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
The SPEAKER (10:01): For the information of honourable members, I present the Presiding Officers' statement regarding the condition of Parliament House.
COMMITTEES
Petitions Committee
Report
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:01): Today I present the 31st report of the Standing Committee on Petitions for the 45th Parliament.
PETITIONS
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:01): I present the following eight petitions:
Religion
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. This petition of 'Certain Citizens of Australia;' draws to the attention of the House,that the current definition of religion under Australian Bureau of Statistics 1266.0,classification 1996,is both wrong and indecisive. "Belief in a supernatural being.Religious laws of canons must not be immune or have rights above ordinary laws''.
We therefore ask the house to redefine religion in such a manner as;''The belief in a supernatural being,extolling positive spiritual enlightenment to all mankind and all living things,including adherence to the Ten Commandments". Therefore no religion;shall abuse human rights,be governed by a political party,that promotes,bigotry,hatred,intolerance,racism,discrimination,criminal intent,satanic influences,Cults that endorse artificial worship associated with Satan,Sects-which includes bigotry,unreasonable adherence to a human creed,human control,political overtones.
from 1 citizen (Petition No. PN0372)
Religion
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. This petition on 'Certain Citizens of Australia, draws the attention of The House,that under the Attorney Generals office in 1983,Islam was fraudulently/wrongly accepted as a religion.
We therefore ask the House to;disendorse Islam,claiming it is not a religion under the present definition of a religion[Bureau of Statistics]adding proof that Islam disqualifies itself ,contravening democratic and Australian laws,via the Quran and Sharia law
from 1 citizen (Petition No. PN0373)
Australian Constitution
This petition of the staff and students of Camberwell Girls' Grammar School draws attention to the fact that we believe it is time our First Australians are appropriately acknowledged in Australia's Constitution.
We therefore request the House to include:
1. an acknowledgement, in the Preamble to the Australian Constitution, of the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Peoples as the traditional owners of this Land
2. a new section 51A, acknowledging and respecting the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Peoples as the traditional owners of this land as well as their culture and language.
from 228 citizens (Petition No. PN0378)
Radioactive Waste Management
This Petition of Concerned Citizens of Kimba District, Eyre Peninsula, South Australia and Australia, draws the attention of the House that: We, the undersigned, are opposed to the siting of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility on agricultural land in Kimba or South Australia, as is currently proposed. We are particularly concerned about the risks this proposal presents to Kimba and Eyre Peninsula's clean and green reputation, upon which our export industries relies.
We therefore ask the House to: Remove both Kimba sites from the shortlist to host the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. We request that the Federal Government undertake a proper process to find the best possible site for disposal of all of our nation's Radioactive Waste, where it cannot impact on local agriculture, industry and social cohesion. We sincerely hope that this will allow the Kimba community to return to the harmonious, cooperative and civil community life that existed prior to the introduction of this proposal.
from 932 citizens (Petition No. PN0381)
Education
Our belief and faith in all Children involves devotion, discipline, support and encouragement for those Children to observe, and learn the principal Proven-Facts about, (HUMAN-EVOLUTION) 'which will design a legal moral-code governing the conduct of Human-affairs, achieving a truthful and positive influence on all Human-kind to go forward together, in a common direction. / We the people of Australia must 'Scientifically’ question, again and again our responsibility towards the Children of tomorrow, and their Children's, Children. / All Modern-Children should know the truth about anatomical changes to their body organisms over millions of years, the evolutionary process that created 'modern-Human' during the past 3.95 Billions-years, giving all Children respect and confidence for them-selves, to establish a peaceful transition from ancient beliefs, to the 'Scientific' age of knowledge.
We therefore ask the House to debate this 'EDUCATION BILL: Education Act, to be amended. Section 1: Introduce one Subject, (HUMAN-EVOLUTION) 'to competently Educate all Students in every Australian School-Culture, building a high-quality early Childhood Education for those Students, on their journey through School, and University. / Section 2: Introduce a, (HUMAN-EVOLUTION EDUCATION LAW) 'that law of principle will rule and control the, (COMPULSORY SEPARATE CURRICULUM) ‘in grades 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12, for those Students to receive the Scientific Proven-Facts about, (HUMAN-EVOLUTION) 'Compassionately touched and designed for every Public School, Private School, religious School, and Independent Schools. Achieving, a GIANT-STEP! For Human-kind.
from 2 citizens (Petition No. EN0714)
Communism
We request an annual commemoration day for the victims of communism, as called for in Senate motion no.577 agreed to on 16 November 2017: 22 Victims of communism—Annual commemoration Senator Bernardi, pursuant to notice of motion not objected to as a formal motion, moved general business notice of motion no. 577—That the Senate— (a) notes that the Trump Administration in the United States of America has declared 7 November nto be the National Day for Victims of Communism; (b) further notes the Senate motio passed on 18 October 2017 rejecting any assertion that the teachings of Lenin or Marx should be celebrated in a liberal democracy; (c) recalls the number of refugees who came to Australia fleeing communist regimes; and (d) calls on the Government to organise a similar annual commemoration remembering the victims of communism from 7 November 2018 onwards.
We therefore ask the House to act upon Senate motion no. 577 to organise an annual commemoration remembering the victims of communism from 7 November 2018 onwards.
from 51 citizens (Petition No. EN0716)
Housing Affordability
There has been wide recognition of the fact that it is becoming harder and harder in Australia for a worker of average income to enter the property market, especially for those who choose to have a family, which increases expenses and decreases income. Conversely it has become easier and easier for individuals to purchase a second or subsequent home as an investment which further widens the gap between renters and owners. In most large cities it has become prohibitively expensive for most individuals on an average income to enter the property market, essentially trapping them as renters for life. This needs to change.
We therefore ask the House to: 1. Evaluate the possibility of first home buyers drawing upon the entirety of their accumulated superannuation in order to obtain a house deposit. This would of course have tax implications, however these are workable. Purchase of a house is a stable investment for retirement which may prevent individuals from becoming "retired renters" who are forced to continue paying rent without employment income. 2. Reduce stamp duty and other associated taxes for those buying for the first time and increase them for those purchasing a property as an investment. Do anything else that can be done to assist hard working Australians from being trapped in the rental market.
from 39 citizens (Petition No. EN0717)
Cosmetic Surgery
We believe the female vulva is sacred and beautiful. However there is currently an epidemic of young women with record-high insecurity and discomfort levels around the appearance of their vulva. The rate of women seeking surgical labiaplasty, believing their vulva to be unattractive or abnormal is at record high levels. In Australia, images of women's genitals that appear in magazines like Cosmo and Cleo (and in sealed sections and M rated pornography) need to comply with the Guidelines for Classification of Publications, which in practice require genital labia and clitoral hood to be air-brushed in order to meet Guidelines with problematic terms such as "discreet genital detail". As a result, many women have a distorted image of what is normal, which doesn't reflect the reality that about half of all women have labia minora that are longer than the labia majora; and that there is a wide range in the healthy vulva appearance and detail, folds and protrusions of labia majora and minora, and clitoral hood.
We therefore ask the House to review its Guidelines under Australian Classification laws, which is seeing normal healthy female vulvas airbrushed of labia in magazines and publications in Australia, to ensure they are not "high impact" or in-"discreet" or have "genital emphasis". We also ask the House to take action to ensure school students are taught biology and sex education with realistic photographs of a wide range of normal vulvas, and not a single stylised diagram of a vulva.
from 1,009 citizens (Petition No. EN0724)
Petitions received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:01): I present the following 12 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:
Defence Personnel: Home Ownership Assistance Scheme
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 18 June 2018 regarding the Referral of Petition EN0263, which effectively requests the removal (or substantial increase in time) of the two year limitation to access a subsidy certificate under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 (Cth).
I regret to advise at this point in time, that I am unable to properly reply to this petition. Instead, I am currently seeking detailed advice in relation to this request, which will require inter-departmental coordination by the Departments of Defence, Veterans' Affairs and Finance.
As such, I undertake to provide a final response to the Committee by 1 December 2018.
I trust the above information clarifies the current status of this request by the petition members and I thank them for the time taken to prepare their petition.
Yours sincerely,
from the Minister for Defence Personnel, Mr Chester (Petition No. EN0263)
Aged Care
Dear Mrs Wicks
I refer to your letter of 6 February 2018 concerning Petition number EN0405 -Staffing levels and English language proficiency in aged care facilities. I apologise for the delay in responding, however it appears my office never received the original correspondence.
The Turnbull Government is committed to the delivery of high quality care to older Australians through our funded aged care services and considers the health, safety and welfare of aged care recipients a high priority.
Aged care homes must ensure that management and staff have the knowledge and skills to perform their role, including communicating effectively with care recipients. While Commonwealth law does not stipulate the need for a compulsory English test for staff members, where language is a barrier to staff providing quality care and services, the approved provider must ensure that staff receive appropriate training.
All Commonwealth-subsidised aged care homes are required to have adequate numbers of appropriately skilled staff to meet individual care recipients' needs. There is however, no Commonwealth legislation that prescribes minimum numbers of staff on duty at any given time.
This is because there is no single optimum number of staff, or combination of staff qualifications, that will result in quality aged care in all circumstances. Rather, the number of staff required to look after care recipients will change according to the varying needs of those individuals, the facility size and design, and the way work is organised including the extent to which services are outsourced. It is the responsibility of individual aged care homes to use Government subsidies to ensure they have the staffing mix and numbers they require for their care recipients to receive high quality care.
Opinions presented at the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Inquiry into the Future of Australia's aged care sector workforce in 2016 were mixed regarding the merits of staff ratios. A number of submitters were not supportive of mandating staffing ratios, mostly because they considered it would not resolve issues and would impose unnecessary regulatory burden. Additionally, worldwide research regarding mandated staffing ratios is inconclusive in the relationship to quality care and resident outcomes.
If, at any time, anyone is concerned that the care of any care recipient is being compromised they are encouraged to discuss their concerns directly with the aged care provider. People can also access the Australia-wide Older Persons Advocacy Network (OPAN) to support them to effectively access and interact with providers and have their rights protected. Information about OPAN can be found on its website www.opan.com.au.
The Aged Care Complaints Commissioner also provides a free service for people to raise concerns about the quality of care or services. There are strict confidentiality and anonymity provisions within aged care legislation that ensures people who request confidentiality are protected from having their identity disclosed. The Complaints Commissioner can be contacted on 1800 550 552 (free call) or by visiting the website www.agedcarecomplaints.gov.au.
