The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Parliament House: Security
The SPEAKER (10:01): Members will recall that, on 30 November 2016, question time was interrupted by a group of protesters in the public galleries and on the following day further protests occurred outside of the building. At the time, I indicated that the matter would be investigated and I would continue to update the House as appropriate. I can advise the House that, following referrals by ACT Policing to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the two offenders who abseiled down the front facade of Parliament House were summoned to appear before the ACT Magistrates Court last year for the charge of behaving in a disorderly manner on Commonwealth premises. Both offenders pleaded guilty to the charge and the matter was adjourned on 13 February this year. Last week, Magistrate Glenn Theakston fined the pair $1,500 each, which amounts to almost half the maximum fine for such an offence.
I will continue to apprise the House on the matter.
COMMITTEES
Petitions Committee
Report
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:02): Today I present the 21st report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament, together with three petitions and 10 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.
The three petitions in this report have been received from one of two nationwide campaigns—one seeking environmental reform and one seeking gambling reform.
Over the past six months, the committee has received over 150 of these campaign petitions. The committee thanks those involved in organising these petitions within their local communities, and we continue to welcome this level of engagementin the petitioning process.
In total, these campaign petitions added up to over 42,000 signatures. In this parliament so far, the committee has processed paper petitions with a total signature count in excess of 260,000 signatures. Each of these petitions werehand signed by citizens all around the country who wanted to have their say and support a cause they care about.
We continue to encourage all people seeking change or action within their communities to actively engage with parliament. This can be done by initiating, promoting or signing a petition through our e-petitions system, or by signing a paper petition at the local shops or a community event.
To my fellow members of parliament, I encourage you to continue actively promoting the right foryour constituents to petition the House, and I thank you for your ongoing support for the petitioning process.
I will continue to provide updates to the House on the work of the Petitions Committee.
PETITIONS
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:04): I present the following petition:
Gambling
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Gambling operators are permitting betting on the outcome of lotteries, with these synthetic lottery operators making no contribution to State lotteries taxes.
We therefore ask the House to: Amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 so as to ban betting on the outcome of lotteries and thereby prohibit the operation of synthetic lotteries in Australia.
from 391 citizens, 33 citizens and 134 citizens (Petition No. PN0222, No. PRN0230 and PRN0303).
Petition received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:04): I present the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:
Rural and Regional Services
Dear Mrs Wicks,
Thank you for your letter dated 15 December 2017 regarding petition number EN0356 requesting the House of Representatives extend the jurisdiction of the ACT Government to represent South East/West NSW and the Tablelands. The Prime Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf.
The Commonwealth Government is committed to working with all levels of government to build strong regional communities businesses and families have confidence in. For example, the Government has committed $220 million to the locally-led Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, including for the NSW South Coast, to help regions in Australia diversify their economies, stimulate longterm economic growth and deliver sustainable employment.
As outlined in the Government's Regions 2030 policy statement, regional Australia is vital to the economic and social success of our country, and the Government is taking a coordinated and long-term approach to investing in our regions, addressing unique challenges and harnessing comparative advantages.
The establishment of the site for the capital of Australia, the 'territory for the seat of government' was established on land surrendered by NSW under the conditions set out under Section 125 of the Constitution. Section 123 of the Constitution provides that changing the boundaries of a state requires the consent of the Parliament of that state and approval by referendum in that state.
The Commonwealth Government remains satisfied that the ACT serves its purpose as the seat of government for Australia in its current form and size.
The Commonwealth Government is committed to working in close partnership with state and local governments to deliver on our programme of regional development towards improved economic development and improved infrastructure, health, education and communications in preference to adjusting boundaries of state lines.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Senator McGrath
Mental Health
Dear Mrs Wicks,
I refer to your letter of 5 December 2017 on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, concerning petition number EN0360. I regret the delay in responding.
The petition sought a moratorium on the Commonwealth Government's investment of $73 million to ensure Australian children and young people receive the support they need during their school years. The petition's author expressed concern that this would enmesh mental health services and drug treatment with education services.
The Government's National Support for Child and Youth Mental Health Program (the Program) was announced in response to the National Mental Health Commission's Review of Mental Health Programmes and Services. Under the Program, Emerging Minds is funded $18.7 million to deliver the National Workforce Support in Child Mental Health initiative, which will assist clinical and non-clinical professionals and services who work with children to identify, support and refer children at risk, and to promote resilience building. The Program also includes funding of $52.6 million to beyondblue, in partnership with headspace National Youth Mental Health Foundation and Early Childhood Australia, to develop and implement the Mental Health in Education program, which will provide information, advice and support to teachers and childhood workers to support promotion and prevention activities and to help build resilience skills in children and young people. The Program does not include or promote drug treatment for mental health issues.
The petition also raised concerns about involuntary treatment with psychiatric medication, and about the negative effects that can occur with the use of psychiatric medications. The Commonwealth is committed to supporting the elimination of restrictive practices, such as the use of seclusion and restraint, and limiting its use to a last resort as part of upholding the dignity and rights of people accessing mental health services. The Government continues to work with state and territory governments, under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments Health Council, towards the elimination of restraint and seclusion in mental health care, through the cross jurisdictional Safety and Quality Partnership Standing Committee.
The Government is also committed to ensuring that therapeutic goods available for supply in Australia are safe and fit for their intended purpose. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) monitors the safety of medicines in Australia to contribute to a better understanding of their possible adverse effects when they are used outside the controlled conditions of clinical trials. Reports of adverse events can be made by anybody, and these reports are analysed regularly by scientific and medical experts to identify potential safety issues. The TGA has the power to issue alerts or recalls when issues or deficiencies are identified in relation to the safety, quality, efficacy or presentation of medicines.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
Kokoda Campaign
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter dated 5 December 2017 regarding petition number EN0362 requesting that the House of Representatives declare the 22nd of January each year a national day in recognition of the final victory of the Kokoda campaign on 22 January 1943.
The Australian Government has a range of initiatives for commemoration of the sacrifice and contribution of Australians in war. This year marks the 75th anniversary of the battle of the Kokoda campaign. From July 1942 to early 1943, Australian troops in the Owen Stanley Range and on the beaches of northern Papua saw some of the most desperate and vicious fighting encountered in the Second World War. The Australian War Memorial commemorated these significant events, and the lives of those lost, with Last Post Ceremonies, a ceremony commemorating the 641 Australians who lost their lives in the Kokoda campaign and special Kokoda exhibitions.
Anzac Day goes beyond the anniversary of the landing in Gallipoli in 2015. It is the day on which we remember all Australians who served and died in war and on operational service past and present. On Remembrance Day, the 11th of November each year, Australian's observe one minute's silence in memory of those who died or suffered in all wars and armed conflicts.
The Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway in Sydney, NSW, is a living memorial and a principal site of commemoration honouring all those who fought for Australia during World War II. Kokoda Day is commemorated annually on 3 November by a flag raising ceremony at the Memorial.
National days may be observed without a proclamation or intervention by the Commonwealth Government and there is nothing to prevent an organisation or individual promoting and seeking support within the community for a national day or week. A number of days throughout the year have gained community acceptance as the dates on which particular events are celebrated or commemorated. These events generally evolve without government involvement where there is a groundswell of support in the wider community.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention. I appreciate the important work of the Standing Committee on Petitions in putting community concerns before the Parliament.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Senator McGrath
Australian Constitution
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter to the Prime Minister, the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, dated 5 December 2017 regarding petition number EN0363, a referendum to change the Australian Constitution. The Prime Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf.
The petition requests that a referendum be held on whether to alter the Australian Constitution to include reference to "citizen equality, social pluralism, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law" as well as to recognise Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander peoples.
The Government's current priority for constitutional change is to recognise Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution. The Government remains committed to constitutional recognition, which would acknowledge our shared history and the value we place on our Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander heritage.
Following careful consideration, it is the Government's view that a change to the Constitution to enshrine a First Nations representative assembly is not desirable and will not achieve the necessary support at a referendum. A failed referendum would be a huge setback to all that has been achieved, and remains to be achieved, in reconciliation and Indigenous Affairs. The Government has proposed the establishment of a Joint Select Committee to consider all past work on this issue and develop constitutional amendments that will unite our nation.
The Government respects the right of all Australians to continue to express their views on these matters.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Senator McGrath
Family Law
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter to the former Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, dated 5 December 2017, about Petition number EN0372 presented to your Committee, concerning family dispute resolution (FDR) and other issues in family law matters.
The petition outlines concerns about the FDR process, the care arrangements for children during this time and the time taken and related costs to resolve parenting matters. The petition also outlines measures to address these concerns. I understand that family law matters, particularly those involving separation and the resolution of parenting arrangements, are some of the most difficult and intractable of all legal disputes. The Australian Government is committed to ongoing improvements to the family law system and providing the best possible outcomes for families and children.
In formalising parenting arrangements for the care of children, Australia's family law system encourages separated parents to agree on arrangements for their children without going to court. If people resolve their differences without going to court they are likely to save themselves time, money and stress. In order to ensure individuals attempt to resolve their disputes without the need for litigation, the Family Law Act 1975 requires individuals to make a genuine effort at family dispute resolution before attending court, unless one of the exceptions applies — such as family violence, child abuse or urgency. The aim of the family dispute resolution process is to help parents to discuss issues, look at options and work out how to reach a mutual agreement that is in the best interests of children.
Where agreement is not able to he reached in this process, the matter may progress to the family law courts for resolution.
It is a government priority to provide assistance to families who are undergoing separation. The Australian Government does this through various means, by funding the family law courts, legal aid commissions and by funding a suite of family law services through the Department of Social Services' Families and Children Activity under the Families and Communities Programme.
Successive governments have been funding dispute resolution and other services for many years, including before the major 2006 family law reforms which involved the establishment of the 65 Family Relationship Centres. These Centres are funded to assist families to focus on and reach agreement on parenting arrangements.
Approximately $156 million per year is provided to over 60 not-for-profit organisations to provide a range of services for separating and separated families – including Family Relationship Centres, Family Dispute Resolution Services and Regional Family Dispute Resolution Services. While services may charge fees, the overarching policy for government-funded services is that clients must not be refused service or referred to other organisations on the basis of incapacity to pay fees.
The petition also suggests measures that support increased power to resolve parenting matters before their progression to the family law courts. The Australian Government has announced important changes to assist with the resolution of parenting matters. The Australian Government will invest $12.7 million to establish Parenting Management Hearings—an accessible low cost forum for resolving family law disputes between self-represented litigants. The Hearings will be conducted in a non-adversarial manner. Unlike the traditional system, where two opposing sides present their cases, those managing the hearings will make inquiries and gather evidence to promote informed decisions.
This new approach will be initially rolled out in Parramatta, with a second site to be identified in consultation with stakeholders.
The petitioners may be interested to know that the former Attorney-General directed the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) to conduct the first comprehensive review of the family law system since the Family Law Act came into operation. The review commenced on 1 October 2017, and will report by 31 March 2019. The review is considering whether, and if so what, reforms to the family law system and the Family Law Act are necessary to meet the needs of Australian families into the future. The Terms of Reference for the review are broad and far reaching, focusing on key areas of importance for Australian families. These include ensuring the family law system prioritises the best interests of children; addresses family violence and child abuse; and supports families, including those with complex needs, to resolve their family law issues quickly and safely while minimising financial burden. The ALRC will consult broadly over the course of the review. For more information about the review, including opportunities for interested parties to contribute their views and experiences, go to www.alic.gov.au/inquiries/family-law-system.
The petition also mentions measures to address allegations made in family law matters. A person who, having taken an oath or made an affirmation as a witness in judicial proceedings, wilfully makes a statement significant to the proceedings which they know to be false, or do not believe to be true, may have committed the offence of perjury.
Where there is an allegation of perjury in a matter before a federal court, the court may refer the allegation to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. The AFP is operationally independent of Government and has authority to make decisions about whether or not to investigate an alleged Commonwealth offence. Family courts also have a broad power to order costs against a party if false allegations or false denials are proven in court.
In addition, the petition includes measures to address relocation in family law matters. The Family Law Act does not make specific provision for relocation of children or parents following separation. Accordingly, there is no presumption in favour of, or against, relocation. As with other parenting arrangements, where relocation is in issue, the parties are encouraged to agree on the best outcome for their children.
Where a relocation matter progresses to a family law court, the court will examine a range of considerations in deciding which parenting orders are proper. Family law cases can be complex and, in each individual case, the facts need to be considered by the court and a decision made on those facts. In deciding these matters, the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
In relation to the child support issues raised in the petition, policy issues concerning child support, including the method of assessing child support payments, fall within the responsibility of the Minister for Social Services, the Hon Dan Tehan MP. Minister Tehan may be contacted at the following address about these concerns:
The Hon Dan Tehan MP
Minister for Social Services PO
Box 6022
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Thank you again for bringing these matters to my attention.
from the Attorney-General, Mr Porter
Disability Support Pension
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 5 December 2017 to the former Minister for Social Services, the Hon Christian Porter MP, regarding the petition to increase the partnered rate of Disability Support Pension (DSP) to the same as the single rate (petition number: EN0380). I am replying to your letter as this matter now falls within my portfolio responsibilities.
Australia's social security system is a non-contributory system designed to support the basic living standards of all Australians and increase their social and economic participation. It is a means-tested, residence-based system, designed to provide income support to people who, for reasons such as age, unemployment or ill health, are unable to support themselves.
The DSP is paid at a higher rate than allowances to reflect that recipients face additional barriers that make it difficult for them to support themselves or supplement their incomes through paid work.
Pensions are paid at the highest rate of income support payments in the Australian social security system. On 20 September 2017, the maximum total pension rate for single pensioners increased by $6.10 to $894.40 a fortnight or $23,254.40 a year. The maximum rate for pensioner couples combined increased by $9.20 to $1,348.40 a fortnight or $35,058.40 a year. Since the Coalition was elected, pensions have increased by $86 a fortnight for singles and by $129.60 a fortnight for couples.
The Australian social security system recognises that single pensioners need more income to have a similar standard of living to couples. Single people cannot usually share costs, such as electricity, telephone, transport, heating and house maintenance. This is why single pensioners receive a higher pension rate than each member of a couple. The relativity also recognises that a single pensioner does not have the same costs as two members of a couple.
While couples do gain economies and advantages from living together, they cannot be expected to spend the same amount of money on food, clothes, medical goods and services, and other individual items as a single person. This is why the single rate is set at 66.33 per cent of the couple combined pension rate.
In addition to the DSP, the following additional assistance is available to people receiving the pension:
assistance for people who rent;
assistance for people in remote areas through an additional allowance;
subsidised health care and related products; and
concessions to pensioners by state and territory governments. These concessions include subsidies for rates for home owners, utilities such as electricity, gas and water, and public transport and vehicle registration fees. Concessions offered vary between states. It is up to each individual state and territory government to determine the type and amount of subsidies offered.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) provides timely, reliable and affordable access to necessary medicines for Australians. The PBS is part of the Australian Government's broader National Medicines Policy. The aim of the National Medicines Policy is to meet medication and related service needs, so that both optimal health outcomes and economic objectives are achieved. Under the PBS, the Government subsidises the cost of medicines for most medical conditions. To help meet the cost of the scheme, you pay a proportion (a 'co-payment') for your PBS medicines and the Government pays the rest of the cost. Co-payment amounts are adjusted in line with indexation on 1 January each year.
Thank you for bringing this issue to the attention of the Australian Government. I trust this information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Social Services, Mr Tehan
Rural and Regional Health Services
Dear Mrs Wicks
I refer to your letter of 5 December 2017 regarding petition number EN0392. The petition concerns magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Medicare eligibility in Western Australia.
As you are aware, MRI is a sophisticated and expensive technology. Successive governments have had to ensure that the provision of public funding for MRI is both fair and financially responsible. Since its introduction on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), MM has been carefully managed through a series of targeted application processes as well as provider, requestor and item level restrictions. These controls help to support the provision of high quality, safe and cost effective health care for all Australians both as patients and taxpayers.
The Australian Government is committed to ensuring health expenditure is sustainable and appropriately targeted towards patient care. The Government is also committed to ensuring the long-term viability of Medicare. Policy priorities will be considered within this context and additional expenditure will be considered when it is responsible to do so. This would include any consideration of expanding Medicare eligibility for MRI units.
While there are currently no application processes open for MRI Medicare eligibility, I have asked the Department to undertake a review of the distribution and availability of MRI Medicare eligibility and provide further advice to me on options to ensure that Australians continue to have affordable access to this service. Should an opportunity arise to apply for MRI Medicare eligibility, the Department will notify the relevant radiology industry groups.
For your information, if an application processes for MRI Medicare eligibility were to become available, you should be aware that currently for MR1 equipment to be considered for Medicare eligibility, it must meet the following minimum legislative criteria:
The practice must at the same location also have at least x-ray and computed tomography (CT) equipment;
The premises must be registered with a location specific practice number (LSPN) by the Department of HumanServices (DHS) and the x-ray and CT equipment must be listed in the LSPN register for the premises;
The premises at which the equipment is located would need to be accredited under the Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation Scheme for at least x-ray and CT services; and
Providers of MRI at the practice must be a specialist in diagnostic radiology who is a participant of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) Quality and Accreditation Program.
Thank you for writing on this matter. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
Health Care
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 5 August 2017 to present petition number 0071 concerning preventive health programs in Meander Valley.
The Australian Government is committed to improving access to health services for people living in regional, rural and remote locations and supporting effective preventive health initiatives. As detailed in this year's Budget, the Government's Long-Term National Health Plan is based on the four pillars of guaranteeing Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; supporting hospitals; investment in medical research; and prioritising preventive and mental health.
The Australian Government's current role in preventive health includes supporting people to take personal responsibility for their health by improving their lifestyle related risk factors. This is underpinned by a focus on providing evidence-based population health information so that people are in the best position to make informed decisions and take control of their own health and wellbeing.
In relation to mental health, the Australian Government is committed to improving the mental health system and outcomes for people with mental illness by working in partnership with consumers, carers, mental health stakeholders and state and territory governments.
Primary Health Networks (PHNs) play a key role in leading a regional approach to plan, integrate and commission services, including mental health services at a local level. As commissioners, PHNs have autonomy and flexibility to decide which services or health care interventions should be provided, who should provide them and how they should be paid for. It is integral to the success of the PHN Program that PHNs make these decisions independently of Government. In doing so, PHNs are ensuring that services are coordinated around community need, integrated with other elements of the health system, and are not ad-hoc or provider-centric.
The Tasmania PHN will receive $12.3 million in funding in 2017-18 from the Government to commission mental health and suicide prevention services in the region. The Tasmania PHN is commissioning organisations across Tasmania to deliver a full range of mental health services across the spectrum of service needs within a 'stepped model of care'.
More information in relation to the Tasmania PHN's range of services and programs is available on their website at www.primaryhealthtas.com.au/.
I encourage the Meander Valley Council and community members to remain engaged with the Tasmania PHN and other regional stakeholders to develop collaborative plans for continuing to meet the needs of people in the region.
Thank you for writing on this matter. Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Children and Families, Dr Gillespie
Live Animal Exports
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 18 October 2017 to the Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP, Deputy Prime Minister regarding a petition received by the Standing Committee for Petitions concerning the livestock export trade. I am responding as the Minister responsible for the matter you have raised.
The Coalition Government condemns cruelty to animals. Australia has world class animal welfare standards. Livestock exports are underpinned by regulations that ensure animal welfare outcomes, including minimum standards for vessel preparation, as well as sourcing, loading and management of livestock. Ships must comply with strict rules about ventilation, drainage, stock density and the provision of food and water. An accredited stockman or veterinarian must accompany the livestock on the voyage. While transport of livestock throughout Australia is regulated by the state and territory governments, everyone working along the supply chain has an obligation to manage the animals' health and welfare, including treatments, inspections and reporting of incidents.
Since 2013, the Coalition Government has supported the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in expanding the application of penalties, including where it has suspended, revoked and cancelled the licences of livestock exporters who have done the wrong thing. The department has also removed facilities from supply chains and closed down supply chains altogether where they are in breach of the regulations, as was the case following allegations of non-compliance in Israel, Vietnam and Malaysia.
Australia is also the only one of more than 100 countries that export live animals that requires World Organisation for Animal Health (01E) welfare standards to be met as a minimum for exported livestock. If Australia's livestock export trade were to cease, it would be replaced by countries whose trade is not underpinned by international animal welfare benchmarks. The OIE has also said Australia is leading the world in animal welfare and that industry's investments in improving implementation of OlE welfare standards has its full and unequivocal support.
The government remains convinced of the benefits that this industry delivers to the nation's economy, to local communities and to rural families at the farmgate. While some markets are buying more chilled and frozen meat, there are countries that retain strong cultural preferences for live animals and others where a lack of local refrigeration prevents Australia from supplying only processed meat products. The livestock export industry is a key player in meeting this market demand. At the same time, the government remains absolutely committed to ensuring the welfare of animals is protected in this trade.
In fact, the two sectors complement one another, with the live export trade playing an important role domestically. Competition between exporters and meat processors when buying stock puts upward pressure on national livestock prices, improving returns to Australian livestock producers, particularly for farmers in Northern and Western Australia and the communities that rely on the trade. This has helped to sustain and increase in livestock production, benefitting both the meat processing and live export sectors.
In regards to the issues raised about the location and smells created from the port, these issues are the responsibility of the Queensland Government which regulates planning matters and conditions including noise, light and odour issues. However, the agricultural industries have an important and legitimate place in the Australian economy and the community should be prepared to reasonably tolerate the smells that naturally occur where there is a concentration of animals.
I note when the Standing Committee on Petitions has considered this response it will be presented in the House and posted on the Committee's website.
Thank you for bringing this matter to the government's attention. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Mr Littleproud
Equal Pay
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter to Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash., former Minister for Women, dated 5 December 2017, concerning a petition on the gender pay gap (PN0155).
The petition requests that new legislation be created to ensure equal pay for women and men. I can advise that the Fair Work Act 2009(the Act) formally recognises the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value in the setting of minimum terms and conditions, and the Fair Work Commission may make orders to ensure equal remuneration for men and women workers, for work of equal or comparable value. Under the Act and under Commonwealth, State and Territory anti-discrimination legislation, it is also unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the basis of gender.
The Australian Government has a range of initiatives in place to address the gender pay gap, including through the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA), which seeks to promote and improve gender equality in Australian workplaces. Some relevant initiatives undertaken by WGEA include annual workplace gender reporting, providing resources to assist employers to conduct gender pay gap audits and develop gender pay equity strategies and awareness campaigns and partnership programs including the Pay Equity Ambassador network. Further information about these initiatives is available on WGEA's website at www.wgea.gov.au.
On 6 July 2017, the Government released Towards 2025: An Australian Government Strategy to Boost Women's Workforce Participation (the Strategy). The Strategy details actions the Government is taking to address many of the drivers of pay inequity in Australia, including measures for flexible work, paid parental leave, childhood education, and encouraging women into non-traditional areas such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) industries.
These measures are all important to address the gender pay gap, however Government cannot do this alone. We are working towards long term change with employees, employers, communities and families.
I trust this information will be of assistance. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Women, Ms O'Dwyer
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 38th AIPA General Assembly
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (10:04): I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 38th AIPA General Assembly, held in Manila, the Philippines from 14 to 20 September 2017. As leader of the Australian observer delegation to the general assembly, it was an honour to attend this important forum of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly. Last year was a significant year: 2017 was the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. It was also the 40th anniversary of the creation of the Parliamentary arm of ASEAN— the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly.
As was noted during the first plenary session, the common goal of establishing an ASEAN community by 2025 will require stronger coordination between governments and legislatures. In this context, the general assembly focused on how AIPA and ASEAN can work together to bring about inclusive change to the communities in the region. The assembly also dealt with important regional concerns, including: humanitarian situations in parts of the region; combating illegal drugs, terrorism and trafficking; and enhancing cooperation in the use of science and technology for peaceful purposes.
As with the previous general assemblies, maritime disputes were also raised and parties were urged to work towards a peaceful resolution in accordance with international law. All countries reinforced AIPA's important contributions to maintaining peace, security and stability in the region; promoting cultural exchange and understanding; enhancing cooperation on transnational matters and improving prosperity throughout the region.
One of the key meetings for the Australian delegation was a formal dialogue session with representatives of ASEAN member countries. The dialogue session was an important opportunity to discuss cooperation and engagement between our parliaments and our nations. Warm discussions with the regional colleagues centred on strengthening cooperation in the areas of disaster management and combating transnational crimes. In particular, our work together with these countries was noted in the areas of terrorism, combating violent extremism and combating trafficking in persons. One of the most common messages during the session was the extent to which our regional partners value and continue to value our friendship and cooperation. Similarly, the dialogue session gave our delegation the opportunity to renew ties with parliamentary colleagues overseas and reinforce Australia's commitment to the South-East Asian region.
In addition to representing Australia at their AIPA general assembly, the delegation also attended appointments to reaffirm our ties with the Congress of the Philippines. The delegation was pleased to meet with several of our parliamentary and legislative colleagues, and appreciated the opportunity to discuss defence cooperation between our two countries, the situation in Marawi and the shared concerns about transportation, congestion and economic development. Australia has a meaningful and a long-standing relationship with our neighbours. We have had our multilateral relationship with ASEAN since 1974. Our ongoing presence at AIPA general assemblies reinforces our ongoing commitment to engaging with South-East Asia. Our commitment to attending AIPA general assemblies is an important opportunity to demonstrate Australia's support for ASEAN, which is something I will continue to support in the future.
I want to pay great respect to the secretary that we had with us, who is here in the chamber, Peggy Danaee. She did a fantastic job in coordinating a member of parliament and a senator—it was a bit like herding cats sometimes. But she did it quite ably and very well. A highlight of the trip was meeting not only the House of Representatives Speaker in the Philippines and the President of the Senate, but also the President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte. It was something that both I and Senator Gallacher, who was the other delegate, very much enjoyed.
On behalf of the delegation, I want to record our thanks to the host of the general assembly and to the parliament of the Philippines for its excellent hospitality and a very well-run general assembly. Before concluding, I want to thank the Australian Embassy in Manila for assisting with arrangements for the delegation, particularly in the congress, which enhanced the visit's success. I would also urge the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to give their full assistance to future parliamentary delegations to the AIPA General Assembly. It is imperative that parliamentarians are properly briefed in order to maximise this important opportunity for Australia in the Southeast Asian region.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge Senator Gallacher, whose interest in international affairs, good humour and cooperation made a valuable contribution to the visit.
I commend the report to the House.
NOTICES
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:10): Pursuant to standing order 113, I fix the next sitting Monday as the day for presenting the Fair Work Amendment (Making Australia More Equal) Bill 2018.
BILLS
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misleading Representations About Broadband Speeds) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by MrWilkie.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:11): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
One of the constants in my time as a member of the federal parliament has been people contacting me, or my office, to express their frustration with telecommunications providers. Sometimes it's customer service and long waiting times to get an issue resolved on the phone. Sometimes it's lengthy delays in getting the NBN hooked up, which I'll talk about a little later. And, increasingly, it's complaints about the quality and speed of their broadband connection, particularly when that quality and speed is significantly worse than what they were promised and what they expected.
My office and I are seeing this over and over again, where customers were promised one thing by a telco but got something markedly different. For instance, one constituent says he's being charged for a 25 megabit per second download speed and a five megabit per second upload on NBN fibre to the home, and he's actually getting less than one tenth of that. In other words, people are getting worse than dial-up speed when they've been promised a whizz-bang, super-fast NBN connection.
Of course, this is a complex matter and there's obviously a range of factors that affect speed and performance. No-one is denying that, and the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misleading Representations About Broadband Speeds) Bill 2018 doesn't seek to deny it. What it does do is stop telcos making misleading claims about quality and speeds that the average customer will never actually receive.
Our consumer law is generally pretty strong and there are laws already against making misleading claims about a product. But, despite this, misleading claims by telcos are slipping through the cracks because they don't, technically at least, fall foul of the law. For example, if a telco says that you'll get a 25 megabit per second download speed, you may get that speed some of the time in certain circumstances. But, overwhelmingly, they're misleading claims and customers are being hoodwinked by the big telcos.
That's why this bill seeks to amend the Competition and Consumer Act to finally enshrine in consumer law that telcos must be upfront and honest about what they're selling. Indeed, this bill requires that telcos, when they sell a broadband service, be prohibited from claiming the service is of a particular quality or speed, without also including certain other information.
The bill sets this required information out in three broad categories: firstly, the typical, not maximum, speeds that the average customer can expect to receive; secondly, typical busy periods and what impact this can have on average speeds; and, thirdly, other factors that might be reasonably expected to affect performance. Moreover, there's a penalty of up to $1.1 million for noncompliance with these requirements, which is consistent with other penalties in consumer law.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is alert to this issue and made it clear to the industry what they should be doing. ACCC chair, Rod Sims, personally has been upfront that misleading claims by telcos are in the commission's sights for 2018.
At the end of the day, if the feedback from my community is anything to go by, then the problem is still out there. So this bill will give certainty for consumers and build on the good work the ACCC is already doing by giving them the power, and a firm legal basis, to go after businesses that do the wrong thing.
The NBN is a very complicated area of policy and it's very poorly understood. I can't tell you how many people have contacted my office over the years who are confused and sometimes even frightened about how it all works. People are worried that they can't keep their home phone and that they'll have to buy a computer. People are worried that they're going to be without a phone because they've received a letter or heard from neighbours that the phone lines will be switched off. And when they try and contact the telco for answers, they simply can't get them. No wonder so many people turn to their member of parliament for assistance. The situations that I've just described are when someone is lucky enough to get the NBN connected. But I've lost track of the number of people who've experienced delay after delay in getting the NBN even hooked up—missed appointments, often over and over again, installations that don't work properly or have damaged property or left a mess for the customer to clean up.
These situations are annoying and frustrating for residential properties. But when someone's trying to run a business and they need the phone and internet, as you so often do in this day and age, an NBN stuff-up can mean the difference between a business staying afloat or going under. And don't even think about trying to get compensation, because the big telcos hardly ever take responsibility for their failures.
I'm sure you can well imagine someone's frustration when they've gone through the arduous process of getting the NBN, waiting hours on the phone, staying home from work, sometimes again and again, because the technicians don't turn up, only to find that once it's switched on the speeds are nowhere near what they were promised.
I make the point again: this isn't simply about individuals who want to have faster internet; it's also about small businesses who need certain speeds to do things like upload video. I can guarantee that, in some cases at least, these businesses simply would not have purchased the plan that they did if they knew the truth about the speeds they'd be getting. Let's not forget too the subpar copper network, which subcontractors tell me is in dire need of improvement.
The NBN was sold to Australians as being superfast and the answer to every internet problem under the sun. As Rod Sims said just recently, 'There is something lodged in the consumer mind that says NBN is coming here to provide you with fast speeds.' No wonder, when you look at the fanfare with which the NBN was announced.
But the truth is that both the Labor and the Liberal governments have made a mess of the NBN, they've given customers unreasonable expectations and they've let the telcos continue to give people unreasonable expectations in order to make money.
Of course, the detractors of this bill will say it's an excessive regulatory burden and too hard for the industry. But that's patent nonsense, because all this bill does is require telcos to tell the truth when they're selling broadband plans to customers. Heavens, it's not rocket science, but simply enshrining in law the industry guidance published by the ACCC. Remember: it's not the customers who have unreasonable expectations about broadband speeds; it's the telcos that are giving them these expectations, and this bill will put a stop to that.
In closing, I'd like to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague the member for Indi, who has heard about similar issues in her community and has been very active in this place in lobbying for reform. I'd also like to acknowledge and thank the member for Mayo for agreeing to second this bill and for her own tireless work on this issue. I invite the member for Mayo to make a short contribution in my remaining time.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:19): Yes. I second the motion. I'd particularly like to thank the member for Denison and I'd like to echo his concerns about NBN retailers advertising speeds far beyond what the average consumer is likely to achieve. For many, what is advertised is an unobtainable dream, and it's unacceptable. I think there could be no more misleading phrase than 'up to'. I do note that the ACCC has been investigating ongoing complaints about this very issue and has recently released a report which sets out six principles for internet service providers when communicating with consumers. Updated consumer guidelines are also expected in June. However, consumers need more than principles and guidelines; they need legislative protections.
My electorate was one of the first areas to have the NBN through, and complaints about the network quickly became the No.1 constituent issue after I came to office in July 2016, including that households were not achieving the broadband speeds they expected and they were promised. I realise that there is a transition period during a rollout when NBN is turned down, for want of a better word, because it has to co-exist with other services. One household might achieve 80 megabits per second at peak times, when residents one street over are only achieving an average household download speed of 12 megabits per second—all that the NBN is required to deliver during the transition period. There is such a discrepancy between what is advertised and what is delivered by the service.
In closing, when constituents tell you that they were better off with ADSL—it was faster and more reliable—something needs to be done. This was supposed to be the greatest national infrastructure project of this century, and what we have is a fraud. It is 'fraudband', not broadband. I commend the member for his private member's bill. It will provide clarity and consumer protection.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hammond.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (10:22): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I suspect none of us in this place will be unfamiliar with the scourge placed upon hundreds and thousands of vulnerable consumers all through the community as a result of being trapped hopelessly in a debt spiral that is occasioned as a result of being caught up in an endless circle of a payday loan or a rent-to-buy scheme. They are technically known as small amount credit contracts, which have significant history in this place. Just to make it clear as to the size and scale of this problem, whilst individual examples are well known to all of us, when one sees the impact across the country of being trapped in a cycle of financial stress occasioned as a result of a payday loan or a rent-to-buy scheme, one truly gets an indication as to just how desperate the situation is and how urgent it is that we do something about it.
In 2015-16, there were almost 620,000 new payday loans, with a book of about $500 million advanced. Two in five of those people who entered into a small amount credit contract loan during this period were unemployed, and one in four small amount credit contract loans were given to people receiving more than 50 per cent of their income from Centrelink. Tellingly—and this is really where that never-ending cycle of financial stress comes into play—one in six of these loans were entered into with a customer with an existing loan. In the second quarter of 2015, 75 per cent of lenders admitted to providing small amount credit contract loans to customers who had had two or more small amount credit contract loans in the previous 90 days.
In relation to the burden placed upon households of those who are exposed to this debt cycle, it is important at this stage to reflect upon the impact on women as to trying to escape out of a cycle of poverty but at the same time requiring money to survive. While it has been the case that women have traditionally only taken up about a quarter of payday loans, that proportion is growing rapidly. There was an 80 per cent total increase in payday loans in 2015, but for women the increase was 110 per cent. Single mother families make up 15 per cent of these households, and 47 per cent of women using payday loans were from single parent families.
It is the Labor Party that has a proud history of taking meaningful steps to put in place regulatory reform in an area that had previously been left unchecked for many, many years. Payday loans and rent-to-buy schemes often involve small-amount loans of up to $2,000. Labor enacted the National Consumer Credit Protection Act in 2009 and strengthened that regime in 2012. During that time in the other place Senator Gallagher and also Senator Cameron did some tremendous work in this space to make sure that there is regulation to protect vulnerable consumers.
Part of that plan was to make sure there was also a mandated review of that space. That took place two years ago by way of the small amount credit contract review. That review put into place a number of recommendations in this space. While they were brought in by the government in November 2016, I'm very pleased to say that, in the blink of an eye, they had bipartisan support. At a time when, more than ever, our community is quite rightly calling out for this place to demonstrate more bipartisanship, I'm pleased to say that this was an area of reform that both parties immediately agreed could and should be brought into play for the benefit of hundreds and thousands of vulnerable consumers right across the country.
What we've had since then has, quite frankly, been a tale of woe from this government. Despite the fact that the good intentions were well publicised, it took almost two years to get legislation to the table. But that did occur. It occurred on 23 October 2017 when the now Leader of the National Party and then Minister for Small Business, Minister McCormack, introduced draft legislation that had been approved by the government's cabinet processes, making it very clear, committing to paper in black and white, that this draft legislation would be out for consultation for two weeks and legislation would be in this place by 2017. That legislation again received bipartisan support from the Labor Party—nothing happened. Despite the promise that we would see some reform, nothing happened in this space. In a circumstance where the Consumer Action Law Centre, as the peak body for those groups, is willing to back these reforms, it is a travesty that the next step has not been taken in this place to have that bill introduced.
This won't happen on our watch. Today we have introduced a private member's bill that is identical in every single way—every clause, every sentence, every comma, every full stop—to the draft legislation that was approved by the government's cabinet and published by the then Minister for Small Business and now leader of the National Party. We have introduced that today. The government, quite frankly, has a choice to show some leadership, to step up and vote for its own bill. In the name of bipartisanship, we make that offer today.
I would also like to take this opportunity to publicly commend the member for Oxley, who will also say some words in this space, who has been fighting this fight at the front line in an electorate that faces financial challenges every single day. Not only has he listened; he has acted, and he's led from the front. He is to be commended in relation to doing his bit to protect vulnerable consumers. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (10:29): I second the motion. I rise to put on the record that the reckless conduct of payday lenders has gone on long enough. I want to thank the member for Perth and members on this side of the chamber, who have been leading this fight to protect vulnerable Australians. I acknowledge in the chamber today the member for Barton, the member for Scullin and the member for Gellibrand. Every single Labor member recognises that it is time to take action to protect families, young people and pensioners who are being ripped off by loan sharks who are exploiting an industry which preys upon vulnerable people as the cost of living drastically increases under this government.
As we've heard, 1.8 million households are now financially distressed and over 650,000 families have turned to payday loans just to get by. These figures have doubled in the past decade and are rapidly increasing at pace under this government. With flatlining wages, insecure work and rising inequality, it's time the government started doing what they said they would do, instead of being rolled by the hard Right, which we are seeing time and time again with the dysfunction and chaos inside the government. It is vulnerable Australians who are now paying the price. Those opposite need to answer a very simple question: do they think it's fair that a mother of two young children with a weekly income of $488 has been signed up to contracts for whitegoods worth $1,600 with a total repayment of a whopping $5,824? An elderly gentleman on a disability support pension of $456 per week was duped into a contract for $2,041 on a consumer lease and repayments with a grand total of $7,790. That is not fair. It is wrong.
The government know this. Their own recommendations have said this. What's changed? It's the hard Right of the Liberal and National parties, which is rolling the assistant minister. We know that because the government have committed to this legislation. So, today, government members have a real choice: will they stand by this legislation which has been endorsed by the cabinet of this country? Will they stand by it? This legislation is the government's own bill, sentence for sentence, line for line. It is time that they started standing up for vulnerable Australians and protecting those people who need protection, instead of rolling over for the loan sharks in this country.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Sharkie.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:33): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
For years this place has held hearings and released reports on how to better support customers of banks, and these reports invariably get buried among the papers, no doubt archived somewhere, and nothing ever really changes.
Just last year, months of hearings took place across the country, with senators listening to further harrowing stories from primary producers who lost everything because of bank lending practices.
And then finally, in December, after several extensions to the reporting time, the Senate Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers eventually released its report, possibly hoping that this report would be lost over the Christmas period.
I do not want to see this report die a quiet death in some archive box and so I have taken a number of the recommendations made in the hearing submissions and put them forward in this private member's bill.
Primary producers ride the swells of international commodity markets, exchange rates and weather, their fortunes so often dictated by factors well beyond their control. Family farmers hope to make profits over a multiyear cycle, using the good years to build their financial buffer to see them through the bad. Capital rich and income poor, the ability of small primary producers to pay their creditors is reliant upon these longer term profit cycles.
Banks have not always been accommodating to these vagaries as faced by primary producers. Indeed, everyone in a rural community during a downswing would have heard the stories of woe, where banks have not been willing to throw farmers a lifeline so as to protect their loan book.
Banks have an obligation to their shareholders and cannot be expected to prop up failing farmers any more than they can be expected to prop up any genuinely failing business.
I appreciate that not all institutions and not all lenders have tightened the screws on their struggling customers but, taken as a collective, it is fair to say that the banks and other lending institutions may not have always made it easier for their rural customers.
It is for good reason that rural Australians are among the strongest proponents of the royal commission into banking, which the coalition government has been dragged into kicking and screaming.
For example, primary producers are often given the barest minimum notice of sudden and unilateral variations to their loan agreements.
Revaluations of a farmer's assets given as security to a loan can be undertaken unilaterally by the bank and during downturns when asset prices are depressed, often as a means to call in the loan and force the farmer off their land and off their loan books. This happens to primary producers even when they do not miss a single loan repayment.
Banks also employ get-the-bank-out-of-jail-free clauses, known as 'material adverse change' clauses. to significantly vary or terminate a loan.
These are just a few of the means by which banks have a distinct and unreasonably upper hand in loan negotiations and agreements.
Farmers are not asking for non-commercial rates to access credit or an unfair disadvantage. Financial lenders, after all, need to remain competitive in order to provide a much-needed service to their primary production customers.
There is always a danger in seeking to redress a policy imbalance to push the pendulum too far back the other way—I recognise this.
However, the power dynamic between banks and primary producers does need rebalancing to give small farmers, in particular, more time and transparency to prepare for whenever there is a potential for a major change or challenge to their financial circumstances.
Further, I recognise that there is a marked difference between large commercial operators and small, family farmers. Thus, the measures in this bill only apply to loans to primary producers for under $5 million.
This bill seeks to take a reasoned and measured approach to level the playing field between the lender and the borrower by:
requiring authorised deposit taking institutions, known as ADIs, including banks, building societies and credit union to provide simple one-page summaries of the clauses that may trigger a non-monetary default by the borrower;
prohibiting ADIs from unilaterally undertaking evaluation of security to a loan; require that when valuations are undertaken a copy of the evaluation instructions and final valuation report are actually provided to the borrower, with the same to apply with any investigative accounting or auditing of the primary production business;
requiring the ADI to provide six months notice before seeking to unilaterally vary conditions on the loan, except where there is a change to the money payable by way of reference rate or it is to the borrower's benefit;
accepting accept where the borrower has substantial breaches of the loan agreement; require the ADI to provide notice and request to meet with the borrower at least six months prior to the expiry of the loan;
prohibiting the use of those catch-all materially adverse changes provisions, except where they relate to alleged fraud or criminal misconduct;
requiring the ADI to provide a minimum of 90 business days notice when the loan is not going to be extended or renewed; and
requiring the ADI to inform the borrower about their right to external dispute resolution when the borrower receives a default notice from the bank or when the borrower is in financial hardship and has declined assistance from the bank or when the ADI refuses to renew or extend the borrower's loan.
Failure to adhere to these protections would result in substantial civil penalties to the bank, building society or credit union.
The content of this bill may seem technical and dry, but it is long overdue and will result in genuine equity for smaller farmers and other primary producers.
It is high time that the coalition government, which purports to represent its rural constituents fairly and even-handedly, gives this bill its full and wholehearted support.
For this place to continue to do nothing on important issues such as regional finance is unacceptable.
It is even more galling when we have members of government wearing akubras and saying that they are the voice of regional Australia, when this issue, more than any other, causes farmers to take their own lives—and nothing has been done.
Statistics on farmer suicide rates are not well documented in Australia, but a 2013 report on Queensland found that the average standardised suicide rates in the 10 years between 2000 and 2009 were 66 per cent higher for farmers than they were for nonfarmers; the youngest farmers have the most tragic statistics, with farmers under 34 facing average standardised suicide rates at 165 per cent the rate of nonfarmers.
So—the hat doesn't cut it anymore—farmers see through this and so do I and they need this place to act.
And so I look forward to working with any member in this place or in the other place who, like me, genuinely wants to improve the lives of mum-and-dad farmers, small primary producers in a very tangible way—and this bill is a good start.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:40): I'm very happy to second the motion and this private member's bill—the Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2018. I support and acknowledge the work of my colleague the member for Mayo and particularly bring to the attention of the House the shocking figures about suicide in rural areas and the number of farming families who suffer through suicide and mental illness. I note that the minister at the table, the Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health, has a particular interest in the impact of mental illness in rural and regional areas.
I put out a call for all members of parliament to start paying particular attention not only to the suicides, because that's the end of the spectrum, but to the large number of people in rural and regional Australia who suffer from mental illness, to the huge problem we have in providing services that are relevant and timely, and to the failure of the government to provide a holistic plan for meeting the needs of people in rural and regional Australia for timely care when they suffer from a mental illness. I know the primary health networks have been given this responsibility. In many areas they are really struggling to provide a coordinated service.
I bring this to the attention of the House and support what the member for Mayo has said. We are facing a crisis in rural and regional Australia. Sure it's among farming families but in my electorate it is much wider than that. We have a huge number of people suffering mental illness. We can't meet the need. We lack coordination of services and we really lack a national approach to how rural and regional Australia can deal with this problem.
I acknowledge the work the member for Mayo and my colleagues are doing, particularly with this specific piece of legislation that refers to loans, but I bring to the House that it's a much wider problem that we are dealing with and we really need a coordinated approach to make sure that people in rural and regional Australia have access to the services they need in a timely and coordinated way.
The answer is not using the NBN. We have heard from the member for Denison about the problems with getting the NBN working in country areas. To say that everyone should go on their mobile phone and use broadband to access internet services is not the answer. We need boots on the ground and we need a national strategy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Aged Care
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (10:43): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the latest:
(a) waiting list for Home Care Packages (HCP) indicates that more than 100,000 older Australians are waiting for the package they have been approved for; and
(b) figures showed that the HCP waiting list grew by more than 12,000 between 1 July and 30 September 2017 and it is likely to continue growing without funding for the release of more packages;
(2) recognises that the majority of older Australians on the waiting list are those seeking level three and level four packages, who have high care needs including many with dementia;
(3) condemns the Government for failing to stop the waiting list from growing; and
(4) calls on the Government to immediately invest in fixing the HCP waiting list and properly address this growing crisis.
I want to highlight the slow-motion disaster that is unfolding right before our eyes—and that is the government's failure to adequately address home care for older Australians. While the government is failing to act, its own figures released recently tell us that 100,000 older Australians are languishing, many of them in limbo, waiting for aged-care packages, for appropriate care or for the care they need. This includes around 80,000 older Australians with very high needs who are waiting. Some of those with high needs have dementia. This is absolutely unacceptable in our nation. As I have said before in this place, these are some of our most vulnerable people. These older Australians have worked all their lives, paid their taxes and built the foundations on which we stand today for the lives we lead.
This government's own website states that most of these vulnerable older Australians will be waiting more than a year for a package that is appropriate for them. Deputy Speaker, you may recall that last week in this place I told you about a constituent of mine—and one of the reasons I have raised this issue in a private member's motion today is the many constituents who have contacted my electorate office—Mr Middleton, of Seaton, a man in his 90s, who contacted me after trying to access a package for his wife. She was placed on a level 4, after an assessment back in 2014. Unfortunately, she passed away last year, in 2017, without any assistance from this government. It is a cruel thing for someone who has worked all their life and brought up a family and done everything by the book for this nation to ask for a bit of assistance in their last few years and have absolutely nothing given to them. That is a complete outrage. This government just walked away with Mrs Middleton. Again today I stand with Mr Middleton to highlight this issue.
The government's commitment in September to readjust the ratio of aged-care packages to create 6,000 additional packages has proven to be woefully inadequate. We know there is a prediction that, every quarter, 10,000 more people will be put on the waiting lists The waiting list has grown by 10,000 in just the last quarter, meaning that these additional packages won't even come close to reducing the number of older Australians waiting for care. I acknowledge that the Minister for Aged Care is here. I know that he is committed to this issue but, unfortunately, his cabinet, his own side, are letting him down with the many cuts that have taken place.
There is growing concern from across the sector about the waiting list. Aged Services Australia and Aged and Community Services Australia have both used pre-budget submissions to urge the Turnbull government to fix the crisis. We know there is a crisis and it needs to be fixed. The latest data was quietly released, a month after it was promised to be released, as parliament rose at the end of the year. The government must urgently make a genuine financial commitment to address this crisis. More than 100,000 aged Australians have been assessed to be eligible for home care, and the Turnbull government is absolutely letting them down. The government has known about this urgent situation for months but has yet to turn its attention to this growing issue. Older Australians and their families are being forced to wait months—and many are waiting well over a year—for carers. Mrs Middleton went three years without anything, and there are horror stories emerging across the country.
Older Australians awaiting home care packages deserve to know when they will get access to these vital services. We know that keeping people home, giving them the care they require and the things they need in their old age, gives them a better lifestyle and more happiness in those last few years. If we don't do this, they become frail, they get hospitalised and they get put into aged-care homes, which costs governments much more than what a bit of home care would cost.
The minister's commentary on this crisis to date has been to point out that some older Australians waiting for care are receiving an in-term package. That might be the case, and it is better than nothing; but when they get assessed for a level 4 and they are receiving a level 2, the care isn't adequate; we know that. We need this to be fixed. It is not acceptable. These are some of our most vulnerable people who have worked all their lives, paid their taxes and built this nation. We need to do better than what we are currently doing.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Collins: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (10:49): I thank the member for his private member's motion. This is a complex issue in respect of the number of ageing Australians who are now reaching a point in their life at which care is needed. But in the past, as I have indicated previously, what families used to do when they were assessed and allocated a package was list their names with a number of providers—and a number of providers would often tell you that they had a waiting list of a significant number. In transitioning to the national list, it became important that we looked at the number of people requiring the different levels of packages, and the report, which the member opposite points out, wasn't released on the basis of a delay at all; it was looking at the integrity of the data to make sure that the information we had was correct and accurate, because it gave us the basis for considering what were the next steps required in the provision of care for older Australians. Certainly that also required a drilling down on the ratio levels that were introduced into the legislation under Living Longer Living Better. In looking at what the ACAT assessors were assessing, we've taken that into consideration as well.
The Turnbull government hasn't failed. It's working through a number of measures that will address the growing need. But I think this is a challenge for all governments in the future, whether on this side of the House or the other side. The baby boomer generation will reach 80 in another seven years time, and the numbers are significant. The release of home care packages encourages people to remain at home for as long as possible so that they remain independent and their mobility and way of life are built around family and being within their community and not isolated.
Our work on dementia builds on the work of the Rudd-Gillard government in recognising the importance of giving serious consideration to the needs of Australians who have been diagnosed with dementia. What we're seeing is a model of dementia programs and services that are community based. We see the incredible initiative in Tasmania, where there is now a community that will provide independent living within a community where they're not isolated. I see the use of technology, with which we are able to have people living at home and being provided with a level of care from a provider. Innovation in aged care is important, but I would still encourage people who are assessed at level 4, if they receive a lesser package than they anticipated and expected, still to take that package. It provides you with access to the levels of care that you need to remain independent and living in your home longer.
There are ways in which we also harness other resources. For any member in this chamber who brings to me issues relating to people within their electorates, I certainly work with my agency and key officers to look at how we use the range of aged-care services to enable people to have access, to ensure some certainty around their independence and also to ensure that they receive services that will meet their needs and provide for the health circumstances that they find themselves in.
Certainly there are instances where I'm advised of the progression of an illness. In one incident recently, a member in this chamber came to me about a couple where the husband was dying of liver cancer. We worked with his wife, who needed support as a carer because of the pressure, but we also made sure that there were other services wrapped around him in order to allow the journey that he was on to be lived with some degree of comfortability, and that included palliation.
We are working to look at how we progress what is required for the future. Aged care has always had a bipartisan approach, because both sides of this chamber recognise the incredible endeavours that senior Australians have put into building the nation that we have built. They are due recognition and support, and I will work to make sure that that happens. I certainly look forward to working in a bipartisan way on this issue.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (10:54): I'm pleased to be able to rise and speak on this important motion moved by my colleague the member for Hindmarsh this morning, because waiting lists around home care packages have become one of the critical issues in my electorate of Newcastle. My electorate of Newcastle is not unique in this regard; I know this is an experience shared around the country.
I thank the minister for his contribution. I was horrified when I walked into this chamber and saw that not a single government member was listed to speak on this motion. Fortunately, the minister was on duty and so happened to be in the chamber, saw the opportunity and took it. I thank you for that, because you are the only member on your side—the government—who thought it worthy enough to invest their time and speak on this motion this morning. That is shocking.
I note at this point that the very reason we are able to have this debate today is the result of Labor reforms that were put in place before we lost government. The fact that we have waiting lists now is because of action taken by a former Labor government. Whilst I acknowledge the minister's genuine efforts, I am sure, around seeking bipartisan support when it comes to aged care reforms in Australia, we are not joining him on a race to the bottom on this one. We can't sit and wait any longer. Tomorrow is in fact the 12-month anniversary of the waiting list being known to the Australian government, so the minister has, as has all his colleagues, had access to this information for 12 months now. That is why Labor have brought this motion to the table today. We are not prepared to wait any longer, in the same way that older Australians should not have to wait any longer.
If there is anything that demonstrates the Turnbull government's total disregard for vulnerable Australians, it is this very issue—the lack of action on addressing what is a looming crisis in aged care in Australia. There are now 100,000 Australians waiting to access packages—packages which they have been assessed as being eligible for but maybe can't get the right level or maybe can't get any package whatsoever in their area. Eighty thousand of those people have high care needs, including dementia. The government has had data on these people for 12 months and has failed, failed, failed to do anything. They are the people we are talking about here. This isn't some kind of esoteric group of Australians who are somehow not known to us.
Recently, the government announced an additional 6,000 packages—but that is clearly woeful. There are 100,000 Australians who need these packages and 80,000 of them have complex needs like dementia, and we have on the table an offer from the government of 6,000 additional packages. Not good enough. This is a competition that no-one wants to win. New South Wales, which tops the list, has close to 35,000 Australians who are unable to access packages. The terrible shameful truth about aged care in Australia is that people will literally die as a result of waiting for these packages. As I said, these are packages for which people have already been approved as being eligible.
In my electorate of Newcastle, too many constituents are reaching out to me in desperation after waiting fruitlessly for support packages to become available. One gentleman who contacted my office was totally at his wits end after waiting close to a year for a high-level package for his 90-year-old mother to be approved. This package would have allowed her to maintain her independence by providing in-home support for things like cleaning and personal care. My constituent said that, in the time he had been battling to get an outcome for his mother, he had logged more than 300 hours on the phone to My Aged Care and Centrelink to no avail. The only satisfaction he got was when my office became involved and was eventually able to resolve this for his mother. Why should people like him and his mother continue to suffer as a result of a government that is floundering? It is so busy with its own problems that it can't resolve issues for older Australians.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (10:59): I'm obviously up on my feet because, as the member for Newcastle indicated, there has been only one government speaker on this motion. It appears that not enough of those on the other side care about older Australians waiting for home care packages. I must say I am flabbergasted that they have no speakers for this motion other than the minister, who just happened to be here on duty. But I do thank the minister for his contribution.
As the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Newcastle have pointed out, Labor is very concerned about this waitlist. This government has followed through with Labor's reforms—the Living Longer Living Better reforms. Indeed, it is these reforms that, for the first time, have given us a national priority queue for people waiting for home care packages. But what the minister hasn't said is that this queue started 12 months ago tomorrow. On 27 February last year these reforms were implemented, so the government has now been collecting this data of people waiting for home care packages for a year. Indeed, we've only had two releases of data about the numbers on these packages and, in between those, in that three-month period, the waitlist grew by 10,000. So not only do we have 100,000 people waiting on the list; we know that last time it grew by 10,000. We're expecting another release of data, the December quarter, so we can find out how many people are waiting now, because we don't know how many more older Australians were added to that list last year.
I am particularly concerned that this list continues to grow. To date the government's only response has been to add another 6,000 packages, and that has been by adjusting level 1 and level 2 packages to create more level 3 and level 4 packages—that is, the high-care need packages. But what we're really concerned about is that our offices are being inundated by people contacting us because their parents are too frail to contact us themselves directly. They're saying, 'Please help me help my parents. Please help me.' We heard from the member for Newcastle that one of her constituents had spent over 300 hours talking to My Aged Care, desperate to get help for their parents.
As the shadow minister for ageing, I am inundated daily by requests from people saying, 'Please help me help my parents.' People want their older parents to receive the care they need. We are a wealthy nation. We should be able to fix this. The government should be able to fix this. After all it is cheaper for the government to fix this than to let older Australians languish in their own homes without the support that they need, because the alternatives to this are, of course, the acute hospital system—where many older Australians end up if they're not getting the care they need at home—or residential aged care. Many older Australians who want to stay at home—and, with the right supports, could—end up in residential aged care when they don't want to.
It is simply not good enough for the government and the minister to come into this place and say, 'We'll cobble together some support—just a little bit—for them while they wait for what they actually need.' In this nation in this day and age that is not good enough. If we can afford $65 billion in tax cuts for big business, we can afford to look after older Australians. It is not good enough that we have 100,000 older Australians, many with dementia, at home, waiting for care. Their children are coming to our offices absolutely desperate to get help for their parents, and this government is sitting by. They had options last year; they had MYEFO last year, and we're hearing, 'We'll fix it in the budget.' Well, they'd best be fixing it, because I will not stand by while older Australians continue to suffer in their own homes and while their children ring our offices desperate for that help and care for their parents.
It is not good enough, and to have just the minister come into this place and say, 'We'll cobble together some support; that'll be alright for a little while till we fix it,' is not good enough. That waitlist continues to grow, more older Australians are added to it every day, and the government needs to do something to fix it. It needs to act, and it needs to act today—not in May, not in July, not later in the year, but today. It can do something about this. It should have done something about it last year. I will continue to get on the government's case and the minister's case until they do something about it.
Ms FLINT: We are here to talk about the motion today, because the coalition government are doing a range of excellent things in the healthcare space, including giving people more choice over the sort of care that will best suit them, their families and their needs. In February last year we transitioned to a new home care system which gives consumers—individuals and families—more choice and control over the care that best suits their needs. The new system means that packages are released directly to consumers rather than to providers, and people who have the most urgent needs or have been waiting the longest receive care packages first. We know that there is a strong demand for the higher levels packages, and it's important to note that people needing these packages are receiving interim support packages which allow them to access services while they wait.
In September last year we announced the release of an additional 6,000 level 3 and level 4 homecare packages over the year 2017-18. This more than doubled the planned growth of high-level packages this financial year, and a number of these have already been assigned to people. The minister and the government are releasing almost 2,500 homecare packages on a weekly basis. In addition to this, in the 2017 budget, the government provided an investment of $5.5 billion to extend the Commonwealth Home Support Program for a further two years to June 2020.
I want to note some other very important points that relate to the care that we provide to all members of our community but which are particularly important to the older members of our community. We have record rates of bulk-billing under this government. Something like 85.9 per cent of all GP visits are now bulk-billed. That's a remarkable achievement that helps many people, particularly our older community members and our pensioners. We have added more than 1,500 new and amended medicines worth $7.5 billion to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which means greater access to medicines for people who need them most—often our older citizens.
Also, under the coalition government, the funding for public hospital services, which is also of course of great importance to our older citizens, has increased from $13.8 billion in the year 2013-14 at the end of the failed Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government to a record $22.7 billion for 2020-21. This is a 64 per cent increase in funding. This means more doctors, more nurses, more surgeries and fewer wait times in hospitals across the nation but particularly in my home state of South Australia.
Just a couple of weeks ago, the Minister for Health announced some really exciting news at the COAG meeting about an additional $30 billion for public hospital funding, which would provide almost $128 million over the five years from 2020. But unfortunately this was apparently not enough for the Premier of South Australia, who is only interested in cutting funding to public hospitals and shutting them down. One of the most important and iconic community hospitals in my electorate of Boothby which particularly serviced a lot of my older residents was the repat hospital, and the state Labor government have shut it down. It is one of the most disgraceful things the state Labor government have done. My community remain terribly distressed about this, and I am really pleased that when we see the state Liberal Party elected on 17 March they will reopen a number of key services at the repat hospital including things such as orthopaedic surgery, which for a lot of our older president is just absolutely a critical service that they use quite a lot. The repat hospital was built for our returned service men and women, and they are many of the people who are suffering from the fact that this hospital has been shut down.
Providing these sorts of services, particularly through the repat hospital, is how we look after the older members of our community, working with the support that the government is providing through homecare packages which give people choice over their care.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:09): This is an important motion, and I congratulate the member for Hindmarsh on moving it. Already what we've seen that it's having an impact because previously there were no government speakers listed at all. The minister just happened to be sitting around doing some paperwork and went: 'Oh, my God! It's my portfolio. I might start talking.' Now the government have sent backbenchers in to read out random dot points and press releases.
I was going to take a point of order on relevance, because most of what the previous speaker talked about was not to do with home care; it was about hospital funding and the PBS and whatever other random pages she'd had shoved into her hand to come here and read to the House. But let's make an important point: I didn't take a point of order, because I think she is digging a hole for the government here. The point of properly funding home care is that it saves money, because people can stay in their own home instead of having to spend more on hospitals. That is an important point.
This is a growing crisis, by anyone's measure. There are more than 100,000 senior Australians right now sitting at home without proper care. This includes 60,000 people with absolutely nothing—no care whatsoever. Forty-thousand people are on a lower level of care than they actually need and 80,000 people need high-needs care, including people with severe dementia. It's important to remember that these are people—human beings—not just numbers. We often bandy around statistics—we need that many billion and there are this many thousand people—but these are human beings: senior Australians who have served our country, worked for decades, built the country and paid taxes, in most cases, and they deserve decent treatment.
This is especially important in my electorate. My electorate has a much older demographic than the surrounding areas in south-east Melbourne, with over 35,000 people aged 60 and over. There is the despair and pain, as the member for Franklin said, of people calling our offices, usually sons and daughters, saying, 'Please, can you do something to help my aged parents, who are living in despair at home without proper care and with no timeline as to when this will be fixed.'
The government should not see this as a surprise. It's been raised before by the shadow minister, by local governments across the country, by aged-care peak bodies and by many Labor MPs. But we've had zero action from the minister. In fact, it's worse than zero action. Despite the minister's polite waffle—he told us it's complex—it's actually not that complex: find the funding and you clear the backlog. He admitted that when he was asked only a few months ago, 'Why is this backlog there?' He said, 'There are budgetary and fiscal pressures.' So, that is the truth of it. He's already said what the problem is: the government have not prioritised funding for senior Australians. That is the fact of it.
They have prioritised, as the member for Franklin aptly said, a tax cut—a $65 billion tax cut for big business. The other thing they prioritised in their budget was a tax cut for everyone in this chamber. The top two per cent of Australians, those earning over $180,000, got a tax cut from this mob in the budget. They got a tax cut—
Mr Falinski: Are you kidding? That was not a tax cut—
Mr HILL: Oh, sorry. 'We removed the deficit levy.' Is that what we're hearing? You removed the two per cent deficit levy—which is a tax cut—and guess what? The budget is still in deficit. Maybe we should have kept the deficit levy there. I'll put my hand up and say, 'I, for one, would be happy to pay an extra two per cent tax.' I don't think anyone in Australia would begrudge senior Australians decent care and a decent homecare package to put that levy back on.
Government members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The member for Mackellar will be quiet. So will the minister.
Mr HILL: I encourage you to just take what you can get. I encourage people on waiting lists to—whatever level you're offered—to just take that offer. Like it or leave it. It doesn't actually matter if you need four days a week of care and you can't shower yourself. If you can get someone to come for two hours a week and clean the kitchen, well, that's good enough. Just take that. That's what the minister said. That's a direct quote.
What about the government? The minister's not up to it. He's a lovely man and I speak highly of him. I would speak more highly of him if he'd come and visit the Dandenong and District Aborigines Co-operative in my electorate, but we are living in hope. He says he'll come one day. But what about the government? They've obviously been to the Christensen school of courage, haven't they? They're courageous; they're brave. Look at all the speakers here willing to stand up for their reforms.
Ms Brodtmann: They're coming in at the last minute!
Mr HILL: That's right. It's not a complex issue. For my final point, I need to call the minister out on something. He said in dulcet tones, 'Aged care is generally a bipartisan issue.' It's not a bipartisan issue right now. Those hundred thousand people are not a bipartisan issue. This is your mess. It's your shame. The $3 billion cuts to residential aged care are not a bipartisan issue. This is your mess to fix.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
Ukraine Famine: 85th Anniversary
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (11:14): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that commemorations are underway for the eighty-fifth anniversary of Holodomor, to mark an enforced famine in Ukraine caused by the deliberate actions of Joseph Stalin's Communist Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
(2) recalls that it is estimated that up to seven million Ukrainians starved to death as a result of Stalin's policies in 1932 and 1933 alone;
(3) condemns these acts aimed at destroying the national, cultural, religious and democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people;
(4) condemns all similar acts during the twentieth century as the ultimate manifestations of racial, ethnic or religious hatred and violence;
(5) honours the memory of those who lost their lives during Holodomor;
(6) joins the Australian Ukrainian community and the international community in commemorating this tragic milestone under the motto Ukraine Remembers—The World Acknowledges;
(7) recognises the importance of remembering and learning from such dark chapters in human history to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not allowed to be repeated; and
(8) pays its respects to the Australian Ukrainians that lived through this tragedy and have told their horrific stories.
This May will mark 85 years since the pinnacle of a devastating forced famine deliberately engineered by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. This famine, known as the Holodomor, claimed an estimated seven million lives in Ukraine. Stalin and the Soviets reduced millions of people to living skeletons in some of the world's most fertile farmland, whilst stocks of grain and other foods rotted by the tonne. The Soviets seized food from families and punished people for keeping food as opposed to surrendering it to the authorities. The Ukrainian people suffered tremendously as a result. The death toll was catastrophic. The latest estimates suggest up to 7.4 million people died as a result of the policies of the Soviet government.
The survivors of this famine tried to tell their stories to the world. Sadly, this atrocity was further compounded by the systematic cover-up of the famine by the Soviet Union. Even mentioning the famine was punishable by hard labour, and blaming the authorities was a death sentence. This even extended to those officials who were simply trying to do their jobs, and many were executed for simply reporting population numbers accurately to the Soviet government.
Nevertheless, survivors managed to tell their story to the world in time. One survivor, Oleksa Sonipul, lived in a village in northern Ukraine in 1933:
She said by the beginning of that year, famine was so widespread people had been reduced to eating grass, tree bark, roots, berries, frogs, birds and even earthworms.
… … …
As food ran out in the villages, thousands of desperate people trekked to beg for food in towns and cities. Food was available in cities, although strictly controlled through ration coupons. But residents were forbidden to help the starving peasants and doctors were not allowed to aid the skeletal villagers, who were left to die on the streets.
Ekaterina Marchenko is another survivor of this horrific period. She wrote in her diary at the time of the famine:
Where did all the bread disappear, I do not really know, maybe they have taken it all abroad. The authorities have confiscated it, removed from the villages, loaded grain into the railway coaches and took it away someplace. They have searched the houses, taken away everything to the smallest thing. All the vegetable gardens, all the cellars were raked out and everything was taken away.
As the famine reached its apex, the desperation of people was clearly apparent in memoirs and the testimony of survivors. People pulled vegetables out of the ground before they ripened. Villages were stripped of animals as people ate everything they could. Reports even exist of the victims resorting to cannibalism to survive. Stalin had seized not just food designated to be eaten but also the seeds and plants that would have been used for the harvest. As a result, many of the farmers could not even plant seeds to create the next harvest. This was amplified in the cities, where food was just as scarce. When rationed food was handed out, people would trample each other to try to get it. Those that were forced under the crowds were reported to have been left for dead.
These actions were devastating to the Ukrainian people. It has left such a scar in the psyche of the Ukrainian people that it has since been made a crime in Ukraine to deny the Holodomor, similar to the criminalisation of Holocaust denial in other nations. These cold-blooded acts carried the purpose of destroying the national, cultural, religious and democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people.
Those that survived either suffered in silence or left the Soviet Union and tried to tell their story to the world, despite the denials of the USSR. Some of these Ukrainians even came to Australia and shared their stories. Along with Senator Catryna Bilyk, I have had the pleasure of being the co-chair of the Ukraine-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group and have had the opportunity to meet a number of members of the Ukrainian community from my electorate and other areas of Australia. Ukrainian Australians see this forced famine as a deliberate and cruel attempt at eradicating their nation. Their memory of this tragedy and the impact on their families continues to play an important part in their lives today. As such, I would like to join the Ukrainian-Australian community and the international community in remembering this tragic milestone under the motto: 'Ukraine Remembers—The World Acknowledges'.
In honouring the 85th anniversary of the Ukrainian tragedy, I would also like to acknowledge the memory of millions of people of other nationalities who died of starvation and famine in other parts of the former Soviet Union as a result of civil war and forced collectivisation. These groups bear the scars of the crimes perpetrated by the Soviet Union, and the legacy of these crimes live on through their memory.
There is a great deal of importance in remembering and learning from such dark chapters in human history to ensure that such crimes are not allowed to be repeated no matter the circumstances. We must remember those who suffered through this devastating famine as well as those who starved to death and were left in mass graves. We must also remember those who were forced to stay silent in their suffering out of fear of punishment from an authoritarian state. As such, I would like to recognise the 85th anniversary of the Holodomor, an international tragedy which brought a people to their knees at the behest of the authoritarian Soviet government.
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (11:20): In the spirit of bipartisanship, I second the motion. In rising to support this very worthy motion moved by the member for Dunkley, I'm reminded of discussions about history and the lessons you learn from history that I had with my parents around the kitchen table when I was a young man. I think many on the other side and I know the member for Canberra did as well, in different ways.
My father, who recently passed away, spoke about the great dictators in human history, the impact that totalitarian regimes could have and the people who oversaw those totalitarian regimes, and mentioned three things that should not be forgotten; the first one was the Holocaust; the second one was, in my father's words, the mass murder perpetrated by Joseph Stalin; and the third was the cultural revolution led by Mao Zedong, which killed many millions of people.
The reason my father raised these issues—and the reason I'm very happy to speak to these particular issues—was that we must always learn from history. Item 7 in the member for Dunkley's motion says:
… recognises the importance of remembering and learning from such dark chapters in human history to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not allowed to be repeated…
That is one of the key reasons we are here—to remember. In remembering and discussing these terrible events that occurred, for the many young people who did not live through those experiences, we drive home the importance of why we do need to learn from history: if you don't learn from history, you can repeat history. The question is: do we want these very dark chapters of our history, particularly from the 20th century, to be repeated?
Having spoken about this informally, I wish to pay my respects to the Australian Ukrainians who had family members who lived through that particular tragedy. As the previous member said, an estimated seven million Ukrainians starved to death as a consequence of Stalin's policies between 1932 and 1933. The term 'tragedy' is used, but I think it was deliberate. It began in the chaos of a particular theory of collectivisation, when millions of peasants were forced off their land and made to join state farms. It was then exacerbated in the autumn of 1932 when the Soviet politburo, the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party, took a series of decisions that deepened the famine in the Ukrainian countryside. According to Anne Applebaum in her article in The Atlantic:
At the height of the crisis, organized teams of policemen and local Party activists, motivated by hunger, fear, and a decade of hateful propaganda, entered peasant households and took everything edible: potatoes, beets, squash, beans, peas, and farm animals. At the same time, a cordon was drawn around the Ukrainian republic to prevent escape. The result was a catastrophe: At least 5 million people perished of hunger all across the Soviet Union. Among them were nearly 4 million Ukrainians who died not because of neglect or crop failure, but because they had been deliberately deprived of food. Neither the Ukrainian famine nor the broader Soviet famine were ever officially recognized by the USSR. Inside the country the famine was never mentioned. All discussion was actively repressed; statistics were altered to hide it.
It's gratifying, though, that you can try to cover over these mass crimes against humanity but eventually they see the light of day. Those listening this parliament it is gratifying in particular on the 70th anniversary of this very dark chapter in human history, that a joint statement on the great famine of 1932-33 in the Ukraine, the Holodomor, was issued on 10 November 2003 at the United Nations in New York. The statement noted that in the former Soviet Union millions of men, women and children fell victim to the cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime. The great famine took between seven and 10 million innocent lives and became a national tragedy of the Ukrainian people. The reason why we are talking about this here and why I commend the member, is that we must remind people who have not lived through this period that human nature does have a very dark side to it. Totalitarian regimes in their quest to control populations will embark upon the most inhumane measures we can possibly think of. It reminds people that when you have a totalitarian regime these things can happen. We must never forget this and we never will.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:26): First I would like to congratulate the member for Dunkley for bringing this motion to the House. I would also like to congratulate the member for Holt on his words during this motion. The word Holodomor, literally translated from Ukrainian, means death by hunger, or to kill by hunger—to starve to death. It refers specifically to the brutal famine imposed by Stalin's regime on the Soviet Ukraine and primarily ethnic Ukrainian areas in the northern Caucasus from 1932 to 1933, which claimed an estimated seven million lives. We say seven million quickly. That is the entire population of the state of New South Wales that were killed in the Holodomor. In its broadest sense the Holodomor is usually described as the Ukrainian genocide that began in 1929 with massive waves of deadly deportation of Ukraine's most successful farmers, as well as deportation and execution of Ukraine's religious, intellectual and cultural leaders, culminating in the devastating forced famine that killed more than seven million innocent individuals, as I said.
This is just another in the long list of deaths caused by communism in the 20th century. History demonstrates that in every country that communism was tried it resulted in poverty, massacres, starvation, terror and death. The black book of communism puts it close to 100,000,000 deaths over the past century: 65 million in the People's Republic of China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; two million in Cambodia; two million in North Korea; 1.7 million in Ethiopia; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; one million in the Eastern Bloc; one million in Vietnam; 150,000 in Latin America. The list goes on. Alan Charles Kors, Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania, said of communism: 'No cause ever in the history of all humankind has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughter of innocents and more orphans than socialism with power. It has surpassed exponentially all other systems of production in turning out the dead.'
While we may never know the exact number of deaths from communism, we also must remember the poverty, the hardship, the cruelty and torture that occurred under communist regimes. We ask ourselves, why does communism always fail? Why does it always end up in such terror?
I would argue that it, firstly, does not appreciate the importance of incentives in the economy. It fails to understand that the wealth of an economy can rise and fall, and that attempts to redistribute wealth destroy the very incentives that create it in the first place.
History has shown that communism has been nothing other than a philosophy that has destroyed millions of lives—100 million lives. Yet, in contrast, we have seen free market capitalism be the greatest wealth-creation machine that the world has ever seen—lifting close to one billion people out of poverty since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Yet, if we walk around our university campuses today, we are likely to spot students wearing Che Guevara T-shirts. You see in Melbourne young students protesting with the hammer and sickle emblazoned on their T-shirts.
We owe it to the 100 million dead, the victims of communism, to tell their story. We owe it to them to continually remind today's generation that communism is nothing other than a violent philosophy that has destroyed millions of lives. It is a death cult. We cannot trivialise it. Again I thank the member for Dunkley for this important motion. It's important that we continue to remind today's generations of the horrors of communism and the devastation and havoc it has wreaked across the past century.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the honourable member for Swan.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (11:31): I would have thought that there would be another speaker on the other side. I rise in support of the motion put forward by the member for Dunkley relating to the Ukrainian Holodomor. I'm a firm believer that those who cannot or do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. We must remember the pain and suffering caused by such events and honour those who lost their lives. We must recognise the importance of such dark chapters in our human history to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not allowed to be repeated.
I thank the member for Dunkley and other speakers who have contributed for reminding the House of the significance of Holodomor. This May marks 85 years since Holodomor—the enforced famine in the Ukraine caused by the deliberate actions of Joseph Stalin's Communist government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Mr Deputy Speaker, I'd like to take you back a couple of years further. It's 1930 and 1.5 million Ukrainians have fallen victim to Stalin's policies that saw the arrest, deportation and execution of the richer peasants. Nearly 500,000 people were forcefully removed from their homes, packed onto trains and sent to often uninhabitable regions, such as Siberia. Many were left without food and shelter. Many of those who survived the journey died soon after. The worst was yet to come not only in Holodomor. That paragraph reminds us of the period under Hitler with the Jews in Europe.
In the summer of 1932 the Soviet government dramatically increased Ukraine's production quotas. They ensured that they were unachievable. Starvation quickly spread across the country. Soon after, Stalin implemented a decree that called for the arrest and execution of any individual, including children, caught taking even the smallest amount of food—grains from the fields they worked on or stalks from a neighbour's crop. Military blockades were set up around many Ukrainian villages to ensure that food wasn't brought into the villages, and the hungry weren't allow out in search of food. Stalin attempted to teach a lesson through famine.
The forced collectivisation and the seizure of crops and farms by the Stalin government had devastating consequences. By June 1933 and at the height of the famine nearly 30,000 people were dying each and every day. It's understood almost one-third of these were children under the age of 10. These children were brutally punished for stealing the smallest amount of grain. They were malnourished and eventually fell victim to Holodomor. The death toll was catastrophic. Almost 7.4 million people died as a result of the inhumane policies of the Soviet government.
I join with the member for Dunkley in condemning these acts which aimed to destroy the national, cultural, religious and democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people and in condemning all similar acts during the 20th century as the ultimate manifestations of racial, ethnic or religious hatred and violence. The atrocities of the Holodomor were further exacerbated by the Soviets' denial of the famine. Outside assistance was refused because the regime continued to deny that there was in fact a famine. Denial of a famine was long echoed by Eastern and Western journalists like. Survivors of the famine had their stories discounted and discredited and were often subject to punishments such as hard labour for even mentioning a famine. To suggest blame on the authorities risked a death sentence. Those just trying to do their jobs, such as those responsible for reporting population numbers accurately, were often doomed to execution.
It wasn't until the late 1980s, just prior to Ukraine reaching independence in 1991, that greater scrutiny and attention was paid to the atrocities of the Holodomor. The fall of the Soviet Union allowed previously suppressed documents and oral testimony from survivors to come to light which provided irrefutable evidence of the tragic famine. In 2006, the Parliament of Ukraine passed a decree defining the Holodomor as a deliberate act of genocide. It was formal acknowledgement of the pain and suffering inflicted on their people.
I join with my fellow members of parliament speaking on this motion in paying respect to the Australian Ukrainians that lived through this tragedy and those who have bravely shared their stories. Australia has continued to deepen its ties with Ukraine in recent years. We've opened an embassy in Kiev and we've remained steadfast in our support of Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russian actions. This is reflective of our similar values and strength of our people-to-people links, underpinned by a community of almost 50,000 Australians of Ukrainian descent. Again I thank the member for Dunkley for his motion and support it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
BILLS
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Prime Minister and Cabinet Legislation Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2018
Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Executive Accountability and Related Measures) Bill 2018
Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2018
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (11:37): I was immensely pleased the New South Wales Liberal government committed $1.2 million to our cause. Not only will the track be replaced and become a danger-free zone for young and less young athletes but the grandstand and amenities will get a revamp too. It's the only synthetic running track in the northern part of Sydney and its refurbishment will mean a world of difference thousands of kids, young athletes, amateurs and Olympians using the track every single week. Thank you for your support and patience, which has made this achievement possible.
I'm proud to report that, since my election in July 2016, under the Turnbull government we have managed to secure grants and funding for 35 community organisations. These funds go directly to the community groups which everyone on the Northern Beaches knowingly or unknowingly comes into contact with in one way or another. It goes directly to providing better services and better support for our community. The Davidson Volunteer Rural Fire Brigade was able to build a station extension. The Australian Outrigger Canoe Racing Association of New South Wales bought safety equipment. Volunteer Marine Rescue in Terrey Hills funded its radio room upgrade, while the Scotland Island Rural Fire Brigade bought community fire unit boxes. The Sharing Stories Foundation in Palm Beach received a grant for language workshops and equipment to work on projects with out Indigenous peoples. Northern Beaches Interchange used its funding to better care for teenagers with disabilities. A grant was allocated to the Australian National University for improving innovation connections. Playtec was supported through a business growth grant. We helped the Rotary Club of Belrose with funds to cover their fuel costs. The Tibetan Community of Australia was able to buy computer equipment.
Under the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program, we funded a project with the Australian PV Institute to develop a solar-powered mapping tool currently being rolled out by the Northern Beaches Council. The Manly Warringah Women's Resource Centre was able to install new appliances, and the Be Centre Foundation upgraded its IT. The Northern Beaches Business Education Network received funding to upgrade its emergency systems, while Easylink Community Services was able to purchase a vehicle for community transport. Lifeline Northern Beaches will be getting water and flooring upgrades, and we've supported the Narrabeen Lakes Festival with equipment for a generator. The New South Wales Branch of the Scout Association of Australia was able to install solar panels and get air conditioning. The Burdekin Association will be setting up a youth hub for mental health in Pittwater under the Stronger Communities Program. MWP Community Aid received funding for iPads, and the Cottage Point Association received funding for a defibrillator and its supporting signage.
For those living in such a beautiful and natural environment, sport has always been and will always be an integral part of life on the beaches, so supporting our local sports clubs is a top priority. So far, the Avalon Beach Surf Life Saving Club has received funding for a function room upgrade and to install a flagpole. South Narrabeen Surf Life Saving Club was able to buy a vehicle for community transport. Collaroy Surf Life Saving Club was able to upgrade its gymnasium, while Palm Beach Surf Life Saving Club restored its facilities for female lifesavers. The Liberal government supported Narraweena Junior Rugby League Football Club with equipment and training costs. Both the Manly Warringah Gymnastic Club and the Pittwater Rugby Club were able to buy new equipment. The New South Wales Gun Club refurbished its disabled amenities, and the Peninsula Bridge Club bought new equipment.
