with a skill is the fact that we don't have those skills in this country.
Under this government, proper labour market testing has failed. I meet young nurses all the time who've just graduated and are ready to start their career but can't get jobs in our hospitals because too many jobs have gone to people who were here on 457 visas or whatever new name the government has given it. I feel for those workers who've come into our country in good faith—they've been recruited; they've come here to work—but they are now pinned against Australian workers because this government has dropped the ball when it comes to skilled migration and temporary skilled migration. This is one of the core, fundamental problems—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:30): Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
National Partnership on Remote Housing
Mr DICK (Oxley) (19:30): Adequate, safe and secure housing is critical to every facet of life for every Australian, but for many of our First Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in remote communities, housing is anything but adequate, safe or secure. Next Monday the Prime Minister will stand up to deliver his annual response to the Closing the gap report. There is one thing that he absolutely must acknowledge: if you want to improve employment outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, if you want to improve educational outcomes, if you want to improve health, child safety and social outcomes, people need somewhere adequate, safe and secure to live.
For the past 10 years, the Commonwealth government has worked in partnership with state governments to build houses in these remote communities, many of which are in my home state of Queensland. The National Partnership on Remote Housing has been a remarkably successful program which includes among its many achievements reducing overcrowding in Queensland's remote communities by half. This is not simply a housing program. It is a skills, training and employment program, and it's a program that works.
Since the program's commencement in 2008, Queensland has delivered 1,150 new homes and delivered 2,640 jobs, and more than 80 per cent of those jobs are performed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers. Right now, in remote communities in Queensland, there are 515 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people employed in housing construction through the national partnership. Ninety-six of these workers are trade apprentices who are learning skills that will take them into long-term careers as builders, electricians and plumbers. This is exactly the sort of outcome we need to close the gap. In fact, this is exactly the kind of outcome we need to lift people out of welfare across the board. The difference this program has made in these communities is concrete, tangible and measurable.
Earlier today in Canberra, it was a pleasure to meet with several of the delegates and mayors of these communities who have been here this week to speak to the government, members of the opposition and the crossbench, not just to impress upon them the importance of continuing this program but also to set the record straight—because the record needs to be set straight.
Yesterday during question time, the Minister for Indigenous Health stood up in this parliament and said the states would have to commit to an equal partnership with the Commonwealth and put money on the table. Well, Queensland has put money on the table and will continue to put money on the table because, unlike the Prime Minister, the Queensland state government is not walking away from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in remote communities.
The truth is that the National Partnership on Remote Housing does not require a capital contribution from the states. However, over the past 10 years, the Queensland government has gone above this and contributed more than $650 million towards remote Indigenous housing, including in the communities of Cherbourg and Yarrabah, which the Commonwealth refuses to include in the partnership agreement. Of the 1,150 homes built in Queensland, 199 have been built with Queensland money. Queensland has committed to the ongoing maintenance, upgrade and depreciation costs of these homes, along with the training costs associated with the training of the apprentices who actually build these homes.
There is a young man visiting us in Canberra today, His name is Lenny. He's 23 years old, and he lives with his mother and grandmother in the remote community of Hope Vale, in Far North Queensland, almost 3,000 kilometres from where we sit today. Through the national partnership agreement, Lenny became an apprentice, building homes in his own community. Lenny finished his apprenticeship just a few weeks ago. He's now a fully qualified carpenter earning a steady wage building homes in Hope Vale. His mother currently has a job in Cooktown, but that job will finish up soon, meaning that Lenny will be the sole breadwinner for his family. If the Prime Minister continues with his plan to cut the National Partnership on Remote Housing, Lenny, like many other Indigenous Australians, will be out of a job.
The Commonwealth government commissioned a review into the National Partnership on Remote Housing, which was released in December last year—not by any state government but by the Commonwealth government. That report clearly outlines that Queensland has met and exceeded set benchmarks and recommends continuing the partnership to further progress closing the gap. It even says that housing should be measured as a Closing the Gap benchmark. And what have we heard about the report from those opposite? Nothing.
I say this to the Prime Minister: on Monday, do not come in here and deliver a Closing the gap speech wanting a pat on the back. If the LNP and the coalition government are serious about closing the gap, the Prime Minister and this government cannot walk away from basic human rights like access to safe and secure housing.
Corangamite Electorate: Avalon Airport
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (19:34): Last Sunday I was incredibly proud to join the foreign minister; Lindsay and David Fox and family; Justin Giddings, CEO of Avalon Airport; and Tony Fernandes, the global CEO of AirAsia, for an incredibly significant announcement for our region: Avalon Airport is going international. Victoria is to have its second international airport. AirAsia has struck a deal to fly from Kuala Lumpur into Avalon twice a day before the end of the year, which equates to around 440,000 passengers inbound and outbound. This represents a huge economic boost for the Corangamite electorate, and right across the Geelong region and the south-west of Victoria. One hundred and eighty-seven direct jobs will be created, and visitor expenditure is forecast to double in 10 years to $582 million. By 2028 this investment will also generate an additional 2,000 jobs. There'll be approximately 10,000 kilograms of freight capacity per annum, meaning the region will now have direct access to Asian markets.
I'm very proud of our government's support of Avalon through the Department of Defence, including placing Avalon in the regional package, our master plan, which has triggered some major investment by the likes of Cotton On. Over the coming months our government will be working hard to support the construction of an international terminal, as well as the provision of additional resources for the border agencies: customs, immigration and quarantine.
One of the very first campaigns I ran as a candidate back in 2009 was to make Avalon international. Why did we have to campaign? In 2007 AirAsia reached an international flights agreement with Avalon, but soon after the election of the Rudd government, in early 2008, the deal was dead. Incomprehensibly, Labor rejected Avalon's proposal to build an international terminal. This was one of the most terrible economic decisions that we had seen in our region in many years. In an article in the Geelong Advertiser on 31 August 2012, the member for Corio said:
… Avalon put forward a proposal that did not safeguard Australia and Geelong's interests.
What precisely does that mean? Why was AirAsia's deal to fly to Avalon in 2008 contrary to the local and national interest? The member for Corio has never been able to produce any evidence to support his claims. He also justified this decision by claiming the government would need to know how many quarantine and customs officers would be required along with Federal Police officers. He said:
It is hardly prudent to grant international status in the abstract, because opening up another door to our country, in Geelong's backyard, carries with it many risks that cannot be managed without this information.
It was absolutely extraordinary. In reality this was nothing more than a flaccid, pathetic excuse by the member for Corio for his government's incompetence. The member for Corio let this happen on his watch. He simply did not fight for Avalon to become international. As I said, he's never produced any evidence to support his claims—because it was all just baloney.
Our government is working through the detail, including the number of Federal Police officers and customs officers required, but that is not going to stop us from making this happen. I will be working day and night to ensure that the Turnbull government does everything possible to facilitate this wonderful economic opportunity for our region and for all of Victoria. I will also be fighting for an Avalon railway station and a rail link direct to the door, something Tullamarine cannot offer, which I hope will attract more international flights and carriers. Tony Fernandes has already flagged the possibility of more flights to Bali, Thailand and India.
A number of weeks ago the Prime Minister very proudly announced a city deal. This and the economic fortunes that this deal brings are an incredibly important part of a city deal which focuses very much on transport infrastructure: air, road and rail. I'm very proud of the city deal. I'm very proud of our $20 million of investment under the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages. We have delivered a quarter of a billion dollars in rail upgrades for our local region. This is another wonderful economic opportunity for jobs, for small business and for tourist operators. I'm very proud to be part of a government that's delivering record jobs growth to our nation, including on this very significant project.
Tet Offensive
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (19:40): Last week on 30 January we marked 50 years since the beginning of the Tet Offensive, an event that has gone down in history as a turning point in the Vietnam War. Through 1967 the message being delivered to Australian households was that the South Vietnamese forces were winning the war. The truth was that the war was deadlocked—neither side had the upper hand. The North Vietnamese forces developed a plan to break the deadlock, changing their tactic of a largely guerrilla battle in the jungles to a full-scale military offensive that, although ultimately defeated, shook the South Vietnamese, Americans and Australians to the core.
The offensive stunned the Vietnamese people with its defiance of the traditional ceasefire to allow people to celebrate the lunar new year, known as Tet. While the people of Saigon prepared for the Year of the Monkey to begin, the armed forces of the south were stunned as Viet Cong spread through cities and towns all over Vietnam, even taking the US embassy in Saigon for a while. In the former imperial capital of Hue, communist forces took the city and massacred thousands of civilians. The vicious fight to liberate Hue left the beautiful and historic city in ruins.
My father was serving in the Australian Army in Saigon at the time of the Tet Offensive—the scene of very heavy fighting. Seventeen Australians were killed during the various Tet battles. For the Vietnamese people, it was unbelievably catastrophic as 14,000 civilians were killed and a further 24,000 were wounded. Tet was a major military defeat for the northern forces, but, on the global political scale, it turned the war in many ways. American and Australian perceptions of the war were irrevocably changed by the images of Vietnamese cities destroyed under heavy fighting and the brutal suffering of civilians.
For the Vietnamese community in Australia, many of whom were South Vietnamese who fled in the wake of the North Vietnam communist victory, Tet is an important event of remembrance of those events, as well as a new year celebration. At the beginning of Tet and on Vietnam Veterans Day, the community remembers what they fought for, what they lost and how they have grown since by flying the Co Vang flag. The Co Vang flag, also known as the yellow flag, is the former flag of South Vietnam, and is a powerful symbol of unity and remembrance for the South Vietnamese and for the Australian soldiers who fought in that war—remembering those who were lost and wounded and celebrating the strong community they have built here in Australia.
Vietnamese refugees, as we all know, have played a powerful role in making Australia the truly multicultural nation that it is today, which should be celebrated by all Australians. The cities of Charles Sturt and Port Adelaide Enfield in my electorate agreed to fly the yellow flag at the request of the Vietnamese community, acknowledging the 80,000 Vietnamese refugees who settled in Australia between 1975 and 1997, the 521 Australian soldiers who were killed in the Vietnam War, the 3,129 Australian soldiers wounded, and the more than 50,000 returning veterans. I proudly supported the community's petition to those councils.
I honour the Vietnamese community across Australia, particularly the passionate women and men in my electorate, in their contributions to our great nation. I honour the Vietnam War veterans and their families, the strength and resilience they have shown and the bonds of camaraderie they've built with the Vietnamese community in our country. My own electorate of Port Adelaide is the stronghold of the Vietnamese community in our state of South Australia. I look forward to joining President Phung Van Nguyen and all the South Australian Vietnamese community this Saturday night at Regency Park in my electorate to celebrate the coming of the Year of the Dog. I'm glad that both the City of Charles Sturt and the City of Port Adelaide Enfield have listened to Mr Nguyen and his predecessor as president, Mr Tin Le, and will be proudly flying the Co Vang flag this Tet to celebrate the contributions of the South Australian Vietnamese community to the vibrancy of our great nation. I encourage councils across Australia to join with the Vietnamese community and our Vietnam veterans in flying the Co Vang flag, or the Yellow flag, for lunar new year on Friday, 16 February this year, and for Vietnam Veterans Day on 18 August. I wish the Vietnamese community, the Chinese community, the Korean community and all communities who celebrate, a happy and prosperous Year of the Dog.
Page Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Mr HOGAN (Page) (19:45): I would like to acknowledge and congratulate members of my community who received awards at recent Australia Day celebrations in Coffs Harbour. From my electorate, Awal Maker from Sapphire Beach and Isaiah Koopmans from Woolgoolga both received awards. Awal is a former refugee who has made a profound impact on our local community through her work as a leader and mentor. She has been a member of the Woolgoolga High SRC and has been an active member of the Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors. She was the Lions Youth of the Year in 2016 and Zonta's Young Women in Public Affairs Award winner in 2017. She also received the National Council of Women's Dame Marie Bashir Peace Award in 2017. Last year Awal also became an Australian citizen. I have met her on a number of occasions and she is truly inspirational.
Isaiah Koopmans from Woolgoolga received recognition for his outstanding sporting achievements in the areas of triathlon, running and swimming. He has represented his school at regional and state level athletics. Isaiah competed last weekend in Canberra, where he placed second in his age group in the Canberra Triathlon Festival. This was a world cup qualifying event. He hopes to gain enough points to qualify for the world triathlon age group championships being held on the Gold Coast late next year. Congratulations, Isaiah, and good luck.
The Clarence Valley Australia Day awards were recently announced, and I would like to acknowledge the nominees and the following award winners. The joint winners of the citizen of the year award were Des Harvey and Melissa Livermore. Des has been an integral part of the community for many decades. Melissa volunteers at Camelia Cottage and devotes her time to the youth in our community, creating and maintaining personal development programs. The young citizen of the year was Jeremy Jablonski. The local hero was Phil Bailey. The community achievement award went to Clarence Valley Conservation in Action. Congratulations to you all. It was wonderful to be at the event.
The Lismore Australia Day awards were recently announced, and I would like to acknowledge the nominees and the following award winners. The Lismore citizen of the year was Anna Ludvik. The young citizen of the year was Benjamin Auckram—congratulations, Ben. The Aboriginal citizen of the year was Ayden Miners. The services in community individual award went to Michael Berry. The services in community group award went to the Lismore Girl Guides, Jacki Scutt and the 1st Lismore Scout Group. The sportsperson was James Durheim—well done, James. The sports organisation award went to the Dunoon United Football Club—a good footy club that my daughter used to play for. The sustainable environment award went to the Lismore City Council Recycling and Recovery Centre staff. Congratulations to you all.
The Kyogle Australia Day awards were recently announced, and I would like to acknowledge all of the nominees and the following award winners. The senior citizen of the year was Jenny Hastie. The citizen of the year was Louise Petherbridge. The junior citizen of the year was Eloise Crawter. The senior sportsperson was Dean Ferris and the junior sportsperson was Rocco Partridge. The junior student award went to Tom Brosnan, and Emily Ferguson received the senior student award.
In Woodenbong the citizen of the year award went to Lynnette Parker. Katelyn Grimmett received both the young citizen of the year and sportsperson of the year awards. The community organisation or event award went to Woodenbong Preschool and Kindergarten. The business/service award went to the Woodenbong grocery store, which is owned by Manoj and Priti Kumar. Congratulations to you all.
The west of the ranges citizen of the year award went to Stephen Symonds. The senior citizen of the year award went to Jill Gorry. The junior citizen and sportsperson was Tess Codrington. The business/service award went to BankHouse Originals' Susanne Richardson. The community organisation award went to the Upper Clarence and Bonalbo Senior Citizens Christmas Party. Congratulations to you all.
The Richmond Valley Australia Day awards were recently held, and I would like to acknowledge the following nominees and award winners. The citizen of the year award went to Pam Bellingham. The young citizen of the year award went to Alice Magner. The sportsperson of the year award went to Eileen Byers and the young sportsperson of the year award was awarded to Caroline Sankey. Betty Archer received the volunteer of the year award. The joint winners of the young volunteer of the year award were Theodore Scholl and William Genge. Congratulations to all nominees and award winners.
Griffith Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (19:50): I rise to advise the House that over the break I held the 19th annual Griffith Australia Day Awards, a tradition started by the former member for Griffith and Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Tonight I would like to acknowledge the award winners and their contribution to our community.
Marilyn Boyce has volunteered for more than a decade at the iconic not-for-profit Brisbane Jazz Club. Jean Burke from local farming group Beelarong Community Farm was acknowledged. Karen Czornohalan went above and beyond as president of the West End State School P&C for many years, and her impact is really remarkable.
We awarded Tokiko Dawson for restoring local ecosystems. John Debenham, the chair of Foodbank Queensland, has been vital to its incredible success—offering 21 million meals. Peter Forday is a highly influential person within the multicultural sector and has been for many years, creating better futures for new Queenslanders. Jim Gable was a helicopter crewman in the Vietnam conflict and, despite illness, has effectively maintained his positions as secretary and treasurer of one of our local RSLs.
For more than 22 years, Ross Hall's enthusiasm for, and knowledge of, science has made him an invaluable volunteer at the Queensland Museum. Ross Hielscher played a pivotal role in commemorating the origins of Anzac Day through the Canon Garland Memorial, admired not only in Australia but internationally. Dr Vladis Kosse, founder of SlavFest and folk musician, has brought together 13 pan-Slavic groups to celebrate Australia's multiculturalism. A highly esteemed chemical engineer, Dr Paul Massarotto has dedicated his retirement to the formation of Rotary Brisbane Technology Park.
In 2015 Allan Mitchell was chosen by the committee of the Norman Park Bowls Club for life membership, and he has been recognised for community spirit. Randall New advocates for his community in his position with the Australian peacekeepers association and previous experience in the Defence Force. Billie Pelling formed a women's branch within the Labor Party way back in 1960, and ever since then has always been dedicated to her community. Chi Pham, a young full-time university student, volunteers with Sisters Inside at 6.30 am each week to provide food for families in need. Glenys Pollock, through her executive role, has revitalised the Belmont Services Bowls Club.
For 42 years Donald Richards volunteered at the Greenslopes Mall playing Santa Claus, bringing joy and happiness to local kids. Beverly Strous has been providing pottery classes to people with MS and other progressive neurological diseases for over 30 years. Marj Warry was involved with the Brisbane Music Performers Club as a student in 1968, and carries on its legacy now as president. David Woodcock helps older people with a disability maintain their independence through his work at Flexi Care.
Circles of Life Queensland was founded by Carol MacArthur, who created a forum for over 600 women to talk about overcoming adversity. She and her colleagues Janet Godwin, Imogen Johnson, Jill Wootton and Jemma MacArthur were recognised.
Sarah Lejeune and David McDonald are long-term leaders and volunteers of Dauphin Terrace bushcare group, an urban Landcare group of volunteer gardeners.
Andrew Dunn, Ernestine Kirsch, Julian Ladd, Jemma Lanyon and Anna Simpson are volunteers lawyers at the Environmental Defenders Office.
Jenny Clark, Julie Gustafson, Antony Rogers and Lorraine Russell are a dedicated group of volunteers who preserve our local history through the Friends of Balmoral Cemetery group.
Mrs Chibly and Reverend Father Elie Francis at the St Clement's Church-Melkite Rite have provided necessary support to newly arrived families from Iraq and Syria.
There's a very large group of volunteers—I won't name them all—from the World Wellness Group, who provide health care to people outside the Medicare system.
We were excited to induct the Bulimba District Historical Society into the hall of fame for their efforts to tell and retell our local history. Led by Norman Love, the group included Raimon Laaja, Patricia Mullins, Brenda Nolan, John Rathbone, Robert Turner, Russell Turner, Judith Salter and Diane Sinden.
I would also like to thank the Griffith Australia Day Awards committee that I appointed to undertake the very difficult task of judging the nominations. Mr Matthew Campbell, Mr Dennis Bramadat, Ms Danica Eather and Ms Margie Gamble were on the committee. Other special mentions go to the River City Clippers, who performed at the event; Kate Luke; Corrine McMillan MP, the new member for Mansfield, who undertook the MC duties for the first time; and the team at Souths Leagues Club.
I've been very fortunate to be strongly supported in maintaining this important part of our community. This was the 19th annual Griffith Australia Day Awards, and I am certainly looking forward to the 20th awards. I congratulate again all of those people who were recognised.
Manufacturing Industry
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (19:55): I have some great news in relation to manufacturing in Australia. At the last election the coalition government clearly outlined its goals for jobs and growth. The government understands that by stimulating the economy and providing businesses with opportunities, they will create jobs. And we've seen some great results in defence manufacturing, free trade agreements, company tax reductions for small- and medium-sized business in particular, and innovative manufacturing as a result of our plan. Some 400,000 jobs were created in 2017; a lot of those are in Queensland, and 75 per cent are full time.
So knowing that these jobs are being created now, what if I told you, Mr Speaker, that we could manufacture any plastic product cheaper in Australia than in low-wage countries like China or India or elsewhere in Asia? Would you believe me? You should, because it's true! This involves reshoring jobs from Asia back here to Australia.
In 2014 in this place I highlighted a local manufacturing business that was thriving, called the Evolve Group. This great homegrown company, managed by Redcliffe local Ty Hermans, has continued to thrive. Evolve Group have outgrown their Clontarf factory in Petrie; they're moving to a larger site on the south side of Brisbane. I first met Ty many years ago, and I've had the pleasure of seeing his business grow. The business involves innovative manufacturing and design, and reshoring jobs from Asia back to Australia.
Last week I had the opportunity to tour his south-side factory, along with the Minister for Home Affairs. Currently the Evolve Group are manufacturing 25 independent advanced manufacturing lines, including automotive, medical, agriculture and consumer goods. They export these goods to 127 countries. Despite having an enviable record of achievement in local manufacturing, they constantly have to convince businesses that they can provide products cheaper and faster than manufacturers overseas.
Ty went on to tell me that one of his latest customers initially wasn’t willing to speak to him because they didn't believe an Australian company could manufacture a plastic product cheaper than China. However, Evolve was able to manufacture it at a 10 per cent cheaper price, and revise the design to ensure that it is a sturdy Australian made product. This product was actually a bottle top. If anyone shops at Woolworths and buys water—$8 for a slab of 24 bottles—you'll see those little blue caps on top. They were all being made in China; they're now being made in Brisbane. All of those products are being reshored back to Australia, which is providing more jobs. Evolve is also starting an innovative pool design company, which will soon begin manufacturing in the Moreton Bay region in my electorate.
The other good news is that the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms that five of the 16 subsectors in the manufacturing industry have seen substantial growth. One of those subsectors is the clothing and footwear sector, which has seen a massive 41 per cent growth, employing an additional 11,000 people. The manufacturing industry has had its 14th straight month of growth—great news!—and business confidence in manufacturing is at its highest level since 2003. This is all proof that the coalition government's industry innovation agenda is breaking through and getting results. We want local businesses to continue to create jobs, reshore products from Asia back to Australia so that there are more jobs for local people in our electorates. To ensure this continued growth, the coalition government announced last year that it will invest $100 million to drive innovation in the manufacturing industry through government grants. We also signed an agreement with Germany to work together to modernise our manufacturing industries.
Every single manufacturer has the potential to be forward thinking like the Evolve Group, and I encourage all Australian manufacturers to examine their business models and look at where they can emulate the practices of successful businesses. By providing the vanguard of manufacturing innovation, we will be able to service new markets and develop new products. We want Australian companies to look to Australian manufacturers first, and not just assume Chinese or overseas companies can provide the goods cheaper than our local companies. I encourage every Australian company to get a quote from an Australian manufacturer. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Debate interrupted.