In the 2017-18 Budget, the Australian Government committed funding of $1.92 million to establish an industry-led taskforce to develop an aged care workforce strategy. Professor John Pollaers OAM was appointed to Chair the taskforce.
The taskforce has undertaken wide consultation and engagement with a full range of stakeholders and interested groups, including the perspectives of staff, employee bodies, consumers and their families.
The taskforce submitted its strategy to me on 29 June 2018. The strategy included a range of actions for industry to drive and ensure industry sustainability into the future. Information about the taskforce is available on the Department of Health's website https://agedcare.health.gov.au/reform/aged-care-workforce-strategy-taskforce.
Also allocated in the 2017-18 Budget was funding of $33 million over three years to existing service providers in the aged care and disability sector to grow their workforce under the Boosting the Local Care Workforce Program. More information can be found on the Department's website https://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr2018-wyatt002.htm.
Additionally, the Turnbull Government is always looking at ways to improve the regulation of aged care and will establish a new national independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission
https://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr2018-wyatt048.htm. The new Commission will be a responsive, one-stop shop to prevent failures, highlight quality concerns and have them quickly rectified. Additional reforms include increased transparency through a publicly available performance rating of aged care providers against quality standards.
As part of aged care reforms, the Turnbull Government is developing a Single Aged Care Quality Framework https://agedcare.health.gov.au/quality/single-quality-framework-focus-on-consumers. The single quality framework will increase the focus on quality outcomes for consumers.
Thank you for raising these matters.
Yours sincerely,
from the Minister for Aged Care, Mr Wyatt (Petition No. EN0405)
Marriage
Dear Chair
Thank you for your correspondence to the Treasurer regarding the petition about the validity of the results from the Australian Marriage Law Postage Survey. Your correspondence was referred to my office on 10 September 2018.
On 15 November 2017, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) published the results of the Australian Marriage Law Postage Survey along with a Quality and Integrity Statement by an independent assurance and integrity adviser. The independent adviser conducted real-time oversight to ensure the validity and integrity of the results, which is, in effect, a higher standard of assurance than the petitioners seek.
The Quality and Integrity Statement found that the Australian Marriage Law Postage Survey statistics meet the requirement of the Census and Statistics (Statistical Information) Direction 2017 issued by the Treasurer on 9 August 2017.
According to the statement an overall participation rate of 79.5 per cent, with consistent distribution across age groups, gender, and geography is a strong indicator of quality. More information on the quality and integrity of the survey can be found on the ABS website at this address:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1800.0~2017~Main%20Features~Quality%20and%20integrity%20statement~19
The ABS published a full report outlining how it conducted the survey and this can be found on its website: htto://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/1800.0.
Further, the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee held an Inquiry and published a report regarding the arrangements for the postal survey. Details of the inquiry were tabled on 13 February 2018, and can be found on its website. In particular I draw your attention to the exemplary report by Government Senators on the Committee. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Finance_and_Public_Administration/postalsurvey/Report/d01
Observers were appointed by Members of Parliament and Senators to oversee the process and ensure that the count was conducted accurately and with integrity. These observers represented people with views on both sides of the debate, with both sides represented in even numbers in the observer shifts.
Finally, the ABS received a letter dated 13 November 2017 from Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan, Minister for Resources and Northern Australian, in his role as the Chair of the No Committee in which he advised:
"On behalf of the No Committee I would like to acknowledge the exemplary work carried out by the ABS. The issue of marriage is an emotive issue within the electorate, with both sides of the debate holding strong views. As such, for Australians to respect the result of the survey they would have to be assured of the poll's integrity. It is clear that observers from both the yes and no sides were content with the counting systems in place. I am thankful for the work you have done to ensure that Australians can be assured of the integrity of the survey."
Yours sincerely,
from the Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Senator Cormann (Petition No. EN0426)
Environment
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letters to the former Minister for the Environment and Energy, the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP, concerning the petitions EN0487 and PN0342 which request that the House fund the acquisition of Lot 996 SP129069 and Lot 124 SP156870 by the Crown for the long term protection of the Great Sandy Strait wetlands and the Great Barrier Reef. This correspondence has been referred to me as it falls under my responsibilities as the Minister for the Environment. I regret the delay in responding.
I note the concerns raised in the petition on the Turtle Cove Haven Retirement Village Project (EPBC 2013/7038). On 29 November 2013, this proposal was determined under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to be a controlled action, due to likely significant impacts on wetlands of international importance (s.16 & 17B), listed threatened species and communities (s.18 and 18A) and listed migratory species (s.20 & 20A). The Department has now commenced the assessment of the proponent's final assessment documentation. Before a decision is made on whether to approve the project under the
EPBC Act, careful consideration will be given to all relevant information including public comments and the acceptability of the impacts associated with the project.
I also note that the petition has requested that the Crown acquire the property associated with the proposal. There are covenanting programs available that have incentives for landowners, such as the Environment Ministers Covenanting Program. Landowners entering covenants under approved conservation covenanting programs may be eligible for tax concessions.
A conservation covenant is a voluntary agreement made between a landholder and an authorised body (such as a Covenant Scheme Provider) to protect and enhance the natural, cultural and/or scientific values of certain land. The owner continues to own, use and live on the land, while the natural values of an area are conserved by the landholder in partnership with the Covenant Scheme Provider. Interested parties may access further information about these programs from the Department of the Environment and Energy's website.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this petition.
Yours sincerely,
from the Minister for the Environment, Ms Price (Petition Nos EN0487 and PN0342)
Child Care
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 21 May 2018 regarding petition number EN0495 requesting that child care fee assistance for partnered couples be based on single income, not combined income.
The primary role of the Australian Government in relation to early childhood education and care is to provide families with financial assistance to help cover the cost of child care and to encourage workforce participation. The Government is investing an additional $2.5 billion into the new child care package to provide more support for families, including a $1.2 billion Child Care Safety Net. The centrepiece of the new package, the Child Care Subsidy (CCS), commenced on 2 July 2018 and is designed to encourage families to participate in the workforce and provide more targeted support to lower and middle income families.
As the petitioner is aware, the percentage of subsidy a family is entitled to, is based on combined annual family adjusted taxable income. Basing the CCS on combined annual family income is consistent with other settings for the CCS, such as the activity test, which is based on the activity each parent undertakes, including in two-parent families where the parent with the lower activity level determines the hours of subsidy per fortnight. This is because the Government considers that the cost and responsibility of raising children is shared within the family unit.
Further, the CCS is based on combined annual family income to ensure the subsidy is targeted to assist as many families as possible. Calculating child care fee assistance based on single income, particularly if based on the parent with the lowest income in two-parent families, would represent a significantly higher cost to the taxpayer. This approach would also disproportionately benefit families with one high income earner and provide little extra assistance for those who need it the most, such as low income families or single parents. It would also reduce the incentives for the lower income earner to return to work or increase their workforce participation.
The Government also recognises children from disadvantaged backgrounds benefit most from quality early childhood education and care. This is why families earning $66,958 or less who do not meet or are not exempt from the activity test are entitled to 24 hours of subsidised child care per fortnight at the highest rate of subsidy under the Child Care Safety Net.
Under the CCS, families earning $66,958 or less receive the maximum CCS rate of 85 per cent. As family income increases the rate of subsidy decreases, reaching zero per cent at $351,248. Families with incomes at or above this threshold have no CCS entitlement as the Government considers that high income families are better able to meet their child care costs. This ensures more financial support is targeted to the families who need it most.
I can further assure the petitioner that all aspects of the new child care package have been reviewed and tightened to ensure a sustainable system into the future. The package includes a number of mechanisms to help reduce costs for parents. For example, the hourly rate caps, which are the maximum hourly rate the Government will subsidise for each service type, effectively sets a reference point from which parents can expect prices should not dramatically exceed and from which they can hold providers accountable.
Additionally, as part of simplifying the child care package and ensuring services can operate in a manner that best suits the families who use them and to provide flexible and cost effective child care, the Government has reduced the regulatory requirements currently applying to child care services, including the hours per day and days per week a service must open. This means services have the flexibility to offer, for example, shorter sessions of care for parents who work part time hours. Some services, to their credit, are already offering shorter sessions of care to their families since the package commenced.
Thank you for writing on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and I trust this information is of assistance to the petitioner.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education, Mr Tehan (Petition No. EN0495)
Infrastructure: Transport
Thank you for your letter of 30 May 2018 regarding the Member for Wide Bay's petition to fast track the Bruce Highway - Cooroy to Curra Section D upgrade.
At the 2018-19 Federal Budget the Australian Government committed additional funding of $3.3 billion to the Bruce Highway Upgrade Program (BHUP) taking the total Australian Government commitment to $10 billion. This included an $800 million commitment towards the construction phase of the Bruce Highway — Cooroy to Curra Section D project.
As the detailed design phase is now complete the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities is working closely with the Queensland Government to prioritise the progression of this project including an assessment of the business case by Infrastructure Australia.
Discussions with the Queensland Government indicate construction will likely commence in early 2019. The Australian Government is working with the Queensland Government for construction to commence sooner if possible noting our funding is available in 2018.
As mentioned within the petition, the Australian Government has funded the three previous upgrades of the Cooroy to Curra corridor which has thus far provided 36 kilometres of new four lane divided highway with wide median, and Q100 (1 in 100 year event) flood immunity. This includes a long-standing $52 million commitment towards the planning for the Section D project. Once Section D is constructed it will complete the upgrade to the 62-kilometre corridor and deliver the full corridor benefits.
In addition to the enormous increase in road safety, these projects also assist in maintaining economic productivity, reducing travel times and improving efficiency, highway reliability and access throughout the Wide Bay region.
I acknowledge the Member for Wide Bay's strong advocacy for Section D and efforts to fast track this project and I am committed to working with the Member for Wide Bay and the Queensland Government to see Section D become a reality as soon as possible.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention and I trust this is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr McCormack (Petition No. EN0544)
Live Animal Exports
Thank you for your letter of 18 June 2018 about the livestock export trade. I apologise for the delay in responding. I appreciate your views of the live trade and concern about the treatment of exported animals The government supports a sustainable livestock export trade and is taking action to improve animal welfare standards and make the trade more accountable for its actions.