Far from being a tagline, 'lest we forget' actually means something to our community on the Northern Beaches. We have a long and proud history of supporting both our ageing veterans and our current service men and women. So many individuals work tirelessly on this front, and I continue to do everything I can to ensure their work is supported. The Narrabeen RSL Sub-branch was able to purchase a public address system with help from a government grant. The Avalon Beach RSL Sub-branch received funds for salaries and administration, as well as to support and train in veterans advocacy. We are also supporting the Veterans Centre Sydney Northern Beaches with salary and administration support and have recently allocated them a grant to look into the availability of service dogs for our younger veterans. It is probably the cutest grant that I have ever made!
I'd be remiss if I ignored the fact that our region, as beautiful as it is, can also be prone to natural disasters. Anyone who lives on the beaches knows the devastating impact some of our worst storms have had on the community and how hard it is to rebuild. That's why disaster relief is so critical. After numerous representations, we managed to secure funding from the federal government to help the council cover the costs of clearing storm debris and restoring community assets after the February 2017 Sydney storms, the June 2016 east coast storms and floods, the April 2015 east coast storms and floods, and the October 2014 eastern New South Wales severe thunderstorms. That money helps ease the burden on ratepayers who ultimately bear the cost of cleaning up and rebuilding our community after these disasters.
I am proud of these achievements. I am proud of my community, which does so much and asks so little in return, and I am privileged to represent it. There is more work to be done. Over the coming year and however long I will have the pleasure of serving you, I will fight for our fair share on the northern beaches.
For example, Cottage Point is a small community of about 250 residents, nestled on the banks of the Hawkesbury River, on the edge of Mackellar. Bounded on all sides by bushland and water, it is accessible only by a narrow road through the bush or by boat on Pittwater. This small community is home to a yacht club, a highly successful cafe, one of Sydney's best restaurants that often makes the list of top 10 restaurants in the world, Marine Rescue New South Wales, and a local Rural Fire Service brigade. The residents are highly independent and don't ask for much from government.
Currently, telecommunications are extremely poor, with virtually non-existent mobile coverage and an unreliable and old ADSL connection serviced by microwave link to Berowra. For local businesses and residents, this situation is incredibly frustrating. Businesses that depend on internet connections for EFTPOS and bookings frequently see disruptions, often at the height of busy weekend trade. Over the Christmas holidays, we saw the speed with which tragedy can unfold and the importance of having quick connectivity to Marine Rescue and other emergency services when a seaplane crashed into Pittwater, near the Hawkesbury River.
Making sure Cottage Point receives adequate connectivity remains a top priority. I will continue to push on behalf of the community for upgrades to mobile services and for federal government funding through the Mobile Black Spot Program. Given the area's exposure to bushfires and the number of visitors enjoying our beautiful Pittwater waterways, this is a safety imperative.
As well as Cottage Point, too many residents on the beaches, especially at Palm Beach, Avalon, Bilgola Plateau, Newport, Narrabeen and Oxford Falls, struggle daily with inadequate mobile phone reception. As the rollout of the NBN progresses, many residents are ditching their home phones and relying on mobile phones. Older Australians who are choosing to remain in their homes longer, aided by the provisions of home care services, often rely on medical alert systems, which run on 3G or higher mobile connections. With the increasing rollout of telehealth services, these connections will become ever more important. For these reasons and others, I will continue to work with our providers to ensure services are upgraded and these black spots are fixed. It is simply not good enough that in the 21st century we still suffer from major mobile black spots in metropolitan areas, where most people live.
The Manly Warringah Gymnastic Club, as I mentioned previously, is Australia's largest and most successful gymnastics club. Under the leadership of its CEO, Ian Hardy, the club has gone from strength to strength, with over 2½ thousand members and 220,000 visits per year. As the only high-performance centre in Northern Sydney, the club serves a huge catchment area, with members from all over Sydney. The club, however, has long outgrown its current location, with some gymnasts being turned away due to lack of space. Despite years of successive promises from local council, this premier facility is still without a plan for a new fit-for-purpose and enlarged gym. I will continue to work with local and state governments to ensure that we can find a solution to secure the long-term future of this club on the northern beaches. A club which trains some of New South Wales' and Australia's best gymnasts cannot be lost due to inaction and lack of support.
The repair of the seawall at Collaroy Beach after the storms in June 2016 has been stalled by red tape at Northern Beaches Council and disagreements with the state government. The centre of the bureaucratic storm is the location of the protective barrier and how it should be built and maintained, and this argument is still going on 18 months later. Liens on residents' properties, easements, bank guarantees and unlimited liability are conditions that Dick Persson, the council administrator—this unelected official—was attempting to impose on residents. Residents believe council is shifting the burden of maintaining the public beach onto the Crown and residents.
Meanwhile, residents live in fear of another storm where their houses will go unprotected.
The Wakehurst Parkway is a vital transport artery on the northern beaches. Far too often, however, the parkway is flooded and closed. With the increasing pace of development on the peninsula, the construction of Northern Beaches Hospital and the need for emergency access despite regular flooding near Middle Creek, the parkway will have to be widened to North Narrabeen from Seaforth to flood-proof it. In recent years, the parkway has been closed due to flooding an average of four times a year. Dredging Middle Creek and raising and widening roadways are on the table. In other words, the parkway needs to be rebuilt, including all the bridges. Preliminary funding of $5 million has been provided by the state Liberal government to support investigations by Northern Beaches Council into practical action to minimise siltration and improve water flows to prevent flooding.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (11:51): If you have watched the news in recent days you might be forgiven for thinking that the government's excuse for not getting on with the job of governing in the interests of Australia's future is the chaos that is occurring behind the scenes such as the issue with the previous leader of the Nationals, Barnaby Joyce, or the previous citizenship debacle. But I am here to say quite clearly that none of those things that happen in the background, none of those peripheral issues, stop a government from doing its job. This government should be doing its job anyway. Scandals are no excuse for not doing it.
The Public Service still chugs away, no matter what's happening. I will say that it does stop you from getting your messages in the news, but it shouldn't stop you from actually doing the work. It shouldn't stop you at all. The Public Service still chugs away and, if given nothing else to do, it will clean up and repair. It will still come up with the reports you've asked for. It will still develop the policies you've asked for. There are lots of ministers on the front bench who weren't involved in any of those debacles. They should have been getting on with their jobs. There is no reason whatsoever why this government shouldn't still be effective.
I'm going to go back to the last time Labor were in government. We were in government roughly the same amount of time as this government has been—between five and six years. So the government have had roughly the same time now as Labor had to build their agenda, do their reports, survey what needed to be done, come up with their plans and introduce big policy ideas. They've had six years. Yet all we've had from them is a corporate tax cut. That's all we've had at the moment. I want to compare this to the last six years of the Labor government, because we also had moments when it was difficult for us to get our messages out. We also had moments of chaos. We did. But it was not in terms of governing. Let's remember back to those days.
We introduced an emissions trading scheme. We tried once and failed. Then we finally introduced an emissions trading scheme. This government came in in 2013 and abolished it and emissions have been rising since. We created the NBN. We did the hard work of the structural separation of Telstra. That took a while. It was a hard policy area. But we did it, and the NBN was set to grow. This government came in and deliberately destroyed it. On instructions from then Prime Minister Abbott, then Minister Turnbull deliberately set about weakening the NBN and we see the disaster that it is now. We created the National Disability Insurance Scheme, something we worked with the community on for years before finally establishing it and launching some test sites. Again, we have seen this government not do its bit in making sure that it rolls out as well as it should. There are very real issues with it, and every member in this House would know people in their communities who are struggling with its implementation.
We introduced a new school funding model. Again, there were years of consultation. We increased funding across the board, with incredible support from the public and private school sectors. Again, the government knew it was a good thing when in opposition because it committed to it. When it got into government, it scrapped it. We've seen $30 billion in cuts, in spite of the government's rhetoric, from schools since then. We created the Tasmanian forestry agreement. It was incredibly difficult work to find a pathway towards sustainable forestry in Tasmania. This government got in and scrapped it.
We established the marine parks—something that many people in my community are very proud of, as am I. And what happened? We had the Abbott government come along and wind back the management plans. It is still up in the air. The marine parks, now six years later, are still at risk.
We developed the Murray-Darling Basin plan and the water triggers—incredibly difficult policy areas—and we have seen this government attempt to wind that plan back in spite of the very serious issues in the management of water, particularly in New South Wales and Queensland.
We developed the national agreement on housing and homelessness— something that was working very well. Tens of thousands of new properties came into the affordable housing market because of that agreement. When the government came in, they were very slow to act. We are still in a transitional one right now, between 2017 and 2018, even though since 2011-12 we have seen the number of people aged over 55 seeking homelessness help grow by 9.5 per cent each year—and we have a government that still has a transitional agreement and has cut $44 million per year from homelessness funding since 2014-15.
We introduced paid parental leave. The government hasn't quite scrapped that but they sure as hell have cut it. There are 70,000 mums who will be worse off now thanks to this government cuts.
Apprenticeships actually grew during the global financial crisis. Knowing how downturns usually decimate the apprenticeship base—they completely take out take people who have done a few years and it is very difficult for them to get back in—the Labor government we worked very hard on apprenticeships. The number of apprenticeships actually grew during the financial crisis. Now, though, we have 148,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than when this government was elected—in spite of the fact that we are in the best economic conditions in 10 years. In Parramatta alone, there are 1,100 fewer apprentices now than there were in September 2013. And, of course, the government has cut funding from TAFE. They have cut more than $2.8 billion from TAFE skills and training. And, in the 2016-17 budget, Prime Minister Turnbull cut a further $600 million from TAFE skills and training over the next four years. That is quite extraordinary from a government. There is no excuse for this government not to be addressing the major issues of the day, and the training of the future workforce should be one of those.
In the Labor government's first years, we gave the biggest increase to pensions in decades. We increased the single pension by about $100 a week. And what did this government do when it came in? It changed the taper rate and seriously undermined the financial stability of part-pensioners—an incredible change for a group of people who had already retired. If you talk to a person who has recently retired, one of the things that they tell you gives them a real shock when they first retire is that they realise the money they have is what they have and they're not actually going to earn any more. So to change the conditions of people once they have retired in the way that this government did by changing the taper rate is quite extraordinary. There are many angry people out there who planned for their retirement for decades and retired on one set of rules and then had those rules change, which significantly undermined their earnings for the rest of their life. The government is also trying to ditch the energy supplement, leaving pensioners up to $366 a year worse off. And they still plan to increase the age pension age to 70. Many people in my community have signed petitions about that.
When Labor was in government, even in a hung parliament, even though we had to convince conservative independents in this House and a progressive party in the Senate, we still managed to get all of this stuff through. We put an extraordinary commitment into renewables, growing that sector strongly under Labor policies. But since this government came in, when they essentially slashed support for renewables, we have seen investment plummet. And we have seen dramatic increases in power prices for households and businesses, which are suffering much more, with no real answer in sight six years later.
Instead of getting down and doing the work of figuring out what they were going to do to invest and grow this incredible sector—which is growing around the world so quickly, but not in this country—they have been attacking private companies for making sensible decisions to shut down ageing power plants when the cost of upkeep makes them commercially unviable. You also might remember that in 2015 then Treasurer Hockey instructed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to stop funding windfarms. So strong is their ideological contempt for renewables, they have done incredible damage to our renewable sector and put us back years.
We can also talk about the economy when it comes to this government. Despite all the rhetoric back when they were in opposition and in their early days in government about growth and jobs—and they are still on it—their performance when it comes to GDP is actually not that great. Between 2010 and 2014 we had the fourth highest GDP growth among OECD countries. The US, UK, Japan and Germany were all contracting back then, but we had the fourth highest GDP growth among those 30-plus OECD countries. Now, in that same group, we are 20th. We've actually slumped to 20th. We are behind Mexico, Estonia, Finland, Latvia and a whole range of other countries. So we have gone from a leader under the former Labor government to a lagger now when you look at the global league table. So all the rhetoric about jobs and growth from those opposite is just not true—and that's despite the fact that GDP growth worldwide is the highest it's been in 10 years. The IMF is actually adjusting forecasts up; yet we are now lagging at No. 20.
The same story can be said of debt. For all the talk of the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister and the previous Treasurer and the current Treasurer about the $200 billion gross debt being frightening and promising that the Liberal government would never ever run willy-nilly into debt and describing the $300 billion in projected as gigantic and an almost conceivable level of debt, what's happening now goes far, far beyond that. It's currently about $515 billion. They said that $200 billion was frightening and now, after six years of Liberal government, it is $515 billion with no sign at all of that slowing down. From the government's own budget papers we are talking about gross debt not even peaking over a 10-year horizon.
There are also a lot of small things that we did in government that had quite an impact. We abolished the gag clauses that the Howard government had introduced into the grant agreements for charities. I was really proud of that, because I had been the subject of one of those gag clauses once. We abolished the gag clauses, and this government came back in and they introduced them again. We abolished temporary protection visas and this government came in and they are back again. We established a loss carry-back scheme for small business where business could carry back losses in one year against tax paid in the previous two years—something that was called for by small business. But that was abolished when this government came to power in 2013. We also established a permanent instant tax write-off scheme for small business. The government abolished that and then they replaced it a year later with a temporary one—a bigger amount but temporary. In the university sector in western Sydney, when Howard was in government—prior to us winning government—we saw a decline in the number of people from low-socioeconomic status households enrolling in university. We turned that around in six years of a Labor government, and we are now seeing it go back again.
There have been substantial cuts to child care. While the government may claim that the households that are worse off are the wealthier ones, that is actually not true. The households that will suffer most from this government's childcare changes are those where you have a parent trying to get back into the workforce, where they can't demonstrate the number of hours required to get the appropriate rebate because they're still trying to get into the workforce.
Housing—you'd expect that this government would have acted on housing by now. We're in opposition and we've managed to come up with a serious housing policy, but this government hasn't. And that's in spite of the fact that in areas like mine, Western Sydney, the rent for a three-bedroom house has now surpassed that in Sydney generally. In Western Sydney, in Parramatta the median rent is now $500 a week compared to $470 for Sydney wide. It's a crisis in Western Sydney. We've got 24.5 per cent of rental households under stress and 12 per cent of home owners under mortgage stress. In six years you'd think the government would have thought, 'Gee, we really should do something about that.'
A bit of scandal, a bit of gossip going around on the outside are no excuse for a government not doing its job when it comes to these things. This appropriation bill should be an exciting document. It should be moving Australia into the future, but it's not. Gossip has taken over, and this government has ceased to function. (Time expired)
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (12:06): It's always good to follow the member for Parramatta, another fierce Western Sydney advocate. She will also be affected by the new train timetable we have for the western line, which is causing a lot of headaches for the residents in my electorate of Lindsay. The new train timetable is an absolute mess, it's a debacle and it's a guessing game trying to get a run home from work of an afternoon. Delays, cancellations, system meltdowns—day after day after day, the commuters in Western Sydney are being buggered around by the New South Wales Liberals. It's an absolute debacle. Often there is only standing room on our train lines. In a place that recorded 47.3 degrees in summer, there's no air-conditioning on those trains either. It's going from bad to worse.
The people of Lindsay don't have too many options, because it's either two hours on the M4 with a toll—we had a toll on the toll road and then it was removed because we'd already paid for the road; now we have the toll back again. Lucky us!—or it's rolling a dice to catch a train home to Western Sydney with a system that is constantly in meltdown. Commuters got a fair increase at the beginning of the year as well, so they're now being slugged even more to catch an unreliable service. But that's what you have to do if you live in Western Sydney: you have to commute. Why are they commuting? Because that's where the jobs are.
In the next 33 years more people will live west of Parramatta than they do in the east. We have a three per cent higher cost of living and inferior transport options compared to our inner-city cousins. Half a million Western Sydney workers will need to commute outside the region, with an expected 200,000 fewer jobs available to workers by 2026, which is not that far away. But where are the local jobs? Where is the Turnbull government's strategy for local jobs in Western Sydney? Population growth is outstripping jobs growth, and this has been the case for years and years. There is clearly a growing need to create, attract and sustain quality jobs.
We know the projected growth and we have a proposed corridor for transport options, but it's only proposed; there's nothing really happening. It's kind of like: we might get there, we might not, but it's really not a priority. There are plans for a rail line. Maybe it will go north south, maybe it won't go north south and maybe they're still deciding; but, in any case, it will connect to an already overcrowded Western Sydney line. There is no comprehensive plan to deal with people movement in Western Sydney.
We know Western Sydney airport is supposed to be the Holy Grail and aerotropolis that is destined to save us all. We hear about the boards being created, where the bulk of the people on the boards don't come from our area. They see an eastern Sydney sunrise every morning; they don't see a Western Sydney sunrise every morning. They come from the east and they tell us what's good for us. They make the decisions and tell the people of Western Sydney what we're going to get and what we're worthy of.
The 24-hour airport has no comprehensive infrastructure plan or jobs plan for locals, but we keep getting told it's the only thing we're worthy of having, it's good for us and we should just accept it. We hear about tens of thousands of jobs. It was going to create 60,000 jobs; now, based on the statements by the minister, it's going to create 11,000. But where are the jobs for the locals? Where is the jobs guarantee for Western Sydney residents so that they can get out of their cars, get off the M4 and forget about paying that toll, or get out of the stuffy train and stop being crammed in like sardines?
Where are the local jobs for my Western Sydney community? Show us the benefits? Those in the Turnbull government are ripping the guts out of the future for Western Sydney kids and out of Western Sydney University for healthcare, and there is absolutely no strategy for my community and Western Sydney more broadly.
In 2050, the kids who are currently in primary, kids my kids' age, will be in their 40s—a terrifying prospect for me as their mum. What's the future going to be like? We come in here to advocate for our next generation. What is that going to look like for them? Are they going to be taking up a university degree? Will they be able to get a trade? Will they be raising kids of their own? What will my community be like then? What will Lindsay be like in 2050? Will they have a local job to go to? At the current rate of growth and job creation, absolutely not. Will they have a fantastic place to live in Lindsay? If you're recording 47.3 degrees in summer, I'm guaranteeing it's going to be pretty hot and, unless we take some action on climate change, it's going to be even hotter. To support a great future for all of the residents in Lindsay, we need a government that is committed to Western Sydney, not someone who, each election campaign, takes a day trip on a train—with a TV crew no less—to say, 'What a great man I am! I can get on a train and come all the way out to Western Sydney.' That's not action; that's not a plan. That is tokenism, and that's all we've seen from those opposite in this place.
To have a great future in my community, we also need a great hospital that supports not only the current community but also the growth that I talked about before. By 2050, in Western Sydney, we're going to have more people living west of Parramatta than living east of it. So you'd think there may be some future planning happening to futureproof my community or to give us some decent options out there, but, no. The Turnbull and Berejiklian governments need to act now to fix Nepean Hospital. We've seen no serious increase in clinical funding, and it continues to be the most under-pressure hospital in New South Wales. They have promised $550 million but will not give us the $1 billion that we need to help with our projected growth or the current need. Hospitals on the other side of Parramatta got $1 billion each—no fight required, no picket lines, no TV cameras, no petition, no community angst, no stories in the paper week after week of women giving birth on floors or women miscarrying in public toilets and bathrooms. There is no plan for Western Sydney. Instead, they are spending $2.5 billion or more on rebuilding Sydney stadium so that the people who attend soccer matches or the football don't have to line up in a queue for so long to get a pie and a hot dog. I think that the people of Lindsay are not silly. They're not fools, and they should not be treated as such. What an absolute waste of resources this $2.5 billion is—which, we heard over the weekend, is actually going to blow out. Where is the investment for Western Sydney? Why do our people constantly get the raw end of the deal? It's no wonder they feel let down by the Turnbull government.
It's even worse for our school communities, following the Turnbull government's $21 million kick in the guts for the thousands of local schoolchildren who returned to school at the beginning of this month. In Lindsay, public schools will be $21 million a year worse off, thanks to funding cuts by the Turnbull government. Figures released by the Parliamentary Budget Office confirmed that every single public school in my area—the ones that I go to week after week, the ones whose presentation assemblies I attend at the end of the year—is going to be getting a cut. That has to be the worst back-to-school gift this government could give any school. A $21 million funding cut is a slap in the face for every single family who pays their taxes and has a child who is going to school in our area—where, by the way, enrolments are up; for the first time in our history, we have more kids enrolling in a public school than in our local Catholic school system. We know that this impact on our kids will be massive. Test results show that Australian students are slipping behind the rest of the world, and anybody who says that funding doesn't make a difference probably never stood in a classroom with nothing and held a piece of chalk and actually tried to teach kids.
Bill Shorten has said that, in order to get every single school up to its fair funding level, a Labour government that he leads will restore every single dollar that these Liberals have cut. The government claims it's increasing spending on schools, but they're using Tony Abbott's 2014 budget, where he announced a $30 billion cut, as a baseline. So they get in over there and they talk about the 'Mediscare' campaign, but they don't talk about the budget fudging that they're doing. They're reversing some of these measures, but it's still a cut when compared to the original funding arrangement. The PBO figures show that schools in this state are losing $856 million over the next two years alone. That's the equivalent of sacking 8,890 teachers, or three teachers from every single school in New South Wales. Nationally, more than 80 per cent of the cuts fall to public schools.
Last year, I managed to get around nearly every single school in my electorate. Every school was worried about how those cuts would affect its students. You only have to look at one of the local high schools in my electorate that has a 20 per cent Indigenous student population. The biggest investment that they made with their Gonski money was that they were able to get year 9 and 10 boys to start reading. If this government doesn't value that kind of achievement with additional resources and additional funding, I'm not quite sure what will stand out as an achievement for it, because I can tell you now that those boys who have learnt to read in year 9 and year 10 will go on to have much better lives and much better career options and prospects because of that skill.
The Prime Minister and the Liberals are ripping out billions and billions of dollars at the same time as enrolments are going up. More money means more teachers and more individual attention for every single student, but that's not actually what's happening now. Education is a priority for Labor, because we believe getting a great education shouldn't actually be determined by your postcode or your parents' bank account. Certainly when it comes to Western Sydney, we don't want our kids to feel like they're any less than any other students. So the need is the greatest out there.
A great education is the ticket to a lifetime of opportunity. It's a ticket that every single child in this country deserves, regardless of who their parents are, and the schools in my electorate are crying out for resources. They need to bring up their physical building structures. They need to bring up air conditioning into their classrooms. I don't want to see a time when local teachers are putting their hands in their own pockets to buy readers, or when P&Cs are no longer fundraising for things like tech—iPads in classrooms—or we're not fundraising for basic things like being able to send kids on excursions and giving them basic access to things like life education. That's certainly the case for the public school where my kids go.
Given how hot it is out in Western Sydney, we need to think about how we make those classrooms and those spaces much more livable so kids on hot days can actually go and learn something rather than sit and sweat their guts out. There are a number of schools in my electorate—including Kingswood High School, Glenmore Park High School and Kurrambee School—that just don't have any air conditioning, which is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace that this is not a priority for the government. Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister of this country, should be ashamed that he's scrapped a policy that was making our school system fairer so that kids in Western Sydney had the same access as every other school across New South Wales.
Let's talk about the uni funding cuts, shall we? Western Sydney is amongst the worst funded and worst affected regions hit by the $2.2 billion in uni cuts. The former Labor government uncapped uni places, resulting in huge increases in the number of students going to Western Sydney University. But that growth will come to a standstill, because the Prime Minister has effectively reintroduced a cap on the number of university places, taking us back to the bad old days of John Howard. Enrolments in university under Labor increased by 60 per cent in my electorate of Lindsay. In my community, there was a 60 per cent increase. That's massive, and now we're slamming the door in the faces of all of those kids and removing all of that educational opportunity for the kids out in my area. We opened the door and made uni more accessible for people from low- and middle-income families, and now Malcolm Turnbull is locking them out.
Most of the kids in Western Sydney that end up at university are the first in their family to attend, so making it harder for these kids to go is only entrenching disadvantage further. My university, Western Sydney University, will be the hardest hit, with $98 million worth of funding cuts handed out. Sixty per cent of students at Western Sydney University are the first in their family to attend. That's a phenomenal number. Instead of supporting them, this government wants to lock them out.
We're already facing an uphill battle, with the level of tertiary qualified people sitting well below the averages, and the cuts also mean our university's critical outreach programs, industry partnership programs and government partnership programs are all at risk. These programs are focused on addressing Western Sydney's pronounced educational equity gap. It is just not good enough, and while ever I'm the member for Lindsay I will not come into this place and let this government go by without absolutely shaming it on the disgusting treatment that Western Sydney residents are getting. Those cuts to university are a really cruel blow, because hardworking year 12 graduates may now be denied a place at university. It's even more galling to see this Prime Minister ripping funding away from students to pay for tax cuts for multinationals and millionaires. How does he justify making it easier for big business to pay less tax but harder for people to go to university?
Not only do we have cuts to schools and inadequate investment right across Lindsay; we've also got problems in the VET sector. The latest data shows that Commonwealth funding to the vocational education and training sector has had a $1.6 billion cut. That's a 27.3 per cent reduction according to the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, and this is on top of state governments cutting around 13 per cent of funding. Instead of investing in local jobs and skills, they cut funding to TAFE and vocational education. Day after day, they are failing to help the youth of this country, and particularly those in Western Sydney.
They are failing to support the families out in my area, with 1,798 families worse off under the new childcare packages that come into effect on 2 July. Those families are part of the just under 280,000 families across Australia who will be worse off. Most of the families who stand to be worse off are families in the lowest income cohort—families who have a combined income of less than $65,000 a year. This government is absolutely out of touch when it takes credit for an increase in fees and introducing a new childcare package which leaves nearly 2,000 families in Lindsay worse off. It's just another kick in the guts for families out in my area who are struggling with flat wages growth and are facing massive hikes in their electricity, education and health bills. The residents of Lindsay need some more action. They need a government that actually cares about what happens to them, that is invested in them and that knows what they need to survive and thrive.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (12:21): I note that there aren't any contributions from the other side today—on the appropriations bill, no less. The member for Grayndler, the member for Jagajaga and I this week will celebrate and mark the occasion of 22 years in this place. I don't recall—and I think they would agree with me—seeing a situation where government members are not contributing to an appropriations debate: a freewheeling and wide-ranging debate which allows members opposite, members on this side and the crossbenchers to discuss anything at all. It's not possible to be picked up by the Speaker for being not relevant to an appropriations bill.
This is a fantastic opportunity: 15 minutes to talk about how wonderful the government might be doing; 15 minutes to talk about what a wonderful job they're doing in health and education and defending the environment; 15 minutes, maybe, to talk about what's happening in their own electorates—as we just heard from the member on this side—and to talk about the things that have been done. But, apparently, they have nothing to say. They have nothing to say for two possible reasons, if not both. One is that nothing is being done in their electorates. That is one conclusion you might come to. A second reason might be that they are embarrassed to speak. They are not prepared to come in here and defend their own government, a government so dysfunctional and distracted that it is achieving nothing in this country. The truth is that this government has stopped governing. They are self-imploding. They are so distracted by their internals they have stopped governing.
The bad news for the government is that the punters are on to them. They understand it. All they read about on a daily basis is scandal and internal division. Sadly, it looks like they're going to be reading about that for some time to come yet. I can see, already, the member for Warringah and the member for New England sitting up the back there smiling away. If anyone on that side believes either of those gentlemen—I'll call them that—have put their political aspirations behind them, then they are kidding themselves. So, the future doesn't bode well for all those who are represented by the people on those benches, particularly the members of the National Party, who have completely forgotten people living in rural and regional Australia. Constituents can't be hopeful that anything is going to change anytime soon. It's a disgrace that members are not prepared to either come in here and defend their government or come in here and stick up for their constituents. It's a disgrace, and not something I've seen in my 22 years in this place.
That brings me to some issues in my own electorate which I want to speak about this afternoon. Traffic congestion is not something often associated with regional communities, but the Hunter Region, happily, is growing very strongly, and traffic congestion in the Hunter Region is a real issue. In fact, it is so much of an issue that it would be dangerous of me to single out particular problems. But I'm going to nominate four problems today which I think are a priority: the Glendale interchange in Lake Macquarie, the proposed Singleton bypass, the proposed Muswellbrook bypass, and the proposed Cessnock ring road and our aspirations to link Cessnock proper to the Hunter Expressway. These projects are important not just in terms of traffic congestion; they will unlock the further economic potential of the region. So they are traffic projects but they are also economic projects.
It is extraordinary that the 11 councils, the 11 local governments, in the region unanimously support the Glendale interchange as the region's No.1 infrastructure priority. That is pretty extraordinary in a large region so diverse in its communities. They unanimously support the Glendale interchange. A Labor government funded it here in Canberra. The Lake Macquarie Council has been prepared to put its money where its mouth is—and I think the contribution they are offering is $6 million or $7 million. But we can't get conservative governments in Canberra or Sydney to take the project seriously. It's time they did take the project seriously and recognised the economic benefits that will flow from the completion of the Glendale interchange and the wonderful difference it will make for commuters moving from one side of Lake Macquarie to the other or from the western side of Lake Macquarie to the Newcastle CBD.
The second project is the proposed Muswellbrook bypass, which has been under consideration since 1988—at least, that's when I first became aware of the issue. The CBD of Muswellbrook is still inundated with trucks moving up and down the New England Highway. Mayor Martin Rush and the council there are doing a wonderful job of revitalising and beautifying the CBD and making it an attractive place to shop and visit. But it is very difficult while it remains the main thoroughfare for heavy traffic and indeed vehicular traffic on a daily basis. Labor was funding the planning of this project when last in government. But since the election of the Abbott government, and then the Turnbull government, the project has come to a grinding halt.
The next project is the Singleton bypass. Every morning, even when in Canberra, I tune into ABC Radio Newcastle—
Mr Husic: And why wouldn't you!
Mr FITZGIBBON: The member for Chifley rightly says, 'Why wouldn't you!' I'm sure he does it occasionally as well—
Mr Husic: I try.
Mr FITZGIBBON: particularly if he thinks he might be on the news! The traffic news every morning notes what is happening in and out of Singleton because of the commuter traffic heading to the coalmines. We still have a very healthy coalmining industry in the Hunter region—and may we do so for many years to come. Traffic through Singleton is a nightmare. Despite the New South Wales government making a lot of noise about a bypass over the period since 2011, we still don't even have a fixed route option. I am going to let the Turnbull government off the hook here. The Turnbull government can't fund a Singleton bypass if there is not a Singleton bypass to fund. Until the New South Wales government produces a project, it is pretty hard for the Commonwealth to fund the project. So I appeal to the New South Wales government to get on with it, give Singleton the bypass it deserves and give those who are in that traffic nightmare on a daily basis the relief they deserve.
The fourth project relates to Cessnock, my home town. Cessnock is another high-growth area in the Hunter region. It is growing rapidly. Of course, that is partly because people are attracted to the beauty of our wine tourism and other attractions. The problem is that with the way Cessnock has developed historically, with its periphery of mining communities, everyone living in any of those villages or new housing estates goes to the CBD every morning or afternoon as they exit or re-enter the town. That is a traffic nightmare. The council is acutely aware of the problem and has identified a solution. That solution is twofold. It includes Cessnock ring road which will allow commuters to exit their suburbs around Cessnock out of town without going through the CBD and to come in the same way. It will also link Cessnock city to the new Labor funded and built Hunter Expressway, which would give people a quick exit to Newcastle and other places to which they might be commuting.
This is not an inexpensive project, I concede. In fact the ring road would be in the order of $174 million, and the link to the expressway and the required interchange would be expensive projects. But the economic return would be enormous. There is an inevitability about this project. This will have to be done at some point, and the state government and federal government should get on with supporting council's plans to do so.
There is another element. Sadly, more than a year ago Cessnock had thrust upon it a massive expansion of the corrections centre right on the edge of the town. It's virtually in the town, I would argue. It is only hundreds of metres to residential streets. The state government decided it would change its own planning laws so that council and residents could raise no objections and so that this project would not be subject to the scrutiny of council or local communities. There was very little consultation and very little opportunity for people to express their concerns about the impact of that massive jail expansion on Cessnock and its community.
I want to say at the outset that I do acknowledge and recognise the benefits of the expansion to Cessnock, both in construction opportunities and the impact on the community and on an ongoing basis, because the jail will be easily the city's largest employer. So I want to acknowledge that there are benefits to Cessnock. The New South Wales government would have had a significant level of support from the community if it had gone about this thing the right way, not changed its planning laws to protect its own decision and: provided a new entry and exit out of the jail so that substantial traffic movements are not going into residential streets; increased police numbers in Cessnock to deal with any antisocial impacts from the expansion; and made sure our hospital had the facilities necessary to deal with prisoners who might need to visit. That would not have been asking much. How many of those three key points have been recognised and addressed by the New South Wales government? Not one.
So it's time for the New South Wales government to make up for its mistakes. It's time for it to get serious about the ring road. It's time for it to get serious about ready access between the township of Cessnock and the Hunter Expressway. Of course, the ring road would provide a new entry and exit out of the jail, taking those traffic movements out of the residential streets of Cessnock. These are residential streets, of course, that the council has to maintain on an annual basis. So it's an easy opportunity for Premier Berejiklian and her government to make up for the massive expansion in Cessnock and to reward the residents of Cessnock for accommodating the jail expansion, keeping in mind that that jail generates enormous income for the New South Wales government.
Ms Burney interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: I hear the member for Barton agreeing. She as a former member of the New South Wales parliament would know this. Enormous revenue comes to the New South Wales government as a result of that jail, and that revenue is going to increase over time. So the residents of Cessnock should be compensated for what this expansion is doing for our image, arguably. Being known as the place of potentially the biggest jail in the Southern Hemisphere is not exactly what we're looking for as a town promoting ourselves as a wine tourism destination. They should be compensated for the impact on the roads and on the hospital. We see prisoners being brought into the emergency department at Cessnock jumping the queue, the queue where local residents have been sitting and waiting for a protracted period of time.
Residents are conscious of these issues. They know about the adverse impacts. But, as I said, they know that benefits come too, and they will accept that in net terms. They will accept that the benefits are there and that maybe the benefits can overcome the negatives of the project. But they will only do that if the New South Wales government gets serious about properly developing the project—that is, making sure the road issues are addressed, the health issues are addressed and the social issues are addressed. Until the New South Wales government is prepared to do that, it will not have wide support from the Cessnock community. The Cessnock ring-road is a fantastic project—something that is inevitable, something that has to be done, something that will allow Cessnock to grow without the usual growing pains, or at least minimise the growing pains. It's a great opportunity for New South Wales to get serious. We now have that jail expansion. I say to the Premier that there's not much we can do about that, but you can compensate us by backing some of these very important projects.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (12:36): What an exciting day, a truly exciting day: Australia has a new Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Really?
Mr HUSIC: Yes, the 19th Deputy Prime Minister, apparently. With a shiny new Deputy Prime Minister in place, I was expecting to hear an excited announcement that good government would start today—again.
Mr Craig Kelly: Who said that?
Mr HUSIC: I will accept the interjection. The member for Warringah was the author of that sentiment: 'Good government starts today.'
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! I remind members that all comments must be made through the chair.
Mr HUSIC: We heard the member for Warringah say, 'Good government starts today,' and while those opposite don't often want to quote the member for Warringah in this place and they're trying to airbrush him out of history, it certainly would be expected that we would hear today that good government would start again. Whenever I hear that phrase, I'm reminded, for example, of those signs you see in workplaces that say, 'It's been 100 days since a workplace accident,' and I'm wondering whether or not we could have a similar sign placed in the ministerial wing of this place that says, maybe, 'three days since good government'. I'm probably being a bit generous about the three days. But I think it's a great day today and I don't want to ruin the buzz of the coalition, because it's probably the first time in a long time that we haven't had the word 'embattled' put in front of the title of either a Prime Minister or a Deputy Prime Minister, so I want them to enjoy the day. But the reality is—and the general public are coming to expect this—we are always going to get out of this government dysfunction and division. The second thing we will get out of the government when that is realised is that they will promise, 'No, we'll be better.' I'm sure we will get these types of promises today, where we'll hear that the government are back on track and that they'll resume good government and that they'll be doing the right thing for the people of Australia—until the next stuff-up, until the next thing comes along and we find out that there is some division, some blue, within the coalition, and everything gets derailed. It's not good enough for the country, frankly. The country has all these challenges and issues it wants to deal with, and we're all held up waiting for the latest drama to play itself out in the coalition party room. It's simply not good enough.
People are expecting more. People in my area expect good results. I would put firmly on the table this question: why does the federal government hate Mount Druitt?
I ask that for this reason: we struggled for years to get funding for an MRI to be put in the local hospital, Mt Druitt Hospital. In 2013 Labor committed to provide this as an investment. The then health minister, Tanya Plibersek, announced that we would make that commitment. One of the first actions of this government on arriving in government in 2013, in their first MYEFO—it was the warmup act for the horrific 2014 budget—in their first financial act as a government the coalition ripped that money away from Mt Druitt Hospital and denied us an MRI in that area. People know people that an MRI is a crucial piece of equipment that helps in the identification and treatment of cancers that so many people struggle with. They refused to provide the MRI.
I'm not prone to congratulating the New South Wales Liberal government, but I will say that, to his great credit, Premier Mike Baird committed money for an MRI in Mt Druitt Hospital. To their great credit, and I salute them for this, they make sure this MRI was installed last year. They then approached the federal government and asked for a Medicare licence to cover the use of the MRI so that people aren't forking out to use it. What was the federal government's response? Not content with failing to provide the equipment that will help local families in their battle against things such as cancer; not content with not providing the equipment, they now refused to fund the Medicare licence attached to the MRI, even though it has been requested. This is at a time when we know, as the member for Ballarat and shadow minister for health indicated at the weekend, people are already paying on average $47 out of their own pockets to see a GP and up to $99 to see a specialist—they are paying this already—they will have to pay to go and get an MRI, which in some cases, I am told, might cost up to $600. In an area where the weekly household income in my area is a shade under $1,500. It is not small bickies. There are a lot of people who don't have the money to pay up front for an MRI, yet they're being told that they will have to pay for it themselves and the government doesn't have the money for a Medicare licence. They have $65 billion for a corporate tax cut; they have that money; but they don't have money for people who are in need and struggling who don't have the capacity to pay for expensive things like this to get it done for themselves. It's an absolute outrage. People in my part of Western Sydney should not be forced to pay that amount of money because of the absolute callousness of the federal government in refusing to do the right thing when their state counterparts did the right thing in putting the MRI in.
Let's look at the amount of money that is spent by this government, that says that they are fiscally responsible. I'll turn to another area that both the member for Barton and I would have a deep interest in: digital transformation. A lot of people would not be aware of the amount of money that this federal government has put aside for digital transformation or ICT projects. It is $10 billion. The amount of money, the spend that's being put in, now rivals the amount of money in the Newstart allowance budget allocation. This is a huge amount of money that has been put in. We know at the same time that there are ageing platforms within the entire federal government in IT. We know that. We know also that there is not enough digital capability within the public service, because of all the cuts that we've seen in the public service, to manage that, so they're heavily reliant on outside contractors to do a lot of this work. But this federal government, much as it has promoted and says great things about digital transformation—in fact the then communications minister, the now Prime Minister, back in 2015 said that he was bringing in a team of insurgents and they were going to shake things up and do digital transformation in a way that had not been experienced on the planet—he said he would do all that, and where has gone? It's gone off with a whimper. Digital transformation has come to a grinding halt. Dare I say, we have seen the end of digital transformation under this government. When we look at the pitiful end of digital transformation under this government, the obituary is here. It's the current ministry list of the federal government. When you see where digital transformation ended up, this has not been missed. It's now placed under the same minister who manages human services. So the Minister for Human Services is also responsible for digital transformation. We know a lot of people questioned the way in which the Department of Human Services resisted the digital transformation reform process, and it is very telling that we saw that the former assistant minister, Angus Taylor, who promised that he would revolutionise it and even wrote a book about digital transformation, is gone from digital transformation.
Mr Watts: He's transformed!
Mr HUSIC: He has transformed into a black hole—disappeared. Thank you very much, Member for Gellibrand. The second thing that we noticed is that digital transformation has come under the same minister as the Department of Human Services. The other thing we noticed—this one was slipped out, for people in the know who watch this—is that we heard this news in late December:
The Department of Human Services' high-profile chief information officer Gary Sterrenberg will depart the agency … after more than six years in the role … It leaves arguably the most technology-intensive leadership position—which involves looking after the IT operations of Centrelink and Medicare …
This was very quiet. It is a very big departure. For those that follow this process outside—and I accept that there won't be many that will—I tell you what: as has been observed to me, if you're a senior public servant in the Commonwealth, you used to get yourself acquainted very much with financing and build your skills up there, but what's now also going to be required is a commitment to not just having digital literacy but understanding how IT will transform the way public sectors operate and the way departments operate. We lost a big one here, and it was slipped under the carpet. This person, with so much experience—who's contentious, I might add; he had his fans and his detractors—certainly disappeared. They are very interesting changes: Angus Taylor is gone, Michael Keenan gets responsibility for DHS and digital transformation, and the CIO of Human Services quits—huge within there. When we see all the things that this government has done in this space, the impact on digital transformation—the census, robo-debt, problems with the child support agency, the ATO website going down over a dozen times with no explanation as to why, and accountants being affected by this—it is just terrible.
I'll tell you the other thing that's looming on the horizon that is going to drive small business nuts, and this is another area of the digital economy that is already causing concern. The government's domain registry body, auDA, is now revolutionising the way in which web addresses in this country, particularly for small business, will be managed, and small businesses are now demanding answers about the introduction of these new domain names, with a former non-executive director of that domain registration body warning 'the rollout of the new domains could result in a long period of "David and Goliath" battles for web addresses', because there will be a concern that 'organisations that registered ".com.au" sites after April 2016 would have to apply and potentially fight it out to claim the equivalent .au domains', which 'could cause significant financial and time costs to small businesses'. As one person who responded said:
It smacks of an idea hatched in a pub after far too many beers.
Another said:
It is common knowledge the dominant and most aware extension in Australia is .com.au. Why disrupt this and cause confusion and chaos in our ecosystem?
Josh Rowe, who previously served as a non-executive director of auDA, said that he had been 'waiting for a solid explanation from the organisation about why ".au" domains are necessary'. He said:
I'm quite open minded about being able to be convinced there is a need, but the issue is, no case has been put forward.
Again, not content that they're stuffing up digital transformation in their own backyard, the government now want to affect the way in which some of their decisions impact on small businesses in this country. They'd better get this sorted out quick smart. SMEs do not have to have visited upon them the kind of calamity that we've seen in the federal Public Service when it comes to digital transformation and the way that tech issues are being managed. That should get sorted out really quickly.
In my last two minutes, talking about big lots of money, I have to say I am watching with increasing interest the amount of money that is going into the second Sydney airport. We've already had $3.5 billion dedicated in this infrastructure package to support it. When the government couldn't get Sydney Airport to take on the role of monopoly operator of all airport infrastructure in this country, they said they would put $5.3 billion into the airport. This is going to be a 24-hour facility and it is going to run completely differently from what happens on the other side of the city. It will be flights over Fairfield roofs and flight-free over Kirribilli in terms of the way that this will be done. I watch, as I have said, people standing in rows of five deep on railway platforms on the western line, waiting to catch a train. Then they have to potentially stand on that train for 50 minutes. I see in the weekend papers that the government is planning to spend up to $30 billion on the north-south rail link, between Badgerys Creek and Rouse Hill.
Western Sydney residents love seeing greater public transport access, because they are frustrated to their back teeth about congestion on our roads. But what they want to see is a comprehensive plan for people movement across the region; they want to see how they will be able to move around. Bear in mind, they are spending 50 minutes on that train at the moment. The claim on the weekend is that it will be 50 minutes from Badgerys Creek airport to the city. Yeah, right! Let's see that happen. You can't even get people from Doonside to the city in 50 minutes and you reckon you're going to get that on a congested rail line. The other thing is that $10 billion is being loaded up on this facility, and we don't have flights plans. People don't know where this airport is going, and there is no jobs plan about the jobs that will actually be created for Western Sydney residents. We deserve more for the money that is being spent.
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (12:51): I start my contribution on the Appropriation Bill (No.3) 2017-2018 by reflecting on Australia Day in Hampton Park and the Day of Nations. It was a good day, particularly given the contribution made by the Hampton Park Progress Association and the good volunteers who are involved with it on the Hampton Park progress committee. What it did was demonstrate the diversity that exists within our country. Referring to the Day of Nations means that the local community, particularly in Hampton Park, came together to celebrate the contribution that people make, regardless of their walk of life, where they came from or what religion they practice. It was a great spirit there.
One of the key issues that has arisen in my constituency over some period of time is the persecution of the Oromo people in Ethiopia. I have had fairly extensive consultations with the Oromo community, particularly with three representatives from that community. I made a commitment to them that I would raise in this place their ongoing concerns about human rights issues and persecution in Ethiopia, in particular the ongoing plight of the Oromo people in Ethiopia. The representatives that I spoke to updated me on the latest developments regarding the Oromo protests in Ethiopia. I have spoken on numerous occasions about how, over recent years, the Oromo people who, according to the Oromo diaspora, newspaper reports and the US congress, experience ongoing persecution and are targeted by the Ethiopian government.
Since April 2014, the Oromo have been staging protest rallies across Ethiopia against, in their words, 'the systematic marginalisation and persecution of ethnic Oromo'. The immediate trigger for the first wave of protests was a development plan that sought to expand the territorial limits of Ethiopia's capital, Addis Ababa, into neighbouring Oromo villages and towns. Oromos saw the proposed master plan as a blueprint for annexation, which would further accelerate the eviction of the Oromo farmers from their ancestral lands. In light of the Oromo protests, the Ethiopian government has used overwhelming force—this has been seen on many occasions, and I have spoken about it in this House—to crush the protests, killing hundreds of protesters and arresting thousands.
According to my sources within the Oromo community, the Oromo diaspora here in Australia, in light of the ongoing persecution, on the 11 February 2018 the youth of the Oromia region launched a new protest and a three-day market boycott. This drastic economic boycott suspended the operation of businesses and government activities. It was unlike any other protest in the history of the country. The objectives of this particular boycott were: to drop all charges against senior opposition leaders and release all political prisoners without any preconditions; to stop displacing Oromos from their land and intimidating the Oromo people; to stop the war waged on the Oromo people along the Oromia border with the Somali region, using the notorious Somali special forces known as 'Liyu police'; and to stop the killing of innocent people by the army.
The impact of the boycott was felt nationally, as the whole Oromia region boycotted the movement of people, goods and services across the country. Markets were closed down. Civil servants did not turn up to government offices, and schools and universities were closed. The transportation system was also brought to a complete halt. This boycott was well organised, disciplined and attracted support from just about every different grouping of the community and the country. As a result of this boycott, the Ethiopian government was shaken to its core within a matter of 48 hours. Consequently, 70 opposition leaders including Bekele Gerba, the secretary-general of the opposition party, was released. Bekele Gerba, the secretary-general of the Oromo Federalist Congress was arrested in December 2015 after mass protests broke out in the Oromia region over accusations that farmers were being forced to sell land, with scant compensation for the plan.
In light of the release of key opposition leaders, as well as other prisoners, the third day of the boycott was called off. That resulted in jubilation across Ethiopia and particularly across Oromia. However, in addition to these celebrations, the Oromia peoples are mourning the loss of over 30 civilians who were killed in various cities across the country by a special government unit called Agazi. The most callous of these cruelties took place at the Hamaressa camp. On 11 February this year, as the boycott commenced, the Agazi invaded the Hamaressa camp in eastern Oromia where defenceless and displaced people were sheltering. Over 13 people were killed. Other Oromia people were uprooted from their homes by the government militia.
Unfortunately, as I speak, I'm informed that close to one million Oromo internally displaced peoples in Bale, Burana and Harar deserts are exposed to starvation and other human rights violations. These internally displaced peoples are now surviving on help that is being sourced globally by Oromos, including those in Australia. I think our displaced Oromo diaspora believes that the Australian government should consider providing aid relief to the Oromo peoples experiencing hardship in Ethiopia.
They've also let me know about something pretty disturbing that occurred in relation to Facebook, which resulted in an online petition that called on Facebook to immediately unblock the Facebook account of Jawar Mohammed, the executive director of the Oromia Media Network and a prominent Ethiopian political activist, who has over 1.2 million followers. He was able to use Twitter but not Facebook. According to the head petitioner, Girma Gutema, an Oromo living in Norway, it was particularly disconcerting to see Facebook block Jawar's account at this critical time when the Ethiopian people were campaigning to free all political prisoners in Ethiopia.
Jawar, as a longtime and prolific user of Facebook for over 13 years, had a significant role in the effort of the Ethiopian people to free themselves of the existing oppressive regime. The act of blocking Jawar Mohammed's account by Facebook violates freedom of expression and breaches the user guidelines of Facebook itself. In the end, the petition called on Facebook executives to immediately unblock the account of Jawar Mohammed and publicly apologise to the millions of Ethiopian Facebook users who felt that Facebook might compromise their privacy and personal data. I understand that that Facebook account has now been unblocked. But I would raise in this House, when we are talking about companies like Facebook and social media, talking about their freedoms being encroached upon by impending government legislation, bad encryption or other things, that blocking someone's account who has been using their account the 13 years—and my understanding is not advocating violent activities, but for peaceful protest—does call into question, the capacity of totalitarian governments to influence social media providers. I think that's an issue that my friend the Hon. Mike Kelly, the member for Eden-Monaro, would share with me as something that I think that our intelligence and security committee will be looking at. It's hard for Facebook to be arguing about their freedoms when they have actively suppressed the freedom on Facebook of someone who is a key leader of the Oromo community without sufficient justification; and, coincidentally, that block is then removed after the Ethiopian government had released political prisoners. I think that's something that if Facebook actually looked at I would like them to respond to. I don't think it's satisfactory. On behalf of Oromo community, both here and in Ethiopia, I ask why was this gentleman's Facebook account blocked? In the view of many of the Oromo diaspora in this country as well, they believe that there need to be some answers provided. So I would urge the Ethiopian government and will continue to rise on half of the Oromo community in my constituency and elsewhere in Victoria and this country, to cease the ongoing persecution of the Oromo people in Ethiopia. I will continue to work with Oromo leaders in Victoria and overseas to continue to highlight their concerns.
Some will say that what happens in Africa does not affect our country. That is just not true. Africa is a growing series of countries that will have an increasing say in what happens in world affairs. What does happen in Ethiopia, regardless of how far away people think it is, does have an impact and ultimately will have an impact on this country. What happens to the Ethiopian government—there is a fairly substantial transition occurring at present period of time. We're not exactly sure where that will lead to, but it does have an impact on Africa. It does have an impact on the security of the country. It does have an impact on the diaspora communities here. Depending on what the outcome is, it could have a quite destabilising impact on those countries within Africa. So when people say that is none of our concern or none of our business, it is, because ultimately this does impact on us. It does have some influence and bearing on us. It is something that I will continue to raise in this chamber.
The other thing I want to raise in the time remaining is the issue of human rights persecutions in Cambodia. Over recent months I've continued to be briefed by the president of the Cambodian Association of Victoria, Councillor Youhorn Chea, and also the City of Greater Dandenong Councillor Heang Tak, along with Hong Lim, the retiring member for Clarinda in the Victorian parliament. Why we have an interest in Cambodia in particular is that before in foreign affairs minister and the former member for Holt, Gareth Evans, was a key influence of the Cambodia peace accord. Hun Sen was around at that time. I don't think Gareth in his wildest dreams would have thought that we would be in a situation where we would be talking in this parliament about Hun Sen, his activities and what he has been doing in Cambodia, particularly to the opposition. I think that should cause us all grave concern. I know that Gareth has been strongly outspoken with respect to the human rights abuses that have been occurring in Cambodia, and he will continue to be, given that he was the father of the Cambodian peace accord.
I want to read into the parliamentary record that according to Lindsay Murdoch's article in The Age:
Cambodia's ruling party has drawn-up a five-year plan that critics say will entrench the dictatorship of strongman Hun Sen through intimidation, harassment and arrests. The plan crushes hopes that Hun Sen would allow a return to political freedoms and a semblance of democracy after mid-year elections.
Unfortunately the Cambodian government state agencies in Phnom Penh last year launched a sweeping crackdown targeting the opposition, the Cambodia National Rescue Party, non-government organisations, human rights and labour activists, independent media outlets and foreigners living in the country.
I'd like to commend the member for Hotham for her work in advocating in this place on behalf of the Cambodian Association of Victoria, and obviously share the concern of the well-established, law-abiding, peaceful Cambodian community in this country who feel deeply concerned about what's happening in Cambodia at this time. I am deeply concerned by the Cambodian Supreme Court's decision to dissolve the country's main opposition party, the Cambodian National Rescue Party, and ban CNRP parliamentarians and officials from engaging in politics for five years. It is essential that Cambodia has a viable opposition and a free press. Australia has a long history working with the Cambodian people to create a fairer and more democratic Cambodia. The Paris Peace Accords, as I have mentioned before, in which Australia played a central role, promised the Cambodian people the right to free and fair elections. I would certainly urge the Cambodian government—and I know that Hun Sen will be visiting this country soon—to reconsider its ongoing persecution of opposition parties and dissenting forces in Cambodia.
In the time I have remaining I want to go back to the Hampton Park Day of Nations. What was really instructive about the Hampton Park Day of Nations was the diversity that we saw. At the Day of Nations we also held the Holt Australia Day Awards to honour people who had made a contribution to a better community, and the people whose names we read out came from all parts of the world. It didn't matter what race, colour or creed; they were all Australians and we were all honouring the contribution that they had made to this country. In the ongoing discussion that occurs about this country, we need to remember that we ask them to abide by our laws and values but they also make a substantial contribution to our country—something that we should continue to honour and recognise. (Time expired)
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (13:06): I am pleased to be able to speak on these appropriation bills and adjustments to the current government's budget—in particular, in relation to some disturbing dimensions that we need to see addressed. In my opinion, we are not seeing these issues dealt with, and they are leading to a serious credibility issue in relation to this government's approach to the budget. The first of these relates to our defence spending and the design, planning and implementation of projects. I also want to address continuing and serious misrepresentation by the Minister for Defence Industry and the government. I also want to speak about the Snowy Hydro 2 project, where there are some very important issues that need to be pointed out in relation to the government's budget projections and arrangements.
As I mentioned, the first issue relates to concerns around the budget and defence spending. There was a lot of debate around the so-called two per cent of GDP figure as a target for defence spending. The Minister for Defence Industry and Mr Abbott—as the previous Leader of the Opposition and then Prime Minister—made a lot of hay out of the comparison with the spending of the Rudd-Gillard government and saying that it was lowest level since 1938. The irony of that was that in 1938 there was a conservative government, which included Sir Robert Menzies. At that time the state of our defence capability and our ability to deal with the threats we were facing at the time were seriously degraded.
I am very proud of my great-grandfather, who ran for Eden-Monaro in 1940 and whose son, my grandfather, was in the Army at that time and fought in the Middle East and Java and became a prisoner of the Japanese on the Burma-Thai railway. In 1940 my great-grandfather was very agitated about what had become of Australia's capacity and he said:
We're seriously perturbed over the manufacture of munitions and mechanical equipment for our soldiers. We do not want our soldier sons
—including his own—
to be ill-equipped. We want them to have at least an equal chance.
He also highlighted:
Had our government—
that is, the conservative government at the time—
not sold, leased or dismantled our docks, this job could have been done. Manufacturers who have contracts for making various parts are complaining that they cannot get their money for the work done.
Another matter hampering our war effort is the fact that our shipping line was sold, our trawlers were sold and the invaluable boats and information gained by Australians in this industry is now in the hands of foreigners.
How tragic it is that those errors and mistakes were to be replicated at least another two times within our very short experience, over the last 20 years or so, in this parliament, in this building.
In particular, I'll firstly dispel this reference to this target of two per cent of GDP because, in effect, it was the Howard government that only averaged 1.78 per cent in all of its four terms and in fact fell to 1.68 per cent in 2007, its last year of government. That was the lowest level of GDP spending since 1938. As you review actual expenditures and actual data post budgets, it turns out that Labor's lowest budget was 1.69 per cent. So it was actually the Howard government that was the lowest since 1938 as far as these comparisons are even relevant. You are talking about percentages of GDP which are relevant to the size of the economy and expansions and contractions in the economy. There is no way that the economy of 2007 to 2013 is in any way comparable to the size of the economy back then with the vast difference in expenditure in real terms that the Labor government committed to in our time in government and during the Hawke-Keating years. In fact, during the Hawke-Keating years the percentage of spending never fell below very high levels of spending and, in fact, routinely was above two per cent and reached 2.31 per cent at one point.
But what was more important during that time was the planning and investment in Australia's defence capability. When I talk about that, I also must refer to the fact that during Labor's time we were the ones who actually came closest to that two per cent target since the Hawke-Keating years at 1.94 per cent. But we were presented with a problem, and this goes to exploding the myths that the Minister for Defence Industry is happy to run around. I saw him just recently at an industry dinner again parroting his comments that under Labor there were no ships commissioned and that we had put our shipbuilding in a parlous situation. This is completely false. The truth is that it was under Labor that we built our modern shipbuilding capacity. It was Labor that brought home the last two of the Adelaide class frigates to be built in Australia to give us a platform to go from there in building our capacity. We then rolled that into the Anzac frigate class construction process, giving our nation very serviceable and fine vessels through that project. Then that was added to by the Collins project, which for the first time gave Australia a submarine-building capacity. All of these projects together were really building us a wonderful platform to have a world-class efficient shipbuilding industry.
But then when the Howard government came in there was none of that. There was no follow-on from any of that investment—none at all. Perhaps the most heinous related to the submarines. For a very complex, difficult platform like a submarine you need a long lead time for planning. To give you an example, the replacement planning process for the Oberon class submarines began in 1978 and construction of the Collins commenced in 1990. So it was a 12-year span. It's a complicated platform. The planning for the replacement of the Collins class submarine should have begun before the last boat hit the water in 2003, but nothing was done under the Howard government. There was not one thing done to prepare for the replacement of our submarines and so when we got into government in 2007 we had to start from scratch. So to say that there was no result in our six years in government with the long span of planning that is required for these platforms is just a complete joke and a furphy.
In addition to that, we inherited the failure to plan and prepare for the redundancy of our supply vessels. It's famous now that neither of our support vessels were able to respond to Cyclone Yasi, for example. Serious underinvestment also followed and compounded this problem in sustainment and maintenance both for those supply vessels but particularly in relation to the Collins. By the time we hit government in 2007 we could barely get one boat in the water at any one time. We had to immediately inject $700 million into addressing that deficiency in our sustainment and maintenance. We did so and got to a much higher rate of availability by the time we were finished.
But then we went through our due diligence in replacing the Collins. We invested a lot of effort into the service life extension process for the Collins to see how much time we could get out of them so that we could roll that into the future submarines. We also did a lot of learning on deep-cycle maintenance which enabled that extension, including hull cutting and the like. But we also progressed in selecting the combat system, the AN/BYG-1 combat system, which is now the system that will go into the submarines. We made that decision. And we made the decision for a specified land based propulsion testing facility for the two things you wrap a hull around. We also spent $266 million on developing all of the lead-in activities that are necessary for making a decision on the submarines.
So then what happened? We were ready to roll and then the Abbott government came in and there was that famous captain's pick period. He wanted to get a Japanese Soryu submarine. There was not any process involved in that until he was forced by his own backbench into this really rapid bizarre process, which no-one had ever heard of before—the competitive evaluation process. Again that was trying to steer the result towards these Japanese submarines, which weren't suitable for Australia's needs. When Mr Abbott was removed from office at least that process was put on a sounder footing, but there was a huge delay, a huge loss of time, and huge extra costs are now involved.
Additionally, one of the key decisions made by the Labor government that I was pleased to be a part of was the commitment to building our supply vessels in Australia. That was a critical decision that needed to be made to deal with the so-called valley of death that would have emerged in our shipbuilding capability. Labor invested $1 billion to resuscitate our skills and get up our capacity and productivity in those shipyards, but it was all blown away by the current government. I commissioned advice from the department on the replacement of the supply vessels—the SEA 1654 project. I will quote what the department advised me on that project. They said:
A full in-country build for SEA 1654 could provide critical workflow to Australia's naval shipbuilding sector across all three shipyards, avoiding the costly decline of specialist skills between completion of the LHD and AWD projects and the start of Future Submarines.
They advised:
… optimisation of in-country shipbuilding work would require some trade-off between cost, risk and schedule benefits for both the Commonwealth and industry to overcome the national shipbuilding valley of death and retain critical skills. Construction of whole blocks in country rather than overseas could commence at multiple shipyards relatively quickly. With recent experience in ship consolidation, ASC could commence consolidation of the whole modules at Techport Australia as soon as the second AWD is launched in quarter 1 2016.
In other words, when you look at all of this—the avoidance of the valley of death and the speed with which the supply vessel construction could have been done—under the department's advice, we could have been consolidating blocks for the final phases of construction of the first vessel right now. Instead, we saw the Abbott government first try to hand this off to the Koreans. He was asking the Koreans to build a Spanish design. It made no sense, even putting aside the fact that they should have been built here. Fortunately, the Turnbull government made the decision of sending those off to Spain so that at least the Spanish were building their own vessel. Ultimately, the critical crime here is that those vessels should have been built in Australia. That is the objective advice I have from Defence.
Let's not hear any more nonsense from the Minister for Defence Industry about Labor not commissioning a vessel. In fact, we did commission a vessel. It's called HMAS Choules, which was the only vessel available to respond to Cyclone Debbie, so just as well we did. The irony is that, under the five years of this government, they haven't commissioned a single main fleet unit, so their own rhetoric flies in their own face.
The final issue I would like to mention is Snowy 2. I'm fully supportive of this concept. It's been on the books for 30 years. The Snowy Hydro team—Paul Broad and his crew—have done an excellent job of getting this up and running as a proposal. They made an initial bid for ARENA funding for feasibility studies in February last year—well before Malcolm Turnbull discovered this project. ARENA made an independent decision to assist them with that—$8 million I think of the $29 million that was required.
They will be able to raise the finance for the construction of the project, but there are a number of things that the federal government needs to attend to. Firstly and most importantly, there is $2 billion of extra transmission costs that are critically important for South Australia in any event, because we know that the lack of a second interconnector is a vulnerability for South Australian electricity. This will be the platform that enables the critical south-east corner of Australia—New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia—to transition to 100 per cent renewable energy. Critical to that will be the transmission aspect. Critical to the investment flow will be the government guaranteeing the risk on that transmission before those financial decisions are made by midyear. The government has to now get on with consolidating what is required for the transmission costs.
There was also this floating of the idea of a Commonwealth buyback of the Snowy scheme. We haven't heard any more of that. There's nothing reflected in these bills about the agreement of the states and the $5 billion or $6 billion that will be required to do that. Certainly, we wouldn't be opposed to that, as long as the privatisation processes that were previously sought aren't sought by the coalition ever again. The other aspect that needs attending to is that it's likely that the project will need some sort of dividend holiday from the stakeholders, and we've heard nothing from the federal government on that.
This report, the Marsden Jacob Associates report on the feasibility of the Snowy scheme, which I think all journalists should read, deals with the economics and market issues here. It bells the cat on this government completely. It talks about the fact that this project will only be truly feasible and truly beneficial if you commit to an aggressive renewable energy target. It talks about a long-range commitment of 60 per cent by 2040. It specifically says:
… the higher market benefits in the LT Commitment scenario reflect the greater utilisation of Snowy 2.0 in shifting energy as required under the scenario of higher renewable generation …
Really, it critically fits only within the concept of Labor's current renewable energy policy, and it's all spelt out in the report, as is the belling of the cat on the so-called carbon capture and storage plant. It specifically says that there's nothing commercially deployable in the space of carbon capture and storage, there's not likely to be anything close to that before 2030 and, even then, it will be viable only with a carbon price. That's what it says specifically in black and white in this report.
It also highlights the fact that these major power stations are going to be falling over by 2032. The future of coal—thermal generation—is clearly reaching its termination. There's a lot of urgency needed out of this government in adopting the measures in this report to deal with not only energy security, market stability and lower cost for consumers but the future of our children as well in climate change measures.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (13:21): As we look at bills such as those before us today, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018, which are a half-yearly adjustment to this government's last budget, it is incumbent on us to ask the questions that those in our community, when faced with government budgets and their adjustments, ask, which are: 'Who is it that you are caring about? Who is it that you are looking out for? Who is it whose welfare you're concerned to address in these measures?' There is nothing more telling about this government and where its priorities lie than that budget and these bills to make adjustments to that budget.
There are people across all of our communities at the moment who are struggling to make ends meet. They have had stagnant wage growth. They've seen the nature of employment fragmented, so many of them are cobbling together their household budget from casual work, contract work or irregular opportunities to do work in what might be called the new economy, which is not delivering any security for them. They're facing the reality that what's coming in, in terms of income, is stagnant if not declining. At the same time they're seeing significant increases in their cost of living. This is a real challenge in households across all of our electorates.
One would think it would be something that a government would be seriously addressing, because we know the foundation of prosperity, both productivity and economic growth, is driven off the back of ordinary, everyday households and workers. That's the reality. Those opposite often say that small business is the driver of economic growth. Well, who feeds small business? Who are the customers of small business? Those customers are the workers and communities in which they operate, and those businesses suffer because the people who are their customers are saying, 'You know what, this week I can't afford to go out for dinner. I can't afford to go and buy that extra outfit for the kids. I can't afford to go and buy new shoes for school. You'll have to make do.' They're the people that we in this House should be concerned about, because they're the real economy in each of our electorates. They are the lifeblood of that economy—people earning enough to have a decent life, go out, spend their money in their local businesses and support people. The parents who run the local businesses probably have kids in the same footy team as their kids. That's the reality. This budget does nothing to address that. In fact, it contains measures that will make it worse.
It is really telling that I have had a lot of locals, as I'm sure many of my colleagues on both sides have, raising this serious challenge that they are facing with me. So I thought I might put a survey out there to enable people across the electorate more broadly to give me feedback on the condition of the wages and income in their household and their cost-of-living pressures. I put it out late Friday afternoon. We are here Monday morning and nearly 800 people have already completed that survey. If that doesn't tell you that this is an issue that is real to households across our community, I don't know what can. It has been very telling that of those 834 that have replied so far—and it is still running if anybody locally wants to participate—67 per cent of people indicated that they had no real change or, even worse, a decrease in their income in recent years. That absolutely shows the flat lining that is going on with wages and incomes in our households.
The survey showed: thirty per cent of people indicated housing and mortgage costs were putting pressure on their family budget. Over 70 per cent indicated that electricity prices were putting pressure on their households; 40 per cent indicated doctors and specialists visits; 30 per cent said pharmaceutical costs were putting pressure; and 55 per cent indicated private health insurance costs were putting pressure on the family budget. There were as well a range of other services that I surveyed on. For 30 per cent, broadband costs are a real problem. And when you think how critical broadband is to participation in our economy and society, particularly for kids, that is a real problem. Fifty-six per cent of people said grocery prices are a real impost and the same number said their house and vehicle insurances were a problem. I gave people a list and it was a little bit heartbreaking to see how many people did not say one or two things were putting pressure on their household budget but a whole range of things and this reflects the fact that, as I said, their wages and incomes are stagnant and these things continue to go up in cost.
It is really important to make the point that governments can and should play a significant role in this space. And one of the areas which on this side of the House we could argue that the government has been not only less than helpful but an outright problem is around people's capacity to organise and press for wage increases. We know from international data that more highly unionised countries have higher outcomes and quality of life because people have better wages. But what we have seen here is the government refusing to intervene when the threat was made to penalty rates yet, for so many of these families, the capacity to earn extra money from penalty rates was what they relied on to make ends meet.
There are important things that a government can do around the input side of these household budgets: getting people fair just wages; ensuring that they are able to advocate on their behalf to achieve that; making sure that the structure of our decision-making on minimum wages, penalty rates and so forth don't disadvantage people and put them backwards. We've seen no action in that space.
Governments can also take action on the cost side of those household budgets. We have seen, in fact, the government make decisions that have only increased those pressures. I particularly want to take the opportunity to acknowledge that many of the locals who have responded to my survey have made exactly this point. A lot of them are on pensions and have expressed great concern about the measure in this particular bill before us that continues to pursue removing the energy supplement for pensioners. We're not just talking about incomes coming into households through wages and earnings but also people on fixed incomes and pensions. Many people are very concerned that the measure in this bill will directly decrease what is coming into the households of those pensioners at the most difficult time when prices are continuing to go up.
So, the appropriation bill, which seeks amendments to the government's budget, has not learnt the lessons that it should have learnt from the budget. It's priorities are still about getting a big tax cut to the big end of town—delivering to those who least need our support, not delivering to those who really need it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Cunningham will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude her contribution.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (13:30): Cheryl McDonald lives in Lindsay. She is a constituent of mine who called my office. She's a mum, she's a wife, she's a retired office worker and she's a nanna. I want to thank her for allowing me to get up and tell her story in here.
She is an amputee and is in need of a pump for her leg. She has a prosthetic leg. In the past, she has been independent and able to drive, walk and play with her grandson. Without a working pump to drain her stump she is virtually housebound—housebound due to a simple, ineffective pump. Her NDIS plan says that she has an assistive technology budget of about $1,000. Her request for a new pump is currently again under review, because there is not enough allocated in the budget. Normally, a review would take two weeks. The plan has now been referred to another review committee with no time frame given. Cheryl is articulate and can advocate for herself, but her need for a new pump has cost her dearly. Delays and inaction in providing this new pump have resulted in a haematoma in her stump. Now she needs a new prosthetic leg and will possibly require surgery.
This uncaring government is fumbling the NDIS rollout for constituent after constituent day after day, in my electorate and in electorates all over this country. There are major problems with plan reviews, and, in this instance, the delays have cost this constituent her independence and caused considerable pain and distress, not to mention the additional costs that will now burden the health system. This government is obviously unacceptable. The way that she has been treated by this government is outstandingly terrible. (Time expired)
Aquaculture Industry
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:31): Last week I had a visit from the assistant minister for fisheries, Anne Ruston. We visited a number of businesses in my electorate. In particular, we went to Cowell, where we visited the brand-new Eyre Peninsula oyster breeding hatchery. What a wonderful visit it was.
Some of you would be aware that we had an outbreak of Pacific oyster mortality syndrome in Tasmania about two years ago. Unfortunately, it revealed a security supply issue for the South Australian oyster industry—which is a wonderful industry within itself—with hot spots around Coffin Bay, Cowell, Smoky Bay and Port Vincent, for instance, where most of our spat was coming from Tasmania. Owing to the biological bans, there was no more spat for South Australia. At the moment we have a production drought, because we were so short for so long.
As a result of that, the minister put nearly $1 million into keeping the resistant oyster breeding program going. Also a group of local investors in Cowell in the industry decided to build a state-of-the-art new hatchery. It's capable of doing up to 400 million spat a year, but is aiming for 120 million to 150 million in the first instance. It was a delight to go through and speak with the scientists about the breeding of triploids, and what they hope to do in that area. (Time expired)
Lalor Electorate: Agriculture Industry
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:33): In September 2015 I wrote to then Minister Joyce about Werribee South growers and our irrigation district—a place in this country that is part of Melbourne's salad bowl. I asked that the federal government give their share—$11 million—to a $33 million project. I raised it here in 2015 and got no response.
In December last year, when the new minister, the member for Maranoa, was appointed I wrote to him. What have I heard? Nothing—just silence from the new minister. It's time this new minister got back to his day job. On Friday he was in my electorate, dirtying his RM Williams up in some Werribee South dirt, standing there in the lettuces. He needs to get serious. The federal government needs to match the Labor state government's commitment to these farmers. The state has committed $11 million. The stakeholders have committed. We are waiting for a federal government commitment, but we aren't surprised, because it's just another example of this government ripping off Victoria when it comes to infrastructure spending. It is a terrible, terrible indictment of this government that they cannot find funds for growers in my electorate. They cannot find funds for Victoria, no matter how hard they look. It's time they did their day jobs and worked for Victoria.
Diabetes
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (13:34): Last week I had the privilege of meeting with one of my constituents, Ms Peta Hendy. Peta has had type 1 diabetes for coming up to 20 years, as have many of her family members, and, sadly, they've also lost family to this terrible illness for which there is no cure. Peta came to see me about the DANII Foundation's desire to extend access to the life-saving continuous glucose monitoring technology, or CGM, to all of those with type 1 diabetes who are in very high risk areas—some 3,000 or 4,000.
The DANII Foundation was formed in 2012, after the tragic and unnecessary death of a type 1 diabetic, Daniella Meads Barlow, at the tender age of 17, as a result of nocturnal hypoglycaemia, or dead-in-bed syndrome. DANII is the leading Australian foundation for the prevention of life-threatening dead-in-bed syndrome and is dedicated to improving the safety and quality of the lives of type 1 diabetes sufferers.
Currently, access to the CGM device costs users about $100 a week, and a machine which works in conjunction with CGM to provide microdialysis costs over $10,000. But this technology allows type 1 diabetes sufferers to go to bed without fear of dying in their sleep—potentially, for the first time since being diagnosed—because this technology can raise the alarm and take action. This government has extended this technology to those under 21, and I ask the Minister for Health to look at further extending this to very, very high risk sufferers. I commend and support the work of the DANII Foundation.
Batman By-Election
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (13:36): When it comes to the Adani Carmichael mine, the Greens have no actual plan to stop this project. All they have is a cynical two-word slogan that they think will trick voters. The fact is nothing will change with Adani if the Greens win the seat of Batman. There is no reason to think that two members of this House from the Greens party will make any more of an effort or any more of a difference than one member of this House from the Greens party, out of the 150 members of this House. By running a by-election campaign in Batman on the issue of Adani, a project that is so far away from Batman—you wouldn't believe the Greens would be doing this—the Greens are trying to cover up the fact that they have no actual plan for the local area.
Ged Kearney is the only candidate to articulate a real plan for Batman and to have a credible path to actually realising vital community infrastructure, health and environmental projects. Ged Kearney has built a career on getting real, tangible outcomes for the people she represents. The Greens have built a political party based on taking credit for other people's achievements.
This Adani project is such a long way from Melbourne's north. The people of Batman know this, and the Greens know this. The voters of Batman can see through the Greens' cynical campaign in relation to Adani that is clearly based on lies. People are going to see through this campaign, and I very much hope that Ged Kearney will be joining us here in the House of Representatives after the Batman by-election.
Gilmore Electorate: Regional Jobs and Investment Packages
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (13:38): I rise to thank the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government for coming to Gilmore last week to have a look at some of the amazing businesses that have received government funding to help push their boundaries and get them into exporting. We saw electric car charging at Rasobi with their South Coast electric vehicle project. Shoalhaven Starches are getting some money. The Cottee Jersey dairy, with Jeff, Steve and Andy making a big deal of it, with a new line to get powdered milk going overseas. Pia Winberg, with her amazing research on seaweed, will be going overseas and getting nutraceuticals going.
There are new boating facilities. There is going to be mussel aquaculture in Jervis Bay, which will also be employing our Jerrinja group. Milton District Meats will be expanding to go overseas. John Lamont's business with pharmaceuticals will be going overseas even more. Caresouth, which is an organisation that looks after the fostering of children and finding youth homelessness solutions, is getting a big chunk of money to change things. There is funding for Stormtech and their drainage; Climax, with their specially equipped vehicles; and Partech, in the defence industry. Essence foods will be going overseas as well. Cupitt's will be doing an amazing job with their wines and their cheeses, and tourism. There will be more aquaculture in Yatte Yattah with Murray cod.
It has been an amazing array of investments in our region, with many jobs expected to come. In fact, from the whole of it, there is $20 million worth of investment, with $55 million leverage and over 1,000 jobs in our region. I couldn't be more excited. (Time expired)
Batman By-Election
Mr GILES (Scullin) (13:39): Politics makes strange bedfellows, it's said, and the Batman by-election is making this very clear. We have the Liberals, our party of government, who can't get enough of talking about the Batman by-election in here but when it comes to the election itself, of course, have failed the most basic threshold test: they're not even running. They decided not to run. They are all talk and no action when it comes to the Greens political party. It's like an homage to the member for Dawson but in reverse: they are lions in Canberra and lambs in Northcote.
And it gets worse than this, with the unconvincing play-acting between Michael Kroger and Alex Bhathal over her policy positions. No-one was surprised to see him satisfied with her answers and her party's flexibility, with the Liberals then agreeing not to run a candidate.
But that's not all. What about the member for Melbourne talking up Labor's preferences just as Senator Bernardi confirmed he had been approached by the Greens? What appalling hypocrisy. But Batman voters will see through this Greens-Liberals unity ticket and the wider unity ticket of a lack of purpose, which binds the party of the three-word slogan and the party of the two-word slogan together.
Only Ged Kearney and Labor are listening to voters in Melbourne's north, while the other parties talk obsessively of preferences on the one hand and about the Labor Party on the other. Only Ged Kearney and Labor have a plan for voters in Batman and Melbourne's north.
Forde Electorate: Emergency Response
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (13:41): It's with great pleasure that I stand to speak and celebrate once again the tremendous efforts of our local SES heroes and volunteers. In South-East Queensland recently we've seen a series of heavy storms, and my electorate of Forde was one of several areas that were hit with extensive power outages and storm damage. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the local SES crews as well as Energex's response crew for doing such a fantastic job in helping all of those in need. In the Logan City area alone SES received calls for more than 200 jobs, of which about half were for trees that had been blown over.
We've also seen that this particular storm knocked out an enormous swath of our electricity network, with more than 40,000 people left without power. Energex took it on themselves to get in there and get these power supplies restored as soon as possible, and they did a fantastic job.
I'd like to reiterate how grateful I am for the men and women who have helped so many constituents in my electorate of Forde. From downed power lines to trees over roads to storm damage to the home, we have amazing people in our community who will respond to calls for help. This follows on from the tremendous work they did last year with Tropical Cyclone Debbie. My thanks to the SES and Energex.
Indi Electorate: Public Transport
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:42): There's a recognised need for urgent upgrades to the north-east railway line and new rolling stock. Among the technical reasons we've heard often in this House, the real reason that I'm speaking today is that people are suffering. The current train service is not good enough, passengers are feeling the brunt and it's costing a lot of money.
Services hit an all-time low on Sunday, 18 February, and The Border Mail tells the true experiences of the passengers. The train was cancelled. There was a replacement bus. Denise Rowland travelled with her husband from Broadmeadows to Chiltern on the bus. They were to be dropped off at Chiltern, but, seeing that the bus wasn't stopped, they yelled out, 'Chiltern!' The bus didn't even stop at the required place. It was 150 metres short through no fault of the driver; he was unable to find any gears, and the bus rolled down the main street.
It was no better for those going in the opposite direction. Sheridan Williams met the stopping-all-stations bus at Chiltern heading for the Southern Cross station. She said:
It took for one of us passengers to ring V/Line complaining before we got any communication about what was happening.
It was probably half an hour before we actually got anything said that 'we're stopped here'.
The solution was a 290-kay trip in maxi-taxis, which cost $750—$1,500 both ways.
I say to my colleagues: this is not good enough, and the new minister for transport must act urgently.
Bonner Electorate: Red Frogs Australia
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:44): Today isn't the first time I've mentioned Red Frogs here, and it certainly won't be the last. No, I'm not talking about my alleged chamber lolly stash! Last Thursday, I was delighted to have the Red Frogs founder, Andy Gourley, join me for another student leaders afternoon tea for over 60 primary and secondary captains from across my electorate. Students who attended last year's event got so much out of it that I had to do it again, and I had to bring Andy back.
Andy does such amazing work for young people across the country. He's a great mate of mine and a wonderful role model for young kids. Once again, he gave a great talk sharing his inspiring story and his personal thoughts on how to be a good leader. The students were once again terrific. They had some really thought-provoking questions for Andy, ranging from what inspired him to start Red Frogs to obstacles he's encountered, whether he had any regrets and how he has inspired others to get involved. Andy said that he had people come up and tell him that he had saved their lives and that parents had written to him and thanked him for his work. He told the students to trust their gut and that, through consistent work, they can transform small things into great things. I have no doubt the students learned a lot from Andy and from each other, and I wish them every success in the future.
Batman By-Election
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (13:45): Australia faces a crisis in housing affordability, with the homeownership rate now at a 60-year low. Nowhere is this clearer than in Batman. For example, in the suburb of Northcote the median property price is now $1.3 million. For many young people and families in Australia, owning their own home is simply out of reach.