House adjourned at 20 : 00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Morrison : To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to corporations, consumer credit and taxation, and for related purposes. ( Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2018 )
Ms Burney to move:
That this House:
(1) observes:
(a) the National Partnership on Remote Housing (NPRH) is an agreement between the Australian Government and state/territory governments to deliver new and refurbished housing for remote and Indigenous communities; and
(b) that the NPRH agreement is due to expire on 30 June 2018;
(2) recognises that:
(a) over the last ten years, the NPRH has delivered in Queensland almost 1,150 new homes and 1,500 refurbished homes;
(b) the Australian Government's independent review into the partnership has highlighted the achievements of the Queensland Government;
(c) this program has built upon the capacity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils who, along with Indigenous businesses now deliver 80 per cent of housing construction and repairs; and
(d) nationally, an additional 5,500 homes are required by 2028 to account for population growth and to continue to reduce overcrowding;
(3) acknowledges that:
(a) without continued funding, loss of hundreds of local jobs and apprenticeships will occur;
(b) without funding, significant levels of violence—domestic and otherwise—will arise from overcrowded living conditions in some of the communities; and
(c) secure housing is a key element of the Australian Government's priority of 'Closing the Gap' responsibilities; and
(4) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) urgently restore commitment to this program, in order to reduce overcrowding in discrete and remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, through building new dwellings and continuing to maintain and refurbish existing dwellings; and
(b) commit to a ten-year continuation of Commonwealth funding in real terms, matching the same level as provided over the last ten years.
Ms C. F. King to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month and 28 February is Teal Ribbon Day;
(b) ovarian cancer is still the deadliest women's cancer and has the lowest survival rate of any women's cancer; and
(c) the overall five-year survival rate for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer is only 44 per cent;
(2) recognises:
(a) the tireless work of Ovarian Cancer Australia in its pursuit to beat the disease and provide the best possible care and support to women with ovarian cancer;
(b) the approximate 9,000 Australian women currently living with ovarian cancer;
(c) that every day three women will die from ovarian cancer; and
(d) there is no early detection test ovarian cancer;
(3) welcomes the Government's commitment to provide almost $3 million to help to identify the BRCA 1 and 2 genes within women at risk of ovarian cancer; and
(4) calls on the Government to match Labor's $12 million commitment to the full National Action Plan for Ovarian Cancer Research, which would reduce the number of women being diagnosed by 25 per cent by 2025.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) took the chair at 10:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Kingston Electorate: Christmas Appeal 2017
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10:00): I rise today to acknowledge and thank all of those who donated to my recent Christmas appeal. For many of us, Christmas is a very joyful time of the year—a time spent with family, catching up with friends, giving and receiving presents and eating a little bit too much food. But it is important to remember that, for those Australians who can't put food on the table or presents under the tree, Christmas is an incredibly difficult time.
Each year at Christmas I partner with local charities to try to make the festive season a little bit easier for those in our community who are struggling. My office acts as a drop-off point for donations of toys, gifts, food, toiletries and animal food. The generosity of our community truly reached new heights for this Christmas appeal. We estimate that around $20,000 worth of goods were donated by the southern Adelaide community. We were able to make multiple donations to local charities. It is amazing to think how many families would have benefited from these donations. I'd like to sincerely thank and acknowledge every person who brought in a donation. Thank you for your kindness, selflessness and generosity.
There were so many heart-warming stories during our appeal. One woman, who would like to remain nameless, spent months knitting 22 beautiful dolls for children. Another man handmade a number of wooden trucks that were just superb. The Askell-Wilson family brought in three brand-new bicycles. Imagine how happy they would've made the children on Christmas morning who had very little.
Two of our local schools organised hundreds of donations from students and families: the Seaford K-7 School, and the children's council at Southern Montessori School, led by students Hope, Flynn and Cooper. Goodstart Early Learning Sheidow Park and Goodstart Early Learning Seaford set up Christmas trees in their foyers and asked for donations from families. By the time I collected the donations, there were hundreds of brand-new toys spilling out from under the trees.
So thank you to all those organisations, community groups, businesses and individuals who donated. I would like to acknowledge Onkaparinga youth Base 10, Noarlunga SES, Christies Beach Chiropractic Centre, Woodend Children's Centre, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Women's Association, Karate-Do Goju Australia at Christie Downs, Southern Districts Midweek Ladies Tennis Club, Hallett Cove Lions Club, Morphett Vale Tennis Club and the 50-plus activity club. These were just some of the organisations which, along with individuals, made a huge contribution.
I would also like to thank the local charities I partnered with for the amazing work they do: Junction Australia Christies Beach, AnglicareSA Beach Road, The Vines Uniting Church, Vinnies SA Noarlunga conference, Salvation Army Noarlunga and the RSPCA South Australia. They work all year round to make the lives of others better. (Time expired)
Banks Electorate: Community Events
Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Assistant Minister for Finance) (10:03): On 9 December last year, I attended the end-of-year concert and presentation day for JumboNote Music School in Narwee. It was a really impressive event. Some fantastic music was played. Some tremendously talented young vocal and musical artists were performing for the crowd on the day.
JumboNote has been active in the St George area for more than 10 years and provides music classes for around 450 music students. Students are taught performance skills, stage presence and a range of other important skills to pursue their interests in music. I would like to thank the founder and CEO of JumboNote, Darko Zoric, as well as the staff, for the very warm welcome that they gave me on the day, and I look forward to working with JumboNote in the future.
On 9 December I attended the Bankstown Vietnamese language school presentation day held at Bankstown Girls High School. The language school is part of the wider Vietnamese schools of New South Wales and offers classes to school-aged students of a Vietnamese background. This school encourages the kids to learn not only the language of Vietnam but also cultural traditions from Vietnamese history.
In my electorate of Banks more than 3,000 people come from a Vietnamese background, and the Bankstown Vietnamese Language School plays a really important role in supporting that community and ensuring that traditional Vietnamese culture and the language is strong in our area. It was great to be able to present awards to the kids for their diligence in learning Vietnamese during the year. I would like to thank Trong Hiep Ho, the coordinator of the school, for his invitation to me, and also acknowledge Thuat Nguyen, the head of the children's festival and a great man in our area, for being there on the day.
On 24 January I went down to the East Hills men's shed. The men's shed is going from strength to strength. The gentlemen involved down there are doing a great job in their location in the George's River National Park. They showed me a range of things they are building to help local community groups. The shed has grown very substantially after being set up just a couple of short years ago. I thank the president of the shed, Bob Bishop, and also the vice-president, Bryan Barrett. I was really pleased that we were able to secure a $6,000 grant for the shed through the federal Stronger Communities Program to assist with very important maintenance and capital works at the shed. Congratulations to everyone involved in the East Hills men's shed.
Media
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (10:06): A lot has changed in the 22 years since I made my first appearance in my local newspaper, the Blacktown Sun. Advances in technology, the rise of digital platforms and the way in which opinions are disseminated today were never envisaged back when its inaugural edition rolled hot off the press all those decades ago. But the qualities that made the Blacktown Sun and its sister publications, including the Rouse Hill Courier, trusted sources of local news and information, endured right up until their final editions in December last year. One thing that will never change is the importance of localism. These papers were always focused on the human story—the way in which events and decisions of national scale and scope can be translated to the experience and impact on local residents.
Unfortunately their parent decided that these publications could not be sustained, which is curious considering that the biggest complaint I would receive about them was from local residents who weren't getting these papers delivered to their homes. To all the journalists, photographers and staff over the years who brought us the news we needed to know in west and north-west Sydney, with whom I enjoyed such productive relationships, thank you. Your skill and dedication has left an indelible mark on our city and its people.
Sadly, right on the heels of the closure of these local papers, the only dedicated national newspaper for young Australians, Crinkling News, has also announced it will cease. This innovative outfit ticked so many boxes, informing the child audience, developing literacy skills and promoting critical media thinking.
The fact that these closures come after the Turnbull government's changes to media ownership laws and the announcement of the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund shows how inadequate these measures are. We have learnt for decades that public interest journalism is under immense pressure from digital disruption. Yet this government has cut hundreds of millions from the ABC and SBS, trusted sources of investigative journalism in Australia, repealed the two-out-of-three cross-media rule to permit even greater consolidation in Australia's already highly concentrated media sector, and is now threatening journalists with criminal sanctions simply for doing their jobs, with its flawed Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme.
Labor, by contrast, understands the importance of public interest journalism to a robust democracy. That is why we established the convergence review and the Finkelstein inquiry, both of which have been comprehensively ignored by the Turnbull government. It was Labor who established the Senate Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism inquiry, with the support of crossbench senators. I do hope Crinkling News finds a way to continue, but clearly the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund is a meagre, short-term bandaid that is too little, too late for them. The sole reason the fund even exists is because of backroom deals, not because this government is genuine about supporting public interest journalism.
Page Electorate: Northern Co-operative Meat Company
Maclean Storm Damage
Mr HOGAN (Page) (10:09): The Northern Co-operative Meat Company has operated in Casino, the beef capital of Australia, since 1933. It is one of the biggest employers in the area and is proudly 100 per cent member owned. The meatworks is an integral part of the local community. Recently, long-time Casino resident Brian Olive achieved the milestone of becoming the first Indigenous person to have worked for 50 years for the company. Brian first started work at the meatworks in 1968 as a 16-year-old. He began sweeping the floors, then he took on a trade and ended reaching the highest level of his trade. Brian joins an elite club with fellow meatworkers John Cormack, who has also celebrated his 50-year milestone—congratulations to John—and David Forrester, who has worked at the meatworks for 52 years and is the Northern Co-operative Meat Company's longest serving employee. I'd like to congratulate Brian, John and David on the fantastic milestones they have achieved in their involvement in making Northern Co-operative Meat Company the success that it is.
Maclean is a beautiful town in the Clarence Valley. Besides being physically beautiful, it is a tight-knit community minded place. On 2 January a storm cell, described as a mini tornado, ripped through the town, causing massive amounts of damage and leaving 6,000 homes without power. The SES command received many calls for help. Extra units from Grafton, Yamba and Copmanhurst were called in to assist. I would like to thank the Maclean SES unit controller Mark Duckworth, his deputies, Ron Rushton and Steve Walton, and all of the many volunteers who gave their time working tirelessly to help others.
To give you an indication of the strength of the storm, the Clarence Hotel, which was in the middle of its lunchtime service, had the whole roof ripped off. The local school was damaged, as was the showground. The SES command itself had doors blown off hinges. Unfortunately, this year's Maclean agricultural show has been cancelled due to the damage that cannot be fixed in time for the annual show. But Maclean will and is recovering from this storm. It's in times like this you see the real character of a community, and Maclean has stood tall in the face of this adversity.
Malcolm Wallis was a passionate person who worked for Kyogle Council. He, very sadly, passed away recently. His catchphrase was 'living the dream'. I will never hear, read or see that phrase without thinking fondly of Malcolm. He loved Kyogle. I would like to offer my condolences to Malcolm's wife, Allison, his sons, Brenton and Kaleb, and his extended family.
Mayo Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:12): Attending recent Australia Day events in my electorate brought home why my electorate has the highest rate of volunteering in the nation. Nearly a third of my community regularly volunteer, compared with the Australian average of 19 per cent. I have no doubt it must have been very extremely difficult for my local governments in Mayo to select their Australia Day award recipients. I congratulate all those worthy nominees for their contribution to our community.
I would like to thank and congratulate a number of our award recipients across Mayo. The Mount Barker Council selected Brian and Teresa Johnson, whose efforts to turn their Echunga general store into a community hub led them to their recognition as Mount Barker Council's Citizens of the Year. Young Citizen of the Year was a Macclesfield teenager, Mahayla Rose, who has raised a staggering $15,000 for Cancer Council research in memory of her beloved nanna, Joyce, while the biennial Sculptors @ Crystal Lake won the Community Event of the Year, adding further to the artistic reputation of the Adelaide Hills.
The Adelaide Hills Council named Matt Thomas from Inglewood as their Citizen of the Year for his work at the Houghton Oval, and Isaac Tiney from Gumeracha won Young Citizen of the Year for his work on our local Anzac Day and Remembrance Day commemorations. The Beersheba commemoration event won Community Event of the Year—again, another terrific event.
Alexandrina Council named two citizens of the year: local health services hero Gwenda Knights from Strathalbyn and one of the founders of the Mount Compass Progress Association, Adrian Earl. Young Citizens of the Year were Destiny Brackstone from Goolwa and Darcy Springhall from Strathalbyn.
Last year, Lake Breeze Handpicked Festival and the Wildlife Rescue Centre at Goolwa won Community Events of the Year. Bob and Valda Finn of Hindmarsh Island and Brenton Smith received community service awards. In Victor Harbour and Port Elliot, Barry Fletcher was named Citizen of the Year—he's a Lions member there, while Benjamin Pettman was named Young Citizen of the Year. The Victor Harbour RSL Sub-Branch's Anzac dawn service was named Community Event of the Year.
The District Council of Yankalilla again had tremendous nominees, with Libby Edge winning Citizen of the Year and Nicole Filsell winning Young Citizen of the Year. The Second Valley Progress Association won an award for the memorial they did for their 100-year re-enactment of World War I. On Kangaroo Island, Joy Willson was named Citizen of the Year and Beth Davis received an award for exemplary service to our community. The Kingscote show is an event I never miss, and that was named community event of the year. Last but not least, the 15th Small Islands of the World Conference was accepted by council as Community Project of the Year. I am very blessed to have an amazing electorate with an amazing community.
NorthConnex
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:15): Late last year, with Prime Minister Turnbull, I visited NorthConnex to witness the progress of the most important infrastructure project in my electorate. The visit coincided with the project's first tunnel breakthrough. The residents of Berowra are a step closer to returning Pennant Hills Road to local people so that it's no longer known as the worst road in Australia. Pennant Hills Road is very dangerous. Just this morning, staff in my electorate office woke to find the particular incident of a retaining wall outside my electorate office completely broken as the result of an accident on Pennant Hills Road. On bad days it can take more than an hour to travel the six kilometres from Hornsby to Pennant Hills, and the appalling state of the road means many people use the rat runs, which are clogged up too.
For too long my constituents have had to sit in gridlock for daily errands. Bad traffic congestion means people are stuck in cars and spending less time at home with their families. That's why NorthConnex is so important. It will take 5,000 trucks off Pennant Hills Road every single day and return Pennant Hills Road to local people. December's breakthrough means that we're now less than two years away from reclaiming our road for shopping trips and school drop-offs.
While Berowra residents couldn't be more excited, their enthusiasm is matched only by the enthusiasm of the NorthConnex workers I met. Alongside the Prime Minister, I caught up with many of the 1,500 workers who are proud to see this congestion-busting breakthrough firsthand. NorthConnex will reach its construction peak this year, when there'll be 1,800 to 2,000 workers on site every day. A total of 15,000 people will work on NorthConnex. It's a concrete example of the record jobs growth we've seen under the Turnbull government. At the breakthrough, it was great to see the pride the workers had in NorthConnex, with many snapping selfies and filming the moment the road header, named Michelle, bored through between the southern interchange and the Wilson Road compound. Michelle is one of 20 road headers on site, advancing through the ground at a speed of 350 metres per week.
NorthConnex provides another bonus to our constituents. The spoil from this tunnelling is being excavated and re-used in our community. One of the many flow-on benefits from NorthConnex is the realisation of a vision to help the abandoned Hornsby quarry become a park, a place of relaxation and recreation for the community. More than a million cubic metres of excavated rock and soil from NorthConnex will be used to partially fill the quarry, establishing Hornsby Park as the region's premier new parkland.
Be it cutting the congestion, the extra employment or the promise of parkland, NorthConnex is delivering on multiple fronts for the people of Berowra, and there are broader benefits for the people of New South Wales. Motorists choosing to use NorthConnex will save 15 minutes of travel time and cut 21 sets of traffic lights out of their journey. These motorists include many commuters coming from the Central Coast. Their daily journey will no longer need to include Pennant Hills Road. It means a journey of over 1,000 kilometres, often through urban areas, without ever being held up by a traffic light. People and freight will get to their destinations faster.
Sirius Building
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:18): On 27 January I attended a very sad event at the Sirius building in Millers Point, when the last resident, Myra Demetriou, moved out. This was a very sad ending to the Save Our Sirius campaign, where the local community and people from all over Sydney and New South Wales fought to save this iconic building that is being sold off by the New South Wales state government.
Sirius was built in the 1970s in response to a very strong community campaign against the then government's proposal to knock down historic buildings across The Rocks and Millers Point and replace them with high-rise towers. The Sirius building was supported by the green bans, and it would not have been built except for community and union activism at the time. It was designated by the National Trust in 2014 for its architectural and social significance. Nevertheless, the New South Wales Liberal government has continued with its plan to sell off this iconic building, this icon of brutalist architecture, that has housed working-class people, families and individuals since it was built.
I want to particularly note the role of the union movement in the initial building of this building, the green bans that protected The Rocks at Millers Point from destruction decades ago and the continuing involvement of particularly the MUA and the CFMEU in protecting local residents, decade after decade, from the attempts by state governments to move them out. Millers Point has a proud industrial and maritime history, and unions have worked very hard to defend that legacy. It wasn't just the union movement that was involved in the Save our Sirius campaign. It was so many people from so many walks of life. A recently published book, Sirius: the book, shares this story. I particularly want to mention Barney Gardner, Shaun Carter and John Dunn for their incredible work and for standing up for the people of Millers Point and The Rocks.
Many residents had lived in the building for decades. Residents such as Flo Seckold and Chris Hinkley spoke so movingly about what it meant to them to lose their homes. In particular, I want to mention Myra Demetriou. Myra first moved to Millers Point in 1959. She is 91 years old, legally blind and has been forced out of the home that she knows, the home that she is familiar with. It is a shocking thing to see this community broken up in the way that it has been. Iconic buildings like Sirius, that aren't just known for their architecture but for the role they've played in society, will be lost. (Time expired)
Swan Electorate: Faulkner Park Retirement Estate
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:21): Just before Australia Day, I visited the Faulkner Park Retirement Estate in the suburb of Cloverdale in the electorate of Swan. My wife, Cheryle, is in the chamber today with her brother, Robin Street, for his first visit to parliament, so welcome to parliament, Robin. I hope you enjoy your time here. Cheryle and I joined the Faulkner Park residents for their regular Wednesday morning tea to catch up with everyone. We got to take part in Ray's birthday celebrations and I was very proud to present the park with a new Australian flag that they could fly proudly the following week on our national day, Australia Day, and what a day of celebration it was. Throughout the morning we shared stories. One resident told me he remembered kangaroos hopping around on the land upon which Faulkner Park now sits. We also chatted about a range of matters that were important to residents. A regular theme was the need for shelter at their local bus stop along Belmont Avenue when heading towards the city. The residents explained the difficulty they had in coping with the elements, with the harsh heat of the Perth summers and the wind and rain during winters. A shelter would help many of the residents feel comfortable in taking a bus into the city and to their local shops during such weather.
Another item they raised was the need for a crosswalk from the Belmont Forum to the new Belmont Community Centre to ensure they could walk safely between the two. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be interested to know that last year the coalition government invested $9.675 million into the Belmont Community Centre, which will include a library, a museum and a senior citizens' centre, plus office space for local charities and NGOs to operate in for free. Although construction is in the early stages, I've written to the City of Belmont on behalf of residents to request that the plan for the crossing be included in the overall project. I've also raised the prospect of a bus shelter with the council's CEO in the hope that we are able to make small improvements which will greatly assist the residents of Faulkner Park.
After the visit I was able to provide the residents with copies of the application form for a photo card for older Australians who no longer carry a driver's licence or a passport but still require a form of identification. The photo card is vital for them for identity purposes and is available through the Western Australian Department of Transport. It looks exactly the same as a licence and holds the same number of identification points. It is an ideal form of ID for our older Australians.
I thank the managers of the park for their assistance in organising the visit, Ken and Margaret Durnin. Ken is the social president at the park and facilitated a Q&A for residents. A big thank you also goes to Audrey, Beryl, Laurine and the other residents who made Cheryle and me so welcome on the day. We had a wonderful time with them all and we look forward to catching up with them again soon. And, Bill, enjoy your time in parliament.
Energy
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:24): I recently met with Andrew Vourvahakis, the owner of Andrew's Choice smokehouse, a small business operating in the electorate of Lalor that produces a range of multi-award-winning artisan smallgoods, handcrafted using the finest quality ingredients. Andrew reached out to me in early January, concerned about a proposed 130 per cent price hike in his electricity bill. Unfortunately, Andrew is not alone when it comes to unfair price hikes. Small and large businesses alike are feeling the heat of rising energy and electricity prices in my electorate. I've visited small and large businesses with Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition—Milltech Martin Bright and Victoria Wool Processors, to name a few. Both businesses raised the issue of the extraordinary price hikes that they are facing. The worst part about this is that the Turnbull government have done nothing to relieve energy price increases, costing jobs and businesses in my local community. The government talk a lot about small business, but they're not talking a lot about energy prices and the doors closing because of their lack of action.
When I met with Andrew, I heard in his voice the passion for his craft, the pride he has in his family business, and the responsibility that he said he feels to look after his employees. It warmed my heart. He balances his employees' needs with his family's needs in a way that makes me proud. He wants to make sure that the factory can stay open so his employees can work and earn a living for their families. Andrew proudly employs 13 local people in a full-time capacity. We aren't just talking about increases of a couple of hundred dollars either. We are talking about a 130 per cent price hike for Andrew, who is currently paying $7,000 a month for electricity. The new contract will force him to pay upwards of $15,000 a month!
Andrew is not alone. He mentioned to me that owners of neighbouring factories and manufacturing outfits are now coming out of contract too and are being forced to sign on to similar, unfair deals. He told me that he has been a customer of his energy provider for 11 years and has always paid his bills on time. He told me that he felt that he was being put upon by his energy provider. But Andrew's a fighter, and he went up the chain to get as much of his grievance heard as he could. He has spent over $30,000 to make his business more energy efficient, changing the lighting and thermostats for all the hot water, giving his business an impressive energy rating of 97 per cent. He is now installing solar panels which will cost upwards of $150,000 to mitigate further price hikes.
Energy price hikes such as those Andrew is facing are unsustainable and demonstrate what Labor already knows. We need to be investing in a plan that sees a clean, affordable and reliable energy future based on a mix of generation options that meets the needs of consumers at affordable prices. Labor is for reliable and affordable energy. I will work for business owners like Andrew in my electorate to ensure that they get what they need.
Employment
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:27): I'm very pleased to hear the member for Lalor put forward the case for more baseload generation coal fired power stations, because that is the only way we are going to get electricity prices down in this country.
I come to something I'm very pleased to talk about. In the last 12 months, over 400,000 new jobs have been created in this economy. Think of our great MCG stadium; we could fill every single seat in that stadium four times over and we still couldn't fit in the number of people that have jobs created last year. Most of those jobs—over 300,000 of them—are full-time, and 70 per cent of them have been created in the private sector. In my electorate of Hughes, our unemployment rate is down to just 2.7 per cent. This is a sensational achievement of the coalition government.