The government supported the recommendations of the independent review into live sheep exports to the Middle East in the northern summer which was conducted by veterinarian Dr Michael McCarthy. The recommendations are being implemented as a priority including further work on heat stress risk assessment. Dr McCarthy's report and the government's response can be found at agriculture.gov.au/LAE.
Dr McCarthy's recommendations build on Australia's existing livestock export assurance systems, including the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) and Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS). ASEL ensures that livestock are fit for export and that their health and welfare is managed during live export voyages. An independent technical committee is currently reviewing ASEL and I encourage you to consider the issues paper before 19 September 2018 (agriculture.gov.au/animal/welfare/export-trade/review-asel). The first issues paper seeking public input on the development of a new approach to heat stress risk assessment of livestock for export to the Middle East is on the department's 'Have your say' web page for comment until 19 October 2018.
Mr Philip Moss AM will shortly complete a review of the capability, culture and investigative powers of the department as the regulator of live exports. The Australian public and the government must have trust in the integrity and regulation of the trade by the Department. I expect to consider and respond to Mr Moss' recommendations in the coming weeks.
For the trade to continue, exporters must meet their responsibilities and be accountable to the government and the community. I expect witnesses of bad behaviour in the trade to call the new whistleblower hotline (1800 319 595) and anonymously report what they have seen. I also expect the new independent observer program will improve monitoring and assessment of the performance of exporters. I also hope to progress a Bill in Parliament to increase penalties for those who breach laws. Also the regulator recently cancelled two export licences, demonstrating that where exporters are in the wrong, action will be taken. The outcomes of investigations into compliance and mortalities on live export voyages can be found at: agriculture.gov.au/export/controlled-goods/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations.
The government remains absolutely committed to supporting our hard working farmers and regional communities who would be unfairly impacted by a ban on the trade. The actions outlined above are essential and respond to concerns about animal welfare.
Thank you again for raising your concerns about this important issue.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Mr Littleproud (Petition No. EN0585)
Family Law
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 18 June 2018 regarding a petition presented to the House of Representatives that requests parents continue to make child support payments after their child turns 18 years old. The petition requests that parents continue to pay child support until their children earn enough to reach the tax threshold, complete training or study, or turn 21 years old, whichever comes first (EN0593). I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
The child support scheme is based on the principle that parents generally only have a legal responsibility to support their children until they turn 18 years old. Where the child is still in secondary school on their le birthday, child support assessments can be extended until the last day of secondary school for the school year after the child turns 18, where the receiving parent has applied for an extension of the assessment.
A parent can seek a child maintenance order from a court with family law jurisdiction under section 66L of the Family Law Act 1975 to enable their child over 18 years of age to complete their education, or because the child has a mental or physical disability. A child maintenance order may then be registered with the Department of Human Services for collection.
If the petitioners would like more information about child maintenance orders and the court process, the Family Law National Enquiry Centre (NEC) is the entry point for all telephone and email enquiries on Family Law Court matters. The Family Law NEC can provide information and procedural advice, forms and brochures and referral advice to community and support services.
Petitioners can contact the Family Law NEC by phoning 1300 352 000 for the cost of a local call from 8.30am to 5.00pm, Monday to Friday, or by email at enquiries@familylawcourts.gov.au.
Thank you for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Social Services, Mr Tehan (Petition No. EN0593)
Health Care
Dear Chair
I refer to your letter of 25 June 2018 concerning the Standing Committee on Petitions - medication side-effects - EN0607.
It is important to note that, while safety is of paramount importance, the Australian Government is also committed to ensuring that the community has access, within a reasonable time, to therapeutic advances.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) applies a risk management approach designed to ensure therapeutic goods, including medicines, supplied in Australia meet acceptable standards of quality, safety and efficacy. In particular, the TGA employs scientific and clinical expertise to ensure that the benefits to consumers outweigh the risks associated with use of a medicine. Once a medicine is approved, the TGA continues to monitor the product in the market through therapeutic product vigilance activities. The main product vigilance tools used by the TGA are adverse event reports, Risk Management Plans and Periodic Safety Update Reports.
The maintenance and improvement of health and safety is a shared responsibility. However, sponsors have the primary responsibility for the safety of any therapeutic products they import into, supply in or export from Australia. Sponsors must comply with legislative requirements for therapeutic product vigilance under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and there are applicable offences and penalties under the Act for not complying.
Under-reporting of adverse events is recognised as a global issue. The number of adverse events reported for a given medicine is clearly important information, as is the volumes being used, but is not the sole source of information used by regulators to make judgements on the benefit-risk profile of a medicine. As well as the number of reports received, regulators also take into account the seriousness of the issues reported as well as information from overseas jurisdictions in order to build a more complete picture.
In recent years, the TGA has undertaken various projects and activities to promote adverse event reporting and improve the use of data to maintain medicine safety. These activities have included increased international collaboration related to adverse event reporting, including involvement in the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities working group, and projects completed in response to the Review of Medicine and Medical Device Regulation (MMDR).
Under MMDR, the TGA has:
Upgraded its adverse event management system, which has new on-line reporting forms to better capture essential adverse event data and improved analytics to better assess reporting data, with further enhancements in the process of being completed.
Commenced investigating the use of large health datasets such as Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medicare Benefits Scheme and state and territory hospital discharge data in safety signal investigation to ensure they have access to denominator data on medicine usage to investigate adverse events.
Launched the Phannacovigilance Inspection Program, an initiative to help medicine sponsors to meet their pharmacovigilance obligations.
Initiated the Black Triangle Scheme, which provides a simple means for doctors and consumers to identify certain types of new prescription medicines, or those being used in significantly different ways and encourages reporting of adverse events associated with them. The TGA has recently completed promotion of this through social media channels to increase both health care professional and consumer awareness.
Implemented a new format for medicine Product Information to make clinical information, including information about potential adverse events, easier to find for doctors and to align with other international regulators.
All required information required relating to an adverse event reporting is currently requested in the various reporting mediums, including the blue card. Where an adverse event report includes a serious adverse event then information is sought from the reporter by the TGA to be able to assess whether there is a possible causal link between the medicine and the adverse event. While the TGA has no ability to require the information to be provided from reporters other than sponsors, every effort is made to obtain this information and have this information included in the report.
While it is generally acknowledged that adverse events are under-reported around the world and the TGA is committed to improving in this area, it is important to note that adverse event monitoring is just one of the therapeutic product vigilance tools that the regulator uses.
My Department recognises there are risks associated with some medicines; however, there is no Australian requirement to include warning statements about side-effects on prescription medicine labels.
Warning statements for prescription medicines can be lengthy and complex, and for high risk medicines, there can be many warnings. Information included on a prescription medicine label is to accurately identify and store the medicine to assist in its safe use. Selection of the medicine for a patient, and consideration of contraindications, occurs in discussion with the prescribing doctor. It is important that warnings and potential issues are discussed with the patient at the time of the doctor prescribing the medicine.
To assist doctors in prescribing, all prescription medicines must have a Product Information document, which describes known side-effects and contraindications. To assist patients, a simplified version, the Consumer Medicine Information, is also available for dispensing pharmacists and should be provided to consumers in all community pharmacies. Both documents are also available on the TGA website.Lastly, my Department understands the importance of supporting individuals to appropriately manage their medications, this includes through a number of medication management programs under which community pharmacists and accredited pharmacists are funded to support the quality use of medicines by patients with a view to reducing adverse medicine events and associated hospital admissions or medical presentations. These medication management programs are Home Medicines Review, MedsCheck, Diabetes MedsCheck, Residential Medication Management Review and Quality Use of Medicines (in residential aged care facilities).
The Home Medicines Review (HMR) program provides a home-based review of a patient's medications by an accredited pharmacist. The HMR service is provided to an eligible patient, on referral from that patient's GP, and provides information to the patient and to support a subsequent medication management plan prepared by the referring GP.
The MedsCheck program provides an in-pharmacy service that includes a review of a patient's medicines, focusing on education and self-management and aims to identify problems that the patient may be experiencing with their medicines. The service also aims to educate patients about their medicines including how medicines affect medical conditions, and improve the effective use and storage of medicines. Similarly, a Diabetes MedsCheck is a review of medications with a focus on the patient's type 2 diabetes medicines management.
The Residential Medication Management Review program provides services to permanent residents of Australian Government funded aged care facilities when requested by a resident's GP. A comprehensive assessment is undertaken to identify, resolve and prevent medication-related problems. The Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) service is provided by a registered or accredited pharmacist and focuses on improving practices and procedures as they relate to the quality use of medicines in a residential care facility.
The QUM strategy is one of the central objectives of the National Medicines Policy. QUM considers that all medicines be used judiciously, appropriately, safely and efficaciously. QUM relies on the wise selection of management options, choosing a suitable medicine if a medicine is considered necessary and using medicines safely and effectively to achieve the best possible results. The goal of the National Strategy for QUM is to make best possible use of medicines to improve health outcomes for all Australians.
The Australian Government funds NPS MedicineWise, an independent, not-for-profit organisation that provides evidence-based information, support tools and education services to health professionals and consumers to improve quality use of medicines in Australia. NPS MedicineWise activities to support the safe use of medicines include targeted activities to improve pharmacovigilance and reporting of adverse events:
Continuing Professional Development courses for healthcare providers to update prescribers and health professionals on what constitutes a reportable adverse event with medicines, vaccines and medical devices, what steps to take to report to the TGA including blue cards, and the importance of reporting. Health professionals who complete the modules are eligible for continuing professional development points from the relevant accrediting health professional bodies.
Consumer reporting through the Adverse Medicines Events Line. The Line is operated by clinical pharmacists and provides consumers with an avenue for reporting and discussing adverse experiences associated with medicines.
Product information through Medicine Finder and MedicineWise App assisting consumers understand medicines, Consumer Medicine Information and manage their medicines.
Choosing Wisely Initiative which encourages more effective communication between consumers and healthcare providers.
I hope this response is helpful and outlines the Government's active role in balancing medicine safety and timely patient access.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt (Petition No. EN0607)
Privacy
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 13 August 2018 regarding Petition EN0618, which requests Australia adopt a privacy framework similar to the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation.
In Australia the handling of personal information by Australian Government agencies and certain private sector organisations is governed by the Privacy Act 1988. The Privacy Act contains a set of 13 binding Australian Privacy Principles that deal with the collection, use, disclosure, handling, and access and correction of personal information.