The Liberals' proposal is that you should get yourself rich parents or rich mates, but it now turns out the Greens' proposal is that you should get yourself a magic pudding. Last week, the Greens announced they would increase Australia's housing stock by one-twentieth. You might think to yourself that increasing the value of the housing stock by one-twentieth would cost about one-twentieth of the value of the current housing stock, but not according to the Greens. Apparently, if you're the Greens, you can do that for just one-thousandth of the value of the housing stock.
The Liberals' housing proposals are unfair. The Greens' housing proposals are innumerate. The Greens simply are not serious about fixing our housing affordability crisis. They are all talk and no action. Only Ged Kearney and Labor will tackle Australia's housing affordability crisis, through reforming negative gearing and the capital gains tax concession, introducing a uniform vacant property tax across major cities, limiting direct buying by self-managed superannuation funds, boosting homelessness support and re-establishing the National Housing Supply Council and the minister for housing.
Fisher Electorate: Sunshine Coast Casino
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:47): Last week, Sunshine Coast residents learnt that the Queensland state Labor government has been involving itself in promoting the disastrous possibility of a casino in Maroochydore by inviting representatives of NagaCorp to inspect the site. My constituents want to know what role the state government has played, whether the local council have encouraged this proposal, and what negotiations are taking place.
I therefore wrote to the Premier of Queensland and the state Minister for Innovation and Tourism Industry Development last week to ask them the following questions: was the possibility of building a casino at Maroochydore discussed during the visit of NagaCorp representatives to the Sunshine Coast; how did this visit come about, why, and who instigated it; what involvement did Mayor Jamieson, the council or SunCentral have in this visit; have any of these parties discussed, encouraged or recommended to the state government the construction of a casino on the Sunshine Coast; and what further discussions have taken place between any of the parties involved regarding the construction of this casino, either before this visit or since?
I call on the state Labor government to give me these answers immediately on behalf of the people of the Sunshine Coast. Further, I call on the Premier to rule out the granting of a casino licence for the Sunshine Coast and end any possibility of this damaging proposal going ahead. (Time expired)
Batman By-Election
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:48): Batman, like a number of seats in Melbourne, is a working-class area. It's a proud Labor area. It's one of the areas that really stood up and fought, with working people who fought for the pension. That's part of the proud Labor and union legacy.
But what do we have coming from the Greens? We all remember what the Greens did: they voted with the former Prime Minister and the Liberal government to cut pensions. They cut the pensions of people who live in the seat of Batman. The Greens voted with the Liberals to cut the pensions for 330,000 pensioners, by up to $8,000 for single pensioners and $14,000 for couple pensioners. Yet the Greens seem to think that people are going to forget this. The Greens seem to think that the working people today in Batman who will retire in the next 10 to 20 years are going to forget that it's the Greens that voted with the Liberals to cut their pensions and to force them further into poverty. Those are the priorities of the Greens; they're the wrong priorities of the Greens. And then we have the candidate for the Greens saying, 'We might just increase the pension.' That's not anywhere in their policy document; there is no commitment whatsoever to increasing the pension—another thing that they have thrown out. Only Labor and Ged Kearney will stand up for the pensioners and working people in Batman. Only they will protect the pensions of Batman.
Robertson Electorate: Gosford Regional Performing Arts Centre
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (13:50): I rise to update the House and my electorate about Gosford's regional performing arts and conference centre, a major commitment to my Central Coast community. The coalition government has committed $10 million towards this project, with $12 million from the New South Wales government, including towards the conservatorium, and $10 million from the Central Coast Council. Together we are determined to see a world-class iconic venue that really reflects the beating cultural heart of our city.
Last week, I met with Central Coast Council leaders and members of the local arts community to hear the latest plans. It has always been the responsibility of Central Coast Council to decide on and determine the exact location of this iconic centre, and this remains the case. But it is fair to say that we are now at a critical time and we also have a glorious opportunity to deliver a decades-old desire for a performing arts space in Gosford.
Council has told me that the pre-design process has commenced, with the preferred location of the leagues club field on the waterfront at Gosford. Council is also holding workshops for key stakeholders in the arts, culture and conferencing centres. I've also been meeting with many local arts organisations to listen to their views and will continue to do so. In an exciting new development for this decades-old iconic project, council is now saying they expect construction to begin in January next year. It will take around 18 months to complete, so the proposed time line— (Time expired)
Batman By-Election
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (13:51): Labor is the party of transparency and accountability in government. We are committed to establishing a National Integrity Commission if we win the next election because we understand how important public trust and public confidence in government are to the strength of our democracy. We are also the only party that has open national conferences and gives access to the development of our policies and platforms to our members, to the public and to the media.
Ged Kearney, Labor's candidate for Batman, has a lifelong commitment to progressive causes like transparency and open government, and she will continue to champion those causes if the voters choose her as the next member for Batman. It is unfortunate that her main opponents in the upcoming by-election, the Greens political party, cannot claim the same commitment. While the Greens political party tried to hide Senator Rhiannon's civil war behind a cloak of secrecy, their candidate for Batman has repeatedly refused to address accusations of bullying—most recently on ABC Radio with Jon Faine. If the Greens political party continues to operate in secret, how can they expect the public to believe them on issues that Australians care about. There is only one candidate in the Batman by-election who will fight for transparency and accountability in government, and that is Ged Kearney.
O'Connor Electorate: Hawthorn House
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:53): Last Friday, I was privileged to enjoy some amazing home baked scones with the friends of Hawthorn House, an Alzheimer's respite facility in Albany. The celebration was to honour the generous bequest of $1 million made to Hawthorne House by the late Don Brandenburg. This money will be used to build a second facility on their patch of land catering for the unmet need for short-stay respite in the Great Southern.
The late Don Brandenburg farmed in Newdegate, in my electorate of O'Connor, until 2005, when he sold his farm and moved to Denmark, on the coast. Don, who never married or had any children, realised in his senior years the challenges that face those who wish to live out their lives in the bush. In the light of these challenges, Don left his entire estate to the Don Brandenburg Foundation to be used towards improving aged-care facilities in the region. Currently Hawthorn House has two beds for short-stay respite. The generous donation from Don Brandenburg hopes to increase this capacity to eight beds as well as a family suite, catering for the needs of carers as well as their patients.
The government's aged-care reform currently being considered by Minister Wyatt will need to recognise the need for people to be able to stay in the regions and receive adequate care in their senior years. The new wing of Hawthorn House will be a long-lasting legacy for Don's family and the Great Southern community.
Leader of The Nationals
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:54): I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Riverina as the new Leader of the National Party and I want to reflect on the leaders who've come before him. There was the great Jack McEwen. He was a cattle farmer. There was Doug Anthony. He was a dairy farmer. There was Tim Fischer. He was also a farmer. Was the member for Riverina a farmer? No. In fact, the only muster that the new Deputy Prime Minister has ever done was to round up the numbers against the member for New England. Giving the member for Maranoa a poke with a cattle prod does not count. The new Deputy Prime Minister is no Doug Anthony and he's no 'Black Jack' McEwen. He is a fake farmer. He's probably still got the price tag on his Akubra, and he's been out there in the ministerial courtyard scuffing up the RM Williams with a bit of sandpaper. I hear there's an order in for a new bull bar for a Com car. The truth is this: he voted against Medicare, he voted against schools in country Australia, he voted against a decent broadband network and he voted against regional universities. You can't fake authority and you can't fake authenticity. It's a sad day for regional Australia when the new Nationals dream team is a fake farmer and a senator from Elwood. From leather to pleather, from wheat belt to wheatgrass smoothies, this is the new National Party dream team—a dysfunctional and out-of-touch mob. (Time expired)
Taxation
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:56): Australia needs to talk income tax. Many young Australians may not pay a large share of income tax now, but when their careers kick off they'll be copping a nasty bill. Half of all federal tax comes from incomes and is mostly paid by working-age Australians. That means younger Australians will be disproportionately hit with rates of up to 47½ cents in the dollar. That means paying back a higher share of previously incurred debt, a higher share of our nation's debt, a higher share towards paying for an ageing population. Meanwhile, those living off assets will pay half the rates or less. You can imagine it: you get through school and maybe some tertiary education, you get a job and year on year you're paying off your HECS debt and facing a rising tax bill, just when you're trying to make sure you can fund a family and buy your own home.
The Productivity Commission's 2015 Tax and transfer incidence report highlighted the problem. Total expenditure from an ageing population will increase significantly—pensions, health care, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and aged care. Concurrently, income tax on younger Australians will increase substantially to fund it. Income tax is designed to have progressive rates, but in truth it is unconscionably regressive, hitting young people to fund many who are asset rich. Young Australians are well and truly drawing the short straw. It's time to help young Australians. It's time for serious tax reform.
Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (13:57): This week the government gave a sterling guide of how not to deal with sexual harassment complaints. Firstly, the former Deputy Prime Minister called for allegations against him to be referred to the police. Sexual assault and sexual harassment are not the same. Assault should always be referred to the police. But organisations should have strong policies in place to deal internally with sexual harassment complaints in the first instance, as clearly set out by the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The complainant requested that the National Party executive conduct a formal and confidential investigation, as is her right. Instead, someone either inside the Liberal Party or the National Party, for political reasons of their own, splashed her identity across the front page of The Australian. Leaking the woman's identity against her consent is a betrayal of trust and will make it less likely that other women with similar complaints will come forward. The member for Mallee says the leaker was a Liberal. If so, the Prime Minister has questions to answer. Did he or his office or any member of his government have any role in identifying the woman who lodged a confidential sexual harassment complaint against the former Deputy Prime Minister, and what steps has the Prime Minister taken to assure Australians that such complaints will be properly investigated and that complainants— (Time expired)
Insight Education Centre for the Blind and Vision Impaired
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (13:59): Today I would like to briefly highlight the dilemma of Insight Education in Berwick. Based in the La Trobe electorate, this is the only dedicated school for blind and visually impaired students in Victoria and it educates children from prep to year 8. Insight has previously received federal funding—that was one of my election commitments—and state government funding, but now it is underutilised and quickly becoming marginalised. Government schools are blocked from accessing Insight for relevant students and, consequently, zero referrals are being made. With no referrals, it is extremely difficult for the school to remain open.
I'm advised by Alan Lachman, the Insight founder and managing director, that families who have children at the school have been strongly discouraged from enrolling by the Victorian education department. This is an absolute disgrace. Instead, they are directed back into the mainstream government education system, despite the fact that blind and visually-impaired students are probably less equipped than any other children for coping in mainstream classrooms, where 80 per cent of learning is visual. This is an absolute disgrace, and I'm calling on the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, and the Minister for Education, James Merlino, to immediately make sure that students are referred to Insight for them to look after blind and visually-impaired students— (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The debate is interrupted. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01 ): by leave—Following the resignation of the member for New England as Leader of the National Party and as Deputy Prime Minister, the National Party have elected the member for Riverina as their leader. He has been sworn in today as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Accordingly, I tender the revised ministry list and, in doing so, congratulate the member for Riverina and thank the member for New England for his service as Deputy Prime Minister and as Minister for Agriculture and, latterly, as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Nationals on indulgence.
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) (14:02): For the information of members of the House, I advise that this morning I was elected as leader of the federal parliamentary National Party. This is obviously a great honour and privilege, and I will seek to do my very best, always. I thank the member for New England for his services to the party and to the nation. Senator Bridget McKenzie remains the Deputy Leader of the National Party. I look forward to working with my coalition colleagues to advance the interests of the nation, especially for rural and regional Australians.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Ministerial Code of Conduct
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's inept failure to enforce his own ministerial standards. Is the Prime Minister powerless to act against a minister who breaches the ministerial standards when that minister is a member of the National Party? And are there any formal agreements—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Can the Leader of the Opposition please resume his seat. Can the Leader of the House cease interjecting. I refer members to my statements during the last sitting week. I need to hear these questions, if I am expected to rule on them. So I am going to need to ask the Leader of the Opposition to begin his question again.
Mr SHORTEN: My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's inept failure to administer his own ministerial standards. Is the Prime Minister powerless to act against a minister who breaches the ministerial standards when that minister is a member of the National Party? And are there any formal agreements that prevent the Prime Minister from enforcing his own ministerial standards?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:03): The answer to those two questions are no and no. The ministerial standards are enforced and have recently been revised. I want to note that it took some while, some time, for the Leader of the Opposition to agree with the proposition that ministers must not engage in sexual relations with their staff. It took him a while to agree with that.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: He did. The ministerial standards have been revised. For the information of honourable members, I table a copy of the ministerial standards as revised by me and reissued on the 15th of this month.
Australia-United States Relationship
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the strength of Australia's economic and security relationship with the United States?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:04): I thank the honourable member for his question. As honourable members know, we returned from the United States this morning, and I want to thank President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump for the very generous welcome they accorded us. There were very, very constructive discussions and it was a very productive visit. The visit was designed to broaden and deepen our enduring relationship, our great alliance, with the United States. We are building on 100 years of mateship and we are set for 100 more. On 4 July this year, it will be 100 years since the first time Australian troops and American troops went into battle together, led by an Australian general, General Sir John Monash. Australians and Americans have stood side by side in freedoms cause ever since. We committed in Washington to our shared endeavour to keep our people safe and secure, to combat terrorism around the world and to maintain the maximum pressure on North Korea to stop its reckless and illegal conduct.
Along with security, jobs and the economy were at the forefront of my discussions with President Trump and senior members of his administration. The United States is our most important economic partner. A quarter of all foreign direct investment in Australia is from the United States, and that investment drives, directly or indirectly, one in 12 Australian jobs. Our meetings with President Trump, Vice-President Pence, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and the National Governors Association, together with premiers and chief ministers, confirmed that our trade and investment links with the United States have never been stronger. It was impossible not to be struck by the sense of economic optimism and growing business confidence in the United States. President Trump's company tax cuts have generated a real economic buzz in the United States. Business leaders are enthused both by the tax reform and by the cuts in regulation and red tape, and we are already seeing this translated into higher levels of investment and higher wages.
I was accompanied by the most influential delegation of Australian business leaders ever to leave our shores for the United States as well as most of our state premiers and chief ministers. It is a great tribute to the Business Council of Australia, assembling that CEO delegation, and also to the great work of the foreign minister and our ambassador in Washington, Joe Hockey, who has led the charge on our campaign to deepen, broaden and strengthen an already strong relationship with our greatest ally, the United States of America.
Coalition Agreement
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that, when asked why the secret coalition agreement should not be made public, the Deputy Leader of the Nationals said yesterday:
The Governor-General is across it. That's all that we need to worry about.
Has this government provided a copy of the secret coalition agreement to the Governor-General—yes or no?
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I can see that he wants to answer the question, but I can't see how that is in order. Practicemakes very specific reference to such matters. I will now hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Are you on page 554, are you?
Mr Burke: No; 561.
The SPEAKER: Righto; let's go.
Mr Burke: Page 561 deals directly with questions concerning the Governor-General. If the question itself only referred to the coalition agreement, under your previous rulings it would have been automatically out of order and we wouldn't have risen to ask it. This question goes to the relationship with the Governor-General and whether particular documents have been given to the Governor-General. The rules around those questions are very much that we must not—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
Mr Burke: reflect on the Governor-General in those questions, and we have not.
The SPEAKER: You certainly haven't reflected on the Governor-General. Having listened to you, I am still going to make the point now—and it's only Monday, so I am lenient to begin with—that the first part of the question was not in order. I'm going to refer to my previous rulings that I will not assist in allowing questions that, in my view, are deliberately framed for the first part to be out of order and then with something tagged on the end that tries to bring them in order. The Prime Minister can refer to the latter part of the question.
Mr TURNBULL: The Deputy Leader of the National Party, Senator McKenzie, in a magnificent interview on Insiders Sunday, underlined the enduring strength of our coalition with the National Party, and the contribution it is making right now to creating thousands of jobs—403,000 jobs in Australia last year. That was a great interview on the Insiders program and showed her real mettle. In terms of the question relating to the coalition agreement, it is an agreement between two political parties. It is an administrative agreement only. It has not been made public in the past. That has been the practice. The Governor-General does not have a copy of it. Senator McKenzie was referring to the letter that each leader of the National Party provides to the Governor-General to confirm that the government has the support of the National Party. That is always provided, and that is what she was referring to.
Economy
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:11): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House how the government's plans for lower taxes will strengthen the economy, create jobs and grow wages, including in my electorate of Robertson? How to the government's plans compare with the experience of other developed countries?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:11): I thank the honourable member for her question. We know that our pro-business, pro-investment, pro-jobs policies are delivering because we have seen 16 months of continuous jobs growth—the longest in more than 40 years—and we have seen last year the largest number of jobs created—403,000—in any given year. We know that three quarters of them are full time and 60 per cent of them are women taking up those jobs. Female participation is at its highest rate ever. We are seeing the performance of an economy that is getting support from its government to deliver the jobs and growth we promised in the 2016 election. As I said in my earlier answer, you are seeing precisely the same response across the United States. You're seeing jobs growth, wages growth, investment growing, business confidence rising. The reality is—and it has always been the reality—if you provide incentives for business to invest, if you reduce business taxes, you get more investment. If you get more investment you get greater productivity, you get more jobs and you get higher-paid jobs. Unless you have that investment you won't get the growth that you need.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: Of course the Leader of the Opposition used to say precisely that point—I practically paraphrased him—a few years ago. The shadow Treasurer wrote a book about it, he was so committed to it. That's what the Labor Party used to be in favour of. But now we hear that the national left faction of the Labor Party wants to increase taxes. It wants to have a kinder refugee policy. We know what that means: it means being kinder to people smugglers. What they want to do is jack taxes up. We know that the member for Scullin and the member for Shortland presented a paper outlining their priorities. The paper quotes them saying, 'We will be perceived, and rightly so, as just a pale imitation of the Liberals if we support the tax cuts for large corporations but just say, "Let's wait a few years".' I wonder who they're referring to? Could it be the member for McMahon, as he goes from one board room to another to say, 'I haven't lost my passion for lower business taxes that I wrote about in my book'?
Of that, by the way, copies can be found anywhere where remaindering occurs. It's available right around the country. He goes and says, 'It's just not the right time to have business tax cuts.' Well, the Left are after him and they're after the Leader of the Opposition, and it is the Left that is threatening the economy of our future. (Time expired)
Coalition Agreement
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer him to his previous answer on the question of the coalition agreement. Can the Prime Minister confirm that his government has spent almost three years and tens of thousands of taxpayers' money on lawyers to hide the secret coalition agreement? Why is the Prime Minister spending tens of thousands of taxpayers' money in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court to hide the inept deal the Prime Minister struck to get his job? Will he now commit to releasing the secret coalition agreement?
The SPEAKER: That question is out of order.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Yes, happy to hear from you.
Mr FITZGIBBON: I accept you couldn't hear it over—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, raising a point of order—
The SPEAKER: Why don't I give you an explanation first?
Mr Burke: It must be in order for us to ask about the cost of legal fees that the government has used. They can't be spending taxpayers' money and we're not allowed to ask about it.
The SPEAKER: I made the point about the coalition agreement. It did refer to the previous answer. I've said on numerous occasions: you just can't refer to a previous answer and ask a separate question. If you want to ask a question simply about legal costs, you need to frame it that way. The substance of that question—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, look, the member for Hunter will resume his seat. He's not going to help by interrupting at this point. He's certainly not going to help himself—put it that way. I'm making it very clear: I'm not going to allow the Practice to be warped. It specifically refers to coalition agreements. I think I said: on page 554, it specifically refers to that. If you want to ask a question about legal costs, you need to ask that, and not ask it under the cover of a coalition agreement, which is specifically in the Practice as not being in order. You've got a choice: you can rephrase it, or we're going to move on.
Mr FITZGIBBON: My question is to the Prime Minister, and I ask him how much his government has spent with respect to the lawyers it has engaged in the matter of Joel Fitzgibbon v Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister of Australia?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:17): I'll get back to the honourable member on that. I'm sure that, in the honourable member's electorate of Hunter, that's what everyone's talking about—that's right! It's the coalition agreement and the legal costs! There's no-one there talking about jobs, are they, Member for Hunter; no-one there talking about investment; no-one talking about infrastructure; no-one talking about national security! They're only talking about their out-of-touch federal member who doesn't want to focus on the real economic issues that secure their future. The member for Hunter is an embarrassment.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides could cease interjecting.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:18): I'd like to inform the House that we have present—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The SPEAKER: If the Minister for Health could cease interjecting—I'm just trying to welcome a delegation; I think we ought to be able to do that.
We have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation from the Solomon Islands accompanied by the High Commissioner to Australia. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Deputy Prime Minister
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:19): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Documents available on the official climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au website state:
Southwest Western Australia has already seen reductions in rainfall due to human influence, and further drying in winter is a particularly confident projection.
The time in drought will increase over southern Australia, with a greater frequency of severe droughts (high confidence).
However, in your first speech only a few years ago, you said that, just because there is less rain:
It does not mean we all need to listen to a government grant-seeking academic sprouting doom and gloom about climate changing irreversibly.
Then, a couple of years later, you referred to it in parliament as 'so-called climate change'. Deputy Prime Minister, are you still a climate-change denier?
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne has been in the House long enough to know that he needs to ask ministers about issues for which they are responsible, not about first speeches, not about any other speeches. The member for Melbourne can resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister, as far as I am aware with the tabling of the new ministerial responsibilities, is still the Minister for Veterans Affairs and he is the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and that question in no way goes to his responsibilities. We will go to the next question.
Mr Bandt: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: If the member could resume his seat. The member for Melbourne is seeking to raise a point of order about a question which I have described as clearly out of order.
Mr BANDT: The parliament currently has an inquiry underway on the effects of climate change on infrastructure.
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. I'm going to be very clear for the member for Melbourne. I've made my views known on this particular standing order before. The Leader of the Opposition has heard me on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition gets 30 seconds for each question. The crossbench get 45 seconds. You had 45 seconds and you couldn't relate the material to his ministerial responsibilities. It is clearly out of order. I am not going to argue and waste the time of the House on issues that are black-and-white in the standing orders.
Infrastructure
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (14:21): I actually do have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the coalition government's record infrastructure investment will help deliver economic prosperity across regional and rural Australia? How does this investment help to create more and better paid jobs for hard-working Australians? And is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approach?
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) (14:22): I thank the member for Wide Bay for his question. This government is about delivering for all Australians, including $384 million for section C of the Cooroy to Curra upgrade to the member's seat of Wide Bay, which is now complete. Only the coalition are delivering jobs and infrastructure to our regions for our nation. We are building and expanding dams. We are upgrading our major transport routes because this is what keeps regional communities going.
Our farmers and our country towns hold a special place in Australia. They do. These communities are the very heart of our economy. This government is working hard to ensure that regional Australia can grow and prosper. I should know this. I am from Marrar. It is a little village of 368 people. How good is it that a nation can have a Deputy Prime Minister from a little village like Marrar? That says a lot about Australia.
We on this side have invested $220 million in the Mobile Black Spot Program. When those opposite were in power, not one single cent was spent on mobile black spot problems. They want to keep regional Australia in a black hole of silence. They do. We have invested heavily in major roads including the Bruce, Pacific and Warrego highways, and in the northern beef roads. Our record $75 billion in infrastructure links regional communities and creates jobs—1,100 jobs a day were created last year by small and medium enterprises thanks to the good economic policies of the Liberal National government.
But we didn't stop there with jobs for our children and grandchildren for generations to come. Regional investment programs such as the Building Better Regions Fund only go to rural and regional communities. It doesn't go to the member for Watson's electorate because that is in an urban community. But when Labor were in power, the regional programs funding went to city-based electorates and that was wrong. Our regional jobs and investment package is delivering $220 million to create jobs in regions which need a kick start.
This government has done so much, as far as infrastructure is concerned. And, when it comes to infrastructure, there's no better project at the moment than the Inland Rail—the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail. Ten billion dollars is going to deliver economic growth across the country. There is that word: delivery. The Regional Investment Corporation will deliver $4 billion of farm business concessional loans. I could go on; unfortunately I've run out of time. But we are all about delivery and jobs.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:25): Before I call the member for Kingston, I'd like to inform the House that we also have present in the gallery this afternoon His Excellency Dr Michael Pulch, the ambassador and head of delegation of the European Union to Australia. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Water
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (14:25): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of a report that to become Prime Minister he made an agreement which gave the member for New England and the National Party ministerial responsibility for water? Given the new Deputy Prime Minister has said that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was 'environmentalism gone mad', has the Prime Minister today discussed with the new Deputy Prime Minister any agreements relating to water?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:26): The Labor Party, purely for the purpose of trying to ingratiate itself with Greens voters in the seat of Batman, is putting the whole Murray-Darling plan at risk. They're seeking to vote down the northern basin review, which the member for Watson initiated. He set it up when he was minister for water. It was part of the plan, and they want to vote that down in the Senate. As a consequence, we've seen the governments of New South Wales and Victoria—Liberal and Labor governments—raising the question of whether they will continue to be part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is recklessness on a grand scale.
Nobody on that side of the House knows how reckless it is better than the member for Watson. He knows because he was minister for water—he understands the politics of it—but he has been overruled by the green Left in the Labor Party, who are pursuing inner-city votes at the expense of the jobs of farmers, irrigators, cities and towns right down the Murray-Darling Basin. This is a disgraceful abandonment of jobs, farmers, production, and the environment by the Labor Party as they pursue Greens votes in the seat of Batman. It demonstrates their utter failure to have regard to the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. In that context, I want to say that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the member for Maranoa, has been doing an outstanding job in endeavouring to keep the plan on track despite the wrecking activities of the Labor Party and the Greens.
National Security
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will she update the House on her recent trip to the Middle East and progress in the fight against ISIS in Syria?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:28): I thank the member for Menzies for his question and for his deep interest in Australia's national security. Recently I attended a foreign ministers' meeting of the global coalition to defeat ISIS. It was held in Kuwait and co-hosted by the United States. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was present. Australia is a founding partner of the coalition, which now numbers 75 nations who are committed to defeating ISIS and its hateful ideology.
At the meeting, all 75 nations recommitted to the fight against ISIS, whether it is in Iraq or Syria or globally, and we noted ways that we can work together to fight the risk of returning foreign terrorist fighters, including to our region. There are 75 members. A new member attended for the first time, and that was the Philippines. The Philippines were able to share the experience they had of a five-month siege in the city of Marawi in southern Philippines, where local extremists had aligned themselves with ISIS and ISIS ideology.
In Iraq there has been some success in the fight against ISIS—indeed, territory has been retaken—but there is still a need for the Australian Defence Force to be present to help train the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi military to ensure that ISIS does not reappear in Iraq.
In Syria the fight against ISIS is complicated by the horrendous civil war that is going on in Syria. In fact, it was because of those ungoverned spaces that ISIS was able to take hold of territory. The recent bombing of Ghouta has caused tremendous destruction, and this was done by the Assad forces. It led to the United Nations Security Council imposing a resolution last Saturday, 24 February. A 30-day humanitarian pause has been imposed to enable humanitarian aid to reach those in need in Syria.
The Australian government has imposed sanctions on 184 Syrian individuals and entities for shocking crimes during this civil war, including the use of chemical weapons against civilians. The Australian government is supporting the United Nations to set up a mechanism to investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity that have been committed in Syria. We have also supported humanitarian assistance into Syria, as well as taking 12,000 Syrian refugees. This government will do everything it can to keep Australians safe from terrorism in the Middle East, globally and in our region.
Charitable Organisations
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Australian charities will be caught in the government's foreign donation laws? Why is the good work of Australian charities being put at risk because of the Prime Minister's inept handling of foreign donation laws?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:32): There is a fundamental principle that I would have thought all members would agree upon and it is this: that Australians should be the only ones who are putting money into Australian political contests. Surely we have enough pride in ourselves and in our nation that we would say it is Australians who should be determining who sits on the treasury bench here and that we shouldn't have foreign organisations or foreign billionaires pouring money into Australian political campaigns. You would think that that would unite both sides of the House, but, apparently, not.
We are committed to ensuring that we keep Australian politics and Australian political decisions within the hands and the influence of Australians. The reality is this: the Labor Party's own proposed legislation sought to ban all entities, including charities, from using foreign money donated for political purposes to finance political campaigning. The only problem was that Labor's legislation defined 'foreign donation' so narrowly as 'money being physically located outside of Australia' so that, if the money was brought into an Australian bank account, it wasn't caught by this really tough law. That was Labor standing up to defend our system. Labor's foreign donations legislation was a joke.
It is a very simple point. Under our bill, charities are able to take as much money from foreign entities as they want, but they can't use that foreign money to fund political campaigning in Australia. It has long been a requirement for any individual or entity that incurs a significant amount of political expenditure to disclose this to the Electoral Commission. Just seven out of 55,500 registered charities in Australia reported political expenditure last financial year. That represents 0.01 per cent of Australian charities. So the bill has no effect on foreign funding for charities' non-political activity or charities' political campaigning where it is funded by Australians. So talking about St Vincent de Paul or World Vision is a simple exercise by the Labor Party in trying to distract from the fact that GetUp! wants to raise millions of dollars from overseas, to use foreign money, to influence the politics of our nation—and we won't have a bar of it. (Time expired)
Economy
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (14:35): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on recent data releases on wage growth and any recent commentary on wages growth in Australia?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:35): I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. Like all of us on this side of the House, he understands that it has been tough for Australian wage earners over many years now. They have been grinding very hard on the wages issue. It is a great comfort that 401,000 people got a job last year, but wages is the issue they want to see change. It was pleasing last week to see an improvement in the wage price index; it was modest, but it is starting to turn in the right direction. Also, it is pleasing to see that average weekly ordinary time earnings for full-time adults increased by 2.4 per cent, which was the best result in three years. They are encouraging figures but there is more work to be done.
I'm asked about commentary. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said on the weekend:
Wages have grown by about $3 per year over the last decade.
I thought: that doesn't sound right at all. The Deputy Leader doesn't know the difference between average increases per week and average increases per year. If you look at what people take home, the average increase per year for nominal incomes was $1,750 a year, not $3. I will give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she was talking about real wages—and for real wages it was $150 a year. So, after accommodating for inflation, not only can she not tell the difference between per week and per year; she also doesn't understand the difference between real wages and nominal wages.
I hate to inform her that there is a difference. Just like Africa is not a country and Libya is, real wages and nominal wages are different things. This side of the House is telling the truth about wages, we are telling the truth about jobs and, more importantly, we have the plan that is delivering for jobs and growth in this country. All we get from those opposite is deceit and mistruths seeking to scare people—because they have no plan.
Ministerial Code of Conduct
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:37): My question is to the Prime Minister. In Senate estimates, during question time, it has been revealed that on 21 February the Prime Minister asked the secretary of his department to provide advice on whether the member for New England had breached ministerial standards. This was nine days after the Prime Minister was first asked about ministerial standards in parliament. What prompted the Prime Minister to seek this advice then? What changed last Wednesday that caused the Prime Minister to initiate this inquiry?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:38): The matter of compliance with ministerial standards is one I take very, very seriously. Advice on ministerial standards is given to me by the secretary of my department. Dr Martin Parkinson is currently the secretary—and he is doing an outstanding job. I requested that he provide that advice on 21 February. There were constant claims that the member for New England had been in breach of the statement of ministerial standards, but no particulars were being given. It was appropriate, and I discussed with the member for New England, the deputy Prime Minister at the time, that this work would be undertaken. It was undertaken by the secretary. He has written to me today. I will quote his letter. He said:
In light of Mr Joyce's decision to step down from the ministry, I have concluded that there is little to be gained from continuing this investigation.
The secretary adds:
I note, however, that the audit into the use of travel and travel related expenses by Mr Joyce and Ms Campion by the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority is ongoing.
National Security
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of a strong and consistent approach to border protection? Is the minister aware of any attempts to compromise Australia's borders?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:40): I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge the hard work that he does in his local community. Like every member on this side of the parliament, the member for Bonner believes in having strong, secure borders, particularly in this day and age,
There is an alternative approach, and we saw it under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, where, tragically, 1,200 people drowned at sea, there were 8,000 children put into detention, and 50,000 people came on 800 boats. You would have thought that the Labor Party might have learnt their lesson, but clearly they haven't. We have cleaned up Labor's mess, we have stopped the boats, we have stopped the drownings at sea, we've got those children out of detention and we've closed 17 detention centres. So I think most Australians would be amazed to hear that the Labor Party is proposing to walk away from the successful policies that we've put in place to keep our borders secure.
It should come as no surprise that the shadow minister has been in his role now for 583 days but hasn't had the ability to ask one question on how all of this works. I don't know what the problem is—whether he's not allowed to ask a question or he's embarrassed to ask a question because maybe he knows that the Leader of the Opposition is preparing to trash the policy which has stopped the drownings at sea, stopped the kids going into detention, and stop the people smugglers being in control of the situation. It's not only the coalition that is saying that Labor will undo the policies and the boats will restart under the government that Mr Shorten may lead after the next election. It is important—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: Well, that's the possibility. It's a tragic possibility, but let's be honest about it: this bloke believes that he's got one foot in the door at the Lodge, and the people smugglers are rubbing their hands together because they know that under a Labor government the boats would restart.
I say it's not only us. Troy Bramston, who has particular insights into the Labor Party, wrote in The Australian last week:
Labor's left faction is pushing to increase taxes … boost union power … and—
listen to this—
abandon support for offshore processing of refugees and boat turn-backs in the lead-up to the party's national conference in July.
He goes on to say:
In July 2015, Labor's national conference only narrowly backed Bill Shorten's position that the party support turning back boats of asylum-seekers to deny them making landfall on the Australian mainland when it was safe to do so.
The highly charged and emotional debate split the left faction and saw frontbencher Anthony Albanese, a leadership challenger to Mr Shorten, break ranks with his leader and vote to oppose turn-backs.
The Labor Party is as divided as it's ever been when it comes to border protection policy. (Time expired)
Taxation
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. With wages growth at record lows under this government, why is this inept Prime Minister making working Australians pay $300 more a year in income tax while giving big business a $65 billion tax cut?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:43): Few people in this chamber have been as eloquent in their support for cutting business taxes as the member for McMahon. He even wrote a book about it. He wrote a book about it, and right now, as we all know, he goes around corporate Australia trying to be the business-friendly face of the Labor Party, saying: 'Don't worry. We understand the need to be competitive. We understand it, and just wait. Just wait.' And of course he's had his coat-tails pulled by the left of the Labor Party because they are committed to higher business taxes, they're committed to higher taxes, and the result of that is making Australia uncompetitive.
Let's not kid ourselves. We've got to look at this in a clear-eyed way. Do we really think Australia will effectively compete for capital with the highest rate of company tax in the OECD?
The Labor Party may say in an ideal world, from their point of view, that company taxes should be higher. Well, we don't live in that fantasy world. We live in a world which is intensely competitive, and we have to fight for every dollar of investment and every single job. That's what my government does every day. That's why we have supported the policies that enabled 403,000 jobs last year.
I have just come from Washington, where I met with the National Governors Association. I can tell you that there are many people in the United States who recognise the advantage we have secured for our exporters with our trade agreements and with the TPP 11. If you are in the beef cattle industry in America, you are looking at paying substantially higher tariffs to get into the Japanese market than an Australian beef producer. They recognise that our government have been looking after our farmers and our exporters. Why have we done that? It's because we want to protect investment and jobs. We know that trade and open markets lead to investment, employment and lower taxes. Look at the reaction to President Trump's tax cuts in the United States. They are forecasting that it will add nearly one per cent to GDP. This is a massive adrenaline shot to their economy. They've done that.
What does the Labor Party want us to do? Nothing, as usual. They want us to abandon the TPP and abandon our exporters. They want us to abandon our businesses by not competing. We're for jobs. We're for investment. (Time expired)
Taxation
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation. Will the minister please update the House on how implementing the coalition's enterprise tax plan in full will benefit small businesses across the nation, including in states such as Tasmania and in my electorate of Petrie? As the minister consults, what are the sector's views? How does this compare to alternative approaches?
Mr LAUNDY (Reid—Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) (14:47): I thank the member for his question. Again, as I said last week, he has first-hand, grassroots experience beyond the front lines. His family business is now being run by his lovely wife.
I wanted to pick up on where the Prime Minister left off, because the misunderstanding of business on the other side goes further than what was being stated. The Treasurer and I on Friday visited Qantas, talking tax cuts. We found out from Alan Joyce, who has done a marvellous job reinvigorating that company, that some 3,000 SMEs are included in Qantas supply chains. This is the part that gets so often overlooked. Business does not operate in a vacuum. Business irrespective of size doesn't just engage with its customers, but more often than not their customers are other businesses. If you leave more money, more profits, from those businesses in their own bank accounts, they will invest, engaging with other SMEs.
Alan Joyce gave me a couple of particular examples of those SMEs in Tasmania. In Tasmania alone in the last 12 months, under the Treasurer and the Prime Minister's economic plan, 4,000 new businesses have opened up. Unemployment since the election of the Hodgman government has moved from 7½ per cent at the end of the Greens-Labor farce to now 5.8 per cent and 10,500 jobs have been created. Last year, despite 17,000 businesses not making one dollar in profit, they paid $575 million to around some 16,000 employees.
If you don't make the tax cuts and the reinvestment in those 17,000 businesses and 16,000 jobs, with some 6,000 more due to the excellent stewardship the Hodgman Liberal government has provided, the turnaround that has endured as a result will disappear most likely overnight, because they are not making a profit. They are paying them out of their own pockets.
I am asked what the alternative is. The alternative is the ACTU's Sally McManus coming up with Labor Party policy; the member for Gorton parroting it within 24 to 48 hours; and then within three to four months the Leader of the Opposition declares it as official Labor Party policy. The risk to small and family businesses in this country, and business irrespective of size, is that the opposition should take these benches, because if they did I fear for the jobs of those hard-working Australian working in small and family businesses, not now but well into the future.
Consumer Protection
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Almost one year ago the minister said that legislation which would reform payday lending and rent-to-buy schemes would be introduced at the earliest opportunity. Is the minister aware that there are reports today of a Queensland rent-to-buy business which charges more than $8,000 for a laptop worth $1,900? Is this conservative government so inept that it has allowed this sort of behaviour to continue unchecked because it has delayed legislation to fix it?
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Minister for Women and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (14:51): I thank the member for his question. Despite all the laughing on the other side I actually think this is a very serious matter. The government has been very strong in support of consumers. The government was the government that put in place a review process that ensured that we looked at payday lenders, those people who provide credit contracts for small amounts, and also looked at consumer leasing and provided a recommendation to government. That recommendation was very clear. When I was the minister responsible for this particular area we accepted the vast majority of the recommendations and the government made announcements in respect of that. Since then we have released legislation and that legislation is legislation that those opposite say they embrace. So it is quite surprising that those opposite would be critical of our government, which has sought to put in place the protections that are required for those people who are some of the most vulnerable people in our community.
Let me remind those opposite that they have not been a friend of consumers, because they are the people who had wanted to stand in the way of the one-stop shop for consumer complaints. It is our side of politics that has put that in place and has legislated that to ensure that people who have a financial services complaints, whether it's superannuation complaint, a credit complaint or a complaint against one of the banks, can receive access to free, binding and very fast responses so that they can be put in a position where they can get on with their lives. Those opposite weren't particularly keen on this, but we on this side of the House were able to deliver. So while they might talk about all of the things that they want people to believe they are doing for consumers, it is we who are acting.
Defence Industry
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (14:53): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House how the government's investment in defence industry projects like OneSKY will support hundreds of jobs for hardworking Australians, create a stronger national economy and ensure our national security? How does this compare with other approaches?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:54): I thank the member for Goldstein for his question. He would be pleased to know, as would all the Victorians in the chamber, that today the government signed a contract with Thales Australia to create OneSKY. OneSKY is the first civilian and military air traffic control system in the world. It's an incredibly ambitious project. It's an example of Australian know-how, technology and sophistication, leading the world in an area which could be incredibly valuable to the Australian economy.
The contract that we've signed today with Thales Australia for $1.2 billion secures 450 jobs in Melbourne and 200 more across the supply chain—businesses like Nova in the member for Brisbane's electorate and Frequentis Australasia in the member for Lilley's electorate. In businesses like Nielsen, DESA and Stowe, there are 160 jobs spread across electorates in Gippsland, Newcastle, Wakefield, Western Sydney and Blair. The OneSKY team run by Thales Australia has already created over a billion dollars worth of exports out of this particular part of the economy over the last few years, growing from 30 to 450 Australians. Their software developers, their engineers and their project managers have been at the forefront of the cutting edge of this kind of technology. It's a really good example of the Turnbull government using the $200 billion heft of the biggest military capability build-up in our nation's history to drive not just capability but jobs, investment and growth in the economy.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr PYNE: I hear some members of the Labor Party interjecting, which stands in stark contrast to the six Rip Van Winkle years we had under Labor, under Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, where they made not one significant decision in the defence industry, with the valley of death they created in naval shipbuilding, where they didn't commission one vessel to be built in an Australian shipyard in six years, and we have fixed the problem that they've created. We have filled in the valley of death with a $200 billion heft, with a $200 billion investment in military capability, over the next 10 years. We are creating the capability for the Defence Force, but we're creating jobs and investment and growth in the economy that Labor could have only dreamt of when they were in government.
Rural and Regional Australia: Payday Loans and Consumer Leases
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (14:57): My question as to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, and it concerns farming families. Is the minister concerned the government's inept delay at introducing reforms to payday lending and rent-to-buy schemes is hurting farming families, including farming families who are being preyed on by unscrupulous lenders who are sometimes charging more than $8,000 for a laptop worth $1,900? Are you concerned, Minister? You should be.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides! I'm trying to hear the Leader of the House. It's normally not hard to hear him, but it's a bit difficult at the moment.
Mr Pyne: Apart from the inappropriate use of the word 'you', which the member should know by now is not allowed, the issue about payday lending sits in the portfolio of the Treasury, which is either to be answered by the minister for revenue or the Treasurer. It's not within the responsibilities of the minister for agriculture, no matter how they might try and dress up the introduction and the conclusion.
Mr Burke: The minister for agriculture for the last two terms has been able to answer questions relating to the impact of a range of government policies on the constituencies of farming families, otherwise it never would have been possible, for example, for an answer on a free trade agreement to be given by the minister for agriculture. We've had plenty of them.
The SPEAKER: Having heard the question, the Leader of the House is right with respect to those last couple of words in the question, and in fact when the member speaks in that way she's actually referring to me, not the minister. We'll leave that to one side. In terms of the question, whilst it's undoubtedly the case that ministerial responsibility rests with the Treasurer, the member has sufficiently related the policy issue to the minister's responsibilities in the agriculture portfolio, so I am going to allow the question.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:59): I thank the honourable member for the question. Again, the Labor Party only does half the job when it comes to research. They've taken a story out of The Courier-Mail that's totally taken out of context in respect of numbers. I'm going to put my hand up and say I'm a proud business owner—something those opposite wouldn't know anything about. If they're asserting that I'm making thousands of dollars out of having a consumer-leasing business, I say: come and have a look at my profit and loss. You mightn't know what a profit and loss looks like, because you've never had to run one. You know what? I'm proud to say that I put my hand in my own pocket and invested in a small regional community. I'm proud to say I put my hand in my pocket and I employ four people in a regional community. I'm proud to say I provide a service for those who are less fortunate than you or I, Mr Speaker, those who can't afford to buy a fridge or a TV. It allows them to be able to do it.
In respect of the numbers that are quoted, what they fail to acknowledge or understand, because of some unfortunate reporting, is that the lease agreement they've quoted provides an opportunity for those people who lease the product to be able to upgrade or change that product or have a service for that product when it breaks down. That's what a business does, and those opposite should understand that we play an important part in small business. If you want to cast aspersions on my character in this way, for God's sake come with some policy. Come with something that's going to change Australians' lives and stop the character assassination of those who are trying to make Australia better.
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen on a point of order?
Mr Rob Mitchell: I have a point of order following the leader of the government's point of order. The minister said that you don't know what a profit and loss sheet is. I think that's quite wrong. I think you might know what it is, and maybe we could get him to address it properly.
The SPEAKER: Thank you for that insightful point of order.
Economy
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline the benefits of trade and investment for creating more and better-paying jobs? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that pose a risk to economic prosperity?
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (15:01): I thank the member for Forrest for her question. She is another member of the coalition who is focused on creating export opportunities—in particular, for Australia's small and medium-sized enterprises. I note that the member for Forrest has quite a number of tourism based small and medium-sized businesses—in particular, the wine industry—that are using our tourism industry as well to drive export sales. I note that Australia's wine industry has been absolutely booming in terms of exports, thanks in particular to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which has seen China become Australia's largest export market for wine.
What all that means is that it's Australians who are benefitting from those increased levels of exports. They translate into real jobs for Australian families. We've seen such strong growth thanks to the free trade agreements that we now have in place with Korea, Japan and China and the fact that we've also now put in place new free trade agreements with Peru and the TPP 11. As well, we're putting the focus on Latin American countries, including negotiations now with the Pacific alliance. That is what this government has been focused on.
I had the pleasure of being with the Prime Minister in the United States, together with representatives from a number of key Australian businesses. They are major Australian businesses that are responsible for employing tens of thousands of people—businesses like Fortescue, Rio, Qantas and Wesfarmers. All of those business leaders made it crystal clear to us in the United States that the key to Australia remaining competitive is their being able to do two things, one of which is to make investment decisions that will drive more investment into their businesses, which, in turn, creates more jobs.
As the Prime Minister said, the simple, inescapable fact is this: Australia must be able to compete to drive investment dollars in this country. If we cannot compete, we will not get those investment dollars. The consequence of not getting those investment dollars will be that there will be fewer Australian jobs in the future. So, when the opposition leader and the Australian Labor Party arrogantly sit there and dismiss the direct comments from business leaders in this country who employ tens of thousands of hardworking Australians, they are basically staring down their noses at ordinary Australians, they're staring down their noses at the CEOs of these businesses that are responsible for apportioning billions of dollars of investment, and they're saying, 'We don't care what you say. We know best.'
The simple fact is that we are seeing a revival of confidence in the United States. That revival of confidence is being driven by lower corporate taxes. That revival of confidence means more jobs for Americans. We want to do the same thing here in Australia by reducing company taxes, driving investment and driving employment.
Publications Joint Committee
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (15:04): My question is to the member for Dawson in his capacity as the chair of the Joint Committee on Publications. When does his committee next intend to hold public hearings? Will those public hearings seek evidence from the member for New England on whether the secret coalition agreement should be published as a parliamentary paper? In leading the committee, does the member for Dawson act with the support of other members, or does he act alone?
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter can resume his seat, and the Leader of the House can resume his seat. The first part of that question relating to when the committee is scheduled or plans to have its next public hearings for the Publications Committee is the only part of the question that is in order.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (15:05): A nonsense question like that deserves the answer I am about to give to the member, and that is: ask a real question to government ministers, not backbenchers. That's for starters. Do that. That's your job. Secondly, my committee has been very efficient, actually. What we have done is streamlined the processes for presentation of parliamentary papers to the parliament and, as such, we no longer meet.
South Australia: Hospitals
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (15:06): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how the Turnbull government's strong economic record enables us to deliver record hospital funding support for South Australia, including in my electorate of Boothby? Is the minister aware of an alternative approach which weakens the delivery of services for patients?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health) (15:07): I want to thank the member for Boothby, who, as we know, is a proud graduate of Flinders University but was dismayed when the Flinders University medical centre had the lights turned out and embryos were destroyed due to a power failure under Labor's watch. She asked about strong economic management and what that has allowed us to do as a government in terms of delivering record funding to South Australia. What we have seen under this government is a 26 per cent increase in Commonwealth funding to South Australian hospitals. What we have seen over the same period of time from the South Australian Labor government is a six per cent increase in South Australian funding to their own hospitals. Six per cent under them; 26 per cent under us. In her own electorate, however, in the electorate of Boothby, what we've seen is an even greater increase in Commonwealth funding of 31 per cent over that period of time. That only comes about when you run a strong economy and you run a careful budget, and you are able to pay for and deliver real increases in funding. That is what has occurred on this side of the House.
On the Labor side of the House, for which they apologise on every occasion for every mistake of South Australian Labor, what we have seen is the extraordinary situation in the last full South Australian year where SA Labor actually decreased overall health expenditure by $7½ million. So whilst we are going through a period of growth of half a billion dollars a year in funding to South Australian hospitals—half-a-billion-dollar increase—SA Labor actually decreased funding by $7½ million. But it is even worse than that. We've seen the catastrophe of the Royal Adelaide Hospital: $640 million over budget, 17 months late. We've had the lights turned out on the Royal Adelaide Hospital, and only last week we saw that a prisoner was shackled for 48 hours to a bed in the emergency department.
Today we've seen another scandal in South Australia. On the front page of the Adelaide Advertiser today, it says, 'Mental health patients wait four days in Emergency Department because no beds were available in two Adelaide hospitals,' the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and, of course, the Royal Adelaide Hospital. This is a living nightmare for South Australian residents, who are seeing a government which cannot run the electricity system, which cannot run a budget and which cannot even run a hospital. Record funding from us, cuts from the South Australian Labor Party, cuts from the South Australian government—and it's time that this Labor Party stopped apologising for its hopeless mates in South Australia.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Joint Committee on Publications
Mr BURKE (Watson) (15:10): Mr Speaker, I have a question to you, arising from the answer given by the member for Dawson. The member for Dawson has advised the House that there is a parliamentary committee that no longer meets. I am asking whether that advice has been given to you as Speaker, and whether as chair of the committee he is continuing to receive a monetary allowance, having declared that the committee no longer meets.
The SPEAKER (15:10): I will take the question on notice. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. If I have anything to say I'll say it to the House, and I'll let him know in advance—if I have anything to say. I may well write to him.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Feeney, Hon. David
The SPEAKER (15:11): I present a letter from the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar of the High Court, forwarding, in accordance with section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, a copy of the orders made by the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns concerning the reference of the former member for Batman, Mr David Feeney.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Reports Nos 28 and 29 of 2017-18
The SPEAKER (15:11): I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2017-18 entitled Audit report No. 28, Performance audit: Defence's procurement of fuels, petroleum, oils, lubricants, and card services: Department of Defence, and Audit report No. 29, Performance audit:unscheduled taxation system outages: Australian Taxation Office.
Ordered that the report be made parliamentary papers.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:12): 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.
BILLS
Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Report from Committee
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (15:13): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr HASTIE: I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Mr Burke: Leave is granted. And I should state that the committee I referred to earlier in my question to the Speaker does not draw a monetary allowance. So I should advise the House of that immediately.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for that correction.
Mr HASTIE: I am pleased to present the committee's advisory report on the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017.
This bill is one component of the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio that commenced on 20 December 2017. Substantive changes to government have already been implemented to date through amendments to the administrative arrangements order and a substituted references order. This bill addresses several specific matters that could not be dealt with administratively.
The bill will amend four existing acts: the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 and, finally, the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The amendments proposed in the bill are intended to give to the allocation of ministerial powers, including a heightened and strengthened role for the Attorney-General as announced by the Prime Minister in July 2017.
The committee has made four recommendations in its report. Firstly, upon considering evidence from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security the committee has recommended that the bill be amended so that only the Prime Minister has the power to direct the inspector-general to undertake an inquiry under section 9 of the IGIS Act. In making this recommendation, the committee has supported changes that will allow the Attorney-General to request the inspector-general to undertake such an inquiry. The committee has also supported amendments that provide for the inspector-general's reports to be provided to the Attorney-General.
Secondly, to more clearly reflect the government's intent concerning a strengthened oversight role for the Attorney-General, the committee has recommended that the bill be amended to replace references to the minister in the INSLM and IGIS acts to the Attorney-General where such references refer to the minister administering the act. The committee considered that explicit reference to the Attorney-General on the face of the legislation assists in providing public assurance about the government's intentions.
The committee noted that, in addition to the four acts addressed in this bill, 33 other acts will be amended to implement the Home Affairs portfolio. The committee was informed that drafting of these legislative amendments is well advanced, and considered the amendments should be brought forward as soon as possible. In particular, the committee has recommended that amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to facilitate the Attorney-General's ongoing role be introduced to the parliament prior to the conclusion of debate on this bill.
Finally, the committee has recommended that, subject to implementation of these recommendations, the bill be passed. I commend the report to the House.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:16): by leave—I thank the member for Canning, in his role as the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, for those remarks on the tabling of this report.
The first important and significant matter arising from this report is that the concern that was expressed to the committee and the government by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has been heeded. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is an important government agency. It's at the heart of assuring the Australian people that there is adequate oversight of our intelligence community. It is one of the integrity agencies. As a former Federal Court judge, the Hon. Margaret Stone has spent many, many years in public service, and that public service continues in her role as Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
The concern that she had expressed was with the way the bill as drafted might be seen by some members of the public, including—and she made this point in her evidence to the committee—those members of the public who are perhaps not as informed about the way in which our intelligence services operate or about the way in which the legislation operates. Her concern was that their confidence might in some way be lessened if a particular power of not merely request but direction were to be given to the Attorney-General. That power is already held by the Prime Minister. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security accepts that that power is appropriately held by the Prime Minister, but her concern was that the power not be given, in addition, to the Attorney-General as part of this rearrangement for our intelligence services and the rearrangements in relation to national security that the Department of Home Affairs represents. So I'm very pleased that members of the committee have agreed with this, I'd have to say, very unusual concern being expressed by a senior intelligence or integrity officer, and that report will now go forward to government. It's a touchstone of the work that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security does that, when we legislate or amend existing legislation, it be done in a way which builds public confidence in our intelligence agencies and builds public confidence in ensuring that there is integrity, that there is oversight and that the extraordinary powers that are exercised by our intelligence agencies will be exercised according to law.
The second point raised by this report goes to the fact that the government has made it a centrepiece of its introduction of this new home affairs department, and the rearrangements, that the Attorney-General will continue to exercise the warrants power in relation to warrants that are sought by ASIO in the exercise of ASIO's powers. Because it is such a centrepiece of the government's reforms, it perhaps could have been expected that this particular preservation of the Attorney-General's power over warrants would be found in the first bill being presented by the government to the parliament in relation to the establishment of the Department of Home Affairs. It has turned out that that is not the case. This particular bill, although it is entitled 'home affairs', only deals with some four of what it is now clear are the 37 acts of parliament that will need to be amended in order to establish the Department of Home Affairs in the way in which the government wishes to do it. It is for that reason that the committee, noting the importance of the preservation of the Attorney-General's warrants power, said that the bill in which that will occur, namely the bill to amend the ASIO act, ought to come forward for the examination of the parliament before this particular home affairs bill proceeds. That is certainly a sensible approach and, again, I hope that the government accedes to that recommendation of the committee.
Finally, I want to note that this process of setting up the Department of Home Affairs is proving to be a somewhat larger exercise and a larger undertaking than the government's statements about it to date might have indicated. The revelation that there are some 37 acts of parliament potentially affected, and that only four are being dealt with in the bill that is currently before the parliament and that is the subject of this report, suggests that it is a much more substantial exercise. We'll wait and see what amendments are needed to these 33 further acts. I hope that that legislation to make those amendments can be brought before the parliament expeditiously, so that the legislation can be looked at equally expeditiously by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I commend this report to the House.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (15:22): The budgets that a government brings down and the amendments that are made in the half-yearly review—examples of which are now before this chamber for consideration—tell us everything that we need to know about any government's priorities. They are there for all to see in the bills before us today, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018. This government's priority is to pursue tax cuts for millionaires, the big end of town and large businesses, with some sort of discredited trickle-down theory attempting to convince the general public that this is going to be to their broader benefit. It's interesting to note that the Prime Minister, having visited the US in recent days, has again reiterated his view that this is the way to go for the Australian experience in the Australian economy.
There is a glaring chasm of difference between what I am hearing directly from my community—and I'm sure my colleagues are hearing as well—and the government's view of what is needed and its priorities as reflected in these bills. What I hear consistently from local constituents is that they are feeling squeezed. They are finding it harder and harder to bring sufficient income into their households to meet the increasing costs of living that they are facing across the board. It doesn't matter whether they are wage earners, small business owners or people on a pension or an income support payment of some sort. All across the board, the feedback is about the pressure that is caused because the money coming into their households, however they are made up, is becoming increasingly less able to meet the costs of living that they face.
I want to take the few minutes that are left to me in this debate to report some things the House. Because I wanted to get a deeper sense of how all this is playing out in my community, I launched a survey asking people to give me some feedback—whatever they were comfortable with—about the issues of wage pressures and cost pressures in their households. In just over 48 hours 800 local people had gone online to complete that survey. That tells me, as I'm sure it will be the case in many electorates, that this is a really pressing issue for local people. I want to highlight one aspect.
I particularly asked questions around health and private health insurance because it's a debate that we're having at the national level. In response to the question asking people what items were causing pressure on their family budget, 40 per cent indicated that the cost of doctors and specialist visits was an issue, 30 per cent indicated that the cost of pharmaceuticals was an issue and 55 per cent indicated that the cost of their private health insurance was an issue. There has been the combination of the government ticking off on private health insurance rises year after year and the stubborn policy that means that people are paying more for their visits to doctors and specialists, and for a range of diagnostic testing as well, as the gap widens and deepens in terms of the cost that they are paying. This aspect of health in the family budget is becoming a real problem. I think it's an indictment on the government that they are not addressing policies that will alleviate some of that pressure and give people some peace of mind that they can get the health care they need when they need it and not be forced to make decisions about whether they will buy groceries this week, have an x-ray scan or continue to pay for private health insurance to cover them—or any of those really difficult decisions families are faced with.
I will give the House an idea of some of the comments I received in the survey. Jason said:
Even though I have good coverage, the Basic things like massages and chiro have been heavily cut back. Medicines are always being removed from any coverage and the cost of insurance is always increasing, but not the coverage.
I think Jason's last comment there really captured the common frustration people are expressing with private health insurance—the cost is always increasing, not the coverage. That is a frustration. Martin said:
Not considered value for money. The premiums keep going up and the cover (i.e. exclusions) keep reducing. The gap payments are excessive and keep increasing.
Helen wrote to me:
It was recently useful when my partner had to have surgery. We had to pay the excess only for the actual hospital stay … However the specialists can charge what they like despite supposed agreements with private hospitals, so we were very out of pocket with the copayments and any specialist visits subsequently. There were 3 specialists involved.
Roslyn said:
My health fund does not cover anything like the amount doctors charge.
Scott said:
The scheduled fees are almost always much less than the actual medical costs (especially in the private system), which always has to be made up in the form of gap payments on top of your private health insurance premiums.
There is a lot of frustration and a lot of concern out in our communities about the pressures on family budgets. We have before us appropriation bills once again that are about decreasing the income coming in—in this case for pensioners with the plan to abolish the energy supplement and for students with increased costs. Across the board people are feeling the pressure on their budgets. They're having increased costs for really critical issues like health. The government's priorities are completely wrong. I think that this legislation is a continuation of that problem.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:29): I rise today to speak about some of the government's decisions in the recent budget in relation to education and some of the decisions they have made in relation to education funding in recent years. The government is cutting $17 billion from Australian schools. If you compare the signed agreements and policies of the last Labor government and what this government will deliver to Australian schools over the next decade, it is $17 billion less.
One of the very disturbing things about the enormity of this cut—it is extraordinary when you think about the difference that $17 billion would make in our schools—is not the size. The worst thing about this cut is that it hits the poorest kids in the neediest schools the hardest. New data from the Parliamentary Budget Office and the National Catholic Education Commission shows very clearly what the difference is between Labor's plan and the government's plan. In the next two years alone—the calendar year that we're in and calendar year 2019—there is a cut of $2.19 billion. Disturbingly, 86 per cent of this cut comes from public schools. That's $1.88 billion.
This is despite the fact that public schools teach the majority of kids in Australia. They teach about two out of every three children in Australia. Most particularly, they teach the majority of kids with additional needs. Public schools educate 74 per cent of children with disabilities. Public schools educate 82 per cent of children from the bottom quarter of socioeconomic advantage. Public schools teach 84 per cent of Indigenous children. So the biggest cuts go to the system that has the biggest proportion of children with additional needs.
We had in the campaign from the government to back in these cuts an extraordinary sleight-of-hand diversion tactic where we had the Minister for Education out saying, 'Well, if we can change things according to our plan, we'll see big cuts to elite private schools.' The numbers just don't bear that out in any way. What's really depressing about this is that the Greens party room actually fell for it. Their education spokesperson, Senator Hanson-Young, absolutely swallowed hook, line and sinker the government's line and was all set to vote for an education funding package that saw the biggest cuts—86 per cent of all the money lost from the system—lost from public schools. It was only when the New South Wales Senator Lee Rhiannon stood up against these cuts in the party room of the Greens that in fact the Greens were not able to throw their support behind the government's attack on public school education, but Senator Rhiannon's reward for that is being disendorsed by the New South Wales branch of the Greens. It's very disappointing that her punishment for standing up for public schools is to lose her endorsement as a senator.
Independent schools educate about 15 per cent of children. Only about two per cent of cuts will hit independent schools. Catholic schools, which educate about 20 per cent of children, lose $250 million.
This new funding model absolutely locks in inequity for years to come. What the federal government has done is say that it will fund 20 per cent of the cost of educating a child in the public system. Of the schooling resource standard for public schools, the federal government will meet 20 per cent, but it will meet 80 per cent of the schooling resource standard for children in the non-government sector. There is no way on God's earth that that is sector-blind. There is actually a different formula depending on whether you're at a public school or a non-government school. The proportion of the schooling resource standard that goes to a child in those different systems is determined by the sector that they're in. This is not sector-blind. It means that the vast majority of children attending public schools will never have their funding reach the schooling resource standard, so it's certainly not needs based and it's not sector-blind. When the public school systems in places like the Northern Territory and Tasmania are the hardest hit, that just shows that this system is not needs based, not in the least. Of course, it's bad for our children and it's bad for our schools, but it's also bad for the economic prosperity of this nation and for social cohesion in the future.
A system where the largest amount of money in the shortest time goes to the neediest kids in the neediest schools—that's what Labor aims for. People say there's no silver bullet when it comes to tackling inequality and disadvantage. Well, there pretty much is. If we get our school system right, along with early childhood education and preschool, we can make the biggest difference to people's lives. We on this side are absolutely committed not just to restoring the $17 billion that the government has cut from schools over the next decade but to restoring true needs based, sector-blind funding, where the most disadvantaged children are the ones that get the most support and every child in every system is given every opportunity to reach their potential.
Of course, the money is absolutely vital. You can't cut $17 billion from schools and not expect to see an impact over the next decade. But it's not just about the money. I think it's very important to say that when we left government there was a fully developed reform agenda for our schools. That was junked by the Liberals. There's still nothing in its place. They've asked David Gonski to do a second review, and at some stage they'll release that review. But for five years there have been only cuts and there has been no reform agenda. That's why we have said that of course we will hear what Mr Gonski has to say in his second review, but we're not waiting for that. We've already announced a 10-year initiative for an evidence institute for schools worth $280 million over the next decade. This is designed to take the politics out of education research. We know that teachers want the best for the kids in the classroom. We know that there are constant new discoveries about the best way for children to learn, new discoveries about brain development. We need to make sure those new discoveries go from best practice to common practice in our classrooms as efficiently and as effectively as possible, that teachers are supported to upgrade their skills through continuous professional development and that the new research translating into the classroom is supported by best practice guides and easily digestible information from the evidence institute for schools.
I will finish on school funding with this: one of most disappointing things is that many of the electorates hit hardest by these big funding cuts are National Party electorates. As Adrian Piccoli, the former New South Wales education minister, pointed out, a lot of poor kids live in country areas and they're going to poor schools too. It's so disappointing to see the National Party have been prepared to roll over on the issue of schools funding that massively disadvantages schools and their electorates.
When it comes to vocational education and TAFE we've also seen very substantial budget cuts from those opposite. Since the coalition came to office, we've seen about $2¾ billion cut from TAFE training and vocational education. In response to last year's budget, which saw further cuts to TAFE, Labor has pledged to put TAFE back at the centre of our national training system, with a pledge that a Labor government would allocate two out of every three dollars of increased funding to public vocational education going to public TAFE. We would reverse more than $600 million of cuts in the last budget to TAFE and we'd additionally invest $100 million in the new Building TAFE for the Future Fund. There are today about 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than when Labor left office. TAFE has been completely run down under this government. That's why last week I was delighted to announce that, if we are elected at the next federal election, a Labor government will undertake a once-in-a-generation look at our post-secondary school education system.
We know that the jobs of the future are changing all the time. We know that young people are not just going to be doing a number of jobs through their working lives; they're going to have a number of careers. They're going to need to continually upgrade their skills and knowledge. We want to make sure that our TAFE system is strong and excellent and an equally attractive option for young people after they leave school and that our university system is strong and excellent and great quality as well, including the research that they do. We want to make sure that these two systems are both among the best in the world, that they operate better together and that they continue to work together to make sure that Australians genuinely have opportunities for lifelong learning.
Finally, the government's made a series of attempts to cut university funding. We have successfully held back the tide on cuts to university funding, but just before Christmas the government decided that they would go behind the back of the parliament—they bypassed parliament—to argue for $2.2 billion of cuts to our universities in a way that would effectively kill off the demand-driven system introduced by Labor when we were last in government. We are proud of the 190,000 extra students we got going to universities because of our demand-driven system. The way that the government have implemented this most recent lot of back-door funding cuts means an effective capping of the number of students at university. It means that in 2018 alone 9½ thousand places will not be funded.
Universities have told us that they will offer fewer places, and the worst affected universities will be the outer suburban and the regional universities. Again, you have to ask: why would the National Party sign up for university funding cuts that very clearly particularly disadvantage regional universities? Of course all universities will be hard-hit by $2.2 billion worth of cuts, but the city universities have more revenue streams, more ways of making up the funding difference for their universities. Southern Cross University will lose $25 million; James Cook University, $36 million; CQUniversity, $38 million; University of New England, $30 million; Charles Sturt University, $57 million. That is going to be very hard on those universities.
The measure to lower the HELP repayment threshold to $45,000 so that you start repaying much sooner on a much lower wage, which those opposite want us to support, is going to hit people in regional communities much harder. We know that a lot of people in regional communities have lower starting salaries. And, let's face it, we've still got a gender pay gap in this country, which means women will be affected more by these lowered repayment thresholds as well. We know those opposite are still committed to $100,000 university degrees. We know that the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program is still under threat as long as this government is in office. We know that they're still trying to abolish the $3.7 billion Education Investment Fund in the Senate.
We are proud of our measures that saw substantial increases in university funding from about $8 billion when we came to office to about $14 billion when we left office. We're proud of the fact that we saw many more students, particularly many more students who were the first in their family to attend university, given that opportunity based on their willingness to work hard and study, not on their parents' pay packet.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (15:44): I'm really pleased to rise and speak on the appropriation bill. Infrastructure, schools, jobs, support for the vulnerable and relief from the rising cost of living are all key priorities that received a boost in the federal budget. Before the member for Sydney leaves the chamber, I'll add, in response to her comments, that there are no cuts to school funding.
Mr Husic: Rubbish!
Mr HOWARTH: There are no cuts to school funding, and the member opposite is being very dishonest in saying that there is. The Quality Schools package will deliver an extra $25.3 billion in recurrent funding for Australian schools over the next 10 years, on top of the 2016-17 budget settings. This will bring total Commonwealth recurrent funding to almost $250 billion over the 2018 to 2027 years. For the first time, real needs based funding will be provided and will grow from $17½ billion in 2017 to $31.1 billion in 2027. For the member for Sydney, that's an additional $13.6 billion that keeps going up and up and up every year.
In my own electorate of Petrie, what that means for schools like Aspley East State School is that right now, this year, they'll receive $2,383 per student, and in 2027 they'll receive over $3,500 per student. This is every year; it keeps going up. So it's $2,383, and next year it'll be higher, and the year after that it'll be higher again, and the year after that it'll be higher again. And the member for Sydney has the gall to come in here and say that it's a cut! Aspley Special School in my electorate, which receives $9,452 per student, will be receiving over $14,000 in 2027, and it goes up every year. I could go through all 45 schools in my electorate, because every single one of them receives an increase. Every single school receives an increase.
The member opposite fails to mention as well that in state schools 80 per cent of the funding comes from state governments. The Queensland government is providing 80 per cent of the funding to state schools, and we're doing 20 per cent. That goes up, and it matches their funding. In the private schools, the Queensland state government funds 20 per cent and we do 80 per cent. But every school will be better off, and it will continue to grow each year.
In addition, just last week two local schools in my electorate, Clontarf Beach State School and Humpybong State School—one of the oldest schools in my electorate, well over 100 years old—were successful in the Digital Literacy School Grants program and will receive almost $100,000 between the two of them, almost $50,000 each, as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda, because we know how important NISA, or the National Innovation and Science Agenda, is for young students in my electorate and right around this country in relation to building jobs of the future.
In relation to universities, the member opposite continues to be dishonest and talk about $100,000 degrees. I'll say to everyone listening to this broadcast, and everyone listening in my electorate, that the federal government pays 60 per cent of all the costs. So if you have a degree costing $100,000, as the member for Sydney, the shadow minister, is saying, that means the federal government would be up for $60,000, and then $40,000 is HECS. So why would any government want the cost of a degree to continue to grow like that if we're paying 60 per cent of the cost? Her arguments don't stack up, they're flawed and she should be honest with the Australian people.
Just before we get off education, I'll just mention, in relation to universities, that the member for Dickson and I have been able to deliver for the Moreton Bay region a lot of funding in relation to the University of the Sunshine Coast Moreton Bay campus, which will be opened in 2020. So every young person in the Petrie electorate, the Dickson electorate and the Longman electorate will be able to go to university in 2020 in Petrie, at the old Petrie paper mill. We've secured a $35 million grant to the council to help build the infrastructure, we've secured a $121 million low-interest loan to help the USC build the buildings and so forth, and we've also secured additional funding for student placements, which is very important as well.
In relation to health funding, funding was also increased more than ever before for hospitals, medicines and Medicare. Federal funding for public hospital services under the coalition has increased from $13.8 billion in 2013 to a record $22.7 billion in years to come, just in 2021. This means that funding is flowing to the state governments for more hospital services, more doctors and more nurses. This is very important for hospitals in and around my electorate of Petrie, like the Redcliffe Hospital, the Prince Charles Hospital and three other public hospitals that are funded by the Commonwealth through the Metro North Hospital and Health Service in Queensland. In 2016-17 the Commonwealth contributed $776.2 million to Metro North Hospital and Health Service in activity based funding, an increase for health of $119 million from the year before.
This just shows how the coalition government is increasing funding to schools and education and increasing funding for health and hospitals. How have we done that? We have a plan for jobs and growth, and those opposite don't. We heard the Treasurer in question time today talk about how the government is on track and delivering—16,000 jobs were added in January alone, bringing some 400,000 new jobs for the year in Australia. That's a record, for the benefit of those in the gallery, those in my electorate and those listening. That is an absolute record of 400,000 new jobs created in 12 months. Over 75 per cent were full time. Those opposite like to talk about casualisation, but 75 per cent of the jobs were full time. We have had 16 consecutive months of jobs growth—the longest run of jobs growth ever recorded. That's not just in the last five years or the last 10 years. It's the longest run ever recorded.
What did we say at the last election? What did Prime Minister Turnbull say at the last election? He said: 'Elect the coalition. Vote for the coalition. We have a plan for jobs and growth.' And we are delivering. It's because we had a plan. We had a plan around our free trade agreements. We had a plan around defence manufacturing. And we had a plan around business tax cuts. We know that reducing tax, in whatever sector you do it, flows to everyone in the community. We are seeing that through the jobs growth. There is the evidence for the Senate, the crossbench and those opposite. There is massive amounts of jobs growth in SMEs and in businesses in my electorate such as Kingswood Cabinets at Narangba, which has grown from two staff to some 50 now, or East Coast Bullbars in Clontarf in my electorate or Village Motors at North Lakes that has a turnover of some $80 million and employs hundreds of people. When I spoke to the owner there, Marlene Newton, she said that cutting company tax will help her employ more people. That's the evidence. That's a business that's turning over above $50 million. We need the parliament to let us continue on with our plan and go with tax cuts so we're not stuck on 30 per cent here in Australia when Indonesia, our nearest neighbour, is on 25 per cent, the US is on 21 per cent and over in the UK they're about to go to 17 per cent.
I want to see that happen so I can continue to fund local community groups in my electorate. I've been able to get record funding for them. If I talk about a few clubs and organisations in my electorate, tell me what they all have in common: the Patriots Moreton Bay motorcycle club in Redcliffe, the Lions Recycle for Sight, the Bracken Ridge scout hall, the Bald Hills scout hall, the Endeavour Foundation that is doing a great job for those who are disabled in my electorate, Encircle Redcliffe helping people with domestic violence, the Lighthouse Centre at Deception Bay, the Ridge Hills United Football Club that I've been asked to deliver for, the Deception Bay soccer club and the Aspley Memorial Bowls Club.
What do they all have in common? They've secured from the coalition government solar funding on every one of their buildings. Why that is an advantage to those clubs and community organisations is that we are lowering their costs. Each year their power bill—and we know power is expensive and it has gone up, particularly in Queensland—will come down because we have been able to install solar. We could not do that without our plan for jobs and growth. I say to the Senate: let us continue that plan. We took it to the last election. We've seen 12 months of evidence, with record jobs growth, with 16 consecutive months of growth. Let us continue that so that we can continue to fund clubs and organisations like that in my electorate, in the member for Mayo's electorate, the member for Sydney's electorate and the electorates of all members and senators in this place.
We've also been able to fund $4,290 for Moreton Media Group 99.7 FM to replace a new transmitter. That is great news for those guys. This morning I was talking to Colin Scobie, the chair of the board, who is looking to replace that transmitter, and I want to thank Ray and Tahlia, who are the managers, for the great job they are doing. I also want to talk about the Aspley Devils Rugby League Club, where I've been able to secure $80,000 to install a water harvesting system. I was talking to Julie from the club this morning who was saying that the 210,000 litre water harvesting system that they've been able to install due to this grant is now half full, because we had massive rain in Brisbane and Moreton Bay over last weekend.
Because of our plan for jobs and growth, we've been able to fund North Lakes Leopards Junior Rugby Union Club with $10,000 to go towards upgrades to their canteen, audio visual equipment and repairs to their fence. Thank you, Jarrod, and all the volunteers at that rugby union club for what you are doing. We secured $10,000 for upgrades to the fields of North Lakes Mustangs Football Club. Once again, thanks to the volunteers and all the players there. We have been able to fund these because of our plans for jobs and growth.
We've also been able to fund vital road infrastructure like the Rothwell roundabout. We were able to secure $11,7 million to make sure that the Rothwell roundabout becomes a signalised intersection. It's now completed. It's now delivered. We've also secured funding for $84 billion for the Boundary Road overpass, which is a new six-lane overpass crossing the highway. Why have we been able to fund it? Because of the coalition's plan for jobs and growth. The Boundary Road overpass is now a reality, helping the people of North Lakes and those businesses in the Narangba.
I've also got funding, secured in last year's budget, for the Deception Bay Interchange. So those people in Deception Bay: we're remembering you. We know that we need to look after your interchange as well. I've been able to secure $120 million for you. That work will start later this year when the Queensland Department of Main Roads awards the contract. I've been able to secure $4 million for Dolphin Stadium to upgrade the grandstands. We had an international tournament played there on the weekend. We were also able to secure $9 million for Telegraph Road stage 1B in Bracken Ridge—widening the lanes there. How do we do this? Because of our plan for jobs and growth. That's how we do it. So I say to the parliament, to the 150 members in this place: if you want to continue to see funding flow to your electorate, we need to be able to make sure that the government's income increases. We know that by reducing tax and stimulating investment, we'll continue to see more investment.
I've also been able to secure funding of $400,000 for Redcliffe Surf Life Saving Club; $450,00 for the Redcliffe Police and Citizens Youth Club; and $150,000 for the Bald Hills Memorial Hall, which I am opening this Saturday. I could go on, but I have run out of time. I'll talk more about it later, but I would ask the parliament to support our plan for jobs.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (15:59): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018. Deputy Speaker Andrews, as the Father of the House, I am sure you have not only heard many speeches like this but have presented many yourself to the parliament over the many years that you have been in the parliament. I see you are now leaving the chair so I will continue to deliver my speech to the new deputy speaker. This bill seals authority from the parliament to provide funding for projects that are not within the purview of ordinary annual services that the government provides—namely, capital works and the services and payments to or for other government bodies such as states, territories and local government.
So it is with enthusiasm that I will update the House on the exciting projects underway in my electorate of Swan. I know during the course of the appropriation bills speeches, we've heard endless negativity from the other side. But I am happy to stand here today and talk about the positive aspects of what the government is doing and has done in my electorate. In the east of my electorate there has been significant investment in infrastructure in both public transport and roads.
The Gateway WA project has been completed for some time now. It was initiated by the previous government but was based purely on the funding from the mining tax. We know what happened to the mining tax; it disappeared because it did not raise any funds. But the coalition government continued to complete that project without any funding from the mining tax. It was a project that was sorely needed and was part of a project that would have been fantastic heading into Roe 8 but, as we saw, the new Labor state government stopped that. It was part of the suite of infrastructure projects that were going to reduce congestion on West Australian roads but it has been stopped by the state Labor government.
The Gateway WA project was a major project in WA. In fact, it was the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken by Main Roads. It focused primarily on the Tonkin Highway, the Great Eastern Highway to Roe Highway and Leach Highway, Orrong Road to Perth airport. It fixed major intersections such as Abernathy Road and the Leach Highway intersection, removed traffic lights and subsequently reduced travel times. Main Roads had noted the need for this project was driven primarily by the expected doubling of air travel and road freight over the next decade.
Despite all the fantastic work that has already been completed, there is still a lot more work that the federal government is committed to in the eastern section of my electorate. From a public transport perspective, the Forrestfield Airport Link is an exciting project which will connect residents to the Perth airport and the Perth CBD. This project was funded by the federal coalition government and the previous state Liberal government led by Colin Barnett. While the current state Labor government will try to claim the airport link as part of the grand metro net—or metro debt, a pipedream of train lines conveniently to every suburb in a marginal state seat—I'd like to remind the House that this line, the Forrestfield Airport Link, was the work of the coalition at both state and federal level. The $490 million of federal funding for this project was secured as a repayment for Western Australia's low share of the GST.
While those opposite sprout poor alternatives to fixing WA's low share of the GST, the coalition has delivered much-needed top-up funding in my electorate. This project will change the way that public transport is used by those in the east of my electorate. For residents in the Belmont area, catching a train to the Perth CBD from a local train station will be easy with the construction of the Redcliffe train station. A train station at Perth airport will now allow for easy and cheap access to the airport as well as a train line from the airport to the Perth CBD.
The third and final train station of the Forrestfield Airport Link is the construction of the train station in High Wycombe, which will mean only a 20-minute train trip to the city for my constituents in High Wycombe. The station in High Wycombe was initially named Forrestfield; however, due to its physical location being in High Wycombe, there has been a campaign in which I have participated in for its name to reflect its location. In November last year, I sent out a survey to the residents of High Wycombe to see what my constituents would like their local train station to be called. My office received hundreds of replies and had unanimous support from the residents of High Wycombe for the name 'High Wycombe'. The community of High Wycombe is now hoping they'll be given the opportunity by the state government to rightly change the name of the station. It would simply be following the precedent set by the state government, which allowed Belmont residents to vote to name their train station Redcliffe instead of the originally proposed name of Belmont. I encourage the state government to follow its own precedent and listen to the voices of local residents. Once completed in 2020, the airport link will provide a faster travel option than a car to the Perth CBD. It will also help ease bus congestion on roads like the Great Eastern Highway Bypass and the Kalamunda Road, with train becoming the primary public transport use for those in High Wycombe and the surrounding feeder-in suburbs.
In terms of road infrastructure, a lot has been achieved in the east of my electorate as mentioned previously by the Gateway WA project. However, this did not extend to High Wycombe, which was not in the electorate of Swan at the time of the Gateway WA project.
The intersection upgrade of Roe Highway and Kalamunda Road will be an important one for the High Wycombe community. The intersection is one of the last remaining signalised intersections on Roe Highway and has more than 110,000 vehicles pass through it every day, with up to 14 per cent, or 15,000, of these vehicles being heavy vehicles. This intersection is quite the contrast in roads. It has Roe Highway, a major dual carriageway in Perth, and Kalamunda Road, a suburban road going through High Wycombe. It is the major thoroughfare for traffic in and out of High Wycombe. Currently, the intersection causes a major delay on Roe Highway, but it also poses a major safety concern and has resulted in multiple fatal road crashes. The side of the road always has a number of crosses erected in memory of those who have been killed on this dangerous stretch. They are a reminder to drivers to take extra care when driving past this intersection or through it. In the five-year period between 2012 and 2016, there were 204 recorded crashes at the intersection, and 30 serious injuries occurred. That's why the Federal coalition government has prioritised this project and contributed $68.8 million of the $86 million that this upgrade will cost. This project also borders not only Swan but Hasluck, and I know the member for Hasluck has been very strong in his advocacy for funding for this project.