How has it been done? It has not been done by the belief that government creates jobs—in fact, the exact opposite. It has been created by the belief that government destroys jobs, and the way that the government actually creates jobs is it gets out of the way and leaves it to the private sector to do so. The theory I think was best explained by President Ronald Reagan—yesterday would have been his 107th birthday—in one of his great quotes:
We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and, ultimately, human fulfilment are created from the bottom up, not the government down.
He said:
Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire post-war period, contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development.
Hear, hear.
But there are some threats to our nation's prosperity on the horizon. Perhaps the greatest threat is the Labor Party's plans for a 50 per cent renewable energy target. We only have to look at the example of South Australia to see what happens when you implement a 50 per cent renewable energy target. The study showed that that has delivered that state the highest electricity prices not just in the nation but in the entire world. With a 50 per cent renewable energy target, in the entire world South Australia now holds that prize. What do we see? Yesterday, on his Facebook page, the member for Port Adelaide wrote, 'South Australia leads the way.' They certainly do! We know what the future is if we copy South Australia. We cannot support Labor's 50 per cent renewable energy target. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:31): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, as one member has previously done, and I'll talk about a couple of his quotes in a minute. The Treasurer announced in last year's budget that the Turnbull government would deliver a financial system that is stronger and safer, a system with consumer oriented outcomes and with healthy competition. Yesterday the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, spoke in the main chamber on this. He said that the Labor Party will be supporting this legislation. He said this is a substantial piece of legislation. We welcome the Labor Party's support. We think it's a great piece of legislation. It's part of our total system to deliver better outcomes for consumers. But he did go on to say in his speech:
On bills like this, the government always seems to have talking points—and perhaps the next honourable member to speak might go there—which say that the previous Labor government did nothing. That's often what's in the talking points.
He was referring to me, as I was in the chamber. He also suggested that I might raise it and be tempted to run the 'fallacious argument' in the chamber that the Labor government did nothing. I assure the member for McMahon that I won't run the fallacious argument that Labor did nothing. He raised it, so I will leave it in his corner. He was the one who said that the Labor government did nothing.
Anyway, we will move on to the bill and go from there. This government was elected on a mandate to ensure the government implements the right measures for a stronger economy that benefits hardworking Australians. This government has made significant changes through the banking package measures introduced last year to ensure the financial sector is protected and to ensure that there is public trust in the stability of our financial system. This government has addressed key shortcomings that have been witnessed internationally through the global financial crisis, and it has legislated to ensure such events are limited in their capacity to damage the strength of our financial system and framework. No economy or financial system can be shielded from all risk. However, the work that this government has done will cement further protections to ensure unnecessary risk does not damage our system.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 continues the work that this government has done to strengthen our financial system. I applaud the Treasurer and the Prime Minister for their hard work in ensuring we have a financial system not only that is strong but where our legislation has adapted to the evolving and always-moving nature of the sector. This bill helps to ensure that APRA can mitigate risks in the non-ADI sector, which in recent years has internationally caused significant crisis in the financial markets when left unchecked, and to codify APRA's powers as a regulator.
The government announced in the 2017-18 budget that they would act to ensure that the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority is able to respond flexibly to financial and housing market developments that pose a risk to financial stability by providing APRA with new powers in respect of the provision of credit by entities that are not authorised deposit-taking institutions, which are known as non-ADI lenders, to complement APRA's existing powers in respect of ADIs. Under schedule 1 of the bill, APRA will gain a new reserve power to make rules surrounding the activities of non-bank lenders, who are referred to as non-ADI lenders.
As a result of the actions taken by APRA, through the use of macro prudential controls, the activity of ADIs is leading to increased lending activity in the sector by non-ADI lenders. As the Treasurer has stated, these powers are purely a reserve power and not a power of continuous regulation. I will talk further on this later in my speech, as it heavily relates to schedule 2 of this bill. Schedule 2 of the bill will give powers to APRA to collect data from non-ADI lenders. This power will allow APRA to monitor the non-ADI sector. The government is of the view that non-ADI lenders are currently not contributing to any financial stability risks in our financial system, but this potential growth in lending by this sector has highlighted an area in which regulators cannot stem any financial stability risks that do appear in the sector.
The intent of this bill is not to put new regulation on non-ADI lenders when the financial sector is growing. The Treasurer highlighted in his speech on the bill that non-ADI lenders help contribute to the competition that is necessary in the lending market and do not rely on the funding sources that come from Australian depositors. It is therefore deemed appropriate to not consistently subject them to prudential supervision by APRA, given that they have no Australian depositors to protect. However, as recent financial history on the global stage has shown us, the non-ADI lending sector is not free from risks that will potentially damage the stability of the financial system. It was seen in other nations where these risks were left to play out. The costs ended up ultimately being borne by the wider community. These powers are to ensure that APRA curtails these risks should they ever arise from this sector. This is just a reserve power that gives APRA another tool in its toolbox to ensure that our financial system is stronger. It will further strengthen the non-ADI sector by signalling to top investors that the sector is stable and regulated when necessary.
The Treasurer has stated many times in the main chamber and outside the chamber that there needs to be a more delicate approach to financial stability risks. These powers give APRA the ability to effectively mitigate risks of our financial system that are particular to the non-ADI lending sector. I stated earlier that this bill is to bring our financial sector into the 21st century, and schedule 3 is one of the most apt points for the need for this bill. Currently, under the Banking Act 1953, ADIs that have capital below $50 million are unable to use the term 'bank'. Schedule 3 of this legislation will remove this frankly outdated regulation, thus allowing all banking businesses that hold an ADI licence to have access to the term 'bank'. At the moment this sets up a cycle whereby new entrants are unable to reach $50 million in capital without using the word 'bank' but are unable to grow without calling themselves a bank. This simple change will further encourage competition to continue in the sector by putting all banking businesses with an ADI licence on the same footing by allowing full use of the term 'bank'. Schedule 3 will ensure that 58 additional ADIs will now be able to use the term 'bank' when describing themselves. As all ADIs are licensed and regulated by APRA and that all depositors and ADIs are guaranteed by the financial claims FCS, it is common sense to allow all ADIs to be considered of equal stature by the community. This schedule does not change any of APRA's prudential regulation, ensuring that the community can continue to have confidence in the safety of their money and the safety of the banking sector.
As the legislation currently stands, the Banking Act does not contain an objects provision. This provision lays out the purpose and the objectives of the act. Schedule 4 of this bill will insert an objects provision into the current Banking Act, which will allow for APRA's roles and responsibilities to be clearly set out and defined. Another part of schedule 4 is to incorporate a reference in the objects provision to the importance of APRA using geographic and sectoral considerations where appropriate. This is a commonsense change, as seen with the significant diversity of our country's markets. APRA already has this power to set prudential measures on geographic or sectoral lanes. However, the government wanted to ensure that there'd be no doubt as to these capabilities that APRA holds.
Codifying APRA's ability to use geographic and sectoral regulations on our financial sectors will ensure that what the Treasurer aptly described as 'a scalpel rather than a chainsaw' is used in managing stability risks that may appear in our nation. The 'objects' provision in the Banking Act will also reflect recent changes this government has made with the introduction of our banking package measures, BEAR, crisis management and the non-ADI lender rules. This is a simple modernisation to ensure our legislation is current and reflective of the changes in the system. It is not just for this legislation but similar changes are being made to the Insurance Act 1973 and the Life Insurance Act 1995 to ensure these acts reflect where we are at.
Schedule 5 amends the National Consumer Protection Act 2009 to implement changes that are fairer for consumers and businesses alike in the credit card market. As a result, competition amongst credit card providers will improve, as will consumer outcomes in the marketplace. At the moment, the credit card market is characterised as having inadequate competition in ongoing interest rates by providers and some consumers who are overborrowing from providers and underrepaying loans. In particular, there is a small group of consumers who frequently incur very high interest rates due to the ill-suited provision of credit cards. This can result in severe financial hardship for those who should not have received a credit card to begin with. Presently credit card providers are only required to determine whether a consumer can meet the minimum repayments when assessing if a consumer can afford a credit limit. This obviously does not take into account those who can meet the minimum repayments but cannot afford repayments significantly higher than the minimum repayment. This can create the aforementioned group of consumers who are ill suited to the provision of credit cards. Furthermore, these consumers can also face hefty barriers when attempting to switch credit cards, which further acts to reduce competition in the marketplace and makes some consumers feel as though they are trapped. In addition, the formulas used in the calculation of the credit card interest rates can be overly complex, confusing and not in line with consumer and community expectations.
Schedule 5 addresses these problematic concerns by implementing significant reforms, including the tightening of responsible lending obligations and requirements to ensure and enshrine in law that credit card providers must assess whether a consumer can repay the full credit limit within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. I have been the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services since the coalition government was returned in 2016, and that particular committee has oversight of ASIC. I'll be questioning ASIC on Friday about these changes to make sure they implement them. This schedule will also prohibit all unsolicited credit limit increase invitations, including in circumstances where a consumer has previously opted in to receive the invitations.
As I have already stated, the formulas used in the calculation of credit card interest rates can be overly complex and confusing. I am pleased that the calculation of interest rates will be simplified and practices such as the backdating of interest will be banned. The ability for consumers to cancel their credit card or lower their credit limit will now also be far easier. Instead of having to visit a physical office to carry out these tasks, we are mandating that credit card providers will have to provide online options for consumers to manage the way they use their credit cards and determine their credit limit. Consumers will benefit tremendously from these reforms, which will reduce the incidence of consumers building up excessive credit card debt and will ensure the calculation of credit card interest rates reflects the expectations the consumer and the community have.
Furthermore, as articulated in my final point about the work schedule 5 will do, consumers will benefit from the ability to manage their credit cards through online options to lower their credit limit or request the cancellation of their card without the rigmarole of having to deal with a provider for an extended period for what is a simple process. Credit card providers are now required to comply with the prohibition of credit card limit increase invitations and have had to do so since 1 January this year. Credit card providers must comply with the other reforms by 1 January 2019.
I'm confident these measures contained in this bill will ensure a more accountable banking system, a banking system which is strong and fair and one which hardworking Australians can rely upon. Again, I appreciate the support of those on the opposite side and look forward to hearing the member for Kingsford Smith's speech. Without further ado, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (10:44): We do support this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. It is a bill that amends APRA's jurisdiction and its powers to make rules with respect to non-ADI lenders, particularly to secure stability and reduce risk in the lending market in Australia.
The importance of financial stability cannot be overestimated. It's critically important to the maintenance of strong economic growth and to the livelihoods and prosperity of all Australians. We saw, in the wake of the global financial crisis, that we did have a stable banking system, with relatively tight lending standards and rules against predatory lending, and Australia and the Australian economy weren't affected as badly as other Western economies. That has a lot to do with the stability of our banking system and the role of organisations like APRA in maintaining that stability.
Consistent with its mandate to promote financial stability, APRA has taken actions to reinforce sound residential mortgage lending practices by authorised deposit-taking institutions. We've seen that some of these actions, particularly around interest-only loans and the amount of capital that ADI lenders have to carry in their loan books, have produced some changes in lending practices throughout Australia. Under the Banking Act, a body corporate that wishes to carry on a banking business in Australia may only do so if APRA has granted an authority to the body corporate for the purposes of carrying on that business. Once authorised by APRA, the body corporate is an ADI and is subject to APRA's prudential requirements and ongoing supervision.
However, there currently exists a regulatory gap where APRA has no ability to manage the financial stability risks that might arise from lending activities of entities that are non-ADIs. Increasingly, we're seeing many Australians turn to many of these organisations through mortgage brokers to access finance, particularly housing finance, in what's been a tight lending market in recent years. The gap potentially undermines the ability of APRA to promote financial stability, as lending practices that APRA has curtailed or prohibited for ADIs may continue to be pursued by non-ADI lenders. The Banking Act will be amended by the passage of this bill to provide APRA with powers to make rules for non-ADI lenders where there is a material risk to the stability of the Australian financial system. These are intended to be reserve powers. APRA will also be able to roll out and to collect data from these entities for the purposes of monitoring risks in the non-ADI lending sector so as to determine when to use these new powers. These rules close a gap which has occurred and exist when APRA restricts the lending activities of ADIs but is unable to affect the activities and the lending practices of non-ADI institutions.
These new powers are proposed in recognition of the fact that APRA does have responsibilities in relation to the stability of the Australian financial system. It's vital for these institutions that they are well resourced to do everything they can to maintain stability in our system, particularly when the government appears to be doing its best to undermine it.
Labor's shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, has been working to highlight areas of our economy where there are unacceptable risks. One such area is in household debt, particularly in household debt related to housing in Australia. We've seen over the recent decade astronomical price increases in the cost of housing, particularly in the Sydney and Melbourne markets. Australians' levels of debt is now 100 per cent higher than the total earnings of all households. Australia has the most generous property tax concessions in the world when it comes particularly to investing in housing. I'm speaking here, of course, of our negative gearing regime, the ability to deduct interest payments on an investment loan for an investment property, and the capital gains tax discount that was introduced by the Howard government—the 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax being paid on the sale of an investment property. When these two reforms were introduced by the Howard government, importantly, in the budgetary context, they weren't funded. In other words, there was no revenue source that offset the reduction in revenue that came about from this additional expenditure associated with these tax concessions. Now that we've got a growing budget deficit—it's almost tripled under this government—we're seeing the folly of those decisions coming home to be borne upon this generation of Australians, because there was no funding source put in place to introduce those very generous tax concessions into the budgetary process. Therefore, it's hardly a surprise that we have one of the highest household leverage rates in the world.
For almost two years, the Labor Party has been calling on the government to bring attention to the risks associated with such high household debt. The Reserve Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Grattan Institute and the government's Financial Systems Inquiry have argued forcefully that tax concessions, such as negative gearing, distort economic decision-making and encourage leverage in the economy. The overwhelming evidence is that those who benefit from those tax concessions are the wealthiest Australians. I think it was confirmed in the newspapers most recently that the top 10 per cent of income earners in this country benefit from 80 per cent of the capital gains tax discount. So, 80 per cent of the capital gains tax discount benefits go to the top 10 per cent of income earners in Australia.
It's a similar figure when it comes to the benefits of negative gearing. It really is the wealthiest Australians who are benefiting from these tax concessions, and the average homeowner, in particular, the average first home owner, bears the cost of that. They are the ones who are paying for the wealthiest Australians to get a tax discount on the sale of investment properties and a tax deduction for the interest payments on loans associated with those investment properties. Those deductions are even available if they're bought within a self-managed super fund as an investment vehicle. This has led to the situation where first home buyers simply can't get into the market. They turn up to auctions on a Saturday, and they're priced out of the market by people who may be negatively gearing their seventh or eighth investment property. The person negatively gearing that property gets more support from the government than the first home buyer to buy their first home. That's simply unacceptable. It's unfair, and it's generating an imbalance in the operation of the housing market and in our lending practices. It's our view that the government must listen to the experts and deal with the tax concessions, such as negative gearing, that are encouraging higher and higher levels of debt and threatening the stability of our financial system.
Schedule 3 of this bill will allow smaller ADIs to use the word bank in their business name. The changes will align community expectations in respect of the use of the word bank with the fact that ADIs are now prudentially supervised by APRA and deposits are covered by the Financial Claims Scheme guarantee.
Schedule 5 of the bill amends the credit act to introduce a number of reforms to improve consumer outcomes under credit card contracts. These reforms include tightening responsible lending obligations, prohibiting credit card providers from offering unsolicited credit limit increases, simplifying the calculation of interest charges and requiring credit card contracts to allow consumers to reduce credit card limits and terminate credit card contracts, including by online means. We all know how difficult it is to cancel a credit card online. In fact, it's virtually impossible. These reforms will make it easier for consumers to do that. The purpose of these amendments is to reduce the likelihood of consumers being granted excessive credit limits, align the way interest is charged with consumers' reasonable expectations and make it easier for consumers to terminate a credit card or reduce a credit limit.
In response to the 2015 Labor-led Senate inquiry, the Treasurer promised to progress changes to credit card laws in May 2016. Unfortunately, the Treasurer appeared to forget about this promise, and it took Labor politically and publicly pushing for these reforms to force them to reannounce the measures in the 2017 budget. Nevertheless, we welcome these measures, which will improve consumer protections in relation to credit cards. They are long overdue, and it's disappointing that consumers will have to wait until 2019 to get most of these new protections in place. I pity those who have been in the debt spiral and in the situation where they couldn't get out of some of these credit contracts in the meantime. Nonetheless, Labor does support this bill and the changes it makes, particularly to the rules around non-ADI lenders and bringing them under the gambit of APRA's supervisory jurisdiction when it comes to prudential regulations and ensuring stability in our lending practices, the lending market and, indeed, the changes to credit contracts, particularly making it easier for people to get out of credit cards that they are getting into a bad situation with. I commend this bill to the chamber.
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (10:55): It is a pleasure to speak on this bill and I will keep my comments relatively brief. I'd like to focus on the part of the bill that seeks to improve consumer protections for banking customers and credit card holders. A government bill, purporting to strengthen consumer protections for financial services for consumers, is, indeed, very welcome, although, I have to confess, a little surprising. I regret if that sounds jaded or cynical but, in my brief time in this place, I haven't seen much evidence of them really putting the rubber to the road and caring terribly much in this area before.
Let's have a look at the time line in relation to that. Firstly, we had a Senate inquiry into credit cards in 2015, which the government finally responded to in May 2016 with a commitment to progress changes to credit card reforms. In May 2016, the government then promised to bring forward draft legislation 'in the near term', although the near term in this case took until August 2017, more than 12 months. Actually, let's go to the nearest number rounding up: it was more than a year and a half after they said they would that we actually saw the ink dry on the draft legislation, and almost three years after the Senate inquiry referral. Let's put this into context, almost three years after the initial referral—we know that many of the consumer protections that are spoken about in this bill won't come into force until 2019.
I was reflecting today that this has an eerily familiar ring to it, in relation to a glacier-like level of progress, insofar as consumer protections actually go. One doesn't need to look any further than the proposed or attempted reforms, in relation to the small amount credit contracts, to see evidence of a snail's pace approach to actually getting something meaningful done to ensure that vulnerable consumers are protected. It's a very similar time line.
The small amount credit reforms or reviews, commonly known as the SACC reforms, are more frequently known in lay terms as payday lenders or rent-to-buy scheme reforms. Whilst building upon the very good work of a former Labor government, there were still, clearly, further improvements that needed to be made as a result of an industry which is fundamentally at risk of not nearly enough regulation in order to protect vulnerable consumers. To their credit, in 2015, the federal government announced a review into the small amount credit contract industry to report back to the government in March 2016, which it did. It was then another six months before—in November 2016—the government came out with its responses in relation to the small amount credit contract review. Its responses were very measured, practical and reasonable. Credit where credit is due, pardon the pun. It just so happened that the government was very content with the recommendations that were contained within the small amount credit contract review.
The reforms went to two things. What we know in relation to payday loans is that, in the financial year 2015-16, over 650,000 people in this country were given payday loans when they could barely afford them. Over two in five of those who were in receipt of payday loans or rent-to-buy schemes were also on the welfare system. There is no doubt that the worst excesses of the onerous interest-free payments and the never-ending story in relation to repayments were hurting those who could ill afford it.
The reforms suggested in the SACC review were to put a cap on the amount that could be taken out of a pay packet or a welfare cheque at any one time and put another cap on the amount they could actually borrow to make sure that these weren't some sort of tragic, never-ending stories resulting in an inevitable debt spiral. They are very sensible, measured and pragmatic approaches to reform to protect vulnerable Australians. You might ask, 'What happened then?' If it sounds too good to be true, it normally is, and this was no exception. Quite frankly, what we saw from November 2016 until almost the present day was a big, fat nothing from this government in relation to progressing these reforms. The reforms had the approval, in principle, of the advocacy groups. The reforms weren't excessive and they represented a reasonable compromise in relation to the various interests of the various stakeholders in this area.
It was left sitting on the desk of the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services for many, many months—around 12 months. There were some very concerning public comments made by her where she said that draft legislation was being prepared, only to be found out by Senator Gallagher, in the other place. According to the department, not a single word had been committed to any draft legislation throughout the course of 2016 and early 2017. What we finally saw in October 2017, under the then Minister for Small Business, Minister McCormack, was some proposed legislation. Again, the proposed legislation was measured. It was put out for consultation with a commitment that it would be introduced before the end of the year. That was not done and we still see, as every day goes by, vulnerable consumers being left in limbo as a result of being trapped in rent-to-buy schemes which have no ending or payday loans which they can ill afford. We see situations where consumers have entered into a contract to buy a fridge for the cost of $350 to keep the household running, only for it to cost them, in a rent-to-buy scheme, over $3,500, repaid over the course of many months, if not years. What we really see are vulnerable consumers being charged up to 800 per cent of the cost of a good in order to pay it off over time.
Just like the SACC reforms—and there'll be more said about those at a different time and in a different place—these consumer protection improvements for credit card holders are also important. Schedule 5 makes changes to credit card laws to improve consumer protections. The changes include tightening responsible lending obligations, prohibiting credit card providers from offering unsolicited credit limit increases, simplifying the calculation of interest charges and requiring credit card contracts to allow consumers to reduce credit limits and terminate credit card contracts, including by online means. I must say that, if anyone has actually attempted to go through the process of cancelling a credit card, I think they would agree—and, boy, do we need instances where we can all agree on something in this place these days—that it is a thousand times harder to cancel a credit card than it is to get one. The hoops that are required to be jumped through at the moment to simply cancel a credit card and not take up another offer really are, in our view, unreasonably burdensome. I'm pleased to say that the changes in this bill do allow consumers a much easier path to make sure that their attempts to break free from the shackle of credit leading into a debt spiral are actually rewarded.
Schedules 1 and 2 of the bill will give APRA the ability to respond to future developments in non-ADI lending, should they pose a risk to financial stability. To protect deposit takers, APRA currently regulates lenders that take in deposits, and this bill gives APRA powers to act in relation to other lenders, should practices or the size on the non-ADI lending sector pose a risk to financial stability in the future. It is important that APRA have appropriate powers to ensure that the stability of the financial system is maintained. We acknowledge the important role that non-bank lenders can also play in terms of competition, including in relation to lending to small businesses, provided those non-bank lenders are subject to appropriate regulatory restraint in order to ensure that those vulnerable businesses and consumers are not otherwise at risk of falling prey to predatory lending practices.
In relation to the credit card reforms and in response to a 2015 Labor-led Senate inquiry, the Treasurer promised in May 2016 to progress changes to credit card laws. Unfortunately, the Treasurer appeared, clearly, to forget about this promise, and it took Labor publicly pushing for these reforms to force him to re-announce the measures in the 2017 budget. We welcome the measures, which will improve consumer protections in relation to credit cards. They are clearly long overdue, and it is disappointing that consumers will have to wait even longer, until 2019, for most of these protections to come into play. What we really see—and what underpins all of the conversations in relation to the banking sector, and what we saw again as recently as today with the release of the draft report of the Productivity Commission in relation to the banking sector—is that it is completely clear that, if we form the view that the best type of disinfectant is a ray of sunshine, what we need more than ever is a robust and effective royal commission in relation to the banking sector.