The Australian Government is aware of the implementation of the GDPR as a new data protection framework to harmonise EU data protection laws and replace national data protection rules of EU member states. The Australian Government is absolutely committed to protecting the privacy of Australians and continues to monitor and review Australian privacy legislation to ensure that it remains appropriate and fit-for-purpose.
Thank you again for bringing this petition to my attention. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, Mr Porter (Petition No. EN0618)
Education
Dear Chair
Thank you for your email of 13 August 2018 regarding Petition EN0624 on introducing Auslan into the Australian Curriculum.
The Australian Government is committed to the development of a high-quality curriculum for all Australian students, one that promotes equity and inclusiveness in education. In 2016, Auslan was included as one of the languages which can be studied in the Australian Curriculum Foundation to Year 10. Further information is available at www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/languages/auslan/.
The inclusion of Auslan in the Australian Curriculum reflects the importance of increasing opportunities for interaction between deaf children and their hearing or hard of hearing peers and to reduce barriers to communication. The Auslan curriculum aims to develop the knowledge and skills to enable students to understand the diversity of Deaf experience and communicate in Auslan.
The Auslan curriculum content and achievement standards were developed in consultation with the Deaf community and provide a dual-pathway serving both deaf and hearing student populations. The curriculum also offers the opportunity to acknowledge and study the culture of the Deaf community in Australia.
While the Australian Government plays a leadership role and provides funding for areas of national educational importance, such as the Australian Curriculum, it does not have a direct role in the operation of schools. The decision and availability of teaching Auslan as a language of formal study is a matter for state and territory education authorities and in some cases, individual primary and secondary schools and teachers.
Thank you again for bringing this petition forward and I hope this information helps the Committee address the matter raised.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education, Mr Tehan (Petition EN0624)
Environment
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for forwarding the petition (EN0649) concerning the keeping of small "exotic" animals as household pets in Australia.
The Department of the Environment and Energy (the Department), together with the
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, has a role in regulating which species can be imported into Australia. In order for animals to be legally imported into Australia they must first be listed on the 'List of Specimens Taken to be Suitable for Live Import', or the Live Import List, established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Anyone may apply to have a species added the Live Import List. The Department assesses the risk the species presents to the Australian environment should it establish a wild population. This assessment is made publically available and reviewed by state, territory and Commonwealth government agencies and other interested stakeholders. A report is provided to me for a decision on whether to amend the Live Import List to include the species.
The petition mentions the regulation of household pets through licensing and similar measures, as a way to prevent the release of exotic species into the wild. The regulation of domestic pets is the role of state, territory and local government agencies. The Department's experience is that even if such regulations are in force, they may not prevent the accidental or deliberate release of exotic animals into the environment. Each species is assessed for its potential impact on the Australian environment, including its ability to establish in the wild and its potential to affect the habitat and ecology of native species.
Thank you again for bringing this petition to my attention. Yours sincerely
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for the Environment, Ms Price (Petition No. EN0649)
PETITIONS
Statements
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:01): Often the committee receives petitions prepared by school students, and it has invited students to participate in a public hearing for its inquiry into e-petitioning. These activities allow young people across Australia to engage directly with the House and provide them with opportunities to learn about civics and citizenship. The committee welcomes the opportunity to hear more from students and young Australians in the future through the petitions process and through our current inquiry.
Report 31: Petitions and ministerial responses includes the petition coordinated by current year 12 students from Camberwell Girls Grammar School, in Victoria. It's very pleasing to see young Australians who are committed to making a difference and who are drawing to the attention of the House issues that are important to them. On behalf of the committee, I thank those students and teachers for their engagement with the parliament. The committee would also like to wish the students the very best of luck for the future as their time at school comes to an end.
I look forward to updating the House further on the work of the Petitions Committee.
COMMITTEES
Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport
Report
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (10:02): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, I present the committee's Report on the inquiry into the quality of care in aged care facilities in Australia, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr ZIMMERMAN: Providing high-quality residential care to older Australians is an obligation we have as a society and as a parliament.
It is both a debt we must pay to those generations who have done so much to build our prosperous nation and also, fundamentally, a basic human right.
Australia's residential aged care provides a home to nearly 240,000 Australians. Many are providing aged care which is delivered to a high standard and does provide older Australians with a safe environment to age with dignity and the care they need.
Yet there are also many who have not had such a positive experience. In the worst cases, older Australians—our mums and dads—have been the subject of abuse and mistreatment.
Australia's residential aged-care facilities have come under increased scrutiny as high-profile reports of mistreatment have come to light and have been investigated.
Shocking failures in the provision of care at facilities such as Oakden, in South Australia, have rightly led to a re-evaluation of how the aged-care sector is regulated.
When regulatory authorities are giving a certification to a place subsequently found to be so wretchedly wanting, we know something has gone severely wrong.
While perhaps the worst example, Oakden cannot be seen as an isolated event. Investigative reporting such as that undertaken by Four Corners recently has highlighted other serious examples of mistreatment. This parliamentary inquiry has received submissions from residents and family members often outlining what can only be described as harrowing experiences. This is simply not acceptable in a nation like Australia.
This parliamentary inquiry has followed a number of government-initiated reviews, all of which have made important contributions. More recently, the seriousness of concern about mistreatment in the aged-care sector has led the government to establish a royal commission.
The committee has welcomed this announcement and the continued focus on quality and safety in aged care. At the same time, the Australian government has been implementing a number of major reforms flowing from the work of earlier inquiries.
While it is too early to examine whether these sectoral reforms will be effective, the committee considers that they are a positive change and will lead to a stronger and more responsive residential aged-care sector.
As Australia's population lives longer, demand for aged-care services will inevitably grow. By 2056, it is estimated that 22 per cent of the population will be made up of older Australians. At the same time, rates of dementia, for example, are expected to increase to around one million people across the nation.
The need for a streamlined, responsive residential aged-care system is clear, and recent and upcoming reforms will help the evolving aged-care system in Australia.
The committee have considered these reforms but believe there is more that can be done to improve our aged-care system and that we shouldn't wait for the royal commission to deliver its own findings. Our 14 recommendations that we've tabled today include such matters as:
Improving the Commonwealth's community visitors program to ensure volunteers visiting aged-care facilities are better able to respond to suspected abuse;
Reviewing the Aged Care Funding Instrument to ensure it is providing both adequate levels of funding and also, just as importantly, the type of care that meets the needs of aged-care residents today;
Ensuring that all aged-care facilities are required to have at least one registered nurse onsite 24 hours a day and that more work be done to monitor staffing mixes and their impacts on reducing complaints and abuse;
Improving consumer information provided to aged-care residents;
Developing mandatory and more effective quality indicators;
Cracking down on the use of restrictive practices
Developing a consumer rating system for aged-care facilities; and
Providing consumers with greater transparency about complaints lodged against individual aged-care centres.
I want to thank the many organisations and individuals who made submissions to this inquiry. I also thank my fellow committee members, who have worked together to deliver a bipartisan report, and I particularly acknowledge in the chamber my deputy chair, the member for Hindmarsh.
The committee is also indebted to the work of the committee staff, who have provided such professional support to our deliberations.
Ensuring Australians are provided with residential aged care they can trust must be a priority for the Australian government and all of us as parliamentarians.
As all of us age, we should do so confident that, if we need residential aged care, the final chapters of our lives can be lived with dignity.
And as children, we so desperately want to ensure that our parents are afforded the same love, care and support that they have bestowed upon us.
As a nation, it is a test of our commitment to both those who are vulnerable and those on whose shoulders Australia has been built. We need to ensure that the aged-care system is meeting their needs.
Our hope is that this report will provide additional impetus to ensuring that all of these goals are achieved.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (10:08): I rise today in my capacity as the Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport to second the motion. Can I thank the member for North Sydney, the chairman of our committee, for initially presenting the report on the inquiry into the quality of care in residential aged-care facilities in Australia to the House today. I sincerely hope that this report will be taken seriously and urgently, not only by the government but also by all those who are reading it and caring for our older Australians. I would also like to thank the chairman and all the other members for their commitment to a bipartisan approach to this report. We did so in a bipartisan way because of the seriousness of this inquiry.
We've heard in this place over the last few weeks when we've been debating aged-care bills that older Australians deserve better, and they do deserve better. They deserve better from governments, from agencies, from aged-care facilities and from all who are involved with our older Australians. They deserve better from all of us. As I said, we heard the chair say just now that, of course, they're the people who have worked and built this country for us to enjoy. They deserve better from a system that has failed them, as we've seen from different reports on Four Corners and the Oakden saga in South Australia, which, of course, has brought upon us a royal commission, and rightly so.
As the chairman explained previously, the committee has put forward a number of serious recommendations that need to be considered and ultimately addressed. Australians are living longer. There could be close to 8.7 million older people living in Australia by 2056. That'll be over one in five of the total population. With that number, dementia rates are expected to increase to around one million by 2056—one million people with dementia, let alone the others that require to be cared for.
We've seen failures in the system in many states around Australia, and we all expect that the royal commission will uncover more. We heard many witnesses present to our inquiry with a number of stories. The number of aged-care complaints, we heard in the report, has increased 23 per cent, with the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner dealing with most of the concerns. In dealing with this inquiry what really struck me—and, I'm sure, all the other committee members and our chair—was the number of reports made and the subsequent lack of follow-through on resolutions that actually deal with the complaints. In 2017-18, there were 4,315 complaints relating to residential aged care made to the commissioner. Around 66 per cent of those were made by a family member. Of the complaints made, only a fraction were resolved. We discovered a number of issues that were raised regarding the complaint handling process. We heard evidence from people who complained about time-frame issues, capacity issues, cost barriers, communication issues and fear of reprisal for staff, residents, their carers and their families.
When the committee travelled to Melbourne, we asked a question to one of the witnesses about complaints: 'How many complaints were received and finalised in a reasonable time frame?' It was revealed that, out of the 4,713 residential home-care complaints, there were only 52 visits to the facilities. Of those complaints, 92 per cent were resolved in early resolution. But I worry about the eight per cent that were not. Some of those cases took over 180 days—and some even longer than that. It is easy to see why people in the system feel they are not taken seriously when a complaint is made. This was evident throughout the inquiry.