This project will result in a grade separation of the intersection, a very similar project to what occurred at the intersections that were fixed by the Gateway WA project. Other benefits of the project include improved safety for cyclists and pedestrians using the intersection. I recall for the House that when I took the Treasurer to the intersection in June last year it took over five minutes to cross the road on the Roe Highway side. Enhanced efficiency for freight is also a major part of the project. Of course, if the state Labor government weren't so radical as to not support all the infrastructure and roads that we're progressing in WA, then this intersection upgrade would be part of the much-needed Perth Freight Link, which would take trucks straight to the Fremantle port from Roe Highway. But, as I say, that project has been knocked on the head by the state government. Alas, here we are. But I'm pleased to advise that work on the project will begin next financial year and is due to be completed by mid-2020. It is a big win for the people of High Wycombe and Kalamunda and for all of my area, which is the transport hub of Western Australia.
I'd also like to update the House on a project that I have been fighting for since 2009. I know I've worn a few carpets out between ministers' offices, sharing my case and advocating for the need for a Manning Road on-ramp. As I have informed this house before, there is currently no southbound direct connection from the major arterial road onto the southbound freeway. To go southbound, you have to do a loop that sends you up to the Canning Bridge station and then back down a complex system of the Canning Highway on-ramp and the Manning Road off-ramp. This ridiculously complex system is heavily congested, resulting in rat runs throughout the suburban streets just to avoid navigating the intersection. This project has been in planning documents for Perth's transport and infrastructure plans since the 1980s. Planners knew that traffic for this area was going to grow significantly in the future, yet, unfortunately, with all this information in front of them, all state governments ignored the planners and ignored the residents. With the growth of Curtin University, which is on Manning Road, to up to 40,000 students now, it's a required outcome.
With the opening of the Fiona Stanley Hospital in the electorate of Tangney, just down the freeway, and further development south of the river, this piece of infrastructure has continued to become more vital every year. A former member of this house, Alannah MacTiernan—now a state government minister—has consistently said that it will never go ahead. In 2006 she rubbished the idea in the WA state parliament, saying that it was not a priority and it wasn't required while she was the minister for transport and planning. In addition to this, the Labor duty senator for Swan, Sue Lines, made a speech in 2016 rubbishing the plan too, as it wasn't rail or public transport, and was adamant that federal Labor wouldn't support it. I recommend that the minister and the senator should now go and listen to the concerns of the residents who navigate it daily and tell them why the plan shouldn't go ahead. I doubt the responses will be to the liking of the minister or senator.
The coalition was proactive in its approach to the on-ramp. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer visited the site, and I even took the Prime Minister with me, travelling along the route of the stretch that required people to do the loop around across the bridge to head into the southbound traffic. Subsequently, the Prime Minister agreed this needed a fix, and I'd like to thank him for sticking to his word and funding this vital project for my constituents.
Just a couple of months ago I spoke with Main Roads Western Australia on the project, with them informing me that the community support that they had received on this project was unlike any they had previously received for any project in WA. Just last week site works investigations were occurring down on Manning Road to assess underground services and their conditions to update plans and ensure this on-ramp can be built to last for many years to come. I was out and about doorknocking with some keen Young Liberals to update local residents on the project, noting it's due to be completed in the financial year on the weekend. The positive feedback I received proved just how important this is to my constituents.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the local member for South Perth, John McGrath, for the tireless work he has put in to get the state government on board with this project. He's been pushing the Manning Road on-ramp since 2005, when he was elected.
Another part of these appropriation bills supports community group focused grants such as the Stronger Communities Program, which I'm sure all members of this place strongly support and which has been able to provide funding to many needy groups within their own electorates. In my electorate of Swan I've often been oversubscribed to this electorate funding program, and the third round was no different. Many community groups submitted expressions of interest for great projects designed to help their small clubs grow. It is a wonderful thing to see funding given to organisations that are often run solely by volunteers with a love for the club and for their community. Many small clubs in my electorate have wanted to upgrade their ageing equipment to ensure that the children have access to the best equipment to pursue their sporting dreams.
The Victoria Park Athletics Club have been upgrading their high-jump mats with the funding from the Stronger Communities Program to ensure the kids can jump safely to follow their idols like Brandon Starc and Joel Baden. I cannot wait to see the club in coming weeks when I visit them to see new equipment in action.
The Canning Cougars are no different. They have upgraded all their safety equipment, with new mitts, masks and tees to ensure the players of Wilson, St James and Waterford can play tee-ball in Centenary Park safely and, hopefully, can get to the top of the ladder this year.
Another strong sporting group in my electorate that was successful in this program is the Cloverdale Comets. This group is a tee-ball based club in Cloverdale. They've been growing quite strong, with many locals getting involved in the club to the point that they've needed to upgrade their club rooms to make space for everyone who is joining up. The works are just being finalised, and I know it's made a big difference to their club.
Sporting groups are not the only ones to receive funding under this program. Just one example is the success of the Carlisle Scout Group. We had the Carlisle Scout Group apply to get a new trailer for their camps. Scouting has a long history in Western Australia, and in a time of constant technology and screen time in the lives of our children it is good to see them rejecting television for the great outdoors. I'm excited to see their new trailer in action as well.
As you can see, this funding is vital for many small club groups and grassroots organisations to help them grow and to support work they do in our growing communities. All of these projects will help create a stronger and more vibrant community within my electorate of Swan.
Another important project is that which endeavours to protect the environment of Swan. My electorate is bordered on three sides by the Swan and Canning rivers, and it is imperative that we ensure they are looked after. My election commitment for the Swan Canning River Recovery program will help ensure that we have pristine waterways and look after our environment. It is an election commitment that only the coalition has ever committed to. This is the second tranche, and in the two tranches we've made a total commitment of $2 million.
This government is committed to ensuring the removal of Hydrocotyle from our riverways and supports the environment groups at the coalface of removing this insidious weed from our rivers. This program has been integral to restoring our riverbed and clearing the waterways, and I thank the Minister for the Environment and Energy for recently joining me at an afternoon tea with Perth NRM and other local environment groups to formally announce the second-stage $1.1 million we gave to support this vital project in my electorate.
As you can see, this bill is of utmost importance for the help and support we're able to provide to our electorates, and I commend the bill to the House.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Assistant Minister for Finance) (16:14): I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018. These additional estimates appropriation bills seek authority from the parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this financial year. In introducing the bills the government already highlighted some of the more significant items provided for in these bills. The bills provide funding for some measures that were included in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook where agencies do not have sufficient appropriations in the 2017-18 financial year to manage the net impact of measures alongside other changes to their estimates. The total of the appropriations sought through these two appropriation bills is approximately $1.5 billion. Once again, I thank all members for their contribution and commend these bills.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Assistant Minister for Finance) (16:15): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Assistant Minister for Finance) (16:17): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (16:17): I thought I would let you know that I'm reading a wonderful book. It's called Thank You for Being Late by Thomas Friedman. It's a great book. I commend it to anyone who's got an interest in innovation. I'm sure the member for Greenway has already poured through it. The back reads:
We all sense it: something big is going on. Life is speeding up, and it is dizzying. Here Thomas L Friedman reveals the tectonic movements that are reshaping our world—
technology, globalisation and climate change—
how to adapt to this new age and why, sometimes, we all need to be late.
I thought this is appropriate given that we are now debating the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017. Inadvertently, the Turnbull government has managed to be quite late, but not through design, on an issue that is supposed to support innovation in this country—equity crowdfunding. It introduced this bill in September—there's nothing dizzying about this—and we're debating it in February. And that's not the end of it, by the way. We're finally getting to debate this—a very dizzying speed indeed!
The government tell us all the time that this is a game changer. They tell us that they are the game-changing government and everything is being done to help support innovation in this country. There is the application of technology and new ways to help the economy. They're always telling us how great a government they are—and, if you want a second opinion, you can ask them again and they'll tell you. They'll let you know how they're going on this front and how they're reshaping the country. When it comes to actually doing anything then we have exhilarating glacial speeds. Again it has been a long and tortured journey to this point of just getting this legislation debated.
While this is not a bill that is going to capture the minds or attention of many Australians, it is going to be something of great interest to many start-ups and small businesses that are looking for new ways to raise funds to support their ideas. This bill finally removes a stack of regulatory burdens stopping proprietary companies from using crowdsourced equity funding. Those burdens weren't there beforehand and the government woke up to them and decided to pull them apart; they were actually put in place by this government, who then realised they had to pull them apart. That's why we're here. In a nutshell, for those who are unfamiliar with this concept, equity crowdfunding uses the internet to harness the financial support of investors to back a business, usually through what's called an online intermediary or a crowdfunding platform, and in return those investors get a stake in the business seeking the funds.
The government says this bill, like all of its bills associated with innovation, is a game changer, a boost for innovation. All the cliches get recycled for the purpose of a ministerial speech or media release, but, as is often the case with the coalition, it takes its sweet time to create or reach outcomes. Given the years it's taken to get to this point with this one bill, it seems more appropriate to stretch back in time and reach for that old Shakespearean one-liner: you speak an infinite deal of nothing.
When we're contemplating the history, let me remind you of this bill's protracted journey. In government, Labor tasked the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, in about May 2013, to start scoping out a framework for equity crowdfunding. A year later they finished their report and in May 2014 handed it up to the coalition. Any action languishes. It's jammed in a loop of seemingly perpetual consultation. I think there were three different consultation phases through 2014 and into 2015. In the meantime, government report after government report was issued identifying the potential of equity crowdfunding to improve access to finance for innovative businesses. Let me run through them.
For example, the government's Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda, released in 2014, talked about equity crowdfunding. The Murray inquiry into Australia's financial system, released by the government in 2014, also talked about equity crowdfunding. There was the Productivity Commission's Business set-up, transfer and closure draft report, released in May 2015, and the subsequent final report. The government's National Innovation and Science Agenda, NISA—we only got one of them, NISA 1.0—released in December 2015, talked about equity crowdfunding and said it would be something that would be happening. It took its time again. The government's own fintech statement was released in March 2016. All these reports talk about the value of equity crowdfunding. After all this, a bill was finally introduced in 2015 but widely panned for being a dud, too cumbersome, too unwieldy, user unfriendly. After withdrawing that bill, the government introduced another bill, in 2016, with exactly the same fatal flaws they had been told time and again would prevent businesses from being able to access equity crowdfunding efficiently. In March last year they used their numbers to force the bill through this place. They signed into law an equity crowdfunding framework that they knew deep in their heart would have to be fundamentally reshaped in the future. At the time, I labelled the framework 'ScoMo's dodo', and people thought I was being harsh. But the reality is this framework was racing towards one milestone and one milestone only—extinction.
Sure enough, we are right back here again in 2018, nearly 12 months to the day, with the government trying to fix the fatal flaws in its 2017 legislation that it knew were there. I do admire the innocent way in which the Treasurer slipped this line into the second reading speech introducing this bill in September, where he referred to its rationale emerging from stakeholder consultation and he described it in the following terms:
Submissions expressed widespread support for the extension of the crowdsourced equity-funding framework to proprietary companies.
Really? 'Widespread support'—it was like they'd just woken up one day and discovered this. The only time they'd heard of the energetic desire of stakeholders to have proprietary companies included within the equity funding framework was limited purely to the consultations around this bill that we are discussing now.
The government should stop with the mock innocence and the game playing. The harsh reality is this: in the four years it has taken to get to this point, the government was told their previous equity crowdfunding regime was a dud—it was highly restrictive and unlikely to get business support—and that they needed to bring in a regime that would be usable by proprietary companies and one where they weren't forced to contort their structures for the sake of accessing crowdfunding. In case the government would like to play dumb on this, let me read into Hansard the range of warnings they were given years ago on this. The University of New South Wales Faculty of Law said that 'the bill that they were putting forward excluded over 99.7 per cent of companies from accessing crowd sourced equity funding. The current proposed model in front of the parliament is too restrictive and excludes the majority of Australian companies from relying upon it'. The Law Council said: 'The committee is concerned that the bill is too complicated to be easily understood by start-ups and early stage companies.' The firm BDO said: 'The requirement to become a public company is likely to be daunting and costly to start-ups and businesses.' Employee ownership Australia and New Zealand, reflecting on the issue about the public company requirement, said: 'Significant costs for a smaller organisation from $15,000 per annum. The financial statement and content requirements also may cause some concerns for entities that do not wish to give full disclosure for competitive advantage.'
When I previously said that this would lock out small businesses and start-ups from using this, I had some in the start-ups space challenge me on it. So they went away and, on Twitter last year, I saw that they started to add up the costs of what it would involve to go through the audit and legal contortions to be able to potentially participate in the government's crowdfunding platform that they put forward. I remember a lot of them scoffing at the idea that it would lock them out, and they certainly scoffed at the notion that $15,000 might be the cost. At the end of it all, one person I am very familiar with who had wanted to genuinely test the outcome and see if it was true, Adrian Stone, found out in the end, through all the discussions they had had online, that, yes, it could cost up to $15,000. So to raise money you had to pay $15,000 to go through the government's crowdfunding platform. Even their own Small Business Commissioner, Kate Carnell, said exactly the same thing: the costs and structure would be prohibitive. Their own adviser tells them this and they still press ahead with it through various forms of legislation put forward. So it costs $15,000 before you even raise a dollar through equity crowdfunding.
Pitcher Partners, another group, told the government that 'significant restrictions for eligible participants, customers, and eligible securities, products, under the regime will ultimately result in very limited demand for the regime.' Let's come back and check how many firms in my contribution actually used their regime in the time that they had it in—since March last year. You will be staggered as to how many. But just remember what was said there. Pitcher Partners, years ago, said the regime will result in very limited demand. I'll come back to that point later. 'Accordingly,' they said, 'we believe it will be difficult for CSF platform operators to create platforms that will, from a business perspective, be economically viable.' That was their point.
Crowdfunder, that actual platform, said that 'in its present form the bill would not be attractive to start-up companies due to the onerous requirement'. So when the Treasurer gets up here and says there was a lot of interest—he had just woken up one morning and basically been smacked on the head with all this sudden interest by proprietary companies to access this—this is not the case. They had known for ages. He knew this was the case. Even when they brought in the legislation that they put to this place last year, they were told by Veromo's Andy Giles that 'the thought of switching to a public company to avail ourselves of a potential wider investor base is unthinkable. Everyone told the government don't lock out small firms.'
The co-founder of crowdfunding platform Equitise, Chris Gilbert, decided he would read the riot act to the opposition last year claiming, 'It's very disappointing to see the Labor Party be disagreeable—after everything that I have read out, we are the ones that are being disagreeable!—'at this stage in the process when they had such vast amounts of time to work with the coalition to get this legislation right.' True, we did want to work with the coalition on this. Not only had we urged the government privately to bring in laws that would fix this, but we would give them the space to do so. We would not criticise them if they took it off, and I've said that in the House constantly: we would not chip the government if they decided to take this off the books and fix it up. It was the government's choosing to knowingly proceed with a flawed bill, stating it wanted to pass that bill and fix it up later. So they pass a dud bill and say they'll fix it up down the point. That's their approach. That's the business-friendly approach that they'll put in. It was the Treasurer who admitted that he'd need to fix this up.
Not content with the delays and the dysfunctional process it employed, the government introduced this bill, as I said, in September last year, and we're now debating it in February. That's after two weeks of sittings have already preceded the debate. In the meantime, what have we seen? In January this year, 10 months after the last lot of equity crowdfunding laws passed, ASIC got around to licensing the first crowdsourced funding platforms. Seven companies were issued with an Australian financial services licence authorisation to act as intermediaries. Australia trails other countries we compete with in the global marketplace. In the US, the UK and Canada, for example, they're discussing and offering opinions on the top 10 crowdfunding platforms in this space. Such are their platform numbers. But what do we have here? We have seven. It's great that we've got seven, but how much time has been wasted in which we could have built those numbers?
The delay in providing approvals raised the question: what happened before January 2018 in terms of campaigns? How many successfully completed equity crowdfunding campaigns have there been? Remember, Pitcher Partners said, 'We think this regime will be so limited it'll hardly get used.' So I inquired: how many have they had? How many successful equity crowdfunding campaigns have there been? Three—three in 12 months. Why? They introduce the legislation in March. They then say they'll wait six months as they build in the delay in their last lot of legislation and wait for royal assent. That kicks in in about October. They take three months to register the platforms through ASIC, and then there are only three crowdfunding campaigns that come through—a game changer, we were told by those opposite! That's what's happened. They continually build in delay.
There have been some good ones, and this is why a lot of people on that side and this side believe in the promise of equity crowdfunding. I noted on the weekend that there had been a great example that was reported in the Financial Review: there had been more than 350 investors that had crowdfunded the country's first crowdfunded pub. They got some investors offering as little as $50 and some as much as $10,000, committing a combined total of $1.2 million to become part-time owners of the latest sports-themed pub developed by US-style chain The Sporting Globe. Good on them. This is good. This is what it's providing. It is providing an opportunity for business to get access to capital in that way and creating ownership opportunities. But how many opportunities did we miss out on because those opposite wanted the headline and the style rather than the substance? I look forward to potentially visiting that pub, shaking their hand and trying the brew.
Ms Rowland interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: I don't know. I think he does his own internal crowdfunding of his pubs. But I'm being generous. They're very successful. They operate one in my electorate. I'm very happy about the Plumpton Inn. But, putting that aside, the changes to the crowdfunding platform framework that this bill provides are the same as those requested many times over many years. So now they've come up with a bill to plug the gaps. In fact, after all that time trundling along, it'd be no surprise if that 2017 ledge turned into a pumpkin. The government that publicly pinned all this expectation provided the sector with so little, so late.
So, while we'll support the bill in its current form, I lament the opportunities lost and what we've had to go through to get to this point. Among the changes that are made is that, as we said, proprietary companies wanting access will no longer have to convert to a public company type. Many of the features of the existing framework which the government introduced previously, such as the obligations on intermediaries and the process of making those offers, will be the same; and to let the PTY companies access crowdfunding without breaching the current 50 shareholder cap. Investors acquiring shares through crowdfunding won't be counted towards the cap.
This is an elegant solution, dare I say. I commend the government on that. It is good way forward. It just took them four years to get there, despite all the people asking for it. Proprietary companies with shareholders who acquire shares through the crowdfunding offer won't be subject to takeover rules, and there are a stack of other changes in there as well. But what was also interesting to note is that there would be a regulation-making power to help the government act quickly, apparently, when something goes wrong. Given their performance to date, we would be very interested to see how quickly the regulation-making power will be enacted by the government. As he said, there is this sluggish pace of change, and you would think on the one hand that this has been the end of that delay—that they've finally got their act together and we'll see some changes. Wrong, because what we're picking up from the fintech sector and many others is that they are concerned about how long it's taking for core elements of this regime to be put in place. In particular, there are those that are bridling at the exceptional conservatism of ASIC in putting to bed the key measures required. People are worried about the disclosure regime that's been put in place. On the one hand people understand that if you have something that will potentially affect investors in adverse way, you have to advise potential investors accordingly. We support that. They are also told that campaigns might be held up because of positive news. You might have to delay a campaign because there is positive news that needs to be reported. They've been raising this with ASIC and Treasury to say, 'Why are we going through this process?' They're bridling at the fact that some to the disclosure requirements are tougher than the type of PDS requirements you go through for an IPO.
Certainly, everyone appreciates that crowdfunding is going to be a bit different. At the same time, you can't have the regime that's being brought in that's quite different from the IPO process, liberate the general 50 shareholder cap, and then have that reaction from businesses telling us—and I shall I'm sure they're telling those opposite—that they're making it even harder to go through this process and that they are bridling at some of the conservatism that ASIC is embracing.
I certainly appreciate that ASIC has a tough time. If you try to liberate things too quickly and do what the sector wants, the sector isn't the one that's there and has to clean up afterwards—it will be ASIC. I appreciate that. But the question is, why keep building in delay? This bill builds in delay. Remember, the bill came in last year in March. It then already factors in a six-month delay waiting for royal assent. Then they only got round to starting the accreditation process for the crowdfunding platforms in October. This bill wants to put another six months in. So all the work that had been done by ASIC to gear itself up for equity crowdfunding wasn't enough—they want to put in another six months on top of that. That's why we'll be moving an amendment here that calls on the government to bring forward the start date. They've had enough time to bring in their regime. They've had enough time to bring in things within ASIC. They can certainly bring forward the start date from royal assent from six months to three months. We don't think that's unreasonable, based on our consultations with stakeholders. We think, if the government is so confident in its regime and so confident in all the time that it's taken and all the protections they've put in place, why put in another six months delay? Halve that delay and make sure it's three months. Accordingly I move the following second reading amendment, which I've had it seconded by the member for Gellibrand:
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) notes with concern the extraordinary amount of time taken by the Government to introduce a functioning equity crowdfunding regime within Australia; and
(2) calls on the Government to bring forward the start date for this legislation by ensuring that the proposed changes take effect from the day after the end of the period of three (3) months beginning on the day this Act receives Royal Assent".
We know that the sector will welcome this. We know that there will be people saying, 'We need to get moving on this.'
We on the Labor side started a process in 2013 to look at what is required to bring in equity crowdfunding. It's now 2018. Half a decade has passed, and we still don't have this regime in place. We saw its potential. We saw, in the example that I read out, $1.2 million raised. That capability is there to do this, but we should not be held up by further delay—and we certainly need to find a better way to clear up issues between the sector and the regulator, which have been raised by the sector, to speed up the way this is being done.
This isn't the only thing. In a few weeks time we'll no doubt be debating proposals to liberate the regulatory sandbox that's been applied to fin-tech, where exactly the same thing's being said. There's all this talk about regulatory sandboxes. Three companies have just gone through using the equity crowdfunding platform, and there've been roughly the same number that have used the fin-tech regulatory sandbox. Again, the talk is there about doing all these things differently, but the regulations absolutely crush the ability of companies to get things done and to achieve anything.
This is exactly the problem with this government when it comes to the issue of innovation. They're all talk. If you pull back the curtain, you see the true nature of their commitment to innovation and the importance it places on accelerating economic activity. It's all talk—style over substance. Their hearts and minds aren't properly engaged in the mission to build a country that works smarter, performs faster, generates wealth and jobs, and spreads the innovation dividend for the benefit of many across the economy and community.
As I said, we're not going to oppose the bill, but we are certainly going to be recommending amendments to improve it and accelerate the way in which this is introduced, because otherwise we will just be mired in more delay. We will see more people frustrated that a government that have talked up the prospect of this regime coming into place have done very little to actually fast-track its implementation. It is completely unacceptable.
As I said, we were prepared to work with the government on this, right from when this bloke called Bruce Billson, who used to be on their side, had been looking at what to do on this. I certainly had very constructive conversations with him about it. We said we appreciated the complexity, because you're reforming Corporations Law in a way that is quite different from its conventional operation to accommodate this, but we knew there was potential. We're seeing it in very limited circumstances now.
While we wanted to give the government room to move to explore options—and they've finally, as I said, come up with an elegant solution in terms of what can be done to provide for equity crowdfunding in this country—they also did things like lift the asset and turnover cap, which we recommended and pushed for amendments to. Those opposite said they only wanted to have $5 million capped. We doubled it. They came in with $25 million, and good on them. But we'd said this stuff could be done.
The recommendation put forward by CAMAC for an unlisted public company vehicle—we'd argued that way back then. We have been absolutely consistent saying that, while we could appreciate why CAMAC wanted to introduce some of these vehicles, we thought we needed to find a better way to do it. We'd said all along there's got to be a better way to do this. We said all along we've got to liberate some of the caps put in place.
We said all along we would work with the government to allow this to happen, and they wouldn't do it. They brought in legislation they knew was flawed. They knew from day one this legislation that was brought in last year was flawed at its heart and they still brought in, because they're show ponies. They're not serious about bringing in legislation that gives meaningful effect to the words that they bandy about. This is why they should be condemned, and this is why they've been found out.
People within the broader start-up community have worked this government out when it comes to the issue of innovation, that all they were there for was to accept the applause way back when but, when it came to stumping up, they weren't there when it all got too hard to explain the importance of innovation to the community. For those people who were concerned about the impact on jobs and their economic future, this government was completely unable to explain that. And, not only that, they were unable to come up with solutions to help people out.
In an environment where we know technology will change jobs and where the requirement to invest in human capital is paramount, what have they done? They've cut funding to schools. They've cut funding to vocational education. They've cut funding to universities. They've slowed down the process of getting these reforms in. They talked a big game about what they wanted to do and then failed to deliver. They are being found out by the broader community. Look at the reaction to the release of the ISA report and the way that's gone down. People are thinking, 'Yet another report, but more excuses for inaction.' It's not good enough.
Like I said, I commend the amendments to the House. We remain committed to supporting a viable regime. But we are not about building in further delays as a result of the government's inability to get its act together.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Rowland: I second the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Chifley has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (16:46): Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, I note your recent contribution to the prior debate as well where you tried a play on words with METRONET. I thought it was particularly courageous to try to talk about state debt, particularly in light of the recommendations and findings of the report handed down last week. But I digress.
Let me come now to this second piece of crowdsourced funding legislation from this government. I think I can sum it all up by saying: finally. Finally there is a little bit of common sense coming from the Turnbull government. Labor actually began the moves to introduce equity crowdsourced funding via our reference to the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee to advise on an appropriate framework to allow for this. It handed down its final recommendations to the government in May 2014, which was about the same time that the government announced its plans to abolish the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee. But now here we are, standing at the beginning of 2018, and the Turnbull government has finally got its act together and introduced an equity crowdfunding regime that might actually be able to be used by some start-ups—or at least more than three of them. So much for being the party that apparently supports small business!
In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis there was a huge decrease in small-business activity. It has long been recognised that one of the greatest hurdles that start-ups face is building capital investment. Access to equity is a huge challenge. Companies that are eligible to be registered as proprietary have to have fewer than 50 non-employee shareholders. The Corporations Act imposes different rules and obligations on these proprietary companies, reflecting the small number of members that they have, that equity and risk is often kept closely held through their shareholders and that the members of those companies are likely to have a much greater understanding of the day-to-day running of those businesses.
Crucially, a proprietary company is unable to raise funds from the public. For entrepreneurs, who often form their business start-ups as a proprietary limited companies, this presents some pretty big hurdles when it comes to raising the funds that are required to get their businesses off the ground. Founders resort to putting their family savings on the line, remortgaging their houses and taking out massive loans—and that's just to start. To get the further funding needed to take that next big leap is even more difficult. This prevents everyday people who are interested in doing these things from investing in perhaps the next Uber, Airbnb or Spookfish, as we have in Western Australia. It prevents organisations such as Lucky Chan's in Northbridge, which was the first pub to be crowdsourced funded in Australia, from being able to have a crowdsourced equity funding arrangement. But maybe not now.
At the moment, under the government's previous legislation, the only way around this is for them to become a publicly listed company or a public company that can access the previous regime that the government brought forward. But, of course, if you want to become a listed company, you've got increased disclosure; the cost of an initial public offering—and I can tell you as a former corporate lawyer, that's not cheap; the potential loss of control of the business; separation of ownership from management; and the risk of focusing on short-term gains instead of the long-term interests of the business—what the start-up entrepreneur got into the business for in the first place—and trying to meet the expectations of investors that may be quite disparate. Starting a business is challenging enough; we shouldn't be imposing additional burdens on the Australian start-up community.
The 2017 legislation established a regime that allowed for unlisted public companies to raise funds via crowdsourced funding equity offers. Through this previous botched attempt to introduce equity crowdfunding, we—by which primarily I mean the member for Chifley and I—called out the government and asked for them to pull down the self-imposed regulatory hurdles that would effectively lock out over 90 per cent of the businesses that were actually interested in using crowdsourced equity funding. Like so much of this government's legislation, I find myself in this chamber constantly pointing this out. We pointed out the deficiencies and that we were happy to help the government fix them so that Australian start-ups really could access crowdsourced equity. But the government refused. Instead, they pushed through floorless legislation last year that they knew that they would eventually have to come back here and amend, simply so that they could claim that they had finally introduced equity crowdfunding. Well, I'm sure the media release made somebody warm in bed that night. What an incredible example of publicity triumphing over policy.
Labor has long recognised the importance of early stage innovation to drive economic growth. As we have often said, it is important to have policies in place that help grow as many innovative firms as possible—policies that remove barriers to growth, like a lack of access to capital. While traditional sources of funding for early stage innovation and start-ups have traditionally come from venture capital and angel investors, equity crowdfunding has emerged as a viable alternative for raising capital around the globe. So it is a shame that opening this up for Australian start-ups has taken so long.
These changes to open up crowdsourced equity funding to proprietary companies, while still ensuring appropriate consumer and investor protections, are vitally important. Ensuring that those protections are there is also important—protections such as having at least two directors, having to provide financial and directors' reports to shareholders and being required to comply with related third-party transition restrictions. Labor supports all these changes but we, like the Australian start-up community, are left wondering why the government has taken so long to get to this point. And, of course, the point we are at now is merely starting to introduce the legislation that will fix the changes that the government had previously made, so that we can now have the sort of regulatory regime that we actually need so that we can make sure that Australian start-ups can get access to crowdfunding.
But then we look at the detail and we also see that, despite the delays that were in the previous legislation and despite the hold-ups—having to wait three months for royal assent, having to wait six months for the law to even kick in and having to wait for the regulator to go through its processes of regulation and approving the facilities to be able to do this—we have another delay built into this legislation. I don't know what ASIC and the regulatory regime have been sitting around doing this whole time, if we need to create such a long pause again to be able to get to a situation where we have this new amended regime—one that might actually be accessible to Australian start-ups; one that people were asking for in the first place; and one that Labor said that we were happy to make the changes to to allow for this to occur the first time the government brought in this legislation a year ago. It is unclear to me why we now have to have a further delay.
As I said before, I fear that this is becoming a bit of a habit for this government, that I often find myself in this chamber speaking on legislation that this government is introducing to amend legislation that it had introduced only months or maybe a year ago, when Labor had offered to fix those problems as it went through parliament the first time. When I'm out at my 'coffees with Keogh' at various coffee shops around the great electorate of Burt, people often ask: 'Why does the opposition have to be so oppositionist? Why does it have to be so adversarial in our parliament? Why can't you all just get together and agree?' Do you know what I say to them? I say: 'Well, it's funny that you mention that, because, for this opposition, despite having grave opposition to some of the priorities of this government, which are so incredibly wrong for this country, there are some things where we come into this chamber and we say: "We want to help you. We want to help you make that legislation better."'
I tell my constituents, the great people of electorate of Burt, that the Labour Party is a constructive party. We come into this parliament wanting to make Australia better. So, when the government are doing things—even if it takes a long time for them to do them, such as with this legislation, which was recommended in 2014, dealt with for the first time at the beginning of 2017, and is now being fixed at the beginning of 2018—we say to the them that we will be happy to work with them on making them better.
The thing was, the crowdsourced funding legislation that they had before was fine. It would allow some people to access crowdsourced funding for equity, but it wasn't actually going to be that accessible for the people who needed to have access to it. So we said to the government: 'You should change this. You should make this work better.' But, instead of doing that, they decided that a media release was more important, as was being able to go out to the sector and say: 'Look! We've introduced this legislation and we've sent it through the parliament. Aren't we an excellent government? We're the government of small business.' That's what they said, but no-one could actually use the legislation.
So, now we find ourselves here, again, on this area of law, saying, 'Okay, we're going to change it again so that the start-up community in Australia can actually use it.' It is so vitally important. It is vitally important in two ways. One is that they must have access to the equity. It is really important that we make access to equity easier for our small business and our start-up community. As a nation, we need to have that equity input and growth into our businesses—businesses that go on not only to create great economic value in themselves but also, as they get larger, to employ people in our country.
It is also important that we have an effective consumer protection regime, because when you make it easier for consumers to invest it is also paramount that they are protected from the risks. The government has put forward some useful changes here: when a company wants to access these provisions there are some additional consumer protections. But it has been concerning, as the member for Chifley outlined just moments ago, that some of the disclosure requirements that have been put forward seem to exceed even those that would be required if a company wanted to go through a full IPO process. Quite frankly, that is ridiculous. One of the issues that we constantly deal with in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—of which you are the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons—is this issue that overdisclosure can quite often complicate matters even further and make potential investments even more risky for investors. That is because investors tend to take the view—this is a bit of behavioural economics for everybody—that because there is a nice glossy document that has so much fine print and that has been submitted to the regulator—not approved by the regulator—that it must all be fine. So, it's important that we get the disclosure regime right and that any risks are properly identified and consumers know what it is that they're getting into and understand the risks of investing through this method. This isn't going to be for everyone. This probably isn't where you'd put your superannuation savings. But it is important that companies and start-ups have access to this equity, it is important that there is proper disclosure, and it's important that there are consumer protections, which this legislation introduces.
But, critically, like with so many things, we're here fixing something that could have been fixed up a year ago. The start-up community of Australia could have been already accessing this legislation at the end of last year. We could have had a huge influx of equity into the smallest businesses in Australia, helping them reach that next step of development in their business. But, this government—a government that talks about supporting small business, talks about trying to help small business and talks about growing our economy and making it innovative and agile—has actually strangled that off for another 12 months. This is already many years after those original recommendations were made. That's why we not only support the bill—and I am supportive of the bill—but also support the amendment put forward by the member for Chifley, which, critically, calls on the government to bring forward the start date for this legislation, so that we can unlock the potential of equity crowdfunding for this nation, as we should have done many years ago.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:59): How on earth can this government, the Turnbull government, even think of itself as a government that supports innovation when it takes five years to get the legislation on crowdfunding to a usable form in our parliament? It's an amazing indictment of this government that this really quite simple piece of legislation, the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017, has taken so long.
I say 'simple' because, even though equity crowdfunding has its complexities, it is simple relative to the kinds of challenges that governments need to face now when they deal with innovation—the changing ways that businesses are starting to work and the effort going on around the world to restructure our concepts of the economy and how business interacts to deliver social good. When you look at all the change that government's going to have to deal with in the very short term, this is not a really complicated one. This has actually been around in the US. President Obama introduced the US legislation in 2012. The word 'crowdfunding' is known. People know what it is, yet this government has taken literally years to get the legislation to a point where it can be passed by this parliament and finally implemented several months down the track, if you let this government go.
It's been a litany of disaster from the beginning. The Labor government, way back in 2013, asked the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee to advise on the appropriate framework to allow equity crowdfunding to operate here. That was in 2013, a year after the US. The committee brought down its final recommendations to the Abbott government in May 2014—and then nothing. In 2015, nothing. In 2016, nothing.
Then finally, in 2017, we had a bill before this House—actually, I think it was late 2016—which did not meet the needs of the start-up community and was widely criticised. There was some delay as we on this side of the House attempted to negotiate amendments to make it more suitable, but essentially the problem with it was really simple: it required businesses that wished to crowdfund to become unlisted public companies, at incredible expense and with an enormous amount of red tape. Ninety-nine per cent of the businesses that might want to participate in the crowdfunding are actually private companies, so 99 per cent of businesses were not structured appropriately to use the legislation that was introduced and eventually passed in early 2017.
So the government was widely criticised, and criticised by this side of the House as well, for putting through a bill which did not actually achieve what it needed to achieve. We on this side knew then that it wouldn't work. In fact, the previous speaker, the member for Chifley, called it a dodo, saying it would be extinct within days, and in fact it was. He points out that now, a year later, there have been seven platforms launched under that old legislation and three completed crowdfunded projects. World experts on where the money moves estimate that crowdfunding is a field that will be worth about $95 billion worldwide by 2025, which is only seven years away, and we've got seven platforms and three completed crowdfunded projects, a year after the government's first legislation was introduced.
This new legislation addresses a lot of the botched parts of the previous bill. It actually meets the needs of the sector, and it will allow this sector to grow rapidly, which is a very good thing. But I just want to go back to what I said at the start of this: this is in many ways a simple exercise to get something right for equity crowdfunding and, again, five years is a long time to wait for appropriate legislation. The industry itself is complaining loudly, and quite rightly, that it'll have to wait at least another six months, if the government has its way, before it can actually use this legislation. We will be working hard to fix that for the industry and bring it forward.
Most of the speakers who will speak on the crowd-sourced funding bill today—the member for Chifley, the member for Burt and the member for Griffith—are into tech. They are speaking today because they are great followers of new technology and innovation. My interest in it is different. I am interested in the changing relationship between customers and businesses and between business and business in my community and right around the world. I am interested in the efforts that are going on around the world to restructure the way we think about business in our communities to effectively allow communities to make better decisions about how their resources are spent.
You can see all sorts of examples of this. You can see the growing number of co-ops and mutuals where people decide that they want a medical centre in their small town and so they form a medical co-op. You can see in Europe where people are getting together and forming mutual insurance companies that are now so wealthy—essentially because they insure small business owners, and small business owners don't get sick very often—that they are expanding right across Europe, out of one country and into several others. Enormous amounts of money have been put together through co-ops, because that was the only structure that actually worked for them. You can see in the US where small towns are getting together and forming mutuals that build their own internet network or that build their own power companies. You can see people all around the world—some very smart people—trying to find ways to strengthen the consumer within a company so that that old relationship that we had with economies of scale where a big company had customers and there was no real interaction is actually changing and breaking down. We will see over the next 10 years or so a dramatic increase in that kind of activity and in the way that people approach their relationship with their customers and customer-owned businesses. Crowdfunding is very much a part of that.
Equity crowdfunding is one part of crowdfunding, but I imagine that, if you took the rules away, if you took the law away—and I am not suggesting we do take the law away, by the way—if you allow it to flourish and follow its own path, you would find an incredible array of forms of customers coming together with money or businesses or investors coming together and forming different kinds of relationships with the companies from which they buy products or in which they invest. I suspect that we will see that anyway and that we will very quickly see platforms and businesses that are wishing to crowdfund bumping up against the legislation, even though at the moment it looks right. I suspect we will see that happen very, very quickly.
Crowdfunding isn't as new as people think. In Parramatta, my community crowdfunded its swimming pool just after a World War II. They wanted one and so they got together and crowdfunded it. In the US, they crowdfunded the base on which the Statue of Liberty stands. There are many examples. Of course, co-ops and mutuals were a different legal form of a group of people getting together and deciding how they wanted their money to be spent and how they wanted their resources to be allocated. Again, we are seeing the re-emergence of new forms of those. In Belgium, there is a group called SMart, which takes people in the gig economy in the arts industry and collects all their fees and effectively pays them a full-time salary. It has an incredibly large amount of capital sitting there, with 80,000 artists on its books. That is a co-op. It is a new form whereby people get together to create the business that they want the solution from. So, effectively, it is not a business looking for a crowd but a crowd looking for an answer—the reverse of what we now see as crowdfunding, and we will see more and more of that.
It is not new here either. I read quite often that the first recognised modern crowdfunder was a British rock artist in 1997, who got together a whole bunch of his fans to fund his tour. ArtistShare created their platform in 2000. But I can tell you that the Cafe of the Gate of Salvation, which is a gospel choir, got its fans together in 1989 to crowdfund its CD, and I bought one. I still have it, I think. We paid for that CD a year before they made it. We knew we were doing that. I challenge this first recorded incident of the 1997 British rock artist who doesn't seem to be named anywhere. I name the Cafe at the Gate of Salvation as the first official crowdfunder. Go the gospel choir. They were very, very good.
I would also point to the Melbourne Theatre Company in the late 1960s and 1970s, which invented what we now know as subscription. They got all their fans and customers to pay a year ahead. In Australia we think that's normal, but it's actually not—it's only Australia and South Africa that do it. You have companies in Australia like the Australian Opera that have at times received 80 per cent of their income 12 months before they even produced a production. It's an Australian invention. Don Finlay and the Melbourne Theatre Company invented it, and it's gone through virtually every Australian company. It too in many ways is an early form of crowdfunding, because it brings the crowd together to produce the service that they wish. It's crowd up, not crowd down.
So when I look at this particular piece of legislation and the great stuff that is happening, the wonderful new platforms that are coming out, and the great business ideas that we will see funded that way, I still think that there's another step to it. Over the next few years we will see a dramatic change in the way businesses and customers interact. We will see more customer owned businesses. We will see a whole range of new ways of business and customers and investors working together.
When this legislation comes into force and we start seeing more and more start-ups and other businesses seeking crowdfunding, I suspect it's not going to be as trouble free as we might like. We'll have quite inexperienced investors that have emotional attachment to the company in which they invest. We'll have a range of different kinds of relationships between the business and the investors because of the choice of the business or the choice of investor. I suspect it won't be quite as neat as we think. There will undoubtedly be some that will hit a wall because of the different expectations of the different groups. That, in many ways, is exactly my point. We now have a growing number of people in our communities right across the world who are looking for a different kind of relationship. As our communities themselves become less and less capable of coming to common conclusions, because we no longer live and work in the same suburbs, but we jump in our cars and leave, there are people who are trying to find new structures that bring people together to make decisions about where they want their resources to go.
It's an incredibly exciting time. Quite frankly, we need a government that can work a hell of a lot faster than this one on this stuff. We're going to need a government that can respond when new ideas start bumping up against this. We're going to need a government that can respond when new forms of coops and mutuals start to get into kinds of crowdfunding of their own, as they already are. We need a government that puts its legislative power where its mouth is. It talks about innovation, it talks about game changers, but it's just not prepared to do the work. There's a phenomenal amount of work to do, because the opportunities out there for new ways of thinking and new ways of making things happen, for empowering communities to make decisions to solve community problems for the common good or for personal good, are legion. Every major university is into it, and is trying to work out the new economic models. Every council knows they have problems they can't fix. Every community has people in it looking to do this. We have groups in Western Sydney who for years now have been collecting groups of people to invest in solar panels on the roofs of not-for-profits, because they believe that's where their resources should go. There are incredibly complex structures that these not-for-profits have to set up in order to do it. We need easier ways to do that.
Crowdfunding is not finished. This is just the beginning of it. We'll be astonished when we look back in 10 years at how far it's gone, around the world. Let's hope it goes here as well and let's hope we have a government that's capable of adjusting its laws, of looking at the possibilities and opening doors for those possibilities.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (17:14): It is, of course, a pleasure to follow the member for Parramatta, who is well known in this place for her interest in innovation, in small business, in start-up businesses and in new and emerging corporate forms. It's always such a pleasure to see her at our events for the Parliamentary Friends of Innovation and Enterprise. She is a frequenter of such events and is well known to the innovation community. In making those observations, I draw a very clear distinction between small businesses and start-ups. They're very different things but nonetheless have some related interests. Some of those interests are at the heart of what this new bill is about.
It was very interesting to hear the thoughts of the member for Parramatta on what is the evolution of the corporate form. We here all know, don't we, that corporations and the corporate form are not things that were handed down from on high. They've evolved over the last few centuries. In fact, it was previously considered quite controversial to confer legal personality on an entity and to have limited liability for people who own shares in that entity, yet that's now the norm. It's reflected in our corporations legislation and seems almost natural because it has now been around for so long. But it's not set in stone; it's not immutable, and certainly not frozen in time. I'm sure that most people here will have had interactions with people who are now challenging the way we see the corporate form under our legal system.
The shareholder primacy model is being challenged by benefit corporations, a new corporate form that has been emerging, particularly in the United States, where they're seeking to move away from shareholder primacy models to genuine stakeholder models. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it, because, regardless of what their legal obligations might be, how many corporations do you know that consider only shareholders' interests in the decisions that they make? Of course they don't. Of course they consider—and have legal obligations to do so—the interests of their employees, their creditors and their customers. All of these stakeholder groups—or, as some people describe them, corporate constituencies—have a role to play in interacting with corporations, particularly corporations that exist so that a firm can operate within the law and take the benefit of the corporate regulation that we have.
It's not just the emergence of benefit corporations. The member for Parramatta talked about co-ops and mutuals, who play an incredibly important role in Australian society. I'm a member of one myself, the RACQ. It does absolutely sterling work in respect of road safety in Queensland for the benefit of its members. It's not a corporation in the same way that a trading corporation might be; it falls within the class of co-ops and mutuals. I'm very pleased to engage with the Business Council of Co-operatives and Mutuals, and I'm sure that people here will have met with them when they have been in parliament, including quite recently to talk about this alternative yet very common form in Australia.
When you talk about the continuously emerging and evolving way that corporations are organised, we're really talking about the way that people can get together collectively for the purpose of an enterprise or an undertaking. As I said, it's not just shareholders or directors; it's employees, creditors, customers, providers of finance and suppliers. Corporate constituencies are very broad, and that's very important because, when we're talking about how to increase economic activity, we need to recognise that sometimes our old laws aren't fit for purpose. In this case we're talking about laws to promote and encourage investment, particularly in early-stage high-growth start-ups. This is a very important issue, and it's something that Labor kicked off when we were in government. We sought the advice of CAMAC, the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, the same committee that, unfortunately, this Liberal government had legislation previously before the House to abolish. Nonetheless, we did seek advice from CAMAC to see what we could do in respect of allowing equity crowdfunding to operate here in Australia. It was really important, because, if you're an early-stage start-up, you're going to be looking for options to raise capital. Finding investors at that early stage when you've got an idea is quite a difficult thing to do. Maybe you've developed a minimum viable product but you're not yet at a point where your firm is sufficiently mature enough to convince investors necessarily that you are a fairly low-risk proposition, so you're looking for capital that has a slightly higher or a much higher appetite for risk.
Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, I'm sure you've been, as have I, to a lot of incubators and accelerators that provide support to early-stage start-ups and then try to connect them either with angel investors if they're very early-stage or, later down the track, with venture capital. Those are very important, but increasingly I am hearing entrepreneurs saying that they are not willing to go down the route of engaging with the incubator or the accelerator with a view to getting particularly venture capital for their firms because of the requirements that are usually imposed to give up large portions of the equity in the firm—in other words, to give up a large amount of ownership of the firm, to have people they don't know who haven't been part of the business from the ground floor getting involved in the running of the firm.
I've certainly been to accelerators and incubators in Jerusalem, in Yangon, in San Francisco and of course plenty here in Australia. It is quite common across these incubators and accelerators, particularly the for-profit ones, to seek to take a slice of ownership in the start-up once they've assisted them to obtain capital, and of course it's very common for venture capital, as a condition of providing the funding, to seek a slice of ownership of the firm. Once that starts to happen, you're giving over more and more control. So it's not really a surprise that founders in those sorts of firms would be looking at alternatives to raise capital that don't involve them giving up control over what's really their baby—this business that they're starting from the ground up.
We have a strong and growing angel investment sector in this country. We do have a lot of strength in venture capital, and I certainly would not seek to minimise the importance of venture capital or the role that venture capital plays in Australian innovation, whether it's traditional venture capital or some of the corporate venture capital that we're starting to see in firms like Qantas and Telstra, who of course pioneered corporate venture capital in Australia. I certainly do not seek to discount the role and importance of venture capital or, as I say, at a more early stage of angel investment. Access to equity crowdfunding is another string to bow for those early-stage, high-growth start-ups when they are trying to seek funding.
I've spoken in relation to equity crowdsourced funding in this place before. I've expressed a great deal of frustration at the fact that this government really did not have its act together when it came to crowdsourced equity funding. In fact it had a previous bill early last year, which you'll remember, Deputy Speaker Irons, which sought to set up an equity crowdfunding regime, but, as we said at the time, excluded proprietary limited companies. So only limited companies, only public companies that were able to bear the compliance obligations and costs of transforming into an Ltd company, had access to the regime under the coalition's previous legislation.
A number of us, including of course the shadow minister, the member for Chifley, who is here at the table—who has done an excellent job in leadership on this issue over many years—spoke out about our concerns about the previous version of this bill, because it was not workable. It was of no use. You had people from across the start-up sector saying, 'Why would we go to all the cost and compliance obligations of trying to change our corporate form to become limited companies rather than proprietary limited companies just to access this regime?' The sector was speaking out and we were speaking out. The government knew they had a problem, because they were foreshadowing that they'd need to come back with further legislation—which is what this bill is—in order to fix a very obvious and glaring problem, yet they went ahead with it anyway. It was just legislation by publicity. It was a triumph of publicity over common sense. What a shame that was to see the government so desperate for a headline and for a bit of good publicity that they rushed through legislation that was not workable and that was in receipt of significant criticism from our innovation ecosystem participants in this country.
So I am delighted—I'm quite moved—to be standing here on what is a red-letter day for this nation. Finally this government is showing some common sense. Well done, government. I am deeply moved and delighted to acknowledge that there has finally been a show of common sense from the Turnbull government. Now that we are seeing some common sense on this issue, maybe we'll start to see some common sense on some other issues. Maybe we will see common sense on schools funding or corporate taxation or perhaps even not cutting university funding by $2.2 billion—which, by the way, is not particularly popular among the innovation ecosystem participants either. Maybe we will start seeing some common sense when it comes to pensions. Maybe we will even start seeing some common sense when it comes to ruling out any cuts to the GST for my home state of Queensland.
Ms Collins: Or Tasmania.
Ms BUTLER: Or Tasmania, says the member for Franklin from the table. I'm not going to hold my breath for more common sense because I am sceptical. It has taken a very long time to get to the point where we have legislation that is workable for the innovation ecosystem, that is workable for early-stage high-growth start-ups. It has taken a very long time to get to the point where we come here and say: 'Well done, government. Finally, you've got your act together. You've finally listened to us. You've finally listened to the sector. You've listened to Labor. You've listened pretty much everyone in the world, except for yourselves, who knew that this was a great big giant problem!' In fact, as I said earlier, the government knew it was a problem and did it anyway. Credit where it's due! Two thumbs up! It is quite a delight to acknowledge the common sense of the Turnbull government, finally, in bringing this legislation before the House.
This speech is not all about me saying I told you so. It's not all about a vindication of our earlier stated position. It's not all about placing on record that we had called for this much earlier. It's also a genuine acknowledgement that this legislation will help early-stage high-growth start-ups raise the capital that they need that is crucial for them to be able to grow and create jobs and create products and services that will help Australians and Australia. It is a very good thing that equity crowdfunding will now be available to those organisations—in particular, it is good that it will be available to them without having to change from being proprietary companies into limited companies. Accordingly, I am very happy to stand up and support this legislation from the Turnbull government. In so doing, it is of course deeply important to acknowledge that this legislation would be unlikely to be happening at all if it were not for the work of the shadow minister at the table, the member for Chifley, and the work of Labor in government seeking to obtain advice from CAMAC in respect of crowdsourced equity funding.
It was not just our view that the previous legislation was unworkable. It was not just the view acknowledged by the government, when they were moving the legislation, that it was unworkable. We had start-up founders criticising it at the time. One founder said, 'Switching to a public company to avail ourselves of the potential wider investable base is unthinkable.' Of course it was unthinkable; the additional compliance costs and obligations outweighed the potential benefits of the previous version of this legislation. In this new version, proprietary companies will be able to crowdsource equity fund and still meet the obligation of a proprietary company not to have more than 50 shareholders—because those who obtain shares through crowdsourced equity funding will not be counted towards that cap. People using this new regime will, nonetheless, have slightly higher compliance obligations than ordinary proprietary limited companies. It is important that those companies will be able to use this legislation.
The member for Chifley has moved an amendment seeking that the commencement of this legislation be brought forward by three months. The sector should not have to wait another six months. They have been waiting a very long time already as a consequence of this government's failure to get the bill right in the first place. I would encourage all members of this House to support the second reading amendment with a view to calling on the government to bring forward the operation of this regime by three months. I know that the sector would welcome that and I know that the entire innovation ecosystem would welcome that. There is no reason why a competent government couldn't bring this forward and allow it to commence operating in a more timely manner, particularly given how much time has already been spent by the government on this and how much time the sector has already been forced to wait as a consequence of the dilatory conduct and delay of this unfortunate Turnbull government.
Mr GEE (Calare) (17:30): I rise in support of the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017. As the House has already heard, this bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to extend crowdsourced equity funding to proprietary companies. It will mean that all proprietary and unlisted public companies with an annual turnover or assets of up to $25 million will be able to raise up to $5 million annually in crowdsourced capital. Extending crowdsourced funding to proprietary companies is good for business and it is good for everyday Australians. Individual investors will be able to invest up to $10,000 per year per company. I believe that this bill demonstrates the government's commitment to supporting Australian businesses, both public and private, and to helping them operate at world-class levels.
We all know that strong businesses result in more jobs for Australians and better wages for Australians and that a strong business sector is the bedrock of a robust national economy. With the legislation that was passed in September 2017, publicly listed companies in Australia have been able to crowdsource funding. Several Australian financial services licences have been issued to platforms to act as intermediaries in the sector of capital raising. Interest in crowdsourced capital raising has, to date, being very strong. It's quite clear that there is certainly an investor appetite for this type of capital raising, and that should be extended to proprietary companies because it's already happening in other parts of the world.
I note that around 99 per cent of Australian companies are proprietary companies. So, while the work in this field by the government has been most welcome to date, the reality is that until now most Australian companies have been locked out of crowdsourced capital. That's all about to change with this legislation. Expanding crowdsourced funding to proprietary companies will let these firms retain their current company structures. So they do not have to change them in order to access the funds and the capital. This means that they can continue to be lean, flexible and responsive to market conditions, which is often why they're successful in the first place. It's the dynamism of the proprietary company structure which often leads them along the path to success.
I am encouraged by the extensive consultation that has occurred with businesses to get this legislation and the framework to the point that we see today. In fact, there have been two years of consultations with businesses and industry groups, as well as others in the sector, and this has all helped to shape a bill that recognises the needs of the market and will facilitate the market to get the capital to where it's needed.
These proposed amendments will open the door to a new type of equity for the vast majority of Australian companies. I think the important thing about it is that it will also foster enterprise and encourage many entrepreneurs, including younger entrepreneurs who may have difficulty raising capital, to turn their business ideas into reality. As anyone who has done it knows, starting a business is an extremely difficult thing. It's not enough just to have a good idea or a dream. A lack of capital is often one of the biggest hurdles that young entrepreneurs face, and it is one that can prove fatal. So access to capital is vital in the early stages of an enterprise when there are many costs that need to be borne and there is often little or no revenue. That is just the cold, hard truth of starting a business. If we can help our entrepreneurs overcome this handbrake on growth that is a lack of capital, they can then go on to produce wealth, jobs and prosperity for our country and, in particular, our country communities.
The fact is that traditional forms of finance may not be an option for start-ups. Finance can be extremely difficult to obtain, particularly in these economic times. They can also have a long lead time. Business loans for start-ups or expansion ventures can be notoriously difficult to come by, and loan repayments, if you can get a loan, drain scarce resources out of a new business at the time when those resources are most needed.
Increasing the attractiveness of equity crowdfunding will also increase the pool of potential investments, giving investors the opportunity to share in the risks and successes of these growing enterprises, and allowing proprietary companies to access crowdsourced equity funding opportunities will help our small to medium enterprises bring their ideas to life. I'd like to commend the minister for his careful work in balancing the regulatory requirements to protect investors and potential investors with important provisions that will ensure that our enterprises can access this type of capital for growth. ASIC's oversight of crowdsourced funding to date has helped with a smooth implementation of this new regime, and they will no doubt be working diligently to ensure that the implementation of this legislation is as smooth as possible. An increase in the number of directors to at least two helps to protect investors through transparency, succession planning and enhanced decision-making. Financial reporting in accordance with established accounting standards will help potential investors be able to make well-considered investment decisions.
I note that proprietary companies that raise $3 million or more will be required to maintain audited financial statements. This bill also increases the audit threshold for eligible public companies from $1 million to $3 million. Lifting the audit threshold is important because the cost of an audit can range anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000, and audit costs can be a major disincentive for firms to access this type of capital raising. Intermediaries regulated through an Australian financial services licence will be established in a fair, transparent and equitable way so everyone can see what's going on and investors will be able to make informed decisions. The restrictions on related-party transactions are also important to guarantee that investors have protection against fraud and bias.
I also note that the new legislation exempts users of equity crowdfunding from takeover rules and the 50-non-employee-shareholder cap that would otherwise apply to proprietary companies. To leave that restriction in place would mean that a proprietary company would only be permitted to have 50 non-employee shareholders, which would limit its ability to access the crowdsourced funding regime. All of these factors work together to create an environment that lets business thrive without unnecessary red tape but which also safeguards Australian investors from unscrupulous operators.
Crowdsourced funding is an increasingly popular method of capital raising overseas, and I think it's important that we give Australian companies the ability to reach their full potential in an increasingly competitive international environment. But we also need to give investors this choice and investment opportunity, which this legislation provides.
In conclusion, can I say that this bill will help Australian companies unlock untapped reservoirs of capital, and it certainly will fuel important growth and wealth and the prosperity that it brings. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (17:38): Firstly, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The Turnbull government is getting on with the job of supporting innovation and small business. This leads, as we've said on this side of the House many times, to more jobs, higher wages and better productivity. The Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017 fulfils the government's 2017-18 budget commitment to extend the equity crowdfunding framework to proprietary companies. This will allow more businesses to use this fintech to grow their businesses in Australia.
The extension of this framework reduces current regulatory impediments, including the necessity to convert to a public company, that have meant that public equity fundraising has not been a viable source of funds for many smaller companies.
This bill builds upon the existing crowdsourced equity framework for public companies that the parliament passed in March last year. While the public company bill provided temporary concessions for new public companies that accessed crowdsourced equity funding, this bill in enables proprietary companies to directly access equity crowdfunding. This will make it cheaper and easier for proprietary companies to use crowdsourced equity funding and improve the attractiveness of crowdfunding as an alternative funding option. Increasing the number of companies in the crowdfunding sector also increases the number of investments available. Whereas proprietary companies previously could not issue equity to the public, this bill will remove the regulatory barriers and allow the transparency of a well-informed, online marketplace to direct investors to appropriate businesses. Investors will be able to share in the success of these Australian businesses.
The government acknowledges, however, that enabling proprietary companies to raise funds from the public is a change from the current law. Proprietary companies have traditionally been closely held, whereas shareholders usually rely on their relationship with the founder for information and influence. To ensure that the crowdfunding market for proprietary companies succeeds, the government has taken a balanced approach, minimising compliance costs for companies while building in investor protections. The government has engaged in lengthy consultations to arrive at the best form of crowdsourced equity funding legislation. Early feedback on the extension to proprietary companies emphasised that there should be a single framework for public and proprietary companies to access crowdsourced equity funding. The proposal in this bill follows this principle, building on the existing public company framework in areas such as obligations for intermediaries, and the general approach to disclosure requirements for companies and cooling-off periods for investors.
Public consultation on the draft legislation revealed widespread support for the extension of the crowdsourced equity funding framework to proprietary companies. However, there were mixed views on the fundamental trade-off between what corporate governance and transparency measures are necessary to protect retail investors weighted against the compliance costs for small innovative companies that generally have low governance obligations. To enable proprietary companies to effectively access crowdsourced equity funding, the bill exempts crowdfunding investors from the 50-shareholder cap. The government has further expanded this exemption after stakeholder feedback, allowing crowdfunding investors who on-sell their shares while the company is unlisted to also be exempted from the shareholder cap. This enables crowdfunding investors to have some liquidity without causing the company to breach the shareholder cap and be forced to transfer to the public company type immediately.
Crowdfunding proprietary companies will also be exempt from the takeover provisions, recognising feedback that this can be a costly and complex process that could hamper legitimate capital injections into a business. The government proposes to require, via regulation, that companies disclose in the offer document any tag-along rights that a minority shareholder could use to tag along to an existing or trade sale. To provide investors adequate transparency, this bill requires crowdfunding proprietary companies to provide shareholders with financial statements prepared in accordance with the accounting standards and to have their financial statements audited once they have raised a certain amount of funds via crowdfunding. The government acknowledges that stakeholder views on the reporting obligations, particularly the audit, were mixed. The government has listened to stakeholder concerns that a low audit threshold may deter small companies from using crowdsourced equity funding. The government believes that an audit threshold of $3 million provides an appropriate balance between compliance costs for companies and ensuring investors can rely on the financial statements that they receive.
The measures in this bill will extend equity crowdfunding to a wide range of early-stage businesses in Australia. It's another example of how the government is removing regulatory barriers, enabling innovative economic activity and allowing Australian entrepreneurs to obtain the capital they need to turn good ideas into commercial successes, and, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Chifley moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Chifley be agreed to.
The House divided. [17:49]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (17:55): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (17:56): The Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 repeals and replaces the definition of 'national standard' in the Imported Food Control Act. The former Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources stated in his second reading speech that the bill was 'an important final step' in implementing country-of-origin labelling reforms. I think that is an overstatement and a dubious statement, I might say. This is a minor amendment that will ensure that authorised officers can continue to enforce country-of-origin labelling requirements for imported food products. At this stage, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I'd like to move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name. 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 a distracted Turnbull Government has failed to implement effective policies in a timely manner to ensure that Australian agriculture is achieving its full potential'.
The House will recall that, some time ago, there was a shocking outbreak of hepatitis A, which at the time was attributed to frozen berries imported from China. As I understand it, that link was never actually established, which is unfortunate—not unfortunate that it wasn't associated with the berries but unfortunate that there wasn't any final determination about the source of that outbreak. But at the time, the minister of the day, the member for New England, rather than admit there had been a flaw in our system, decided to turn the debate away from the importation regime and the checks around that to a debate on country-of-origin labelling, which is how we found ourselves on this path. That is the country-of-origin labelling regime that we now have, which has been somewhat of a fizzer. The fact is that the imported berries that came into Australia back then were clearly marked 'product of China'. It wasn't in any way an issue relating to country-of-origin labelling.
But, since the introduction—with great fanfare—of the new fuel-gauge type country-of-origin labelling regime we now have in place, things have gone very, very quiet. I challenge members of the House to find anyone in their constituencies who is familiar with the new country-of-origin labelling regime or, in particular, whether they find it any more helpful or any more informative than the old regime. From my experience, members are highly unlikely to find any people who think that those changes have been in any way relevant. In fact, the labelling still doesn't tell you where the food has been imported from. On that basis, the fuss was about nothing more than distracting people's attention from the failings of this government in allowing an outbreak to occur in this country at that time.
I note that, despite all the rhetoric that comes from those opposite about agriculture and our food system, there is not one member of the coalition speaking on this bill. I made the point earlier when I was speaking on the appropriation bills that in that debate also there weren't any members of the coalition speaking on the coalition bills. Everyone who has been in this place for longer than five minutes knows that we all—or certainly the overwhelming majority of us—take the opportunity to speak on an appropriation bill because it is a bill on which you can speak about any matter you like. You cannot be called on relevance when speaking on an appropriation bill, because you can speak on any matter.
So it appears that those opposite have nothing to say about the government's performance and its budget and have nothing to say about matters in their electorates and have no concerns amongst their constituents that they want to raise in the appropriations debate. One can come to a number of conclusions. It might be that they are all too embarrassed to stand up and defend this government, which is a highly likely proposition given the embarrassing saga that we've seen play out over the last few weeks, and hardly an unlikely proposition given the enormous number of cuts and government decisions generally that have adversely impacted on so many sections of our community. So I think they are just running and have decided not to even try to defend this divided government any longer. The only other conclusion that you can come to is that they just have nothing to say about their electorates. Everything must be just fine and dandy in their electorates—but I suspect that that is not what their constituents are saying.
I find it even more amazing that not one member of the National Party nor any Liberal representing a regional seat is coming in here to talk about an important matter relating to agriculture. I've done them a favour; I've moved a second reading amendment, which will substantially broaden this debate. That second reading amendment talks about the failings of this distracted government to implement serious policy in the agriculture space. They have had four years or more now, and I can't think of one substantial initiative by this government which is ensuring that we make the very most of the enormous opportunities that lay before us in agriculture with the substantial increase in global food demand, including from the rising middle classes in the Asia region.
So I am giving members opposite, including the member for Calare, an opportunity to speak more broadly about their aspirations for agriculture, but, alas, it seems that they are not interested in talking about agriculture. They like talking about it at the despatch box, to make a political point. But, when we come in here offering a serious debate about the future of the agricultural sector, they are absolutely missing in action. I think it is almost without precedent for coalition members not to speak in the House on an agricultural bill. It is even more surprising on this day when the National Party has elected a new leader and Deputy Prime Minister who likes to crow on a regular basis about his commitment to agriculture—as do those who serve under him in the Nationals and the LNP, yet not one of them is in here to make a contribution to this debate. Well, let me make a bit of a broader contribution. Most of the points I have made in the past, but I want to build on them.
What we lack most in agriculture in this country from a government perspective is high-level government policy guidance and signals from government as to where they see agriculture going, what they see are the key opportunities and what they see as the key challenges and guidance which sends signals to investors as to where they believe the opportunities are in the future and where they as a government are prepared to offer the path of least resistance for investors. A government should be indicating its view about natural resource allocation, for example. We just don't have that from this government. After almost five years, we've had nothing on that front. We of course had the agriculture white paper, which, as we all know, just came to be treated as a joke—a cobbled together set of thought bubbles and boondoggles, a pork-barrelling exercise that never really amounted to anything. It certainly didn't provide high-level policy guidance from government so that people in agriculture knew where the government wanted the sector to go and where it might work with government to make the most of those opportunities.
The second thing we need to do is restore the COAG process. Sadly, one of the member for New England's first acts as the Minister for Agriculture was to abolish the Standing Council on Primary Industries, the COAG committee responsible for coordinating the efforts of the Commonwealth and the states. It's a constitutional fact that most of the management of land in this country is in the domain of the states. If the Commonwealth wants to play a full role in guiding us on a path to success in agriculture then the Commonwealth has to work very cooperatively with the states, and SCoPI was the vehicle for making sure we did so.
I had the honour of chairing SCoPI just once as the Commonwealth minister, and I was impressed by its resources, the public servants who worked behind it, the very well thought out policy agenda it had and the way the decisions of the previous SCoPI meeting were properly minuted and followed through at the next meeting, if more needed to be done. It was, of course, the committee responsible for the progression of drought policy in this country, but the member for New England just abolished it, and that was it; that was the end of state/Commonwealth cooperation. He did later establish the AGMIN committee, I think he called it, which didn't do much more than wine and dine on occasions. It hasn't met since last July, which is interesting in itself. SCoPI met on a regular basis, but not AGMIN. It doesn't have any real work agenda other than advice about where the next dinner might be, and I think we've seen in this place some of the costs involved in those dinners.
The third point is biosecurity. Biosecurity is a word that dares not leave the mouths of members opposite; they never speak about biosecurity. Biosecurity is probably the most important responsibility for an agriculture minister, because our real opportunities lie in the growth of food demand in Asia—the demand for high-quality, safe, clean green food. That is Australia's competitive advantage. God forbid we ever lose that competitive advantage. A lot of people think our competitive advantage lies in our geography and proximity to Asia. At some point that was true, and it's still somewhat of an advantage. But emerging countries in South America, for example, are on the march. Technological improvements in transport are bringing freight rates down considerably, and I think they can already compete with us in the South-East Asian market on freight. So biosecurity should, first and foremost, be a priority for every agriculture minister. If we lose our relatively disease-free status, it will be a huge blow to Australian agriculture.
We are seeing what's happening in Tasmania being played out now. The member for Lyons is with us this evening. Our members there are very concerned about the outbreak of fruit fly and its impact. Certainly it is having an impact already, but we are concerned about the enormous impact it could potentially have if it's not brought back under control. Not long before that we had the outbreak of white spot disease in the prawn sector in Queensland. We need to be across these things. It must be an absolute priority.
The fourth point is the need for the sector to adapt to a changing climate and to tackle drought. It's passing strange that it's the land sector that is probably the sector of our economy that is most adversely affected by climate change. Yet the former minister at least—we are yet to test the current minister; we shall see; I'm not particularly optimistic—made it an art form, made it a signature policy of his, to deny climate change, to pretend it doesn't exist and, therefore, to produce no government response whatsoever. That is backward-looking thinking. I hope that the new minister takes a different approach. There is a whole new generation of farmers coming through now who understand more than the generation before them what a significant impact this is going to have on the farming sector, and they will embrace and are embracing the need to change and the need to change dramatically.
On drought, again, the COAG committee was abolished. There was a consensus reached around 2012 that the drought architecture we had in place, the government policy in place, was not working. It was very costly and, in some cases, arguably, it even acted as a disincentive for farmers to build resilience and to drought-proof themselves. The exceptional circumstances arrangements were abolished. That proposition had the support of both the major political parties and the support of the National Farmers Federation. A new Farm Household Allowance support payment with a more liberal assets test was put in place to replace the old payment—there has always been a household support payment of some sort—but that was it. The idea was for the COAG committee, SCoPI, to progress that reform and develop new strategies for addressing drought. Since 2013, since this government was elected, not one extra mile has been progressed on drought policy.
The fifth point is the pursuit of a vigorous productivity agenda. You never hear anyone on the other side talk in this place about productivity in the farm sector. The member for Mallee is here. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, because I know that he is a thinker on these questions. He is a farmer himself in an increasingly competitive global market. He knows the importance of being competitive and of productivity. But, gee, I would challenge him to show me a Hansard where he can demonstrate they did talk about it. The member for New England never spoke about it. I have never heard the member for New England talk about productivity in the farm sector. I have heard him talk about commodity prices, which he used to like to quote in this place on a regular basis—commodity prices over which he had absolutely no control, particularly in the red meat sector where prices were rising because of drought. It is a bit ironic, isn't it? He threw drought policy out the window but then claimed credit for beef prices rising on the back of drought. It is a simple matter of supply and demand. I don't know who the former minister thought he was talking to, because the people in the supermarkets weren't very happy about beef prices going up. All the cockies knew that beef prices were going up because of the drought. It still remains a complete mystery to me who the member for New England thought he was talking to when he was wrongly claiming credit for beef prices rising and other price rises in the red meat sector. You never heard him talk about dairy or any of the commodities which were in freefall. Apparently, the member for New England was fully responsible for all the price rises—and I can see the member for Mallee acknowledging my point—but took no responsibility for falling commodity prices. It is a magic thing that. It is amazing what you can get away with at the dispatch box when the opposition has no proper mechanism for responding.
We have to have a vigorous productivity agenda. We can't sit back and say that our clean, green image is enough to get us there, or our proximity to Asian markets is enough to get us there. As other countries emerge, in South America again, in particular, we will increasingly face competition, and our productivity needs to do much better. It has been flatlining for all too long, and it should have been a key focus for the now former minister and it should be a key focus for the incoming minister, and I hope he gives it some attention.
The sixth point is the embrace of more efficient and more sustainable land use practice. This, of course, goes to productivity and the points I was making about a changing climate. Governments will have a role and should have a role in incentivising and encouraging a greater and more rapid take-up of best land use practices. It's a bit of a fallacy or myth in this country that we have an abundance of soil and water resources. We simply do not. Decades upon decades of European farming practices and the overuse of pesticides and fertilisers have degraded our soils. Practices are shredding our waterways. We're having a big debate about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan now. We need to ensure that farmers everywhere—producers growers, horticulturalists and the like—are embracing the very best management practices so that we are feeding our soils and using our water efficiently to make sure that we preserve them and get the best use out of them.
The seventh point is further development of market mechanisms to maximise the efficient allocation of those natural resources. Again, we have limited natural resources in this country. We want to make sure those resources are used where they produce the highest possible return both for the producer and also for the country. If I can just go back the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, people see it as first and foremost an environmental plan. It certainly is that. It's a plan to restore the health of the river and to make sure that our farmers have the irrigation water they need for many, many decades, if not hundreds of years, into the future. That is a critical point. But when you think about it, it's also a market mechanism which ensures that the price of water determines where that water is consumed. Already we see a shift in the use of those water resources into higher value products and away from lower value products. That is a very good thing.
It's time we turned our minds to our soils as well and how we might ensure they're better allocated. Carbon is the key to that attempt. We should be talking seriously in this place about how we might make that happen to ensure that farmers can benefit, both in the financial sense immediately and also in the longer term as we ensure that we preserve and rejuvenate our soil resources. I challenge anyone to show me when the member for New England ever spoke about the quality of our soils. I know the soil advocate, General Michael Jeffery, is very frustrated with the lack of attention he gets from government for the very good work that he's doing in trying to raise awareness of the importance of our soils. I love the saying, 'We can improve our soils quicker than we can build dams.' We can dramatically improve the capacity of our soils to retain moisture. That would be a good, positive thing to the agriculture sector in this country.
The eighth point is to encourage the pursuit of higher value products and markets. Australia has a history of being a producer of commodities. We have very heavy emphasis on commodities. We will always have an emphasis on commodities. The market will determine these things. But our future is not absolutely in growing more and more commodities from the same limited natural resources and getting them into world markets where we're price takers. We need to see a steady and slow shift up the value curve into products where we can secure higher margins on our products and therefore higher returns on the allocation of those natural resources.
The ninth point is to increase our efforts to reduce non-tariff barriers in export markets. This is really important. Ministers stand at the dispatch box on a daily basis telling the farming community that the world is now their oyster, everything is fixed and everything will be fine because we've now signed three recent free trade agreements with South Korea, Japan and China. We are working on Indonesia, but I'm wondering what's happened to that. We haven't heard too much about that of late. And there is Peru, of course. These are all good things. Levelling the playing field in terms of tariff barriers makes us more competitive than we were before, but we still need to compete. This takes me back to all the points I've already made. However, we don't get access until we deal with the non-tariff barriers.
In horticulture in particular there is very little access into Korea, Japan and China as we speak. Why? Because the protocols have not been established. So the tariffs are down in many instances but that means nothing if the health and other protocols haven't been finalised and, therefore, the importer will not allow those products into their country. This process has been all too slow. I've never heard a minister on that side acknowledge that. I have never heard it acknowledged. They tell us they are doing a great job and making great progress, but every industry leadership group I speak to tells me just the opposite. They are very frustrated that, despite all the hype about the completion of these free trade deals, the real work at the coalface in getting access has not been done and/or is being done too slowly.
The 10th point was a lift in our research innovation and extension efforts. Nothing could be more critical. If we're going to compete in the future in an increasingly competitive market, our embracing of new innovation has to be world's best and has to be an urgent priority for us. We readily claim to have the best model in the world—the co-funded model. That is what we've been operating under. We like to say that it's the best model in the world, because Labor invented it, constructed it and implemented it. But, almost 30 years on, it's probably time for another look to ensure that we're spending the limited resources as efficiently and effectively as we possibly can because we don't have a dollar to waste.
On extension, of course the state governments have withdrawn from the field and nothing has filled that vacuum. There is a role—again for the COAG process—which doesn't exist at the moment for the Commonwealth to address those important issues, to bring the states together and to start working cooperatively with them to make sure that we get the fruits of our research and innovation down onto the farm. If we don't do that, we will fail. Again, in the last five years or so, this government has not given sufficient urgency to that question.
My first point was one of policy guidance. This government has been doing just the opposite. We are desperate for investment in agriculture. The member for Hume was the key author of a report known as Greener pastures, which suggested that we need something like $600 billion of investment I think up to 2030 or 2050. It's a big number. As a country with a small population and limited savings, by definition, as has always been the case, we will be critically dependent on foreign investment. Yet, instead of giving guidance and attracting investment to this country, this government has been sending the opposite signals. It's been putting up the we-are-not-open-for-business sign, at least to certain countries.
For the first time now in our history we've got a discriminatory foreign-investment-review-screening regime. If you are from the United States, you get screened at $1 billion of investment. But, if you're from Asia, you'll get screened, for ag land at least, at $15 million. What sort of signal does that send to potential investors in Australia? We should remember that it's a highly competitive market for global capital out there. People tell me every day that they are turning away. They are saying that Australia is all too hard and the sovereign risk is all too great.
Only a few weeks ago the Treasurer decided that he'd have another thought bubble and play to the crowd as the government sunk further into the mud of its own disarray and division. He said he'd make sure that people would advertise domestically if they're selling agricultural land. I would have thought that a seller of land would market that land wherever he or she thought they could secure the best return. I think in the future that's what they'll continue to do. Now companies and individual owners are going to have to spend big money advertising in markets in Australia where they know there is no prospect. They know the market; they know who the buyers are. They don't have to advertise. If they think there is a domestic buyer who is going to pay them more money, they'll go to the domestic buyer. If they think an international buyer is going to give them more money, they'll go to the international buyer. They are now forced to advertise—and it's very expensive to advertise in Australian newspapers at the national level—just to satisfy the political needs of the government. This is an outrageous proposition.
But there is another point there. The former minister was very fond of saying that our super funds wouldn't invest in agriculture. He was fond of saying it, but in four years he never did anything about it. But there's a key point here: Australian super funds are nervous about this crackdown on foreign investment because they want their investments to be liquid. They want to be able to move them when they want to, and the crackdown from this Treasurer, in partnership with the then minister, is making it harder and harder. I'm not making this up; I've spoken to the Australian industry funds. They are saying, 'Investment in agriculture's getting too hard for us.' It's all too hard. The risk is too great because the foreign investors are running away. They're giving up on Australia and, of course, that impacts on the market, and that, in turn, impacts on the views of those who are managing the funds of hardworking Australians.
This has a hugely detrimental effect on the agriculture sector, and I appeal to the Treasurer to have another think. We've had a bipartisan approach to foreign investment in this country generally, including in agriculture, for as long as I can remember. If I were to go back to 'Black Jack' McEwen, the member for Mallee might be able to tell me different about those days, but we've had a bipartisan approach. The Treasurer did a great disservice to the agriculture sector when he broke from that bipartisan approach, so I appeal to the Treasurer and the new minister to have a rethink. I've extended the hand of bipartisanship, as I did with the member for New England. He rejected it. He only wanted to play politics. He wanted to divide the community and back the side that played to his base. The new minister and his new leader have an opportunity to do it differently. We stand ready to work with them on a bipartisan basis to ensure that our agriculture sector meets its aspirations into the future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Hammond: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (18:27): I think the member for Hunter is almost in mourning at having lost his old sparring partner, the member for New England. It's a whole new world out there.
Mr Hammond: Plenty of material with the new one!
Mr BROAD: Yes, he'll have to work away. I enjoyed listening to his speech and the summary of his bipartisanship. We'll take that up over a drink later, member for Hunter, but it is a new world. You've got a new young buck to keep in line, so I look forward to watching that happen.
The Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 is part of the final leg of the journey of ensuring that Australians know where their food comes from. My involvement with this started way back on a tractor drive which began in Tasmania. They drove tractors to Canberra to try to highlight to the Australian people that it shouldn't be too much to ask that when Aussies walk into a supermarket they are able to see where their food is produced—is it produced in Australia or is it produced in another country? I think that's fair and reasonable, and there are a lot of Australians who really do want to know the answer to that question.
It is estimated that 87 per cent of Australians now live within 50 kilometres of the coast. People like to project the bushie as being the great image of Australian culture, but that is actually not the case. Whether we like it or not, we are a very urbanised people. I lament that we are so urbanised, because that's done two things. Firstly, it has meant that there are fewer people living in regional Australia, which means members of parliament such as me have an electorate that covers a third of the state—and after the next redistribution that will probably go to about 40 per cent of the state—whereas the member for La Trobe has got a beautiful part of the world but it's only a small part of the world. I've got a big part of the world. Becoming more urbanised has meant that people live closer together. They have a more congested lifestyle, and I think that congested lifestyle does wear on people. Secondly, they're disconnected from their food somewhat. But I think the average Aussie still does want to know where their food comes from. They want to know, and they've got an innate gut feeling that Australian grown food actually is better for them—and it is good for them.
Having been in agricultural production from 18, when I finished year 12, to 38—20 years of my life—I've seen the caveats we put around withholding periods if we use chemicals; I've seen the way that withholding periods are honoured, maintained and signed off with legal vigour; I've seen the importance of this when you deliver grain to a silo; and I've seen the way we treat our livestock, with a great deal of care. I can say with a lot of confidence that, if you buy Australian food, because of the regulatory regime and because of the people who produce that food, it is good for you. It is not only good for you but also good for your children. If you talk to mothers who are shopping, you find that one of the things they are very mindful of is good nutrition for their children. If you compare that situation with the melamine scare with powdered infant milk in China a few years ago, where, sadly, some Chinese babies died as a result, you can see why a strong regime of regulation and good farming practice ultimately is not only good for you but also good for your children.
Further, knowing where your food comes from and buying Australian grown food is good for your job. If you buy something that is produced locally, that money spins through the economy. A guy said to me once that there is an inequity here when you think about a worker on an Australian farm who works in good occupational health and safety conditions, who gets paid superannuation and who works normal hours. There is no child slave labour. The standards that we take for granted in a modern Australian workplace are not always the same as the standards we see in many parts of the world. I hark back to seeing people in developing countries who were spraying endosulphan, often using backpacks. I've used this chemical on my farm in the past—we don't use it anymore—and we had to use full respirators, the whole deal. These people were spraying cotton with endosulphan. This is long before GM cotton came in. The life expectancy of those people was 30. So buying Australian food is not only good for your health and your children's health but also good for your job—it keeps the money local—and good for your community.