In order to take the opportunity to focus on the positive parts of 2017, as opposed to those parts where we had our battlelines drawn, let's be frank. A positive part of 2017 was seeing that a royal commission into the banking sector was now up and running. Now, we can have a very robust and heated—and appropriately robust and heated—debate about the terms of reference, in relation to how wide we can cast the net to examine the practices of the banking sector and industry and the practices of the lending sector and industry. It's also an appropriate time to echo the needs of those smaller lenders who provide small amounts of credit to make sure that they are also captured by this commission of inquiry. So it is a good start.
But, quite frankly, two things remain to be seen. Firstly, one can't help but wonder, given the clear, public statements made by this Prime Minister disregarding the need for a royal commission before deciding that political expediency justified actually setting one up, whether it is going to do what it ought to do and what it has the potential to do. That's the first thing. Secondly, we need to make sure it happens as quickly as possible and that all consumers get a chance to put their case to the royal commission. The rubber looks likely to hit the road in 2018. We should be optimistic that progress will be made in relation to protecting consumers in the finance and credit sectors. There is no doubt that, while this is taking much longer than it should, it is nevertheless a good start.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Sitting suspended from 11:10 to 11:33
Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Turnbull Government has failed to implement effective policies in a timely manner to ensure that Australian agriculture is achieving its full potential".
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (11:33): As I've often said in this place and at dozens of community meetings and listening posts all over my electorate, I want to help make my electorate of Fisher the place to be for education, employment and retirement. I want to make sure that our young people can get the very best education, build a rewarding career and retire in comfort and dignity without ever having to move away from the Sunshine Coast. To make that a reality, we need to bring new jobs to our community. As the Sunshine Coast grows, we must diversify and welcome new industries. With the right encouragement, I believe that the defence industry, high-tech manufacturing, health and aged-care services and professional services are all sectors which should be at the heart of our region. We already have businesses in my electorate that are expanding and succeeding in all of those sectors, and I'm doing what I can to encourage them.
However, there is one sector which, with the right support, is sure to be an important part of that future Sunshine Coast economy and which is particularly relevant to the bill before us today. I'm sure that members on all sides of the chamber would agree—those that have been there—that the Sunshine Coast has the best beaches and the best seafood in Australia. I think we all know that. What is less well known is that the Sunshine Coast also has the largest long-line tuna and prawn fishing fleets on the east coast of Australia. You could say that Mooloolaba is our nation's fishing capital. Fishing on the Sunshine Coast generates $42.5 million in direct sales every year, with more than $30 million in exports. Throughout South-East Asia, people are serving Mooloolaba prawns and Coral Sea tuna caught in our local waters. This fishing sector, already substantially successful and not at the mercy of tourism cycles, is exactly the sort of industry we need to encourage on the Sunshine Coast.
In my electorate I've been working hard to do just that. In April last year I showed the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources some of the hardworking fishing businesses that operate out of Mooloolaba and gave them the opportunity to speak to the minister about issues that concern them. Subsequent to that visit, I set up a Fisher Commercial Fishing Industry Council, which is a mouthful, in my electorate to go along with my Defence Industry Council. Members who have heard me speak before will know how committed I am to the promotion of defence industry in Fisher, and my foundation of an equivalent council for the commercial fishing sector is an indication of how important I believe that industry will be to our future.
The Fisher Commercial Fishing Industry Council first met in October last year and is due to meet again in just a few weeks. We've discussed a range of issues, from marine parks to the dredging of the Mooloolah River mouth and also the Mooloolaba Harbour. I want to take this opportunity to thank Heidi and Parvo Walker of Walker Seafoods, Paul and Mike Williams of P & M Williams Enterprises, Jim Utterleymoore of Paddock Wood, Adam Whan of 4 Seas, Johnny Rockliff of Rockliff Seafood, as well as Les Apps and Jason Simpson of Aussie Red Crab, for getting involved in this council. I'd also like to give a good shout-out to David Ellis from Tuna Australia for his advocacy on behalf of these local businesses. It's been fantastic to see how engaged our local fishing industry is and how they share a vision for the future of fishing on the Sunshine Coast.
To ensure that this vision comes to fruition and we build a thriving and expanding fishing industry on the Sunshine Coast, we need the right legislative framework from the federal government. The government has already taken action on one of the important issues raised to me by my council: repairing the disastrous marine parks plan created by Julia Gillard's Labor government and masterminded by the Member for Watson. This increased the size of our marine parks to almost 40 per cent of Commonwealth waters. In July last year, the government acted, releasing a new, smarter marine parks management plan. The size of the parks stays the same under the new plan, ensuring that the environmental outcomes will be world class, but only 20 per cent of the marine parks will be designated green zones, where no fishing can happen. In much of the rest, features on the sea floor will be protected and oil and gas exploration prohibited, but sustainable fishing in the water column will be able to take place. This will halve the economic impact of marine parks on commercial fishers across the country.
However, we now need to deal with another threat to our fishing and seafood industries which risks a larger, more devastating impact. That is the import of contaminated foods and, in particular, the import of contaminated raw foodstuffs. The domestic prawn industry in Australia, including businesses in my own electorate of Fisher, has been worth over $350 million a year to the national economy. Australian businesses catch approximately 25,000 tonnes of prawns every year. However, in November of 2016, an outbreak of white spot disease was found among prawns in seven Queensland farms on the Logan River. By January 2017, the Australian Prawn Farmers Association was suggesting that the outbreak was already affecting the livelihoods of 100 Australian families. The disease spread to wild prawns in Moreton Bay, just south of my electorate, during 2017. It became necessary for the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to impose restrictions on fishing and movement of uncooked prawns from the Moreton Bay region.
The source of the disease was not immediately clear, but Dr Ben Diggles and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources found, after detailed investigation, that the most likely source was infected imported prawns. White spot disease was also found in a high proportion of imported, uncooked prawns bought within 10 kilometres of infected farms. It was necessary for the Director of Biosecurity, with the Deputy Prime Minister's support, to suspend all raw prawn imports to Australia from white-spot-affected countries for six months.
Fortunately for the fishers of my electorate, the electorate of Fisher, the disease was contained before it reached our region. However, for businesses in the Moreton Bay region and on the Logan River, the impact was devastating. At the seven prawn farms on the Logan River, it was necessary to destroy all of their prawns. One of the largest prawn farms in Australia, Gold Coast Marine Aquaculture, lost 25 million black tiger prawns as part of its eradication efforts. Fishing businesses around Moreton Bay were unable to transport and sell their prawns, while businesses like that owned by one of my own constituents, Craig Winkel, were badly impacted by the import ban. Mr Winkel's company, AGFC Group, exported frozen Australian prawns to Vietnam for processing before re-importing them for local sale—a process that became impossible once the ban was in place.
If the disease had spread further, let alone become endemic in the wild, the impact on the fishing industry in my electorate and all over the East Coast could have been catastrophic. As it was, in all, the outbreak cost tens of millions of dollars, if not more. Ridge Partners estimated that the cost to the Logan River region alone was $49½ million. In addition, the Commonwealth invested $20 million in additional financial support for the farmers, while the Queensland government spent more than $50 million in controlling the outbreak and assisting the affected industry.
As of December 2017, there are still prawn farms in the region that are closed and unable to raise stock. The Deputy Prime Minister has taken action to improve Australia's biosecurity system at the border. The government has invested an additional $200 million over four years to strengthen the national biosecurity system through the Agricultural competitiveness white paper. The Commonwealth's total expenditure for biosecurity this financial year amounts to $752.7 million, representing an increase of $149.3 million since the coalition came to government.
In addition, the department is also undertaking a review of the biosecurity risks of, and import conditions for, prawns and prawn products for human consumption. The review will include comprehensive scientific and risk analysis and is expected to take up to two years. However, as Dr Helen Scott-Orr said in her Inspector-General of Biosecurity report into the white spot outbreak: 'Governments alone cannot deliver biosecurity.' We need more than just tighter border controls. We need importers themselves to contribute proactively to ensuring that these threats do not reach our shores. That is where this legislation comes in—not only in the case of seafood, which is so important to my electorate of Fisher, but in all parts of our food import sector. The bill will allow us to go beyond relying on border testing alone. As supply chains become more global, it's necessary for us to reach beyond our borders and satisfy ourselves that food safety is being maintained at every stage of the chain.
This legislation will achieve that by requiring importers to provide robust documentary evidence which shows that they have effective, internationally recognised food-safety controls in place throughout the supply chain. It will also require importers to account for the food's journey to market, both one step back and one step forward in the supply chain. It will give those requirements teeth by ensuring that the government's emergency powers extend to holding food in the process of import at the border when its safety is not certain. It will do this while ensuring that the requirements are not excessively onerous, by recognising the food safety regimes of other countries that are equivalent to our own in their entirety, simplifying import from those safer jurisdictions. This legislation is proportionate, considered and a necessary part of our action to help prevent Australia's biosecurity regime being so damagingly compromised, again, in the future.
I'm delighted to say that, as of December 2017, tens of thousands of samples of wild crabs and prawns have been tested without a case of white spot being identified. We have reason to be cautiously optimistic that once again this outbreak has been controlled. Australia is the only major prawn exporting nation that does not suffer from endemic white spot disease. It's a great example, but it is far from the only unique claim we can make for our world-class agricultural sector and our biosecurity regime. It is a precious legacy which we must pass unspoiled to our children if food production is to be a part of our increasingly prosperous future on the Sunshine Coast and throughout Australia. We need these further controls to secure that legacy and support that growth, and, for that reason, I commend the bill to the House.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (11:47): The Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017 has been sitting on the Notice Paper for some time, so it's good to have the opportunity to finally speak to the bill and to the amendment that's been moved by the member for Hunter. We can also talk more broadly about the importance of biosecurity here in Australia. We hear a lot about the clean, green image of Australia and how Asia and our other trading partners want our products. It's quite often linked to why we had to push through these free trade agreements. However, we have to work hard as a nation, and the government should be held accountable for ensuring that we have the strictest and strongest biosecurity regime in place to ensure that we have a product to sell—to ensure that we have a product we can sell at the top price.
Last week I had the opportunity to be in Tasmania meeting with cherry, berry and apple farmers. We talked about various issues. Of course, as this place knows, because of the activism and speeches from Tasmanian members of parliament, they are confronting a real crisis when it comes to fruit fly in their state. Because of a lax biosecurity, because there has been a breakdown between the state and federal governments and because the state government has not enforced strict biosecurity measures, they now have fruit fly in Tasmania, and it's spreading. It's having a direct impact on those growers.
At the cherry farm we were at they were sorting the cherries. Looking at the cherries they send to China—China does pay top price. I'd never seen cherries that big! We get the little ones here in our supermarkets. China definitely does pay top dollar to get the best berries. But, because of the fruit fly outbreak—the cherry farm is in that zone—China said, 'Your cherries are banned.' So then they had to find a second buyer, and that was Hong Kong. The difference in price between China and Hong Kong, though, was $9 a box. That farmer and that community have just taken a big hit. They did find a buyer, so they're relieved, but, again, $20 to $11 is a big price markdown.
I'm disappointed that we haven't heard any word or any action plan from this government. We've got a new minister who could have started fresh and jumped in. Why isn't there, in this country, an urgent response plan? I'm from central Victoria. We have apple orchards and we have a problem with fruit fly in our part of the world and wouldn't wish it upon anybody. I've heard our small growers raise it at farmers markets: 'The fruit fly this season is particularly bad.' It is just devastating, since we know how bad fruit fly is, to see that the federal government and the state government have not reacted urgently to try and stop it in Tasmania, because Tasmania does have an edge over its competitors when it competes internationally against New Zealand and other countries. The South Australian government have stepped up. They're doing a lot more. They are quite aggressively going after the problem with fruit fly, but we haven't seen the same reaction when it comes to Tasmania. I flew to Tasmania, but my mum took the ferry over. We were just two people entering the state, and we didn't receive any warnings. We weren't told, 'Dump your fruit; we're facing this crisis.' There's been a real lack of reaction from this government, from the new minister and from the state government. We need to work together, collaboratively, with industries, departments, state governments and politicians to protect our biosecurity regime. We need to ensure that it is funded and that we're working closely to stop disease coming into this country.
The amendment before us does strengthen the current risk management approach towards imported foods and it will create better health outcomes for consumers. Labor supports the bill because it recognises that, whilst Australia has a robust imported food safety system, we can always do more to improve it, especially given that Australia is a country that imports great amounts of food from other countries through the trade agreements that I mentioned. We also produce a lot in the way of agriculture, so we do want to stop any kind of cross-contamination and food-borne illnesses that could have serious consequences not just for the health of Australians but for the product that we're growing here in this country. Everybody in this place, in their speeches, has been referring to the hepatitis A outbreak in 2015 linked to the importation of frozen berries. It was a debacle. Over 13 people were hospitalised in relation to that case. Again, the response from the government at the time was slow. It linked it to proper country-of-origin labelling, but, when you picked up a packet of berries, it told you it was from China. It didn't tell you, by the way, 'This product from China might have hep A,' but the product was clearly labelled 'From China'. That didn't affect what happened. It was just a bit of a cop-out—'Look over here'—by the then minister, the member for New England. We need to do better than just say, 'Look at the packet.' We need to ensure that product that is contaminated does not enter our country.
We've had our scares in the pork industry. We've had our scares in the chicken meat industry. In my electorate of Bendigo, a regional electorate, we produce Australian pork and a lot of chicken meat. There are strict importation controls around chicken meat and pork. You cannot import pork on the bone, so the bacon that you eat, the Don-KR Castlemaine bacon that is proudly produced in my electorate, is made from imported pork fillet. That is allowed, and most of it comes from Canada or Europe. However, the hams that you might have had at Christmas from Don's were actually Australian pork—because we have strict rules around the food-borne illnesses that can occur from pork on the bone in this country. That is why we've got that clean, green protection in place.
However, a few years ago there was a situation in which bones and pork were being imported separately and then being put back together here in this country and sold as pork on the bone. You'd think, 'Who would actually go to that extent?' But people did. The collaboration of the Victorian government and the former Labor government quickly stopped that from happening. Stopping that didn't just protect the Australian pork industry; it also protected Australian consumers. Can you imagine what kind of product you could be eating if you brought in the bones in one parcel and the ham in another parcel, put them back together, packaged it all up and tried to sell it? You start to get horrified about what you could be eating.
The chicken industry is another one. We know that poultry has had issues overseas. Because of the biosecurity that we have in place in this country, we've been able to stop avian flu and a lot of those viruses overseas from getting into our chicken meat industry and egg industry. However, these industries consistently raise with me that they are worried that the import food controls around their industries could be weakened. It is an ongoing issue that they have in the back of their minds—that import controls could be relaxed and that their industry could face risk. Pork Australia recently raised with me their concern about partly cooked product. As an example, some of the precooked meals that you might buy at the supermarket or in a restaurant are being produced in the United States and are being packaged up, partly cooked, and put in sauces and sent to this country. They're worried about that food and are calling for it to be investigated.
These are examples of the risks we face in this country, and this is why we need to continue to invest in the research on import food controls. It is why we support the bill that is before us, but we really call upon the government to do more. They have focused on shifting public sector jobs around our country, shifting agencies, which further weakens them and distracts people from what we need to be focused on. We need to make sure we are always doing our utmost in this place to stop unwanted disease coming in, to protect the Australian markets that we have and to help promote our clean, green image.
I have mentioned the problem with raspberries and hep B, and how the minister of the time tried to dismiss it as a food-labelling issue. It was not. I have mentioned the biosecurity fruit fly threat we now have in Tasmania. Still, to this day, we have failed to see a decent action plan from the minister to try to stop the spread of that horrible disease in Tasmania. We have heard from previous speakers concerns about white spot disease and the problems it created in Queensland. The previous speaker was absolutely right: the seafood we have on the Sunshine Coast is world class; it is the best. Again, you won't see those prawns at Coles or Safeway. Unfortunately, in the rest of the country we don't get to benefit from this fabulous seafood that you can buy literally off the boat in Mooloolaba. It goes to those top markets overseas. But that was seriously at risk last year and the year before because of the outbreak of white spot disease.
We can always be faster—and we should be faster—in reacting to these biosecurity threats. We need to acknowledge that we live in a time when people move in and out of country and move across borders. We need to be doing more to educate our public. The fact that today you can get off a boat or a plane in Tasmania and nobody is there to say, 'Dump your fruit,' is a real problem. The fact that we have people coming into our country who don't understand our strict biosecurity rules and are innocently making mistakes is a problem. It is up to government to educate. It is up to government to legislate. It is up to government to make sure there is enough funding in this space so that the inspectors, the public servants and the agencies are able to crack down on these outbreaks when they occur. We can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not going to happen. We need to be ready to react when it does happen.
Whilst Labor support the bill that is before us, it would have been nicer if this had been brought on sooner by the government. It's noncontroversial; it strengthens what we have in place. But, equally, we call upon the government to invest more to make sure we are able to crack down on these issues when they happen.
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (11:59): I also rise to support the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017, in the context that, at the end of the day, food safety is consumer safety. While food safety is not managed with the oversight of the ACCC or the ACL, the Australian Consumer Law, consumers of food—Australian and imported, fresh and processed—obviously want to know that it is safe to eat. It is appropriate that we go to the most recent example that is in the forefront of most consumers' minds when it comes to food. That relates to frozen berries and the hepatitis A scandal in 2015. At the time of these events back in 2015, the member for New England, who was in control of the portfolio, said that the answer to these dilemmas was country-of-origin labelling reform. We welcome the COOL reform and acknowledge the important role that labelling plays in empowering consumers to make choices in the supermarket aisle that are right for them and their families. That is why we supported the competition and consumer amendment country-of-origin labelling legislation when it came to this place shortly after I was appointed to my current role with responsibilities for consumer affairs matters in 2016.
This is not rocket science. Consumers simply want clear, quick, easy to find, easy to understand information about the origin of the products they seek to purchase. Fundamentally, consumers just want to be informed about what it is they're buying, where it's from and what's in it. These, after all, are not unreasonable requests from consumers as we reach a time in the evolution of food consumption where, quite rightly, consumers are concerned about the adverse long-term health impacts of what it is they're eating, particularly in a context where we see an inevitable but tragic march in the current climate towards obesity, particularly in children. Now more than ever, it is important that consumers gain a greater understanding in relation to what it is they're purchasing insofar as food is concerned. That is why country-of-origin labelling and better labels about what is in the food that is being purchased are very helpful. The changes to Australia's country-of-origin labelling arrangements will strengthen the regime and support consumers to make informed choices, which has got to be a good thing regardless of what colour you wear when you come to this place, be it blue, red or some other colour.
Regarding measurement labelling, whilst I think it's good that we see country-of-origin labelling, we're gravely concerned that the government's seeming commitment to clear product labelling does not extend to measurement labelling. Apparently, in response to European cosmetics companies, the government is reviewing whether it should retain the requirement for product measurements—the weight or volume of a product a consumer is purchasing—and whether that should be displayed on the front of a packet. When you go to the shops, thinking that you're going to spend, say, five bucks for a packet of Tim Tams and knowing, at the end of the day, there are going to be 12 Tim Tams in that packet, I'm sure, as consumers, we all know there is nothing worse than finding six months later when you get out your $5 note that you're paying the same amount of money but there are only 10 Tim Tams in your packet. There is nothing worse than being two Tim Tams short of a packet—some have accused some on the other side of, perhaps, a lack of character in that regard—but paying the same price and not knowing about it. Fundamentally, it comes down to a lack of information.
Believe it or not, this is actually because some foreign companies find it inconvenient to change their labelling in the Australian market. For that reason the entire product measurement labelling system is under threat. Consumers across Australia are going to have to spend longer at the supermarket trying to work out whether the purchases they make are subject to that terrible concept of packet shrinkage. Are you getting the same amount of chips in your packet depending upon how much you have to pay?
These things ought to be made clear for consumers. If anything, this government is going the other way.
So I'd urge the minister to listen to the thousands of Australians who have made submissions on behalf of consumers. Don't make it harder for them to know what it is they're buying. And I note that, despite the fact that consultation closed midway through last year, the review is apparently still 'under active consideration'—whatever that means. I'd ask the government exactly when they intend to put consumers' minds at rest about that terrible notion of packet shrinkage. Contrary to what the member for New England said at the time, a label alone does not make a product safe. Actually, it takes a lot more nuance than just telling people not to buy products from a certain country.
There is always more that can be done for product safety. The Australian Consumer Law is deliberately subject to regular review to make sure that it remains robust in the face of changing circumstances and of course new markets. Indeed, the ACL report published in April last year recommended a suite of reforms to the law that were subsequently discussed by federal, state and territory consumer affairs ministers in August last year. The meeting decided to kick the idea of a general safety provision off to more consultation and research, whereas, again, it's a commonsense provision that simply requires manufacturers to take the very reasonable step of ensuring that they have a duty to market products that are inherently safe. You'd think that was already part of the Australian Consumer Law, but it's actually not. We say that it is no quantum leap to ensure that manufacturers of products these days have that obligation in an increasingly busy world where consumers are subject to more and more choice.
As legislators we cannot abrogate our responsibility to keep Australians safe by blaming foreign governments' food safety regimes. So, finally, two years after the frozen berries hepatitis scandal, we actually have a bill that will address the deficiencies in Australia's food importation safety arrangements. That is why Labor welcomes this bill and will support it in the interests of the health and wellbeing of those wonderful Australian consumers.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (12:07): I thank the member for Perth for his contribution, although I do note that he was opining about the number of Tim Tams in a particular packet—he either does a lot of exercise or doesn't consume many Tim Tams! I'm not sure. I, on the other hand, self-evidently consume far too many Tim Tams or, alternatively, don't do enough exercise. But I'll let others make that determination.
I'm equally grateful to hear that the Labor Party supports what is an excellent piece of legislation—nay, an important piece of legislation and I would go so far as to say a critically important piece of legislation—the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill. At the heart of these reforms is ensuring that foods that are imported into this country are safe for consumption. There can be perhaps no more important motivation. Sadly, even in Australia, where we have a robust food safety system, foodborne illnesses remain a serious and costly public health and safety issue for government and for industry. Obviously there are individual consequences of food safety incidents abroad, where the losses fall sharply, but there is also economic loss in terms of reduced consumer confidence.
A little-known fact about my electorate is that we are, by employment numbers, the largest food manufacturing electorate of the 150 divisions in this place. Not only do we grow product in a primary sense but we are at the apex of food processing nationwide, because, thankfully, in very many cases we process that primary product. I have three internationally certified export abattoirs. There are great producers like Blue Lake Milling, producing rolled oats in the upper south-east, and myriad wineries. And, if you're spreading Philly on your toast in the morning, that's come from the south-east of South Australia, from Mount Gambier in particular.