I won't go over again the things the member for North Sydney has already said, but we need to get smarter about this. We need to care for our older people. We heard these things in our inquiry. One of the things that needs to be addressed immediately is that we need to ensure that residential aged-care facilities provide for a minimum of one registered nurse to be on site at all times and specifically monitor and report on standards of care, including complaints and findings of elder abuse. In closing, I would like to thank the committee staff, who made the arrangements for everything, and my fellow committee members and our chair. Special thanks go to Stephanie Mikac and Carissa Skinner for their very hard work.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for North Sydney wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (10:13): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the debate for the next sitting. The member for North Sydney.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (10:14): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Defence (Honour General Sir John Monash) Amendment Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms McGowan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:15): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In moving that this bill be read a second time, I acknowledge my colleague the member for Ryan, who will be seconding the bill and speaking to the bill.
This legislation embraces the Jerilderie proposition to posthumously promote General Sir John Monash one step in rank to field marshal. Today, I'm introducing this bill on behalf of the thousands of Australians that support the recognition and honouring of General Sir John Monash. This includes many of my colleagues in this House.
It has been a long-running campaign, launched by the Hon. Tim Fischer at the Sydney Institute in 2008. Today I acknowledge the work of the Saluting Monash Council, including its chair, Tim Fischer, Lieutenant Colonel John Moore, Michael Headbury, Dr Judy Landou and many others.
Why am I bringing this bill to the House? This bill has the support of my electorate. I would particularly like to call out the community of Flowerdale. They hosted a general meeting, to which they invited me and Tim Fischer, and asked me to bring this bill to the House. This also has national grassroots support, with over 72 veterans signing up in support. And, if ever there was a time when we as a nation need role models, it is today.
The final reason I am bringing this to the House is to acknowledge and thank Mr Tim Fischer, my constituent. It is my role as a member of parliament to represent my constituents in the House. As Tim Fischer has said, it's never too late to right a wrong. It's never too late to salute a military leader and an outstanding Australian citizen, who received no Australian government awards post 11.00 am on 11 November 1918.
The first purpose of this bill is to posthumously promote General Sir John Monash of Melbourne and Jerilderie by one step in rank to Australian field marshal. This carefully drafted bill does this but has safeguard clauses to ensure it will not open the floodgates for other promotions. The bill is in accord with the grassroots Jerilderie proposition of the Saluting Monash Council, and it has been endorsed by meetings right across Australia—from Sydney to Perth.
But is not the first posthumous promotion; there are a number of precedents. I would particularly like to note that in 1915 the Australian Army posthumously promoted Brigadier General Henry Normand MacLaurin one step in rank. He died on 27 April 1915 but in July that year was promoted from colonel to brigadier general, as the rank was known at that time.
If this bill is adopted and signed by the Governor-General in Executive Council, it would symbolically salute not only Sir John Monash but also all of our volunteer AIF in World War I. I believe it would give the people of Australia a wonderful role model to aspire to.
There are so many achievements of Sir John Monash—his war on the Western Front, the huge contribution he made to the allied victory and his enormous work after the war. But I want to spend a few minutes sharing with the House my particular passion for Sir John Monash. I was a very young four-year-old when the electricity got turned on in the Indigo Valley, an isolated farming community so far from everywhere. I was with my father and he told me how his father, my grandfather, had fought in the First World War, and how, after the war, this wonderful engineer came back and he was responsible for the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. Consequently, a number of years later, in our little isolated village we had electricity. Dad told me the story of grandpa and his fight in the First World War. He told me the story of my grandfather returning to Australia after the war, becoming a surveyor and making a huge contribution to the Australian community. Dad said to me, 'Cathy, that's your job. You've got to leave the world in a better place.' I know that Monash did that. He was an amazing engineer. Regularly, when I go down the Hume Highway to Benalla and cross the Monash Bridge—and there's a lovely little plaque—I think of the amazing contribution engineers, scientists and technology people make to our community. That's really why I want to have this bill debated in the House and brought to a vote, because it will give all Australians an opportunity to learn about sacrifice, skill, leadership, victory, returning home, resilience and making our community a much, much better place.
Before I pass on to the seconder, I just want to say a couple of words about parliament stepping up, because surely there is some controversy in the wider community about this activity. But this is a decision for the Australian people to make and for parliament to make, and the timing is now. On 11 November 2018, just two-and-a-half weeks away, we will commemorate 100 years of the end of the war to end all wars. Surely now is the time for a national discussion about what leadership looks like, about what sacrifice looks like and about what real resilience looks like. I can think of no-one better than Monash to lead us in that discussion.
In bringing forward my bill to the House, I want to finish with a quote from Major General Arthur Denaro, former Commandant of Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst. He said:
I write with due humility and great pleasure to support the Saluting Monash Council’s objective to achieve the ... promotion of General Sir John Monash to the rank of Field Marshal ...
He went on to say, 'There is no doubt that Monash is one of Australia's greatest soldiers, a commander whose performance on the battlefield far outstripped the performance of the Allies right across the world.' He was Australian. He was a multicultural Australian. He was a man of great courage. So now is the time to bring it on for debate, to recognise him and to bring the Australian community with us as we acknowledge one of our great heroes.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:21): Yes, it is. I rise to speak in support of the Defence (Honour General Sir John Monash) Amendment Bill 2018. I thank the member for Indi for bringing this bill to House and inviting me to second it. Despite all his accomplishments during his service, Monash, as the member for Indi said, received no Australian awards or honours following 11 November 1918, a centenary which we commemorate in a few weeks time.
We all know that former Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Tim Fischer, is determined to ensure that Sir John Monash's amazing contribution to end World War I is recognised by posthumously elevating him to the rank of Field Marshal. But it's not just Tim Fischer. If you have not already done so, I encourage everyone to read Professor Roland Perry's book Monash and Chauvel: How Australia's Two Greatest Generals Changed the Course of World History. Professor Perry is well known for his meticulous research, and this outstanding book provides compelling evidence as to why Monash is deserving of this long overdue promotion, detailing his groundbreaking military achievements, tactical nous and care for the welfare of his troops. If Monash's contribution is considered significant enough to name the reception and reflective centre at our national memorial at Villers-Bretonneux after him, why do we continue to deny him this personal recognition?
An engineer by training and committed Army reservist, Monash rose to the rank of General and became arguably the most outstanding allied commander in the whole of the First World War. Monash orchestrated all the elements of his forces to win battles quickly and avoid the hideous stalemate of trench warfare. Some say that Monash was discriminated against because he was a Jew with German heritage and emerged as a reservist. In his autobiography, the then Minister for Defence, Sir George Pearce, my great-grandfather, said: 'I was subjected to some very bitter criticism on the question of the appointment of Lieutenant Colonel John Monash as an officer of the AIF. I was quite satisfied that Monash was loyal. Monash had been for many years an enthusiastic officer in the militia forces. He first came under my notice when the intelligence corp was formed. Monash made his name as one of the greatest soldiers with the Allied forces. If I had listened to gossip and slander, as I was urged to do, Monash would never have gone to the War.'
This bill is very carefully drafted with safeguard clauses. Bestowing the rank of Field Marshal posthumously on Monash recognises a career emblazoned with achievement but also an outstanding contribution before, during and post World War I. Field Marshal Montgomery, the famous British Army commander in the Second World War once wrote:
I would name Sir John Monash as the best general on the western front in Europe.
With that said, I commend the motion to the House.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time. 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.
Migration Amendment (Kids Off Nauru) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Wilkie.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:25): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is very straightforward. In essence, it requires that all children on Nauru be brought to Australia for medical treatment, accompanied by their families. It is co-sponsored by the member for Mayo and the member for Melbourne.
There is an urgent need for the parliament to deal with this bill because there is a humanitarian crisis on Nauru and the government is refusing to address it. Indeed, there are approximately 70 children on Nauru currently. The majority are in need of urgent medical attention. All of them are in need of at least urgent medical assessment.
I can think of no better example to illustrate this humanitarian disaster than what was described to me in an email I received just this morning from a doctor, who said: 'Last week, a refugee girl was medivaced to Australia from Nauru. Upon touching down on the tarmac, she was intubated and immediately transferred to the nearest ICU, where she is in kidney and liver failure, likely secondary to prolonged dehydration and starvation on Nauru. This little girl will quite possibly need dialysis and/or organ transplant down the track.' That is a shocking story. It was conveyed to me reliably by a medical doctor who has reason to know that what I just described is a fact.
In response to this humanitarian crisis on Nauru, the government has been insisting that all is well. But every time the government does insist that all is well, it is deliberately misleading the Australian community. And that is unforgivable. Yes, many in the public expect politicians to lie, but they don't expect politicians to lie about children's lives. For example, the government wants you to believe that this year they've brought many sick children to Australia, but the truth is that every one of them has been evacuated by order of the Federal Court or the threat of such court action. The government wants you to believe that any child who is recommended by doctors for evacuation is indeed being evacuated, but the truth is that, in many instances, the children removed by order of the Federal Court had previously been recommended by doctors for evacuation but those recommendations hadn't been acted on because they'd been blocked by Australian Border Force officers.
The government wants the community to believe that there are more than 60 medical personnel on Nauru to care for the sick children and other refugees and asylum seekers, but the truth is that there are only half that number at any one time. The truth is that the senior Australian medical officer has been kicked out of the country. And the truth is that the children are almost entirely left with a handful of health practitioners from other countries, some of whom would not be allowed to practice in Australia. Indeed, there is only one psychiatrist currently on Nauru, and that psychiatrist is from Cuba and speaks Spanish and only Spanish and there is no translator.
The government wants the community to believe that the government and Border Force can't possibly be aware of all of the sick children on Nauru because some are presenting to health services separately to the Australian contracted service provider. But the truth is that the only alternative is the small Nauru hospital, which is in constant communication with the Australian contractor. And the Australian contractor is, in fact, referring people to the Nauru hospital. The government wants the community to believe that people are getting adequate health care from the health service contractor. But the truth is they're sometimes being picked up by police cars instead of ambulances, sent to the Nauru hospital, given a Panadol and sent home. In some cases, parents are being arrested by the Nauruan authorities due to neglect of their children, when their children are mentally unwell and the parents are struggling with their own mental illness. There are even cases where adults who have tried to commit suicide on Nauru have been detained by police for committing an offence by trying to take their own life.
Moreover, the government wants the community to believe that bringing children to Australia will somehow be a signal to the people smugglers. But the truth is that it won't, because irregular immigration is obviously much more complex than that, which is why, when Prime Minister John Howard allowed the people rescued by the Tampa to go to New Zealand, that didn't involve the people smugglers. There was no run of boats as a result of that act of common sense and compassion by the Prime Minister at the time.