There is nothing better than going to a farmers market and seeing something that is produced locally and in season. I fear that's one of the things that we've lost in our culture a little bit. We see food as fuel rather than as the blessing that it is. People buy tomatoes and wonder why they don't always taste good. There's a season for tomatoes. There's a season for table grapes. I have to tell you that now is actually the season for table grapes. If I can put in a plug: right across my patch they are picking table grapes. If you go to the supermarket you'll see grapes there. They are produced in my patch and they are getting picked now. So looking for country-of-origin labelling also gives you an understanding of what's in season. Buy fruit that is in season. If you want to eat good, wholesome flavoured fruit, buy the stuff that's in season. Buy apples when it's apple season, buy citrus when it's citrus season and buy grapes when it's grape season, and you will ultimately get the best of things.
We have a unique agricultural landscape that many people don't fully appreciate. The fact that we've got a climate that goes from the northern tropics all the way through to Tasmania gives us a variety of fruit that can't be grown in many other parts of the world. If you think about what's produced in my patch, almonds, you have to have a certain number of heat units and a certain amount of water to produce almonds—and to produce olives. We don't often stop to think about the fact that we've got Tasmania at the bottom and the tropics in the north. People might not know this, but all the grain grown around the world is grown on the 32nd parallel. If you look at where the wheat belts are across the world, they are the 32nd parallel down from the equator in the Southern Hemisphere and the 32nd parallel up from the north of the equator. You can't produce everything everywhere. We're very pleased that we can do this because of the diversity and the great landscape that we have.
So buying Australian food is good for you, good for your children, good for local jobs and good for your community—that sense of community that comes from buying food—and it also saves on travel. If you think about it, when you're buying food from the other side of the world, it's had to travel a heck of a long way, it's had to be stored and it's not going to be anywhere near as good, or taste as good, as something that's grown very locally.
It's also good for the environment. I want to hark back to a story I once saw when I was in Nanjing in China. I was at a wool-scouring plant. For those of you who haven't had much experience in the wool industry, that's how I saved the deposit for my farm. It's pretty hard physical work but a good way to make you pretty buff and look good for the girls when you're young. You toughen up when you're doing real physical work. But I have to say wool has quite a lot of lanolin in it. It's quite interesting stuff to scour. I was in Nanjing, and they were scouring wool there. Of course, all the scum coming out of the wool was going straight into the Yangtze River, and I said to the guy at the wool-scouring plant, which was scouring 14 per cent of the world's wool, 'Are you concerned about your environmental management?' He said: 'No, sir. I have certificate on wall says "very good environmental manager". Certificate on wall—no problem.' That was their answer as far as good environmental management is concerned. Can I say that, if you are buying Australian-grown food, it has been produced to standards that are First World—standards that actually look after the environment. So don't buy Australian-grown food just because it's good for you; also buy it because it's good for your children. Buy it because it's good for you having a job and your children having a job. Buy it because it's good for your sense of community and understanding how food is produced, and also buy it because it is good for the environment.
I have to say this is something that's been very dear to my heart. I was one of the directors on the board of Australian Made, Australian Grown, and I'm really pleased to see that, in the discussions around promoting Australian Made, Australian Grown, we have maintained the little green triangle with the kangaroo on it. I have to tell you there's a reason why I support that as a brand. One reason is that it has a 25-year history. It quietened down for a while, and under the prime ministership of John Howard he pulled together a board to really fire that up, and I was one of those board members, as well as some very good, upstanding citizens. That board was all voluntary, and it's gone from strength to strength.
Also, people are time poor. When they go into the supermarket, they want to get in and get out. They want to be able to see what the product is. They haven't got time to read every little thing. But now, as a result of this government and this initiative, people can walk into a supermarket, and they can pick up and very clearly see the green triangle with the kangaroo—clearly Australian. They can also see the bar chart which can tell you if it's half made in Australia, three-quarters made in Australia or fully Australian—which, of course, makes it open for things such as muesli producers and mixed biscuits, where you sometimes do have to bring in some imported food. So it makes it very clear. People are time poor, and it's also very quick for them.
There's another thing that I found when I was a board director of Australian Made, Australian Grown: there is a perception of our product that is very strongly held, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. The things that we take for granted as food safety they cherish. When I was on the board, what I found was that a third of the companies that were using the Australian Made, Australian Grown logo weren't just using it to appeal to the patriotic nature of Australians; they were also using it as a marketing tool in the Asia-Pacific. There's nothing better than the kangaroo. There's nothing more Australian than the kangaroo—so much so that there was a company, AH Beard, that was making beds, and effectively it was selling beds to China. You would think that would be like selling ice to Eskimos, but here was an Australian company selling beds to China. We saw this all the way. So I want to say good labelling not only benefits Australian consumers and our economy domestically but has actually helped our economy in the export sense.
I listened to the member for Hunter talk a while ago about the productivity of Australian farmers, and I have to say the great thing farmers say to me is, 'Get out of our way, get out of our pockets and let us have a go.' That's what we've tried to do. Since I've been a member of this parliament we've signed up to free trade agreements with Korea, China and Japan. We've now signed up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These are things about getting out of the way—making it easier to get their products to the market. We've invested in the roads and rail infrastructure to help them get their product to port, and we've stood by them and said at no case are we ever going to shut down your industry. I give that in contrast to the terrible shutdown of the live cattle industry that had almost diabolical effects on Northern Australia. It was done, basically, because of a populist email campaign. The member for Hunter was talking a lot about the agriculture industry. I think gladly that he was there in those days and he's learned from that. I hope and pray that the Australian agricultural industry continues to grow. I hope and pray that it continues to become such a key pillar of our economy, and I'm so confident about the industry because of the confidence, the innovation and the productivity of the people I see. It does show that good government policy ultimately translates to good outcomes. Good government policy such as country-of-origin labelling, developing export markets, accelerated depreciation, and investing in roads and rail infrastructure to get their products to port. But bad government policy that removes confidence in their markets, that removes confidence in their employment arrangements, that removes confidence in their water will have diabolical effects on our agricultural industries. Do not trust these guys yet, I say to Australian farmers. Trust us. We are the ones that are delivering it. You can see it in your commodity prices and in the confidence. Everywhere I go across rural Australia they are expanding and walking tall. This doesn't just happen; it is the result of the policies such as the one we are talking about here today that the government introduces. No-one else in Australia understands how to stand by farmers like the coalition which I'm proud to be part of. That government is delivering for them.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (18:42): I commend the member for Mallee for his dedication to his region. He gave it a nice few advertisements along the way there. Well done. Of course I disagree with him when he said the coalition is best for farmers. We know that's not true. Look at the government benches and look at the speaking list on this bill. They've managed to get one government member—
Mr Broad: Two!
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: Two, I'm being told. It's the member for Swan in the great regional and rural seat of Swan, which I think, from memory, is inner-city East Victoria Park. That's what they've managed to do. Where are the members for New England, Gippsland, Dawson, Parkes, Murray, Calare, Lyne, Cowper, Page, Capricornia, Maranoa, Riverina. I'll give the member for Riverina his due: He may be a bit distracted at the moment. Where are the members for Wide Bay, Flynn, Hinkler? That's just the National Party MPs. What about all those regional Liberals who claim to represent country Australia? Where are they on this bill, which is all about improving regional Australia and agriculture?
Once again the Nationals have been shown to be pretenders when it comes to regional Australia. The Nationals and Liberals who represent regional electorates will vote for corporate tax cuts and measures that make it harder for country kids to go to uni and more expensive for country people to go to a doctor, but they're hardly anywhere to be seen when it comes to speaking in support of a bill that serves to strengthen country-of-origin labelling.
I must briefly come back to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, who has not taken an opportunity to have any input into this debate. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources today was asked a question in support of farming families. What is he going to do? Where does he stand on the issue of farming families who are being preyed upon by payday lenders? What was his response? Not, 'I will support families.' His response was all about profit and loss and how hard it was for business to have a go in this country. What an extraordinary contribution from a minister for agriculture who purports to represent regional Australia and regional families, speaking not in defence of regional families but in defence of payday lenders and those who prey upon vulnerable families. Labor is supporting this bill, but it is important to remind Australians that this government has been asleep at the wheel and clearly distracted from acting in the best interests of farmers and regional communities like mine. That is why I support the member for Hunter's amendment.
Tasmania's economy depends heavily on agriculture. It contributes $1.5 billion a year to our state economy. That's slated to reach $10 billion a year in around 30 years as new ventures come online and existing farmers ramp up production. As much as those opposite—like the member for Mallee—like to parrot the fiction that they are the parties that look after people on the land, it is a lie that has been exposed in recent months. It is Labor that has been a big part of Tasmania's agricultural success story. It was Labor that initiated Tasmania's agricultural irrigation schemes, which now transform once marginal paddocks into highly productive farms. It was Labor that invested billions in improving our state's highways to ensure that product could reach market quicker and fresher. What has this government done about improving the highways of Tasmania so that agricultural produce can get to market? Nothing. There was nothing in last year's so-called infrastructure budget for the infrastructure of Tasmania.
And it was Labor that protected Tasmania from biosecurity threats. It wasn't Labor who cut biosecurity funding; that was the Liberals both here in Canberra and at home in Tasmania. It was this government in Canberra, the former agriculture minister, the member for New England, who abolished the position of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity—unbelievable! With biosecurity at the forefront of what Australian producers and importers care about, the former agriculture minister abolished the office of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity. Of course, after Labor forcefully pointed out the error of his ways, he reluctantly reinstated the office, but not with the same powers that existed under Labor.
It was Liberal governments here in Canberra and at home in Tasmania that watched and did nothing as rust infected our blueberries and fruit fly invaded our island. As a result, our fruit producers have had to throw away valuable produce and they've been shut out of lucrative markets, and it could take them years to regain access. And what's been the Tasmanian Liberal government's response? Control zones guarded by wheelie bins. What a joke! The cafe manager from Christmas Hills Raspberry Farm in my electorate says that she has been dealing with confused customers since the fruit fly outbreak started. The raspberry farm is outside the control zone, but many people—many of them tourists from interstate and overseas—are unsure about what they can and cannot do. Unbelievable, it is cafe staff, not biosecurity officers, who have been informing visitors about their obligations and helping them dispose of fruit properly. Farmers and retailers have been left to mop up the mess that the Liberals have created with their cuts to biosecurity. Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted!
Like the farmers in the regional communities that we represent, Labor is aghast at the monumental biosecurity failures that have occurred under the Liberals—failures that occurred after cuts were made to biosecurity resources by Liberal governments in Canberra and Tasmania. Labor warned about the risks when the cuts were first proposed and made, but we were ignored. In 2015 a Senate inquiry into biosecurity, chaired by Tasmanian senator Anne Urquhart, cautioned the government that its cuts to staffing, resources and innovation would affect our nation's ability to continue to export and import successfully. But the Liberals and Nationals have never been short on arrogance and a 'we know all' attitude. The warnings were ignored, and now it is Labor that must fix the problem that the Liberals have created.
On Saturday, Tasmanians get the chance to vote for a Labor government in Tasmania, led by Rebecca White, who grew up on a farm and understands the importance of agriculture to our state. Rebecca White is pledging $3.7 million to address biosecurity gaps. I am pleased to tell the House that federal Labor, following representations from the members for Braddon and Bass and me, will, if we are elected to government, contribute $2 million to recruit an additional 20 biosecurity officers for Tasmania, helping to address the gap that has been left by cuts by the Liberal government. That's real action to be delivered by a Rebecca White Labor government to fix the biosecurity mess that the Liberals have created.
I can't overstate how important Tasmania's agricultural reputation is to my state's economic future. We are known the world over for clean, green produce. If fruit, vegetables, nuts, spirits, seafood, beer or dairy comes from Tasmania, you know it's among the best in the world. That is one of the reasons I am so passionate about our biosecurity and it is also why I support not just stringent country of origin labelling but region of origin labelling. Just as we can no longer call Australian sparkling wine champagne, no-one should be able to claim that something is Tasmanian if it is not. Last year, I addressed the issue of a mainland gin operation marketing itself as a Tasmanian product on the basis that it used a tiny little sprinkling of Tasmanian saffron in its drink. While less than impressed with the lukewarm response that I received from the ACCC, which arrived to me many weeks after my complaint, I do acknowledge that if we want tougher laws against charlatans who seek to piggyback on the hard work of Tasmanian producers it is up to us in this place and in the state jurisdictions to enact tougher labelling laws.
And I note that Tasmanian Labor will, if elected on Saturday, commit $500,000 to improve the professional marketing of Brand Tasmania to international and Australian markets. It is not quite region of origin labelling but it is a start. Better labelling of the origin of food is a no-brainer, for so many reasons, and it is something that consumers demand. Choice did a survey back in mid-2015 that found 80 per cent of respondents wanted to know where their food was from because they want to purchase food grown or made in Australia. Eighty per cent said it was crucial to their purchasing that they could clearly see that something was made here and what proportion of the product was made here. Two-thirds of consumers who were surveyed felt strongly about supporting Australian made and buying Australian to support Aussie farmers.
My Tasmanian colleague the member for Braddon, in her contribution to this legislation, has called for Tasmania to be a trial site for country of origin labelling for seafood. Fresh and frozen seafood sold in retail outlets such as the supermarket or the fishmonger—if there are any left—already requires country of origin labelling. But cooked seafood, such as the fish that is prepared in a restaurant or a fish and chip shop, is currently exempt. The member for Braddon is proposing, as am I, that it is time to fix this anomaly. There is no reason why country of origin and, preferably, region of origin should not appear on menus to give consumers more information about what they are buying.
The Tasmanian seafood industry is fully on board, with a trial based in our state, and it would bring us into line with the Northern Territory, with its mandated country of origin labelling for all seafood products. Having come from an island state, with considerable sadness I can tell the House that, incredibly, 70 per cent of all seafood consumed in Australia comes from overseas. What a tragedy it is to be an island nation surrounded by waters with some of the best fisheries in the world that has not had the sense to better support a stronger domestic commercial fishery. But I am pleased to say that the Buy Australian movement is getting stronger. The marketplace is demanding increased transparency in production methods and places, and that is something we should all support.
Consumers are getting savvier. They want to know more about the food they buy—how it's grown, what's in it and whether it's sustainable. Tasmania is well placed to benefit from this greater emphasis on food quality. That is the sort of quality you get from Tasmanian Truffles, which is run these days by brother and sister Henry and Anna Terry near Deloraine in my electorate. Henry and Anna are familiar faces to many who watch the program My Kitchen Rules. They have wowed the judges with their creations. But when they are not cooking up a storm on TV they are managing the family farm outside Deloraine, with faithful sidekick Doug the labrador, and adding value to their amazing product.
Tasmanian produce received accolades recently from none other than Nigella Lawson, who just conducted a food tour across our state. She was in raptures, telling her 2.6 million Twitter followers that the homegrown potatoes cooked in crushed salt that she ate in Launceston were 'just splendiferous'. Last year Alain Passard from France, Dominique Crenn from the USA and Christian Puglisi from Italy took part in the 'Great Chef Series' in Launceston and Hobart, focusing on unique products and local wineries, and farmers were invited to spend time with the chefs to develop a menu unique to their region. There's the Agrarian Kitchen in the south of my electorate. There's Redlands Distillery in Kempton. There are so many stories of so many places doing wonderful things with food.
We are committed to retaining quality in Tasmania. This is one of the reasons we are so strongly committed in Tasmania to retaining Tasmania's status as being free of genetically modified food. Let me be clear: I'm not against the science of GM food. There's a place in the global market for GM and its benefits for greater yields and resistance to pests and disease. But Tasmania and Tasmanian farmers are best served by offering a premium product to markets willing to pay more for food unadulterated by GM. If we allow GM into Tasmania, there will be no going back. Tasmanian farmers will no longer be competing in premium price markets but against the big producers that sell on volume.
A small state like Tasmania, with its myriad of small and medium producers who produce quality food, cannot compete in the volume space. We will end up being price takers not price setters. Keeping Tasmania GM free is something that Tasmanian Labor members will fight hard for, even if it does put us offside with some in this place who think GM should be embraced nationwide with no holds barred. On that note, I'd like to say Labor is happy to support the government' bill, but the government should be held to account for its manifest failures in agricultural policy. That's why I support the member for Hunter's amendment to the bill.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (18:57): I rise today to speak on the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017. I acknowledge the fact that the member for Lyons said mine wasn't a country seat, but we do have consumers and food importers in my electorate and plenty of people interested in food labelling. It's not just the country regions that are interested in it; there are many of us city slickers who are also keen to understand where our food comes from. It's the Australian way, because we're such a multicultural society, to ask a bloke walking down the street or someone you've met somewhere: 'What's your origin?' I guess it's for the same reason that we want to know what food we're eating and what its origin is as well.
I want to talk about the previous member's claim that Labor is the party for the regions. I'll remind him of the Gunns woodchip factory that was shut down in Tasmania and the impact that Labor also had on live exports, shutting them down overnight. That was very friendly to farmers! Deputy Speaker Hastie, I know you're a strong supporter of regional areas and agricultural business. I know that the fruit in Canning—Carmel, Karragullen and Pickering Brook—is exceptional this year and is not only going to be consumed in Australia but probably exported, so you should be proud of the people who produce in your electorate as well.
As I said, while I'm a metropolitan member, the measures contained in this bill are important to many of my constituents for two reasons: it either affects their grocery shop as they seek to buy Australian products, or it may mean a few changes for their businesses. All of the constituents who have contacted my office have been very supportive of any change that allows for an easier and clearer way to distinguish Australian products, as many of them want to ensure they support our farmers and regional Australians. And as the member for Lyons leaves the chamber, I'd like to ask that he carry his campaign for the labelling of food on restaurant menus upstairs to the dining room here as well. It's would be nice to know what we're eating off the buffet. I'll expect a result from him next sitting!
Last year, the federal member for Cowper, in his role as assistant minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, joined me to visit a local grocer in Como to talk about the incoming changes relating to country-of-origin labelling. The local grocer in Como is the IGA that is located on Preston Street. Pierre runs this local grocery and consistently champions fresh local produce. After coming to Australia with his family, he's continued to run a very successful local business and is determined to support local Aussie produce. Pierre's supermarket is located right in the heart of the suburb of Como, hundreds if not thousands of kilometres away from where much of our Aussie produce is coming from. Pierre is a strong supporter of our government's changes to the country-of-origin labelling, working with many of the suppliers to ensure they are up to date with recent changes. It's a wonderful supermarket, and Pierre has taken steps to ensure that a large amount of the produce he stocks now follows the new country-of-origin labelling. The community has responded very positively to these changes, and Pierre noted that he has had new customers visiting the store instead of going to the bigger supermarkets. Instead, they prefer to visit his family owned business and support Aussie produce and Aussie business.
During our visit, Assistant Minister Hartsuyker and I had many members of the community speak to us about the clarity and ease these reforms have created in ensuring they can support Aussie produce. We were even approached by a local business owner who is eager to go on the front foot with these reforms in his own business. He was an importer of food, and we gave him relevant links and information. The visit was well received, and I'd like to thank Pierre for allowing us to speak to his customers about the reforms that this government has undertaken, and to visit his shop, which, I must add, is always well presented with massive amounts of fresh fruit and vegetables in colour order. I thank the minister for visiting and working to ensure that these reforms are well implemented.
This bill seeks to reform the country-of-origin labelling for food in Australia to ensure the country-of-origin labelling is enforced in Australia so consumers know whether their products are truly Australian made or just imported. These reforms to our country-of-origin labelling were introduced by the Turnbull government in 2016, to be fully implemented on 1 July this year. This bill is required as country-of-origin labelling will cease to be enforceable under the current arrangements in the Imported Food Control Act 1992. Under these reforms, country-of-origin labelling for food will be regulated under a new compulsory information standard under Australian Consumer Law, rather than the current arrangement that is through the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. There is minimal impact on food imported into Australia with these changes.
Food importers can access the requirements for country-of-origin labelling in the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016, which is a result of extensive consumer research and a comprehensive regulation impact statement, including a detailed cost-benefit analysis informed by the consultation. Ian Macfarlane, the former member for Groom, was heavily involved in this at the outset when the consultation was taking place.
Country-of-origin labelling will still be required on imported products, for example 'Product of Thailand' or 'Made in Canada', and would need to meet the new rules around 'made in' and 'packed in' claims that result from these changes. For priority foods, importers are required to make their country-of-origin claim in a box on the label, so it can be easily found by consumers. Under these changes, food importers are not allowed to use the kangaroo symbol, as their product is not of Australian origin. If businesses want to indicate the presence of Australian ingredients in an imported food, they can use a label that also includes a bar chart and text about the proportion of Australian ingredients.
This bill is required as the current arrangement with the country-of-origin labelling will cease to be enforceable under the current legislation when the requirements are taken out of the Food Standards Code at the start of July this year. This bill will ensure that the new country-of origin-requirements under the new Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 can be enforced under the Imported Food Control Act 1992. This means that authorised officers of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources can maintain legislative authority to enforce country-of-origin labelling for imported food at the first entry point in our country, our borders.
While this legislation will alter the legislative framework, it will have no practical effect on food importers, consumers, or the regulatory environment—it is to ensure that this framework exists to allow enforceability by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. The role of government is to ensure that regulatory regimes are not oppressive and are conducive to supporting our businesses. This government supports this notion, and, as such, this legislation has resulted from significant consumer and stakeholder consultation to ensure the reforms are effective and avoid implementing unnecessary regulation in the sector.
The reforms were also given to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in the preparation of this proposed legislation. I can assure food importers in my electorate of Swan and those across the nation that there will be no additional costs borne by them as a result of this bill passing. This consultation included our overseas trading partners. In 2016 the federal government notified our trading partners of our intention to reform the country-of-origin labelling. This consultation included referring trading partners to the new requirements in the new country-of-origin food labelling standard that this government introduced in 2016. With further amendments to the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 due to the introduction of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Act 2017, we further notified our trading partners in March of last year. The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science has also developed a fact sheet on these changes for our trading partners. It is now available on its website to ensure that these changes are well known.
With this bill the enforcement actions that exist under the Imported Food Control Act 1992 can be taken for imported food that does not meet the requirements set out in the new Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016. This is not dissimilar to the ways that other standards in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code are applied now. It gives authorised officers of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources the powers to hold, re-export or destroy products that do not comply with the applicable standards for that food as a result of inspections carried out under the act. In addition to these enforcement actions, subsequent imports of the same food are inspected for compliance with the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 until a history of compliance is demonstrated.
As a result of this bill the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources will hold legislated authority for enforcing country-of-origin food labelling for imported food products at the border. In Australia, compliance with the standard will be the responsibility of the Australian Consumer Law regulators. The regulators on the list include the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission, as well as state and territory consumer protection agencies. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection will also have legislative authority to ensure the changes to country-of-origin food labelling for imported food under the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905. The Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905 applies to all imported food, including food imported from New Zealand. The Imported Food Control Act 1992 does not apply to food imported from New Zealand under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement of 1997.
Food importers in my electorate have contacted my office to voice their support for these changes, but have been curious on how they have access to the information about our government's reforms. The amendments to the Imported Food Control Act 1992 make it clear to importers that they are required to comply with the requirements in the new standards. The text of the bill also includes a note that this information standard is made under section 134 of schedule 2 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010, which is commonly referred to as the Australian Consumer Law. Food importers can access the new country-of-origin labelling information standard on the Federal Register of Legislation as well is obtaining guidance about the information standard from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission website.
This legislation is not out of the ordinary in the global marketplace now. Most countries mandate some form of country of origin labelling; however, the specific labelling requirements and what imported foods they apply to differ from country to country. This is even the case for many of our biggest trading partners. Under the international food labelling standard, the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, a country-of-origin statement must be provided on food where consumers would be misled or deceived if they did not have this origin information.
The government's reforms address longstanding consumer confusion and frustration about country-of-origin claims on food products. These reforms will give consumers clearer and more meaningful origin information, allowing them to support their buying preferences. The reforms have been developed with extensive consumer and business consultation. A comprehensive regulation impact statement, including a detailed cost-benefit analysis informed by consultation, underpinned the state and Territory governments' agreement to the changes. This government in 2015 appointed a highly renowned market research agency to take extensive consumer research on the government's proposals. The findings included that almost three-quarters of people, 74 per cent, thought it was important or very important to be able to identify the country of origin of food. This information is far too significant to ignore. It is time to ensure that our labelling standards are improved.
As with many reforms, there will be a review at the end of the transition period, which is two years from now, in 2020-21. The review will cover the scope of the reforms and their effectiveness in meeting their objectives in relation to the community and industry expectations.
This bill is a very simple legislative change and ensures enforcement of these recent changes in relation to country-of-origin labelling, which are sensible reforms that ensure clarity and ease, remove confusion for consumers, and make clear to food importers the expectations of our labelling structure. I'm proud to be a part of this government, a government that has consistently ensured sensible reforms to many of our regulatory reforms in such environments not only to bring them in line with community expectations, as seen through the consultation process, but also to ensure that government regulation is not imposing red tape for the sake of red tape. I see the former minister for deregulation sitting here, and he knows all about red tape, so it's good to see him sitting there and listening to this speech about legislation that's going to have an enormous impact for consumers across Australia.
Australian produce is one of our biggest exports and is a major source of Australia's wealth. Anything we can do to make our products easier to distinguish and find, not only in our local markets but overseas, can be nothing but a good thing. This is an example of how a government and parliamentarians get on with the job of getting out of the way of businesses and focusing on supporting Australian produce. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (19:11): It's quite surprising that we're here, still debating this issue. I said to my office, 'Is this bill up again?' They said, 'No, it's another slight amendment.' Here we are again—how many years into this government? We're still talking about country-of-origin labelling. It makes you question why this amendment didn't come up the first time we debated this issue and why it's taken so long for this minor amendment to come before us. But, as the member for Hunter has said in moving his second reading amendment, it does give us a chance to really look at this government's record when it comes to Australian agricultural policy and how this government is failing to deliver any decent reform on time to ensure that Australia's agricultural sector continues to grow, thrive and achieve its fullest potential.
As previous speakers have acknowledged, the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 is a minor amendment that will ensure that authorised officers can enforce country-of-origin labelling requirements on imported goods. In the shops, you laugh when you pick up that box that says 'Made from local and imported products'. Great! Fantastic! That tells me not a lot, and they've put that on the label.
However, no labelling is perfect. Among the concerns that have been raised with me about the new labelling that we have is that in some cases the actual country has been removed. Whilst giving you a percentage or a bar showing you what is local and not local is good, what some people said to me is: 'Well, I used to know if those tomatoes were from Italy. I've got more confidence in the Italian product than I do in a product, say, from a country where they've had a hep A scare or something of that nature.' So there is some concern even with this labelling that it doesn't really give consumers all the information that they require. I think that that's what's really hard when we get to debating this at this technical level at the federal level, and I think that what we need in our country-of-origin labelling is a really robust ACCC that continues to work with stakeholders, with consumers and with growers and producers about how we can give people the information that they require.
I can remember when this issue was first being discussed. The then agriculture minister tried to link the hep A scare with the berries that came in from China. The problem with trying to link those two issues was that people knew where those berries came from. It said where they came from on the box. It actually said straight out on the box that this was a product of China. The problem was not about the labelling; the problem was that there wasn't a proper biosecurity regime, the product wasn't being tested, and people were in fact infected, not once but twice. There were two scares with hep A.
This is an area where the government has dropped the ball—biosecurity, making sure that we have the most rigid and robust biosecurity framework in this country to give Australian consumers and families the security that they need about the food that they're eating. This biosecurity risk also puts Australian producers at risk. We've heard Tasmanian members speak about the fruit fly problem in Tasmania. I really feel for our Tasmanians. On mainland Australia we have had the problem associated with fruit fly for quite some time. I know from growers in Victoria around my electorate of Bendigo, particularly in Harcourt, how bad the fruit fly has been this year for their crops and the frustration they have.
Another area this government is failing in is to invest enough in research to get on top of these pests. In the last few months, Tasmania has gone from being completely free of fruit fly to having discovered it and then having exclusion zones. This government has said very little about this issue. It does not have an action plan to instantly react to stop the spread of fruit fly. I had the chance to meet with some of the growers in Tasmania. On the day that fruit fly was discovered and the exclusion zone was implemented, China instantly banned the importation of cherries coming from this particular area of Tasmania, so there was a drop in value of these cherries. The farmer went from having a buyer at $20 a box down to a buyer at $11 a box. That's the cost if we don't get biosecurity right. If the government had an action plan it could instantly enact to reassure China or other countries that we are on top of these biosecurity threats, then maybe that farmer wouldn't have lost that client and maybe they'd still be earning $20 a box instead of $11 a box. That's a massive drop for anybody to try and absorb. The government has been slow to respond to issues of biosecurity and it is not investing enough resources in it. It is not ensuring that agriculture in this country is meeting its full potential.
Farmers in our agricultural community are really proud of the clean and green image that we have with Australian food, but it can only continue if we have the strongest biosecurity measures to protect our growers. The government have failed to develop a way to market that strategy overseas. The government like to champion their free trade agreements and what they've done for agriculture, but where they have failed again to help agriculture reach its full potential is in doing anything about the non-tariff barriers to trade that exist. Not one person from the government has stood up in this place and talked about the 40 per cent non-tariff barrier to chickpeas that India has just announced. It's great to see our growers be innovative. Our farmers decided, in the Year of Pulses: 'Chickpea prices are rising. Let's change what we're growing.' More farmers invested in growing chickpeas—fantastic. They were growing an industry on their own, developing a market. India, seeing the competition, whacked a 40 per cent tariff on Australian chickpeas. What's the government doing about it? Why aren't they actively and aggressively protecting our farmers and standing up? There are also other non-tariff barriers.
In a hearing of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation the last time parliament sat, the NFF said that the government is going too slowly in working to abolish and reduce non-tariff barriers. There are problems with China, Japan and lots of other countries that we currently have free trade agreements with, yet the government have dropped the ball. They think that getting a free trade agreement is enough. It is not. Not enough work is being done by this government to really help our exporters in agriculture benefit by reducing the non-tariff barriers that we have.
Labour is a massive issue for us in agriculture, and I'm not just talking about the debacle with the backpacker tax—and that was a debacle; I'm also talking about the government's failure to attract and retain Australians in the full-time jobs that exist in agriculture. Because they focus so much on seasonal workers, on the people required for harvest, they have forgotten to promote agriculture as a career opportunity and job opportunity to all the Australians who may be interested in working in agriculture.
There are serious labour shortages across the agricultural sector. Whether it be highly skilled veterinarians to help with breeding programs and livestock, whether it be the need for scientists to continue to improve everything from water moisture in the soil to the quality of the soil that we have, whether it be people to help do the marketing for businesses being agribusinesses or whether it be people working on a farm in the packing rooms or helping with the pruning, there are good jobs in agriculture. Some have estimated that, for every person who takes a job in agriculture, there are four other jobs waiting to be filled. This is why the farmers and the agricultural sector are saying, 'We need backpackers.' It is because they have been left with no other option. The government has failed to come up with a decent workforce strategy for agriculture.
Do you know how unproductive backpackers are? I will tell you. The government is saying, 'Let's bring more backpackers out to work in the seasonal workforce,' but in some areas they have a 40 per cent turnover in backpackers. How is that productive? They need 2,000 and just under 800 of those will disappear before the six weeks is out. How is that a productive workforce? They have people who they train to be constantly training up the new backpackers. One farmer said to me last week, 'I'd rather have someone other than a backpacker. I feel like I am a camp counsellor when I have backpackers on my farm. They're here for a holiday; they are not really here to work.' Surely we can do better than that. Surely we can do better than our farmers having to be camp counsellors for a group of backpackers. We must do better than that if agriculture is going to continue to achieve its potential.
There is a problem with this government's failure to (1) acknowledge climate change and (2) work with our farmers so that they can stay ahead of the impacts of climate change. We know through really progressive, active farm groups and farmers who come to see us who are involved in groups that are against climate change or working to mitigate against the effects of climate change that they are working out how to be more efficient with water, they are working out when to plant and they are working out when to harvest. They acknowledge that our climate is changing and they are trying to use all the science and all the technology at hand—and they are doing this with very little help from the government, who continue to have people on their back bench saying, 'We're climate change sceptics; we don't acknowledge it.' We can be in front of climate change. We can continue to grow and produce in this country. But it needs to be informed by the science and we need to work fast. We need to make sure that we have the research dollars going into the CSIRO and that they are connecting with our farmers.
Water will continue to be an issue, and I'm not just talking about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which is a plan that must have integrity if all of our states, all of our communities, all of our irrigators and all of the stakeholders can have confidence in it. I'm also talking about water in other areas of agriculture. We've done some amazing things in the Murray-Darling Basin in terms of water efficiency. Where's the government's program to help roll out that water efficiency to other agricultural areas? I note that the new Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources was in Werribee last Friday. According to the VFF, he kind of said, 'I've got to get out to a farm, but it has to be 45 minutes from Melbourne.' Luckily, in Werribee they are still growing lettuces, broccoli and cauliflower. So they went out to Lalor, which I guess we could say is the safest Labor agricultural seat that we have. It was the lucky seat to get a visit from the agriculture minister last week. He hasn't been to Gippsland or Bendigo or up to Shepparton, but he did make it out to Werribee. Water is an issue for those irrigators. They lose 40 per cent of their water because of ageing infrastructure. The state government has put money on the table, but there is no federal money to help improve that system. This is an opportunity that the government is ignoring.
The government is not doing enough to ensure that Australian agriculture is achieving its full potential. If it really is going to be the future area of growth for us, if it really is going to achieve the opportunity to give young Australians a career for life, we need a government that is serious about agriculture and doesn't just tinker around the edges, like this legislation does. Most Australians agree that we need to see some change in our country-of-origin labelling. After five-plus years of this government, we are still kind of tinkering. We haven't moved to tackle the real issues that our agriculture industry is facing.
A final issue that I wish to mention is telecommunications. This government has completely messed up the rollout of the NBN and telecommunications in the regions. On the Mobile Black Spot Program, which the government champions, the Audit Office revealed that in so many cases it did not actually improve coverage. Why would you spend money on a program that didn't improve mobile phone coverage? In the area of having access to the internet, farmers can go completely wireless so that the technology can inform them about when to move water around or so that they can monitor stock. It is a bit hard when you are squashed onto the Sky Muster satellite NBN program with users from the city, because this government hasn't rolled out enough fibre-to-the-premises technology or fixed wireless technology.
This government is failing agriculture. They pretend to say that they represent the regions, they pretend to say that they represent the bush, yet all they do is tinker at the edges and turn up to the parties afterwards. We need genuine reform and genuine policy that is built in partnership with regional communities, whether it be around water, climate change, the non-trade tariff barriers, tackling the labour crisis that we have in the regions or working on biosecurity to rebuild our clean and green image. This government is failing on all of those fronts.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (19:26): I rise to speak in support of the member for Hunter's second reading amendment to the Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017. It is with no joy that I support this amendment. I would like to thank members on this side of the House, the Labor members, who have spoken, sadly, on the very poor record of this government when it comes to agriculture, particularly for regional communities like mine. I always knew when I came to this place that the Liberals were never serious about supporting regional Australia, but I had hoped that those agrarian socialists in the National Party would be different. Sadly, I have been very disappointed. In many regions of my state of Tasmania, the Liberals and Nationals have overseen many policy failures in the agricultural sector. Since the departure of the member for New England from the agriculture portfolio, the number of farmers who have come up to me and said that he would have to be the worst agriculture minister in their recollection is quite startling. I will go through some of those policy failures, because they have hit regional Tasmania, which is most of the state, extremely hard.
In May 2016, dairy farmers were hit with a clawback practice by Murray Goulburn and Fonterra. This triggered an Australian dairy crisis. These retrospective price step-downs left farmers who were supplying Murray Goulburn and Fonterra devastated. In my electorate, the devastation was there to be seen. Farmers were forced to lay off workers, make difficult financial decisions and, in many cases, work days and weeks on end just to survive. This government had the chance to help farmers but refused to join Labor in calling upon the board of Murray Goulburn to deviate from their profit-sharing mechanism and return more money to farmers by way of a higher farm gate price. Instead, farmers had to wait 12 months for an investigation to come to a conclusion. The investigation reached the conclusion that Murray Goulburn had done the wrong thing, and now there is a belated prosecution of Murray Goulburn.
The government offered farmers concessional loans, saddling them with more debt at a time when most could not afford to take it on. Those farmers who did try and access concessional loans were tied up in knots by bureaucratic delays and paperwork. Many had to wait weeks and months for any form of assistance. I will take this time to note that I wrote to the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture, the member for New England, inviting him to my electorate to speak to my dairy farmers—no strings attached. It wasn't to be political. They were actually crying out for him to come and speak with them at the height of this crisis. He wrote back to me and completely ignored my invitation. Not one word of 'Sorry, I can't come' or 'I'll come another time.' There was absolutely no mention of that offer. Then I found out from a farmer that the Liberal Party of Tasmania will not allow any member of the National Party into the state. I've extended that same invitation to the new minister for agriculture, the member for Maranoa, and I really do hope that he can buck that trend of the Liberal Party and say, 'I'm going to come to Tasmania and see what is actually happening,' because there's a lot going on. Biosecurity is one thing that I will talk about. It's absolutely devastating for my electorate and for my farmers, and this government has done nothing to make it a priority.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:30): I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Banking and Financial Services
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (19:30): Last week I spoke with Michael. Michael is not his real name—I'm using that name to protect him. I spoke with him just after he withdrew cash from a machine located in a retail shop in one of my local shopping centres. The cash dispenser was not an ATM, rather it was a machine that spits out cash loans. The process did not require Michael to indicate what he plans to do with the cash or demonstrate a capacity to repay the loan. It did though require him to hand over his bank account details so that the lender could access his account to secure repayments and any interest or late payment penalties. Worse, the interest rate he will pay can be anything up to 30 per cent. Penalties of course can be punitive.
It was obvious to me that Michael did not fully understand what he had committed himself to in accepting this short-term loan. It was also obvious that he did not enjoy the benefits of a sound education. Michael is on a disability pension. I don't know why he's on a disability pension, but I know that every circumstance is different.
If Michael takes $100 from the machine, he will eventually pay at least $130. That's what will be taken out of his account. I asked him what sort of money he has withdrawn in the past and he said, '$300.' I asked, 'What would you repay?' He said, '400 and something dollars.' That was the repayment on his $300 short-term loan.
Michael may have needed the money for many reasons. I didn't ask him. But, before jumping to conclusions, I thought of a constituent called Mary—and that is not her real name. She desperately turned to a similar process when her refrigerator broke down. Mary has children, and her family can't live without a fridge, so Mary entered into a contract with a local retail who provided her with that new fridge. The fridge retails for $498. Her repayment plan will result in her paying three times that by the end of the loan period, and that's if she pays on time every time. Again no-one assessed Mary's capacity to repay the loan or fully explained to her the consequences of her actions.
In recent years the growth in what have become known as payday loans has been scary. Basically, firms providing these loans are exploiting vulnerable and often desperate people. Yes, interest rates must reflect the level of risk for the lender, but lending to people without regard to their circumstances and their capacity to repay is irresponsible and the penalties for late payments are often bordering on criminal.
In 2009 the then federal Labor government introduced reforms which implemented a national regime for the regulation of consumer credit for the first time. In 2012 further enhancements were introduced, including additional protections regarding small-amount credit contracts and consumer leases. So we have a framework for addressing this serious problem, but time has demonstrated that more needs to be done. Governments can't and shouldn't make lending illegal, but there are some things we can do to catch those treading the fine line between the lawful and the unlawful.
There are alternative microloans for people in trouble. It's not as if this is their only choice. It's just too easy. I asked Michael whether there were often other people accessing cash from the machine in my local retail shop. He said, 'Yes, often. I came down one day and they were queued up outside the shop.' Charitable organisations that run these other microloan options do so responsibly, apply much lower interest rates and of course have the welfare of the borrower in mind. So there is no argument that these circumstances must be available because people don't have other choices.
The government now must act urgently. The loan sharks are circling the most vulnerable people in our community. We have had the review of the small-amount credit contract laws. It was subject to some debate in question time today. If there is ever a case for a bipartisan approach, this is it. We need to act and we need to act very quickly. The government have been too slow. I won't criticise them tonight, but I just want to make an appeal to the government to address this very serious issue. I met with the Samaritans, including their financial adviser, in Toronto last Friday to discuss the issue. They assist people in trouble. Some of the stories they told me were just horrific. We must act, and very quickly.
Australian Labor Party
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (19:35): Well, what a surprise. After Bill Shorten and Labor's embarrassment at their failed 'Mediscare' campaign, you would think they would think twice about peddling a new negative campaign of lies. But apparently not—
The SPEAKER: The member for Forde needs to refer to members by their correct titles and be careful about unparliamentary language.
Mr VAN MANEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker—the Leader of the Opposition and Labor's embarrassment on their Mediscare campaign. Just like Mediscare, there is a new misleading campaign by desperate unions and the opposition, without their own ideas. Last week, my electorate was targeted by the AMWU with a campaign about multinationals not paying their fair share of tax. Either Labor and the unions are too bored to listen or they are ignoring the fact that Australia has some of the toughest multinational tax laws in the world. And who passed that legislation? It certainly wasn't those opposite. It is the Turnbull coalition government that has cracked down on companies trying to get out of paying their fair share of tax. While Labor and the union sit around coming up with Mediscare 2.0, it is this government that has passed legislation and implemented measures to penalise companies and recover tax that should have been paid in Australia.
Labor's Medicare campaign was laughable: they said the coalition was going to abolish Medicare. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sadly, they were hoping that vulnerable Australians would fall for their cruel trick to allow them to win government. But, last time I went to the doctor, I noticed that Medicare is still there and bulk billing rates are at a record. What a joke those opposite and their union mates have become.
Last week, the AMWU ran radio ads, put up billboards and cold-called constituents in my electorate peddling a campaign against ExxonMobil as a multinational company that has purposely avoided paying tax in Australia; and they claimed it was the fault of this government. Can those opposite tell me what they have done to stop multinationals from shifting profits offshore? They did absolutely nothing in their time in government; and, when they had the opportunity to do it in this place, they voted against it. The laughable thing about all of this is that this ridiculous campaign targeting marginal seats last week had nothing to do with workers or tax but has everything to do with a union fight with ExxonMobil. The AMWU are currently in the middle of a workplace dispute with the company, so it's no surprise that campaigns like we have seen are being conducted in my electorate.
The Leader of the Opposition walked away from the 2016 election with his credibility shattered over their Mediscare campaign. However, that hasn't stopped them from starting this new campaign trying to mislead the Australian people. When it comes to corporate tax, the government has introduced the toughest multinational tax laws in the world to crack down on companies that try and get out of paying their fair share of tax here in Australia. These measures, legislated in November 2016, passed this house and the Senate despite the attempts of those opposite to oppose them and stop them. While Labor criticises, runs smear campaigns and tries to block our legislation to raise money for people who should be paying the right amount of tax to pay for schools, hospitals, roads, rail and child care, we are getting on with the job of doing those very things for this country.
We have seen with these laws a diverted profits tax which began on 1 July last year. We've established a tax avoidance task force within the ATO. We've increased penalties for breaches of tax-reporting obligations. We work internationally with other countries to make sure companies are not giving different information to different jurisdictions to try to avoid paying tax. Unlike those opposite, this government has acted on and is committed to acting on multinational tax avoidance and has continued to do that with measures that are necessary to ensure that all people in Australia pay their fair share of tax. (Time expired)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (19:40): I am a devotee of the ABC. I have grown up with the likes of Richard Carleton, Mike Carlton, Bill Peach, Paul Lyneham, Andrew Olle, Margaret Throsby, Caroline Jones and, more recently, Andrew Probyn and Chris Uhlmann. Their insights into political life have informed my life and educated me over many, many years.
You can usually tell when a week has ended badly for this government. It's when the member for Warringah gets more press than the member for Wentworth and when the National Party appears to be running the country. Another sure sign is an ex-minister heading to the back bench, looking for a job abroad or announcing plans to publish a tell-all memoir. You can generally tell pretty well, too, when the PM has had a bad one. He turns a tad waspish or starts waxing lyrical about 'worlds of woe'. Who, for instance, could forget his remarkable performance on election night? This government was once a lazy and opportunistic opposition, and it still shows.
Another sure sign that a government—any government—is having a particularly bad time of it is when it decides to give a bit of a gratuitous slap to the public broadcaster or one of its journals. I am old enough to remember, too, when leading lights in some previous Labor governments were getting a little bit more than ticked off with the ABC. Neville Wran, the ex New South Wales Premier, is No. 1 on that list.
Over the last couple of weeks the ABC has been at it again with three blatant instances of unintentional government baiting. Sin No. 1, for which the government can have no comeback, had the ABC allowing the former Deputy Minister to appear on national television and radio to plead his case for staying on. Predictably, this became probably the most eloquent exercise in grave digging since Hamlet or, rather, a very long, self-proclaimed version of Arthur Miller's Deathof aSalesman, a textbook case of more is less.
The ABC's likely second offence was showing a highly watchable two-part documentary on the former great Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke. Making matters worse, it featured some really insightful and, at times, generous commentary from John Howard. Not only were viewers reminded what a competent government looked like but, making matters worse, the presence of John Winston Howard would have served to remind the Liberals that their leaders once came with a healthy dose of political acumen and something approaching the common touch.
But it was the third leg of this trifecta, an online article written by economics editor Emma Alberici, that really sent the Prime Minister into orbit. Amongst an outpouring of prime ministerial sarcasm heaped on the ABC and Ms Alberici was a claim that both are confused and know little of business. I think that Ms Alberici is perfectly capable of defending herself, but I would point out that I have in my office a copy of her solid and still very useful guide on small business she wrote for Penguin and Channel 9 back in the 1990s. Like any other experienced and lucid commentator, I'm sure she has views which rational people can sift through on their merits without overbalancing personal rancour.
As for the ABC's business acumen, one of the complaints made about the public broadcaster's role is that it is actually rather too good at what it does, and I agree, particularly if we are talking about digital platforms. ABC Online leaves most other coverage for dead, and the whole enterprise is at a bargain. I understand now that it is just 4c a day. As David Attenborough recounts in his memoirs, public broadcasters have often made better use of taxpayer money than commercial broadcasters have of the funds they've siphoned off the consumer by way of the advertising industry.
The Alberici article deals with government's proposed multibillion tax cuts to big business. It's a contentious proposal, because it remains unfunded. That's one reason why government is finding it hard to sell, even to parts of business. It's an idea that ignores the uniquely favourable tax treatment received by companies here through the dividend imputation system, as well as through the ability of companies to carry forward tax losses. Alberici's article is now back online and that's a good thing. It's on a private site and also on the ABC in an amended and less wounding form for the politically sensitive. It brings together what most others have said before. Even some conservative Republicans think that the Trump tax cuts, which are also unfunded, are tantamount to looting the federal Treasury and are right up there in the realms of nuttiness with arming school teachers. (Time expired)
Bonner Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (19:45): Last week I spoke here on a much-needed infrastructure upgrade in my electorate—to the dangerous Lindum Station crossing intersection, which I'm currently running a petition to fix. For years residents have called for a solution while it's been kicked around like a political football. Some people have asked why I'm bothering, when fixes and funding have been promised many times before, all amounting to nothing.
There is another major thoroughfare in my electorate that suffered from a lack of funding for years as well. Motorists were clamouring for a solution. Some local representatives put it in the too-hard basket, just as they have with the Lindum crossing. They said it couldn't be done. Well, at the last election I fought for and won federal funding to go towards an upgrade of the Green Camp Road between Manly Road and Rickertt Road at Wakerley. This federal commitment was matched by the Brisbane City Council. Thanks to the efforts of Doboy Ward Councillor Ryan Murphy, council also committed funding to upgrade the intersection of Green Camp and Tilley Road. Council then sought further federal funding to upgrade the entire Green Camp Road corridor. I was happy to help secure this funding, bringing the total federal commitment to $10 million alongside council's $18 million investment.
Once complete, the corridor upgrade will improve safety for road users, improve the reliability of travel times, provide improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, and help cater for existing and future traffic demands. Green Camp Road will be widened between Manly Road and Rickett Road, helping ease congestion at peak times. Council are planning and carrying out the project, and over the last year council has carried out geotechnical investigations and land resumptions. Council is now finalising the detailed design for the project, and has invited construction tenders so that a contractor can be appointed. It is expected that the successful contractor will be announced in the next few months. Construction is on track to start after the Commonwealth Games in mid-2018 and to be completed in mid-2019, weather and construction conditions permitting. Local residents, businesses and the broader community will be kept updated with more information as the project progresses. I will be providing more details on the road closures and construction impacts that can be expected during works, once they're available. Locals can call the Brisbane City Council community hotline on 1800 884 681 for the latest on the upgrade.
I couldn't possibly have delivered a massive undertaking like this project on my own. Thanks must go to the council—Lord Mayor Graham Quirk and Councillors Adrian Schrinner and Ryan Murphy—as well as my federal colleagues the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities, the Hon. Paul Fletcher, and the member for Bowman, my good friend Mr Andrew Laming. The Commonwealth and council have come together to make this upgrade a reality. It's only a matter of time before this happens for the Lindum crossing as well. That is my current priority and I intend to follow through, once again, for my constituents.
Adelaide Airport Curfew
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (19:48): I rise today to talk about the Adelaide Airport curfew, and how important it is to keep the curfew and the existing regulations in place. When I was re-elected in 2016, one example that I gave was the need to continue fighting for the Adelaide airport curfew. I want to ensure that this is upheld and not slowly eroded away. On the eve of the 2013 federal election, my opposing candidate seemed to share bipartisan support for the curfew with me, and both political parties said that the curfew would remain. We had promises from the Liberal candidate and from the Liberal opposition about undertaking and maintaining the Adelaide airport curfew. Guess what? Less than two months after the Liberal candidate won the seat of Hindmarsh and the Liberal government came to power, there was a coalition backflip. That backflip was to allow aircraft to come in before 6 am, even though we had a promise that this would not happen. This was less than two months after they put out leaflets in the entire electorate promising that this would not happen.
Fast forward to 2017 and 2018, and we have an article that was dropped into The Advertiser on New Year's Eve, the day before New Year, just to 'test the waters,' it said, for a curfew erosion and abolition of the curfew. I live in Mile End at the end of the main runway; I have done all my life. I and my neighbours have lived with aircraft noise. Everyone in the electorate of Hindmarsh—from Mile End, Torrensville, Glenelg North, Richmond, West Richmond, Brooklyn Park and Thebarton—has lived with planes. The planes are so close that, when they fly down, my grandkids, who are often playing out in the backyard, jump up and try to catch them. That's how close they are. As I said, I've grown up around the airport. I can understand—we all understand—the economic and social benefits of having an airport, and we need a fine balance. The airport is only six kilometres from the CBD. We need a balance where we keep the airport viable but we also take into consideration the residents' needs. What I don't understand is how this government could even consider eroding the curfew. If the curfew were cut, it'd be absolutely devastating to the living standards of those people who live next to or close by the airport—people like mums and dads who are trying to put their children to sleep, pensioners who struggle to maintain sleep patterns, students who are trying to get better grades at school and, of course, shiftworkers.
I immediately wrote to the minister for transport at the time, the member for New England, the former Deputy Prime Minister, about that article that had appeared in the paper about scrapping the curfew. I was so outraged by the possibility of the curfew being lifted that, in addition to the letter, I also sent a tweet directly to the Deputy Prime Minister on New Year's Eve. Almost seven weeks later I received a response to my letter. It said that even though there was 'no intention to remove the curfew'—and this is where this government just can't help itself, because it went on to say—'any changes to the curfew at Adelaide Airport would need to be locally driven, balance the interests of the community and the economic interests of South Australia, as well as considering operational issues'.
What does that mean? Does it mean that, if a Liberal Marshall government is elected in South Australia on 17 March, the curfew will be back on the table? That is a question that we have to ask ourselves. Does it meet the standards for 'locally driven'? Like other things in the Liberal Party, does it mean that the 'economic interests' could outweigh the 'interests of the community'? I don't get it. Why couldn't the member for New England, the previous Deputy Prime Minister, just stop at 'no intention to remove the curfew'—full stop? That would have been adequate, and that would have given comfort to my constituents.
To add insult to injury, we now have the third transport minister since December 2017. You've got to wonder, Mr Speaker: every minister for transport recently and for many years has been a member of the National Party—they wouldn't have to represent one person living under a flight path, so they would not understand and know what it's like to live in a metropolitan airport under the flight path. We've had Minister Chester, the member for Gippsland. He was rolled; he was a nice bloke. We've had Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, the member for New England. Now we have the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr McCormack, the member for Riverina. Do I really need to write to the third minister since December? And look at these guys! As I said, all are National Party members, they don't live in cities, and they don't deal with large city airports in their constituencies. Staff of the department must be sick of briefing these new ministers. (Time expired)
Fisher Electorate: Economy
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (19:53): This matter was discussed widely last week. Like the overwhelming majority of my constituents, I oppose the construction of a casino on the Sunshine Coast. While no-one is more committed than I am to the creation of more jobs in our community, a casino would hollow out our local economy and leave small business owners and local consumers all the poorer. The jobs that we really need are highly skilled jobs in a diverse range of industry sectors to ensure that our economy is robust and offers our young people the careers and opportunities they deserve. That's why I've been working hard to advance my Fisher Defence Industry Initiative and to help build a high-technology manufacturing and defence industry hub in the southern and central parts of the Sunshine Coast.
In January I visited another innovative engineering and manufacturing business in my electorate who are beginning their journey toward being a part of the government's $200 billion defence capability investment. In Caloundra I recently spent time at APAC Infrastructure, led on a tour by Shane and Doug Pukallus, along with Michael Window. APA build light-weight, portable towers which support a range of telecommunications equipment. They can be carried in a ute or a trailer, raised without dangerous climbing, and can even be used to operate drones in the field. APAC are the only domestic manufacturer of their products, and we believe that their work has potential defence applications. In a great example of the hub approach that I want to encourage, APAC are working closely with another small business just across the road from them, Billet Proof, owned and operated by Ralph Francis. Ralph is a machinist with the tools and the skills to make high-accuracy, military-grade components. Through my Fisher Defence Industry Initiative I'm helping APAC and Billet Proof to make the connections they need both in government, in prime Defence contractors and, importantly, with other companies in the same position in Fisher. Through these local connections APAC are already designing the next generation of features that will extend the use of their towers and allow them to work together with the Sunshine Coast's other ground-breaking defence innovations.
I'm delighted to say that the defence industry hub we are creating on the Sunshine Coast has already begun to take the next step and to explore export possibilities. Increasing exports is a major new focus of the Turnbull government's investment in Australia's defence capability, and it's a major focus of my local initiative. Locally, we already have companies exporting defence and high-tech manufacturing products. APAC Infrastructure themselves are already exporting their portable telecommunications platform through a partnership with Boeing. Local business Eniquest export portable generators to the Singaporean military, while other coast innovators like Helimods and Praesidium Global are actively exploring export opportunities and demonstrating their products to overseas armed forces. I will continue to work with these businesses and others to find them the government support and the contacts they need to explore further export opportunities.
I intend to keep working hard to promote this growing industry on the coast. In March I'll be holding the next in my series of very successful defence industry initiative events. On 8 March from 2 pm at the University of the Sunshine Coast Innovation Centre I'll be gathering representatives of the Centre for Defence Industry Capability, that Defence Scientist's Office, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation and prime contractor NIOA to speak to local businesses in Fisher. We will discuss the right approach to winning defence contracts in the areas of science and innovation, the service industry including consulting, and the government's new defence export strategy. We are already seeing the benefits of the government's defence capability investment in Fisher, with millions of dollars worth of defence contracts coming to small businesses like those I've mentioned, as well as to the University of the Sunshine Coast. Whether they've never considered a contract with Defence before, or they're looking at how to set up their existing defence products for export, I strongly encourage any businesses in Fisher with an interest in being part of this growing Sunshine Coast defence industry hub to visit the events page of my website and register for our next event.
Wallarah 2 Coal Project
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (19:58): I rise to speak briefly on a matter that is located outside my electorate but which has struck a nerve in my community because of the potential impacts that would be seen right across the Central Coast. The Wallarah 2 proposal is now before the Commonwealth government for a decision on whether or not it can be approved under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The decision is currently expected by 7 March, but I met with the Minister for the Environment and Energy in Canberra recently to pass on many of the concerns on behalf of my community. I continue to encourage anyone with interest in the proposal to contact me. I've also facilitated a meeting with the minister and the Australian Coal Alliance, which happened this afternoon.
This is a government that is willing to listen on this issue. My position has been clear and consistent: I do not support any project that is scientifically proven to be detrimental to the Central Coast's water supply.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Giles to move:
That this House:
(1) pays tribute to the work of the Jo Cox Foundation in the United Kingdom, and in particular recognises the role of the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness;
(2) acknowledges:
(a) the bipartisan support for this work in the United Kingdom, and the response of the United Kingdom Government in appointing a Minister for Loneliness; and
(b) that there is a similar problem in Australia, which carries significant adverse consequences, but this is less well understood than it should be, particularly concerning its impacts on younger Australians and the influence of social media;
(3) notes the work of Australian academics and civil society in examining the extent and effects of loneliness on individuals and society; and
(4) calls for a national response to loneliness in Australia, to better understand the scope of the challenge and to inform and support evidence based policy responses.
Mr Hill: to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges:
(a) the Prime Minister's persistent failure to resolve the ever growing gas crisis in Australia;
(b) that this gas crisis is hurting Australian households and threatening manufacturing jobs all over the nation, especially in Victoria, NSW and Queensland;
(c) that manufacturing companies around the nation have experienced:
(i) between a tripling and quadrupling of the price they pay for Australian gas; and
(ii) upwards of a 200 per cent increase in the price they pay for electricity;
(d) that cost increases are seriously impacting on the ability of manufacturing companies to continue operations; and
(e) that manufacturing companies around the nation are still unable to secure affordable gas supply contracts despite the Prime Minister's handshake agreement with the gas companies in September 2017;
(2) condemns the Prime Minister for failing to pull the export control trigger by November 2017 to ensure that Australian households and manufacturers are not being charged exorbitant prices for Australian gas;
(3) recognises that the responsibility for every job lost in the manufacturing industry due to the skyrocketing price of Australian gas falls squarely with the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Energy; and
(4) calls on the Government to act decisively now and find a solution to the gas crisis which is threatening jobs in the electoral division of Bruce and countless others around the nation.
Mr Hill:to move:
That this House acknowledges that there is no good reason to wait for the death of Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, in order to become a Republic.
Ms Husar: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that the XXI Commonwealth Games will commence on the Gold Coast with the opening ceremony on Wednesday, 4 April 2018 and the closing ceremony on Sunday, 15 April 2018;
(2) notes that:
(a) more than 6,600 athletes and team officials from 70 Commonwealth Nations and Territories will be competing;
(b) the athletes will compete in 275 events in 18 different sports and seven para-sports; and
(c) beach volleyball, para triathlon and women's Rugby Sevens will make their Commonwealth Games debuts and for the first time at a Commonwealth Games, an equal number of men's and women's medal events will be contested;
(3) acknowledges that this year the Commonwealth motto will be 'Share the Dream'; and
(4) encourages all Members of Parliament to support the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games and the Australian sports people representing Australia at the Commonwealth Games.
Mr Entsch: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 24 March is World Tuberculosis Day, and marks the anniversary of German Nobel laureate Dr Robert Koch's 1882 discovery of the bacterium that causes tuberculosis;
(b) tuberculosis is contagious and airborne, ranking as the world's leading cause of death from a single infectious agent;
(c) in 2016, 1 million people died from tuberculosis worldwide and 10 million people became sick with the disease, with over 60 per cent of cases occurring in countries in our region;
(d) large gaps in tuberculosis detection and treatment remain with 4 million cases of active tuberculosis that were not diagnosed and treated in 2016, including 600,000 children;
(e) Papua New Guinea (PNG) had one of the highest rates of tuberculosis infection in the Pacific in 2016, with an estimated 35,000 total cases including 2,000 drug-resistant cases, not taking into consideration the large number of cases that go unreported in many regions; and
(f) tuberculosis is:
(i) the leading cause of death among HIV positive people globally—HIV weakens the immune system and is lethal in combination with tuberculosis, each contributing to the other's progress;
(ii) now linked to non-communicable diseases like diabetes; and
(iii) considered a preventable and treatable disease, however many current treatment tools—drugs, diagnostics and vaccines—are outdated and ineffective;
(2) recognises:
(a) the funding that Australia is providing to support the testing and treatment of tuberculosis in PNG, including the joint program with the World Bank, is already leading to an initiative to achieve universal testing for tuberculosis in Daru;
(b) the commitment of up to $75 million over five years for Product Development Partnerships in the Indo-Pacific Health Security Initiative to accelerate access to new therapeutics and diagnostics for drug resistant tuberculosis, and malaria and mosquito vector control—an increase in funding to build on the successes of Australia's previous investments;
(c) Australia's three year $220 million pledge to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (2017-2019)—a fund that has supported tuberculosis testing and treatment to 17 million people since 2002, including over 8 million people in the Indo-Pacific region;
(d) that through our endorsement of the Sustainable Development Goals in September 2015, we made a bold commitment to end the tuberculosis epidemic by 2030; and
(e) the scheduling of the first United Nations High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis in September 2018, which will set out commitments to accelerate action towards ending tuberculosis as an epidemic and provide Australia with an opportunity to showcase the success of our investment in tuberculosis in our region; and
(3) calls on the Australian Government to attend the United Nations High-Level Meeting this year, and commit to increased Australian action and leadership on research and development, prevention, testing and treatment as part of the global effort to eradicate tuberculosis.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Health Care
Mr HART (Bass) (10:30): It's a very sad fact that we are currently facing a crisis in the Tasmanian health system. I recently brought to the attention of the House the story of a constituent of mine, Anna. Anna suffers chronic pain on a daily basis and is unable to stand for any period of time. Despite representations to the Tasmanian Minister for Health, Anna is continuing to face a waiting period of eight years before surgery. Anna is just one of thousands of Tasmanian patients suffering on a public waiting list. This is entirely unacceptable.
In my home state and across Australia, whenever the Liberals get the chance they cut health funding whilst denying that fact. The Leader of the Tasmanian Liberals, Mr Hodgman, cut $210 million from health in his first budget, and the Turnbull government cut $1.1 billion from Tasmania's health system—cuts that result from not keeping pace with healthcare inflation, increased populations and increased presentations at our overworked public hospitals. These cuts have also meant that there are simply not enough health professionals to meet demand. Thanks to a leaked COAG document, we know of the Prime Minister's secret pre-budget hospital plan, which will lock in more health 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. No new money for health locks in years of underspend on health.
A Rebecca White majority Labor government will make health their priority in Tasmania. Labor has a better healthcare plan to keep Tasmanians healthier for longer, treated faster and home to their families sooner. Labor will invest in health infrastructure: more beds, more nurses, more ambulances and more doctors. Tasmanian Labor chooses to fix the health system and treat health workers with respect.
Belatedly, the Liberal government of Tasmania has decided that investment in health care is important, but its promised $700 million spend is a delayed response, assuming that a re-elected Liberal government in its third term will be able to invest significant amounts of money to employ additional professional staff. Rebecca White's health plan will be rolled out sooner, with more done earlier to address waiting times—waiting times in emergency departments; waiting times to see a specialist or to have elective surgery. So, too, the plan involves recruiting more staff to the health and hospital system and investing in health infrastructure to meet future demands.
I'm privileged to have served in a health governance role. I know how complex healthcare organisations are and how demanding management is at the best of times. It is obvious that the Liberal state and federal governments are not prepared to spend the money to properly resource our Tasmanian public hospitals. Rebecca White and Tasmanian Labor have a plan which properly respects the hard work and skill of our health workers.
O'Connor Electorate: Gold Coast Commonwealth Games Baton Relay
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (10:33): Last week, I was honoured to witness the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games Queen's Baton Relay as it passed through four towns in my electorate. It was an exciting couple of days, with the baton relay visiting Albany, Denmark, Manjimup and Bridgetown. There were some 50 outstanding people chosen to carry the baton, all of whom have done extraordinary things in their community. Pat Martin, to pick one of them, has been an active member of the Manjimup community for over 30 years and a great friend and supporter of mine. Pat is a justice of the peace who is involved in a huge number of community organisations, including the Manjimup Cherry Harmony Festival, the Manjimup Chamber of Commerce and the Windmills project, which supports and mentors people with disabilities.
John Ryan is a successful Manjimup farmer who's been involved in many different sports throughout his life. He's the founding member of Manjimup Vegetable Exporter Growers, an innovative concept of packing and exporting local produce from Manjimup. But, arguably, his most impressive achievement is as the only completely blind bowler to win the Australian blind bowls championship.
Laura Coles from Manjimup won gold in the skeet shooting at the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in 2014 and will again represent her country at this year's games. I wish her all the best.
Then there's my very old and dear friend Peter Aspinall, President of RSL WA, who was instrumental in establishing the National Anzac Centre in Albany.
Alice Rule, also from Albany, is a recent recipient of the Order of Australia medal. Alice has been a pillar of the Albany community for more than 60 years, contributing to various community groups such as Meals on Wheels and the Salvation Army.
Internationally renowned swimmer Stephen Junk was one of 14 to carry the baton in Denmark. Stephen has swum the Catalina Channel in Southern California, and the Cook Strait between New Zealand's north and south islands.
Katy Rutter is a mother of three who has worked hard to set up a highly regarded Denmark gymnastics club, and I am pleased to say that we have been able to support that particular club with a Stronger Communities grant. She has also been heavily involved in the Denmark Surf Life Saving Club.
Two time Boyup Brook sportsperson of the year, Jodi Nield carried the baton in Bridgetown. Jodi is an inspirational role model for young athletes and has made massive contributions to hockey and tennis in Boyup Brook. She has also represented WA in masters hockey for the past three years.
The 2017 Bridgetown-Greenbushes Citizen of the Year, Leonie Eastcott, was the final baton bearer in Bridgetown. Leonie has volunteered in her community for over 20 years, notably coordinating the campaign which secured Bridgetown's win at the 2016 Tidy Town awards. She is a founding member of the Greenbushes Eco Cultural Discovery Centre committee, and a regular volunteer at community events and for the Catholic Church.
I would like to congratulate all the baton bearers from my electorate and thank them for their tireless contributions to their communities.
HMAS Darwin
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (10:36): The US Ship USS Canberra served in the US Navy from 1947 to 1970, and the US have just announced that they will name their next warship the USS Canberra.
Ships names are reborn, you see, and after attending HMAS Darwin's decommissioning recently, we eagerly await the next warship, HMAS Darwin. Bravo Zulu to Navy, the team at Surface Force Headquarters and Mr Dean Thiele penned this prose:
A phoenix rising, we stare in awe,
A mighty warship, prepared for war.
Defend she will and fight she may,
Prepared for combat, it's Darwin's way.
For thirty years plus three, she's served
With pride and honour, no effort reserved.
But time has passed and waits for no one,
Decommissioning near, her time is now done.
'First lady of the fleet', your crown to pass,
To success, you've achieved, we raise a glass.
For service you've given we say to you,
A heartfelt thanks and a Bravo Zulu.
Mrs Joan Johnston did launch the ship
In eighty two, on March twenty six.
And 'twas July twenty-one in eighty-four,
Commissioned ran, an orphan no more.
The first ship Darwin, was so named
Her namesake city, has proudly claimed.
Freedom of entry and keys to the city,
A bond worth a beer and a good ole ditty.
A thousand times four, plus three hundred and more,
The number who've served, with esprit de corps.
The women and men, both present and past,
Hold a rare family feeling, for ever to last.
And nautical miles, there's been a few,
In millions it's been, about one point two.
In perspective, you see, the ship has hurled,
About fifty times around the world.
And countries visited, all thirty four,
Showing the flag, in those runs ashore.
Diplomatic calls and sports games with balls,
Good ambassadors you've been, in all your travels.
Your guns and launchers, silent now lay,
Emitters and sensors, no more to play.
Your engines to rest, a long time they ran,
The galley is quiet, no calls to scran.
The calls for 'in stores' can now be shelved,
The sound of helos will now be quelled.
No more the 'gin pennant' at mast to see,
But celebrate farewell, a plenty there'll be.
Thirty plus seven different 'birds' away,
Fifty plus six different 'fish' did spray.
Nine and one half thousand rounds did fly,
From the gun that you see mounted so high.
And operations served from the Middle East,
To Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste.
Narcotics and weapons seized while deployed.
A significant haul removed and destroyed.
And 'thank you' goes out to those in support,
Over all of the years that you have brought.
On behalf of Darwin we can't say enough,
Through all of the times, good, bad and tough.
November twenty-seven of twenty-seventeen,
Your final home berth, with fanfare for the team.
And shortly thereafter on December nine,
Decommission, there'll be so many to pine.
Farewell we say, but remember we will,
The phoenix rising, resurgent still.
To warship 04 and all of her friends,
Thanks for the memories, your shipmates send.
Robertson Electorate: Domestic and Family Violence
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:39): I rise to speak about a breakthrough that will directly help some of the most vulnerable people in my local community. Last week I was very pleased to welcome the Attorney-General, Christian Porter, to the Wyong Art House for the launch of the new Central Coast domestic violence unit. The DV unit is operated by Legal Aid New South Wales and will bring together legal and support services in one place, delivering a greater level of support to those in urgent need. It partners with local providers to deliver services such as crisis accommodation, mental health support, financial counselling and other practical support that can be so important in helping those people escape violent relationships and situations. It's one of six new domestic violence units being established across Australia, with funding of $3.4 million from the coalition government.
Twelve existing units across the country have already helped more than 4,000 clients in the past couple of years. This service is based in Gosford, but it will spread help across the region. For instance, dedicated lawyers who understand the effects of trauma will attend apprehended domestic violence order list days at Wyong local court each weak. They'll be offering immediate free help for domestic violence victims and providing intensive case work for clients facing legal issues, including divorce, child abduction and financial abuse. Beyond the courtroom, a dedicated social worker will support vulnerable clients who have experienced domestic and family violence such as by helping women and children keep a roof over their heads, contacting Centrelink on their behalf or connecting them with counsellors.
I've been urging the government to look closely at the Central Coast because of our shocking rates of domestic violence, with around 1,600 cases or more in the 12 months from last year, according to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. But I believe that this domestic violence unit will be even more effective, because of the way it's already been working in partnership with existing organisations and services in our community. You only needed to see that more than 100 people attended the unit at the launch last week to see these people on the front line. They include the local police force, who do an extraordinary job; Brisbane Water and Tuggerah Lake district; Biala Cottage Sexual Assault Service; Soroptimist International Brisbane Water; CatholicCare; Domestic Violence New South Wales; New South Wales Health; Central Coast Community Women's Health Centre; Interrelate; the Law and Justice Foundation; Central Coast Community Council; Coast Shelter; Central Coast Community Legal Centre; Central Coast Law Society; Central Coast Women's Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service; the Older Women's Network; Ability Options; Relationships Australia; local Rotary groups; the Salvation Army Oasis Youth Support Network; Uniting Counselling; Wyoming centre; Central Coast Family Support Services; Wyong Neighbourhood Centre; Gosford Community Corrections Office; Department of Human Services; Family and Community Services; Wyong local court; and the legal aid DV services.
Special mention of course goes to legal aid for the work that they were already doing; to Brendan Thomas, Kylie Beckhouse, Susannah O'Reilly; Sophie Tarr; Gabrielle Cantrall; Melanie Alexander; Maria Le-Breton; Melissa Hollands; and the rest of their team, who work so tirelessly with victims of domestic violence on the front line every day. Thank you for undertaking this important work.
Corio Electorate: Education
Mr MARLES (Corio) (10:42): Back in 2011 the review of funding for schools was really a breakthrough in policy in this place around ensuring that all children would get proper education irrespective of where they lived and irrespective of what sort of school they attended. The funding of schools has been as big an issue in public policy that's been considered in the halls of this building and, indeed, the former parliament house as perhaps any since Federation. We felt that it was a breakthrough back then in part because it attracted the support of the then coalition opposition such that, going into the 2013 election, the coalition promised to 'match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar.' Since being elected in 2013, that pledge has been broken day in and day out, and we now have a situation where billions of dollars less is being provided to schools around Australia than what was originally committed.
The Australian Education Union website now provides a way of tracking that in terms of individual schools, and it makes for very dire reading for the schools in Geelong. What it shows is that Northern Bay College, for example, in the year 2018-19 is likely to be more than $2 million worse off. Bellarine Secondary College will be $1 million worse off. North Geelong Secondary College will be up to $900,000 worse off. Nelson Park School will be $700,000 worse off. Newcomb Secondary College will be $700,000 worse off. Western Heights College will be $700,000 worse off. Geelong High School will be $700,000 worse off. Across the river in Geelong in the electorate of Corangamite, the reading is just as dire. Belmont High School will be $1.6 million worse off. Barwon Valley School will be $700,000 worse off. Grovedale College will be $700,000 worse off. Tourquay College will be $600,000 worse off. Oberon High School will be $600,000 worse off. Colac Secondary College will be $600,000 worse off. Surf Coast Secondary College will be $500,000 worse off.
Our mining boom was fantastic. The mineral resources that we have in this country are wonderful. But ultimately it is investment in the human intellect which is going to be the most important act of policy that governments make. Not only does it liberate people from the tyranny of their postcodes to make sure that they can have all the opportunities that everyone else in our society can have. A school like Northern Bay Secondary College is so fundamentally in important for the suburbs of Norlane and Corio. Not only does it do that; the human potential which is captured by enabling those people to fulfil their opportunities is utterly essential for our nation in terms of our economic productivity going forward. We are going to campaign on this issue day in and day out right through the next election.
Goldstein Electorate: Community Organisations
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (10:45): The Goldstone electorate is blessed with so many community organisations that do incredible work. Last Saturday I attended the 175th anniversary dinner of the Brighton Cricket Club at Brighton Town Hall. Formed in 1842, the Brighton Cricket Club famously beat all expectations in their first match against the more established Melbourne Cricket Club. They proved it was no fluke by winning again at Melbourne's home ground three weeks later. Ever since then they have had incredible success. The club prides itself on being a competitive and successful club, promoting enjoyment, participation and mateship. We saw that mateship on Saturday night. They have enjoyed a great deal of success over the years, being represented by many great players who have also represented Victoria and Australia. I would like to particularly congratulate Andrew Beck, its president, and the secretary, Russell Stocker, for another successful season. Their success on the night was also attributed to the BCC club sponsors, Bayside Council, Simon Thomas from Goodoil and Rob Curtain from media and communications. It also proves an opportunity to launch David King's new book on the history of the club, A famous old club. Congratulations to everybody who was involved.
Equally it followed the Brighton Union Cricket Club's recent successful sportsperson's night on the 10 February. The theme of the night was success. We heard from a number of sporting giants. The master of ceremonies was Tom Morris from Fox Footy, who did a good interview of every panellist. Stephen Mount, a Richmond premiership player in 1980, Leigh Montagna, who was a St Kilda Football Club player, and Brendon Gale, the CEO of the Richmond footy club. The BUCC has celebrated over 60 premierships since it was officially founded on 23 September 1907. I would like to acknowledge the current committee who have taken the club forward both on and off the field—the president, Russell Purvis, vice-president Paul Fidock, secretary Brett Northridge and treasurer Bill Arnold.
Yesterday we had another incredible community event with the joined forces of Stand-Up Paddle Victoria and the Sandringham Yacht Club as they hosted the 2018 stand-up paddle board Vic Mad Paddle. There is a 30 kilometre track that is normally traversed, but unfortunately the weather wasn't the friendliest this year, which meant that paddlers could only do a much more modest distance around the Sandringham Yacht Club. We have to congratulate everybody who is involved in the organisation, because it was the fourth Mad Paddle. It was held with the support of many organisations in pursuit of assisting the Sandringham Yacht Club. So far this morning the tally was nearly $15,000 raised for funding state-of-the-art emergency department equipment for paediatrics for improving care for children at the Sandringham Hospital. If you'd like to donate, please head to the 2018 Mad Paddle at gofundraise.com.au. Particular congratulations to the chair of the organising committee, Felicity Frederico, and everybody else involved. Good luck to Warwick Lee for his potential to do it in two years time.
Northern Territory: Infrastructure
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (10:48): Today is a very important day for south-east Arnhem Land as we see the official opening of two high-level bridges over the Roper and Wilton Rivers. These are important. I announced these projects in August 2012 at Roper Bar. The funding was a commitment to regional roads by the previous Labor government.
The Roper Highway project was identified as one of six regional roads to receive funding from a $90 million Regional Roads Productivity Package, so when these roads are ultimately opened, they will express a significant investment in the roads of the Northern Territory and in the communities it will benefit substantially as a result of this investment, principally Ngukurr and also Numbulwar to the north-east of Ngukurr. What we want to see next are bridge and road upgrades between Ngukurr and Numbulwar, which will mean those two large communities—in excess of 1,000 people—will have close to all-weather access all year. That's vitally important.
Among people who don't know the Northern Territory, or northern Australia for that matter, and that includes most people in this place, unfortunately, I don't think there's a real understanding of the need for the development of infrastructure like roads and bridges in the north of Australia and how important they are to these communities. We know that funding has been made available for beef roads in the Northern Territory. During question time recently I asked the then Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, a question about funding of $80 million allocated to the beef roads program, less of which has actually been invested in upgrading the roads for the cattle industry. I asked what has happened to that money. I got no answer because there is no answer. The difficulty we have now is that we have a former Deputy Prime Minister, we have a new Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. I wish him well in his new role, but I do want to make sure that we get these funds expended for the use and purpose for which they were made available—that is, for the beef roads in the Northern Territory and northern Australia generally. By the way, at the time of the announcement of the beef road funding allocations during the last election, $30 million—$30 million only—was allocated by the Turnbull-Joyce Liberal-Nationals government to the Northern Territory. That's a pittance. It will go no way to meeting the real demands of road infrastructure for the beef roads, let alone the broader infrastructure needs for community roads across the north.
Berwick College
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (10:52): Today I would like bring the attention of the House to Berwick secondary college, and especially to their need for a health and wellbeing centre. First of all, I congratulate principal Kerri Bolch and her wellbeing team. Kerry has been an absolutely staunch supporter of this project. I have visited the school and I am a strong advocate for this project.
Berwick College is located in city of Casey, which is Victoria's fastest growing city, and has nearly 1,600 students. In this area there are, sadly, very high rates of family violence and extensive use of ice, marijuana and alcohol. The college principal tells me that the school nurse treats an amazing 2,250 students each year, which is quite incredible, for a wide range of medical issues, including mental health, self-harm, anxiety, asthma, anaphylaxis, diabetes, epilepsy management and injuries. Stress is a big issue for many students, causing changes in brain development and hindering learning. Currently, the nurse and supporting staff operate out of a very small facility that gives no privacy and is often very crowded. I have seen this location myself. It is obviously not good enough to be treating students who need special care and attention. I must congratulate the staff for what they are doing at the school, and especially Kerri and her team for advocating for such an important project.
Berwick College proposes to address these problems with the introduction of a Berwick community learning and support centre, which will provide health and wellbeing support for their students, staff, past students, families and members of the community. It will address issues in our electorate such as social cohesion and respectful relationships and will be supported by specialist partnerships between the local education and medical communities. Students will be able to access programs that aim to improve their self-worth and teach them life skills, both within and outside school hours. I believe they are trying to team up with St John of God Berwick Hospital, South-Eastern Private Hospital, Rotary club, headspace and, of course, the college itself.
The project will cost in the vicinity of $1.2 million. I note that in the last state election the Liberal member for Gembrook, Brad Battin, committed funding for this project. It wasn't matched by Labor. At the same time, I acknowledge that we need to form a partnership with the federal level and the state. The students' needs must come first. The school is doing an incredible job. You just have to walk up to the main office. There are plaques remembering, sadly, students and teachers who've taken their own lives. We must work together to get this resolved.