Why might I be referring to these businesses?
I mention them in this context because very many of them use imported ingredients in the food manufacturing processes. They are by no means significant components of their manufacturing business, but in many cases they can't access the ingredients they need in these processing scenarios. They need to be confident that the foods imported under Australia's regulatory framework are safe for consumption, because they are effectively, literally, baked into the products that are then sold on as Australian products. Of course, that brings into question the very real sovereign risk associated with secondary use of an international ingredient, which is then effectively adopted as an Australian product. Should that create problems internationally it would have a devastating effect on the food processing and manufacturing sectors not only in my electorate but nationwide.
The bill provides a range of practical measures designed to strengthen and address the limitations of the current imported food regulatory system. We saw those limitations in 2015. Those of us who were in here, in this place, at that time dealt up close and personal with the hepatitis A outbreak from imported frozen berries, which highlighted those limitations. In response, we're increasing importers' accountability for food safety; we're ensuring they're sourcing safe food; we're improving the ability to monitor and manage new and emerging food safety risks; and we're improving food safety incident responses. We're doing all of that, I'm pleased to say, with a bipartisan approach, for which I congratulate the opposition. We do spend a lot of time in this place arguing the toss, but I'm constantly reminded, as I remind many of my constituents, and particularly younger students that I speak to, about how much of the good work we do in this place we do hand in glove with each other.
It is startling to know that in the financial year ending 30 June 2016 we imported $16 billion worth of food. Of course, in that period we exported a far larger amount—$40 billion worth of food. But we need to ensure that the food imported into our country is safe. There are some implicit undertakings, I think. When people purchase a good they need to know it's safe for consumption and fit for purpose. These regulatory changes improve the robust nature of our food safety system and will go some way to ensuring we have a stronger system. No system, sadly, is foolproof. There always remains a risk, but this process is about mitigating those risks—learning the lessons from the hep A outbreak in 2015 and baking them into a stronger food management system that is based around science, which makes importers into this country accountable for their choices and which ensures the risk of further food-borne illnesses and systemic outbreaks are limited.
In terms of accountability—obviously, ours is a government that believes in individual responsibility—I was very pleased to note that importers will face a full range of penalties on a strict liability basis, including up to 10 years jail and fines greater than $100,000, should they seek to thumb their nose at these regulatory limitations. Obviously we have regulatory responsibility for food that comes over our border and we want to make sure that the regime operates both as a general and specific deterrence: a specific deterrence to individuals who want to do the wrong thing, but a general deterrence to those who might be minded to consider doing the wrong thing and might be dissuaded from doing that based on the changes that we have put in place.
We enjoy a world-class food safety system in Australia. These changes, in short, will strengthen that system, enabling Australians to enjoy a wide range of food from around the world and to do it safely, with confidence. Our food manufacturers will be able to continue to produce high-quality and safe food, which we know is highly sought after internationally. In turn, this will deliver benefits for farmers, for our economy and for our nation as we lead to the export of high-quality, safe food. A strong food safety management system at the border is essential for our nation. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:15): This is a very important matter. To put it in context, I want to read directly from the explanatory memorandum as to why it's important and what this legislation, the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017, proposes to do. It says:
The Bill will:
require documentary evidence from importers to demonstrate that they have effective internationally recognised food safety controls in place throughout the supply chain for the types of food where at border testing alone is insufficient to provide assurance of food safety;
broaden Australia’s emergency powers to allow food to be held at the border where there is uncertainty about the safety of a particular food and where the scientific approach to verify its safety is not established;
provide additional powers to monitor and manage new and emerging risks;
recognise an entire foreign country’s food safety regulatory system where it is equivalent to Australia’s food safety system, which will facilitate less intervention at the border for food products from that country;
align the definition of food with other Commonwealth legislation;
establish differentiated enforcement provisions to enable a graduated approach to non compliance;
require all importers of food to be able to trace food one step forward and one step backward;
I outline those points because I'll come to them later in my comments with respect to this legislation.
As other speakers have quite rightly pointed out, food imports and exports are important to the Australian economy. In 2016-17, Australia imported $16.2 billion of food—indeed, one department says it was $17.5 billion—and we exported $42.4 billion in the same year, so it's a huge economic sector. Australia's largest source countries of food are New Zealand, the USA, China, Thailand and Singapore. I also note that there has been a 10 per cent growth rate over the last five years for imported processed foods—I stress the word 'processed'—and there has been an almost eight per cent increase, as a five-year growth rate, for imported unprocessed foods. I want to differentiate between the two because they are two different types of foods and they're managed in different ways when they come in in terms of the biosecurity risks that they pose. Food importation is a growing business in this country. I understand that there are now some 16,000 registered food importers around the country. They have employees and they have made investments in this country, so it's a huge issue to each of them and, I suspect, to the communities in which they are based.
The other point I note is that inspections are based on what are referred to as perceived risks. If there's a perceived high risk, up to 100 per cent of products are inspected. That risk will reduce over time if there are no anomalies or problems. If it is a low-risk importer then five per cent is inspected, but that will increase if there are breaches. You would think that is the way it ought to be. I also note that Australia has some 15 importers who operate under a food import compliance agreement, which means that they have their own arrangements in place in terms of how they are licensed to operate. Australia is a party to some government-to-government certification agreements. I make those points just to highlight the complexity of how food is managed when it comes into Australia or leaves Australia. Separate to the economic and social importance, we have environmental assets in this country that are estimated to be worth some $6 trillion, and they will possibly be at risk if disease and pest plants come into this country.
Of course, the issue that seems to be at the forefront of most people's minds is the question of public health and safety. I can understand why that is the case, because not only can it cause some serious health consequences to people who consume food that is in some way unfit for human consumption but also once the food is consumed and, therefore, a problem arises, serious trade disagreements between countries can occur as a result of what has happened. The regulation impact statement points out that in 2010—and I think the member for Hunter made this very point—there were 4.1 million episodes of gastrointestinal foodborne illnesses in Australia and some 86 deaths. How many of those were related to imported foods is not known, but what we do know is that not all countries have the robust food inspection and growing regulations that exist in Australia. We know that 33 cases of hepatitis A were associated with frozen berries that were imported from China in 2015. Last year, another four cases were detected from berries that came from the same place—possibly from the same time but had been kept in storage. We also know that in 2013 a 10-year-old boy died in Australia from an allergic reaction to imported food that contained undeclared milk, which the boy happened to be allergic to. I have no doubt that there are many more foodborne illnesses that occur in Australia than those that are recorded or registered.
Contaminated imported agricultural products also pose a very serious and real threat to the Australian agricultural sector and the livelihoods of Australian food growers. We have heard in this debate about the devastation caused to the Queensland prawn industry by white spot disease, which, it is very likely, came from imported prawns. Those losses ran into tens of millions of dollars, and I'm not sure if the problem has been rectified as yet. In recent years, Australia's olive oil industry has been undermined by the importation of low-grade oil that was rejected in Europe and then dumped at cheap prices here in Australia. The oil, which allegedly had been poorly processed and stored, posed both a health risk and an economic risk because it undermined the viability of Australian oil producers here in this country, and I suspect that that is still going on. It may well have been masked in some way at the time that it was raised a few years ago, and there might have been some steps taken to ensure that it doesn't continue, but I suspect that it is still going on. Australia, regrettably, because of the strength of our economy, is all too often seen as a dumping ground for all kinds of products—not only food products—that can't be sold in other parts of the world. More recently, there have been the fruit flies detected on Flinders Island, and that also presents a major and very real threat to Tasmanian farmers. The wellbeing and livelihoods of those farmers, and of whole communities, are at risk because of a fruit fly infestation. That, in turn, reflects on the biosecurity control measures that are in place in Tasmania.
The last point I want to make is that we shouldn't always simply assume that the risks are associated only with the handling, processing and storage of foods. The reality is that there are also real risks associated with where the foods come from in respect of the quality of the water used, the quality of the soil in which those foods are produced and the quality of the atmosphere in the surrounding areas. There are parts of the world that are so polluted but still producing food which is then exported to other parts of the world. If I knew the food was coming from those places, I simply wouldn't consume it. I suppose that's one of the reasons why we wanted to change food-labelling laws in this country, so that at least people can make their own choice about what risks they wish to take, particularly with respect to food. As I say, in some parts of the world, water, land and chemical pollution has reached a crisis point and, again, we should be very cautious about buying food from those places—or, at least, consumers should be aware of where the food has come from.
All of these regulations and the points I made earlier on, outlining the specifics of this bill, are important because they're intended to provide confidence to both the food producers and the consumers in this country. But of course if we have regulations which are not able to be policed and implemented, then they have little value and are of little importance. The critical issue with respect to all of this legislation is ensuring that we provide the right resourcing to the agencies that are expected to enforce the very regulations that arise from this legislation.
I stress that point for this reason. About a year ago, Australian meat exports to China from six different locations were suspended. It wasn't the same producer, either. My understanding—and I rely on my memory here—is that there were two or three different producers involved and six locations. So just get the picture here: different producers in different locations, but, in all of those locations, breaches in the export conditions relating to those products were identified, and the Chinese suspended the import of all that product. When I asked the head of the department, 'Does the department carry any responsibility with respect to those breaches, and did it fall down in the inspection of those products?' the department washed its hands of any responsibility.
How can you have a system in place where breaches are occurring, across different manufacturers and food producers in different locations, and none of the breaches are getting picked up at any point? I suspect they didn't get picked up because, quite frankly, the department is underresourced. That's the real reason. So, whilst the government talks about strengthening our biosecurity arrangements and brings in legislation that would do that, the real question is: what resourcing is being provided simultaneously to enable those regulations to be implemented and enforced? I suspect, not enough, and that's why, perhaps, Tasmania, right now has got a fruit fly problem. I understand that there have also been changes made by the state government in Tasmania to its own primary industries department and the staffing arrangements there.
When we consider the importance of this area to Australia, economically, socially and environmentally, it is indeed an area that should get priority. But the truth of the matter is that it doesn't. I have spoken with people who work in Customs and the department of agriculture over the years, and it concerns me that they are not adequately resourced to do the job that we ask them to do. If they were better resourced then we would have, and could have, a great deal more confidence that the system is working well. It is not the regulations that we need. It is not the laws that we need. It is actually the resourcing, because those officers, those departmental staff that are out there doing their work every day, know exactly what to do and how to do it, and they know what they are looking for. But the problem is that there's too much work on their plate for them to do everything that needs to be done.
I guess the real concern about all of that is that, in most cases, the department is actually financed and funded by the producers and growers themselves, who have to pay for the inspections. So, if that is the case, there seems to be some kind of imbalance between the funding they are receiving, the work they are doing and the processes that we have for them to operate under, because, if it's a system where the producers, growers and exporters are having to pay for the inspections, there is no excuse for not doing more inspections so that the system is more secure for all Australians.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (12:30): I rise to support the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017, as my colleague the member for Makin just did. The bill is designed to make changes to strengthen Australia's current risk-based management approach to food, as we have seen through the many media stories that have been highlighted on the news and everywhere else about all sorts of things going terribly wrong through produce et cetera that's been imported from some overseas countries, and to better protect the health of consumers across Australia. When you think of better protecting the health of consumers, it is paramount that that is done through the systems that we have. When people are sourcing and buying produce they need to know that it's safe, that it's grown in a proper manner and what's in that particular product.
On this side of the House we support the bill because it recognises that, while we have a robust imported food safety system, it needs to be improved. I say that because we have seen some of the outbreaks that have occurred in my own home state. We need to strengthen that system as much as possible so we don't have those media stories that we saw about all sorts of produce that was infected and caused illness in our community.
As a supporter of free but fair trade, I believe that we also need a robust system in place to screen the food we import and ensure we have a level playing field for our producers here in Australia, who go through very stringent regulations to ensure that the food they produce and sell is in accordance to with safety rules.
In 2015 and 2016 Australia imported $16 billion worth of food from every corner in the world. While this figure is great for free trade fundamentalists, it is staggering to think that there were 4.1 million episodes of gastrointestinal food-borne illnesses in Australia and 86 deaths in that period. That is clearly not good enough. One death is not good enough. Recent figures from SA Health, the department in South Australia, show that there were 3,150 notifications of food-borne illnesses in 2014. This includes notifications of 10 food-borne diseases under surveillance in South Australia, including salmonella, listeriosis and even typhoid, from foods that were purchased by consumers in South Australia. Some of the others were E. coli infection, and we heard about hepatitis A infection. That's just to mention a few.
In 2015, the well-publicised outbreak of hepatitis A which was linked to imported frozen berries at the time exposed limitations of the current imported food regulatory system. We heard the member for Makin mention this particular outbreak of hepatitis A. Staggeringly, these same 2015 contaminated berries made a cameo resurgence last year. They were again linked to new cases of hepatitis A, including in Victoria, Queensland and again in South Australia, my own home state. This is two years later. They weren't picked up, for some reason. Even though we went through this process two years earlier, they weren't picked up. I suspect the lack of resources to the departments and agencies that patrol had something to do with that. We need to be better resourced. It's one thing to come up with legislation, and it's a good thing that we're strengthening our laws, but we need the resources in the departments, the ministries and the agencies that ensure all of this works. I suspect that that hasn't been done. In fact, I'd be really interested to see what outsourcing has been done, as we have seen in ministries across the board where a lot of outsourcing has been happening and where there have been cuts to public servants. This was two years later.
In addition to this being a food safety concern, as I said, we also need a level playing field for our own producers here in Australia. Unfortunately, the production of food grown and/or processed overseas can often occur in substandard conditions, where they don't have the regulations we have, and this causes problems. Of course, conditions and regulations that would not be tolerated in Australia can send innocent Australian consumers of overseas products to hospital. Why should a parent feel like they're playing Russian roulette with their families', their children's and their loved ones' health every time they visit the supermarket and buy substandard food produced overseas that the government says is okay when we can produce a lot of those products here in our very own backyards with proper regulations and safety? It's clear that they shouldn't feel this way. The economic costs of foodborne illness in Australia are substantial. From doctor visits to time off work and treatment, the reported cost is $1.2 billion per year. This puts pressure on our hospitals, doctors' surgeries, schools and families.
While I support the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill, it's disappointing that it took the government this long to put the legislation forward. Previously, the current Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources took aim at the importing countries and turned his attention to country-of-origin labelling, which was a good thing because consumers need to know where their products are sourced, where they were produced and where they have come from, but we also needed to strengthen Australia's imported food regulatory system. I'm pleased this is finally happening. Back then, the Deputy Prime Minister said he believed there should be clear country-of-origin labelling on all imported foods so consumers knew exactly where a product was coming from, and we agree with that. He said there was a review currently underway and that he would be pushing for proper labelling to be implemented as quickly as possible. Of course, we should have proper country-of-origin labelling. That's a good thing. But maybe other countries around the world are not as concerned as we are about food safety, so we need to seek out—even the Deputy Prime Minister said this back then—locally made products. I support that and encourage all Australians to buy Australian and save themselves a pain in the guts—literally, in some cases.
I think what this government should have done was ensure that this particular legislation came in a lot quicker. Perhaps we would not have had the contaminated frozen berries, which were clearly labelled with country of origin. While the new country-of-origin labelling laws have strengthened consumers' ability to know where products have come from, they didn't do much to ensure that we didn't have these outbreaks again.
The discussion of strengthening our imported food regulatory system started back in 2015 when the Deputy Prime Minister chose to criticise our trading partners, throwing the foreign minister under the bus instead of looking at regulations to strengthen the regulatory systems. We need the government to look at dodgy overseas practices. Particular producers in my electorate have shown me different things that they produce and then they've shown me inferior products that come out marked 'Australian standard' but are truly under standard compared to our own products.
That brings me to my electorate and to the retail success of some of the good retailers in my electorate who are selling good Australian produced products—for example, Romeo's Foodland in South Australia, a great retail group which has gone from strength to strength, and Drakes Supermarkets, another great retail supermarket chain that sources and promotes Australian products. They're both great companies, employing many hundreds of South Australians. Romeo's and Drakes have outlets across Adelaide, including my own local grocery, Foodland at Torrensville, where I source a lot of my family's food. We have been shopping there for many years and in Glenelg South, where Romeo's has an outlet as well.
There is absolutely no substitute for produce bought, supplied, resourced and grown here by local communities. Local producers and suppliers know their reputations are on the line. They know that if they do something wrong it will affect their entire business across the state or across the nation. They also provide local jobs, which are needed desperately in Australia. Local jobs are a benefit of local produce. Providing local jobs is something that can't be outsourced to another country. If you're producing it here, selling it here, growing supermarket businesses and retail outlets, those jobs certainly can't be outsourced to another country, and that is a good thing. Compare this to produce that's shipped in from overseas, sold to the consumer weeks, and sometimes months or even years, after it was harvested, with zero accountability—a product often produced in a country thousands of miles away, where they have completely different regulations to us and a different understanding of food safety.
Another reason that I support this bill is the legislative requirement for documentary evidence from importers to demonstrate they have effective internationally-recognised food safety controls in place—not just for their product but throughout the whole supply chain. As we know, border testing alone is insufficient to provide assurance of food safety. This bill also broadens Australia's emergency powers to allow food to be held at the border. If there is a suspicion of something not quite right, if there's uncertainty about the safety of a particular food, or if the scientific approach to verify its safety hasn't been established, the bill will allow us to hold the food at the border. The bill will provide additional powers to monitor and manage new and emerging risks.
In closing, I would like to say that even though I don't agree with the time it has taken to get this before the House, I do agree with this legislation. It should have been done a lot quicker, but it's an important step forward in keeping our communities safer from food-borne illnesses and diseases, and that should be the case. We should know where the food's coming from—where it's been sourced. Consumers need to feel safe. I think this bill is a step forward in keeping our communities safer.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (12:42): Labor will be supporting the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017 because it will strengthen Australia's risk based management approach of imported food. We will also support this bill because it gives greater clarity to consumers as to where their food comes from.
Australian consumers increasingly want to know the country of origin of their food. I am sure consumers across Australia will welcome the mandatory nature of these changes from July this year. For many years, consumer groups like Choice have been campaigning for improved country-of-origin labelling for food. Previous Choice surveys have shown that up to 84 per cent of respondents said that it was crucial or very important for consumers to be able to confidently identify if food was grown in Australia. I also welcome the labelling methodology of a kangaroo and bar chart graphic. It is simple and easily understood, clearly setting out whether the food was grown or made in Australia and what percentage of ingredients in the food or product was Australian grown. There is, however, additional concern that, for products that are not wholly Australian, this methodology does not clearly state from where any additional ingredients come from. I know this is a complex area but believe we should continue to investigate options to give consumers increased confidence in knowing where the food they are eating comes from.
As I have mentioned, a key reason for this legislation is to strengthen our risk based management approach for imported food. When we are talking about imported food, it goes hand in glove that as a country we need a robust biosecurity system. A robust biosecurity system is very topical in my state of Tasmania, where we are currently seeing an outbreak of fruit fly. The Tasmanian fruit industry is worth almost $200 million and employs hundreds of people across the state. The Tasmanian Premier must take responsibility for this emergency. In his first budget, he cut $1 million from Tasmania's biosecurity budget. Documents obtained under right to information show this cut contributed to $1.9 million budget deficit in Biosecurity Tasmania as of August 2015.
The same documents from the Biosecurity Tasmania managers meeting show that the secretary and deputy secretary of that department were adamant they expected Biosecurity Tasmania to have a balanced budget by the end of the 2015-16 year. It is alarming that in the discussion points from this meeting it states, 'Biosecurity Tasmania has already been severely cut in the past and there is little room for further cuts without severely impacting on program areas.' The same points also state, 'Demands from programs exceed Biosecurity's capacity, so prioritisation and reduction of program activity will need to be undertaken.' Clearly, because of the Premier's cuts Biosecurity Tasmania has been forced to make some difficult decisions, and it now seems the chickens have come home to roost. Over the past four years we have seen unacceptable biosecurity breaches in Tasmania, including Norwegian salmon on supermarket shelves, blueberry rust and Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome.
Tasmania has seen a significant growth in visitors, which is fantastic, but the Liberal Premier and his government have not only cut Biosecurity Tasmania's funding but they are also guilty of being asleep at the wheel, leaving our state exposed. What is even worse is that now, in the middle of this emergency, people are still arriving in Tasmania by sea and air without any biosecurity checks. This is despite a promise by the state Liberals in 2015 that every flight in and out of Hobart and Launceston would be met by a sniffer dog. I note there are other ports in Tasmania, in my electorate, that do not have any biosecurity checks. On this count alone, the Liberals have failed.
Our hardworking local farmers are now paying the price for state and federal Liberal incompetence. The highly valuable Chinese market is now refusing to take fruit from the control zone. Taiwan has also locked out Tasmanian fruit. Sassafras Orchards, which I visited last week with the member for Bendigo, is now forced to sell their cherries into Hong Kong at half the price they would have received by sending them to China. Such is the incompetence of the Liberal government that 40 kilograms of fresh fruit from within the control zone has been found in an external local market. Strawberries were also seized off the main street of Burnie just this week. On top of this, local cherry tomato producers Marcus and Ellie Brandsema from Turners Beach have been forced to dump 300 kilos of cherry tomatoes. Local producers are facing the real prospect of going out of business.
These are the costs of the Liberals' biosecurity failure for our farmers. We need an aggressive biosecurity system in Tasmania. Our economy depends on it. We do not have it. The national and international damage to Tasmania's reputation as an island state relatively pest and disease free is immeasurable, yet even now the Premier won't take responsibility for this mess. The state Liberals' incompetence is also matched by a failure to act from this Prime Minister and his former agriculture minister. At a national level this 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. I have some hope that the new minister, the member for Maranoa, will get this right and take Tasmania's and Australia's biosecurity seriously. I will always have an open invitation for the minister to come to Tasmania. Tasmanian and Australian farmers deserve better.
While we are talking about country-of-origin labelling for food and imported food products, I would like to take some time to talk about a key priority for Tasmania's seafood industry. Tasmania is the largest producer of seafood by value in the nation and is a supplier of high-quality fresh and frozen seafood produce to both domestic and valuable export markets, principally in South-East Asia. The Tasmanian seafood industry comprises three primary sectors: wild catch, aquaculture and seafood processing. The key wild catch fisheries within Tasmania are abalone, commercial dive such as urchins, periwinkle, clams and seaweed, giant crab, rock lobster, scalefish and scallops. The key aquaculture sectors are farmed abalone, Atlantic salmon, ocean trout and shellfish—Pacific oysters and lovely mussels. Tasmania's seafood is nationally and internationally renowned as being of the highest quality. The latest data from the Tasmania Agri-food ScoreCard shows that the Tasmanian seafood industry is worth almost a billion dollars to the state economy. This report showed an increase in the value of the sector across both wild-capture fisheries and aquaculture. The industry value grew by 10.4 per cent, to a value of $0.9 billion dollars. Across all sectors, wild-caught and aquaculture, there has been an increase in the industry's value. A Tasmanian seafood industry workforce profile completed only last year by the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council states that the industry directly supports over 3,400 full-time equivalent positions. It is estimated that indirect seafood-related employment in Tasmania is in the vicinity of 17,000 people.