To be clear, I strongly believe that we should end all offshore processing for all people—adults and children. We should end mandatory detention. We should end boat tow-backs. We should get rid of temporary visas. Indeed, I've got another bill currently before the parliament which would do exactly that—a bill which has received no support from the Liberal Party, a bill which has received no support from the Labor Party. So, in the absence of any support by the major parties to shut down offshore processing and bring everyone to Australia, what I'm seeking to do here is to come up with something that can be supported by the government, that can be supported by the opposition. In fact, I struggle to believe that there would be anyone in this place that could genuinely be of the view that we should let the children stay on Nauru, suffering and dying, because that would be unconscionable.
I would hope that everyone in this place would understand and agree that you don't play games with children's lives. You don't use them as pawns in some political debate in this place. You don't use them as some sort of deterrent against people smugglers. You don't have a punitive arrangement like we obviously have, as much to punish people for daring to think they could flee for their lives and seek refuge in Australia. I want to emphasise: I want to shut the camps down. I want to bring all of those people to Australia—adults and children. But, until we can achieve that, let's at least show some common sense and compassion. Let's at least bring the 70-odd children who are currently on Nauru—all of them—to Australia for the urgent medical treatment they need, or at least the assessment they need and that is being recommended by doctors, and in fact, just recently, was strongly urged by some 6,000 doctors.
I refer to that child who has had organ failure, and that email I received just this morning. That is typical of what's going on in that hellhole, which I would liken to a gulag in the middle of the Pacific, near the equator, virtually on the equator. That's no way to treat children.
I urge the House to support this private member's bill. I urge the selection committee to bring it on urgently. And, if it won't be done with the numbers currently, I urge the new member for Wentworth, when she joins us, to join with us here in supporting this bill. In my remaining time, I will now invite the member for Mayo, who is the seconder of this bill, to offer a few comments.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:34): It is a privilege to second the motion for this bill, which I do so with great pride. The situation in Nauru has become untenable, and we are using children like sacrificial lambs. In generations to come Australia will look back on Nauru and how we treated the children and, indeed, all people on Nauru, and we will be ashamed. We did not treat child refugees like this after World War II. We did not treat child refugees like this after Vietnam. It disturbs me greatly that the Federal Court has to be involved every single time, whether that's just putting in hearings or, indeed, attending the court, in order for us to get these children here.
We are hearing different information from the minister than from Medecins Sans Frontieres. There is no child psychiatrist on Nauru. There is one adult psychiatrist. He speaks Spanish. He is from Cuba. There are no interpreters. This parliament must act on this matter. Please, I ask this parliament to reject the scaremongering. The Australian nation is rejecting this scaremongering. The boats are still coming, but they are being turned around. The government is spending billions on Operation Sovereign Borders. This is a separate issue to the humanitarian issue of getting children off Nauru. I must say that this is not a left-wing thing. This is not a right-wing thing. This is just the right thing to do. We must get the children off Nauru so they can receive urgent medical treatment.
I commend the member for Denison on this bill. I wish those in the opposition had the courage to support this bill. They have been silent on the matter for my whole time in parliament— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment (Timely Publication of Emissions) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Sharkie.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:37): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It's been said that climate change is the great moral challenge of our generation and, by the other side of this House, that climate change policy is an exercise in risk management where no reasonable person could regard the risk as being so low that no action is warranted.
The foundation of good policy development is a solid and growing body of evidence that is accessible to both the public and the experts. For climate change policy, this means scientific data. The government currently collects estimates of Australia's national greenhouse gas inventory—more colloquially known as 'emissions data' or 'climate change data'—on a quarterly basis, but it refuses to release the data in a timely fashion.
In fact, not only does it delay the release of this critical data but it tries to bury interest in the data by releasing it on days like Christmas Eve or the eve of grand final weekend and similar shenanigans. This should not be. The Australian people, and Australian policymakers, deserve better.
My bill will require the timely publication of quarterly emissions data, including a sector-by-sector breakdown, requiring the minister to table the report containing the data to the parliament within 15 sitting days after receiving it from the department.
Further, the preparation of the report would be required to be in accordance with international guidelines as agreed at the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Warsaw 2013.
I was ever so pleased to learn that the Senate took note when I lodged my intention to present this private member's bill on the Notice Paperbecause, just one day later, the Senate finally took action and passed a motion for 'an order of continuing effect'. Preternaturally similar to my bill, this motion requires the government to table their greenhouse gas inventory figures within five months of the end of each quarter or provide an explanation for any delay.
The Senate motion continues to operate until it is repealed. I'm pleased that my bill has been such a positive catalyst for change on this important issue.
I commend the Senate—in particular, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young—for supporting the aims of my bill and for taking my idea and running with it. It is an excellent outcome for everyone who supports evidenced based policy, and surely that should be the catalyst for change in this place. It's a much-needed step to help refocus the government's attention on the increasingly desperate issue that is climate change. We need action now. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am going to speak only briefly on this bill, but I would like to give some of my remaining time to the member for Indi, who is seconding the bill.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:40): I am pleased to second the motion for the second reading of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment (Timely Publication of Emissions) Bill 2018, and I congratulate my colleague the member for Mayo on bringing the bill forward.
I would also like to acknowledge the guests in the House today. It's lovely to have you here. Thank you for making the effort. I look forward to being part of the apology when it's issued, at 11 o'clock, but in the meantime: welcome to the private members' sector of parliamentary business, when any member of parliament can bring a topic and present it to the parliament. As you can see, today we're bringing to the parliament to be debated private members' business that has come from the very active and very stable crossbench.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): It would be nice if you spoke on the motion.
Ms McGOWAN: Having said that, in seconding the motion can I say that one of the things that caused me to stand today was something that happened while I was watching with great interest the lead-up to the AFL grand final. I'm a Victorian member of parliament, and we had a holiday in Victoria the day before the grand final. It was a great day, and I was watching it because I was really interested in whether Collingwood would get up against Western Australia. I acknowledge the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health, who is at the table. He also would have been interested. I was keeping a watchful eye on Twitter, as I do as a member of parliament because I get a lot of information on Twitter, and I saw that figures reporting greenhouse gas emissions and energy had been released. And I said: 'Whoa, what's happening? Why is this happening on a public holiday in Victoria?' It's a bit like the Melbourne Cup. I was so shocked. I thought: surely our government in Canberra knows that we've got a public holiday in Victoria and we're all watching this very important thing called footy? And then the Twitter reaction got underway, and people said: 'Yeah, yeah, it's a strategy to hide these really important statistics at the end of a Friday, on a public holiday, when we're very keen to find out the results of the football.' So when the member for Mayo brought this issue to my attention and said that she was bringing a private member's bill in, I was very happy to support it.
In my electorate of Indi, which is in north-east Victoria and includes the towns of Wodonga, Wangaratta and Benalla and the snowfields of Falls Creek, Mount Hotham, Mount Buller and Lake Mountain, we watch climate change with great interest. We see the rain and snow falling. We see the drought we've got at the moment. And we farmers in rural communities really care about these statistics, because they give us the information we need. For government to hide that on a public holiday was very, very disappointing. In seconding this bill, I give a call-out to the government that we on the crossbench are looking for better governance. We're looking for more responsible reporting of the things that really matter to the people of north-east Victoria and, I know also, to the people of Wentworth.
In bringing these comments to a close, I call on the government to pay particular attention to this very, very important piece of legislation. The underlying message is: we're not fools; we can see what happens and we want our government to be better.
The DEPUTY 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 day of sitting.
National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms McGowan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:45): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Colleagues, while this bill has a very long title, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill, we refer to it as 'the payday lending bill'. It's an effort by us on the cross bench to bring to the attention of the government that we want things done about the many, many people who are being exploited by what we call 'payday lenders'.
This bill replicates word for word the government's draft legislation which was released on 23 October 2017—a year ago. The government has done nothing, so I'm bringing it to parliament today to say, 'We need to act on this very important issue.' It also follows work from the opposition side of parliament, from the former member for Perth. He brought it to the parliament and wanted to debate it as well. We've also had a debate in notice of motion, so we know how important this legislation is, but what we need is the government to bring it on and to act on its own legislation.
I will say a few words about what's proposed by this bill. This bill would impose a cap on the total payments that can be made under a consumer lease. Currently, there's no cap on the total amount of payments that can be made, so it requires small-amount credit contracts that are made by payday lenders to have equal repayments and equal payment intervals. It removes the ability of small-amount credit contract providers—those people who do payday lending—to charge monthly fees in respect of the residual term of the loan when a consumer fully repays the loan early. So, if you've paid it all off, that should be the end of it. It prevents leasers and credit assistance providers from undertaking door-to-door selling of leases at residential homes. Door-to-door selling of leases—how bad is that practice? It introduces broad antiavoidance protections to prevent small-amount credit contract loans and consumer lease providers from circumnavigating the rules and protections already in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act and the code, and it strengthens penalties to increase incentives for small-amount credit contract providers and leasers to comply with the law. This bill would also facilitate the making of regulations establishing a protected earnings account for all consumers of small-amount credit contracts and also for consumer leases. There are a number of other aspects of the legislation that I just won't bore you with today.
I want to say: there are hundreds and thousands of vulnerable people who are trapped in a debt cycle as a result of being caught by the endless cycle of payday loans or rent-to-buy schemes. These small-amount credit contracts have a significant impact across the whole country. In 2015-16 there were almost 620,000 new payday loans, with almost $500 million advanced. Two in five of these people who entered into a small-amount credit contract loan during this period were unemployed, one in four small-amount credit contract loans were given to people receiving more than 50 per cent of their income from Centrelink, and one in six loans were entered into with a customer using an existing loan. So there's a whole lot of reasons why this needs to be fixed up.
As we do, we wrote to the Prime Minister saying, 'Prime Minister, we need you to act on it,' and we've written to the Hon. Stuart Robert MP, the Assistant Treasurer. I had a meeting with him and had a letter back from him, which I acknowledge and say thank you. He said: 'Cathy, we're going to wait on this. We're going to wait until the outcome of the royal commission.' While I understand the royal commission into banks is happening, I think this particular bit of legislation is important enough to bring on. We don't need to wait until the royal commission findings are heard before we actually get a result from it. The time is now and the urgency is now, and I call on the government to act. With those comments, I'll now hand over to the member for Mayo, who will second this legislation, and invite her to make a few closing comments.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:49): I second the motion, and I strongly support the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2018, from the member for Indi. It's been 1,172 days since the review of the small-amount credit contract laws started and 692 days since the government accepted the recommendations of the review. What are we waiting for? The longer the government ignores this issue, the more Australians will sink deeper into debt. We can no longer 'Nimble it and move on'.