Hindmarsh Electorate: Centrelink
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (10:55): I rise today to highlight the government's failure to address the inaccessibility of Centrelink for my constituents. As the member for Hindmarsh, I take this opportunity to share some of the experiences of those in my electorate who are frustrated with the ballooning waiting times when they call Centrelink. If you've called the Centrelink call centre recently, it's not unusual to get an engaged tone. The Department of Human Services' annual report has recently been made available and its findings have confirmed that waiting times are the longest there've been in recent years. Frankly, the findings of the annual report are unacceptable. A year on from the height of the robo-debt debacle, we've seen the government shift to a model of service that is supposed to provide Australians with what they need. Every day, my electorate office receives numerous calls from those aggrieved by the lack of access to Centrelink. Other electorate offices, including from those on the other side of the House, would be familiar with this issue. I've written to the Minister for Human Services about Centrelink waiting times and how they're taking a toll on constituents, mine and others, across the nation, just as I wrote to the minister before him and the minister before him as well. Department of Human Services' staff are working beyond capacity—and I speak to many people who work in the department—with workloads that exceed the available resources. They deserve better than a government that slashes permanent jobs and then, later, outsources them, because that's what's been happening.
Today is an exciting day for many South Australians with the university academic year commencing. Some students attend for the first time and many return for another year. Some will have to speak to Centrelink as the year finishes. Approximately one-fifth of the calls to Centrelink are from students. It's appalling to know that, at such an important time in the academic year, with many needing assistance and trying to do the right thing, they won't be able to get through. We need this government to do more than have Centrelink direct our pensioners and others to resolve their issues by going online. Many pensioners don't have the capacity to go online. Many pensioners from non-English-speaking backgrounds don't have the capacity to go online. Many don't have access to computers. We see this degradation time and time again: people who basically don't have the skills to be able to go on the internet are told, 'Go online and fix your problem,' which is impossible.
What the government are doing is killing the system just to outsource it, as we've seen with Australia Post, for example. They run it into the ground and then privatise and outsource. That's what we see from this government. The Centrelink system is broken and the government continue to prioritise crackdowns in other areas, but they don't want to address the 55 million unanswered calls. They're not calls that waited and were answered; they're unanswered calls. I'm very proud to stand for the constituents of Hindmarsh on this matter. I call on the government to end this crisis and invest in more permanent staff so they can support Centrelink clients and all the applications.
Bennelong Electorate: Lunar New Year
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (10:58): We are halfway through celebrating the Lunar New Year, or the Chinese New Year, depending on which side of the railway line you are on in Eastwood. We started on the previous weekend with a celebration of the 10th anniversary and a fabulous cooking competition. You have to have won the competition to be a judge. I was a judge. Geoff Lee, the member for Parramatta, was outstanding and won the competition the previous week amidst incredibly keen competition. On Saturday, we had the Ryde Lights festival at Eastwood where an incredible number of Chinese lanterns were lit after a fantastic display of Eastwood Has Talent. We had traditional dance, we had traditional music, we had line dancing and it was a great event. The celebration of the Lunar New Year, the Year of the Dog, will be this coming weekend. We're halfway through. We'll have three weeks of celebration. All I can say is, ' Gong hei fat cho,' which is my very best Chinese to say Happy New Year.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has now concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Regional Australia: Employment
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (11:00): Today I am proud to stand in this place and take up the fight against the Turnbull government's severe job cuts to Public Service jobs in Townsville, and I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that ongoing cuts to public sector jobs in regional cities like Townsville have had a detrimental impact on the local economy and include:
(a) the relocation of Royal Australian Air Force's 38 Squadron King Air fleet from Townsville to East Sale in Victoria resulting in the loss of more than 40 aviation jobs in Townsville;
(b) the Government's change of process in second division resulting in the loss of up to 10 Townsville Australian Public Service defence support staff;
(c) Townsville having 50 fewer defence staff in June 2017 than it had in December 2012;
(d) 19 jobs having been cut from CSIRO in Townsville over the last few years;
(e) regional Queensland Customs staffing being cut by 50 per cent with 30 job losses from Gladstone to Thursday Island with Townsville being one of the hardest hit; and
(f) the consolidation of the Australian Taxation Office in 2014 resulting in the loss of 110 jobs in Townsville;
(2) acknowledges that maintaining public sector jobs is important in regional Australia and notes that job cuts are harmful to regional cities like Townsville; and
(3) calls on the Government to ensure the coming federal budget puts a moratorium on these regional jobs cuts in public sector agencies.
I am here to say loudly and clearly: enough is enough. I will fight against these job cuts, and I will fight for the workers of Townsville. I will stand up for both white- and blue-collar jobs because, without a shadow of a doubt, Townsville needs and deserves both. I have had enough of the Turnbull government's job cuts, and I want real action that delivers jobs for everyone, not just a few.
I am on the ground talking and meeting with regional Queenslanders, unlike this completely out-of-touch Turnbull government, and I can assure you that the impact of the job cuts delivered by the Abbott-Turnbull government has been nothing short of devastating to my community. These cuts directly affect jobs in the heart of Townsville's CBD, and the flow-on effect from these cuts has been widely felt in the broader community. It has been felt in businesses that have thrived in the Townsville CBD, like Batik Bazaar, a small business that has traded for more than 34 years, which has just closed its doors. This is a business that thrived under prime ministers like Hawke, Keating, Howard, Rudd and Gillard and is now being forced to shut its doors under the Turnbull government. This is a clear indication of the effects that the Turnbull government is having on the ground on small businesses in my community. They are closing their doors, and jobs are being lost.
As reported in the Townsville Bulletin, business confidence in Townsville continues to nosedive. A strong presence of government departments and government jobs brings confidence to our region and particularly to our city. When we have a strong government presence in terms of public sector jobs, the take-home message on the ground is that the government believes in our community and that we are a safe place for investment, and that does create jobs and grows small-business opportunities. However, this has not been the case under the Turnbull government, because this government doesn't care about public sector jobs. They are being cut, time and time again, and the people of Townsville are tired of it.
The Turnbull government took a 'jobs and growth' slogan to the last election. Well, let me tell you, the people of Townsville have seen that for what it actually is: a political slogan and nothing more. Under the Turnbull government, the only growth that we have seen is in our unemployment and underemployment figures. Under the Abbott-Turnbull governments, unemployment has doubled in our community. While industries have gone, jobs have also gone. This is the coalition's track record in Townsville.
But I must say that the government needs to be aware that the people of Townsville have very long memories, and they will voice their memories when it comes time to vote at the next election, because we deserve better, and our young people deserve opportunities for jobs, particularly in the public sector. So I call on the Turnbull government to immediately reinstate the hundreds of jobs that have been cut from the Townsville public sector. The public sector has been the backbone of our community for decades and decades, and it is absolutely essential that the government pays attention to this fact and stops the vicious cuts to our public sector. We have been flat out recovering from the Newman era, and we've walked straight into the same opportunities and job cuts that the Abbott-Turnbull governments have delivered us.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the honourable member for her contribution. Is the motion seconded?
Ms Owens: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member and give the call to the honourable member for Parramatta.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (11:05): I thank the member for Herbert for raising this in the parliament today because it gives me an opportunity to speak about what's happening in my community of Parramatta. We are the geographical heart of Sydney. We are the centre of the workforce; we're the centre, geographically—the middle, literally—of Sydney itself.
We think of ourselves as a community that has a large public sector. We have the Jessie Street Centre there; the tax office is there; Medicare is there. We have quite a strong public sector presence—at least, we did, because, in the last year, between 2016 and 2017, the number of Public Service jobs in Parramatta halved. The number actually dropped from 3,078 in 2016 to 1,567 in 2017. That is nearly 1,500 jobs gone in a year. They are solid, full-time, safe, secure jobs. Those jobs are the ballast; full-time, secure employment in the community acts like a ballast. They are less responsive to upturns and downturns in the economy. Those workers are still going to get their hair cut. So other business actually survive on the stable employment base that you get from your public sector—and from other full-time jobs, but particularly from the public sector. So it has been an extraordinary blow to Parramatta. But it is really just the tip of the iceberg.
When you look at what has happened in the six years of this government, you can see that the Public Service has essentially been gutted. In the years from 2013 to 2017, there have been 14,000 jobs slashed from the public sector. That is 166,000 down to 152,000—nearly 10 per cent of the public sector. You might remember that, when the member for Warringah first became the Prime Minister, he cut over 8,000 public sector jobs in just his first year. And we are well and truly seeing the results of that. People are waiting, on average, for over 15 minutes to speak to someone at Centrelink—up from the previous year. Young people are waiting over half an hour to speak to someone about youth allowance. People are phoning about disabilities and waiting just under 30 minutes. This is unacceptable. In my electorate, I know of cases where people have waited over three hours to speak to someone at Centrelink. I know people who have rung every day and hung up and, over a two week period, have been unable to get through because they didn't have the time to wait on the phone for that long.
It's not universal, though. The cuts aren't spread evenly. Jobs are actually moving into the CBD. In the Sydney CBD, for example, the number of jobs increased by 2,000 in the last year. Fifteen hundred jobs have gone from Parramatta; 2,000 jobs have gone into the CBD, from an already high base of 13,700 employees. In other areas of Sydney, the number of public sector jobs has roughly stayed constant, although it has significantly declined across the west of Western Sydney as well.
So we are seeing not just a cut across the board but the moving of the public sector from the outer regions or the centre of Sydney city into the CBD, and those of us who live in Western Sydney or further out know how long the travel times are, and we know that those workers actually come from where we are—that workers get on the train and travel sometimes an hour or an hour and a half into the CBD to take up those jobs. It actually doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense in the days of high-speed internet—though not so much in Parramatta; we're not even on the rollout, but, you know, the government departments have high-speed internet. In the era of people working from home and people being able to work remotely, it makes no sense whatsoever to be moving the public sector from outer regions into the CBD. It makes no sense at all, and it makes no sense to cut 1,500 jobs from the geographical centre of Sydney's workforce and move them to a place which is essentially on the edge of it. It makes no sense at all. We've lost 1,500 secure, stable jobs from Parramatta in the last year alone.
It's not okay. It's really not okay. It's not okay to slash our Public Service generally by this amount and it's not okay to slash the amount in my electorate. The member for Herbert is absolutely right; there are communities that depend on the stability that Public Sector jobs give their communities, and mine does too. I call on the government to rethink this move into the main centres. You can see the increase in Melbourne and in Brisbane, but declines virtually everywhere else. It's turning back a tide which was moving in the right direction. In the last years we've seen it completely reversed. It's the wrong way to go, and they should rethink.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (11:10): The member for Parramatta talks about turning back the tide. Under this government, we have turned the nation around. This motion is a phoney motion. Never before in the history of this nation have we seen such strong jobs growth. In January, 16,000 new jobs were added. Last year, in 2017, 403,000 jobs were added. That is an absolute record since records began. We have now had 16 consecutive months of jobs growth, the longest run of jobs growth ever recorded in this nation. As I say, this is a phoney motion.
Labour is grappling with what to do, because this government is delivering. It is delivering in spades, building a stronger economy and creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs and new opportunities right across this nation, in metropolitan centres and in regional Australia. This builds on the many other investments that we are making. Our business tax cuts are helping small businesses invest, hire and grow. Our school funding reforms are improving results; the best and record school funding we've seen in this nation. We're making child care more affordable, where we've guaranteed Medicare. We're keeping Australians safe. We are delivering for Australians when it comes to jobs.
It's very disappointing, and I want to put the facts on the record. Contrary to claims made by the opposition and their CPSU mates, the number of Public Service jobs in regional Australia has increased under the coalition. In December 2012, there were 20,163 public servants in regional locations. This is compared with 21,572 Public Service jobs in December 2016, an increase of seven per cent. Fourteen per cent of Australian Public Service staff are now located in regional Australia, up from 12 per cent under Labor. We are not only delivering jobs in spades across this nation but also increasing the number of Public Service jobs in regional communities. As I say, that is why this motion is a phoney motion.
I reflect on what's happening in Geelong, an area that I proudly represent as the member for Corangamite. We are building the National Disability Insurance Agency headquarters, which will bring hundreds and hundreds of Public Service jobs to our region. That builds on the incredible investment that we are making. We've also, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, brought the Australian Bureau of Statistics national data centre to Geelong—again, hundreds of new Public Service jobs. This builds on the 403,000 jobs across the nation, with 100,000 new jobs in regional Australia.
It is regrettable that the member for Herbert has initiated this motion. I think it's probably through some degree of embarrassment, because the Townsville City Deal, Australia's first, was signed by our government and the Queensland government on 9 December 2016. The Commonwealth is making more than $250 million of funding contributions to Townsville through the city deal, including the construction of the North Queensland Stadium, which will employ over 2,000 people. What a shame that the people of Townsville do not have a champion in the member for Herbert. What a shame that, in this member, they do not have someone celebrating this investment, leveraging this investment and looking at other opportunities. All we hear from the member for Herbert is whingeing and complaining, when in fact the unemployment rate in the 12 months to December 2017 fell from 11.2 per cent to 8.5 per cent, so not only are we driving hundreds and thousands of new jobs into Townsville but we are also seeing a significant decrease in the unemployment rate, driving confidence, investment and a new wave of absolute fervour for Townsville, and it's all absolutely due to the hard work of the Turnbull government.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (11:15): I begin by thanking the member for Herbert for raising this motion this morning. She is a great local member, and I completely understand her frustration with this government, because I feel it too. The Prime Minister is looking down on Australia from corporate boardrooms and a harbourside ivory tower. When you do that, you don't see what's happening in the regions. Sure, the white-collar suits that he surrounds himself with are doing well. Company profits are up, big businesses are thriving and for the most part the capital cities are doing fairly well, but this prosperity hasn't made its way to the regions. As the member for Herbert explained a little earlier, areas like Townsville are struggling. In my role as the chair of Labor's Australian Jobs Taskforce committee, I've seen this firsthand. The committee travelled to Townsville last year, where I saw countless 'for lease' signs in the windows of buildings on Flinders Street Mall and throughout the CBD. The member for Herbert drives past and sees new ones regularly. It feels not too unlike my local area of Caboolture.
These regions have so much potential. The people are friendly and incredibly hardworking. The natural environment is beautiful. You don't have to go too far from Townsville and the Strand or the Centenary Lakes in Caboolture to know that the regions are beautiful areas. The locations are perfect for businesses and for public sector opportunities. One fatal element is holding these regions back: the absence of a government that cares. A government who cares, like a Labor government, would be standing up for the regions, not letting them down. Just last week—a prime example—Labor's leader, Bill Shorten, visited a number of towns in regional Queensland that have been all but ignored by the coalition. While the Liberals have been focusing their efforts on giving a $65 billion handout to big businesses, Labor has been hard at work announcing significant infrastructure projects that will create thousands of jobs and truly benefit the regions.
People in Caboolture, Rockhampton, Mackay and Townsville are not interested in the private lives of members of parliament, I can tell you that. They're not interested in the coalition's continual infighting; they're simply interested in jobs. The people in the regions want to know that decent and secure work is available to them, where they're renumerated fairly and the EBA agreed to by their employer isn't thrown out the window just for the sake of switching to a dodgy labour-hire company. That's what they want. Wherever possible they want to know that their jobs will benefit their community, not the interests of some huge foreign business.
The member for Herbert and I have been continually standing up for our regions in parliament. We've been holding the government to account and calling on them to support Queensland's regions. This is unlike government members in the regions, like the member for Dawson or the member for Capricornia. The member for Dawson knows just how badly the Liberals have been treating Queensland. He has threatened to cross the floor a number of times, but in the end always votes with the Liberals to benefit big businesses. Instead of doing any meaningful work to strengthen Queensland, he has been doing a photo shoot that makes light of the recent gun violence, and I think that's absolutely appalling.
As I mentioned before, what I've heard from people all over Australia in my role as the chair of the Australian Jobs Taskforce is that they feel that they've been let down by the government. Instead of listening to them, the only discussions that the government have been involved in have been in the shadows, in corporate boardrooms, hidden away from average, hardworking Australian people. I've heard this wherever I've gone right across the country. What I also hear is hope—hope that at the next election Australians will vote in a government that cares. The Australian voters will take a really good, hard look at the ballot paper and know that when they put pen to paper only Labor will stand up for the regions, for jobs and for hardworking Australians.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (11:20): This government has a very proud record and, in fact, a very exciting tale to tell on jobs at the moment, with 403,000 new jobs created in the economy last year, and 75 per cent of those being full time. That's a record job creation package. It's a great performance and we should be very proud of it.
To the motion, let me say it highlights lots of government jobs that have gone missing from Townsville, particularly in defence, but it also mentions CSIRO, customs and the ATO. Firstly, let me say that I am not aware that any of those jobs have been moved for anything other than operational issues. Would we expect anything less, as taxpayers and as a nation, than that these departments should run themselves in the most efficient manner? What else should we do? Defence will decide where their resources need to be, as will the ATO and the other government departments.
The second issue I'd like to raise is that the member's motion carries the implication that government employing people is a way of fixing unemployment problems. It is not. That is a clear misunderstanding of how our economy runs. Basically governments tax businesses and individuals to raise money to provide services. Those services result in people being paid and getting jobs. Really it has only shifted a job out of the business that generated the income in the first place and therefore paid taxation. It's right and proper that that should be done—I'm certainly not suggesting that we don't tax businesses and individuals in Australia and provide government services; of course we should, and we do—but we should provide the services where the services are needed.
This comes back to something I spoke of many times in the House, for instance, with the paucity of doctor supply in rural and regional Australia and the fact that largely their incomes resolve around the public purse, if you like—the subsidy scheme—but we seem to have no mechanisms of actually controlling where they deliver those services. That is a digression from this particular motion, but I just make the point that what we should be focusing on is growing jobs for businesses and individuals to grow employment in the communities.
Of course when you've got bigger communities you will need more government workers. Unfortunately in so many of our communities—particularly in South Australia, I must say; the good people of South Australia have the ability to pass judgement on their current state government in just a couple of weeks' time—those jobs have been reducing in regional and rural areas and not growing. But that's not because the government jobs have disappeared; it's because the primary jobs have disappeared.
I would love to speak on this subject in my electorate in three or four weeks, by which time, I'm very hopeful, we will have announced the recipients of the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages around the Upper Spencer Gulf, which was a government action to move in when we had the very tough times in Whyalla and Port Augusta with the closure of the power station there to generate economic outcomes to employ more people. There are three possible ways people can apply to that $20 million worth of funding. There can be public infrastructure, and I know some councils have put some bids in along those lines; there is education and training; and, of course, there is support for businesses to grow their businesses to employ more people.
That is certainly where I hope the bulk of that money goes. It will be up to the minister of course and the department to make those decisions but I'm hoping that's where it will go. I know some of the bids that are in the mix. For instance, there is crane company looking to purchase a mobile crane that at this stage is not available in Australia and is tall enough to reach the latest of the new windfarms going into my electorate and into others. There is another company looking to grow their kingfish operation. They are breeding kingfish fingerlings, feeding them up and capturing premium markets overseas. It is a wonderful fish. I recently toured their facility. I am looking forward to that package. We've got a good story to tell but we need to be focused on those primary jobs, the jobs in private enterprise that feed the rest of the economy. (Time expired)
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (11:25): I would like to reflect on a couple of remarks made by the people on the government side, first of all the suggestion that this government has created hundreds of thousands of jobs in Townsville. Are they going to start asking primary school and high school children to work? There are just under 200,000 people that live in Townsville so I encourage members when they get excited in this place just to be careful of the language they are using. They might cause a bit of a mad stampede to Townsville if this government has been so successful in creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. It's just not true.
I also want to pick up on something that the previous speaker said about how we need to make sure that our public sector jobs are where they are needed. There is no greater case than northern Queensland for us to have a strong Public Service. Melbourne is closer to Brisbane than Townsville. Townsville is a long distance from Brisbane, and what we are seeing happen under this government is a consolidation of our Public Service and the frontline services in our metro cities. So it is really rich of this government, which claims to represent the regions, which claims to be the voice of the regions, both the Liberals and National parties, to say to the people in Townsville, the people in Cairns, the people of Mackay, 'You know what? Your shopfront, your ability to talk to the Public Service, is in Brisbane.' You might as well say it is in Melbourne. In my part of the world, we too have suffered under job cuts, since his government got elected, in the Public Service.
The other point I would like to make is what this government has engaged in is not job creation in the regions but job transfer. It shut down the Bendigo ATO office, which serviced north and central Victoria. We are now basically down to about three shopfronts where people can go to get face-to-face support in Victoria. There is a Geelong office that is in the member for Corio's electorate, there is Dandenong and there is Melbourne CBD. So everybody in the north, if they wish to have a face-to-face meeting about tax—and our tax is complicated—whether they be individuals or whether they be small businesses, have to go to Melbourne CBD. It is simply unacceptable. That is what this government has done.
This government has also shut down the Australian Emergency Management Institute on Mount Macedon. The government will say it was for operational reasons. No it wasn't; it was a land grab. It was the former Attorney General's Department and the razor gang in the 2014 budget that looked at the property prices of Mount Macedon and said, 'Beautiful, we can make a profit,' without engaging with the local community, without even talking to the local real estate agents, who are members of their own political party, who would have told them that the bushfire overlay would make it impossible to build on this land. So they shut down the Australian Emergency Management Institute, a world-class facility training people to have expertise on how to deal with emergencies whether it be floods or whether it be bushfire risk. They transferred it to an online virtual institute run from Canberra. We are lucky that the state government bought the facility off the government and has in the last few weeks reopened it as the Victorian Emergency Management Institute so at least the Victorian firefighters and at least the Victorian people involved in emergency management will still have access to that facility and the training they require.
What has happened to Centrelink? It is another disgrace of this government. Rather than directly employing people, rather than engaging their casuals and getting them on full-time jobs and onto a pathway to a career, what this government has done is keep them on contracts. What this government has done is keep them as casuals. I have a smart centre in my electorate, just like the member for Herbert does in Cairns. They are based in regional areas. That happened under a former, Labor government. But what this government has done, rather than continue to give the casuals the training they require so they can become full time and can help people when they call and as they need it, is outsource it. This government's waste on consultants and waste on contractors is an example of how it just doesn't understand how to deliver a quality Public Service that Australians can depend upon.
Whether it be Townsville, Bendigo or Ballarat, the government have dropped the ball. They talk about what they're doing in Geelong in relation to the NDIA—which, again, was started by the former, Labor government, which made Barwon Heads in Victoria the home of the NDIS and NDIA. That is not the case with the current government. They've just slowed the rollout of the NDIS. The government have let the regions down when it comes to public sector jobs, and that money being lost from our communities hurts. It hurts our regional economies and it hurts our regional communities.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Mining
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (11:30): I move:
That this House:
(1) supports the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project because:
(a) its proponents, Adani Australia, already employ 800 workers in Queensland;
(b) it will open up the Galilee Basin and lead the way in creating as many as 15,000 jobs across five potential mines for the workers of Central and North Queensland; and
(c) it will improve the lives of millions of Indians by providing their country with affordable and safe electricity; and
(2) notes that the Opposition is now opposed to the project, endangering both existing and future jobs in regional Queensland as evidenced by:
(a) the Leader of the Opposition stating that 'Labor is increasingly sceptical and today's revelation, if true, is incredibly disturbing, and if Adani's relying on false information, that mine does not deserve to go ahead';
(b) Senator Singh stating that 'I believe the Adani coal mine is a big mistake for this country';
(c) the Shadow Minister for Environment and Water stating that the Carmichael coal mine 'will simply displace existing coal operations elsewhere in Australia. There will be jobs lost elsewhere in Queensland or there will be jobs lost in the Hunter Valley … The demand for thermal coal exports around the world is in rapid decline and I think instead we should be talking about other economic developments and job opportunities for North Queensland'; and
(d) the Member for:
(i) Charlton tweeting that 'Hunter coal mining jobs are endangered by the Adani project'; and
(ii) Gellibrand stating that 'the reality is, the Adani coal mine has always been something that regional Queenslanders know well: snake oil'.
I'm glad we're talking about jobs in North Queensland—or at least we were for a while, before we moved on to Victoria—as it's very apt considering what we're about to talk about right now. The Carmichael coal project in the Galilee Basin represents an enormous benefit for Queensland and Australia, raising billions of dollars in royalties and billions of dollars through income taxes and GST. The project will generate 10,000 direct and indirect jobs, an outcome the greenies are desperate to downplay. I even had one of these extreme greens write to me to tell me the project would create just 1.5 jobs. The truth is that Adani already employs 800 people in Queensland, even before a shovel has been put into the ground. Contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars will sustain employment not only in Queensland, North Queensland in particular, but in other parts of the country, including the already announced $74 million deal to buy railway steel from Arrium's Whyalla steelworks in South Australia. Townsville and Rockhampton will be home bases for workers who fly in and fly out to what is a very remote mine site, hundreds of kilometres and a mountain range away from the coastline.
The Carmichael coal project will open up the Galilee Basin, creating as many as 15,000 jobs across five potential mines, which is precisely why a multi-use rail line linking to the port should have been funded, or at least financed, by the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. I note that Mackay is going to be a logistics hub for this project and Bowen is going to be the railway hub for the project, spreading those jobs right across our region. In India, coal from the Galilee Basin will provide hundreds of millions of people with power, bringing them out of energy poverty—families that have no electricity at all and suffer all the ill health effects of burning dung and other such substances, the only alternative energy source they have, in their homes.
But none of these benefits are supported by the Greens and none of them seem to be supported by Labor. Labor don't support these jobs. Labor don't support workers having these jobs in Townsville, Rockhampton, Mackay or Bowen. They don't support the mining service companies in Mackay that want the work. They don't support the Whyalla steelworks, which wants to work. They don't support the infrastructure and economic growth that will come from this project. They don't even support the massive revenue boost that both state and federal governments will get from the opening up of the Galilee Basin. It's no wonder that unions are bleeding members when Labor's doing this. Workers don't want to waste the money they earn from their jobs to fund a party that is out to destroy those jobs. Asked again and again, the Leader of the Opposition has refused to support the Adani project. His weasel words were that the project must 'stack up commercially and environmentally', and then he said:
Labor is increasingly sceptical and today's revelation, if true, is incredibly disturbing. If Adani is relying on false information, that mine does not deserve to go ahead.
It wasn't false information, but he said, 'The mine doesn't deserve to go ahead.' The business community can translate those weasel words into English and they know that, if a weasel says he's 'increasingly sceptical', he doesn't support it. It just means he doesn't have the guts to come out and say it, because he knows that, in doing so, he's shafting thousands of workers in Queensland. The shadow environment minister filled in the blanks when he said of the Adani project:
I have a very clear view that the economics of Adani don't stack up, and it would not be a positive thing for Australia for the Adani mine to go ahead.
'Not a positive thing'? Well, the project has already stacked up. It has passed all the environmental approvals that the government gives, so his comment is just a personal view about not wanting the project to go ahead.
Even in Queensland, where the most benefits from the coalmine will come, Labor opposes the mine in favour of green votes. It was the Queensland Labor government itself that applied for the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility loan to build the railway line to the Galilee Basin, and then, under pressure from the inner-city green voters, the Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, vetoed the loan and withdrew support for Adani. Labor's federal MPs and senators are also forthright in their lack of support for these jobs. Senator Singh has said:
I believe the Adani coalmine is a big mistake for this country.
She is a Labor senator. The member for Shortland, who is going to speak on this, said:
Hunter coal mining jobs are endangered by the Adani project.
The member for Gellibrand took it further, saying:
… the reality is, the Adani coal mine has always been something that regional Queenslanders know well: snake oil.
Labor's federal leader has even described the employment opportunities being created by Adani as 'fake jobs'. Well, I can assure him that they are real. There are 200 workers receiving pay packets in Townsville. It would be good if the member for the Townsville area, the member for Herbert, spoke up. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Landry: I second the motion.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (11:36): I rise proudly to speak on this motion because, yet again, we have seen myths being peddled by the member for Dawson. Let's look at some facts. Fact 1: global coal consumption peaked in 2013. Fact 2: Chinese coal consumption has fallen by nearly four per cent. Fact 3: imports of coal to India have fallen considerably. Fact 4: global seaborne thermal coal volume, which is the main Australian thermal coal market because we ship our coal via the seaborne trade routes, peaked in 2013 and has fallen every year. The global thermal coal trade market has declined every year since 2013. The market for thermal coal globally is declining. That is not contested by any serious economic commentator in this area.
So we've got a declining coal market, and the proposal from the member for Dawson and the rest of the coalition is a billion-dollar subsidy to open up new supply that threatens existing coalmines in my region. I have 18,000 coalminers in the Hunter region. If you subsidise competition into a declining market, by definition, you are imposing competition that will drive down coal prices and threaten the livelihood of those 18,000 coalminers.
I'm proud to stand up to support those coalminers. My neighbour's a coalminer. My kids go to child care with coalminers' kids. My local footy team is packed to the rafters with coalminers watching play and is sponsored by a coal company. I'm proud that we've been mining coal in the Hunter region since 1799. Ironically, the first coal dug up was exported to India. I'm proud of all those facts, and I'll stand up for coalminers in this place and say: I don't support a billion-dollar subsidy that threatens their jobs, because this is all this is about.
I won't be lectured to about support for coalminers by these people. I don't see them at the Northern Districts miners memorial that occurs every year in Cessnock, which commemorates the 1,800 workers who have died in coalmines in the Hunter region—miners as young as 11 and as old as 76 who have died in those coalmines. I've never seen a single coalition representative at that memorial, even though the electorate of the member for New England has many Hunter coalmines in it. So this is rank hypocrisy by the coalition.
That doesn't amaze me. The coalition profess a love of Queensland, but this is the party of the Brisbane line. This is the party that supported not defending anywhere north of Brisbane during World War II. This is the party that's proud of the corrupt Jo Bjelke-Petersen regime that destroyed Queensland for 20 years. So this is all weasel words from a government that has nothing of substance to say on this region. Oh, come on!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The member seeks a point of order?
Mr Christensen: Does he support the mine or not?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member; that's not a point of order.
Mr CONROY: It shows I've hit a sensitive note there—he's been forced to take spurious points of order.
Let's go back to the facts. A billion-dollar subsidy is a bad idea. I do not support it at all because it threatens hundreds of coalmining jobs. I support our existing coalmines. They've got a long life. Sixty-five per cent of Australia's trade in coal is in metallurgical coal, coking coal, and that's got a strong future, but thermal coal trade is declining globally. We need to be cognisant of the fact and make sure we've got plans in place for a transition that should take decades. The most important thing we owe to coalminers and the communities that depend on them is honesty—honesty to say that change is coming, honesty to say, 'We will work with you over the decades when the change is occurring to transition your industry and the communities that depend on you.' The easiest thing for a politician to do in this place is to lie to people—to put their head in the sand and say, 'Change isn't coming.' Well, change is coming. As I said, global coal consumption peaked in 2013 and it is declining every year, and we need to be honest with our communities.
I'll end where I began by saying that I'm proud to represent a coal community, I'm proudly embedded in that community and I recognise the world that coal delivered to my region for 200 years. But we need to face up to the facts, stop peddling lies, stop giving people false hope and stop trying to subsidise a Queensland project that imperils the 18,000 coalminers in my community.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Chief Nationals Whip) (11:41): Central Queensland is a vital cog in the machine that is the national economy. It is home to a range of national industrial capitals: Rockhampton, the undisputed beef capital of Australia; Blackwater and Moranbah, the coal capitals; and Gladstone, the energy capital of Australia. Living in such close proximity and being responsible for those who work within these industries gives one a particularly privileged and detailed understanding of the industries that, quite literally, keep the lights on and the wheels turning.
I always enjoy my trips to Canberra because I get to witness some of the greatest acts of hypocrisy one could imagine. For those opposite to have the audacity to, in almost the same breath, cry for greater funding for health and education while downplaying and outright lambasting projects like the Carmichael mine is unbelievable. As they don't really understand, I'll explain it for them. The budget of your beloved Labor government in Queensland lives and dies by coal royalties. Just last year, the Queensland Treasurer, Curtis Pitt, recorded a budget surplus because of coal royalties boosting it to $3 billion. The Queensland government is dependent on mining royalties to keep its record-breaking program of hiring public servants going. Without said royalties, it would be forced to face the dire consequences of its drunken-sailor spending spree.
But don't get too down in the dumps. We do have coalmining and we do have royalties—thus, the budget is saved. In Central Queensland, we have two major coal basins: the Bowen Basin in the east and, tucked behind it to the west, the Galilee Basin. The natural resources within these basins are immense and provide enormous benefit to the state and national economies and to government budgets. The Bowen Basin is a household name in Queensland, as it should be throughout the rest of the country. The coal seams of the Bowen Basin provide for thousands of direct jobs and billions of dollars in gross domestic product. These coal seams are more than that to me, though; they are the basis for thousands of families and dozens of small communities across the region. These coal seams do not just create some carbon-emitting hole in the ground; they create a home for so many Central Queenslanders.
When it comes to important items like national security, foreign aid and natural disaster recovery, we will tie ourselves in knots and abandon internal ideologies to ensure a bipartisan approach, because these things are considered important. Why is it, though, we can't prioritise economic advantage for rural Australians? As a National and a passionate regional member, I've seen firsthand just how much can be achieved by pulling appropriate levers to unlock the economic potential of people in the bush: the real battlers, the men and women of the weatherboard and iron. Why is it that we cannot prioritise bipartisan support for these people and their lives?
Right now, we see a project in the west of my electorate that is being torn apart by policy uncertainty. The Adani Carmichael mine project has suffered at the hands of policy redirection, particularly, most recently, with the Labor state government deciding to veto a NAIF loan that they applied for. We now have the federal opposition leader gallivanting around the countryside undermining one of this country's great economic development opportunities just to try win a few extra votes in the Batman by-election. I have a message for the sellouts opposite: get on board and help us provide some certainty and hope to the men and women of rural Queensland, people who just want to get themselves and their families ahead and to give their kids a better, more prosperous future than they themselves enjoy—people who the Labor Party used to be about. These are the people who want to get a chance at a better life through the development of the Galilee Basin. These are the people we should be fighting for by not pillorying a project that has all of the approvals it requires—more than any mine in our history—and is already employing hundreds of Central Queenslanders for preliminary works.
I say to those opposite: go to towns like Clermont and Alpha, where the project is already having a positive effect, and tell them that they don't deserve a job. Tell them, while you sip on your coal-powered soy latte, that their jobs are somehow immoral and must end. I know that you won't, because you know that to do so would be hugely offensive. Continuing the same line in parliament or in Batman is no different. If you don't have the guts to say it to their faces, don't say it in this place. Bipartisanship is reserved for important issues. What could be more important than the economic development of our region? I will keep fighting for them, and I hope that some of those opposite can join me in fighting to give these people a real chance. (Time expired)
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (11:46): Ten days ago, the Australian newspaper published an article headed 'South32 dumps thermal coal, citing uncertainty, climate change'. Matt Chambers wrote that the BHP spinoff is:
… getting out of thermal coal because it is becoming less attractive to investors, has an uncertain future that does not support long-term investment and because the world needs to decarbonise.
There is a clear structural shift underway in the global thermal coal market, a shift driven by a change in the nature of China's economic growth and its war on air pollution and a global shift away from coal-fired power generation.
The great hope for the thermal coal industry has been India. The Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, was elected on a promise of bringing affordable electricity to all Indians by 2019, but it's increasingly clear that the Modi government does not intend to deliver that promise on the back of Australian coal. The Indian government has imposed production quotas on the local industry that are intended to put an end to coal imports by the end of this decade. Thermal coal imports to India have been declining substantially since 2015 and are expected to continue to do so.
I pause to emphasise that I'm not dealing with the outlook for coking coal, which remains relatively robust as industry still searches for cleaner ways to make steel, but the outlook for thermal coal traded across the seas is a different matter. Australian governments have still been consistently bullish about the outlook for thermal coal exports. The energy white paper of 2012, for example, forecast that total coal exports were expected to grow strongly to up to 690 million tonnes by 2025. The paper said pointedly that 'increasing demand has meant that an entirely new coal precinct has opened up in Queensland's Galilee Basin.' The reality today, though, is quite different. Total coal exports are running at around 390 million tonnes, not 690 million tonnes, about half of which is thermal coal, and volumes have been flat for several years now.
The IEA, the International Energy Agency, describes the Adani Carmichael mine as the only significant export-oriented greenfields project—that is to say a project in the new thermal coal basin—on the face of the planet. The case made a decade ago for opening up the new thermal coal basin rested on demand projections that are fundamentally inconsistent with current market trends and the more probable scenarios for future global demand. In all of the many discussions that I've had over recent years with different interests about the Galilee Basin projects, a consensus view has been put to me that they are simply not financially viable. Adani, we know, continues to struggle to get financial backing for the Carmichael mine, which was most recently seen in the decision of the largest Chinese banks to walk away from the project. The projects that are next in the Galilee queue, owned by GBK and Clive Palmer, appear even further removed from financial viability.
We all recognise that there is a great deal of frustration in Queensland about the constant delays and the debate about the Adani project and whether the promised jobs will ever really happen. In a region that's been hit very hard by the end of the mining boom, job opportunities are crucially important. Bill Shorten isn't willing to wait on Adani's continual delays in this project, delays that will likely come to naught, anyway. He's putting concrete announcements with the member for Herbert and others from Queensland for the people of Central and North Queensland about jobs that we can guarantee will happen.
I and most commentators might be wrong about all this. Adani's project at Carmichael might notionally go ahead, particularly if the Turnbull government finds some way of throwing a heap of taxpayer money at it, but the industry itself has been clear that any thermal coal mine from the Galilee to chase a declining seaborne market would simply displace coal and jobs in existing coal regions like the Hunter Valley—advice contained in the details of a report from the well-known coal industry analysts Wood Mackenzie. For the life of me, I can't see how that prospect is in the national interest.
Even on the IEA's two degree scenario—a scenario that says we do achieve the Paris commitments—there will continue to be substantial demand overseas for thermal cold exported from Australia's established basins, like the Hunter Valley, for some time to come, but the growth projections that underpin plans for a brand-new basin in the Galilee have simply disappeared.
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (11:51): I support the Carmichael coalmine and associated rail and port projects in that region. Coal is still a booming industry, which can be seen through the announcements of late by Allied coalfields, which extended their coal leases for another 20 years. The Rylstone coalmine is going very well and the Baralaba North project is now underway. There is a very good future for coal, and I think Adani and the Carmichael mine should be a part of that.
Along with coalmines come jobs. Jobs are so very important for the Central Queensland area. Many jobs come along, and the skilled workforce has diminished over the last 10 years or so, and there are quite a few skilled projects involving workers not existing. This will help fill the void of the unskilled workforce and skill those people up for the future. Adani already employ about 800 staff on site, whether it be in the Galilee Basin or at Abbot Point. They have made purchases of land, equipment and ports in the area, but they are being continually frustrated by the people getting in the road, people such as protesters and the like, as well as by government approvals. They have had the environmental impact statement approved by the federal minister and there are no issues there. They've been well and truly scrutinised over the environment and they've come up to the mark on all points. The jobs are very, very important. If the mine ever gets underway there will be 3,700 permanent jobs. Townsville and Rockhampton are the fly-in fly-out centres, but there are towns in my electorate, like Emerald, Blackwater, Capella and Springsure, that will help with those jobs by having drive-in drive-out workers. It's not that far away from the Galilee Basin.
There are three main coal basins in Queensland: the Bowen, the Surat and the Galilee. If the railway line, which would be a standard gauge—four foot 8½—line, is built into Bowen or Abbot Point, it would open up more country. It would be a shared railway line, which would give benefits to all the people along that 400 kilometres of railway line. I understand that most of the agreements with 36 farming properties, from Clermont and the coalmine through to Bowen, have been approved or are well on the way to being approved by the landholders and Adani. So let's hope, for their sakes, it goes ahead. The four feet 8½ inches line will be the first in Queensland and will of course carry a lot more per axle than the wagons on the three feet six inches gauge railway line as we have throughout Queensland at the moment.
There are 250 million people in India who do not have electricity, and these people need to be looked after. We have our free trade agreements. We haven't had one with India yet. But this is all part of looking out for our friends in India. If we can help them, then we're helping the world and the welfare of other nations and our own.
What it will do for our economy is humongous. Gladstone Port last year, 2017, had a record 120 million tonnes of exports—mainly coal and gas, and grain and agricultural products. So that too will add to the Bowen Basin and also to the Bowen area. People up there are really looking forward to this project going ahead. I think their wishes should be considered along with those of other people. They need the work; they need the jobs. They need to see their investments in that area go ahead and expand. This is not happening at the moment. I was up in Bowen only three weeks ago, over Christmas, and things were pretty steady. The people of Bowen are crying out for these jobs. (Time expired)
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:56): If, 20 years ago, you had been told that the Labor Party would be using all of their energies to stop coalmining, you would've thought you were mad, because the CFMEU would kill you. Well, I can assure the ALP that the CFMEU are going to kill you!
We're criticised all the time for having a close personal relationship. Yes of course I have—I represent coalmining areas and have all my life.
Collinsville had 6,000 people. It was a thriving community. It had the highest average income of any town in Australia when it was in my old state electorate under the Bjelke-Petersen era. We built the railway lines; we built 6,000 kilometres of railway line into the coalfields and a couple of mineral basins as well.
They accuse us of being agricultural socialists. But I'll tell you one thing for sure: they are not socialists. If socialism means that the people own the asset, they are not socialists. They are the representatives of the capitalist class, because the ALP in Queensland sold the railways and corporatised the electricity industry, for which the people of Queensland annihilated them in the worst defeat ever recorded in Queensland history. Their opponents were so mind-numbingly stupid that they went into the next election promising to privatise what was left, and achieved an even greater landslide!
The people are not prepared to have this country owned by foreigners. This is not about A-D-A-N-I—I'm not going to keep on using the name. This is about the Galilee. Half of Australia's coal is in the Galilee. I am sick and tired of the primitive stupidity that I hear in this place. Are you going to seriously tell me that a coal-fired power station is going to be more expensive than and has no future up against solar energy? I'll give you the figures—not my figures, but Finkler's figures: $40 for coal-fired power; over $100 for solar power. If you like paying 150 per cent more for your power, well, keep going with solar. I'll tell you what it does. It closes the power stations in Australia, and they're closing at the rate now of one every two or three years. It is closing the coalmines that supply them. These jobs are being exported to China, so, instead of producing the electricity here, we now produce the electricity via the production coming out of China.
Mr Trump is getting very popular despite the left-leaning budgerigars in America because he said: 'None of your solar panels are coming into America anymore. We're going to produce our own. We're going to provide jobs for our people.' The Labor Party was the party that created jobs, that built the railways, that built the sugar mills, that built the dairy factories in Queensland, and my family were very proud to be part of the Labor Party for about 50 years like the rest of Queensland outside of Brisbane was. And then of course, later on, like other people outside Brisbane, we ended up in the Country Party and were proud to be part of that party. But they built the railway lines. That we can be arguing about giving a thousand million dollars to a foreign corporation—it will not open up the Galilee. It'll open up one mine. If there's anyone in this place naive enough and stupid enough to believe that the most powerful infrastructure magnate on earth is going to allow his railway line to be used by his competitors to sell their coal then they believe in the Tooth Fairy.
Have a look at what happened in Western Australia. The law said to BHP that it had to be a multi-use facility. There was never a tonne of iron ore carried on the BHP railway line. I'm quoting Twiggy Forrest, who spent 21 years fighting to try to get access to a railway line which by law he should have been given. So forget about that. It's not going to open up the Galilee; it's going to open up one mine in the Galilee. The government could build this railway line as they build the other 6,000 kilometres of railway line—it's just a tiny little 300. But the state government said they've got no money, but the ALP plucked five thousand million out of the air for yet another tunnel in Brisbane, the most tunnelled city on earth, and the LNP plucked five thousand million out for a road tunnel. So they've got the money all right, but they're not going to use it to provide jobs for Queenslanders. That's not going to happen. (Time expired)
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:02): This debate shows the complete disconnect that the opposition have that I see in this place very week. The opposition come into this parliament day after day and complain. They want more money spent on universities. They want more money spent on schools. They want more money spent on aged care. They want more money spent on disabilities, more money on hospitals, more money for everything bar the kitchen sink. But, when it comes to creating the wealth that actually can pay for those things, they're against it every single time. We've got a complete disconnect. As the member for Kennedy correctly said, the Labor members of old would be rolling in their graves if they saw how today's Labor Party has rolled over and sold out to the Greens.
If you want to create wealth, if you want to have more money for all the things that are important that all of us as members of parliament see in our electorates, you've got to get behind the wealth creation projects of this nation. Whether you like it or not, it is the coalmines of this nation—that black coal seam that runs down our eastern seaboard—that are one of the greatest sources of wealth creation that we have in this nation. And yet the Labor Party want to close it down and stop it, to stop jobs. And why? Simply to try to win green votes in the city, to give up on their own people in the regions.
We had the member for Hunter talking about the decline in thermal coal exports. Unfortunately, the member for Hunter is completely out of date. Why a member who represents a coal area would come into this parliament and talk down the prospects of coal exports in this nation is beyond me.
Let's look at some of the figures that the members on the other side conveniently forgot. Last year in this country our coal exports increased in value by 33 per cent. We had the largest value of coal exports in our nation's history. Last year our exports of thermal coal to Japan increased by 50 per cent. China's consumption of coal last year increased by 5.2 per cent. The International Energy Agency, with their latest predictions, predicts the world demand for coal will increase by 200 million tonnes out to the year 2020. Some information came in only this morning: in January our exports of coal to China increased by 9.4 per cent year on year. China also increased their imports of coal in January up 40 per cent from Indonesia and up 43 per cent from Russia. Yet we have members of the Labor Party talking down the prospects of coal. What would the old members of the Labor Party say if they saw that?
The member for Kennedy also talked about what's happening in the USA. We saw a release from only last week from their Energy Information Administration with the title, U.S. coal production, exports, and prices increased in 2017. In fact the US last year had a 60 per cent increase in their exports of coal, the largest year-on-year increase since the year 2001. Again members of the Labor Party talk this down and pretend that the coal thermal exports are in this massive decline.
As the member for Kennedy said, we do need more baseload generation in this nation. Whether it comes from coal, gas or some other combination of renewables with some type of storage doesn't matter; we have to do it at the most economical price. When the member for Kennedy talks about comparing the cost of generating electricity from coal versus some type of intermittent and unreliable renewables, he is not making a comparison of apples and apples. Even though he is correct that coal has a much lower cost to generate electricity, it is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You cannot compare dispatchable power and intermittent and unreliable power in price. They are not the same product. (Time expired)
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (12:07): I was born and raised in Townsville and I have seen and experienced the impacts of policy decisions, both positive and negative, delivered by federal governments on my community—the community I am proud to represent. Let me say that in all of my years living and working in Townsville I have never seen such a negative impact on job cuts in my community than I have seen under the Abbott and Turnbull governments.
It's all well and good for the member for Dawson to stand in this place and put up this meaningless motion. I call it meaningless for a number of reasons, but the reality is that, when push comes to shove, the member for Dawson says one thing in Dawson and another in Canberra. In Canberra the member for Dawson does exactly what he's told by the Prime Minister. The member for Dawson talks a big game of bravado when he's in his own electorate, but he cowers and follows the Prime Minister when he is in Canberra. His track record proves this. If we're talking about the jobs that this motion is referring to, let's just look at the fact that he has voted five times in favour of the $65 billion tax cut to big business. He has voted against penalty rates, which affects 13,000 people in his electorate. The member for Dawson has supported cuts to education, TAFE and universities, which will hurt James Cook University and Central Queensland University. Cuts to education are job cuts, and they are also the cuts that severely impact on the skill building that Queenslanders will need into the future. The member for Dawson has supported cuts to public sector jobs. The list rolls on.
His track record when it comes to jobs for North Queenslanders is not good. Just a few moments ago I moved a motion against hundreds of job cuts delivered by the Abbott and Turnbull governments to Townsville. I did not hear the member for Dawson speak to that motion. I did not see him fighting against the job cuts that his coalition government has delivered. The question is: where was the member for Dawson when these critical job cuts occurred?
The member for Dawson's motion is insincere and I don't buy it. If he were genuinely sincere in fighting for jobs he would have stood up to the Prime Minister when it counted. He would not have voted to give a $65 billion tax cut to big business and he would have voted to protect penalty rates but he has not done that.
I made a commitment to the people of Herbert that I would fight tooth and nail in this place for jobs for my community, and my record is quite clearly different to that of the member for Dawson. I have fought for and lobbied my Labor team and have been able to deliver real commitments and real jobs. I fought for the Townsville stadium. Labor was the first to the table on this infrastructure project, and the government was dragged kicking and screaming to the table five minutes before the election. That project is now delivering 750 jobs. I fought for large infrastructure projects that Townsville needs to ensure water and energy security. That is why Labor committed $100 million towards stage 2 of the pipeline that will give us water security and that is why Labor has committed $200 million to support the Burdekin Dam hydro project which will deliver at least 150 construction jobs. I fought for the port expansion project which will deliver $580 million of benefit to our city and jobs, and that was why the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for northern Australia were in Townsville last week committing $75 million towards that port expansion project.
These are the infrastructure projects I have fought for and have secured real commitments. That's my track record, instead of the deafening silence that we see from the member for Dawson when it comes to job cuts. I will continue to fight for quality secure jobs in all sectors of our community from public sector to mining to manufacturing to tourism to renewable energy and in the community sector. No one will stand in the way of jobs for north Queenslanders. I will never back down from fighting for secure jobs for the people of Townsville.
My position on the Adani coalmine has always been clear: if it stacks up environmentally and financially then it will go ahead. This is a commercial business and it needs to go through the processes that are required. But I will never support one red cent of money to the tune of $1 billion of taxpayers' money going to a foreign billion-dollar company. I will fight in this place every day for quality, secure jobs that the people of Townsville both need and deserve. So if we are talking about opportunities to build jobs for north Queenslanders, we should be talking about the very important infrastructure projects that our communities need.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Home Care Packages
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:
(1)notes that the latest:
(a)waiting list for Home Care Packages (HCP) indicates that more than 100,000 older Australians are waiting for the package they have been approved for; and
(b)figures showed that the HCP waiting list grew by more than 12,000 between 1 July and 30 September 2017 and it is likely to continue growing without funding for the release of more packages;
(2)recognises that the majority of older Australians on the waiting list are those seeking level three and level four packages, who have high care needs including many with dementia;
(3)condemns the Government for failing to stop the waiting list from growing; and
(4)calls on the Government to immediately invest in fixing the HCP waiting list and properly address this growing crisis
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (12:12): People don't contact their federal member of parliament very often to say that everything is great. They call us when they feel there is nowhere else to go because a system of some sort is failing them. And that is what we are seeing at the moment with families and spouses struggling with home care packages and it is why I am very pleased to speak in support of this motion. At my recent mobile office in Hazelbrook in the Blue Mountains, Noeleen O'Beirne and her daughter Siobhan came to see me. Noeleen's husband, Patrick, died last year at the age of 90. Patrick, who had a love of politics and a wicked sense of humour, had been assessed more than 12 months earlier as needing in-home care. He was frail. Noeleen's own health wasn't up to the up to the heavy work involved in assisting him and, of course, while the rest of the family did what they could, support was sorely needed. Patrick was assessed as needing level 4 care, the top level of care.
Let's be clear what that assessment would have shown. Level 4 home care packages are intended to support people who have high-level care needs. He may have been eligible to receive assistance with showering, dressing, home cleaning, help to use aids and appliances, some social support, meal preparation, medication management, nursing care, allied health support like physio, help with shopping, transport to get to appointments, and support with any changes to memory or behaviour. That was the package that he was judged to be eligible for. He also would have had such high-care needs that he most certainly would have been eligible to enter residential aged care but both Patrick and Noeleen, like so many elderly people, preferred to remain living in the home that they had called their own for so many years. Sadly, the help did not come in time. Their approved package only started to be delivered shortly before Patrick died. And what they did was reduce the quality of his and Noeleen's last months together. It increased the anxiety and the distress—and that is a disgrace. Noeleen tells me that in some ways, though, she feels lucky, because a friend of hers received his package six weeks after his death.
Similar calls, about long delays and packages not delivered, received by my office and also backed by the data that we're seeing show that Patrick and Noeleen are not alone. The latest numbers show that, in the three months to September, the waiting list grew by more than 10,000. We still don't have the December figures to know how much it grew in that period, but, with 100,000 older Australians, many of them frail, waiting for this government to provide the care they need, the wait is simply too long. Seventy eight thousand people on that list are waiting for high-care packages so they can avoid moving into aged care, which carries an even bigger cost burden to the taxpayer and brings with it such an emotional and financial burden to their spouses and their families.
Of course, not all the people waiting for home care packages are very elderly. Some have early onset dementia, and the ability of their partner to keep on working, to keep some control of one part of their life, depends on there being an adequate level of in-home care. Many people are forced to accept packages at a lower level than they're eligible for, just to get something. In fact, the minister encourages this. He said:
I would encourage people on waiting lists that whatever level you are offered initially, take that offer.
He cites budgetary pressures and an underestimation of demand on the problem. I don't underestimate his empathy for those impacted and I do acknowledge the 6,000 additional packages that came online, but it really is time he stood up to those in his government who hold the purse strings, because the only answer is a lot more packages. It's not good enough to tell people to make do. People who are assessed to be eligible for level-3 home care packages are more than likely eligible to enter residential care. Those on level 2 may also be eligible. Only level-1 packages are really designed to help people who would benefit from having a minor level of support—and they simply don't meet the needs of the 78,000 people on that waiting list.
There is urgency to this situation, just as there should be urgency when someone is assessed as being eligible for in-home support. They don't have all the time in the world, and we have a responsibility to ensure that people whose lives have often shrunk to revolve around their home get the care they need—because, right now, they're dying before the care they deserve even arrives.
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (12:17): I particularly want to address today the private member's motion on home care packages as I have a special focus on health care and health facilities in Dunkley. With the support of my neighbour the member for Flinders, who is now Minister for Health, I've fought extremely hard to secure a number of improvements to our local assets, including, for example, a fully funded Medicare licence for MRI at Frankston Hospital, which has now been in place for over a year, saving Dunkley locals thousands of dollars every year. Another example is Total Care Medical Group in Karingal, who were one of the trial participants in the Health Care Homes stage-1 trial. I have a record of fighting and will continue to fight for the best facilities, best programs and best access to health funding for residents in Dunkley.
Home care packages are another way that the Turnbull coalition government is providing consumers with greater choice and control over their own care. Freedom of choice comes back to the core ideology and vision of the Liberal Party, and we—the coalition government and I—absolutely support Australians having the choice to remain in their homes and in their communities, if that is their choice, yet still receive the care that they need. Retaining independence is one of the most important considerations in these situations, and we are working to support that consideration wherever possible.
This funding was formerly under the Home and Community Care program, whose recipients were of geographic variety and differing focus. While these providers do a brilliant job, these changes achieve much-needed visibility and accountability. I note the other speakers' comments about timeliness and dramatic growth of the waiting list; however, part of the transition from the HACC program to our new home care system includes a refocus on how the packages are distributed. Packages are now released directly to consumers, rather than to providers, and consumers who have the most urgent needs or who have been waiting the longest receive packages first.
The aged care planning region within which Dunkley falls—Southern Metro, Victoria—had 916 packages assigned to it according to the latest report, with its data catchment concluding on 30 September 2017. Over the same period there were a reported 4,188 consumers in care across the Southern Metro region, and 53 approved providers. In the Southern Metro region the majority of people queuing for packages are waiting for level 2 packages, a lower level of care than the member for Hindmarsh suggested is reflected across the country. I acknowledge that Dunkley may be in the minority in this regard; however, one aspect that may have been overlooked by the member for Hindmarsh is that many of the people who have been waiting for level 3 and 4 packages are receiving interim packages, allowing them to access services while they wait.
When a new program such as this home care system is released, there will always be an increase in demand, and we are better able to understand the extent of demand for home care packages nationally now that the distribution of home care packages has direct interaction with consumers. In light of this I commend the Turnbull government and Minister Wyatt for the release of an additional 6,000 higher care packages over 2017-18. In addition to this the 2017 budget provided for an investment by the Turnbull government of $5.5 billion to extend the Commonwealth Home Support Program for a further two years to June 2020. Even before this, approximately $461,000 was made available to deliver home support services, pending contractual agreements with service providers in Dunkley. We are committed to supporting our older Australians.
On a weekly basis 2,500 home care packages are released, an outstanding figure. We are aware of the sheer number of older Australians who are waiting for a home care package; however, we are working to address the backlog of demand that existed, even under the former Labor government's Living Longer Living Better program, whose problems we are still having to fix. It is absurd that other speakers are trying to condemn the government for working to fix aged-care funding problems of their own making; however, Australians will be glad to know that these changes and our new home care system are part of the Turnbull coalition government's commitment to quality care for senior Australians, whether they be in care or choose to stay at home in their community, surrounded by their loved ones.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (12:22): We just heard a sanctimonious speech by the member for Dunkley, saying that we can now understand the demand and we now have choice, and speaking of all the good things that this government somehow want to be recognised for. That's right: we can recognise demand, we can have choice—but the government is not funding. This government is so out of touch, and members in marginal electorates like Dunkley need to get their heads out of the sand and start understanding that a crisis is unfolding. They want pats on the back, while 10,000 vulnerable and older Australians are added to the wait list, then they have the cheek, the absolute gall, to somehow say, 'It's not our fault.' They have been in government coming now up to six years—
Mr Ramsey interjecting—
Mr DICK: The member for Grey says, 'Six years?' You're entering your sixth year of government. Work it out. The election was in 2013. You're in 2018. That's five years. You're entering your sixth year of government.
Mr Ramsey interjecting—
Mr DICK: He says, 'You're right.' I say to those opposite: stop the blame game, because vulnerable Australians aren't copping your nonsense. Those frail Australians in my electorate and other electorates right across Australia have had a gutful of a government that is so out of touch, so far from reality, that when we are talking about a crisis in the aged care sector, wants to get up and be congratulated for its work. Have the guts to acknowledge there is a problem in the system. Have the guts to go to my community. I acknowledge the member for Hindmarsh, who is here today, and thank him for putting this on the agenda and having the guts to get up and call the government out, to hold them to account.
As the Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I know he's been a constant champion for older Australians. We know there are approximately 80,000 to 90,000 home-care packages available in this nation, but the latest figures reveal there are now 101,508 elderly Australians waiting in the queue for appropriate home-care packages. Of these, more than 60,000 have no package at all and 40,000 have a package at a lower level than they need. It may comfort the government to talk about how great they are, how out of touch they are and how blaming a government back in 2011-12 is somehow the reason we're in this. That doesn't cut it. That's just political spin. That's just rubbish and that's insulting to people in the community. The member for Dunkley and other members opposite like the member for Forde need to work out that there is a crisis in the system.
We heard the minister say that there are financial constraints to keep people at home. I listened to government members speak today, and they talk about a refocus and reprioritisation—all mumble-jumble, all rubbish when it comes to actually tackling the issue. No-one's getting up here and calling out the government. No-one's getting out here and calling on the government to take action. They simply want to waltz back to their offices, put their feet up, put the kettle on and not worry about what is happening across the aged-care sector in Australia. We know what the government's priority is. We know that government members like the member for Dunkley and the member for Forde, who were in the chamber today, are not interested in fixing this crisis. They're not interested in tackling this issue. They're here for one reason and one reason alone: to deliver major tax cuts to millionaires and multinational companies. We know that that's their special interest. We know that they are more worried about what's happening at the top end of town, what's happening to those who least need a hand as opposed to those who are in trouble and those who are in a vulnerable situation.
Today I'm calling on the government to start addressing this crisis. I'm calling on the government to make sure that it's listening to the aged-care professionals, those in the sector who are demanding that the government take action on this crisis. We know that time and time again, when it comes to dealing with the tough issues—and I know the government has a lot on its hands with such a dysfunctional and chaotic that we're dealing with, with Liberal-on-Liberal violence, National-on-National violence, Liberal versus National, blowing themselves apart, but who are the losers? The people who required aged-care support in my community.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (12:27): I'd like to thank the member for Hindmarsh for bringing this motion to the House, because it provides me with the opportunity to speak about what I think is a very important issue for constituents in the electorate of Forde. As we are seeing across all of our electorates, as Australians are getting older and we're having the bulge of the baby boomers starting to enter retirement, as they get older they'll want increased healthcare services because they've reached a standard of living that they expect to retain through to when they pass away. But all of that comes at a cost, and somehow this has to be paid for.
I have no issue with the argument that we should be taking care of people and looking after them in their old age and in their frailty. Having family members directly in this situation, I am well and truly aware of the necessity and importance of ensuring that we have a sustainable system for older Australians to ensure that their healthcare needs can be met.
Where possible, the best place for people to be cared for is in their own home if for no other reason than that moving into an aged-care facility incurs enormous cost and dislocation from community and from friends and neighbours. In a lot of cases, people may have lived in those homes for 30, 40 or 50 years. The value of providing in-home care on that basis is incalculable.
I acknowledge the work that the previous Labor government did. The importance of that work is that we now have a true understanding of the requirements of the system. Before that, we had no idea, and that's where the changes that we brought in in February of last year give us a much, much clearer picture of the requirements in the system. I acknowledge that there are people on waiting lists. Everyone would like to think that we could make the waiting lists disappear overnight, but the reality is that that is not financially feasible. We have to look at how, through responsibly managing the budget—those opposite have carried on about tax cuts for business and whatever, but I'd remind them that back in November 2016 they voted against a package of multinational tax reform measures that have resulted in this government collecting an extra $4 billion in revenue that they voted against. That figure is heading towards $7 billion. So it is this government that has taken the steps necessary to ensure that businesses in Australia, whether they are multinational or purely Australian businesses, pay the appropriate levels of tax necessary to ensure that we can continue to afford to provide the services that Australians have come to accept, whether they are in education, health or child care or in a range of other areas.
This government is working very hard to ensure that we can continue to provide these services and grow the number of packages available to older Australians. Currently, some 2½ thousand packages are released on a weekly basis. In September last year we released an additional 6,000. We know that there is still much to be done in this space. We will continue to do it. We will continue to work with older Australians to ensure that, in the interim, if they can't get their full package they have a package of assistance to at least help them until they receive the full package that they are eligible for. That is what this government is continuing to do through any number of measures, some of which those opposite have voted against.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (12:32): What I'm hearing from the government members today is that mediocrity wins. I rise to support the motion on home care moved by the member for Hindmarsh, because there are unacceptably long waiting lists for home-care packages, and they impact my electorate more than many. The population of my electorate is the oldest in South Australia and the eighth oldest in the country. The median age is 46 years, and 22 percent of the people in my electorate are aged over 65.
The problem with growing waiting lists is clear to see. I was contacted by a 75-year-old constituent who'd been receiving assistance with his gardening through the Commonwealth Home Support Program. He was receiving just three hours of support a week, but that was scaled back to just one hour per fortnight because they'd had an influx of people in the program and couldn't provide any more support to him. What is the point of one hour per fortnight? It's a false economy, because what happens is that people don't get the assistance, they do things themselves, they fall over, they broke their hip, they are in hospital for an extended period of time and then they need even more support. It's ridiculous. Over a hundred thousand people are waiting for a home-care package. It is not good enough, and I can't believe that there would be a single member of the government who would stand up and champion this. You have got to be kidding! You're the party that older people vote for. The fact that you don't support them is astounding.
I had a whistleblower in my electorate—a woman who works in this field. She was so embarrassed to tell me—she was absolutely gutted and ashamed to tell me—that they had a person who had been on the waiting list for so long that, by the time a package was available and they rang up and said, 'Dear sir, a package is available for you,' he couldn't come to the phone because he had died. That's the kind of thing that we provide in this country. The minister is well aware of the problem. He was quoted on 2 February as saying, 'On the waiting list, whatever level you're offered, initially take that offer.' What kind of system do we have where the minister promotes that a person shouldn't get what they need—'Just take it. Be grateful for whatever you get'? I think it's about priorities. Clearly, providing support to our elderly Australians is not a priority of this government and I am deeply ashamed that we cannot do more in this parliament about it. We need to be smart and this is a smart thing to do, because the more we support people in their home, where they want to be, the less requirement there is for them to be moved into an aged-care facility. People do not want to be in those aged-care facilities if they can manage their needs at home. People want to be in their home. So I would say to government: 'Make this a priority. Make this a priority over tax cuts to multinationals. Make this a priority.'
I've spoken before in this place about my community of Strathalbyn, after the Kalimna aged-care facility closed, and I want to reiterate that this community is experiencing immense stress because we don't have the packages. The current data reveals that only 30 home-care packages are currently being delivered in this region and yet, by 2021, there will be demand for 97 packages. Sixty-seven extra packages need to be found and this government needs to find them. That's just one town in my community. I dread to think what this is like right across Australia. Without these home-care packages, more and more people will rely on nursing homes for support, but even aged-care beds are not keeping up with the growing demand. The township of Strathalbyn is going to see a 190 per cent increase in residents aged over 70 in the next 13 years. We need more support for older Australians. Older Australians and younger Australians must be the priority for us in here.
I concur with the member for Hindmarsh: this is an issue that doesn't make headlines and it should. We have an ageing population and we are a nation that is wealthy enough and smart enough to know how to properly care for our most vulnerable people. We cannot let these waiting lists go on forever. For the government to stand here and say that they're doing a good job and they're ticking this off, they've got to be kidding.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (12:37): Last week I had the great pleasure of having the aged-care minister in my electorate. We visited Ceduna and Peterborough. I'll come back to that in a moment. Let me say that, having spent a bit of time closely with the minister, I don't think we could get a man more up to the task, a minister more up to the task or anyone more engaged with the things that need to be done in aged care in Australia. That comes back to the changes that happened in February this year, which the minister explained in his speech on this matter in the main chamber. To the member for Hindmarsh, who I know cares about these issues, I suggest that, if he weren't there to listen to the minister at that stage, he should get a copy of the Hansard to see what he had to say. If he still doesn't fully understand what the minister said about the changes in circumstances that came about in February, then he should seek an audience with the minister, because I know he would be granted it. What the minister told us was that, prior to February this year, the demand for home-care packages was hidden within the providers' numbers. People who ran these institutions ran their own lists and, largely, the Commonwealth did not know how many people were on them. That all changed and now they are assessed independently and the Commonwealth knows what the demand level is. No significant change in numbers happened between December and March, so what this has identified is the backlog that has been there for quite some time. Of course, this is a challenge for the government to meet in a short time, but we've really only had those figures for fewer than six months. The minister's made a fair effort and over 6,000 new places were granted.
And let me say that home-care packages are one of the great advances of aged care around Australia, because, regardless of the cost, virtually everyone—including me when I get to that stage—I'm sure would rather live in their own house, would rather live in the place where they have enjoyed their life, surrounded by the artefacts, the photographs, the memories, of what their life has been. So it's a great move. It's a very good move, and it's where government and governments will continue to expand the effort.
But there is this backlog that we have to deal with, and it's not easy. I'm pleased with the response that the government's made at this stage, but we're going to have to keep working in that area. We understand that. We know that. That is why the minister has said: 'If you can't get the package you want at the moment, take something and get in the system, because then you will be monitored regularly, and, as your demand builds up, it can be reregistered.' It helps the argument. It helps us deal with that issue at government level.
I said I'd come back to Minister Wyatt's visit. In Ceduna, we visited the aged-care facility one evening with the local auxiliary group there, who have raised tens of thousands of dollars to refurbish rooms, and then the next morning we came back with the hospital and aged-care CEO. It's a very, very fine facility. Let me tell you: the views at the aged-care facility in Ceduna are second to none. Then we went on to the Ceduna Koonibba Aboriginal Health Service, and later in the day we went to Peterborough, on the other side of the electorate, if you like, in the east.
Peterborough is a symptom of something I've spoken about in this House before. Prior to coming to parliament, I served on local hospital boards in the late eighties and nineties. In our wisdom, in our smaller communities, we had hospital boards and we had hostel boards. In our wisdom, we decided to amalgamate those institutions because it made sense—and I still think it did—little anticipating that in the 2000s the state government at the time, being a Labor government, decided that they would sack all those hospital boards and take over the running of those facilities themselves. That meant the state government inherited a whole swag of aged-care facilities that they did not want, do not have particular interest in and find it very difficult to get grants for because they sit on state government land. It has really messed up the cake, if you like.
I took Minister Wyatt there so we could try to address those problems directly in Peterborough and deal with this issue that's been troubling the community for some time. Let me say that the community have over $1 million that they have raised, and they are one of the lowest socioeconomic communities in my electorate. I look forward to working with them and dealing with the issues I've covered in this speech.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (12:42): Ongoing inaction by the Turnbull government is jeopardising the progress made in aged-care services since Labor's historic Living Longer Living Better reforms. These reforms provided a 10-year plan to build a better, fairer and more sustainable and nationally consistent aged-care system. Unfortunately, the instability and inaction of the Liberal Turnbull government are threatening the continued progress of these critical reforms.
More than 100,000 older Australians are waiting for a package. The release of the latest data on the Turnbull government's home-care packages has revealed that more than 100,000 people are languishing in limbo and, of those, more than 10,000 are in Western Australia alone. The government says that those numbers had been hidden from it until the last six months. Well, did the government ever think of asking the sector, to find out? No.
The data shows that 80 per cent of older Australians waiting to have a package have high needs. Many have dementia. Currently, around half of people living in aged care have dementia, depression or another mental health or behavioural condition. The proportion of older people requiring high care for complex needs, which includes assistance with all activities of daily living, such as eating and bathing, has quadrupled from 13 per cent in 2009 to 61 per cent in 2016. The most concerning part is that these people are being told that they may have to wait more than 12 months before they even get a look in.
We are clearly now at a crisis point. The Turnbull government's commitment in September to readjust the ratio of places to create 6,000 additional packages has been proven to be woefully inadequate. This wouldn't even clear the queue in Western Australia, let alone across the entire nation. Without intervention, the waiting list will continue to grow, with more and more vulnerable older Australians forced into limbo without care. Meanwhile, many older Australians are instead presenting to hospitals around the country for acute care, are discharged into inadequate care and are then re-presenting at hospitals again and again. This is ultimately costing our community far more than if the government had just delivered the packages that were required.
The Turnbull government has known about this urgent situation for many months but is yet to turn its attention to this growing issue. I have heard horror stories from constituents in my electorate—indeed, even from constituents in the minister's electorate—who are anxiously waiting for their elderly relatives to be able to access an aged-care package while missing out on vital treatment and care. We have called time and again for the Turnbull government to fix this crisis as these waiting lists continue to grow. The minister's only commentary to date on the crisis has been to point out that some older Australians waiting for aged care will receive an interim package. An interim package is not good enough. It may be a start, and I heard the Minister say this again in the House today, but it isn't good enough.
In late 2015, the Turnbull government cut almost half a billion dollars from the aged-care funding instrument which allocates funding to residential care. The government did this on the basis of what it labelled 'higher-than-expected growth and expenditure' but without consulting with the people who would be affected and without any concern, clearly, for its impact. Then, less than six months later, the Liberals cut a further $1.2 billion from future residential care funding in their 2016 budget. The Turnbull government has refused to release any detailed modelling around these cuts, raising concern that it had no idea of what the impact of these measures would be on the provision of care for vulnerable older Australians.
Labor has consistently pushed this government on the issue, and in December 2016 we were successful in forcing it to back down on the harshest components of these measures. But the growing pile of work that is unanswered includes the Aged Care Legislated Review, which was led by David Tune. The only action the government has taken to date in response to that has been to roll out two of the 38 recommendations. The government has also not responded to 43 recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission's report on elder abuse released last year—instead, in recent weeks it's kicked off further reviews and consultations. Equally concerning is the lack of response to the 19 recommendations of the Committee on Community Affairs report into the future of Australia's aged care sector workforce released in June. There is no sense of urgency coming from this government when it comes to responding to the 10 recommendations of the Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes. To date, the only accomplishment is that the government has accepted one recommendation, which Labor had proposed six months earlier. The two reports, the Applied Aged Care Solution review and the Wollongong report on the cost of care, are now collecting dust in the minister's office. Older Australians and their families deserve much better than this. We now have 100,000 people waiting for a package, which is not only meaning that they are without care but also putting further and further strain on our hospital sector to look after them. The government needs to fix this problem now.
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (12:47): I rise to speak to this motion because I know from many older aged constituents in my electorate of Chisholm that they want to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. They also want a practical and pragmatic solution to enable them to remain in their own homes. Mental health, as we know, is so important to longevity, wellbeing and quality of life, and the overwhelming majority of people desire to remain in their own homes for this very reason. They want to stay somewhere where they feel comfortable and where their quality of life can remain. They want a homecare package that works, and that's why I'm so delighted about the Turnbull government's reforms that we introduced.
Labor think that the panacea to any issues in relation to this are Labor's Living Longer Living Better reforms, but under Labor the ratios set for the release of their homecare packages were inadequate and severely underestimated the real demand. The waiting lists for homecare packages are not new. They existed under Labor, and there was no way to determine the extent of the waiting period. Labor like to spin this as the solution, but it isn't. We have introduced practical, pragmatic solutions to the homecare package system. All Labor did was uncover a number of problems that existed under their watch that this government is having to fix. Australians were still waiting for homecare packages under Labor, and they did nothing to fix the problem. The introduction by the Turnbull government of the new national prioritisation queue has uncovered the extent of the problem left by the former Labor government, which this government is working on to fix. We inherited a homecare system from Labor with predetermined ratios that didn't work. Our 2017 aged care reforms and commitment to transparency have exposed the extent of the homecare mess left by Labor, and we are working to fix it.
How are we fixing this? In September 2017 we announced the release of 6,000 additional level 3 and 4 homecare packages over 2017-18. This more than doubled the planned growth of high-level packages this financial year already assigned to consumers, and we are releasing almost 2½ thousand homecare packages on a weekly basis. In addition to this, in the 2017 budget the Turnbull government provided an investment of $5.5 billion to extend the Commonwealth Home Support program, CHSP, for a further two years to June 2020. The Turnbull government is committed to quality care for senior Australians, including a record $18.6 billion aged-care investment in 2017-18, the first part of a near-$100 billion commitment planned for the next five years. Previously homecare waiting lists were administered by aged-care providers, but the Turnbull government's new national queue system is a pragmatic and practical solution which has brought much-needed visibility and accountability, providing consumers with greater capacity to plan for their aged-care needs. With this greater transparency, people can see where they are on the queue, and it has a practical reality rather than dealing with the great unknown.
The Turnbull government remains committed to older Australians and to keeping them at home, and this is what senior Australians continue to tell us—certainly the older constituents in my electorate of Chisholm and, indeed, their families who are dealing with the situation at this time in their lives. That's why in September 2017 we announced the additional packages. The $5.5 billion investment in the continuation of the CHSP actually provides a range of essential services to support older Australians who wish to remain living in their homes. This range of services includes Meals on Wheels, community transport, personal care, nursing and allied health, domestic assistance, cleaning, shopping, home maintenance and modifications, and a range of respite services. All of these services are essential to all of our daily lives, but they become particularly acute in older age. To stay at home rather than to go into institutionalised care is always the preferred option for older Australians, certainly in my electorate. So I'm very, very proud of the Turnbull government's commitment to quality care for senior Australians.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
Consideration resumed of the motion:
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.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (12:52): The wonderful electorate of Goldstein is full of many enterprising and entrepreneurial individuals. We may not have a particularly industry-filled electorate—in fact, our major centre of industry is around Bay Road in Sandringham—but we are allied to incredible industrial communities in and around areas such as Moorabbin, Braeside and Dandenong. A lot of the people who work in and own businesses and industry that help grow the potential of this great nation are in Goldstein—people who invested through their hard work and labours over many years to build the economic potential of this great country. Recently I was in parts of Braeside and Moorabbin, looking at die casting businesses as one of many businesses that are investing in the future and building the industry of our great country. Also within the Goldstein electorate there are thousands of people who own small businesses and work in the services sector as professionals who are also making an incredible contribution to building Australia's future.
That's why trade has always been at the centre of what Goldstein residents are concerned about. How can we create the potential and the opportunity that we need to make sure that future generations can have jobs, that we can create the wealth for our community and those beyond it, and that we can create the jobs that Australians need? That's why there's always been such a strong trade focus, and that's why there's so much enthusiasm and interest in the potential for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the new plurilateral trade agreement amongst 11 country partners across the Asia-Pacific rim. Of course we all know the long story behind the TPP. It was an agreement that was negotiated or attempted to be negotiated amongst many of the countries in our region. Unfortunately, a rise in popular sentiment towards protectionism has led some countries to back away. Ultimately, they are the ones who will suffer the consequences from not engaging the global marketplace.
I said in my first speech that we, as a country, are not an island continent producing finished goods. That is not who we are. That is not who the countries in our region are. That is not even what the United States is today. We are part of a global supply chain, producing and exporting goods and services to the world. So the opportunities that sit at the heart of free trade—free and open market access to the countries in our region—enable us to harness and take opportunities in that global supply chain to create economic benefits, and not just for us but globally, to increase economic and environmental efficiencies, and to use the productive capacity of our population and humanity to improve wealth and opportunities for everybody.
Under the TPP-11, we know there are incredible opportunities for people who live in Goldstein as well as across the great nation that we live in. We have increased market access to beef; we'll see reductions in tariffs from countries like Japan, Canada and Mexico, which will eliminate tariffs altogether within 10 years. We'll see an increase in our market potential and market access for wine in Canada, which is going to remove its tariff regime, which will be enormously beneficial for our wine exporters, including those in the great state of Victoria in places like the Yarra Valley and the Mornington Peninsula—and some members in this place may be familiar with their tipple. We'll see an increase in dairy market access, particularly in Japan, which will eliminate a range of tariff measures on dairy products, including cheese, as well as in many other countries, like Mexico and Canada, which are going to do the same on different types of dairy goods. Sheepmeat and all tariffs will also be eliminated. The potential for our resources and energy sector to increase their market access to many countries will also be realised.
Particularly around the suburban areas of Goldstein, we have a high number of factories that produce manufactured goods and finished goods—particularly, as a consequence of the former car industry, component manufacturing. There are people creating economic potential from the resources of this country, including, increasingly, from high-skill, high-value manufacturing. It was fantastic to see that, under the TPP-11, there will be tariffs eliminated on Australian exports to most countries worth an estimated $14 billion in 2016-17. So sitting at the heart of the TPP are opportunities for Goldstein and for those who want to invest and create a better growth environment in Australia. It sits at the heart of the job opportunities that we're all going to enjoy tomorrow.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (12:57): There is no doubt that well-framed and fair multilateral trade arrangements have the potential to benefit Australia, and, what's more, to help build an open and balanced international system of trade that supports sustainable growth in developing countries. But not every trade agreement meets that standard, and all trade agreements should be subject to careful scrutiny and analysis.
The starting point is to recognise that modern so-called free trade agreements generally encompass a lot more than trade, and they continue, in many cases, to add to the noodle-bowl of bilateral or, at best, plurilateral arrangements. Complicated and uneven preferential deals between pairs of countries are not helpful in the long run, and yet the TPP-11, with its myriad side letters and suspended terms, has been described by the trade minister himself as '18 free trade agreements'. The TPP-11 includes, for example, the liberalisation of foreign labour access.
The TPP also exposes Australia to investor state dispute mechanisms that allow multinational companies to sue governments. That gives multinational companies rights that aren't afforded to domestic companies—rights that can have a chilling effect on domestic policy in areas like public health and environmental protection. We've previously seen ISDS action taken by Philip Morris against Australia's world-leading tobacco-harm-reduction policies. The highly concerning aspects of the original TPP that would've extended monopoly rights over biologic medicines—with corresponding healthcare and health-cost implications for Australia—have merely been suspended, pending the possible re-entry of the US.
If trade agreements were simply about reducing the tariff applied to Australian wine in Canada or increasing the tonnage of hard cheese that can be exported to Japan, it would be relatively easy to weigh up their quality. But modern trade and investment agreements go much wider than that. And what has been disappointing in the work of this parliament is both the obfuscation and the superficial cheerleading from the government in relation to any and all preferential trade agreements. Such treaties have been shielded from proper analysis and scrutiny. If the government is so convinced about the value of any particular trade agreement, why does it continue to keep the Australian public and indeed the Australian parliament in the dark? Why does it present these complex agreements in such cartoonish fashion, describing them in magic even reverential terms rather than being upfront about their details and allowing their impacts to be modelled?
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, when considering the first version of the TPP in 2016 sensibly recommended that all such agreements should be made subject to independent analysis. That follows the same recommendation from the 2015 report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee and the same recommendation was subsequently made by the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth last year. All those recommendations have been rejected and, on that basis, the call at the end of this motion further parliament to work cooperatively in pursuit of really is a bit rich. If the government ignores the JSCOT and rejects out of hand recommendations from two separate committees on which it has a majority of members, it is more than a bit ridiculous for this motion to suggest that it is parliament that needs to be cooperative.
It does no one any good to have trade and investment agreements considered in an atmosphere of simplistic and sloganeering self-congratulation. Over and over, coalition members and ministers have talked about prospective agreements in laughably misleading terms. Trade agreements have been yoked willy-nilly onto the jobs-and-growth wagon, which is only understandable to the extent that the government is otherwise without a clear economic plan. The marketing job on the TPP 11 has been improved to the extent that the government is now making reference to one piece of outside analysis but the publication in question is little more than a working paper from a US based institute. Its analysis is not Australia's specific and the projected benefits are very small indeed, with an increase to national income over the next 12 use of half of one percent.