As you can see, the Tasmanian seafood industry is a rapidly growing high-value sector for the state and Australia, but the industry is quite-rightly concerned that a quality Tasmanian seafood product has to compete in restaurants, hotels and supermarkets alongside a cheaper imported product. I would also argue that this is a lower-quality product. We don't know, really, where it comes from, what food safety standards have been in place and whether it has been sustainably harvested. I acknowledge that Australia is a net importer of seafood and that there will always be a demand for an imported product, but surely the Tasmanian and Australian seafood industry should be able to give consumers the choice—so they know the country of origin of their seafood. Consumers do know that for fresh seafood with mandatory labelling laws in place, but they don't have that information for cooked or pre-prepared seafood. There is clearly strong consumer demand for this information. The Marine Stewardship Council 2016 annual report found that 69 per cent of Australian seafood consumers state they want to know that the fish they buy can be traced back to known and trusted sources. It's clear to the supply chain and the retailers that consumers want to know more about what they are buying.
To this end, I welcome the bipartisan work commenced last year by the former Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science to convene a working group to consider options for improving consumer access to seafood country-of-origin labelling. The Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council is a very strong supporter of country-of-origin labelling for seafood in this process. It is a process I also supported, and I was pleased to be able to facilitate the Tasmanian industry being part of it. It is also worth noting that mandatory country-of-origin seafood labelling has been in effect in the Northern Territory since 2008. Information gathered in the 2017 Seafood origin working group paper states:
… under the NT licence system, consumers prefer local NT seafood over Australian seafood, which is in turn preferred over imports.
But that is not to say that, in our shops, restaurants and hotels, consumers should not be given the ability to make a choice; they should: a choice between a quality Tasmanian or Australian product or, if they choose, a lower-value imported product. To this end, I would like to call upon the new Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation, Senator the Hon. Zed Seselja, to support a trial in Tasmania of the mandatory labelling of seafood in the food services sector. Tasmania is the most ideal place for this trial.
Information gathered from a Tasmanian trial, along with that from the Northern Territory, would help to inform the debate on a national level. I recognise that there will be concerns from the food services sector but, at the end of the day, if Tasmania can demonstrate that mandatory labelling can be cost effective and at the same time achieve higher returns for our local industry and a social and economic benefit for my state, then, in my view, it is well worth doing. Equally, I have no doubt that Tasmanian consumers would be very strong supporters of this trial. As the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has walked into the room—congratulations on your appointment—I, as I said before, formally invite the minister to Tasmania at any time to see the wonderful things we are doing not only in our seafood and aquaculture sector but also across our agricultural sector broadly.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (12:54): The Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017 is another example of the government's commitment to best practice regulation as it strengthens Australia's world-class food safety management system whilst reducing the regulatory burden for compliant food importers. The bill modernises Australia's approach to food safety risks associated with imported food, adapting to changes in how food is traded around the globe whilst carefully balancing the risks associated with the food. Practical measures to strengthen the management of imported food safety risks being introduced in the bill will increase importers' accountability for food safety, increase importers sourcing safe food, improve monitoring and management of new and emerging food safety risks and improve incident response.
To address concerns for particular types of food where at-border testing alone is insufficient to assure safety, the bill will introduce a requirement for importers to have documentary evidence to demonstrate that effective food safety controls are in place throughout the supply chain to ensure food is safe for human consumption. Responsiveness to food safety incidents will be improved by allowing earlier intervention where there are reasonable grounds to believe that food may pose a serious risk to human health and that the food safety issue is unconfirmed or there is no reliable test that can be applied to detect the food safety hazard. To ensure a proportionate response, particular characteristics of a food can be targeted, avoiding unnecessary holding of unaffected foods.
The bill provides for the recognition of a foreign country's food safety regulatory system based on equivalence with Australia's food safety regulatory system. Food imported from a country assessed as having an equivalent food safety regulatory system to Australia's may be subject to reduced or minimal at-border food inspections, except where there is evidence of noncompliance or a food safety risk. This will reduce border intervention for food importers. Additionally, this ensures border intervention activities are not aimed unnecessarily at safe food. The bill provides a modern compliance framework with new and improved tools to enable more effective and efficient targeting of noncompliant food and importer behaviour. These tools also provide greater flexibility and more opportunity to encourage noncompliant food importers to become compliant. This is achieved through the introduction of a range of penalties that can be applied proportionately, consistently and based on the level of risk posed by the offence committed. New preventative control measures will be introduced to ensure that food is traceable and can be efficiently and effectively recalled during a food incident.
It is essential for Australia to meet domestic obligations to enable effective and efficient operation of the Australian food safety management system in its protection of human health. In addition, Australia is committed to promoting the global protection of human health and, as a signatory to international treaties, is obliged to share information with its international partners where a food poses a serious risk to human health. To support these obligations, the bill enables the appropriate use and disclosure of information consistent with these obligations. The bill removes confusing or outdated provisions and improves consistency across the statute book, making it easier for businesses and individuals to understand their obligations.
Overall, the bill will strengthen Australia's imported food safety management system, enabling Australians to continue to enjoy a wide range of high-quality and safe food from around the world; ensure Australian food manufacturers will be able to continue to source high-quality ingredients to produce world-class food, highly sought after both in Australia and around the world; and support Australia's role as a good global citizen by improving Australia's ability to work proactively with trading partners in ensuring the safety of food across the globe. I table a replacement explanatory memorandum.
I note the opposition's amendments but oppose them. Every level of government supports the hardworking men and women of Australia's farms and rural industries. Australia's total agricultural production is $63.4 billion, up 30 per cent from when we came into office. The value of agricultural exports is up 27 per cent since we came to office. We're investing in the future of agriculture by delivering on initiatives in the Agricultural competitiveness white paper to help make our farm enterprises stronger and more resilient. We're creating the environment for improved prices for farm commodities. Farmers are enjoying high prices for cattle, sheep and wool. Last year's winter grain crop was a bumper harvest and dairy prices are improving from last year's slump. We've recently signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, have delivered free trade agreements with three key Asian markets, China, Japan and Korea, and also signed the Peru FTA. These agreements will help open the door to export more produce around the world.
The coalition is delivering accelerated depreciation for fencing, water reticulation and fodder storage; a new country-of-origin food labelling system; $250 million a year for farm business concessional loans—more than $796 million of those loans have been approved for over 1,400 farmers; $180.5 million for Rural Research and Development for Profit; $30.8 million to break down technical barriers in trade; $25.8 million from 2015-16 to 2018-19 for pest and weed and animal control; improved certainty for farmers reliant on irrigation from a healthy and sustainable Murray-Darling system; oversight by having established the ACCC agricultural compliance and enforcement unit and appointed an Agriculture Commissioner; a strengthened Farm Management Deposits Scheme to help farmers put away money in good years; and $13.8 million for farm cooperatives in a collaboration pilot project.
By contrast, the Labor Party has no vision for agriculture and, when last in office, halved the agricultural budget. Agriculture industries have responded positively to the agreements government has achieved with Australia's major trading partners. This bill will strengthen the commitment that this government has made to agriculture moving forward.
Question negatived.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 16:0 1
CONDOLENCES
Gordon, Mr Michael
Consideration resumed.
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (16:01): I was just talking to the member for McMillan about this. The irony, if there can be irony about someone who was so beloved and that passed last Saturday, is so rich, as I said to a journalist on the day that this terrible tragedy occurred. I was talking about the fact that there was a book which I had borrowed, a book that was published in 1993, Paul Keating: A Question of Leadership, by Michael Gordon about Paul Keating. The opening chapter is about a guy called Dr Chris Higgins, who was a former Treasury official. It's an incredibly powerful opening chapter. It explains the mindset of the then Treasurer before he gave the very famous Press Club speech.
In the first chapter, in the first couple of pages, he talks about an incredibly well-loved Treasury official who was 47 who competed in an event and then collapsed and died of a heart attack. It's hard to precisely put my feelings into words when this book had such a powerful impact on me in deciding whether or not to pursue an active political career. The fact that that very first stanza talks about a beloved individual—and Keating was very moved by what had happened to Dr Higgins, and I think that powered a lot of his reaction and then the subsequent Press Club speech, the 'Placido Domingo' speech—gives Michael's passing additional context as well.
Discussing it, for me personally, it's like a chapter of your life closing. That's how it felt when I got the news, sometime after Michael's tragic passing, about Michael, because he'd been so much a part of the fabric of my political existence for such a long period of time. I didn't know him deeply well as a person, as the member for McMillan did, quite clearly, but I knew him as a profoundly ethical, moral and deep-thinking journalist and someone who, when you thought about the reportage of the media and the direction that it takes, you would look at and say, 'This guy is an example of what the best was in journalism.' Michael really did represent journalism at its finest, in my view. He was independent. He was a critical thinker. He was a warm—I think that was powered by his personality—generous, decent human being. You could have disagreements with him but, you knew at the end of those glasses when you were having a conversation about life or politics or the events of the day, there was a deeply thoughtful, profoundly intelligent human being, and a really good person.
I think for journalists that now live in the ebb and flow of the journalistic environment, particularly the current crop of journalists, they should reflect closely about how parliament and parliamentarians have universally responded with grief about the loss of Michael. I think if some of them reflected—and this is no reflection on any journalist individually—on some journalists now, I wonder what sort of reaction there would be. That's not to denigrate journalists that are here now, but Michael serves as a beacon, I think, for journalists. He serves in the proudest traditions of journalism. I think that in my dealings with him—and others will talk at far greater length than I about their dealings—you really knew what you said to the guy at the end of the phone or sitting across from you was going to be held in confidence, even if he disagreed with you.
If you read the biography of Keating, Michael's not an uncritical assessor of the former Prime Minister and Treasurer. If you look, he breathed through the gift of how he used the English language. He breathed life into a story. You could really touch it. One of the great things, I think, about this book and the quality of his journalism was he breathed life into it. We can often be seen to be as acting as caricatures, as cartoon characters or as silhouettes. What Michael did for me in terms of Paul Keating was breathe life into him. He wasn't just this saturnine figure; he was a living, breathing person. If you look at the tributes when he first wrote this book in 1993, his first iteration before Keating won the Prime Ministership in 1993, you have people like Laurie Oakes, Neville Wran, Janine Haines, John Button and Michelle Grattan singing his praises in terms of how he wrote this book.
I really do regret having to stand up here today because it's a reminder of the ephemeral, transitory nature of our lives. It also reminds us that if there are people we haven't spoken to—I saw that Michael had stepped aside and retired from The Age, and it was always one of those things where I thought he's a really interesting person to catch up. I really would have wanted to talk to him. He's one of those journalists that you wanted to. He had such depth and breadth as a human being. He was a real person, and the more I learn about him in his passing. I was watching him on Facebook—I was a Facebook friend—about the work he was doing in Africa. There was a living, breathing, decent human being you wanted to catch up with and have a coffee with. I hadn't had a chance to extend my commiserations, from my perspective, about his leaving because I think the press gallery was the poorer for him retiring from The Age, but I never did. I was always going to. In fact, without making too much of a big deal, I thought that week before—you put it on your list of things to do: 'I'll give him a call'; I should have chased him up; I wanted to say I really missed him.
When I explained to him a number of years ago about how influential the book was, it was hard to get a copy so I chanced my arm. Joking about it I asked, 'You wouldn't have a copy?' For weeks he went searching for a copy he'd had in his archive, and then he turned up one day and said, 'I got a copy for you.' No big deal, no great fuss, just the man, his normal humble self. He gave me the book—it's a different iteration to this one—and he'd signed it, 'To a true believer'. I've still got that, and I posted it on the day that I found that Michael had passed. It was just the way he did it; he didn't have to do it and there was nothing in it for him but it was just a mark of the man, the calibre of the person. Like I said, the deepest regret I have is that I didn't have the chance to tell him what I thought about him as a journalist, so I'm going to use the parliamentary record. Michael: you were an incredibly fine human being. You were the best of what journalists represent. I was incredibly sad to see that you had stepped away, stepped aside and retired. I was excited about the fact that you were going to have a new chapter of your life open, and I'm absolutely crushed that that hasn't happened, and I think we are all the worse for it.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (16:10): The passing of Michael Gordon saw Australia lose a first-class journalist and a first-class human being. Our thoughts go out to his wife, Robyn, his children, Scott and Sarah, son-in-law, James, and grandson, Harry.
I knew Michael through my time working in this place, both as a member and with ministers past, and he was a constituent in Kooyong. He was thoroughly decent, eternally brave, always resourceful, passionate and deeply modest. I join with my colleagues who have paid tribute in this place to his achievements as a journalist. In 2005, he was the Australian Journalist of the Year, as awarded by the Melbourne Press Club. He had a long career as a journalist, having begun at The Age as a cadet in 1973. Last year, the Walkley Foundation's Outstanding Contribution to Journalism award was made to him, and the foundation wrote:
The overwhelming impression Gordon left—with both his byline and his presence—was of decency, integrity, fairness and balance. Even when he was working at the epicentre of influence, he held himself outside the media pack.
It's that notion of independence and having his own moral compass, which he followed throughout his long career, that has left an indelible mark on all those who worked with him and met with him.
His coverage of issues reflected not only matters of public importance but those which he cared about deeply. I'm talking particularly about Indigenous issues, asylum seekers and humanitarian issues. It's fair to say that he would have had a lot of differences with members of parliament, from both the government and the opposition benches, but they respected him. Bruce Guthrie, who wrote so warmly about his long relationship with Michael Gordon, said:
It was no surprise that key players on all sides of politics talked to him willingly. His sources were impeccable because he treated them impeccably.
I think that is Michael Gordon to a tee.
He had a broad range of interests: surfing, music and, of course, the Hawthorn Football Club. I know that he has left many friends behind, and we have heard passionately from them in the House, including from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, but also from the member for McMillan, who knew him so very well. At this time, I pay my respects to Michael Gordon for a big life, for a good life and for one in which he made a real difference to people's lives. He will be sorely missed but remembered fondly and respectfully.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:15): It's an honour to participate in this condolence motion for the former Age journalist Michael Gordon and to follow the contributions made by the member for Holt and my friend the minister, the member for Kooyong. It's also an honour to participate in a debate that has already been contributed to by my friend the member for McMillan, who knew Michael Gordon so well, and will be contributed to later by the member for Scullin and the member for Hotham, who I know was a family friend of many years standing of Michael Gordon.
Shakespeare wrote, 'The breaking of so great a thing should make a greater crack.' That was how I felt when I heard that Michael Gordon had died at the weekend. I didn't know Michael Gordon very well and I certainly didn't know him as well as the member for McMillan or the member for Hotham, but, in the short time I knew Michael, I had an enormous respect for him and for his writing. At a time when so many members of the fourth estate are interested only in the horserace—who's up and who's down—and not really interested in the fundamental work that we as parliamentarians do here in making policy and scrutinising that policy, Michael Gordon carved out a very different space in the press gallery of this nation. Michael's particular interests were migration policy, particularly issues to do with offshore detention and refugees, and Indigenous policy.
It was in the space of Indigenous policy that I first got to know Michael. Before I became a member of parliament in 2014, with my friend Damien Freeman I published a pamphlet called The Australian Declaration of Recognition. The declaration was launched by Noel Pearson in the Dixson Room of the State Library of New South Wales. For anyone who's been involved in publishing and trying to contribute ideas to the public debate, it can sometimes seem like a glamorous thing, but when you're a one- or two-man band, or two-person band, you end up having to do all the administrative tasks yourself. So I was setting up stands, putting up banners and the like, and I suddenly received a call on my phone about 10 minutes before we were due to start from Michael, saying that he'd heard about the publication that we had done and that he wanted to have a chat with me about it. Being perhaps too overly Sydney-centric in my views, I had failed to properly reach out to Michael and discuss the proposal with him, but, unlike a lot of journalists, he wasn't fazed that he'd been left out in some way. In fact, he wanted to follow the story. He was interested in the issue, he was interested in our take on this particular aspect of the Indigenous recognition debate and he wrote up the launch and the publication and what we were trying to do very fairly.
Later, when I came here to the parliament, he sat down with me after my maiden speech and talked about some of the issues around mental health, about which I have a very deep interest, and around suicide prevention. He was interested in those issues, as he was in Indigenous recognition. He was interested in looking for people in this place who were interested in making a contribution in the areas which aren't perhaps always the central focus of the daily argy-bargy of politics. I found him a person that one could talk to, a person that you could get a fair hearing from and a person who was genuinely interested in the details. That really marked him out as a very different sort of journalist.
Michael had a long career in journalism. In fact, he was from a distinguished family of journalists. Thirty-seven years at The Age was an incredible devotion to that newspaper. The member for Holt talked about the book that Michael Gordon wrote about Paul Keating. I remember being shocked sitting in the chamber and hearing that Michael was due to leave the parliament when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made speeches about him last year. I think it was at about the same time as the press gallery annual midwinter dinner. That night I had the privilege of sitting with the member for Hotham and she said to me, 'Michael speaks very well of you.' I said: 'I had no idea he was going. Do you think he's here tonight?' She said, 'He's absolutely here.' So I went over to Michael and I said: 'I'm so sorry that you're leaving. I'm so sorry the country will be the poorer for you not being here.' Michael teared up. It was very clear to me that he didn't want to necessarily leave this place and that he loved being a journalist in the Australian parliamentary press gallery. I was interested, as the member for Holt said, in catching up with Michael in Melbourne. I was interested in seeing what he would do in the next phase of his career. The events of last weekend cut that so short.
I want to finish my remarks today with a quote from the Walkley award citation for his outstanding contribution to journalism, which he won in 2017, because I think it sums up very much the legacy of this very fine Australian. The citation says:
The overwhelming impression Gordon left—with both his byline and his presence—was of decency, integrity, fairness and balance. Even when he was working at the epicentre of influence, he held himself outside the media pack. And his compassion shone through as he fought to give voice to the underdogs. He was the first Australian journalist to gain access to the detention centre on Nauru; he spent time in remote communities listening to our first peoples, and won a Walkley for his coverage of Indigenous affairs in 2003.
To his family—his wife, Robyn, his children, Scott and Sarah, his son-in-law, James, and his grandson, Harry—I offer my sincere condolences on the passing of a great Australian.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:21): I rise to make a brief contribution to this condolence debate to pay tribute to a man I knew a little and admired a lot. It's fitting that Michael Gordon's big but all-too-brief life is honoured in our parliament. This is, as it should be—and it's fitting also that such beautiful tributes were paid to him by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House—a moment of kindness and decency in tribute to a man of extraordinary kindness and decency. I associate myself also with some wonderful speeches made just now, particularly those of the member for Berowra, the member for Holt, the member for Fenner and, of course, the member for Kooyong, and I look forward to hearing the contribution of the member for McMillan and also that of my friend the member for Hotham, for whom the man who is the subject of this debate means so much.
I've been reading the tributes to Michael made by those who knew him best. I can't really add to the personal stories or share the all-too-evident pain of loss. That's not my place, as it wasn't my privilege to know Michael that well. But I was privileged to know him. We shared a concern for our nation's attitude to those forced to ask us for help and we spoke often about the challenges of the politics and policy of asylum. The questions he asked me showed his compassion, his professionalism and his complete lack of cynicism. After every discussion we had, I found myself thinking at length about what he had said and whether I was doing as I should have been, and asking myself how I could do my job and discharge my responsibilities in a way that could meet the bar his expectations set. I've been thinking about that this week too, and I suspect I am not alone in asking hard questions of myself in light of these tragic events.
As a political journalist, Michael wrote a large part of our recent past into history. He told the stories of this place and many other places in a way that inspired and engaged. He brought others along with him in his evident love of his profession and what it meant and why it mattered. Matt Dawson, who works with me, told me this morning of how welcoming and encouraging Michael had been to him on arrival in the gallery—one story, one part of a legacy which is monumental. On leaving the gallery, Michael went to work in support of the McKinnon Prize in Political Leadership, amongst some other things. It strikes me that, beyond any words which are spoken today, those of us who have public office could honour him by doing our jobs more in the way he approached his—with kindness and concern for others, with generosity which is fit for our purpose, and without cynicism.
All my best thoughts go to his family and those very many people who loved him dearly. Vale.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:24): I thank the members who have participated in this condolence motion and recognise the unusual nature of it. I spoke to Russell Barton, a very close friend of Michael's, this morning, and he summed it up beautifully for me. He said that he and his wife were in disbelief—'in disbelief'. And I suppose—I know—a lot of us are feeling exactly that. So, in that space of disbelief, and what's happened since Saturday morning, and the tributes that have been given so wonderfully regarding Michael, I suppose my address will be directed at young Harry, who Michael was, I think, so, so excited about.
I speak today because I wanted to get out something that I had written—a tribute to Michael when he left the parliament. And I don't think the Prime Minister will mind me telling tales. I wrote this:
Have you ever been hugged by Michael? I have!
I had just delivered an address that began.
"I did not choose this path. This path chose me."
And I walked into my office—in a state of high emotion, I might add—and Michael threw his arms around me. He must have run to my office. He was standing waiting for me.
Halfway through the hug…….I realised I was being hugged by the generations of those who believed in the right, the fair, the truth.
The hug that lingers has its DNA reproduced in the articles that flow out of the pen that creates the picture and emotions that linger on after reading. Michael's best compliment.
Early AM one Sunday I was on the ride-on; the phone rings; it's Malcolm! 'Had to ring you about this announcement before Micky Gordon could get to you.' I said, 'It won't be much of an announcement then, Malcolm, will it?' Well, it wasn't much of an announcement. I was so glad that the threat was that Micky Gordon would get to me first. And then I wished Michael all the best on his adventure, which I knew it would be after he left The Age, and that was just beginning to build.
You know, I will be personal for a moment, because, with Michael, if you knew him, you knew that every contact, every greeting, was a great moment in time; every homecoming, especially to Robyn, was an event; and every personal interaction was a reason for a hug—no matter where you were, public or non-public, a hug. A light went out in Michael, from my point of view—and, yes, it's true; we did speak, probably, weekly; yes, it's true. And a light went out in him when Harry died, but it was kindled to a re-blaze when young Harry was born. Michael was beside himself with young Harry. Life was good; life was expansive. As I said the other day, he was about to work on a project with John Howard and Julia Gillard, and he was like a kid with a new toy, flying.
I learned something else from Russell Barton today that you need to know too. He said to me that, when they used to run marathons together and the marathon finished in the run-up to Parliament House, Michael would make his biggest effort in that last run-up, after all the kilometres. I said to Russell, 'Well, he'd have been competitive on Saturday. There'd have been somebody in that race that he wanted to beat—no doubt about it—and he was within sight of the shoreline, within sight of the finish, so he'd have been doing the Michael Gordon final, final push.'