The Consumer Action Law Centre reports that, since the government released the small-amount credit contract review back in April 2016, at least three million—three million—additional payday loans, estimated to be $1.8 billion worth, have been taken out by more than 1.6 million households. This has generated around $250 million in net profits for lenders. They are profits from the misfortune of some of our most vulnerable Australians.
Too often, the people who are taking out these loans are doing so because they are desperate. They are facing unexpected financial costs such as medical expenses for themselves or their family, and they have no other income source available to them. Or, too often, it is everyday pressures like the quarterly power bill that prompt them to this desperate need for credit. No, it is not a sensible financial decision, but, when the alternative is to live in darkness, the payday loan seems like the only option. It is simply deferring the payment and adding crippling interest for the benefit of a little breathing space. When I say 'crippling interest', I'm talking about up to 200 per cent interest in real terms.
But, if these families cannot afford to pay the power bill, how will their financial situation improve with the added burden of yet another financial repayment? The short answer is that for many families the situation gets worse, and you get sucked into a vortex of payday loans paying off payday loans. Research commissioned by the Consumer Action Law Centre shows that, over a five-year period, about 15 per cent of payday borrowers will fall into a spiral of debt that has significant ongoing economic and social consequences for the nation.
The member for Indi mentioned the former member for Perth, who was instrumental in pushing for this in the parliament, but I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the member for Oxley. The member for Oxley and I have had many conversations where he has talked about the volume of payday lenders in his electorate preying on the most vulnerable people in his community.
In conclusion, I'd like to commend the member for Indi on her work and her determination to see this issue given the attention that it deserves. May I just repeat: it has been 1,172 days since the review of these small credit contracts. What on earth are we waiting for? That is over three years. I commend the bill to the House, and I strongly urge the government to act now. You do not need to wait for the findings of the royal commission. Let's not kick this can any further down the road.
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.
Sitting suspended from 10:53 to 11:00
MOTIONS
National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (11:00): I move:
That the House apologise to the victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.
Let me first welcome all of those who have come here today. Whether you sit here alongside us here in this chamber, in the Great Hall, outside elsewhere in the nation's capital, in your living room, or in your bed, unable to rise today or speak to another soul, your journey to where you are today has been a long and painful one, and we acknowledge that and we welcome you today wherever you are.
Silenced voices; muffled cries in the darkness; unacknowledged tears; the tyranny of invisible suffering; the never heard pleas of tortured souls bewildered by an indifference to the unthinkable theft of their innocence—today Australia confronts a trauma, an abomination, hiding in plain sight for far too long. Today we confront a question too horrible to ask, let alone answer: why weren't the children of our nation loved, nurtured and protected? Why was their trust betrayed? Why did those who know cover it up? Why were the cries of children and parents ignored? Why was our system of justice blind to injustice? Why has it taken so long to act? Why were others things more important than this, the care of innocent children? Why didn't we believe?
Today we dare to ask these questions, and finally acknowledge and confront the lost screams of our children. While we can't be so vain to pretend to answers, we must be so humble to fall before those who were forsaken and beg to them our apology—a sorry that dare not ask for forgiveness; a sorry that dare not try and make sense of the incomprehensible or think it could; a sorry that does not insult with an incredible promise; a sorry that speaks only of profound grief and loss; a sorry from a nation that seeks to reach out in compassion into the darkness where you have lived for so long.
Nothing we can do now will right the wrongs inflicted on our nation's children. Even after a comprehensive royal commission, which finally enabled the voices to be heard and the silence to be broken, we will all continue to struggle.
So today we gather in this chamber in humility, not just as representatives of the people of this country but as fathers, as mothers, as siblings, friends, workmates and, in some cases, indeed, as victims and survivors. In Ngunawal, 'Canberra' means 'meeting place'. And on this day of apology, we meet together. We honour every survivor in this country. We love you, we hear you and we honour you. No matter if you are here at this meeting place or elsewhere, this apology is to you and for you. Your presence and participation makes tangible our work today and it gives strength to others who are yet to share what has happened in their world.
Elsewhere in this building and around Australia there are others who are silently watching and listening to these proceedings, men and women who have never told a soul what has happened to them. To these men and women, I say this apology is for you too. Later, when the speeches are over, we will stand in silence and we remember the victims who are not with us anymore—many, sadly, by their own hand. As a nation we failed them, we forsook them and that will always be our shame. This apology is for them and for their families too. As one survivor recently said to me, 'It wasn't a foreign enemy who did this to us. This was done by Australians to Australians.' Enemies in our midst, the enemies of innocence. Look at the galleries, look at the Great Hall, look outside this place and you will see men and women from every walk of life, from every generation and from every part of our land crushed, abused, discarded and forgotten.
The crimes of ritual sexual abuse happened in schools, churches, youth groups, Scout troupes, orphanages, foster homes, sporting clubs, group homes, charities and family homes as well. It happened anywhere a predator thought they could get away with it, and the systems within these organisations allowed it to happen and turned a blind eye. It happened day after day, week after week, month after month, decade after decade—unrelenting torment. When a child spoke up they weren't believed, and the crimes continued with impunity. One survivor told me that when he told a teacher of his abuse that teacher then became his next abuser. Trust broken, innocence betrayed, power and position exploited for evil, dark crimes.
A survivor named Faye told the royal commission:
… nothing takes the memories away. It happened 53 years ago and it's still affecting me.
A survivor named Ann said:
My mother believed them rather than me.
I also met with a mother whose two daughters were abused by a priest the family trusted. Suicide would claim one of her two beautiful girls, and the other lives under the crushing weight of what was done to her. As a father of two daughters, I can't comprehend the magnitude of what she has faced. Not just as a father but as a Prime Minister, I am angry too at the calculating destruction of lives and the abuse of trust, including those who have abused the shield of faith and religion to hide their crimes—a shield that is supposed to protect the innocent, not the guilty—and they stand condemned.
One survivor says it was like becoming a stranger to your parents. Mental health illnesses, self-harm and addictions followed. The pain didn't stop with adulthood. Relationships with partners and children became strained as survivors struggled with the conflicting currents within them. Parents and siblings felt guilt and sadness for what they had missed, for what and whom they chose to believe and for what they did not see, while survivors contemplated what could have been. A survivor named Rodney asked the question so common to so many survivors. He wonders about:
… the person I may have become, or the person I could have become if I didn't have all this in my life …
Death can take many forms. In this case, the loss of a life never lived and a life denied. Another survivor, Aidan, spoke of not getting justice because his abuser had died. He said:
I was bereft because I was robbed. I was robbed of my day in court. I wanted to tell the world what he did. That was stolen. That was him again, taking control.
Today, as a nation, we confront our failure to listen, to believe and to provide justice. And again today we say sorry—to the children we failed, sorry; to the parents whose trust was betrayed and who have struggled to pick up the pieces, sorry; to the whistleblowers who we did not listen to, sorry; to the spouses, partners, wives, husbands and children who have dealt with the consequences of the abuse, cover-ups and obstruction, sorry; to generations past and present, sorry.
As part of our work leading us to this day I recently met with, as did the Leader of the Opposition, the National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse Reference Group, who are with us here today. I want to thank this wonderful group of brave people. Many are survivors. They have all worked so hard to make today a reality. They said to me that an apology without action is just a piece of paper—and it is. Today they also wanted to hear about our actions. It's a fair call.
In outlining our actions, I want to acknowledge the work of my predecessors: former Prime Minister Gillard, who is with us here today, and I thank her for her attendance; former Prime Minister Rudd; the member for Warringah, who continues to serve us here in this place; and former Prime Minister Turnbull. I want to thank them for their compassion and leadership as they also confronted these terrible failings.
The foundations of our actions are the findings and recommendations of the royal commission initiated by Prime Minister Gillard. The steady, compassionate hand of the commissioners and staff resulted in 17,000 survivors coming forward and nearly 8,000 of them recounting their abuse in private sessions of the commission. We are grateful to the survivors who gave evidence to the commission. It is because of your strength and your courage that we are gathered here today. Many of the commissioners and staff are also with us today, and I thank them also.
Acting on the recommendations of the royal commission with concrete action gives practical meaning to today's apology. The Commonwealth, as our national government, must lead and coordinate our response. The National Redress Scheme has commenced. I thank the state and territory governments for their backing of the scheme. The scheme is about recognising and alleviating the impact of past abuse and providing justice for survivors. The scheme will provide survivors with access to counselling and psychological services, monetary payments and, for those who want one—I stress 'for those who want one'—a direct personal response from the institution where the abuse occurred. It will mean that, after many years, often decades, of denials and cover-ups, the institutions responsible for ruining lives will admit their wrongdoing and the terrible damage they caused.
The National Office for Child Safety is another big step forward to ensuring the prevention and detection of child abuse wherever it occurs. It was announced as part of our government's response to the royal commission and it was established from 1 July of this year within the Department of Social Services. As Prime Minister, I'll be changing these arrangements to ensure that the National Office for Child Safety will report to me. It will reside within the portfolio of Prime Minister and Cabinet, as it should, and the Minister for Social Services will assist me in this role, including reporting to me on the progress of royal commission recommendations and the activities of the Office for Child Safety.
The office has already begun its work to raise awareness of child safety and to drive cultural change in institutions in the community to ensure the systemic failures and abuses of power that brought us here today are not repeated. Importantly, children themselves are being empowered to participate in these initiatives, because our children must be heard. When it comes to the work of safety, it must be approachable and child-friendly. They must know who they can tell, they must be believed and they must know where they can go.
All Australian governments are now working together to establish a national database to ensure higher standards for working with children and that data about people's ability to work with children is shared nationally. Our work does not stop our borders. We are ensuring children across the world are protected by stopping child sex offenders from travelling overseas without permission, which will disrupt, prevent and investigate the abuse of children globally.
We recognise that, as survivors age, those who were abused in or by an institution have real fears about entering into aged-care facilities. It's an understandable fear, given what happened during childhood. We will work with survivor groups about what we can do to alleviate those fears, and, indeed, the work of the royal commission into aged care will be able to address this as well.