One thing we know is that trade agreements entered into from our position as a developed high-wage economy don't do much to create jobs. Not surprisingly, the analysis of the full TPP agreement by Tufts University as part of a World Bank study showed that deal would result in the loss of 39,000 jobs over the first decade. The TPP 11 removes labour market testing for workers brought into Australia under contractual service arrangements and that is in relation to 400 professions on the temporary skills shortage list. Anyone who thinks the weakening of our temporary foreign labour system won't impact on Australian jobs, pay and conditions is Kidding themselves.
The pursuit of a genuinely multilateral free and fair trade framework should be a means by which we can advance the economic and social wellbeing of the Australian community while contributing to stable shared and sustainable prosperity across the globe; this is not it.
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (13:02): I want to congratulate the member for Forde for moving this motion which follows the table government's leading role in bringing the Trans Pacific Partnership to fruition. Free trade agreements such as this are of seminal importance for Australia, which is why the coalition government has made trade such a successful priority. Our efforts have seen high-quality free trade agreements concluded with Korea, Japan, China and Peru, and TPP 11 is an important addition to the expanding opportunities for our exporting businesses.
At a time when we've seen populist and protectionist movements around the world question the value of free trade and indeed the openness of the global economy itself, I want to reaffirm my own strong belief that the case for free trade remains overwhelming. Free trade makes sense. It makes sense economically, it makes sense socially, it makes sense in alleviating poverty and it makes sense in bringing nations closer together. And it also makes sense for an economy like our own, which has always been strongest when our export sector is doing well. Australia currently has 10 free trade agreements in place and it is no accident that the countries involved in these agreements account for 67 per cent of our total trade. Our major free trade agreements with China and the United States of America, the world's two largest economies, demonstrates those economic benefits.
Since the agreement with the United States came into force over a decade ago, the amount of two-way investment has almost tripled, and the free trade agreement with China has also delivered clear benefits. Australian exports to China grew by 25 percent last year alone to reach $110 billion, with Australian service exports, which are particularly relevant to my own electorate, hitting a record $14.7 billion. Our free trade agreements help Australian workers and businesses. They are creating more jobs for Australians.
Free trade and a more open global economy are also providing benefits beyond our shores. No action by national governments has had a more profound effect on reducing global poverty than free trade. A combined study by the World Trade Organization and the World Bank in 2015 showed that, as developing countries engaged in more trade, the number of their citizens living in extreme poverty declined dramatically. In 2015 fewer than one billion people in the developing world lived in absolute poverty. That's around 15 per cent of the world population—still way too high—yet in 1981 that number was 1.9 billion people nearly half of the world's population at the time. The greatest fall in this number has been in the last 15 years, coinciding not accidentally with the increase in the developing world's engagement in trade.
In 2000 the developing world's share of world trade was 33 per cent. In 2015 it stood at 48 per cent. This has mirrored the growth in trade since the end of World War II globally. In 1950 the export of goods accounted for just eight per cent of global GDP, and today that figure stands at somewhere around 20 per cent.
The benefits of free trade are global but provide particular opportunities for Australia. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will be no exception. TPP-11 will create new jobs as it improves trade opportunities across a free trade zone that stretches from Malaysia to Chile. The agreement will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs among nations which have a combined GDP of something like $13.7 trillion. For Australia the TPP creates our first free trade agreements with Canada and Mexico and continues our efforts to strengthen trading relations with Latin America.
Much has been said about the benefits of TPP-11 for our agriculture sector, be it the new opportunities for beef and dairy products in Japan or farming sectors like rice, sugar, seafood, wine and lamb. In my electorate, where it's fair to say beef production is not one of our major industries, the TPP will deliver considerable benefits to those export firms working in the service sectors. Accounting, management, consulting, architecture, education, health and ICT will all benefit through better access to government procurement service contracts in TPP nations.
Many doubted whether the TPP could be achieved following the withdrawal of the United States. Indeed, those in the Labor Party who sit opposite almost gleefully gave the TPP its last rites, and I remember the Leader of the Opposition describing it as a dead agreement. Yet through the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment Australia will now be the beneficiary of this landmark agreement. I commend them for their success and I commend this motion to the House.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:07): That was quite a substantive speech. It went on for a very long time, and I think the member for North Sydney, who claims he doesn't—
Mr Zimmerman: The member for Mackellar is reflecting on other members and quite unparliamentary!
Mr FALINSKI: I was just about to say the member for North Sydney has plenty of meat production in his area!
Anyway, free trade is a cornerstone of the liberal tradition in Australia. It allows Australians to have access to a wide range of goods and services that would otherwise be unattainable for the average consumer. It allows Australians to project their business and professional expertise across borders. In short, it allows Australians to thrive unencumbered by the constraints of protectionism that those opposite would introduce if they were given the chance. There has been no greater force in pulling people out of poverty than free trade. There has been no greater deterrent to war and conflict than free trade. It was the postwar regime of free trade and open markets that saw European nations rise from the rubble of war and re-emerge as competitive economies. It is free trade that will help to sustain our economy into the future and ensure that Australians have the means to succeed in a free and democratic country.
The government has a mandate to secure the economic future of our great country. As part of this commitment, we must continue to seek out and find new trade agreements that enable our nation to provide a better future for its people but, more importantly, a better world for all of us to live in. After all, it is this commitment that has helped to fuel over 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth.
What I love about this particular free trade agreement is that it was not only opposed by Labor but dismissed by them. The Leader of the Opposition said:
Ever since Donald Trump got elected back in November, Mr Turnbull should have realised that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was dead.
'Well, the TPP's dead,' he said. In the words of Mark Twain, these reports were 'greatly exaggerated'. I think we call this an 'oops' moment. I would say the Leader of the Opposition has egg on his face, but I'm starting to think that he actually enjoys it, so I don't want to encourage more of it.
But let us take a moment to look at what the free trade agreement, which the Leader of the Opposition was so keen to walk away from, is going to bring Australians. The TPP-11 will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone with a combined GDP of $13.7 trillion, and the countries included in this trade agreement are the fastest-growing in the world. It was complicated and difficult. In total, it represents 18 new free trade agreements. The $88 billion that we currently export to these countries is now set to grow and grow significantly. This, in turn, will increase jobs and increase wages.
So once again the Liberal Party are not just talking the talk; we are walking the walk. The text of the agreement has been published and is publicly available. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties will examine the agreement and then legislation will need to be introduced, at which time we will get to see if Labor is willing to stop believing in unicorns and support this once-in-a-generation agreement. We will see if Labor and the Australian Conservatives will support accelerated reductions in Japan's tariffs on beef, where Australian currently exports $2 billion—many of the people affected by that live in the member for North Sydney's electorate. We will see if Labor and the Australian Conservatives will support the elimination of cheese tariffs into Japan, worth another $100 million in trade. We will see if Labor and the Australian Conservatives support quota reductions for wheat and rice to Japan and sugar to Japan, Canada and Mexico. Will Labor and the Australian Conservatives support elimination of all tariffs on sheepmeat, cotton, wool, seafood, horticulture, wine and industrial products?
Before they start on the excuses, let us be clear: Australia does not need to change one line of intellectual property law, which has embedded in it protections for areas such as biosecurity, health policy and environment policy. As for the labour market testing, let us be equally clear: this agreement will overwhelmingly benefit Australia as services become our fastest-growing exports. But Labor and the Australian Conservatives are bolted onto the past and do not understand a modern economy. I guess this is why they were unable to conclude a single free trade agreement and Australians had to wait for us to do the job. Those opposite were in power for six very long years, and all they had to show for it is a string of debt and unpaid bills. Not a single substantive reform or long-lasting benefit was delivered to this country in that time.
If you are worried about cost-of-living issues, then free trade is one solution to rising prices. If you want more jobs, then look to free trade. If you want better-paying jobs, look no further than free trade. If you want to help people out of poverty, both here and around the globe, I humbly suggest that you have a closer look at free trade.
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:13): I rise to add my voice to those congratulating the government on the completion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is a historic achievement for our nation. It reinforces this government's commitment to a strong and diverse economy. Unlike the pessimists on the other side of this chamber, we refused to let this opportunity die in the water when the United States withdrew its support.
I stand here today acutely aware of what this agreement means for Australian families. I come from Western Australia, where the export sector is a powerhouse of the economy. My brother and I ran a small business in Katanning for years. We developed our family farm into a successful enterprise, but we endured tough times along the way. Australian businesses look to the government for leadership. It's our responsibility to create a climate that allows those businesses to thrive. For export giants like Western Australia, we need to help our industries access new markets and expand. That's how we create more jobs, strengthen the economy and deliver higher wages to Australians. One of the most resounding endorsements of the TPP comes from the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Their modelling indicates that this agreement will boost Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent and our exports by four per cent. That's more than $15 billion in additional income and more than $30 billion in additional exports.
My electorate of O'Connor is one of the most economically diverse regions in the country. It's also an electorate renowned for its production. A very significant proportion of WA's commodity exports originate in O'Connor. The key to job and wage growth for many of my constituents is helping those industries become more competitive in overseas markets. That's exactly what the TPP does for Australian businesses. Within the free-trade zone, 98 per cent of tariffs will disappear under this agreement.
In my electorate the most significant changes are the removal of all tariffs on sheepmeat, wool, seafood, horticulture and wine; new reductions in Japan's tariff on beef—Australian beef exports hit $2 billion in the last financial year—and new access for dairy products in Japan, Canada and Mexico; and tariff reductions for cereals and grains into Japan. These are huge benefits for Australian farmers in this agreement. We know it, and the industry knows it. Tony Mahar, Chief Executive of the National Farmers' Federation, said this week:
The CPTPP is a regional free trade agreement of unprecedented scope and ambition. It has great potential to drive job-creating growth across the Australian economy.
He said:
Ultimately, this will make Australian food and fibre products more competitive in the global market.
As the federal MP representing the Western Australian Goldfields, I'm also proud to say that we're minimising regulatory risks for our service exporters. In Kalgoorlie-Boulder, the goldmining capital of Western Australia, some of the local businesses are world leaders in mining technology and equipment. Under the TPP, energy sector reforms in Mexico and Vietnam will help those Kalgoorlie businesses be more competitive in those markets.
The government has taken a lead role in developing the TPP. We knew it would benefit Australians by boosting national income and creating jobs. We've seen the results of our other free trade agreements, particularly with China. Over a nine-month period last year, trade growth was astounding when compared to data for the years before the ChAFTA came into force. Bottled wine exports grew 129 per cent to $498 million. Abalone exports rose 385 per cent to $39.8 million, and some major producers from Esperance, in my electorate, are reaping these benefits. Hay and chaff exports rose by 64 per cent, and Chinese imports of unwrought nickel almost tripled to $240 million, which is fantastic news for the nickel miners in the Goldfields.
There's no doubt that free trade makes our economy stronger, and that's why this government is so committed to being a world leader in this space. Last year I attended a free-trade seminar in Albany, in my electorate. One of the great success stories from my electorate comes from Fletcher International Exports. Fletcher's are a family owned exporter of lamb and sheepmeat, and they have processing facilities based in Albany. Before ChAFTA, tariffs on sheepmeat in China were 15 per cent. Now they are at 8.3 per cent and reducing to zero. Greg Cross, Fletcher's WA general manager, said: 'The FTAs have had a massive impact on our company. We need to be looking at more opportunities. Having these FTAs, and more, with these countries gives us that opportunity to expand.'
This government is backing Australian companies like Fletcher's. We're helping them become leaders on the world stage. I want to see the businesses in my electorate rewarded for their courage and investment. I've got no doubt that the TPP is going to make our economy stronger and Australian businesses more competitive. I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Steve Ciobo, for making this agreement happen and for the benefits that will flow to my constituents. Now's the time for this parliament to embrace the agreement and work with us to get the best result for Australian businesses.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 13:18 to 16:00
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ) (16:00): The time being 4 pm, are there any statements from honourable members?
Calwell Electorate: Education
St George Chaldean Church
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (16:00): Yesterday I attended a very special church service led by Father Maher Gurges of the St George Chaldean Church in Campbellfield. I joined hundreds of my local Iraqi Chaldean parishioners in a very special ceremony recognising the efforts of our young Chaldean Iraqi students. Some 20 students were recognised, a combination of VCE graduates and university graduates. Amongst the university graduates, we congratulated a doctor of medicine, an environmental architect and a number of teaching graduates. With the VCE graduates, I want to particularly mention Miriam Hurmez Hani, who ended up being in the top 10 in the state of Victoria in the subject of English; and Saoresho Hurmez Hani, who ended up being in the top 10 in the state of Victoria for mathematics. Both of those students were students at Essendon Keilor College. I had the opportunity to meet with them yesterday to congratulate them and, of course, share the excitement and pride with their families. Father Maher told us at the congregation yesterday that 'we are producing a new generation of doctors, lawyers, architects and teachers here in our new homeland'. I want to congratulate the community for the incredible amount of work that they do for the young people.
Murkies, Mrs Ada
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (16:02): Today we honour Ada Murkies, a Brighton resident and successful fashion designer who has had an extraordinary journey through life. I am looking forward to celebrating the triumph of Mrs Murkies's life at our next Goldstein community morning tea, held in the Goldstein electorate office. When Mrs Murkies chose to speak out about her horrific experience of World War II, she did so to give a voice to the countless others who have suffered as a consequence. Her family, along with thousands of others, were forced into cargo trains and wagons and travelled for almost two weeks in freezing conditions after being forced to leave her family home in Brest during the Soviet invasion of Poland. Her father, Stefan, was killed that same year in the infamous Katyn massacre, where the Soviets murdered more than 20,000 Poles. When Mrs Murkies arrived in a Siberian labour camp, she worked 12 hours a day for little or no food. There was nothing around her but death and despair. Years later, in January 1948, Mrs Murkies and her husband fled to Australia to make a fresh start in our magnificent country. She has lived in Brighton for more than 55 years, raising four daughters and becoming a successful fashion designer. The swimwear label quickly sold to major retail department stores across Australia, including Myer. Mrs Murkies said she wants her story to give hope to others who are suffering. We honour her and her personal triumph and congratulate her on her life of success.
Centrelink
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:03): I'm sure mine is not the only electorate where people have been left waiting on the phone, for hours sometimes, just to be able to speak to someone on the other end of the line at Centrelink. This government cut 12,000 Centrelink jobs and—surprise, surprise—55 million calls went unanswered over the year. People in my electorate have been left with the consequences of the government's mismanagement of Centrelink. Naomi says that three out of four times she calls Centrelink she can't even get in queue, and when she does get through she is in the queue for up to 70 minutes on hold. April says she waited over six hours. The kids had been to school and back in that time. She wasn't prepared to hang up again and go to the beginning of the waiting list. Mehdi sometimes waits for over two hours before being disconnected. Anyone would be frustrated with that. Berni spent her time in hospital trying to get through to Centrelink. She and her social worker spent all day trying to get through to someone. When she finally got through, the person hung up and she had to start again. This is not the only time that the government has shown its incompetence when it comes to Centrelink. Let's not forget the robo-debt debacle and the time the AFP's letterhead ended up on Centrelink notices. This government doesn't care about people wasting their time—that's the message they're giving to my community. This government has failed on Centrelink. Show some respect to your fellow Australians and fix it.
Eyre Premium Hay
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:05): Last week, on Friday and Saturday, I had the pleasure of a visit from Senator Anne Ruston, the assistant minister for agriculture, to my home town of Kimba. We visited two businesses. In particular today, I want to talk about one—this is a new business—Eyre Premium Hay. The Eyre Peninsula has never had a hay export industry because it has simply been too far away from a container port; there is not one on the peninsula. Fourteen years ago the Vandeleur family came to Kimba from the Clare Valley with expertise in growing export hay and wanted to establish that business in Kimba. The Vandeleur family recognised that Kimba had a drier climate and so it was a premium quality hay that could extract a premium from the market, and that Kimba in particular was ideally placed as the closest centre to Port Adelaide, in this case, as it is where the containers go out from.
With the advent of the super-high-density bales, we are now able to overload a drop-deck semitrailer—something that we would have always had to underload before. So there are fully loaded trucks. They built a shed 166 metres by 30 metres by eight metres high and installed weighbridges. This shed can store over 10,000 tons of hay on site. It is a $1.7 million investment. It is linked with Balco, the biggest hay exporter in South Australia, which brings to the business its reputation and goodwill and the ability to pay farmers on time.
It is a fantastic operation. I congratulate them all.
Klepacz, Mr Christopher
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (16:06): I rise today to talk about an extraordinary young man named Christopher Klepacz. I was honoured last week to be able to present him with a belated 2018 Holt Australia Day Award. Christopher is a young man of tremendous courage and resilience who has overcome much in his young life. He was born with cerebral palsy. He studies VCAL at Hampton Park Secondary College and this year he's started year 12 and has also started a certificate III in information, digital media and technology at the Narre Warren Community Learning Centre.
Last year, Chris set himself the goal of learning how to advocate for himself more effectively on a range of public and social issues. In one instance, Chris visited the Victorian parliament to present his concerns to the inquiry into civics and electoral participation in Victorian state parliamentary elections. As a result of his advocacy work, Christopher has been nominated for a Victorian Young Achiever Award.
He has also raised his concerns publicly about the NDIS. Chris wants to make sure that young people with a disability under the NDIS get the best possible funding package in the future.
He has also submitted his wish to the Starlight Children's Foundation to visit the Australian parliament later on this year, and I am very pleased to say that the Starlight Children's Foundation have granted his wish and will provide funding for a trip to Canberra for Christopher. He has informed me that he is excited to come to question time. I'll need to talk to him about that!
I'd just like to commend Christopher to this House. He is a wonderful example of a young man who has overcome tremendous odds to make a difference to others' lives.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (16:08): Last week I had the amazing pleasure of going down to my region—which, as we all know, has got high unemployment—and announcing some of the projects that have been put into that area by the government to try to reduce the youth unemployment in my region. The Eurobodalla botanic gardens, with Gail Stevens, got quite an amount of money to fix up their heritage-listed herbarium and improve their visitor centre. A nature-based tourism concept with Eurobodalla Shire Council is going to be funded. There is a training platform for building inspectors to figure out how better to determine whether buildings have termites—and it's an online program, so that's a ripper. It's going to increase that by about 10 employees. Sea Breeze Aviation is going to double up their facilities so that they can have more people there, more planes being serviced and more people staying over, so that's fabulous. Then there is the shellfish hatchery, which would have to be the highlight of the entire space. We know how the spats from Tassie are a little bit worrisome, and the spats from Port Stevens are also a little bit worrisome, so within 12 to 18 months we'll have a state-of-the-art hatchery for oysters and mussels in particular but also for scallops and abalone, which will be fabulous. We're going to have a health training facility to look at where all the holes are for which we need people with the council. And Ultimate campers have got a new-age, special caravan that can go all sorts of different places, and they'll be funded as well. We're going to get a huge input of employment opportunities. It's great investment in the region, and the people of the Eurobodalla should be rightfully proud of this.
Australian Sovereignty
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (16:09): Today is an important day in the defence of Australian sovereignty, with the publication of the book Silent Invasion by Clive Hamilton. It is a little melodramatically named, but it creates important markers in protecting Australia's sovereignty on the important issue of Beijing's 'sharp power', as raised prominently in The Economist in its recent cover story, which particularly referred to some of China's political activities here in Australia.
Protecting our political and economic independence is no bar to trade and investment with Beijing, as Paul Keating recently pointed out in The Sydney Morning Herald. He's on an advisory council to the China Development Bank and strongly supported, as I do, Australia participating in the Asia Development Bank, led by China. These two issues are completely separate: political interference in Australia; and good relations and trade and investment with China.
I conclude with a warning to the government. You didn't pay attention when I warned you about the China extradition treaty. I'm warning you again now. The former communications minister, now the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, had a very soft attitude, as Prime Minister Rudd pointed out, on the issue of Huawei. If the Prime Minister doesn't take action on Vodafone and other companies' involvement with Huawei, he is going to pay a political price here in Australia on the issue of Australian sovereignty.
Qantas
Ms LEY (Farrer) (16:11): I rise to welcome the announcement by Qantas late last week to create a new pilot training academy in regional Australia. To the board and management Qantas, you can take this as an early pitch from the city of Albury in my electorate of Farrer that we would like to be your new home. I've been in touch with Alan Joyce this morning and I understand that there are many suitors for this proposal, but I can think of none better than Australia's home of decentralisation. Albury-Wodonga not only is a great regional centre, with over 100,000 people, but has a fantastic airport and surrounds. I fly a small plane out of Albury and, in another lifetime, was an air traffic controller, so I know that there is ample space for training. The skies are open, the airfields are many and the different locations and different geography that you can experience as a trainee pilot from Albury are second to none. This is a fantastic local airport. It's also the home of a great local aviation company, Rotor Solutions Australia, and on the weekend we opened a new hangar for its aerial applications for agriculture. Dick Smith was on hand and he endorsed the plan for a new Qantas flying school. The other thing I want to mention is that the aim of increasing female pilots in the Qantas fleet to 40 per cent in the next decade is an outstanding one.
Ballarat Electorate
Influenza Vaccine
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (16:14): I rise to deliver an important update specifically for people over the age of 65 in my electorate on the Central Coast. This year, the coalition government will provide two new flu vaccines to Australians aged over 65. They are free of charge and they've been fast-tracked to ensure that lives are saved and that older Australians will receive greater protection from the flu this winter. I commend the Minister for Health for this important announcement, which is a direct response to last year's horrific flu season. Sadly, more than 90 per cent of the 1,100 flu related deaths in 2017 were people aged over 65 years of age. These flu vaccines are aimed squarely at saving lives to ensure that we can do everything we can to prevent this happening again. The new vaccines, Fluad and Fluzone High Dose, were registered in Australia to specifically provide increased protection for people aged 65 years and older. From April this year, both vaccines will be available through the National Immunisation Program.
The latest census figures show that we have more than 30,000 people aged over 65 in the electorate of Robertson, meaning this could help around one in five people. Under the program, the vaccine is also available to pregnant women, most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and those who suffer from chronic conditions. I urge anyone who is eligible to ask their GP, especially before the peak season in June. Summer officially draws to a close this week, so there's no better time than now to ensure that you're protected.
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:16): It is my fervent hope that, with the member for New England's move to the back bench, the coalition's attack on the Public Service will also take a step back. Since the coalition came to office nearly five years ago, there have been 14,044 Public Service job losses—well in excess of what the coalition said would happen before they came to office. Like the member for Hunter and the member for Canberra, I have had particular concern for staff of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. By the middle of last year, one in five staff at that agency had quit, including the chief executive, Kareena Arthy. As of November, only six staff were located in Armidale. We heard last month that staff were being offered up to $55,000 in moving costs if they relocated to Armidale and stayed for two years. Consultants engaged by the agency have said that they may need to bring in workers from overseas to properly staff the agency after its move.
When announcing his resignation on Friday, the member for New England described the move from the APVMA in Canberra to Armidale as being 'at the forefront of what I do'. I call on the government now to re-evaluate this move, given that its chief architect has moved to the back bench. More than that, we need to bring respect for the Public Service back into government. When natural disasters strike, it's public servants who race to ensure that those affected by floods and fires get relief payments. When teenagers get into strife overseas, it's Australian diplomats they turn to for help. Quarantine officers keep pests out. We need to stop attacking public servants and begin celebrating them.
Bonner Electorate: Small Business Expo
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (16:17): The Small Business Expo has had a great run on the Gold Coast and in Logan over the last six years. Now, for the first time, the expo will be coming to Brisbane on Friday, 4 May, and I'm thrilled to say that the organisers have chosen the Hibiscus Sports Complex at Upper Mount Gravatt as its venue. I asked the organiser, Paula Brand, to bring the expo to Upper Mount Gravatt and I'm thrilled that she's agreed. The expo is a great opportunity for small businesses in the area, particularly those that don't have a storefront, to book a trade table where they can showcase their products and services. There will be over 200 trade tables on the day featuring businesses from across the region. Registrations for trade tables are open now and I invite Brisbane businesses to contact my office for further information. Over 600 small business owners are expected to attend the expo. It's a great networking opportunity and attendees will also be able to learn the latest business tips and industry insights to help boost their business. There are five speaker presentations from some of Australia's leading business experts, including local success story Phillip Di Bella, from Di Bella Coffee, and Glen Richards from Network Ten's popular Shark Tank show. I've secured a very special guest to open the Small Business Expo: the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation, the Hon. Craig Laundy. I thank him for his support and I can't wait to see everyone at the expo in May.
Deputy Prime Minister
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:19): The Nationals have a new leader and with a new leader should come new direction, so I'm calling on the member for Riverina, the new Deputy Prime Minister, to put an end to the shameful, blatant pork-barrelling of the member for New England. The shameful, blatant pork-barrelling of the member for New England relocated the APVMA from Canberra to Armidale. The shameful, blatant pork-barrelling of the member for New England has seen the APVMA haemorrhage staff, expert staff, highly trained staff, 20 regulatory scientists and 28 additional staff members, with 204 years of service between them. The shameful, blatant pork-barrelling of the member for New England has cost the Australian taxpayer $26 million already and is likely to cost the Australian taxpayer $60 million. The shameful, blatant pork-barrelling of the member for New England has been opposed by industry groups, the peak associations, CropLife, Animal Medicines Australia and the National Farmers' Federation. The shameful, blatant pork-barrelling of the member for New England is opposed by the Canberra Liberals and the Liberal senator for the ACT.
Honourable members interjecting—
On his first day, I call on the Deputy Prime Minister to show some leadership. Put an end to the shameful, blatant pork-barrelling of the member for New England. Stop the relocation of the APVMA.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Just before I go on: Government Whip in particular, I hear every word, and it would be nice not to hear every word.
Fadden Electorate: Livingstone Christian College
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (16:21): I wish to report to the House an outstanding achievement by one of my local schools, Livingstone Christian College. It was founded in 2002, and some areas of the college previously ranked in the bottom two per cent of schools in Queensland. But not anymore. Last week it was reported to the school that it has gone from—in some aspects—the bottom two per cent of the state to now ranking in the top 44 per cent of all schools in Queensland. That is an outstanding achievement that is worthy of recognition here in parliament. Livingstone Christian College managed a Herculean effort in climbing 165 places in the school rankings.
Results like this are the combination of hard work by students, teachers, parents and the local community, all working together with a common purpose. That shared common purpose and striving to do better have seen the school rapidly improve on the National School Improvement Tool, and I've heard reports that many within the department have never seen a school improve that quickly. Its prep reading levels are now off the charts. It's been said that it takes a village to raise a child, and that village right now is the school community of the Livingstone Christian College. They can be proud of what they've done.
I'd like to give special mention to the principal, Mark Laraghy, for his leadership in striving to turn the school's fortunes around. He has done an outstanding job with an outstanding group of teachers, and they, the families and the students should justifiably be extraordinarily proud. Congratulations to Livingstone Christian College.
Barton Electorate: Chinese-Australian Community
Barton Electorate: Greek-Australian Community
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (16:22): I rise to wish everyone in the electorate of Barton a very happy Lunar New Year, the Year of the Dog. Barton is one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse electorates in Australia. It has one of the largest Chinese communities in this country. This is an important time for family and a wonderful time of the year that brings everyone together to celebrate. This is a great time of the year to reflect on our diversity, and we should embrace that diversity.
As part of the local celebrations in my electorate, I attended the Georges River Council celebrations in Hurstville. I also attended the CanRevive Chinese New Year celebrations and the CASS Care Chinese New Year celebrations. CanRevive is an amazing organisation. It provides assistance to Chinese-speaking patients undergoing cancer treatment. In particular, I want to commend the work of the staff and the volunteers. I very much appreciated an invitation to their lunch. CanRevive delivers a valuable service to the community in very difficult times.
I also want to commend CASS Care. I attended an event that they organised with some of the older people in the Chinese community.
I also want to recognise the Greek Festival, which kicked off last week in the area in and around Barton. I want to congratulate the Greek Orthodox community on the 120th anniversary of its establishment. I was very honoured to participate in the 36th annual Greek Festival this week.
Fisher Electorate: Stronger Communities Program
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:24): Last Wednesday I hosted a morning tea at my electorate office to celebrate the important work of community groups in Fisher. The wet and windy weather didn't dampen spirits as we gathered to congratulate the recipients of federal government grants under the Stronger Communities Program. I thank David Smyth of the CCSA, Rick Vickers of Maleny Rotary Club, John Malloy of the Rotary Club of Alexandra Headland, Nick Forster-Jones of Diggers Rest, Helen Page of Peachester Community Hall, Rebecca Prasad of Outrigger Caloundra Canoe Club, Stuart Coward of STEPS Group, Scott Kidston of Caloundra City Junior Rugby Union Club, William Asher and Kevin Farrell of QF6 Mooloolaba, Desney and Tom Malone of Maleny Cultural & Historical Society, and Sarah Pendergast of Kawana Waters Swimming Club for the often life-changing work that they do in our community and for coming along to celebrate with me. I also congratulate Kawana Waters State College, Celebrate Glasshouse Country, Caloundra Mallet Sport Club, Caloundra Woodworking Club, UCA Mooloolaba Uniting Church, C&K Maleny Community Kindergarten and Maleny District Sport and Recreation Club on their grants. Community groups like these enrich our lives and save taxpayers millions of dollars. I am proud to have been able to support these local groups through the Stronger Communities Program and I thank them again for all their hard work.
Northern Territory: National Party
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:25): The portfolios of Resources and Northern Australia; Regional Development, Territories and Local Government; Veterans' Affairs; Indigenous Affairs; and Urban Infrastructure and Cities are all held by members sitting in the National Party room and are of vital importance to the Northern Territory and to Northern Australia. The Nationals claim to be the champions of regional Australia but have done next to nothing for the Northern Territory. The level of contempt shown by the Nationals to the Territory is matched only perhaps by the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Adam Giles, when he was leading the Country Liberal Party government. It has been almost three years since the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility was announced, and the NT has not seen a single dollar of that. It is 10 months since the Darwin City Deal was announced, but since then we've heard nothing. I should rephrase that: the Turnbull government now has the Darwin City Deal on its website—so that's fantastic, really inspiring stuff! Unfortunately they're talking about more concessional loans like the NAIF, which have seen nothing come into the Northern Territory, so we call on the Nationals to start looking after the Northern Territory as they say they do.
Women in Sport: Soccer
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (16:27): I take this opportunity to commend Loganholme Lightning FC women's team for their entry into the women's National Premier Leagues. Whilst it has been an unfortunately difficult start for the team in a new league at a much higher level, I congratulate the club for the work they have done to ensure they have a team in the women's NPL. To see the club, family and friends cheering them on reminds me of what a great exhibition for and representation of our community these female football teams are. I think it's very relevant this week, as we move into rebel Female Football Week, a nationwide initiative to celebrate the immense growth of women's football at all levels of the game and to acknowledge and promote the important role that women's football provides in developing football around the country. The Australian women's football team, the Matildas, have left the men in the shade, so to speak, with the tremendous crowds they had in the series last year and their tremendous world ranking. They have a trip coming up to the Women's Asian Cup. They also have the World Cup coming up. They are a tremendous example and provide the opportunity for so many young girls and women to have a career in football.
Syria
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (16:29): Over the last week more than 500 civilians in Eastern Ghouta outside Damascus have been killed through an indiscriminate and unconscionable bombing campaign by the Syrian government. The dead include more than 130 children. The 350,000 people of Eastern Ghouta are besieged. Their hospitals have been destroyed. Ambulances are hit with barrel bombs. It has been impossible for humanitarian aid groups to deliver food, water and basic medical supplies. Some of the material coming out of Syria is very hard to take in: a father picking up the white cloth bundle of his dead child from a flatbed truck stacked with dead children; two women, a mother and a doctor, slumped weeping in the hall of a medical centre when their struggle to save a little boy came to an end. In another field hospital a woman whose leg had been amputated breastfed another person's six-week-old baby who had lost his entire family in the bombings.
Eight years into this terrible humanitarian crisis Ghouta is the latest abomination. As of yesterday, the UN had resolved on a 30-day ceasefire, but with no start date. The delaying tactics employed by Russia with respect to that resolution and Russia's direct involvement in the bombing campaign are shameful. I pay tribute to the unflinching work of ABC correspondents Sophie McNeill and Matt Brown, who keep drawing our attention to the war crimes occurring in Syria. It is a call on us, on all nations, to do more to protest against and punish countries that break international law, that fail in their responsibility to protect their own citizens.
O'Connor Electorate: Indigenous Employment
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (16:30): The northern Goldfields town of Laverton is one of the most remote towns in my electorate. It sits at the start of the Outback Way, the iconic tourist route linking WA to Queensland. Laverton also supports a thriving mining industry, which contributed almost $2 billion to the Australian economy in 2017. Laverton is home to a large Indigenous population, and it was my pleasure to contribute to an Indigenous employment and training workshop when I visited the town last week. There I listened to ideas from innovative locals keen to start their own businesses and train and employ Aboriginals from both Laverton and the adjacent Ngaanyatjarra lands. Indigenous unemployment is a big issue in this area, and the focus of the Community Development Program and private businesses should be to provide skills training to fill existing workforce shortages.
At the workshop, the Stokes brothers talked about training young Aboriginals to work on high-paid mining jobs such as haulpak drivers and heavy equipment operators. My long-time friend and senior Aboriginal elder Bruce Smith recently placed three young men in lucrative positions with civil construction company APA, which is building the 200-kilometre-long gas pipeline that will service the Gruyere gold project. Roslyn Sullivan works in tourism and the arts industry and sees a real opportunity for an Indigenous cultural tour business, taking people out onto her country for an overnight taste of traditional life. Her business would provide tourism, training and employment to local artisans. It was my privilege to join these conversations, and I look forward to seeing Indigenous businesses thrive through delivering real employment outcomes for their people in Laverton and the Ngaanyatjarra lands
Brand Electorate: Weather
Rockingham-Kwinana State Emergency Service Unit
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (16:32): Yesterday the Rockingham community in my electorate of Brand was lashed by a powerful summer storm that tore roofs from homes and businesses, damaged properties, uprooted trees and cause flash flooding. The wild weather came out of the blue on an otherwise sunny Sunday morning, and within 10 minutes caused some serious damage that will take many days to clear up. In the aftermath of the storm, the Rockingham foreshore, where I spend a lot of my time, looked like a scene from a disaster movie. The roof was ripped off an apartment block and the roof was torn off a fish and chip shop by 130-kilometre-per-hour winds. Trees and branches were strewn across parks, there was debris everywhere and power was lost to many properties. Lightning meant surf lifesavers had to close some of the beaches in the district, and by all accounts we were very lucky that no-one was hurt by the remarkable storm that passed through the area. I was in Canberra at the time, but did see the footage of my home beach, Shoalwater Bay, on Perth Weather Live, and I can tell you it was a pretty scary little scene down there in Shoalwater. Luckily for the residents the State Emergency Service once again were on hand to offer practical and much-needed support in dealing with the aftermath of the storm. The Rockingham-Kwinana SES took dozens of calls for assistance and attended more than 16 properties in the morning alone. This fantastic volunteer service organisation is always on hand to help the community in times of need. I would like to thank them and recognise them not just for their tireless efforts yesterday, of course, but for all the efforts they make in the district.
Thorne, Mr Jack
K&S Freighters
Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:33): I rise to speak about a young man's tough six-month journey back into employment. Jack Thorne is a young man who lives in Worrolong in my electorate of Barker. I first met Jack in a formal capacity through his involvement in the 48th Australian Army Cadet unit. On the morning of 12 August last year, Jack, full of enthusiasm for an apprenticeship he'd begun not three weeks earlier, left for work before sustaining serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident. Jack was lifted to the Flinders Medical Centre and spent five days in an induced coma, a week in intensive care and many months hospitalised thereafter. Jack, by dint of sheer determination, has recovered from his life-threatening injuries. I'm so proud to say that against all the odds he has returned to work on his apprenticeship.
But this story is so much more than a story about a young man's grit and determination. Within hours of the incident, Jack's employer, K&S Freighters, had arranged for staff to be present at his hospital bed, and they have supported him throughout his recovery. Jack's father, Lee, in correspondence with me, put it better than I ever could:
Jack is a good hard working young man but nevertheless he had only been employed at K&S for 3 weeks. Local companies are quickly complained about but not so quickly praised. This was not a work accident and accordingly the company had no obligations to keep him on whatsoever. In our darkest time for K&S to arrange for staff to visit us in hospital in Adelaide and reassure jack that his apprenticeship would still be there when he was able to return was a great relief.
We often talk about employees and employers and their combative relationship in this place. That's not my experience and it wasn't Jack's.
Macquarie Electorate: ZEST Awards
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:35): I was delighted to be able to attend recently the ZEST Awards, which celebrate the inspiring successes of the community workers and groups across Western Sydney. Many of my constituents were recognised for their contribution, both paid and unpaid, and I want to name just a few.
Stephanie Oatley, who is CEO of Platform Youth Service, was admitted to the hall of fame which recognises outstanding lifelong achievement in the sector. She's been dedicated to providing a service for young people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, strongly advocating for localised responses to the issue.
Lyn Bevington and Judith Hawkes, both from the Mountains Outreach Community Service, were nominees in the Outstanding Not-For-Profit Community Leader Award. I wouldn't have liked to have been choosing between them, as both have been community service leaders for many years. Judith was highly commended for her work, which has included the Paint the Blue REaD literacy program and the Aboriginal Artists in Blue Mountains Schools project.
I also want to acknowledge Uncle Greg and Aunty Carol Cooper, who were part of the event. Aunty Carol is a ZEST ambassador, a descendent of both Gundungurra and Darug people. She was awarded a community volunteer trophy in 2012 and continues to be involved to support community workers who she interacts with in her own volunteer work.
Also a quick shout-out to Michele Ellery, who established Queen of Hearts. She lives outside of my electorate but she well deserved her award. Congratulations to all winners.
La Trobe Electorate: Roads
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (16:36): I rise today to speak once again about the need for road upgrades in La Trobe and the role they play in increasing employment. In the La Trobe electorate there is 26 hectares of land known as Minta Farm, which is immediately south of the Beaconsfield interchange. Most of the land is developed as a high-density business, innovation and technology park which will create an amazing 10,000 new jobs for the area.
However, sadly, after the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in March 2016 announced $500 million to go towards the Monash, including the upgrade of the Beaconsfield interchange and the extension of O'Shea Road which would go right through Minta Farm, not one cent has been spent on these vital works for jobs in the area. I find it absolutely outrageous that the state Labor government has $500 million of federal funding, yet they are failing to invest to actually get the extension of the Monash Freeway between Cardinia Road and Clyde Road from the South Gippsland Highway to Warrigal Road. Also, as I've mentioned before, there is an absolutely vital need for the completion of the Beaconsfield interchange and the extension of O'Shea Road.
Shame on Premier Daniel Andrews and shame on Bill Shorten for allowing money to be spent in the western suburbs rather than getting this vital project built.
George, Mrs Ann
Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:38): I rise with a heavy heart to inform the House of the passing of local resident and shining light for the south-west Brisbane community, Mrs Ann George. Ann was 74 when she passed away a fortnight ago and was loved by many for her tireless efforts and dedication to help those less fortunate.
Among Ann's many achievements was her Project Love and Care program, which started in 2005 in her home in Inala with the humble aim of delivering 500 care packs to newly fostered kids. The project was a labour of love for Ann and since then has produced more than 50,000 of the kits, which include toiletries, a toy and a journal to remind kids they are special. When recently asked about the project Ann said, 'All we have is the children and if we work together we can make a big difference in this beautiful country we share.' It was only in January this year that Project Love and Care came to a close after Ann's illness became too much to bear.
Whilst Ann was known for being humble, her work did not go unnoticed, with awards such as the Queensland Government Community Initiative Award and the Australia Day achievement award. To Ann and her family, we thank you for your work, your passion and your dedication to the lives of thousands of young Australians. Rest in peace.
Petition: Climate Change
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (16:39): I represent in this place an electorate whose residents often hold strong and passionate views about protecting our environment. This is seen locally in the work of so many to protect our bushland or the harbour and waterways that border much of my electorate. It is also seen at a broader level, in the deep interest many of my constituents take in issues like climate change. It is in this context that, pursuant to standing orders, I present an approved petition of 1,483 concerned residents from my electorate which requests that this House, inter alia, does more to reduce the impacts of climate change and greenhouse emissions. Addressing climate change is self-evidently one of the critical issues of our time. I am always conscious of the duty of care we have to ensure our actions secure a better future economically, socially and environmentally for those who will inherit our island continent. In this regard, the Turnbull government has engaged constructively with the international community to develop the Paris Agreement on climate change. We are committed to meeting our Paris Agreement targets. Domestically, the Paris Agreement will be embedded in the National Energy Guarantee, which will provide the framework for meeting the government's goals of ensuring energy reliability, affordability and emission reductions. I firmly believe that technology will be our greatest asset in reducing greenhouse emissions. For example, we have seen the world making great progress in making renewable energy sources more affordable and efficient, improving battery technology and developing cleaner technology like electric vehicles. I thank the signatories of this petition for reminding us of the work that must continue to be done.
The petition read as follows—
The petition was un available at the time of publishing.
Goods and Services Tax
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:41): Queenslanders will suffer if the Turnbull government guts our state's fair share of GST.
Mr Dick: Shame!
Mr PERRETT: I know the member for Oxley cares passionately about this. If this goes ahead, Queensland could lose $1.5 billion from our economy. This is the equivalent of losing 5,000 teachers, 5,000 nurses, 3,000 police officers and 1,135 firefighters. It's clear that Prime Minister Turnbull and the LNP government do not care about frontline services in Queensland. Our large geographical size, significant Indigenous population and decentralised communities—with many of them regional and remote—present significant challenges in providing equitable access to services, including education, health and transport. Where are the LNP MPs standing up for Queensland? They're missing in action. Have the members for Capricornia, Flynn or Dawson stood up to Prime Minister Turnbull and fought to protect regional frontline services? No. Have the members for Petrie, Bonner or Forde in Brisbane stood up and demanded that the Prime Minister rule out these severe cuts to Queensland? No. Not one LNP MP has stood up for Queensland's fair share. No-one has stood up against Prime Minister Turnbull's cuts. They talk big in Queensland but they walk soft here in Canberra. Only Labor will fight for Queensland, our health and education services and our fair share of the GST. I look forward to working with the member for Oxley and the other Queensland MPs and senators to make sure that our GST goes back to Queensland and looks after the bush and the city with frontline services.
Bennelong Electorate: Lunar New Year
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:42): Over the past couple of weeks I've been fortunate enough to participate in the local Lunar New Year festivities of Bennelong. This year marked the 10th anniversary of the Eastwood Lunar New Year celebrations. Since 2008, our community has enjoyed the festivities of the Eastwood Lunar New Year celebrations, coming together to share in food, music, dance and merriment. It provides a wonderful opportunity for us to celebrate our strong, diverse and vibrant multicultural community. Congratulations to Hugh Lee, chairman of the organising committee; Melissa Foong, vice-chair and MC; and Justin Li, honorary chair, for the successful events so far. Also, special thanks to the other members of the committee: Bonnie Lui, Jeffery Tse, Wilson Fu, Danny Yu, Koo Guan Choo, Greg Barclay, Anthony Ching, Andrew Hill, Joseph Sun, Esther Lee, Joe Yu, Tony Tang, Jay Heather and Roy Maggio. One of my favourite highlights of the celebration has always been the cooking competition—especially in the year that I won it, which qualified me to be the judge. It's a tough job trying all of this delicious food. Well done to Geoff Lee, the member for Parramatta in the New South Wales parliament, for his winning dish; it was great. Congratulations also to Councillor Trenton Brown, who came a hard-fought second; and Alexandra and John Kolias of Mazzei's Eastwood Pharmacy, who came third—a great team indeed. (Time expired)
Banking and Financial Services
Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:44): Today is D-day for the loan sharks in this country. It's time that the coalition started standing up for vulnerable Australians and started protecting consumers. Today, the member for Perth and I introduced a private member's bill to protect vulnerable Australians—and what have we seen from this government? Absolutely nothing. We have seen nothing when it comes to being on the side of consumers where people are being ripped off by these loan sharks. It's time the government delivered on its own recommendations. We heard from the Assistant Treasurer today, but I suspect she has been rolled by the hard right wing of this government. Today, I'm calling on the Turnbull government to deliver protections for those who need them the most.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
MOTIONS
Yazidi People
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (16:45): I ask leave of the Federation Chamber to amend notice No. 3, private members' business, in the terms as circulated.
Leave granted.
Mr CREWTHER: I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) genocide is a crime under international law, which has been enacted into Australian law through Division 268 of the Australian Criminal Code; and
(b) the Iraqi Council of Ministers, United Nations institutions, and many parliaments have recognised that ISIL's crimes against the Yazidis constitute genocide;
(2) welcomes the Government's decisive action in resettling Yazidi refugees;
(3) condemns the genocide perpetrated against Yazidis by ISIL;
(4) calls for continued support for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL and efforts to liberate Yazidis in ISIL captivity;
(5) recognises the importance of justice for Yazidi victims and survivors of ISIL and calls on the Government to continue to support accountability for the perpetrators of serious international crimes against the Yazidis, including, where appropriate, in Australian courts and in other jurisdictions, where these are consistent with international standards;
(6) calls on the Government to continue supporting the formation of an Investigative Team pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2379 (2017) and, once established, to support it in the collection, preservation and storage of evidence of acts that may amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide; and
(7) supports the:
(a) continued efforts to defeat ISIL militarily and ideologically via de- radicalisation and countering violent extremism programs;
(b) continued consideration of the plight of the Yazidis in the development of Australian humanitarian policies and programs;
(c) continued provision of psychological and other social support services for Yazidi refugees living in Australia;
(d) right of the Yazidis and all minorities to live in peace, safety and freedom in Syria and Iraq and to participate in relevant political processes; and
(e) protection of Yazidis, Christians and other minorities in Iraq, under United Nations supervision and in cooperation with relevant authorities and minorities.
Today, I want to speak about the recent events that have occurred in Syria and Iraq with respect to the Yazidis. The recent military defeat of ISIL allows for some reflection on the atrocities inflicted by Islamic extremism over the past four years in Syria and Iraq. In particular, the Yazidi people of north-eastern Iraq have been subjected to extraordinary violence inflicted by ISIL. The Yazidi were actively hunted by ISIL. Massacres of civilians, including women and children, were widely reported as ISIL assaulted Iraq in 2014. They surrounded fleeing Yazidi on Mount Sinjar and attempted to starve them out. There have been many reports of surviving women and children also being abducted by ISIL forces and sold into slavery. The violence and horror of these stories appal me, as they should every member of this chamber. They include a 20-year-old woman being beaten and raped multiple times a day for months, ISIL taking entire villages and shooting all but the young women, who were then sexually assaulted by ISIL fighters, and women and, indeed, young girls being sold and traded amongst ISIL fighters like objects. Survivors managed to flee any way they could, and some who have since resettled in Australia have told their story.
I encountered a human face of one of these stories last year when I met and spoke with a Yazidi survivor, Nihad. At the age of 15, she was captured on the way to Mount Sinjar, fleeing from ISIL fighters. Her sister was raped in front of her and she was sold to an ISIL fighter. She was then raped and beaten repeatedly. When the fighter died in combat, she was sold to a man she referred to as a monster, who kept her and other Yazidi girls as slaves. Nihad was further raped and beaten and then fell pregnant. Nihad gave birth to her son in July 2015. When she managed to escape, she was unable to take her young baby with her and the baby was forced to remain with the father, a member of ISIL. She's never seen the baby again.
Since listening to the horror inflicted on Nihad, I've also learnt of other stories of some Yazidi victims who have also settled here in Australia. Khudeeda Omar Qoolo now lives in Toowoomba, but in 2014 his village was assaulted at 2 am by ISIL. He and his family had to flee 25 kilometres to Mount Sinjar while being fired upon. His brother and their family also fled but did not arrive at the mountain. They have not been heard from since. Khudeeda and his family were trapped on Mount Sinjar for nine days with little food or water. Due to their desperate situation, in order to escape they decided to attempt to walk from Mount Sinjar to Kurdistan. Luckily, they came across a Kurdish convoy, who were able to ferry them to a refugee camp. Furthermore, his daughter and two of his grandchildren were captured by ISIL and sold to a terrorist. Khudeeda spent months negotiating with the terrorists to free his daughter and grandchildren and had to pay a ransom in order to free them. He then had to pay smugglers to rescue his daughter and grandchildren.
Sadly, Khudeeda's story is not unique. Another man, now living in New South Wales, fled from an assault on his village with his wife and children. They spent four days trapped on Mount Sinjar with very little food and needing to walk eight hours to get any water. To escape, they had to travel through ISIL controlled areas to another town, Kursi, past victims and people dying from starvation and dehydration. After staying in Kursi for three days, this family tried to escape from Kursi into Syria. Thousands of Yazidi walked for hours in darkness with injuries, illness and bleeding feed to a Kurdish controlled area. Such was their fear that, when they first found Kurdish forces, people screamed in terror as they thought they had been found by ISIL. Instead they finally received food, water, shelter and transport to freedom.
Sadly, these stories are from survivors—those who have managed to escape from ISIL. Moreover, these are a small sample of the horrors suffered by the Yazidi. The Yazidi were specifically targeted by ISIL, forced from their homes and, if captured, often executed or sold into slavery. Many have labelled these crimes genocide, and this is what this motion here today presents to this parliament. I look forward to further debate on this motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): I thank the member for his contribution. Is there a seconder for the motion?
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:50): I second the motion. I thank the member for Dunkley for bringing attention to this very important issue. Last September I brought forward a similar private members' motion and I spoke strongly against the use of sexual violence in conflict and the need for the perpetrators of such violence and evil to be held to account. I am a strong supporter of UN resolution 1325 and the subsequent women, peace and security resolutions that have followed in recent years. I recently spoke at an event run by the Gender Institute and Centre for Military and Security Law for the 'Prosecute; don't perpetrate' campaign. I welcome the architect of the 'Prosecute; don't perpetrate' campaign, Susan Hutchinson, who is in the chamber with us today as we speak about this important issue that she has a very committed view on. She's been a strong advocate on this issue for many years.
The 'Prosecute; don't perpetrate' campaign calls on governments to investigate and prosecute the sexual violence perpetrated by their own nationals who fought with Daesh in Syria and Iraq. Members of Daesh have committed sexual violence, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and these crimes are classified as such because sexual violence, as perpetrated against the Yazidis, is with the intent to destroy in whole or in part the Yazidi community—in other words, genocide.
At the 'Prosecute; don't perpetrate' event last year we were joined by Shireen and her friends and family who have recently settled in Australia as refugees from northern Iraq. Shireen's family are from a village called Kocho, where Daesh undertook a sweeping campaign, killing thousands of Yazidis in August 2014. They kidnapped hundreds of women and girls, who were sold into sexual slavery, and buried the dead in mass graves. Shireen told her family's story in this very building as part of the official celebrations of World Refugee Day last year. She told how she'd been lucky to escape Kocho before Daesh came but how some of her family, including her sister, her sister's husband and their children were captured or killed.
From the back row of the event at the ANU I spoke at last year Shireen and her friends and family—and there were many of them—were weeping not only for the pain of hearing about the part some Australians played in the suffering of their community and from the ongoing trauma of missing loved ones but for the call to action that was very strong in that room, for their desire for recognition and for justice for what they experienced.
Last year I passed that motion calling for the investigation and prosecution of Australians who perpetrated sexual violence as war crimes and crimes against humanity while fighting with terrorist groups like Daesh in Syria and Iraq. And today we pass this motion. We speak on this motion which condemns the genocide perpetrated against the Yazidi people by Daesh and calls for continued support to investigate Australians who have allegedly perpetrated war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, including through the use of sexual violence; to prosecute them as appropriate; and to support international efforts to gather evidence, investigate and prosecute those responsible for international crimes perpetrated by Daesh in Iraq and Syria.
The 2016 UN independent commission of inquiry on Syria recorded the gruesome details of crimes against the Yazidis. We know that women and girls have suffered terribly throughout the genocide and that survivors, including those now living in Australia, continue to grieve over their lost relatives and suffer flashbacks from their own torture. Australia has criminalised sexual violence, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, but the last time an Australian court heard a case of war crimes was in 1951. That's a long time ago.
This parliament has updated Australia's legislation on war crimes to ensure that it applies to members of organisations such as Daesh. When we ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, we took on the responsibility of investigating war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and prosecuting them in our own courts. Now is the time to take up that responsibility. We must gather the legal testimony of victims and witnesses to this genocide committed by Daesh including their heinous use of sexual violence against the Yazidis who now call Australia home. We must include such evidence in investigations conducted by Australian authorities and share it with the international investigative mechanisms established in Syria and Iraq. I hope this motion acts as the next step towards Australia pursuing victims of Daesh's heinous crimes.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (16:55): May I start by commending the member for Dunkley for this motion. I'm very happy to stand up and let my voice to this motion. I also echo the member for Dunkley in recognising the Prosecute; Don't Perpetrate campaign and Susan. It is a sad and unfortunate fact that the most vulnerable victims of conflict are women and children. It is a fact that women and girls suffer disproportionately during and after war. They are vulnerable particularly to sexual violence and exploitation as well as other war crimes. It was the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda which was the first to recognise rape and sexual violence as a crime of genocide. The tribunal found that sexual violence was a constituent element of genocide in Rwanda. The UN Human Rights Council asserts that Daesh sought to destroy the minority Yazidis through killing, sexual slavery, enslavement, torture and other war crimes, confirming that Daesh's crimes against the Yazidis do indeed constitute genocide.
It is easy to dismiss this as something far away that has no impact on us here in Australia in our safe haven but there are implications here. Australia ratified the Genocide Convention which requires us to enact legislation to penalise persons guilty of genocide. In 1995, genocide became illegal in Australia. Our National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security is a vehicle for us to implement UN Security Council resolutions around sexual violence against women and girls. But we also have a more direct responsibility.
We have a responsibility to prosecute those who return from fighting in foreign conflicts in Iraq and Syria. We have a responsibility to prosecute those who have fought for Daesh for war crimes involving sexual violence, crimes against humanity and genocide. We cannot let this slide. We need to send a strong message that those who return to Australia after fighting with Daesh will not get away with the sexual violence they have perpetrated in conducting their heinous acts in Iraq and Syria.
I echo the sentiments previously expressed by the member for Canberra about the importance of ensuring that any prosecution that we conduct in relation to those who have returned as foreign fighters from Iraq and Syria should include an element of recognition of the sexual violence they perpetrated there. The other responsibility we have is to provide a safe haven for those persecuted minorities through our humanitarian policies, through supporting resettlement, and through an effective and comprehensive settlement program that includes a recognition of the significant trauma that many of these minorities particularly Yazidi women have had to endure at the hands of Daesh. We have heard so far today from previous speakers personal accounts of those tragic stories.
In regards to recent comments by the coalition that reflect a pattern of dog whistling against migrants and refugees, this has a broader impact on the wellbeing and successful settlement of those who have already suffered unspeakable trauma. I would caution those who use arguments about population, arguments about immigration and arguments to draw attention to the others within our community who have, as our national anthem says, come across the seas to seek safe haven here in Australia. I would caution them to understand the broader impact of their words and understand the broader impact of their political opportunism in drawing attention to immigration and refugees. We cannot talk about genocide and prosecuting the guilty if we aren't prepared to support the persecuted. This is why the 'Prosecute; don't perpetrate' campaign is so important. I urge all members in the House today to listen with open minds, open hearts and open ears to the tragic tale of these women who have come here and to support the 'Prosecute; don't perpetrate' campaign.
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (17:01): I firstly congratulate the member for Dunkley for moving this important motion. We've heard during this debate some very moving and tragic accounts of some of the acts of horror and genocide that were perpetrated against the Yazidis. I think it is important that this parliament consider these issues. It has been a long campaign by many in the international community, including Australia, to make sure that these horrors are properly recognised, but, more importantly, dealt with. Thankfully, the Australian government has already acted to help the Yazidis. The first part of this was through our contribution to the global coalition to defeat ISIL, as well as seeking to liberate Yazidis who may still be in captivity. Additionally, we've sought to help those who have been targeted. As such, hundreds of Yazidi survivors have already been settled in Australia—as part of our resettlement program—as part of the cohort of 1,200 refugees who fled the conflict in Syria and Iraq. Further, the Australian government is also seeking to fight slavery more broadly through the creation of the Modern Slavery Act. I commend the member for Dunkley, as chair of the Foreign Affairs and Aid Subcommittee, on his work in this regard.
However, the stories of horror that we've heard today cannot alone bring perpetrators to justice. The immediate aftermath of the defeat of ISIL should lead to an examination of these atrocities in concert with the formation of an investigative team, as already identified under UN Security Council Resolution 2379. The individual perpetrators of these crimes must be identified, investigated and brought to justice. I know that this is what 'Prosecute; don't perpetrate', and other organisations working on behalf of Yazidis, are trying to do. Such an investigation must be far-reaching in its conduct. While these are unspeakable horrors, to dismiss a fair and thorough investigation will not achieve justice for the Yazidis. As such, significant international support should go towards ensuring that the investigation has the resourcing it needs to investigate war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Yazidis.
Furthermore, this investigation will require an international component. There have been widespread reports of foreign fighters travelling to Syria and Iraq to assist ISIL, and unfortunately these have included some Australians. As ISIL is defeated militarily, it is likely that the surviving fighters will either flee to other conflicts or, potentially, attempt to return to their countries of origin. We cannot allow this to occur. This must also extend to those Australians who have fought for ISIL and who seek to return to Australia. These are people who have betrayed Australia and sought to represent a foreign force actively engaged in combat against Australian forces. Moreover, these people may very well have been complicit in some of the outrages inflicted upon the Yazidis. I have every confidence that the Australian government will investigate and prosecute any Australian involved in committing crimes against the Yazidis to ensure justice for victims and survivors of these atrocities.
With the end of the conflict and the fall of Raqqa late last year, there is now an opportunity for both justice and recovery. Properly investigating and prosecuting these atrocities will create a vehicle to assist the Yazidi community globally and will take a step towards rebuilding their society. By ensuring that Iraqi and international organisations investigate and prosecute those who have committed these terrible crimes, we can go some way to assisting in this process. Justice needs to be delivered for the Yazidi, and those who undertook these atrocities must be brought to account, no matter where they are in the world.
Can I say that I think it is important that this parliament recognises genocides such as those that the Yazidi have suffered. It's an important message to the world community that the international legal and global order will not ever tolerate these types of actions. I look forward to the day when this parliament can consider a similar motion in relation to that long and deeply felt genocide that was perpetrated against the Armenians a hundred years ago.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (17:05): I thank the member for Dunkley for bringing forward this motion on genocide in Iraq. It is important, not only for us as global citizens, for what has been done to the Yazidi people but also the dimension that conflicts with Australia's responsibilities in relation to its own citizens, as has been referred to. This in effect ticks the main boxes for the crime of genocide as defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: any 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group', not only by killing the members of that group but also by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction and by imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. The extent to which some of the more heinous activities that were committed against the Yazidis in the Sinjar region in Iraq went to prevent future generations of Yazidis almost defies belief.
The Yazidis' problems went back to 2007, well before even this started, with some of the more radical senior elements under al-Qaeda in Iraq, but it particularly picked up pace when the Daesh forces took over the region where the Yazidi resided, in August 2014. The activities that they perpetrated there were not only mass killings, particularly of men at the beginning of their operations, but they moved to a position where they tried to create forced conversions—of course, the consequence of not agreeing to a forced conversion was death. Many hundreds of Yazidi men were rounded up, taken away, gunned down, buried alive and abandoned in mass graves. The women and girls were rounded up and examined by a gynaecologist to determine whether they were virgins or pregnant. If they were virgins they were immediately put into a slave market and handed off to the IS fighters. The pregnant women had forced abortions performed on them. It's completely incomprehensible to us sitting in this room what those circumstances must have been like for them, and then to have to move into the situation of sexual slavery, being passed from person to person—in fact the slave market was conducted largely online or through the use of apps like Telegram, Facebook and WhatsApp. All of these were used as part of this market. It is estimated that something like 3,000 women were subjected to this as sex slaves. For example, the cost of a virgin was around $10,000, and other women would go for $2,000 and $3,000.
It is horrifying to contemplate that this was also done under the guise of adherence to a religious belief. It not only identifies the fact that there was this horrific genocide going on, but it is good to see that after all these decades of saying 'never again' there was a reasonably quick response, not only to bring relief to the Yazidis who were trapped on Mount Sinjar but also to participate in the coalition, an international effort, to destroy Daesh, an effort that has largely been successful in the conventional sense. It is also good that we didn't weasel-word our approach to this. It was accepted as a genocide quite early on. In fact, the US House of Representatives averted 393 to 0 to accept that definition, in March 2016, which contrasts greatly to what happened in Rwanda.
So I'm pleased to see that we are being a bit more forceful, more proactive, but I would add my endorsement to this concept of making sure there we're doing all we can to ensure the prosecution of those who return and to choke off the ideology and ideological efforts and propaganda that happen in this country to promote our young people to go over to countries like this to commit these crimes.
Lest we think this is all just on the Islamic side, I'd like to also point out that we have groups like Antipodean Resistance. Just this very morning, a poster was placed upon my electorate office in Bega, a sophisticatedly produced poster by the fascist group Antipodean Resistance, with swastikas and caricature portraits of Jews, describing 'Jewish poison'. Part of their program is to pursue the legalisation of the killing of Jews. My wife is Jewish, of course, so that also added extra poignancy to it. This is happening in our country, as well as what we've seen manifesting overseas. We have to be very proactive and forceful on this, and I commend the member for highlighting that prosecutorial aspect of this crime.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. Resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Universities Funding
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:—
(1) notes that:
(a) the 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.
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (17:11): As I've said in this place, one of the things that led me here was a comment once made by a Liberal predecessor in Lindsay, the former MP Jackie Kelly, when she famously declared that Western Sydney didn't need a university because we were a planned city. As a 20-year-old, so outraged was I about her comments that I wrote a letter to the newspaper about my disgust. I'm so glad that Kelly's comments were not heeded and instead, right in my backyard, we have Western Sydney University, a university whose alumni I belong to. Sixty per cent of the students at Western Sydney University are the first in their families to be offered an opportunity to go to university. This is a staggering figure.
Families in Western Sydney want their kids to have a great education, but the people of Lindsay feel really let down by the Turnbull government. I would one day like to walk into this chamber and talk about something that this government has done that helps or promotes the people and the families in my area to get a decent job or a decent education. But of course we haven't seen that, and we won't see that. Thousands of local children returned to school this month, as they did in everybody's electorate, and the figures released by the PBO confirm that every public school in Lindsay is worse off under this government. So we've got reduced opportunity even to get the kids into university, and then, when they do get to university, we've got a situation where the university's been defunded to the point where it's probably not even going to be able to be a university eventually, and there is no investment by this government to give the people or anyone any opportunity whatsoever to be able to get a decent job.
We've got school cuts in the order of $21 million, thanks to the funding cuts. We really want a pathway for these kids that gives them a better job and a better future. My community is now also facing fewer employment opportunities from those traditional jobs that were once done by people in my area. The families of Lindsay really do need to be prepared for the future and the changing nature of work.
The government thinks that the City Deals or the Western Sydney Airport is going to save us. Well, we heard 60,000 jobs, and we heard 11,000 jobs, and then we heard, well, maybe we'll get some jobs, but there are no guarantees. What will make a difference to the people of Western Sydney is a good education and somewhere to be able to go to university locally. They talk about 30-minute cities. Putting my kids in Western Sydney on a train to get into the University of Technology Sydney, to get into Macquarie University or to get into the University of Sydney is not a 30-minute city. It is not.
Parents want the best for their kids. I'm a mum, and I want the best for my kids. Not only do I want the best for my kids; I want the best for everyone else's kids too. We know that the world is getting much more complicated and that the way to get a good job is to get a good education. We'll need our kids to be staying at school, going to TAFE or going to universities. What the Turnbull government should do is properly fund our universities.
Last week was O-Week in many universities across Australia, and I had the pleasure of going into the Western Sydney University, talking to students who are excited about their future, their opportunities and the jobs that they will get when they finish their degree. But we're going to be hit the worst by the Turnbull government's $2.2 billion worth of university cuts. I said before that Labor uncapped university places, resulting in massive increases in the number of students going to university in my area, but that growth will now be coming to a standstill because we've effectively reintroduced a cap on the number of uni places, taking us back to the era of John Howard. Enrolments in university under Labor increased by 60 per cent in my area.
We do have one of the lowest rates of tertiary completion in New South Wales, which makes it hard to get investment out there. If you take away the opportunity for people to go to university by cutting the University of Western Sydney by $98 million, it effectively is going to harm the pathways program. A lot of year 12 students might not have got the ATAR that they wanted, but there is a pathway for them to get into the field that they're choosing to stud in. This government wants to slam the door shut in their face—just close the door and say: 'You're not worthy out here. You can't come here, you can't study here and we don't want you.' That is not the way to change a community, that is not the way to enhance a community and that certainly isn't the way to build a more productive society.
The University of Western Sydney will be the hardest hit in New South Wales and the second-hardest hit in the entire country. Instead of getting any support whatsoever for anyone in my community, we are just being locked out time and time again. My community have had to rally for a hospital. They've had to rally against the world's largest incinerator. We've had to worry against a toll that's been reintroduced to a road that was already paid for. We've got a defunct train line that you can't get reliable service for. What's next for the people of my community? This government has neglected us time and time again, and it's time to stop the neglect and start the investment.
Mr VAN MANEN: It is sad to say that there was another contribution from those opposite which has added nothing useful to the debate. For the member for Lindsay's edification, she might wish to consider the fact that, when Labor was last in government, they succeeded in producing savings out of higher-education funding of some $6.6 billion between 2011 and 2013. We never hear those opposite talk about that. In fact, this government is delivering record funding for higher education. The member for Lindsay touched on school funding. School funding in the past has never been higher than it is under this government. There is record funding for schools as well as for higher education.
When Labor left government in 2014 funding for higher education was nearly $15 billion, so it's increased by several billion dollars over and above that. In addition, when Labor left there were 1.1 million students. Today there are 1.5 million students in higher education. So this higher-education reform package is again an attempt by this government to ensure we maintain a sustainable higher-education system going forward with no up-front fees. But it's those opposite who have blocked changes in legislation we sought to pass in the budget last year, so we have sought to make some adjustments in MYEFO to proceed with what we need to do to ensure that higher-education funding remains sustainable.
Equally, the motion mentions regional education funding. To share with the House: there is also over half a billion dollars for the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program to ensure that regional students are supported with access to higher education. There is some $24 million over four years for the rural and regional enterprise scholarships, which will support some 1,200 regional and remote students to undertake STEM studies. There will be some $285 million over the next four years for regional loading for regional campuses and another $15 million to establish and maintain up to eight regional university hubs over the next four years.
So we can see that not only in the cities but also in the regions is the government seeking to support students who wish to go to higher education. It's time to stop the argy-bargy on funding for higher education. We've had 29 reviews into higher education since 2011. We have seen as a result of that the review of reviews in 2015 to try to bring this matter to a resolution. The committee that reviewed it reviewed some 1,200 submissions, and out of that we have seen, in the announcements we made last year, an attempt to manage the cost increases but ensure the system remains sustainable. With what has been proposed, there will be no student fee increases, there will be no changes for New Zealanders or permanent residents, and we will see students from all backgrounds retain the important opportunity to go to university.
Just outside of my electorate, in the neighbouring electorate of Rankin, there is a campus of Griffith University, who do a tremendous job. With their various programs that they run locally they ensure that students from low socioeconomic communities get the opportunities to get to university. Not only students but also young parents—there are the programs they run to help young parents re-enter the education system when they might never have had the opportunity to build their skills to do tertiary studies. The successes that those people—mainly young women—are having as a result are to be highly commended.
This government continues to focus on providing funding for higher education. (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (17:21): I'm pleased to speak on the member for Griffith's motion regarding university funding. Labor believes in fairness. Labor believes in everybody having a fair go. Labor believes in everybody reaching their full potential. It's in our DNA. That is why Labor opened the door to university for hundreds of thousands more Australians. Sadly Prime Minister Turnbull has slammed that door in the faces of young Australians dreaming of a university education.
The Turnbull government is ripping $436 million from Queensland universities. Griffith University, in my electorate, will have $92 million in funding ripped from it. The Turnbull government's cuts to university funding have effectively reintroduced a cap on the number of university places, taking us backwards to the Howard era—that rear-mirror view of the world. We should be supporting our young people to strive hard to get ahead, not discouraging them from pursuing an education. There will be smart young people in my electorate who will now be prevented from enrolling in university. There will be young people who worked hard throughout their schooling in the hope of going to university, just to have their hopes dashed by a cold, uncaring, antediluvian-minded government. The Turnbull government's priorities are all wrong.
Last Friday I wandered down to Griffith University for their O-Week events on the Nathan campus. I met with many students, some of them there for the first time and excited to be embarking on their next educational adventure. Others were excited to be edging closer to their graduation night. I met Ravi and Naresh, both commencing their first year at Griffith, studying environmental science and pollution control. Ravi and Naresh are very concerned about the $92 million in cuts to their university and were particularly worried about the effect this would have on class sizes and their ability to get one-on-one time with their lecturers and tutors. Ravi and Naresh care about their university education and that of their friends.
I care about all of the young people in Moreton being able to reach their full potential, be that at university or in a trade. This means providing opportunities to continue their education beyond year 12. This means properly funding universities and getting the settings right so everyone can fulfil their educational potential. Labor's reforms have seen significant growth in enrolments in universities, but sadly not across the board. Some groups in our community have not seen this growth in enrolments of students from their communities. Indigenous Australians, people from non-English speaking backgrounds and people from remote and regional areas are still much less likely to go to university. So the settings aren't right yet. This nation needs our best and brightest to have every opportunity.
Labor has recently announced that a Labor government will undertake a once-in-a-generation inquiry into Australia's post-secondary school education system. We want all Australian kids to received the education and skills they need to thrive. We want to make sure all Australians can participate in lifelong learning. We want to make sure Australians are not left behind when other countries in our region are investing heavily in education and skills. This inquiry will look at university education and vocational education as a whole for the first time ever.
It is clear that the current settings are not working for all Australians and they are certainly not working for Australian industry either, but we need to look forward. We need to think about the future for the children just starting school in 2018. We need to imagine as best we can what their working life is going to look like, what kind of post secondary education is best going to prepare them for that. Labor wants this inquiry, the first ever to look at voc-ed and unis as a whole, to be ready to go in the first 100 days of a Shorten Labor government.
In the meantime, university students like Ravi and Naresh will be feeling the pinch of the Turnbull government's cuts. A $92 million cut from Griffith University will affect the amount of time lecturers can spend with their students. It will affect the size of classes on the Nathan campus and beyond. As a former teacher, I know the importance of smaller class sizes. I know that teachers with larger classes cannot spend the same amount of time with students, particularly those that are doing it tough. I know what a difference this can make to the quality of education and to the students who get to graduate.
I support the member for Griffith wholeheartedly in calling on the government to reverse its short-sighted, unfair cuts to universities. I call on Prime Minister Turnbull and Deputy Prime Minister McCormack to rethink this policy. If we are going to have a strong voice for the Nationals who can represent the bush, this is where they need to speak up. But too often they have been the lickspittles of the Liberal Party not speaking up for the bush. These cuts, which are closing the door of opportunity to thousands of Australians, should be overturned by the National and Liberal parties.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (17:26): Just a quick insight into higher education perspectives: firstly, let me say that Labor, in its wisdom—not—began the discussion of university education as 'higher education'. This began the community misunderstanding that university education was somehow better than other post school education. As a graduate myself, with postgraduate diplomas and a masters degree, I know too well how hard the work is that is involved in university education. But it is not the direction that all of our school students at the end of year 12 should take. Some are far more suited to trade and diploma education with a greater degree of certainty for employment. I ask you: what is wrong with encouraging young people into alternative training and qualifications? I, for one, want to congratulate those young people who have decided that university is not the best choice for them.
As to the ludicrous comments coming from the opposition, we have been involved in 3½ years of consultations regarding the so-called higher education sector and, at every step, the Greens, Labor and any other person who thinks they can jump on the bandwagon has objected to change. Well, hello, the current system is not working as well as it could. Higher education has been reviewed so many times because politicians are not able to be responsible and make good decisions.
There have been 29 reviews of higher education since 2011. Since then, we on this side have taken full fee deregulation off the table, released a policy options paper with the 2016 budget, appointed a panel of experts to consider 1,200 submissions to that paper, held a further year of consultations and put forward a revised package of reforms in the 2017 budget and introduced a bill into the parliament. We were left with few options to preserve the budget position but I guess those opposite don't understand. 'Just spend more money; that'll fix it,' they say. I have heard it in every single debate, but silence on just where that money is to come from.
But, wait a minute, maybe we should recall a fact or two. When Labor was in government, it announced $6.6 billion of cuts to higher education and research in its last three years in government including an efficiency dividend. Prime Minister Gillard at the time said:
What we are asking unis to do is against a backdrop where there has been growth in university funding by this government of more than 50 per cent, more than half. We are asking universities to accept a lower growth rate ...
Labor has performed its own education backflip saying it will oppose the coalition's cynical move to cut $2.3 billion from higher education, the very same cut that they took to the last election.
Taxpayers have been funding significant growth in this sector for some time, a $17 billion per year increase in funding for teaching and learning since 2009, which is 71 per cent, more than twice the rate of growth in the economy. Commonwealth supported places have increased by 30 per cent since the same time period. Universities are kidding themselves if they really think they can't be more efficient given they have spent at least $1.7 billion on marketing and advertising over the last few years. Commonwealth direct funding for teaching, learning and research grows from $10.7 billion to $11.5 billion. If universities maintained their current enrolment patterns, the HELP loan investment would grow from $6.4 billion to $7.4 billion, an 11 per cent growth.
There will be no student fee increases. There will be no efficiency dividend, no changes to funding arrangements for enabling courses, no expansion of sub-bachelor places at public universities and no loadings for veterinary or dentistry courses. But we will continue with a number of reforms, including funding to establish and maintain up to eight regional study hubs to give more choice to regional and remote Australians, and more work on transparency of higher education admissions, teaching and research. There will be a freeze in funding for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme at the 2017 levels for the next couple of years. There is no cap on places. Universities can continue to over-enrol if they so choose, but there will be a cap on government subsidy. We're establishing the new threshold for repayment at a one per cent interest rate, which is pretty good. That's going to make a big difference to a number of young people.
We need graduates to begin to use their degrees to work, rather than taking up another degree before even starting to get out into the workforce. What are the differences we are proposing with these reforms? Now the taxpayers will not be subsidising every single enrolment decision made by every university, good, bad or otherwise. We're still investing in our national future and we're still investing in our young people, but we're treating taxpayer dollars with respect and accountability. I conclude by noting that university surpluses are running at $1.6 billion.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (17:31): The member for Gilmore had a load of contradictions in that speech. It was actually quite extraordinary. The regional campus in my electorate, the Cradle Coast Campus of the University of Tasmania, is under threat by the government and their continuing cuts to higher education. In fact, in Tasmania, the University of Tasmania will lose $51.3 million. The campus in my electorate is subsidised by the rest of the university because it is a small campus and it doesn't have the ability to fund itself in total. I'm really pleased that the pro-vice-chancellors of the university, past and present, and the chancellor are very much committed to the University of Tasmania Cradle Coast Campus because they understand the important role that universities play in regional Australia. They have an active presence in providing pathways to a tertiary education that otherwise would not be available. In my electorate, having that local presence with the UTAS Cradle Coast Campus is absolutely vital when you consider the disproportionate number of people engaged in higher education. The Torrens University social health atlases of Australia state that, in Braddon, school leaver participation in higher education is lower than the Tasmanian average and the Australian average. More needs to be done to get more people into higher education, and I'm heartened by the commitment of the university to the Cradle Coast Campus.
The Cradle Coast Campus offers full degrees as well as associate degrees. It offers a range of opportunities for course and research based postgraduate study based at the campus and directly related to local industries, including PhDs in agricultural science through the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture and regional development through the Institute for Regional Development. I have to say, the new associate degree program is a model that all universities, whether you're in the urban setting or in regional Australia, really should get behind. It has created that collaboration between industry and TAFE and the university sector and brought in a course where people who would not normally have attended university can start studying there.
What we have at the University of Tasmania is a university college. It's now entering its second year of operation after a very successful first year in 2017, with a range of new associate degrees and specialisations rolling out this year. The two-year industry focused associate degrees are focused on offerings relevant to northern and north-west Tasmania and are attracting a cohort of students that otherwise would not simply have considered higher education. Seventy-three per cent of 2017 associate degree admissions had no study background and were admitted to the courses on the basis of their motivation and enthusiasm to forge new pathways for themselves.
I went to the first-year graduation of the associate degrees last year and met a wonderful young lady who had obtained a traineeship and a trade in cooking. She was a chef and she didn't want to be any more. She thought she'd go into horticulture. The business that hired her saw her potential. She didn't think that she could ever go to university and get a degree, but, thanks to the vision that her employer saw in her, they put her through one of the agricultural business associate degrees. They've invested in her. Someone who would never have gone to university now has a pathway to a career in horticulture with skills and training behind her. It was so inspiring to hear her story and many others through the university degree.
What we see now with the associate degrees is that it's important to welcome these people onto campuses. It's essential that we have a welcoming campus environment for people to see that they can also attain higher education. That's why the redevelopment of the northern campus in Launceston and the north-west campus in Burnie is so important. What's even more exciting is the industry collaboration between the university and, of course, TAFE with these associate degrees. This program is really bringing together what industry need from graduates. Unfortunately, and quite sadly, it seems that this is all under threat by this government if they continue to cut further. The University of Tasmania is fortunate that it doesn't have any other competition locally. However, we could see that campus close. It has transformed the north-west region. It has transformed the city of Burnie. It's actually creating more job opportunities for the people in the region to earn a higher wage. It's creating more entrepreneurs. Everything that the coalition government bangs on about day after day, that is what this campus is doing. Sadly, it's under threat by this government, and they need to stop.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (17:37): While I welcome any opportunity to speak on universities and university funding—and I certainly welcome the motion put forward by the member for Griffith—it is very disappointing that we are here today speaking on the continued attacks by this government on funding to universities. The commitment by this government to hack away university funding is, in turn, an attack on the aspirations of all Australians who might want to pursue and participate in higher education.
It makes no sense. It makes no sense that an Australian government is committed to slashing $2.2 billion from Australian funding. It makes no sense that an Australian government would this year deny up to 10,000 people a place in university by reducing the Commonwealth grant. It makes no sense that, instead of breaking down barriers to higher education, an Australian government would actively build up barriers and block access to universities. Research has told us—and it's widespread—that by 2020, in only two years, two-out-of-three jobs created in Australia will require a diploma or some kind of higher education qualification. You can see that we need more people to go into further education to gain the qualifications for the jobs of the future, not fewer. I think it's very small thinking by this government to prioritise giving big business a $65 billion tax cut now rather than providing the funding required to universities and vocational education to ensure that Australians are qualified to work, and work in jobs for the long-term.
I want to consider for a moment what the government thinks of enabling programs in universities. Enabling courses are accessed by people who have been disadvantaged in their education in some way. They are designed to give people a taste of what study at a university might be like. They are an invaluable opportunity for people who may have had trouble in high school, who have doubts about their abilities and who, overall, have probably had fewer opportunities. It's a great opportunity for the stay-at-home parent who might want to get into the workforce again and an invaluable opportunity for those who have lost their jobs, finding themselves moving into a long-term unemployment situation and wanting to retrain or re-educate. Last year we saw this government put forward a suggestion, and stick with it for some time, that people should pay up to $3,200 in fees for these enabling courses, which do not provide students with a formal qualification. We know they're a fantastic example of breaking down barriers, encouraging participation and giving people the tools they need to go on and get an education and the qualifications they need.
Compared with many other parts of the country, not many people in my electorate of Brand attend university. For those who do, Murdoch University in the electorate of Tangney plays a very important role, and I was very pleased to be down there at their orientation week last week. It's the closest university to Brand and has offered a unique and valuable approach to tertiary education for many of my constituents.
Murdoch University offers enabling programs such as OnTrack, for students who do not achieve the ATAR ranking they had hoped or, in some cases, do not achieve an ATAR ranking at all. Among the OnTrack students enrolled at Murdoch University between 2008 and 2014, 55 per cent identified as being the first in their family to go to a university and 56 per cent lived in low-SES-dominated areas, and many of those are in my electorate. Furthermore, and very importantly—and it shows the value of these enabling courses—69 per cent of all funded enrolments translated into undergraduate degree enrolments for Murdoch University. It's a good thing for the region, it's a good thing for my electorate, and it's a good thing for Western Australia and for the people of Australia that more students out of areas in Brand such as Rockingham, Kwinana, Parmelia, Port Kennedy and Secret Harbour are enabled to go to a first-class university, which Murdoch University is.