When you talk about Michael's writing, which I loved, Michael's dad wrote the book about the Hawthorn Football Club The Hard Way, and Michael followed up with Playing to Win. So much has been said in the tributes on Michael, there's nothing more I can add to the brilliance of what those tributes have been. But one thing that has come to my knowledge is this. In Harry's book The Hard Way, Sandy Ferguson, who was the president and doctor of the Hawthorn Football Club, was quoted as saying, 'If you embrace Hawthorn, Hawthorn will embrace you.' Michael carried on by writing the book Playing To Win. The great Hawthorn coach, Parkin, talked the other day about his sacking and how engaging with Michael was able to bring him to a place where he got the message that he had to go at that time. So, if you embrace Hawthorn, Hawthorn will embrace you. I'd say, 'If you embraced Michael, Michael would embrace you.' He would not only embrace you but hug you in a way that you knew you couldn't let go until you got the message—the hug that resonates.
I just want to finish with this. At Harry's funeral, somebody said to me: 'You know, journalism's just a craft. You can learn it.' I said: 'I disagree. It's a gift. You've got it or you haven't got it.' Michael Gordon had it in spades. So, that's your grandfather, young Harry—he had his talent in spades.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (16:31): Vale Michael Gordon, a giant of Australian journalism, a father, a husband, a grandfather, a dear friend of mine and a mentor to so many of us here in Parliament House. His passing is a devastating loss to the gallery and, I believe, to our democracy. Michael was an incredible man. I can't recall knowing someone more respectful, polite, dignified and humble. It's especially noteworthy to have these qualities in someone who spent so much time around politics. Disrespect and ego are contagious diseases in this building, but Michael never fell foul of either.
I've noticed that, since his death, an incredibly large number of people have come forward saying they had a special and deep relationship with Michael. I felt that I had a special and deep relationship with him and I've been surprised and delighted to see that so many others in this building got to share in his amazing wisdom. Michael was a journalist in the old mould. His model of journalism was better for the country. I don't think you'd find anyone in the press gallery who'd disagree with that. It was the kind of journalism that stuck with a story, that genuinely held decision-makers to account and that provided deep analysis of the issues that made readers and their leaders think better and more clearly about national problems.
Journalism has moved on from there and that's a very sad thing. Many of us here saw Mickey struggle to give the qualities of courage and integrity to the story in the new media environment. He continued with the style and type of journalism that may not serve as particularly good click bait, but it was something that the public and all of us desperately needed more of: tempered, nuanced, balanced, fair and thoughtful words.
This week I sat in Labor's first nations' caucus amongst some of the leading Indigenous thinkers in our country. I'm lucky to sit with them in the Labor caucus. We were discussing what I regard as one of the most critical and important issues that our country faces: how we close the gap with our Indigenous brothers and sisters. I thought: 'Who is going to report on these issues now in the way that Michael would have reported on them? Who is going to take the time to really understand this, visit the first nations leaders and speak with their communities to understand what's actually happening on the ground? Who is going to follow this story for decades to really understand the ups and downs?' I don't think we'll ever see an Australian journalist get as across these issues as the way Michael Gordon did.
I saw Michael about two months ago. We caught up for lunch and he was entering a new phase. I heard the member for McMillan talking about how excited he was about Michael's new project. It's ironic that it was after leaving Fairfax that he looked like he was going to be able to get back to that type of journalism—the long-form type of journalism that so much sustained him.
I want Robyn, Scott and Sarah to know that much of our last conversation was about them and his excitement about what was happening in their lives and the fact that, after his retirement from The Age, for the first time he was really getting to share so much more of their lives with them—spending time with Robyn at their holiday house; Sarah having recently become a mum and all the time he was spending with little Harry; and his incredible visit to Sierra Leone with Scotty. He was so proud of his kids and he talked about them all the time.
I know I will miss his presence in the press gallery as he watched over question time. I used to look up at his face and I could see we were disappointing him every single day, but seeing him up there made me strive to do what we're trying to do better. I think others felt the same. There he sat, quietly, seriously, watching over affairs, seeing the parliament through its ups and downs over many decades and writing calm, serious, real journalism about the most important issues that confront our country. We are going to miss Michael Gordon, the man, and also his contribution to public life in this country. May he rest in peace.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) (16:35): For the benefit of Michael's family and descendants, I encourage them to take comfort in the honour that this house has bestowed upon him and the heartfelt memories that have been shared by both sides equally. Those comments haven't been shared by members of this house just for the benefit of each other; they've been shared for the benefit of the nation and for our country. We are all the beneficiaries of his work. We flatter him because his life was inviting. He was nonhostile and always seemed to be fair. I think the best way we can honour Michael is—it's so comforting to hear an accolade that we give to a journalist, but if we could have given that to him while he was here he would have blushed—maybe we can find those amongst us in the journalistic core that are also worthy of accolade and give that to them personally so they hear it. They will blush, but, when you do it, you will be honouring Michael. Vale.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give this bill a second reading as:
(1) this significant structural deterioration in the Budget is unaffordable;
(2) the Government has prioritised giving millionaires and big business tax cuts, and raising income taxes on workers earning above $21,000, over saving penalty rates; and
(3) the Government has failed to deliver any economic leadership"
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:37): Before I begin on the bill in question, I want to associate myself with the remarks from the chair just now. I know that's the feeling of members across this parliament. The people who spoke on this motion were some of the best people in the parliament, in my view, including the member for McMillan and especially the member for Hotham. That is a tribute to Mickey Gordon. Given how we in this building loved him, I can only imagine what his family must be going through at this point and the scale of their loss. I just want to record my thoughts on that matter and thank the chair for that opportunity.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): The chamber thanks you for your contribution.
Mr WATTS: On the bill in question, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017, Labor will not be supporting this $65 billion tax cut for business. That is not news to anyone who has been following the political debate in recent times. But it is worth noting in the chamber here today the symbolic value of this bill because it highlights the Turnbull government's ideological blinkers. It's worth noting its lack of economic courage and imagination, lack of vision, lack of leadership and lack of foresight for the kind of country that we want Australia to be. This bill represents the wrong plan for Australia, the wrong plan for economic growth, the wrong plan for wages growth, the wrong plan for fighting inequality, the wrong plan for increasing Australia's competitiveness, the wrong plan for working Australians and, certainly, the wrong plan for budget repair.
It's the wrong plan for economic growth. We know this because of the government's own figures. Since this bill was first introduced—the whole package of the bill, not just the bits that the government has been able to get through the parliament so far—the economic growth dividend of this bill is one per cent of economic growth in 20 years time. We ought to fight for every scrap of economic growth we can in this parliament. Economic growth benefits all of us—it helps us to fight inequality and helps us to increase our quality of life—but what a paltry return for a $65 billion unfunded cost to the budget. I highlight that because the opportunity cost of this bill is significant. This is $65 billion that could be invested in the education of Australia's children, something that would have a dividend for economic growth. This is $65 billion that could be invested in the skills of the Australian workforce. This is $65 billion that could be invested in infrastructure, increasing the productivity of the engines of economic growth in our nation, cities—the 0.2 per cent of Australia's landmass that currently produce around 80 per cent of Australia's economic activity.
Indeed, nearly 70 per cent of Australian GDP is generated within the cities of Sydney and Melbourne. The productivity of these areas is crucial to the success of our national economy. Despite this, we see no vision from the Turnbull government for investment in urban infrastructure. The Deputy Prime Minister, the new Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, has outlined no vision for the role of his portfolio in doing this. Certainly, the New South Wales Deputy Prime Minister, taking a similar approach to the New South Wales Prime Minister, is not allocating funding for Victoria. Victoria has 9.7 per cent of federal infrastructure budget spending despite having 25 per cent of the population and being the growth engine for Australia in both population and economic terms. Where is this government's vision for infrastructure investment in Victoria?
This bill is also the wrong plan for wages. As the Reserve Bank governor has noted, a lack of wage growth in this country is the real crisis in our economy. Over the last 10 years, real labour productivity grew by 20 per cent, while real wages grew by only six per cent. Wages share of GDP is well below the average of the last 50 years. Wages growth is the lowest since we started collecting records. If that's not bad enough, the Reserve Bank has warned workers to expect stubbornly low wage growth for some time yet. Despite the Treasurer's claims of better days to come—the cheque's in the mail—workers are not seeing that impact on the hip pocket.
There's plenty that this government could be doing to help wages growth in this country. They could be looking at boosting the minimum wage, changing the rules for enterprise bargaining or taking an aim at provisions which allow employers to terminate workplace agreements and force workers back toward minimums. There's plenty more that could be done in reducing the gender pay gap, making industrial relations more user-friendly for small businesses, bringing intractable workplace disputes and negotiations to an end, making the Fair Work Commission easier to access, providing job pathways for people with disabilities, tackling discrimination of older workers so that they stay in the workforce and earn wages for longer, and helping younger people enter it in the first place. These are things that the government could be doing to increase wages growth, not cutting company taxes.
We know that corporate tax cuts do not directly lead to wages growth. As Michael Keating AC, the former head of the departments of Employment, Industrial Relations, Finance, and Prime Minister and Cabinet of the great Labor governments of the eighties and early nineties, recently wrote:
Despite the evidence of the last few decades that 'trickle-down' economics doesn't work, big business and its apologists in the media are calling for a company tax cut to stimulate investment. The reality, however, is that increased investment is principally in response to increasing aggregate demand. The required increase in aggregate demand in turn requires less inequality and faster wage growth, not bigger business subsidies.
What Michael Keating is saying in that statement is that companies don't invest because of the scale of their profits; they invest because of the scale of their markets. They invest when they think they'll earn a quid. That's the challenge that we need to be fighting. If we want to increase the size of markets in Australia, we have to tackle inequality; we have to tackle the spending capacity of middle- and working-class Australians.
This bill is the wrong plan for tackling inequality in Australia. Inequality is at a 75-year high in Australia. Over the last four decades, real wages growth of the top 10 per cent of income earners has grown by 72 per cent, more than three times the rate of increase for real wages than that of the bottom 10 per cent of income earners.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16 : 44 to 17 : 08
Mr WATTS: As I was saying, inequality in Australia is at 75-year highs, and over the last decade real wages for the top 10 per cent of income earners have grown by 72 per cent, which is three times the rate of increase in real wages for the bottom 10 per cent. If we want to do something about increasing aggregate demand in the Australian economy, we need to do something about inequality. We need to do something about the spending capacity of working-class and middle-class Australians.
And it's not just me saying that. It is economic heavyweights around the world who have said that inequality has gotten so far out of kilter that it's now acting as a brake on growth around the world. Indeed, Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has argued that we can no longer talk about rising inequality and sluggish economic recovery as separate phenomena; they are in fact intertwined. Inequality stifles, restrains and holds back growth. The IMF has agreed, finding:
If the income share of the top 20 percent increases by 1 percentage point—
and this is what's happening in Australia—
GDP growth is actually 0.08 percentage point lower in the following five years, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. Instead, a similar increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with 0.38 percentage point higher growth.
The OECD echoes these points, noting that:
Rising inequality by 3 Gini points, that is the average increase recorded in the OECD over the past two decades, would drag down economic growth by 0.35 percentage point per year for 25 years: a cumulated loss in GDP at the end of the period of 8.5 per cent.
This belies the ideological blinkers of the Prime Minister's claims that Labor is not interested in promoting economic growth. We are interested in promoting economic growth; we just have a different view. We have a clear-eyed view of the problems confronting the Australian economy and the handbrake of increasing inequality on economic growth in Australia. The Prime Minister cannot see that in the modern international economy, if you want to do something about growth, you start by doing something about inequality—a better spread of wealth, putting the middle and working class in a better position to spend and increasing aggregate demand, something that will flow through to workers' wages. We know that inequality is not inevitable. While they are macro trends, policy interventions can do something about it. The problem is that the corporate tax cuts before the House pour fuel on the fire; they make things worse. The Treasurer, noted economic expert, told AM yesterday that his corporate tax cuts would 'help resolve inequality issues' like they're some kind of magical economic elixir. It's not medicine; it's fuel for the fires of growing inequality.
To understand why this is, let's look at how economic forecasters have responded to Donald Trump's tax cuts. CNBC's Fed survey asked US forecasters how US corporations will respond to the reduction in the US corporate rate. Just 12 per cent of respondents believed that it would be spent on increased wages, the position of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. A little more, 23 per cent, thought that it would be spent on capex, investing in the capital of companies; 13 per cent thought it would be spent on debt recovery, ultimately increasing the profit take; and 36 per cent thought it would be spent on share buybacks and special dividends. These forecasters believe that the bulk of that tax cut will go to increasing returns on capital. I'll give you a tip: that won't make inequality any better. Overall, just eight per cent of the 40 respondents, who include economists, strategists and fund managers, say that workers would benefit the most from Donald Trump's tax cuts. Fifty-four per cent said that it would be shareholders and executives. That is the impact of these bills on inequality.
At the same time, we note that the government is increasing the Medicare levy for seven million Australian workers. The Prime Minister will increase taxes for everyone earning over $21,000 a year—of course, that won't be the case for millionaires, though; they lost their deficit reduction levy, meaning that they will get a tax cut of about $21,000 a year, but let's just park that. These measures mean that tax increases under this government will be worn by police, firemen, tradesmen and teachers, while there will be tax cuts for millionaires, multinational corporations and our banks.
One of the refrains that we've heard is that these measures are necessary because we need to follow Donald Trump's America. Because they have reduced their corporate tax cut, the competitiveness of the Australian economy demands that we follow suit. Let's look at our competitiveness as an investment destination. We know that company tax is far from a determinative factor in investment decisions, otherwise you wouldn't be seeing the volume of investment in Australia from jurisdictions with lower corporate tax rates than we have in Australia today. It would not make sense if it was a determinative factor that jurisdictions with lower corporate tax rates invested in Australia, with a higher corporate tax rate. We know that company tax is just one of a range of considerations that drive investment decisions. Corporates want to know whether they can make a return, and that depends on the location of resources needed to make a return, natural and people resources, the strength of institutions to protect returns, security of investment, the skills of the domestic population, macroeconomic conditions and stability of the policy and regulatory environment. You can imagine the kinds of policy interventions that the government might be considering, taking those elements into consideration, to attract more foreign investment to Australia. A competent government would be a good start. A government that wasn't constantly flip-flopping and backflipping, as is characteristic of the Turnbull government, would probably help. A stable energy policy that wasn't driven by the troglodytes on the coalition back bench would also make a contribution.
But, even if we take tax alone, let's look at how Australia compares with the US. The US Congressional Budget Office prepared analysis to inform debate in the United States in March 2017 titled International comparisons of corporate income tax rates. They noted that the corporate statutory tax rate is one of many features in the tax system that influence corporate behaviour but, importantly, noted:
Because of their broader scope, average and effective corporate tax rates are better indicators of a company's incentives to invest in a particular country than is the statutory corporate tax rate.
This report didn't just look at the nominal rate; it also looked at what was actually paid. That analysis, which is free for everyone to see, put Australia's rate in the lower half of the G20. The paper pointed out that, while the headline rate was 30 per cent in 2012, the average rate for Australia was 17 per cent and the effective rate was 10.4 per cent. Indeed, the report used Australia as an example of why the US needed to cut its corporate tax rate. Finally, this bill before the chamber is the wrong plan for budget repair in Australia.
The provisions in this bill represent a significant structural deterioration of the budget over the medium term. Remember the glory days of the Abbott opposition when they had a shadow minister for debt reduction? On the watch of the current Deputy Prime Minister and former member Andrew Robb—remember the debt and deficit disaster, the budget emergency and the debt truck?—the deficit has blown out and debt has crashed through the half-a-trillion-dollar tax mark. They like to say we need to cut corporate taxes because that's what the Keating government did. Well, the Keating government didn't do unfunded corporate tax rate cuts. They did the hard work of funding it. One of the more annoying features of being a Labor MP these days is being lectured about the legacy of the Hawke-Keating government by people who have no idea what that legacy is.
We should recall that when the Hawke-Keating government reduced corporate taxes they introduced a fringe benefits tax, they introduced a capital gains tax and they put an end to the bottom-of-the-harbour lurks and perks. They funded the corporate tax cut. In response to that, an editorial in The Australian in 1985 attacked Labor for class warfare and said the tax package which cut corporate taxes represented a bias against business. The Business Council of Australia labelled that government 'anti-business'. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Labor are committed to a taxation policy that doesn't do unfunded corporate tax cuts. We've looked at whether there are inefficiencies in the taxation system—negative gearing, super concessions and the taxation treatment of trusts—and we've acted responsibly on those fronts. We have a plan for the Australian economy, not an ideological blinker.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (17:16): I'm glad to speak on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017, and I oppose the tax cuts for big business. Labor oppose the tax cuts to big business because they are irresponsible. In doing that we are trying to save the government from itself. We're trying to save Australian households, especially low- and middle-income Australians, from bearing the burden of this revenue giveaway. That is what it is. I agree with everything the member for Gellibrand just said. The government is proposing to give away $65 billion. It's going to create a structural hole in the budget. It hasn't done anything to repair that. It's not part of some comprehensive set of tax measures that produces some sort of fiscal balance or some balance in terms of its effect across the broader economy—the real economy and its effect on households. That point was made on Q&A the other night by Heather Ridout in saying that this is really a crude tax giveaway. It does not fit into any kind of larger plan for the Australian economy.
These tax cuts will result in current and future revenue burdens falling elsewhere. That's been the case whenever these things have been done. The OECD has observed that, where corporate tax rates have been cut, consumption taxes, VATs and GSTs inevitably go up to make up for the hole that's created in taking away revenue that is rightly, fairly and equitably derived from big businesses. Those taxes—VATs, GSTs and consumption taxes—are regressive taxes, and they fall hardest on the poor; they fall hardest on those who have the least. I note that the Tax Justice Network has said in relation to corporate tax cuts, particularly for big business and multinationals, that:
Governments make up shortfalls [from corporation tax cuts] by levying higher taxes on other, less wealthy sections of society, or by cutting back on essential public services, so tax 'competition' boosts inequality and deprivation.
A number of Labor speakers have made that point.
If you look at the proposed tax cuts, if you were a person sitting at their kitchen table or driving their car or in their workplace and you were looking at the issue of giving away corporate tax cuts, particularly to big business and multinationals, you would be sensible to back up a step. You'd be sensible to ask: what exactly is the problem that a massive and unprecedented tax giveaway to big business is trying to address?
What is the burning need to take $65 billion of revenue, to create that kind of structural hole in the budget, to create that burden that will fall elsewhere in Australian society?
I think most people have a sense of the challenges we face. We know that workers' share of national income is at a record low. We have falling real wages. We have rising inequality. Just to give a sense of how bad inequality in Australia has become, the top one per cent of Australians in terms of wealth and assets now own more than the bottom 70 per cent altogether. There's no way you can look at that kind of outcome and say that this is a system that's working, that this is a system that is delivering outcomes as it was designed to or as would be fair. That kind of outcome is not the result of a fair system; it's not even the result of a meritocracy. It is a grossly distorted system in which one per cent of Australians can own more than the bottom 70 per cent put together. Yet this kind of measure will only exacerbate that.
So, we have rising inequality. We have record underemployment. And under this government—despite, as the member for Gellibrand pointed out, making their run for government on the basis of an apparent debt emergency—debt has more than doubled, to now more than $500 billion. What's more, there's evidence of significant tax avoidance, especially for large multinationals. If you take all those challenges together, how on earth would any reasonable person think that the solution would be to cut corporate taxes for the biggest and most profitable companies in Australia, including a significant number of foreign multinational companies? How on earth could you think that giving away $65 billion of precious revenue, which we need for essential services, at a time when the budget is already significantly in the red, and cutting penalty rates to low-income workers and increasing the tax for people under $87,000 could possibly be regarded as the way to address those challenges?
Any sensible person knows that when you forgo taxes it's the same from a budgetary position as spending money. Any time you give up revenue, you want to do so on the basis that there's a very sound reason for doing that. You're giving away public funds, and in this case you're creating a hole that will endure into the future. The government has said that they have good reason for doing that, and I think that's the kind of thing everyone who comes and participates in this debate ought to consider. What we already know about the $65 billion giveaway is that it will increase government debt. We know that when you give away $65 billion to big companies—multinationals—that is funding that cannot be used for health and education, for crisis housing and homelessness support services, or for the social safety welfare net.
That's the first thing. That's a given. But the government said, 'We've got to do this, because it's the only way we can stimulate economic growth, it's the only way we can create jobs and it's the only way we can get a higher investment flow into Australia.' There is no basis for any of those three arguments. The government hasn't put anything forward on that front. There is no independent economic analysis. There are no economic commentators who will back in those claims.
Are big businesses struggling under the existing tax burden? Is there any evidence that big businesses in Australia are at the point of collapse? There isn't. We're living at a time when large businesses are making record profits. There is no evidence of widespread business struggles or difficulties. There's in fact the reverse. There's evidence that large companies in particular are doing very well. They're not sharing that success. There's no flowthrough to wages. But they're certainly recording record profits. We know from the 2015 ATO data in relation to this question of whether business is labouring under some inordinate tax burden that one in three private companies paid no tax in that relevant tax year. One in four public corporate entities paid no tax, one in three private companies and one in four public companies paid no tax and fully half of the foreign companies operating in Australia, by some accounting method or other, had no taxable income.
We also know, as the member for Gellibrand and a number of other Labor people in this debate have pointed out, that companies in Australia couldn't possibly complain about the tax burden they face if they had regard for the tax burden that exists in comparable economies. The relevant comparator group is the G20. We are the 13th-largest economy in the world. We sit in that group of developed economies that make up the 20 largest economies. When the US Congressional Budget Office undertook its analysis, it showed that Australia is average or even below average in terms of tax burden. That judgement does not take account of the impact of our innovative dividend imputation arrangements, which are calculated to have the effect of removing taxable burden by about a third. So there's no case to be made that the Australian taxation position with respect to companies is unduly or comparatively burdensome. There's no evidence that companies are desperate for a tax cut. There's just nothing of that kind.
That obviously goes to the question about whether or not making this kind of tax giveaway is necessary or even assists in relation to investor flows. Again, there's no evidence of that. Companies invest in Australia for a whole range of reasons. In some cases, if you think about the resources that Australia holds, they invest here because we have those resources. Someone doesn't come here to look at an LNG play or to consider developing an iron ore resource because of the tax position. They come here because we are blessed to have a lot of natural riches in those ways. A more responsible government would be ensuring that the general economic framework in this country supports new kinds of investment in the future—investment in things like renewable energy. That would be a much more prudent way of spending scarce government funds than giving away $65 billion at a stroke.