So, to my mind—and given my over 10 years experience in the university sector, having worked at the University of Western Australia—I think it's shocking to see this government working to actively exclude people from the university sector and from higher education. I really welcome the thorough look that Labor is intending to have, should we—well, in my view, when we—take government next, the national inquiry into post-secondary education. Universities are extraordinary, complex places. Universities, teamed with vocational education, are an amazingly complex ecosystem of education for our young people, and I think a very deep dive into what is required to adequately fund post-secondary education in this country has not come before time. I look forward to participating in it and I know my colleagues here on the Labor side of the parliament will be active participants in this national inquiry, for the good of all young people and all students across the nation. (Time expired)
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (17:42): I'd be one of the very few people in the parliament now who are not tertiary educated, and I don't have the experience of the member for Brand, who has had 10 years working in the sector. But I do have Federation University just near my electorate, which is very important to us. It's especially important because, many years ago, under the Howard government, we introduced the school of medicine to what was then Monash University at Churchill.
As a regional representative I ended up fighting not only for my constituents and fighting to keep the school of medicine there, but fighting the university as well. Monash has disregarded the Churchill campus and handed it over to Federation University. All right; they want to get out of rural areas. But now they're going to put in an administrative approach that will have the effect of closing down the school of medicine—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr BROADBENT: They still call it the school of medicine Monash, Gippsland. And, because of their administrative arrangement, it is just another way of moving the processes of the school of medicine back into the city.
The reason we went to John Howard and said, 'We want a school of medicine out here with 40 places, 80 places or 60 places'—which he gave us, which was fantastic—was that we had found that we really struggled to get doctors into regional areas. As a Liberal representing a regional area, these things are extremely important to us. Why? Because, like the member for Brand said, in country areas a lot of kids don't aspire to have a tertiary education. Their parents didn't aspire for them to have a tertiary education. So we are fighting on three fronts. We are fighting that there is no expectation from the community for our children to go to university. We're fighting the university, that wants to withdraw facilities from country areas, from regional areas, and move them back into the city. What we were driving at in the first place was: if we can train doctors in the country so they get the experience of the country, they may come back to the country; instead, what they do now is: they go to the city, they meet city people, they marry city people, they become city people and they don't return to the country, so we end up snookered three ways. It's been a battle to fight and to continue to fight—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 17 : 45 to 17 : 58
Mr BROADBENT: When I was speaking before, I was making the point that we're fighting (1) the university to keep their facilities at Churchill—they're going to make administrative arrangements which mean the school of medicine will be taken back to the city—(2) our own community as much with low expectations for their children to go to university, and (3) the governments of the day at different times for how they manage and control this portfolio. I've been around here long enough, for those of you who have not been in the parliament for a long time, to see governments do complete backflips; they do one thing in government, say something else in opposition and throw it at the government of the day for no good reason except to confuse. I'll give you an example: Labor has performed its own education backflip, saying it will oppose the coalition's 'cynical' move to cut $2.3 billion from higher education—the very same cut Labor proposed before the election.
Why do you think I get disappointed with people in parliaments when they say one thing in opposition and they do something quite different in government? I've seen the Labor Party backflip from government to opposition so many times, with brazen disregard for what their policy was in government. They have absolutely no shame. I'm still, after all these years, flabbergasted by the fact that a government can say one thing in government, knowing what they have to do in government, and then say the exact opposite when it comes to what they're doing for the people of Australia. I want the best higher education system we can possibly have. I want Federation University to really succeed in our areas. I want them to be really great and I want our children to have the opportunities. That's all I'm on about. We're Liberals for regions. (Time expired)
Mr HART (Bass) (18:01): I rise in support of the motion moved by the member for Griffith. I thank her for bringing this very important matter to the attention of the House. I've spoken often in this place about the importance of education generally and higher education, in particular to my electorate and to Tasmania generally. This government's short-sighted $2.2 billion worth of cuts to universities is equivalent to more than 9,500 Australians missing out on a university place in 2018 and again in 2019. These cuts will hurt regional and outer metropolitan universities, such as the University of Tasmania, and their students the most.
The Tasmanian economy has historically underperformed. Credible economic commentators like Saul Eslake suggest that part of the problem lies in the generally poor levels of educational attainment and under-representation of university graduates within the local economy. It is reasonable to suggest that investment in education—in particular, in higher education—will improve economic performance within the state and will provide enormous opportunities for individuals, particularly having regard to the challenges associated with the future of work facing all of us. It was for this reason that during the 2016 federal election campaign the Australian Labor Party committed to provide, on behalf of a federal Labor government if elected, a federal contribution towards the University of Tasmania's university transformation project, centred on Inveresk and Burnie in the north and the north-west of Tasmania respectively.
There is no doubt that universities provide significant opportunity for economic growth. Investment in our universities and the higher education sector are a much better investment than tax cuts, particularly this government's unfunded $65 billion corporate tax cut. Recent studies suggest that the mere presence of a greater number of university graduates in an economy drives employment, not just within the graduate cohort but also within the wider workforce. Labor understands that the transformative power of education and higher education is an opportunity, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, for better employment, a higher income, greater prospects for employment, better working conditions and, above all, social mobility. It is simply not acceptable that Australia has the second-lowest level of public investment in universities in the OECD. Our students already pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD. Our record with respect to public investment and higher fees will only get worse with these Liberal government cuts.
I acknowledge that reform can be difficult and expensive. When Labor was last in government, it increased investments in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. This meant that an additional 190,000 Australians, including many who were the first in their family to attend university, were able to participate in higher education. As I indicated earlier, Labor's investment in the UTAS university transformation project ultimately gained bipartisan support, not just as an infrastructure project but, more importantly, as a very important part of improving the economic performance of Tasmania. It's therefore very disappointing that this Turnbull Liberal government not only cuts money available to the universities and to the higher education sector but also makes the opportunity to study at university more expensive.
This has a disproportionate effect upon my local community, but it is also relevant to other communities across regional Australia. Those communities could reasonably expect that the Turnbull Liberal government should recognise the worth of investing in a university education and the opportunity of improving the economic performance of our regions. It is critical that it recognises investment in higher education as an economic priority as well as an obvious opportunity for people to gain the skills necessary to engage fully with increasingly complex and increasingly skill based and knowledge based employment. It is surprising that this government, in the name of sustainability, chooses to cut higher education funding, to increase fees and to saddle students with higher debt whilst making it more difficult to deliver teaching, learning and skilled graduates—compromising, if not undermining, Australia's research capability.
I call on the government to recognise the transformative power of education and to reverse its short-sighted, unfair cuts to universities, which are closing the door of opportunity for thousands of Australians. In my electorate there is a perfectly appropriate investment of nearly $350 million on the university transformation project. As I said earlier, this is not just an infrastructure investment. This is an investment in the future of many young Tasmanians within my electorate. It's absolutely vital that we support, not detract, from that investment.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:06): It was very interesting to sit here and listen to the speech of the member for Bass on this motion on university funding. He continually referred to cuts. In fact, I think he might have used that word at least half a dozen times. Yet if I look through the numbers, I see that when Labor was last in government, in 2013, it spent $14.9 billion. I would think that if there had been a cut it would mean that there was now less money than $14.9 billion being spent, but—lo and behold!—the fact is that this year the Turnbull coalition government is spending over $17 billion. We have spending for higher education at record levels. In fact, it is $2 billion more than what was spent under the last year of the Labor government. Yet we have had Labor member after Labor member come into this chamber and say, 'There are cuts. These cuts are terrible!' This is why many people know that if a member of the Labor Party told you it was raining outside, you'd want to go outside and check for yourself. They cannot talk and whinge about cuts time and time again, because when you look at the figures you see that there have been no cuts, that in fact there has actually been an increase. We see this almost across the board, in every portfolio.
What really gets me is that a lot of people come into our electorate officers and want money spent on all sorts of good causes. Yes, we'd like to spend even more money on education, hospitals, roads, public transport, infrastructure and kids with disabilities. We'd like to put more and new lifesaving drugs on the PBS. But we can only do so if we create wealth in this country, if we use our resources we have to the maximum amount and create wealth in the country. Yet every time we come to a wealth-creating project, the Labor Party and the Greens join together to try and block it. They seem to have a complete disconnect about the fact that you have to have projects in this country that create wealth to be able to give us the money that we need to spend on things.
Going through some of the other facts about these so-called cuts, we should remember that a student can get into university in this country without spending one cent up-front. I would hope that members of the Labor Party would try and talk up education, would try and encourage students in their electorates to consider taking on higher education, but instead we hear all these scare campaigns that they run, saying students can't afford it—sending all these negative messages to the students in their electorate.
That is not what we need. We need to tell the truth to the young people of this nation: they can get into university without one cent up-front. In fact, the Commonwealth of Australia, other taxpayers, are going to back them and contribute at least 50 per cent of the costs of their degree. They will get that as a gift from other taxpayers. And we are doing that with more and more opportunities.
Let us look at some of the other numbers. We know that when Labor left office after those wonderful years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd regimes, when they were chased out of town, there were 1.1 million students in higher education. This year, under the coalition, we are at 1.5 million students. The coalition government have given 400,000 additional students the opportunity to go to university, because we have been increasing the funding to universities—not the nonsense that we hear from the Labor Party about these 'cuts'.
It goes on. We're increasing the revenue. We're increasing funding. We on this side understand the importance of universities. We want to talk them up, and we want to give opportunities to young Australians to take that opportunity to go to university in this country. I hope that the members of the opposition would support us, rather than go on about fake cuts that don't exist.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (18:11): I think we need to mark that moment we've just heard. That is the first speech I've heard from the member for Hughes which didn't come back to why we should burn more coal, so I congratulate you on your creativity and innovation! And, yes, it's a little tip for next time: you slipped up on your game there.
It should be self-evident, you'd think, that cutting $2.2 billion over two years from our higher education sector is a dumb idea. You'd think that would be pretty obvious, even to this government. Education is the key to opportunity. It's still a fact, despite debates about graduate employment levels, that you will do better in life with higher education. That's a fact. And it's also the key to Australia's future economic prosperity. That's a pretty well-established thing as well, by every reputable international agency that says to us that the best two investments we can make in our future prosperity are education and infrastructure, not enormous tax cuts to big businesses—but that's for another debate.
But I'd like to reflect on the context in which this debate is being held. In the last couple of weeks, we've seen O-Week celebrations around Australia. It makes me feel very old, in fact, that it's 27 years since I attended my first O-Week, but still I'm back there on campus, fighting the good fight with the great Monash Labor Club. Indeed, my daughter's just celebrated her third O-Week on campus. I called her to see how it was going, and she said, 'Dad, I'm on a pub crawl; I'll call you tomorrow,' so it's going well, obviously!
I reflect on the years that I spent with the Monash Labor Club. I was part of that club when I was at uni. I found my politics there, and it's great to see so many passionate, committed young people thinking about the future and trying to make a difference. It's a contrast, actually, with the Monash University Liberal Club, where they had this hilarious banner of Menzies up last time I walked past and were looking a bit dejected about why no-one wanted to come and talk to them—very future focused, the Monash Liberals!
But it's clear from just a few minutes with most young people that they feel as though they're on the raw end of a bad deal, and rightly so. To our shame collectively, we're at risk of being the first generation in modern Australian history to leave a lower standard of living to the next generation. The reality of young people's lives, alongside which these cuts come—let's go through a few of these points—is that young people are working casual jobs today just to get through university, and they've never in their lives received a wage increase higher than CPI. There have been no real wage increases for people in this generation working at all. Under this government, their jobs are becoming casualised. They're subject to underemployment. They live in a society where it's easier, because of this government's policy settings, for an investor to buy their 13th property than for a young person to buy their first house, because of the tax regime which those opposite perpetuate. They're being charged more for higher education and are now being forced by this government's policies to repay their enormous debts earlier.
In truth, while the government have shelved their plans for deregulation for now, they still want, in their heart of hearts, to deregulate and charge young people $100,000 or more for university degrees. But, with their policy of making young people repay their degrees earlier—the original idea of HECS was that, until you reached average weekly earnings or thereabouts, you didn't have to repay it—the government want graduates to repay their debts when their income is $42,000 a year.
We often hear that retirees need about $50,000 to have a dignified retirement if they own their own house. Fair enough. Good on them. But apparently this government's policies think that young people who may be raising kids, looking to start a family, saving for a house or paying one off if they can even get a loan with casual employment these days should also start repaying their university debts on $42,000 a year. That's a disgrace. It's no wonder that, when you go onto campuses and talk to young people, they're downright angry. The government really should listen to these concerns, and their latest cuts to university funding really are proof that they do not give a rat's about young people.
$2.2 billion is a big number, but let's break it down. Monash University in the south-east of Melbourne, right on the border of my electorate, will receive a cut of $108 million, the largest cut of any university in this country. Countless young people attend Monash and rely on the university to secure their future.
In the final couple of minutes I'll just make a point rebutting some of the earlier speakers. It's especially foolish for this minister to make these cuts and say to universities, 'Oh, we'll just make it up through international education. Go out and make your own money,' and then at the same time say, 'Oh, and we're going to cut your funding because you've spent too much on marketing.' What do you think they're spending the marketing money on? That'd be recruiting $28 billion worth of economic value of students every year. So you're supposed to rely on a market which is subject to policy changes by foreign governments, as we're seeing, to fund your universities, and then you get criticised for spending money marketing to get more students. What a nonsense.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (18:16): Labor will continue to oppose the funding cuts to the higher-education sector in this country, because we support the young people in this country, because we have a vision for a country where young people are given access to the transformative power of education. That's early education, primary education, secondary education, TAFE and vocational education, and higher education.
We know that it's O week around this week across the country, depending on which university. I spent some time last week in O week talking to some of my local people who are first-year students at the University of Melbourne this year. They have wisely determined that they've joined the Labor Club in their first week of school. For that I congratulate them. And it's not a surprise that they do, because they live in an electorate where people understand the value, where people understand that our brightest and best should be going to university. And it is a pleasure to represent and to meet those brightest and best on those campuses. It is an absolute pleasure.
But it is not a pleasure to be in opposition while we watch this government undermine education at every level, and today's private members' business, brought in by the member for Griffith, my good friend, specifically talks about the higher-education sector and the cuts that this government is determined to get through. We need to contextualise this in terms of the $100,000 degrees and the deregulation that this government was hell-bent on bringing in and, with only the work of Labor and support from good cross-benchers like the member for Indi beside me—only the support of good people who understand the power of education, who understand the value of education while those opposite merely understand the cost. And I got a new one from the member for Hughes today: he understands a gift but he doesn't understand investment. We invest in people, and education is not a gift; it is an investment that this country makes in our young people.
We expect in return that they will make their contribution to our country both economically and socially, but we're holding them back with these cuts. Out universities are going to have to either cut places or raise costs. Those are the options this government gives them with a $2.2 billion cut from higher education across the next two years. The universities are left with very little choice. They can introduce their own caps—and we learn from our research that there are 9,000 potential places that are not being offered this year. I met with those young people. I know how many young people in my electorate will therefore be disappointed that they didn't get a university offer this year. I want to go to that. I want to go to the way young people are inspired, how we hold their hands in our schools and ask them to aspire to get to university.
I was in a school in Melbourne's western suburbs when HECS was first introduced. There were lots of debates in this place. There were lots of debates around the country about how it was affordable, about how it could be repaid later. We have adjusted to that system. But let me tell you about the impact it had on my year 12 class in that first year in the number of students who may have gone on to university, who I had worked with since they were in year 8, with them and their families, to get them to pitch themselves to go to university. It took the wind out of many of those families' sails because working-class people don't like debt; strangely enough, they aspire not to have any. So their children who now do go to university might have a $100,000 debt under this government. Let's remember, right now, those students in O week this week and those students who went to university last year have no certainty about the costs that they are undertaking. They have no certainty about what their eventual debt will be. In fact, they have no certainty about when they will have to start paying it back, because this government are bringing into this place this week legislation to say that they want to reduce the earning threshold for young people to start paying back their HECS debt at $42,000 a year.
These young people are being squeezed at both ends by this government that does not understand young people, does not understand the journey that they are on, does not understand that they need to be supported. They need to know that their government has faith in them. They need pathways created for them to reach their potential so they can make an absolute contribution to our community. We are faced with a government that understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Australia Day Awards
Consideration resumed of the motion:
The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the motion of Mr Leeser—That this House:—
(1)acknowledges the Order of Australia is the highest national honour award and the pre-eminent way Australians recognise the achievements and service of their fellow citizens;
(2)recognises that since being established by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1975, there have been more than 500 recipients of Companion of the Order of Australia, almost 3,000 awarded Officers of the Order of Australia, more than 10,000 inducted as Members of the Order of Australia and more than 23,000 honoured as recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia;
(3)notes the almost 900 recipients in the General Division of the Order of Australia on Australia Day in 2018, from an array of fields including education, arts, sport, science and social work; and
(4)encourages all Members to congratulate recipients from their electorates on this immense achievement.
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (18:22): The Order of Australia Award is an opportunity for us to pause and reflect on some of the people who make our country so great. Over 30,000 people have received awards since 1975 and no doubt most of them would have performed their community endeavours without seeking this recognition or any celebration of their efforts. But when the times seem so focused on the challenges and the many issues around the world, I think it really is important that the rest of Australia knows more about their extraordinary contributions. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some examples of some of the recipients who live and work in my electorate of Brisbane.
Professor Jennifer Martin is director of Griffith Institute for Drug Discovery. She was made a Companion of the Order of Australia for her services to scientific research in the fields of biochemistry and protein crystallography, and for advocating for gender equality in science. Only 35 companions are named every year so this is a particularly significant award for Professor Martin. Can I just mention how commendable it is to see such a focus in this year's honours lists on the achievements of our experts in fields like science and medicine, where so much good work is being done around Brisbane and around Australia.
Following on in those scientific and medical fields, Emeritus Professor John Grant-Thompson was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his work in biomedical engineering, education as both an academic and research, and medical equipment design. Another to be made a Member of the Order of Australia as well as receiving the Australian Public Service Medal is Mr Greg Hallem. Greg is the CEO of the Local Government Association of Queensland. He assisted with founding a number of organisations including Local Government Infrastructure Services, Propel Partnerships, Local Government Mutual, Local Government Workcare and Local Buy. He was the recipient of the John Shaw Medal—Roads Australia—in 2012, the National Emergency Medal in 2012 and the Olympic Council Merit Award in 2015. Naturally, Craig received his award for such significant services to local government administration, natural disaster recovery efforts and people with disabilities.
Associate Professor Anthony Avsec received a Medal of the Order of Australia for his tremendous work in the building and construction industry and to education. Professor Avsec is an adjunct associate professor with the science and engineering faculty at QUT. He was a national counsellor for the Australian Institute of Building and he holds a number of important positions with the National Association of Women in Construction. Also receiving a Medal of the Order of Australia was Dr Raymond Chaseling, the service director of neurosurgery and consultant paediatric neurosurgeon at the Lady Cilento Children's Hospital, for his service to medicine, particularly in the field of paediatrics. Mr Peter Cummiskey, CEO of QSport since 1997, received a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to sports administration and to the AFL. Dr Ian Fraser became an OAM thanks to his work in medicine, community health and the wellbeing of veterans. Dr Fraser is a GP with GO2 Health, which has been working with veterans for many years, yielding impressive outcomes for veteran support. Another doctor to receive a Medal of the Order of Australia was Dr Barry Hickey, an associate professor at the UQ School of Medicine for many years, for his service to thoracic medicine. Dr Hickey was involved in establishing Greenslopes Private Hospital's respiratory unit, which has been running for almost 40 years.
For her service to music, Mrs Andrea Messenger received a Medal of the Order of Australia. Andrea was the Founding Director of the Western Suburbs String Orchestra, which has been performing since 1989. Ms Sarah Buckler received a Public Service Medal for her outstanding work in investment, regional development and corporate governance in Queensland. Ms Filomena Morgan received a Public Service Medal for her work in coordination and governance roles in Queensland. Most notably, in 2006 Filomena led the coordination efforts in response to Cyclone Larry. Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Jenkins received the Distinguished Service Medal for his leadership in the development of officer training capability for the Afghan National Army. A special mention, last but not least, for Diana Moore, the 2017 Lord Mayor's Australia Day Senior Citizen of the Year. Diana is now recently retired. She was for years the president of the Downey Park Netball Association and has been a stalwart of Brisbane's netball and sports community for the past three decades. I, and on behalf of the people of Brisbane, add my congratulations to these very worthy recipients and to all recipients of the Australia Day honours list.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (18:27): It was a proud moment in 2004 when, with my family and my beloved father, who already had an OAM, I was made an officer of the Order of Australia. This was recognition for rural communities, rural women and agriculture. I'm absolutely delighted today to acknowledge nine of my constituents, who were recognised in the Australia Day awards in January. Warm congratulations to you, your communities and your families. We honour and acknowledge Professor David Wood, AM for services to chemical engineering and education as a researcher, mentor and academic; Jenny Ellis, OAM for services to community health as a midwife in Wodonga; Peter Stokie from Bright, OAM for services to the conservation of the Victorian malleefowl; Mr John Taylor from Myrtleford, OAM for services to the community of Myrtleford; Dr John Mitchell, who's currently living in Corryong, OAM for services to the community as a philanthropist, particularly through ANU; Colin Campbell from Rutherglen, OAM in recognition of his services to the wine industry; the Hon. Bill Baxter from Rutherglen, AM for his service to the people and parliament of Victoria; Francis Walsh from Rutherglen, OAM for her services to local government in the community of Indi; Margaret Saker, who currently lives in Benalla, OAM for her huge contribution to the community of Narooma. Congratulations and well done to all those people.
Colleagues, we could do a lot more. There are so many people in our community who are doing great work, and our whole community can benefit by recognising, acknowledging and thanking ordinary people in our community who do extraordinary work. With International Women's Day approaching on 8 March, I make a special call-out to the work of Honour A Woman—I'm an honorary ambassador of theirs—for the work they are doing to bring gender balance into these awards. Their call-out is to have fifty-fifty by 2020. Why do we need this? Because in the 2016-17 honours, in the Companion of Australia category there were six women and 20 men. In the Officer of the Order of Australia category there were 31 women and 96 men. In the medal category there were 102 women and 231 men. In the OAM category there were 128 women and 592 men. Clearly it's not because men are more deserving; it's because women are not being nominated.
What can we do about this? There are a few things the government could do. It could make sure that we've got fifty-fifty representation on the Council for the Order of Australia. We could speed up the application process. Currently it takes 18 to 24 months—two years—between when you put a nomination in and when you get the return. Many people, I know, have not quite lasted those two years. So we need to get more staff in and turn it around quicker. We really need to set gender targets for each of those levels so that those numbers I read out end today and so that we've got some sort of balance between men and women. We need a program coming out of the Governor-General's office to really promote and celebrate our awardees. I know there is much we could do in our community by having workshops and getting people together where we fill in the forms and talk about what makes for a good nominee. The Honour A Woman organisation has set up a Facebook page and they've got over 1,000 followers. I really encourage my friends from my electorate who are in the gallery today: please think about someone you could nominate. It's probably going to be your mother, your aunt, your sister, your cousin or your neighbours. It's really easy. You need to put in the form, find four referees and make a really compelling argument for why this person should be recognised.
Truly it is time for the government now to support the work of our community and for the Governor-General's office to step in and do the work that our reports have recommended. We've had two major reviews: A matter of honour in 1995 and The Australian Honours and Awards Branch Report 2012-16. They had really clear and strong recommendations of what we need to do to get better gender balance, better ethnic balance and much better diversity in these awards. Congratulations to all the people in Indi. I'm really pleased to work with you to make sure we get fifty-fifty by 2020.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (18:32): I have seen many extraordinary people awarded the Order of Australia, and this year's Australia Day recipients are no exception. I would like to congratulate all of them, but especially those in my electorate of Parramatta.
This year Greg Whitby was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his service to education in the Catholic school system as a leader, administrator, advocate and teacher. I've known Greg for many years, and it seems he's been an educator forever. He spent four years at the Rosemeadow School in the late 1980s as the head of English and history before taking on a raft of high-level roles in the Catholic education sector, including as director of schools at the Catholic Education Office in Wollongong and commissioner of the New South Wales Catholic Education Commission from 2000 to 2017. He was principal of Emmaus Catholic College Kemps Creek from 1992 to 1994, a lecturer in the Graduate School of Business at Western Sydney University from 1991 to 1998 and has chaired the Catholic Education Network since 2000.
Greg's contribution to Catholic education is astonishing and it was recognised in 2017 when he was named New South Wales educator of the year. Greg's continued work in education is about best practice and early innovation. He saw how technology could bring the Catholic school system together and in 1991 began linking Catholic schools through a small, private network which now hosts 1,000 schools. Greg has been recognised with a Papal knighthood in the order of St Gregory the Great for his outstanding contribution to Catholic education. He is a fellow of the Australian College of Educators, the Australian Council for Educational Leaders and the Australian Institute of Management. He was named the most innovative educator in Australia by The Bulletin in its annual Smart 100 awards in 2017. In the same year he was awarded the Sir Harold Wyndham Medal for his contribution to the education of young people in New South Wales. Greg is just one of the many deserving Order of Australia recipients who live and work in and around the Parramatta electorate, but the Catholic education system in our area would not be the same without him.
I'd like to congratulate Kevin Joseph Coorey of Telopea for service to the community through a range of roles, including as a member of St Vincent de Paul Society from 1951 to 2017 and a volunteer driver. He was a recipient of the diocesan medal in 2014 and has been a member of the St Oliver Plunkett parish since 1951.
Congratulations to Elizabeth Margaret Fleming of Carlingford. Elizabeth was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the community through social welfare organisations, including as the coordinator of Wayside Chapel Crisis Centre from 2000 to 2008, where she was also a volunteer for five years. She was also a volunteer at the Emu Plains Corrective Service Centre, in the Mother's and Children's Unit, since 2000, has volunteered with Streethearts since 2008 and has been a committee member for the Friends and Families of Missing Persons for years. What a great contribution, Elizabeth.
Dr Friedbert Kohler of Carlingford was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his services to rehabilitation medicine. Dr Kohler was a key figure in the planning and construction of the Braeside Hospital, Prairiewood, in the early nineties before it opened in 1996 and is now the director of medical services, providing services in rehabilitation, palliative care and older persons' mental health. He has served as the director of rehabilitation medicine at Braeside, Liverpool and Fairfield Hospitals since 2004 and is a member of the Australian Society for Geriatric Medicine and the Stroke Society of Australasia. Dr Kohler is also the president of the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics.
Kenneth William Bock of Carlingford was awarded for his service to his community. Kenneth has been involved in the New South Wales Branch of the Australia-Britain Society as the treasurer since 2006 and as the president from 2010 to 2014. He is a life member and honorary auditor for the Friends of St George's and Descendants of the Knights of the Garter, Freemasons United Grand Lodge of New South Wales and the ACT, and he has been a member of the Eastwood Masonic Centre since 1962, holding a number of roles. Kenneth has also volunteered as an announcer and presenter for Radio 2RPH for over 20 years, and has been a diocesan reader with the Anglican Diocese of Sydney for over 40 years, as well as being actively involved with the Anglican Parish of Epping.
Joseph Weiyin Chan received a Medal of the Order of Australia, in the General Division, for service to the Chinese community of Western Sydney. Joseph has been a member and vice-chairman of the West Sydney Chinese Christian Church since 1980 and chaired the board of the Church of Christ, Western Sydney, from 2002 to 2016. In addition to his work as a radiologist, he is a member of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists and works with Christian based family associations.
To all of this year's recipients, congratulations and thank you so much. Your contributions over many years are thankfully received. I thank you for your service to my community and our country.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (18:37): I welcome the motion before the chamber this evening. I begin by associating myself with the comments of my neighbour, the member for Indi—in particular, her references to the Honour A Woman campaign. There is no question whatsoever that, particularly in our regional communities, that we need to become more activist in our approach to nominating women for senior roles in the community, but also for awards such as the Australia Day Honours List. I was impressed by the long list of recipients in the seat of Indi. I reflect that it's perhaps something in the water or, more particularly, something in the wine in her magnificent region, in particular when she recognised my good friend, Col Campbell OAM, for services to winemaking. Col is a quite extraordinary winemaker in a fifth-generation winery, I believe. His best known product, Bobbie Burns, has been known to frequent the shelves in my own home and also in restaurants I've attended, and his fortified wines are quite extraordinary, so it's great to see Col recognised. Another good friend of mine, the Honourable Bill Baxter, received an award for service to the Victorian parliament. Bill has been a great servant in the National Party, but more importantly a great servant of his community as a minister and one of nature's true gentleman, just like Col. It's great to see both of those gentlemen recognised.
I stood today to recognise one of my own Gippslanders who received recognition in the Australia Day Honours List. Gippsland, like Indi, is very well served by volunteers. The fabric of our community is certainly stitched together by people prepared to give of their time willingly. We have hundreds, if not thousands, of people who contribute an enormous amount of time each year. They don't expect recognition for the work they do, but it is good when they do receive some. One of the recipients this year on Australia Day was the Mayor of Latrobe City, Counsellor Darrell White. He received a Medal of the Order of Australia, in the General Division. His list of achievements in local government and sport is quite extraordinary. He was a mayor prior to amalgamation in Morwell City Council, but also in the Morwell Shire Council. He's now mayor of Latrobe City. He is chair and co-founder of PowerWorks, a business information centre. He was the Gippsland Sports Academy chairman for 16 years. He's a life member of the Churchill Football Netball Club through services as president and treasurer. He was president of the Latrobe Valley Tennis Association and is a life member after 14 years of service in that role. He was also president of the Churchill Tennis Club and president of the Morewell Tennis Club. It's quite a long list of achievements by one individual. It's people like Councillor Darrell White who are joining with me in fighting for the future of the magnificent Latrobe Valley region. The Latrobe Valley has a rich and proud heritage, but it has to have a great future. It's people like Darrell in his capacity now as mayor who are determined to make sure that the Latrobe Valley can go on to bigger and better things in the future.
The federal government has contributed significantly in recent times to the Latrobe Valley through its response to the Hazelwood closure. An amount in the order of $43 million has been put aside to work with the local community to see investment in projects that will help to create jobs. Darrell, as the mayor, is responsible for keeping local government on side. I'm pleased to say there has been a strong response from Latrobe city in terms of working with us in delivering projects in the region. There is record investment in infrastructure on the way in the Latrobe Valley right now with the Princes Highway duplication project ongoing between Traralgon and Sale but also massive investment planned for the Gippsland rail line. As the former minister responsible for infrastructure and transport I was able to secure a deal with the Victorian government that will see in the order of $530 million being spent on the Gippsland rail line over the next four or five years. I'm keen to see that project rolled out in partnership with local businesses, maximising employment opportunities in our region.
What we need to see in the Latrobe Valley is all levels of government working together. I'm looking forward to seeing the delivery of the Regional Jobs and Investment Package in the coming weeks and months, and I'm looking forward also to working with my community, with people, like Councillor Darrell White, who are passionate about the future of the Latrobe Valley to promote every opportunity possible for growth in the region. The Latrobe Valley is already a great place to live, it's a great place to work and it's a great place to raise a family and to visit. But it's people like Darrell, working with the community and through local government, who are going to make sure that we achieve our full potential and make it an even better place in the future.
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (18:41): I rise to congratulate the Lindsay residents who have been recognised by the highest national awards for their exceptional service and achievement. The Australian system of honours was established 43 years ago. Prior to 1975 Australians were recognised under the British honours system, also known as the imperial awards system. We may want to defer to Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, about his resurrection of the imperial system, but I'm quite comfortable with the way we hand these out now.
There are 57 awards in the Australian honours system, and the best known is the Order of Australia. The Order of Australia is the pre-eminent way Australians recognise the achievements and service of their fellow citizens nominated by the community. The Order of Australia has four levels, as most people would know: the companion the officer, the member and the medal. Nominations for appointments and awards in the general division are considered by the Council for the Order of Australia, which makes recommendations for appointments direct to the Governor-General. I understand that there is quite an arduous process, and it sometimes takes up to two years for all this to unfold, for someone to be nominated and actually have the award bestowed on them. The council considers whether a nominee in the Order of Australia has demonstrated achievement at a high level, made a contribution over and above what might be reasonably expected through paid employment or whose voluntary contribution to the community stands out from others who have also made a valuable contribution.
I often say that the strength of my community is the people, that we have the best people living in my electorate. I'm sorry to everybody else in here, but I'm going to claim that. I don't have a beach. I don't have the Blue Mountains National Park. But I do have the best people. The recipients of these awards in my electorate are the best of the best. In Lindsay we were honoured to recognise John Bateman, who received an OAM for service to local government and the community of Nepean. He was mayor of Penrith from September 1998 to September 2000. He established the Bateman Battersby Law Bursary, which supports students to undertake legal studies, and is the founder of Nepean Philanthropists. He gives a lot of his time volunteering for our community. Neville Barnier was awarded an OAM for service to people with a disability and to the community of Penrith, and this commendation is recognition for his volunteerism. Neville Barnier has had an extraordinary career. He has been involved in the Australian Foundation for Disability, or AFFORD, for thirty-four years and was chairman from 2014 to 2017 and has supported our local Penrith RSL and Homes for Heroes in the western region. He is an absolute shining light of what people should aspire to be. Albert Fish, OAM, was awarded for his services to veterans and their families. He lives just outside of my electorate, but we'll claim him as one of our own—a bit like we do with Kiwis, except for a couple!
Last year, Queen's Birthday OAM honours were awarded to: Elaine Wade, for service to the community of Penrith; Allen Cullen, for his service to special-needs education through Litle by Little and Kurrambee and also to trampolining, which I am told is a sport—I know nothing about it—and Shirley Gow, awarded for her service to children, as a foster carer, and to the community.
In 2016, we had other members of our community receive the Order of Australia medal: Kevin Connelly, for service to veterans; John Farragher, an amazing contributor to the football club of Penrith; David Trist for his service to the community through a range of organisations, which he often comes into my office and talks to me about; and Christopher Holden for his service to the community of Penrith. Quite often, we skip over those people who are not recognised on Australia Day. The smaller ceremonies that pass through on the Queen's Birthday in June often don't get the attention that the Australia Day Awards do.
The other award recipients I would like to speak about include Shiva Prakash, who is a general practitioner in my electorate. I know that he's been doing great service out there, because he was my GP when I was young—I know that that was a long time ago. He's been a general practitioner practising medicine in Western Sydney, and has been doing so for a number of years, and now looks after the GP network. Another recipient was Barbara Mitchell, an amazing advocate for humanitarian medical programs. The last person that I would like to mention, who was made an Officer of the Order of Australia, is Ron Mulock. He was awarded in the Queen's Birthday honours list some many, many years ago now, but I would like to pay tribute given that we are talking about these very important honours. Ron Mulock, a good Labor man, was instrumental in instigating the Penrith Lakes scheme. He fought for a proper allocation of services and resources for Western Sydney and, in particular, hospitals. We don't see them like him anymore. These people are amazing ambassadors. They are amazing contributors to our community. I thank them dearly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Eureka Stockade Flag
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (18:47): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) both the Building Code 2013 (2013 Code) and the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016 (2016 Code) require code covered entities to protect freedom of association on building and construction worksites;
(b) the 2016 Code includes requirements in respect of building association logos, mottos or indicia; and
(c) the Australian Building and Construction Commission's fact sheet Freedom of Association—Logos, Mottos and Indicia specifies that 'logos, mottos and indicia' that would breach the 2016 Code include 'the iconic symbol of the five white stars and white cross on the Eureka Stockade flag';
(2) recognises that:
(a) the Eureka Stockade flag was:
(i) first used in 1854 at Ballarat; and
(ii) a symbol of resistance of the gold miners during the rebellion;
(b) beneath the Eureka Stockade flag, the leader of the Ballarat Reform League, Peter Lalor, said 'We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties';
(c) the people at the Eureka Stockade defending the original flag came from nearly forty nations from around the world; and
(d) the Eureka Stockade flag design has gained wider acceptance in Australian culture as a symbol of democracy, protest and the notion of the Australian 'fair go';
(3) further notes that:
(a) freedom of speech and freedom of association are valued by all fair-minded Australians;
(b) the Eureka Stockade flag has been a symbol associated with building and construction unions for over 40 years;
(c) restricting an individual's right to wear union logos or preventing a construction site from displaying a union flag implies that workers cannot join a union; and
(d) it is an attack on:
(i) an individual's freedom of association to prevent them from wearing the Eureka Stockade flag on their clothing; and
(ii) freedom of association to prevent a construction site from displaying the Eureka Stockade flag; and
(4) calls on the Government to immediately act to protect the rights of workers in the construction industry by making clear that displaying the iconic symbol of democracy, the Eureka Stockade flag, is not a breach of the 2016 Code.
This motion before the House notes that the Australian Building and Construction Commission has specified in a fact sheet published by the federal government that displaying the Eureka Stockade flag on clothing, property or equipment would breach the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016. This is an attack on Australian workers. This is an attack on the right of freedom of association. This is an attack on our very democracy itself.
The importance of the Eureka flag does not emanate from the fabric it is made of or even the design—the stars of the Southern Cross joined in defiance by a solid white cross. The importance of the Eureka flag emanates from the struggle of those who first flew the flag in Ballarat back in 1854, the miners who died under the flag during that battle and all who have flown the flag in protest against unequal laws and unequal rights in the many years since. Born out of adversity, it is a flag that belongs to all Australians.
The Eureka flag was first hoisted on Bakery Hill on 29 November 1854. The Eureka rebellion was the culmination of a revolt by goldminers in Ballarat against British colonial authority. The miners objected to what they thought was unfair taxation through the imposition of inflated licence fees. Twenty-two rebels died in that battle, and six police and troopers. The miners actually lost the battle but eventually won the war. 164 years later, the flag remains a symbol of nationalism and democratic struggles. In our representative system of government, power is vested in the people. The word democracy literally means 'the rule of the people'. What sort of country is this if Australians are banned from displaying a symbol that represents democracy itself?
The Australian labour movement has a proud history. Beginning back in the early 19th century, workers who were less skilled and working in rural areas began to organise and demand better conditions. Not long after the Eureka rebellion, a series of great strikes rolled across the country: the 1890 maritime strike, the 1891 and 1894 shearers' strikes and the 1892 miners' strikes. All of these strikes were broken by the use of police or military force, and in fact it was the heavy-handedness of authorities that facilitated the formation of the Labor Party and the search for a political solution.
This is not the first time that union symbols have been banned by employers. In 1912 the Brisbane members of the Australian Tramway Employees Association defiantly attached their union badges to their watch chains—sort of like the stickers that many of the people are wearing today, I guess. In a bid to discourage a swelling union membership, the Brisbane Tramways Company banned its employees from displaying union badges. It didn't go so well for them. Tram drivers who persisted in wearing their badges were stood down. In response, a strike committee was set up and 43 unions across Queensland called a general strike. Shops and hotels closed down. Bread deliveries halted. Newspaper printing was restricted. Train services were suspended at night. The commissioner of police refused to allow the unionists to march in Brisbane streets, something Joh repeated later. Police and special constables from outside Brisbane used force to quell the unrest. The Premier even requested that the Army intervene.
Eventually the strike dissolved, but the Australian Tramway Employees Association took the case to the arbitration commission and was granted the right for its union members to wear their badges to work. The Brisbane Tramways Company fought tooth and nail against this action by the union, arguing the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission did not have jurisdiction as it was not an industrial dispute. The question was sent to the High Court, and the High Court held in favour of the workers. So in 1912 the tramways employees and their union had to fight for the right to wear their union badges, and they won. Those workers keenly felt that sense of unfairness, that sense of authority overreaching, that sense of fighting for the common good. That is what the Eureka flag stood for in 1854 and it is what it stands for today.
Just like the tramways badge case, it is the right of the modern construction employees to be free to join a trade union. Being able to display a symbol associated with the CFMEU, AMWU, ETU, AWU or whatever union is the essence of freedom of association. The Eureka flag has proudly flown in Australia for more than 160 years. I call on the Turnbull government to rein in their building and construction watchdog. It is off the leash and rabid. I call on the Turnbull government not to take away the right of Australian workers to display the Eureka flag on their work sites. I call on the Turnbull government to preserve the right of freedom of association for all Australians. It would be un-Australian not to. I ask for tolerance to be able to show the symbol that we're talking about here. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Champion: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (18:52): There is absolutely incredible hypocrisy at the heart of this motion. The member for Moreton tells us that his mates in the union movement object to the ABCC's fact sheet on the grounds that its regulations on flags are an attack on individual and corporate freedom. No-one today is suggesting that a person can't join a union. There is an important principle—
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Moreton was heard in silence.
Mr WALLACE: There is an important principle of freedom of association here. No-one is attempting to take that away from anybody wanting to join a union.
While those opposite are concerning themselves with the demonstration or flying of a flag, what about the freedom of people who simply want to go to work? What about the freedom of people who want to do their job? What about the freedom of businesses who have done nothing wrong to fulfil their contracts? What about the freedom of employees and site managers who want to go about their business without intimidation, abuse and threats of violence that the CFMEU continue to perpetrate upon mums and dad? Frankly, I'm surprised that the union movement is worried about this benign regulation. They are, after all, not at all concerned about breaking some of the nation's most important laws. There are laws against threats of violence and laws against intimidation and corruption, and yet those opposite all wear that badge with the CFMEU—proudly, they say—an organisation which is time and again determined by the courts of this country to be absolutely lawless. The ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, has already said that she doesn't believe in unions obeying the law.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WALLACE: When the CFMEU received a decision against them in the High Court of Australia this month, she said that it would not stop the unions continuing as they have before.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do have the ability to remove members for 15 minutes at a time out of here, so let's just say I've issued a general warning.
Mr WALLACE: If a single union are happy to have committed 106 separate contraventions of industrial law between 1999 and 2015, if they are happy to have racked up $13 million in fines for illegal activity and more millions in civil lawsuits, if they are happy for individual officials to receive as many as 15 separate fines without censure and if they are happy to ignore decisions of the High Court of Australia, then I am very surprised they are concerned with a simple regulation on flags.
Let's have a look at how the unions in this country protect freedom. How about the freedom to enjoy a safe workplace?
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr WALLACE: This is so typical, isn't it, of those opposite—if anybody has a different view to you lot, howl them down. That's so typical, just like your union mates. This month, the Australian Federal Court found that CFMEU officials had themselves kicked down a safety rail designed to protect workers at a BKH Group—
Mr Gosling: What's this got to do with a flag, mate?
Mr WALLACE: It's got everything to do with a flag.
Mr Gosling interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Solomon!
Mr WALLACE: He's asking to be kicked out, Mr Deputy Speaker. This month, the Australian Federal Court found that CFMEU officials had kicked down a safety rail designed to protect workers at a BKH Group site simply as a pretext to illegally coerce them into a pattern enterprise agreement.
How about freedom of movement and the right to work? In October last year, the CFMEU and its delegate Andrew Harisiou were fined $90,000 and $8,000 respectively for barring workers from entering their worksite to earn their living unless they agreed to sign up to the CFMEU and pay its membership fees.
How about freedom from intimidation or threats of violence? In June, CFMEU official John Setka threatened to expose ABCC inspectors and seek to make their children ashamed of who their parents were. And those opposite laugh.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr WALLACE: I'll keep going after the next speaker. (Time expired)
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (18:57): Unfortunately, we're going to get a second edition of the member for Fisher's speech. He spent such little time debating the actual premise of the member for Moreton's very good motion. This is a simple thing. The government have overstepped the mark. They're so hostile to the concept of workers' rights and so hostile to the concept of unionism that they've now completely overstepped the mark, jumped the shark and crossed into a place where they deny their own rhetoric. Time and time again, we're told that the government believes in free speech. We're lectured in the pages of The Australian and we're lectured in this parliament—
Mr Perrett: The IPA.
Mr CHAMPION: and we're lectured by the IPA and other organisations about how they cherish free speech, how it's part of their moral code, how important it is to have this fundamental tenet of Western civilisation upheld in this country and how, if anybody dares to have an objection to freedom of speech, they're somehow snowflakes or the like. Yet, if you take a flag—a flag that's been around for our entire history which celebrates our values of liberty, justice, mateship and democracy—onto a building site, you'll then lose your job, probably lose a contract and probably be dragged through the courts and fined. And it won't be some union official; it'll be a worker—a worker who takes this book onto a work site.
If a worker took this book by Peter Fitzsimons onto a worksite, he'd probably be in breach of the code. How ridiculous. He'd be sitting there reading the book in his lunchroom, and he'd probably be in breach of the code, because here it is. There's a flag of Eureka. That's how ridiculous the government's got in its hostility to workers and its determination to basically outlaw unionism. When the ACTU, quite rightly, says, 'Change the rules,' that's because the rules are loaded for anybody who wants to organise, for anybody who wants to join a union and for anybody who wants to exercise a right to strike. There isn't really a right to strike left in this country. There isn't really a right to free speech in this country on building worksites.
If the honourable member wants an example of how unfair these laws are, look at the case of Ark Tribe. Ark Tribe was just a rigger in my electorate. All he wanted was a safe worksite, and he was dragged through the courts. He was dragged through the Federal Court, which is a very expensive jurisdiction for a worker to go through, with very high legal fees. He was dragged through those courts over and over again by the ABCC and its forerunner and put under immense stress. All he was was a rigger from Middle Beach who wanted a safe worksite. That's all he wanted. And yet what happened to him is an illustration of what this government wants to do to the union movement, writ large.
The honourable member for Moreton comes into this place with a completely legitimate proposition about this flag, which has stood for decent Australian values for years and years and years, which is the flag of the workers, which is a flag of the union movement, which is a flag of many right-thinking Australians—and it could be the flag of those opposite too, if they sought to look at the traditions. It could equally be seen to be small businessmen revolting against the tyranny of unfair licences. All of those miners were basically prospectors at the time. There is a contrary conservative tradition here. But it does celebrate a basic Australian idea of dignity at work, of being able to say, 'Enough's enough,' and being able to say, 'That's unreasonable.'
And those opposite refuse to realise the damage they're doing to this country's democratic traditions. They refuse to acknowledge that, in saying to a country that you can ban a flag or ban an idea or ban freedom of thought or freedom of association on work sites, you can do it anywhere. It's a very dangerous proposition to introduce to this place. It's a very dangerous proposition to introduce to a nation. I urge those opposite to just think carefully about what they're doing here and think about whether it really does accord with their traditions and their ideas about what this country should represent.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (19:02): I seek leave to continue the debate on the motion.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Member for Moreton, leave is granted?
Mr Perrett: In the interests of freedom of expression, leave is granted.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Fisher, I want to remind honourable members that I have the ability to vacate the chair and close this chamber down if the discussion becomes unruly. I'm sure everyone wants to have a chance at this, so I call the member for Fisher.
Mr WALLACE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I'm indebted to my friend the member for Moreton. CFMEU president Dave Hanna, on the previous matter that I was talking about—
An opposition member: Former.
Mr WALLACE: the former president of the CFMEU—was fined $10,500 in May last year for illegally entering a worksite and threatening to bury an innocent bystander's mobile phone down their throat. Now, at the worksite of Glencore's Oaky North mine last year, the situation was even more appalling. I can't read some of the quotes that came out of this atrocious and long-running campaign of personal threats, but reports from the picket line—a picket line that the Leader of the Opposition visited—stated—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Fisher.
Mr WALLACE: You're eating into my time.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr WALLACE: The Leader of the Opposition visited this picket line and stated that workers who were simply going about their business were told that union members were going to attack them with a crowbar and even do inexplicable things to their children. How about freedom from simple abuse? Once again the examples of abuse from Oakey Creek are unrepeatable in parliament. But there are many more. At Sydney's Barangaroo building site a lone CFMEU official has called Lend Lease employees and even a female police officer 'dogs', 'scum', 'lower than a paedophile grub' and much worse. Before the union movement and its political lackeys in the Labor Party come into this place and lecture us in long motions on the attack of freedom represented by a simple regulation on flags, they should look at themselves and the attacks that their officials are perpetrating in this country every single day. I ask the question of those opposite: who of those opposite have actually worked on a building site?
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr WALLACE: Great, so you've all worked on building sites, excellent, terrific. Member for Moreton, come on, you are a solicitor.
An honourable member: So are you!
Mr WALLACE: I am a barrister and I have worked on a building site.
An honourable member: Do you have a ticket?
Mr WALLACE: No, I don't have a ticket. But the problem with those opposite, the CFMEU and its predecessor the BLF is they consistently believe in this concept of no ticket, no start.
An honourable member: Hear Hear!
Mr WALLACE: Hear hear the honourable member says over here.
An honourable member: Safety first, mate.
Mr WALLACE: It has nothing to do with safety. No ticket no start is an absolute attack on freedom of association, an attack that the CFMEU continues to perpetrate time and time again, the same organisation that constantly is criticised by the Federal Court for consistent breaches of the industrial laws of this country. There are 77 CFMEU representatives before the courts facing a total of 865 alleged contraventions.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for McEwen, your time will come.
Mr WALLACE: The CFMEU now holds the very dubious honour of having received $12 million in fines. Just the week before last, the High Court ruled that it is permissible for a court to order that the CFMEU cannot pay fines imposed upon its elected officials. So we are hopefully now going to see a change in the culture of the CFMEU, badges that those opposite proudly wear despite having received millions of dollars in fines, despite having given millions of dollars in political donations that the Labor Party continue to gladly receive. Shame on you.
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (19:08): The government's latest attack on workers is so ridiculous that when I first heard about it, I thought, 'Surely it's gotta be a joke; it's not the flags.' That is the latest three-word slogan from the knuckle draggers opposite. But you have got to sit there and ask: why could this not be a joke? How does the government really think that sending the ABCC goons out to wage war with the Eureka Stockade flag is something that is going to embed themselves in Australian culture? The Eureka flag is so strong, so deep in our psyche that the Australian cricketers sing after they win a game:
Under the Southern Cross I Stand
A sprig of wattle in my hand,
A native of my native land,
Australia you little beauty
That comes from the Flag of the Southern Cross by Henry Lawson. But what are they going to say now?
Under the Southern Cross I can't stand
For fear of the ABCC goons with their balaclavas and dogs in hand
Attacking workers and flags across the land
The Turnbull government idiocy is out of hand.
That is probably more appropriate than what we're seeing with the attack on the flag. This flag was first used in 1854 in Ballarat as a symbol of resistance of goldminers during the rebellion. The flag is a symbol of solidarity and unity. The people who defended the original flag came from about 40 nations around the world, and, beneath that original flag, the leader of the Ballarat Reform League, Peter Lalor, swore by the Southern Cross to 'stand by one another and fight to defend rights and liberties'. The flag stands for the great Australian values of democracy, the right to be heard and a fair go—things that are synonymous with union values. So it's not hard to see why our great unions identify with this symbol, one that ensures that all Aussies have their rights and liberties protected at work. The unions have been proudly sporting and flying the Eureka flag for decades.
But what the ABCC is doing is an absolute dog act, designed to crush Australian workers rather than look out for them. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that the dodgy ABCC has much better things to be doing than going on a witch-hunt for flag stickers. Maybe they should try and clean up the mess that they created from old dodgy Hadgkiss and co when they were deliberately misrepresenting the rule of law.
In 2016 the construction sector had the third-highest mortality rate, outdoing its 10-year average by almost five per cent. Since the ABCC started in 2005, worksite deaths and serious injuries have gone up, not down—up, not down. So this dodgy practice that this government supports is actually impacting workers' safety. Yet they sit there and laugh and think that it's great. In 2016 alone, 35 workers died on Australian construction sites, making up almost 20 per cent of workplace deaths in that year.
But never fear! The government has concocted an elaborate plan to distract from their inaction in securing our workplaces. Rather than fighting for workplace safety at the forefront of workplaces, the government is preoccupied with a dangerous sticker. Something we know those opposite have never seemed to be able to wrap their heads around is the importance of safe workplaces. It's baffling that they turn a blind eye while Australian workers are forced to do their jobs in unsafe conditions with no protections from the hazards on sites and the risks to their lives, day in and day out.
We on this side believe that workers have the right to go to work in safe environments, without the fear that they're not going to make it home for dinner or not make it home that night to see their families again. I know this at a personal level. My son-in-law is a construction worker. I've never been associated with the CFMEU, but I tell you what: I'll stand up for them 110 per cent of the time, because I want to make sure he gets home to see my granddaughter. You might not think that's important, but I do, and every family out there that's at risk because this government's focus is on destroying stickers and not standing up for safe workplaces will know exactly what I'm saying. This whole debacle is just an ABCC witch-hunt, a government distraction to cover up their lack of action to protect Australian workers, because what better protects construction site workers from unsafe workplaces? Getting rid of the dangerous stickers from their helmets, according to this lot!
The government doesn't know what it wants. It preaches freedom of speech left, right and centre, and now is trying to restrict the rights of people to wear union logos or to display the Eureka flag. Do your job for once, government. Stand up and protect the safety of workers in the construction industry. End your witch-hunts. Get out of your offices and actually do something for Australian workplaces and workers.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the member for Fisher.
Mr Wallace: I'm seeking leave to continue my remarks.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr Champion: Deputy Speaker, leave is not granted from this side. We're keen to have any of the 75 members of the House of Representatives from the coalition speak, but we can't have three in a row from the one person—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay. The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the member for Wright.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (19:13): I would like to bring to the chamber's attention that the previous speaker was heard in absolute respect. Not one breath was spoken from this side, because that was in line with the standing orders. I do not expect the same level of respect from those in the chamber now. I have never seen so many Jacobites in the chamber to watch one particular debate as I have on this issue, all donning their Eureka flags. They on the other side are nothing other than puppets.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr BUCHHOLZ: And here comes the intimidation factor, Mr Deputy Speaker. The thuggery and the tools of trade are instilled in those on the other side when they come into this place. They are servants and puppets to the union movement, and that's fine.
I want to pick up one of the points that the previous speaker made. There is a place for the union movement in Australia—yes there is. It is around work safety. Absolutely it is. I was first introduced to the union movement in the mining towns of Blackwater and Emerald, where I have property, and there is a number of great—
An opposition member: We're talking construction sites!
Mr BUCHHOLZ: I'm talking about my first introduction to the unions. There is a place for them in the Australian landscape and it is around safety; it's not around intimidation, it's not around thuggery and it's not around corruption.
I want to bring to the House's attention that the CFMEU or its representatives are respondents for no less than 36 matters currently before the courts, facing a total of 1,723 suspected contraventions. This is what the union movement stands for. This is what this government is dealing with. There are 36 matters involving the CFMEU and its representatives currently before the courts. There are 77 CFMEU representatives before the courts, facing a total of 865 alleged contraventions and over a million dollars in penalties, as the previous speaker said. Over $10 million in penalties has been awarded against the CFMEU, and that is represented in cases brought by the ABCC and its predecessor agencies.
The CFMEU's behaviour, highlighted by the Heydon royal commission, includes no less than blackmail; unlawful industrial action; contraventions of boycott and cartel competition law provisions; and obstructing Fair Work building inspectors through intimidation, insults and threatening behaviour. Who does this type of stuff? One of the previous speakers who made a contribution to this debate had the audacity to claim in this House that they were representing the dignity of workers. They are absolutely kidding with 'dignity of workers' from those on the other side. To run through the Heydon royal commission, there were behaviours of blackmail; unlawful industrial action; contraventions of boycott and cartel competition law provisions; and obstructing Fair Work building inspectors through intimidation. Some of the behaviour, said Justice Heydon, highlighted 'the sustained and entrenched disregard for both industrial and criminal laws shown by the country's largest construction union'. Don't come into this place and cry crocodile tears that the union movement is under siege for waving a flag.
Heydon continued, 'judicial officers have noted that the CFMEU appear to regard financial penalties as simply a business cost like any other.' At the Gladstone Boardwalk project, CFMEU and its officials were penalised more than $54,000 after attempting to force workers to join the union at a major Central Queensland construction site. Where's the dignity for workers on that site? Where is the dignity for workers on that site when you've got CFMEU thugs intimidating workers, under the Eureka Stockade flag, claiming that they are trying to provide dignity for workers? Bull. Absolute bull.
In the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane, Judge Jarrett found that union organiser Jody Moses warned workers in September 2013 with words to the effect: 'This is the way it'll be. You have to join the union otherwise you won't be able to work onsite and we will make sure you don't work onsite.' Where is the dignity for workers in that regard? The court had previously been told that workers had objected to the threats during angry and heated discussions at meetings, saying words to the effect: 'This is bullying. You can't force us to join a union … This is not the way to get people into the union, this is bullying.' It's those bullying tactics that we saw on the other side of the chamber here. It's not fair. We'll stand up every day to fight the unions—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 20
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Mobile Black Spot Program
(Question No. 860)
Mr Stephen Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications, in writing, on 04 December 2017
(1) In respect of Mr Paterson's claim that there was $2.1 million in unspent Commonwealth funding for Telstra under Round 1 of the Mobile Black Spots Program (see Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Estimates, 24 May 2017, page 102), what sum of unspent funding currently exists for each carrier under each round of the Mobile Black Spots Program.
(2) Has any of this unspent funding been allocated to other base stations since 24 May 2017; if so, (a) what sum, and (b) which stations.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Under the Mobile Black Spot Program, each funding agreement with the carriers sets a funding cap for the agreement. The agreements also include mechanisms to enable any savings achieved under the program during the rollout to be retained in unspent pools.
If agreed, these savings can be used to fund additional base stations, meet overspends at other base stations or returned to the Commonwealth at the end of the program. Any material cost increases to a base station requires Commonwealth approval on a discretionary basis.
As per these arrangements, the carriers have used some savings to meet increased costs at other base stations.
The reported amounts in the unspent pools represents the net savings achieved during the rollout i.e. total savings less any additional build costs.
At 24 May 2017, the Commonwealth's component of the unspent pool for Telstra under round 1 was $2.1 million.
As at 14 February 2018, the latest figures currently project the Commonwealth's component of the unspent pools for each carrier under rounds 1 and 2 at:
Telstra: $4.1 million
Optus: $0.06 million
Vodafone: No savings
(2) (a) and (b) As at 14 February 2018, no funding from the unspent pools has been allocated to additional base stations under the Mobile Black Spot Program.
Australia Post
(Question No. 895)
Mr Georganas asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 6 December 2017:
(1) How many Australia Post posting boxes have been removed from around Australia over the last six years, broken down by (a) postcode, (b) state/territory, and (c) electorate.(2) How many Australia Post (Government) owned post offices have been closed or transferred to private ownership/franchisee status over the last six years.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
(1)
(a) See the below table:
Postcode |
Difference 2011 to 2017 |
|
810 |
-2 |
|
812 |
-1 |
|
820 |
-6 |
|
822 |
-2 |
|
829 |
-1 |
|
830 |
2 |
|
835 |
-1 |
|
841 |
1 |
|
850 |
-4 |
|
860 |
-1 |
|
870 |
-2 |
|
880 |
1 |
|
2000 |
-12 |
|
2007 |
1 |
|
2008 |
-1 |
|
2010 |
-6 |
|
2011 |
-2 |
|
2015 |
-2 |
|
2016 |
-1 |
|
2017 |
-1 |
|
2020 |
-10 |
|
2021 |
-1 |
|
2022 |
-2 |
|
2023 |
-1 |
|
2025 |
1 |
|
2026 |
-1 |
|
2027 |
-2 |
|
2028 |
-1 |
|
2029 |
-1 |
|
2030 |
-4 |
|
2031 |
-3 |
|
2032 |
-1 |
|
2033 |
-2 |
|
2034 |
-1 |
|
2037 |
-2 |
|
2040 |
-1 |
|
2042 |
-4 |
|
2043 |
-2 |
|
2044 |
-3 |
|
2049 |
-1 |
|
2060 |
-3 |
|
2061 |
-1 |
|
2064 |
-2 |
|
2065 |
-1 |
|
2068 |
-2 |
|
2069 |
-1 |
|
2073 |
-2 |
|
2074 |
-1 |
|
2075 |
-1 |
|
2076 |
-1 |
|
2085 |
-2 |
|
2086 |
-1 |
|
2088 |
-3 |
|
2095 |
-5 |
|
2096 |
-2 |
|
2099 |
-1 |
|
2103 |
-1 |
|
2107 |
-1 |
|
2109 |
1 |
|
2111 |
-3 |
|
2112 |
-2 |
|
2113 |
-3 |
|
2114 |
1 |
|
2115 |
-1 |
|
2122 |
-2 |
|
2125 |
-1 |
|
2130 |
-1 |
|
2131 |
-2 |
|
2132 |
-1 |
|
2134 |
-2 |
|
2138 |
-2 |
|
2141 |
-1 |
|
2142 |
-1 |
|
2143 |
-2 |
|
2144 |
-2 |
|
2145 |
-3 |
|
2147 |
-1 |
|
2148 |
-2 |
|
2150 |
-3 |
|
2151 |
-3 |
|
2152 |
1 |
|
2154 |
-2 |
|
2155 |
1 |
|
2160 |
-1 |
|
2161 |
1 |
|
2162 |
-1 |
|
2165 |
-2 |
|
2166 |
-7 |
|
2170 |
-6 |
|
2176 |
-1 |
|
2190 |
-5 |
|
2191 |
-1 |
|
2192 |
-2 |
|
2194 |
-3 |
|
2195 |
1 |
|
2196 |
-3 |
|
2197 |
-1 |
|
2199 |
-1 |
|
2200 |
-1 |
|
2205 |
-2 |
|
2206 |
-3 |
|
2207 |
-2 |
|
2208 |
-1 |
|
2209 |
-1 |
|
2210 |
-3 |
|
2214 |
-1 |
|
2216 |
-4 |
|
2217 |
-7 |
|
2218 |
1 |
|
2219 |
-5 |
|
2220 |
-5 |
|
2221 |
-2 |
|
2222 |
-1 |
|
2223 |
-2 |
|
2227 |
-1 |
|
2228 |
-2 |
|
2229 |
-2 |
|
2232 |
1 |
|
2233 |
-1 |
|
2250 |
-3 |
|
2251 |
-2 |
|
2252 |
-1 |
|
2259 |
1 |
|
2260 |
-1 |
|
2278 |
1 |
|
2284 |
1 |
|
2289 |
1 |
|
2290 |
-1 |
|
2298 |
-1 |
|
2299 |
-1 |
|
2304 |
-1 |
|
2311 |
-1 |
|
2322 |
-1 |
|
2323 |
-2 |
|
2324 |
-1 |
|
2325 |
-1 |
|
2330 |
1 |
|
2344 |
-1 |
|
2424 |
1 |
|
2440 |
-1 |
|
2443 |
-1 |
|
2445 |
-1 |
|
2447 |
-1 |
|
2448 |
-1 |
|
2450 |
-1 |
|
2460 |
-1 |
|
2463 |
-1 |
|
2469 |
1 |
|
2478 |
-1 |
|
2480 |
-2 |
|
2484 |
-1 |
|
2485 |
-2 |
|
2487 |
-1 |
|
2500 |
-2 |
|
2502 |
-1 |
|
2513 |
-1 |
|
2515 |
1 |
|
2518 |
-1 |
|
2528 |
-1 |
|
2533 |
-1 |
|
2536 |
-1 |
|
2541 |
-1 |
|
2546 |
-2 |
|
2560 |
-1 |
|
2566 |
-2 |
|
2570 |
1 |
|
2577 |
1 |
|
2580 |
1 |
|
2581 |
1 |
|
2582 |
-1 |
|
2590 |
1 |
|
2601 |
-2 |
|
2602 |
-2 |
|
2604 |
-1 |
|
2612 |
-1 |
|
2615 |
-2 |
|
2617 |
-1 |
|
2620 |
-2 |
|
2628 |
1 |
|
2630 |
-1 |
|
2641 |
-1 |
|
2665 |
1 |
|
2671 |
-2 |
|
2678 |
-1 |
|
2680 |
-2 |
|
2722 |
-1 |
|
2738 |
-1 |
|
2747 |
1 |
|
2749 |
-1 |
|
2755 |
-1 |
|
2756 |
-1 |
|
2765 |
-1 |
|
2769 |
1 |
|
2770 |
-1 |
|
2777 |
-1 |
|
2783 |
1 |
|
2794 |
-1 |
|
2800 |
-3 |
|
2810 |
1 |
|
2831 |
-1 |
|
2834 |
-1 |
|
2850 |
-1 |
|
2877 |
2 |
|
2899 |
4 |
|
2902 |
-2 |
|
2905 |
-1 |
|
2911 |
1 |
|
2914 |
2 |
|
3000 |
-5 |
|
3002 |
-2 |
|
3003 |
-1 |
|
3004 |
-2 |
|
3005 |
-1 |
|
3006 |
-3 |
|
3008 |
1 |
|
3010 |
-1 |
|
3011 |
-1 |
|
3012 |
-1 |
|
3015 |
-2 |
|
3018 |
-2 |
|
3020 |
-1 |
|
3021 |
-2 |
|
3023 |
-1 |
|
3025 |
-1 |
|
3027 |
1 |
|
3029 |
-2 |
|
3031 |
-1 |
|
3032 |
-2 |
|
3036 |
-2 |
|
3037 |
2 |
|
3039 |
-4 |
|
3041 |
-2 |
|
3042 |
-5 |
|
3044 |
-1 |
|
3045 |
-1 |
|
3046 |
-2 |
|
3047 |
-2 |
|
3048 |
-1 |
|
3051 |
-1 |
|
3052 |
1 |
|
3053 |
-4 |
|
3055 |
-3 |
|
3056 |
-4 |
|
3057 |
-1 |
|
3058 |
-6 |
|
3061 |
-1 |
|
3064 |
-2 |
|
3065 |
-1 |
|
3068 |
-3 |
|
3070 |
-6 |
|
3071 |
-3 |
|
3072 |
-3 |
|
3073 |
-5 |
|
3074 |
-1 |
|
3075 |
-1 |
|
3076 |
-1 |
|
3078 |
-3 |
|
3079 |
-4 |
|
3081 |
-2 |
|
3082 |
2 |
|
3083 |
-5 |
|
3084 |
-3 |
|
3085 |
-2 |
|
3087 |
-1 |
|
3088 |
-1 |
|
3094 |
-1 |
|
3095 |
-1 |
|
3101 |
-4 |
|
3104 |
-1 |
|
3111 |
-2 |
|
3113 |
1 |
|
3122 |
-1 |
|
3123 |
-2 |
|
3124 |
-1 |
|
3125 |
-6 |
|
3126 |
1 |
|
3127 |
-1 |
|
3128 |
-3 |
|
3129 |
-2 |
|
3132 |
-1 |
|
3134 |
-2 |
|
3135 |
-1 |
|
3136 |
-4 |
|
3138 |
-1 |
|
3141 |
-5 |
|
3142 |
-2 |
|
3145 |
-2 |
|
3148 |
-3 |
|
3149 |
-3 |
|
3150 |
-2 |
|
3152 |
-1 |
|
3153 |
-2 |
|
3155 |
-1 |
|
3161 |
-2 |
|
3162 |
-6 |
|
3163 |
-4 |
|
3165 |
-5 |
|
3166 |
-3 |
|
3167 |
-5 |
|
3168 |
1 |
|
3169 |
-1 |
|
3172 |
-2 |
|
3174 |
-2 |
|
3175 |
-6 |
|
3177 |
-2 |
|
3179 |
-1 |
|
3180 |
-2 |
|
3182 |
-1 |
|
3183 |
-1 |
|
3184 |
-1 |
|
3185 |
-1 |
|
3186 |
-3 |
|
3188 |
-3 |
|
3189 |
-1 |
|
3190 |
-3 |
|
3191 |
-1 |
|
3192 |
-2 |
|
3193 |
-4 |
|
3195 |
-1 |
|
3196 |
-4 |
|
3197 |
1 |
|
3198 |
-1 |
|
3199 |
-4 |
|
3200 |
-1 |
|
3202 |
-1 |
|
3204 |
-4 |
|
3205 |
-2 |
|
3206 |
-2 |
|
3207 |
-4 |
|
3212 |
-1 |
|
3214 |
-4 |
|
3215 |
-4 |
|
3216 |
-5 |
|
3218 |
-1 |
|
3219 |
-3 |
|
3220 |
-2 |
|
3241 |
-1 |
|
3249 |
-1 |
|
3275 |
-1 |
|
3305 |
-1 |
|
3338 |
1 |
|
3340 |
-2 |
|
3350 |
-7 |
|
3351 |
1 |
|
3423 |
-1 |
|
3465 |
-3 |
|
3500 |
-2 |
|
3550 |
-1 |
|
3551 |
2 |
|
3555 |
-2 |
|
3570 |
-1 |
|
3620 |
-1 |
|
3630 |
-2 |
|
3631 |
1 |
|
3641 |
-1 |
|
3672 |
-1 |
|
3690 |
-1 |
|
3752 |
-1 |
|
3777 |
-1 |
|
3786 |
-2 |
|
3788 |
-1 |
|
3796 |
-1 |
|
3797 |
-1 |
|
3800 |
-2 |
|
3805 |
-1 |
|
3807 |
-1 |
|
3850 |
-2 |
|
3875 |
-1 |
|
3909 |
-1 |
|
3910 |
-1 |
|
3915 |
1 |
|
3922 |
-1 |
|
3934 |
-1 |
|
3936 |
-1 |
|
3943 |
-1 |
|
3944 |
-1 |
|
3975 |
1 |
|
3976 |
-1 |
|
3977 |
-1 |
|
3978 |
2 |
|
3996 |
-1 |
|
4005 |
-1 |
|
4011 |
-2 |
|
4012 |
-1 |
|
4014 |
-2 |
|
4019 |
-1 |
|
4020 |
-1 |
|
4030 |
-2 |
|
4031 |
-2 |
|
4034 |
-2 |
|
4035 |
-1 |
|
4051 |
-5 |
|
4053 |
-3 |
|
4054 |
-1 |
|
4059 |
-1 |
|
4064 |
-1 |
|
4066 |
-1 |
|
4068 |
-1 |
|
4069 |
-2 |
|
4075 |
-2 |
|
4077 |
-2 |
|
4101 |
-1 |
|
4106 |
-1 |
|
4109 |
-3 |
|
4113 |
-1 |
|
4114 |
1 |
|
4120 |
-1 |
|
4121 |
-2 |
|
4122 |
-2 |
|
4127 |
-1 |
|
4128 |
-2 |
|
4157 |
-1 |
|
4160 |
-1 |
|
4165 |
-2 |
|
4169 |
-2 |
|
4207 |
-1 |
|
4209 |
-1 |
|
4214 |
1 |
|
4215 |
-3 |
|
4217 |
-4 |
|
4221 |
-4 |
|
4223 |
-2 |
|
4224 |
-1 |
|
4225 |
-4 |
|
4300 |
-1 |
|
4303 |
-1 |
|
4305 |
1 |
|
4350 |
-5 |
|
4500 |
1 |
|
4502 |
-1 |
|
4507 |
1 |
|
4508 |
-1 |
|
4509 |
2 |
|
4511 |
-1 |
|
4557 |
1 |
|
4558 |
-1 |
|
4562 |
-1 |
|
4565 |
-1 |
|
4575 |
-1 |
|
4655 |
-1 |
|
4670 |
1 |
|
4702 |
-1 |
|
4740 |
-1 |
|
4810 |
1 |
|
4811 |
-1 |
|
4829 |
1 |
|
4868 |
-1 |
|
4869 |
-1 |
|
4870 |
-8 |
|
4871 |
1 |
|
4877 |
-1 |
|
4887 |
-1 |
|
5000 |
-7 |
|
5007 |
-1 |
|
5008 |
-1 |
|
5009 |
-1 |
|
5010 |
-1 |
|
5011 |
1 |
|
5017 |
-1 |
|
5021 |
-2 |
|
5042 |
-2 |
|
5062 |
-1 |
|
5065 |
-1 |
|
5067 |
-1 |
|
5091 |
-1 |
|
5092 |
-1 |
|
5108 |
-1 |
|
5111 |
-1 |
|
5113 |
-1 |
|
5114 |
-1 |
|
5115 |
1 |
|
5116 |
-1 |
|
5118 |
-2 |
|
5134 |
-1 |
|
5140 |
1 |
|
5165 |
-1 |
|
5173 |
-1 |
|
5238 |
-1 |
|
5244 |
-2 |
|
5253 |
-6 |
|
5261 |
-1 |
|
5277 |
-1 |
|
5290 |
-1 |
|
5333 |
-4 |
|
5341 |
-1 |
|
5343 |
1 |
|
5353 |
-1 |
|
5373 |
-2 |
|
5401 |
-1 |
|
5413 |
-2 |
|
5434 |
-1 |
|
5501 |
-1 |
|
5540 |
-1 |
|
5555 |
-1 |
|
5575 |
-1 |
|
5605 |
-1 |
|
5606 |
-1 |
|
5607 |
-1 |
|
5631 |
-1 |
|
5700 |
-1 |
|
5725 |
-1 |
|
5730 |
-1 |
|
5950 |
-1 |
|
6000 |
-4 |
|
6003 |
-1 |
|
6006 |
-3 |
|
6007 |
-2 |
|
6008 |
-2 |
|
6018 |
-3 |
|
6019 |
-2 |
|
6020 |
-2 |
|
6021 |
-3 |
|
6025 |
-2 |
|
6028 |
-1 |
|
6030 |
-1 |
|
6035 |
-2 |
|
6038 |
1 |
|
6050 |
-3 |
|
6051 |
-2 |
|
6052 |
-1 |
|
6055 |
-2 |
|
6057 |
-1 |
|
6059 |
-3 |
|
6060 |
-4 |
|
6061 |
-3 |
|
6062 |
-2 |
|
6064 |
-1 |
|
6065 |
1 |
|
6069 |
1 |
|
6076 |
-1 |
|
6101 |
-1 |
|
6102 |
-1 |
|
6105 |
-3 |
|
6107 |
-1 |
|
6109 |
-2 |
|
6110 |
-2 |
|
6111 |
-1 |
|
6112 |
-2 |
|
6125 |
-1 |
|
6147 |
-1 |
|
6151 |
-2 |
|
6152 |
-2 |
|
6154 |
-1 |
|
6156 |
-1 |
|
6157 |
-1 |
|
6158 |
-3 |
|
6160 |
-5 |
|
6162 |
-1 |
|
6163 |
-3 |
|
6166 |
-1 |
|
6167 |
-1 |
|
6168 |
-1 |
|
6169 |
-2 |
|
6170 |
1 |
|
6180 |
1 |
|
6210 |
-6 |
|
6220 |
1 |
|
6225 |
-2 |
|
6229 |
1 |
|
6230 |
-1 |
|
6233 |
2 |
|
6258 |
-4 |
|
6280 |
-1 |
|
6285 |
1 |
|
6322 |
1 |
|
6330 |
-6 |
|
6333 |
-2 |
|
6358 |
-1 |
|
6363 |
-1 |
|
6430 |
-5 |
|
6525 |
-1 |
|
6572 |
-1 |
|
6608 |
-1 |
|
6714 |
-2 |
|
6725 |
-1 |
|
6740 |
-1 |
|
7000 |
-2 |
|
7025 |
-1 |
|
7117 |
-1 |
|
7180 |
-1 |
|
7185 |
1 |
|
7209 |
-1 |
|
7212 |
1 |
|
7248 |
10 |
|
7249 |
12 |
|
7250 |
-23 |
|
(b) See the below table:
State |
Difference 2011 to 2017 |
ACT |
-11 |
NSW |
-252 |
NT |
-16 |
QLD |
-91 |
SA |
-63 |
TAS |
-5 |
VIC |
-315 |
WA |
-115 |
(c) See the below table:
Electorate |
Difference 2011 to 2017 |
CANBERRA |
-7 |
EDEN-MONARO |
-1 |
FENNER |
-3 |
BANKS |
-9 |
BARTON |
-20 |
BENNELONG |
-8 |
BEROWRA |
-1 |
BLAXLAND |
-11 |
BRADFIELD |
-6 |
CALARE |
-5 |
CHIFLEY |
-1 |
COOK |
-14 |
COWPER |
-4 |
CUNNINGHAM |
-3 |
DOBELL |
2 |
EDEN-MONARO |
-3 |
FARRER |
-4 |
FENNER |
0 |
FOWLER |
-14 |
GILMORE |
-3 |
GRAYNDLER |
-8 |
GREENWAY |
-5 |
HUGHES |
-1 |
HUME |
3 |
HUNTER |
1 |
KINGSFORD SMITH |
-18 |
LINDSAY |
0 |
LYNE |
-2 |
MACARTHUR |
-2 |
MACKELLAR |
-6 |
MACQUARIE |
-1 |
MCMAHON |
-4 |
MITCHELL |
-1 |
NEW ENGLAND |
0 |
NEWCASTLE |
-2 |
NORTH SYDNEY |
-10 |
PAGE |
-3 |
PARKES |
1 |
PARRAMATTA |
-6 |
PATERSON |
-4 |
REID |
-5 |
RICHMOND |
-5 |
RIVERINA |
-1 |
ROBERTSON |
-7 |
SHORTLAND |
-1 |
SYDNEY |
-25 |
WARRINGAH |
-10 |
WATSON |
-12 |
WENTWORTH |
-12 |
WERRIWA |
0 |
WHITLAM |
-2 |
LINGIARI |
-8 |
SOLOMON |
-8 |
BLAIR |
0 |
BONNER |
-4 |
BOWMAN |
-4 |
BRISBANE |
-12 |
CAPRICORNIA |
-1 |
DAWSON |
-2 |
DICKSON |
0 |
FADDEN |
-2 |
FAIRFAX |
-1 |
FISHER |
-1 |
FLYNN |
1 |
FORDE |
-3 |
GRIFFITH |
-4 |
GROOM |
-5 |
HERBERT |
1 |
HINKLER |
-1 |
KENNEDY |
-1 |
LEICHHARDT |
-10 |
LILLEY |
-9 |
LONGMAN |
1 |
MARANOA |
1 |
MCPHERSON |
-11 |
MONCRIEFF |
-6 |
MORETON |
-8 |
OXLEY |
-2 |
PETRIE |
-3 |
RANKIN |
0 |
RYAN |
-5 |
WIDE BAY |
-1 |
WRIGHT |
1 |
ADELAIDE |
-9 |
BARKER |
-16 |
BOOTHBY |
-2 |
GREY |
-11 |
HINDMARSH |
-3 |
KINGSTON |
-2 |
MAKIN |
-2 |
MAYO |
-2 |
PORT ADELAIDE |
-5 |
STURT |
-1 |
WAKEFIELD |
-10 |
BASS |
-1 |
BRADDON |
0 |
DENISON |
-2 |
FRANKLIN |
-2 |
LYONS |
0 |
ASTON |
-7 |
BALLARAT |
-9 |
BATMAN |
-24 |
BENDIGO |
-2 |
BRUCE |
-7 |
CALWELL |
-8 |
CASEY |
-7 |
CHISHOLM |
-22 |
CORANGAMITE |
-6 |
CORIO |
-15 |
DEAKIN |
-4 |
DUNKLEY |
-7 |
FLINDERS |
-5 |
GELLIBRAND |
-7 |
GIPPSLAND |
-4 |
GOLDSTEIN |
-22 |
GORTON |
2 |
HIGGINS |
-13 |
HOLT |
-2 |
HOTHAM |
-17 |
INDI |
-3 |
ISAACS |
-6 |
JAGAJAGA |
-14 |
KOOYONG |
-11 |
LA TROBE |
-4 |
LALOR |
-1 |
MALLEE |
-2 |
MARIBYRNONG |
-13 |
MCEWEN |
-1 |
MCMILLAN |
-1 |
MELBOURNE |
-20 |
MELBOURNE PORTS |
-18 |
MENZIES |
-2 |
MURRAY |
-4 |
SCULLIN |
-5 |
WANNON |
-5 |
WILLS |
-18 |
WRIGHT |
-1 |
BRAND |
-3 |
BURT |
-4 |
CANNING |
-7 |
COWAN |
0 |
CURTIN |
-7 |
DURACK |
-7 |
FORREST |
3 |
FREMANTLE |
-13 |
HASLUCK |
-6 |
LINGIARI |
0 |
MOORE |
-4 |
O'CONNOR |
-20 |
PEARCE |
-1 |
PERTH |
-17 |
STIRLING |
-15 |
SWAN |
-10 |
TANGNEY |
-4 |
(2) See the below table:
|
Total 2011 to 2017 |
Corporate Post Office closures |
64 |
Corporate Post Office to Licensed Post Office conversions |
22 |