There's no evidence that tax cuts, particularly tax cuts of this exorbitant magnitude, do anything much for growth. The government's own numbers indicate that the tax cuts would deliver about one per cent of growth over 20 years. When you break that down to the benefit for individual households, it's about 0.1 per cent for households. A 0.1 per cent increase in the position of households is about the same as what happens on a monthly basis in the economy as it is. These tax cuts will not deliver growth. It is a sad indictment of a government whose mantra was jobs and growth that the best they can do, the only thing they can do, is to give $65 billion away to big multinationals that are making record profits and doing very well, thank you. There's certainly no evidence that tax cuts lead to jobs, and since this proposition was put forward I haven't read a single thing about this. I've read countless articles and pieces of analysis that say the opposite. There is simply no evidence that tax cuts, in and of themselves, create jobs. Lots of things do create jobs. Investment in infrastructure creates jobs. Investment in education creates jobs. Investment in health services creates jobs. Those things are all demonstrably true. Giving away a huge tax cut to large businesses that are already performing quite well and are quite profitable does not flow through to jobs and does not flow through to wages.
The truth is that there is no rationale for $65 billion in tax cuts for big business. It can't be justified on the basis of delivering economic growth. It can't be justified on the basis of creating jobs. It's got nothing to do with investor flows. My old woodwork teacher used to say to me, 'Before you start any job, measure twice and cut once.' This government is going to create an enormous hole in the budget going into the future. Once you give money away it's very difficult and unlikely that you'll ever get it back. This government and previous coalition governments have form in this space. They cast a long shadow. The Howard government lived through very sunny economic times. It acted with extraordinary profligacy towards the end of its time. We are living with the structural impact of that profligacy even now.
This is a further act of profligacy. It probably goes one step further. This $65 billion giveaway will be a savage blow to the ability of this and future Australian governments to do their job, which is to look after the broad economic and social welfare of the Australian people. On that basis, it is grossly irresponsible. It creates a massive structural hole in future budgets. It will prevent us from supporting essential services, from investing in health and education, public infrastructure, in our precious environment, in the good working of the social safety net. It answers no demonstrated need whatsoever. It has no demonstrated benefits. The very, very marginal benefits that the Parliamentary Budget Office has found are pathetically minimal. It will shift the tax burden from companies to households as sure as night follows day. It will put the needs of future Australian governments to derive revenue to pay for essential services on households and take them from large companies, particularly multinational companies that are already profitable and already have countless ways of avoiding the tax they have to pay. I'm glad to oppose it.
Debate adjourned.
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (17:32): I rise today to support the remarks made by the shadow minister for health, the member for Ballarat. In doing so I would also like to acknowledge the work of the minister and his advisers in the Department of Health in developing these proposals and bringing them to the parliament. I also wish to recognise the ongoing work of the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, whose efforts do so much to underpin the integrity and viability of our healthcare system and, more particularly, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
As the shadow minster has already indicated, Labor will not be opposing the bill. This is one of those rare beasts in a bipolar political age, an important but relatively uncontentious bill. It's an important bill because the PBS is, with Medicare, one of the two great bulwarks of affordable universal health care in Australia. The PBS was introduced by the Chifley government, who fought the conservatives to introduce it in 1948. It underpins affordable treatments for all Australians. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme subsidises the cost of the majority of medicines we all use and are prescribed. The PBS is the means by which the Australian government helps all of us pay for prescription drugs that many of us could never afford. The annual cost of the scheme is close to $11 billion in a Commonwealth health budget of around $70 billion and total government spending on health of $115 billion in the financial year 2015-16.
For non-concessional Australian patients, the cost to consumers of drugs listed on the PBS is capped at $39.50. When drugs cost more than this, the government covers the extra cost. The consumer's contribution is often called 'a co-payment'. This is the out-of-pocket expense that needs to be met by individuals whenever they fill a prescription. Like Medicare, the PBS owes its existence to Labor. It is a fundamental Labor initiative and, whilst the minister is very fond of making announcements of PBS listing, it's very important to know that the PBS has bipartisan support and the minister relies on advice from the PBAC and the Therapeutic Goods Administration about which products to list. It is not something that is done ad hoc. As I've mentioned, it has bipartisan support, although it is a Labor initiative.
It's a real-life expression of how idealism and a belief in a fair society can be translated into reality and sustained by careful policy and by political cooperation and goodwill. Over its 70-year history, it has been one of those things that government do that we've all come to rely on. I always think whenever some cranky old bloke asks what the government does for him that the PBS is probably not a bad place to start my answer. The PBS supports all Australians.
The PBS has not only delivered better health outcomes to over four generations of Australians but has produced a fairer and stronger society for all of us, not just some of us. It's even managed to satisfy—and it's hard to imagine economists ever being pleased—those most closely concerned with efficiency and proper targeting of government programs. As I was researching this speech, I came across a couple of studies by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, at the University of Canberra, showing that 80 per cent of the benefits conferred by the PBS have consistently gone to the bottom 20 per cent of income earners. In terms of helping those who need it most that's a very impressive result; so far, so good.
As we all know, the job of government is unending and good public policy is seldom allowed to settle into a comfortable holding pattern. There are always competing priorities, and with the PBS this is increasingly so. Inevitably, elevated community expectations, an ageing population, new medical breakthroughs and demands for other services increase the pressure on government to lower health costs. The PBS is not immune from those pressures. With increasing complexity of prescribing and the use of the new biologics and genetically targeted drugs, this task is going to get harder and harder. I believe we are on the cusp of a rapid increase in the use of these medications, and pressure on the PBS and the PBS budget will become ever greater. Governments have to either find more resources or make more efficient uses of the ones they have, and this bill is part of that.
Private individuals, without considering a PBS, have very few choices, and some of them are pretty unpalatable. One of those unpalatable choices is not visiting the doctor and another is not filling prescriptions, because the costs are so high. Presently, even now, up to 10 per cent of Australians don't get or defer getting their prescriptions filled because they can't afford to. As we now see with private health insurance costs, household and government budgets can only stretch so far.
The reach and the cost of the PBS began to ramp up in the mid-1990s, coinciding with a very significant expansion in the number of new drugs prescribed for chronic ailments such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Between 2005-06 and 2013-14, PBS expenditure grew on average by five per cent a year, and, like other elements of the health budget and private healthcare costs, they outstripped other calls on the public purse and private incomes. On one estimate, prices for generic prescription drugs in Australia went from being the third cheapest in the developed world to the third most expensive. Action was needed, and, despite the likely political pain, it occurred. To his credit, one of the last of the Howard government health ministers introduced price disclosure and step-price reduction arrangements applying to many drugs in 2007. Labor built on that early work, making significant changes and improvements in 2010. In controlling PBS spending, Labor's clear aim was to reduce costs by exacting greater value from the pharmaceutical companies. The rate of increase in the cost of the PBS did, in fact, decline.
Returned to office in 2013, the coalition, regrettably, also pursued—in the Yes, Minister sense of the term—a more courageous approach. It also attempted to drive down demand for medicines and expenditure on them by slugging patients. Unnecessary and unfair, this was more than a misstep. It's taken the coalition the best part of 3½ years to get there but, fortunately, it now seems to be showing some signs of catching on and following the Labor lead. What we have in this bill is a more measured approach, in total contrast to the horrors of the 2014 budget and the outlandish attacks on the health system championed through the government's wrong-headed Commission of Audit report.
Thankfully, despite some limitations, this bill is close to Labor's reform strategy and builds on the work of the Gillard and Rudd governments on the pricing of medicine. So progress has been made, even if that progress has not been rapid enough for some. According to the most recent Grattan Institute survey, by May 2017 Australia's prescription drug prices were, on average, 3.7 times higher than the benchmarked international best price. That is not a great result, but it is a big improvement on the 16 times higher finding in its 2013 report for the same suite of medicines.
The bill, for the most part, implements measures announced in the 2017-18 budget. Labor welcome the resulting price reductions for consumers and the underlying savings to the federal budget facilitated by the bill. We welcome, too, the decision of the government to reinvest savings from the planned price reductions in the listing of new medications on the PBS, even though we have some concerns about the lack of transparency in the processes involved. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has qualms concerning ministerial decisions involving the statutory price reduction process. The minister's response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee was, in my view, not entirely convincing. Identifying a non-exhaustive list of criteria to guide the minister's decision-making powers might have been a helpful and useful step forward.
In the nine months since the budget, public and industry reaction has been muted. This may be a sign that the changes proposed are both moderate and modest. So, if nothing else, the minister has done a reasonable job to date in not frightening the horses. This is a policy area where this government has had to learn to tread much more carefully. The downside is that a number of crunch issues are deferred for another day, and this is my major concern. Likewise, if the government's main aim is to restrain cost pressures, this bill signals only a small victory. Cost pressures right across the healthcare system are not going to abate of their own accord.
Striking the correct balance between affordability and choice will always be the core issue for the PBS. As I have previously mentioned, my view is that there will be a rapid expansion in the number of applications for medications to be listed on the PBS in the next few years due to the rapid development of biologic drugs and genetically targeted medications. These savings are a very small part of what is a large PBS budget—around three per cent of the PBS cost over the next five years. We need to prepare ourselves for a lot of pressure on the PBS budget in the next three or four years as our drug developments increase.
I cannot specifically comment on the mechanics of the price reduction formula contained in the bill, especially from my limited vantage point in opposition. However, the government's projected savings seem very plausible, even if still quite generous, I believe, to the pharmaceutical companies. Under the existing PBS pricing arrangements, when a new competing brand lists alongside an existing brand of a generally patented drug, there's an immediate price reduction for the new and existing brand. Presently, this is about 16 per cent, and this bill will increase that up to 25 per cent. However, evidence from overseas suggests that some reductions can be as much as 80 per cent. Such large drops in price are a reflection of the sharply declining price once many drugs cease to be unique.
Only time will tell if the government's savings proposals are as robust as they need to be. I imagine that there's a degree of uncertainty as to whether this bill will generate enough savings to fund all the new medicines that warrant PBS listing in the next few years and simultaneously contain the overall cost of the scheme. This is something that is presently unclear and is a major concern for me. Perhaps the minister would like to enlighten us on this. I'd be very interested. It might be useful, too, if he could help us join the dots on the extent to which the projected savings have already been consumed by the recent new listings the minister referred to in his second reading speech. It's too early to make the biggest call of all: whether the PBS is as efficient and cost-effective as we could make it. We need to look across the Tasman to see that there is still hope for delivering significant price reductions for generic drugs under the PBS. There is some evidence that the costs in New Zealand of some common medications, such as paracetamol et cetera, is much, much less than we're paying in Australia. Our two systems aren't strictly comparable and New Zealand's approach does trade off less brand choice for lower budget outlays, but it is a reminder that there are some systems that seem to be more efficient than our own.
One other issue that the bill proposes is the repeal of the sunset clause that would, from June 2020, end restrictions on the location of new or additional pharmacies. The change, I think, is problematic. I do understand that this matter was being looked at by the government's Review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation inquiry, but their findings have now been effectively gazumped. It may have made some sense to wait for the completion of that review before the government signed off on this aspect of the bill, but what's done is done.
In the time remaining, I'd like to touch briefly on a number of other matters less directly connected with the bill. At the conclusion of his second reading speech, the minister stressed the need to balance access to affordable medicines when and where needed with ensuring value for taxpayers' dollars. I couldn't agree more. The minister's point on the need to balance competing claims is an entirely sensible response to a difficult resourcing problem. What disappoints me is that this minister's good sense of recognising the need to balance choice with value of money is in stark contrast to the almost hysterical naysaying we've had from the government on Labor's proposal to have a proper inquiry into the cost and effectiveness of private health insurance. But I digress, if only a little.
Lastly—and I do not in any way intend this as a criticism—can I encourage the minister also to do whatever he can to bring forward and broaden the government's plans to have in place a national real-time register for monitoring dangerous drugs and also to expedite the extension of that real-time monitoring to all high-cost prescription drugs available under the PBS. This is an initiative that will save lives and which can more than pay for itself by reducing the overuse of prescription drugs. I would also encourage a review of doctors' prescribing habits in a more formal way so that we can further reduce costs. I recommend the bill to the house.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health) (17:46): I present, for the information of members, an addendum to the explanatory memorandum for the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017. It has been prepared by the government as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and reflects additional information provided to the committee following the tabling of the bill in October last year. I present also a correction to the explanatory memorandum to correct a typographical error. The correction deletes the mention of two minor technical changes which were not included in the bill.
More broadly, I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. I want to acknowledge the previous speaker, the member for Macarthur. In response to his particular question about real-time monitoring, I note that we have announced $16 million for the delivery of the first national real-time monitoring service in relation to prescriptions. I'll shortly be writing to all of the states in order to encourage them to expedite this program. He's right to emphasise this, and we were right to make the funds available. I hope the states will do the right thing and join us expeditiously.
More generally, the government understands the absolute importance that members place on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme remaining accessible and sustainable into the future. This bill is about those fundamental precepts being united. For constituents, for Australians of all backgrounds, the PBS not only provides pharmaceutical services and subsidies for individuals but also brings economic opportunity for industry, research and employment. We know from work that the New South Wales government has done that the rate of job growth in health and medical precincts allied with universities, often associated with pharmaceutical benefits, is well over twice that of the national average. New high-paying jobs, investment and wealth are created by the Australian role within our health and medical precincts and, in particular, our device and drug industries in this country.
Therefore, the changes in this bill are the result of agreements made with three of Australia's largest pharmaceutical organisations, those being Medicines Australia, the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. It is, to the best of my knowledge and on the advice of the department, the first time simultaneous agreements have been reached with those three bodies as well as the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the AMA. Those agreements, therefore, reflect a genuinely shared approach to achieving value for money for medicines and transparency in decision-making and undertakings regarding government reinvestment, which is fundamental to these agreements.
In particular, the proposed changes to PBS pricing are designed to deliver savings in a way that works for industry. I realise it has not been easy. Many international firms and many Australian firms have made sacrifices for the collective benefit of Australian patients and the public and for the collective advancement of the Australian pharmaceutical sector and industry. Applying agreed price reductions for single brand medicines at agreed intervals after five, 10 and 15 years of listing, at a five per cent, 10 per cent and a further five per cent—and increasing the price reduction that applies on entry of an additional brand—will provide policy certainty for companies and a more stable PBS pricing environment.
For industry, the reality of delivering up savings is being balanced by government undertakings to reinvest those savings in the PBS. In response to the member for Macarthur, let me indicate some of the reinvestments that have already taken place since the budget. In Opdivo for lung and kidney cancer—an example of the new immunotherapies to which he has referred—there has been a $1.1 billion investment. In Stelara for Crohn's disease there has been a $378.5 million investment. In Ibrutinib, for leukaemia and lymphoma, there has been a $466 million investment. These are what are sometimes known as blockbuster drugs, but, for the patients and their families, they are life-saving, life-changing drugs. Having met those that have benefitted from each of these drugs, I've got to say that, as a nation, we must and should be immensely proud of the Australian system.
In that context, the government's commitment to listing all new medicines with a positive recommendation from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee includes the savings generated by these agreements. I am delighted to report not just the success of the savings measure but the reinvestment and the fact that that is well underway, with those examples that I've given.
Another positive provision for industry will allow companies to list certain new presentations of brands without a new brand price reduction. Manufacturers will benefit from being able to list additional presentations without a price penalty and patients will be able to access product improvements sooner.
Overall, the provisions in the bill are reasonable and sound, including the new power which allows the minister the discretion to reduce or to not apply a statutory price reduction and to determine that a brand is a new presentation. I can advise that, at the request of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I have provided additional information now tabled on the reasons for ministerial discretion, the way in which it will operate and the arrangements under the strategic agreement with Medicines Australia for oversight of the implementation of these measures. I am pleased that the Senate committee has accepted that explanation, and an amendment to the explanatory memorandum to the bill reflects the key information provided to them.
In relation to transparency and scrutiny of written determinations made by a minister to reduce or not apply a price reduction, I can confirm—again, in response to the member for Macarthur's points—that those determinations will be made publicly available via registration on the Federal Register of Legislation, as is appropriate and as is the right thing to do. This is in addition to publication on the PBS website.
Ultimately, the amendments in the bill reflect the outcomes of extensive and extraordinary consultations and negotiations. I particularly want to thank the leadership of some of the organisations I mentioned before. Within Medicines Australia I particularly want to thank Milton Catelin, the CEO, James Boyce, who is the head of government relations, and the extraordinary chair, Wes Cook, just an amazing industry leader, as well as the member companies and the many CEOs and senior executives with whom I have had the pleasure of working with so far, along with my office and the department. At the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association, I particularly want to thank Belinda Wood, the CEO, and Allan Tillack, the chair. At the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, I particularly want to thank the president, George Tambassis, another extraordinary leader, and David Quilty, his incredibly capable executive director, along with board member Trent Twomey.
I particularly want to thank all of the staff within the Department of Health, the former secretary Martin Bowles, who contributed significantly to this, and Penny Shakespeare, one of the senior executives who played a huge role in the delivery of this outcome. Within my office, I've been blessed with the incredible work of my amazing adviser, Alex Best, who truly should be declared a living national treasure. Nick Henry, our budget senior adviser, has done incredible work, as has my chief of staff, Wendy Black. Together, they have done an amazing job in helping to bring this agreement to fruition.
Finally, Australian patients have a world-class health system and access to world-class medicines, but it can always be better. The new medicines that are coming on are costly, but that's okay. It's our job, not just as a government but as a nation, to help deliver those. In that context, the changes in this bill support the ongoing sustainability of the PBS and, above all else, the accessibility of these new medicines for new patients. Lives can be transformed and lives will be saved. The government therefore believes that the agreement is genuinely of benefit to all parties. A more sustainable PBS will allow the PBS to respond to growing demands and to new medicines and new technologies as they occur. It's good for the medicines industry. It's good for taxpayers. But, above all else, it is of dramatic benefit for patients of products such as Stelara, Opdivo, Ibrutinib, Entresto and so many other breakthrough medicines. Ultimately, I commend the bill to the House and I thank all members for their support.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:58
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Richmond Electorate: Budget
(Question No. 14)
Mrs Elliot asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 1 September 2016:
Will the Government honour all 2016 election funding commitments promised to the electoral division of Richmond.
Mr Turnbull provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Australian Government is honouring all its election commitments.
Peppers Manor House
(Question No. 58)
Mr Keogh asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 7 November 2016:
In respect of the $28,616.50 contract to Peppers Manor House (CN3384440) for hotels and lodging and meeting facilities,
(a) for what purpose was the venue hired,
(b) how many staff members attended the function for which the venue was hired, and
(c) what is the itemised breakdown of the costs associated with the contract.
Mr Turnbull: I am advised by the Australian Public Service Commission that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In respect of the $28,616.50 contract to Peppers Manor House (AusTender Contract Notice 3384440) for hotels and lodging and meeting facilities:
(a) The venue was hired as the accommodation and training facility provider for a module of the Senior Executive Service Band 3 leadership programme. The programme is run by the Australian Public Service Commission on behalf of the Australian Public Service. It is attended by employees from a number of agencies. The module ran for five days in November 2016.
(b) Thirteen Australian Public Service employees and two programme facilitators attended.
(c) The itemised breakdown of the costs associated with the contract is:
Accommodation including breakfasts $14,027.40 inclusive of GST
Provision of training facility, equipment $12,470.00 inclusive of GST
and catering
Total cost $26,497.40 inclusive of GST
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
(Question No. 620)
Ms Butler asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 10 November 2016:
Is it a fact that an Executive Level 1 staff member within the Office for Women is eligible for a salary that is $10,000 lower than an equivalent staff member within the general Social Policy Division of his department; if so, what steps has the Prime Minister or anyone within his department taken to address this pay disparity.
Mr Turnbull: I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Prior to 1 August 2017, PM&C administered terms and conditions of employment for employees under ten different enterprise agreements. This resulted in a difference in salary amongst equivalent classifications within the department, including Executive Level 1 staff members engaged within the Office for Women.
The difference in salary between the Office for Women and other parts of PM&C dates back to 2013 when the Office for Women was moved from the Department of Families and Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, with pay and conditions preserved under section 24(3) of the Public Service Act 1999.
PM&C's new Enterprise Agreement (EA) that came into effect on 1 August 2017 moves towards pay parity across all classifications. Under this EA, all staff will be transitioned to a unified pay scale and conditions by the end of the third year of the agreement. This transition will see all current staff in PM&C at the top of the new primary pay scale four years from the commencement of the new EA, therefore addressing pay disparity.
Any employees newly engaged with PM&C into the Office for Women, or any employee who is promoted internally, will be entitled to the higher pay rate under the primary pay scale.
ASC Pty Ltd
(Question No. 682)
Mr Georganas asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 15 February 2017:
(1) In light of the recent Government announcement that the ASC is to be split into three separate companies, can the Minister confirm that current workplace conditions and agreements for the ASC workforce will remain unchanged.
(2) Has the Government, through the Minister for Employment or any other Minister, directed the ASC to enforce its Public Sector Workplace Bargaining Policy on ASC workers; if so:
(a) who,
(b) on what basis, and
(c) why.
Mr Turnbull: I am advised by the Australian Public Service Commission that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service is not a bargaining representative for ASC Pty Ltd (ASC).
As outlined in the announcement of 11 October 2016, the separation of ASC will not impact ASC employees' current terms and conditions.
The Australian Government's Workplace Bargaining Policy 2015 applies to Commonwealth public sector entities, including Government Business Enterprises such as ASC.
ASC will bargain enterprise agreements that suit its operational needs, in accordance with Government policy.
I am advised that the Department of Finance has informed ASC that the Government's policy applies to it.
College of Arms
(Question No. 806)
Mr Zimmerman asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 4 September 2017:
(1) Is it the Government's official policy to accept and accede to the claim made by the English College of Arms that it possesses 'official heraldic authority' over Australia; if so,
(a). when was this policy determined,
(b). when and how was it made public,
(c). is there an official Commonwealth record of this policy decision being determined, and
(d). was it determined by a decision
(i) of the Parliament,
(ii) of the Cabinet, or
(iii) by some other authority.
(2) If the above is not the official policy of the Government, has the Government delegated heraldic authority to the sovereign of the United Kingdom or any of her officers; if so,
(a). when was this delegation made,
(b). when and how was it made public,
(c). is there an official Commonwealth record of this delegation being made, and
(d). was it made by a decision
(i) of the Parliament,
(ii) of the Cabinet, or
(iii) by some other authority.
(3) Is the Government aware that Canada and South Africa have established their own heraldic authorities independent of the English College of Arms.
Mr Turnbull: I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The practice of the College of Arms in England granting armorial bearings to Australians is well established as one way Australians can obtain heraldic insignia if they wish to do so. There is nothing preventing any person or organisation from commissioning a local artist, graphics studio or heraldry specialist to design and produce a coat of arms or identifying symbol. Those arms would have the same standing and authority in Australia as arms prepared by the College of Arms in England.