To assist with lasting change, we recognise that there are many survivors who were abused in other settings, such as in their own homes and in their communities, who will not be covered by this redress scheme. These survivors also need to be heard, believed and responded to with services to address their needs. So, today, I commit to fund the establishment of a national centre of excellence, and I call on the states and territories to work as partners in this venture. This centre will be the place to raise awareness and understanding of the impacts of child sexual abuse, to deal with the stigma, support help seeking and guide best practice for training and other services.
All of this is just the start. The Australian government has not rejected a single recommendation of the royal commission. We are now actively working on 104 of the 122 recommendations that were addressed to the Commonwealth, and the 18 remaining are being closely examined, in consultation with states and territories. Today we commit, from December this year, to report back to the Australian people through the parliament to be held accountable each year—each year—on the progress we are making on the recommendations over the next five years and then beyond. We will shine a spotlight on all parts of government to ensure we are held accountable.
The institutions which perpetrated this abuse, covered it up and refused to be held accountable must be kept on the hook. Already, many of those organisations have made their own apologies and have signed up to be part of the National Redress Scheme, as they should, but there are others yet to join. Today I simply say: justice, decency and the beliefs and values we share as Australians insist that they sign on.
Today I also commit to establishing a national museum, a place of truth and commemoration, to raise awareness and understanding of the impacts of child sexual abuse. We will work with survivor groups to ensure your stories are recorded, that your truth is told, that our nation does not turn from our shame and that our nation will never forget the untold horrors you experienced. Through this, we will endeavour to bring some healing to our nation and to learn from our past horrors.
We can never promise a world where there are no abusers. But we can promise a country where we commit to hear and believe our children, to work together to keep children safe, to trust them and, most of all, to respect their innocence.
Mr Speaker, I present the formal apology to be tabled in this parliament today, which will be handed to those in the Great Hall shortly. It reflects all of the sentiments that I have expressed on behalf of the Australian people, this parliament and our government. I table that. As I do, I simply say: I believe you. We believe you. Your country believes you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (11:18): I'd like to thank the Prime Minister for his sincere words. I wish to begin with 26 words from the royal commission:
… we were treated as slaves, beaten and abused, used for their perverted desires … No love or kindness, no safety or warmth. Always hungry and always frightened.
These words are not a tale from a foreign country or the distant past; these words came from one amongst us, describing his life as a child: a cold life of fear, hunger, loneliness, abuse. Australia failed this child. Australia failed tens of thousands of children across generations and across the country. Our nation let you down.
Today we offer you our nation's apology, with humility, with honesty, with hope for healing now, and with a fire in our belly to ensure that our children will grow up safe in the future. We do this because it is right, because it is overdue, because Australians must know and face up to the truth about our past. But, above all, we do this because of you. I say to you here in the galleries, here in the Great Hall, on the lawns and beyond, and I say to you in the big cities and country towns: today is because of you. Today is because of your advocates, your networks, your organisations and your leadership. It is you who bravely fought the long battle for justice, for recognition, for truth to be believed. It is you who have brought this day into being. It is you who kept coming forward, again and again. You went beneath scar tissue. You told strangers and people in power of the most terrifying moments in your memory.
Our fellow Australians should understand that you've given so much of yourselves through your stories, but it was never for yourself, never for your own sake. Our fellow Australians should understand that you spoke up in the royal commission and you relived your pain in the royal commission for the next generation of Australian children. Australians should understand that you spoke and relived your pain because you want to make sure that what happened to you does not happen to other children.
Today belongs to you. Today belongs to your families. Today belongs to your loved ones who've been there for you in the darkest of times. Today also belongs to your brothers and sisters who are not here—people who perhaps never told a single soul about what happened to them. Today belongs to people who have locked away the pain so deeply in order to survive, to get by. They simply cannot revisit the ordeal. Today belongs to people who've moved overseas to try and escape the memory. Today belongs to the people who are too ill to be here. Today belongs to people who are in the grip of addiction or poverty. Today belongs to the people in the prison system whose life was shunted on the wrong track by the abuse they suffered as children. Today belongs to the children who night not have suffered direct sexual abuse but endured other terrible forms of abuse: violence, cruelty, neglect. This is a hard day for some of our fellow Australians. This is a hard day for those who were abused outside of an institution. I hope they can take something from the fact that the royal commission's recommendations reach beyond institutions to the protection of all children. And, my fellow Australians, today belongs to the people who did not live long enough to hear this apology. Many of our honoured guests are wearing badges. On them they've written the names of their brothers and sisters and dear friends who are not here today—brothers and sisters who fought for decades. Sadly, through illness or old age, they have not lived to see this day or, indeed, justice done. And, of course, there are those who took their own lives, stolen from our world by the trauma, the hurt and the hardship that they have endured. We will remember them today and Australia must promise to remember them always.
To everyone to whom this day belongs I say on behalf of the Labor opposition and the Commonwealth parliament and the people of Australia we are sorry. We are sorry for every childhood stolen, every life lost. We are sorry for every betrayal of trust, every abuse of power. We are sorry for trauma measured in decades for scars that can never heal. We are sorry for every cry for help that fell on deaf ears and hard hearts. We are sorry for every crime that was not investigated, every criminal who went unpunished. And we are sorry for every time that you were not heard and not believed. We hear you now. We believe you. Australia believes you. And we are sorry it has taken so long to say these words. We are sorry for wrongs that can never be made right. We are sorry that you and your brothers and sisters have been left to fight for justice, respect and dignity on your own. You should not be alone any longer. Australia is with you. And we are sorry that the abuse and the assault and the rape of children is still going on and being covered up this very day in this very country. We are sorry that we still cannot protect all our children. We are sorry—all of us in this parliament—that we've not yet done enough to guarantee that this cannot happen again. Too many Australian children are still living unsafe lives at risk. It's the true test—isn't it?—of our words. It's whether from this day forward we see some meaningful change for the better in this country. It is why the words of this apology must come with action.
Last week I was told of a survivor who was asked whether he would be attending today. He said no. He said these apologies are only so politicians can look good in front of the public. Do you know what? After decades of betrayal—by governments, by the police, by the courts and the law, by foster parents and orphanages, by teachers and schools and sporting clubs, by churches and charities and more—he has every right to be sceptical that words are cheap. To you who have gathered here I say that you have fought for and earned more than words. You deserve real change in your lives and the law, and for the kids in the future. It means improving the lives of children now, recognising that vulnerable children don't miraculously resolve every issue the day they turn 18. Support shouldn't fall off a bureaucratic cliff based on the date you were born. It also means delivering on the promise of the royal commission and its recommendations.
I acknowledge the work of previous prime ministers—Prime Minister Rudd and his advocacy. Prime Minister Gillard, who had the courage and the leadership to initiate this royal commission, you are so very welcome today. I acknowledge Prime Minister Abbott for continuing the royal commission. Prime Minister Turnbull put this apology on the parliamentary agenda. We recognise him. I acknowledge and support the initiatives announced today by the Prime Minister. I also acknowledge Jenny Macklin, who's given so much to this process. I thank all of the royal commissioners and their dedicated staff for the intellectual and emotional commitment they made over many years. Already other countries are looking at what Australia has done as possibly best practice around the world for empowering survivors and victims, for putting the people who matter at the centre.
The final report—it's 17 volumes—occupy three full shelves of the Parliamentary Library. But we cannot leave it tucked away in a quiet corner of this building, slowly gathering dust. We are never going to get a better set of opinions than this royal commission. We are never going to be presented with a more comprehensive set of solutions than this royal commission. And, whether it is making it right through redress or reforming the law, it is now up to us in this parliament, not the survivors and victims. We have the power, we have the authority, we have the responsibility to turn these recommendations into actions, without caveats, without compromise.
Labor will, wherever we sit in this parliament in coming years, unequivocally support the implementation of the royal commission recommendations, with no discounting or delay. It is not the time for government or institutions to haggle over the dollars, to hide behind the lawyers. It is not the time to pretend that a token payment handed over in secret 40 years ago can be changed by a retrospective formula into an adequate sum. This is not the time to ask for more time, as if this process has been rushed.
People have already died waiting for the justice they are due. People are dying. There is Tony, a 54-year-old man in palliative care in Toowoomba, watching this day perhaps—abused in two different institutions in two different states, both government and Salvation Army. It's an unforgivable final indignity that the legal hurdles mean that he may not live to receive this modest redress.
As the royal commission has gone about its work, I know many Australians have been watching the news and reading the articles and saying to each other in horror and disbelief, 'Why are we only hearing this now? Why didn't we know? Why weren't we told?' There are a thousand different reasons—every individual life unique. But at the heart of so many reasons is this deeply uncomfortable truth: too many were told; they just didn't listen. Too many did know; they just didn't act. It makes you angry to think that we were raised to respect these institutions all of the time, not understanding the danger that some of our fellow children were in—institutions we were taught to respect, people in authority that we were simply told to trust by virtue of their office. Some of these people were supposed to be pillars of our community. They had the power, the status, the authority, but they wielded these as weapons.
I think of new migrants who trusted their children to the tight-knit community of faith, who put the clergy on a pedestal and simply could not comprehend when their own children said otherwise. Coaches, scoutmasters, priests and pastors: predators and manipulators. They all knew the buttons to push with parents—there was that flattery of attention, the praising of their particular child's potential—to secure more private time.
If you were in an orphanage or foster care, or an Aboriginal child on a mission, the machinery of state was geared against you. If you ran away to escape assault, the police brought you back. One child who tried to tell them what was going on got a smack across the mouth and was told not to tell lies about these nice Christian men. Another boy actually went to file a police report. He was sitting there in the interview room: 'The sergeant started interrogating me in his booming voice, and all I could think about myself was, "What have I done?"' Aboriginal children silenced by isolation and discrimination, cut off from country and culture. Children who could not speak up for themselves, kids with profound or severe impairment, were abused every day when they were being dressed and bathed. Silence was coerced by beatings, by forced labour, by threats of starvation, by the punishment of perpetual fear. One child recalled waiting every day for the crackle of the PA system, the moment when someone's name would be called to summon them to the office to be disciplined. He said, 'We were scared from the minute we woke up until the minute we fell asleep.' And then, of course, there was the fear of God—the nuns who told children they abused to keep their mouths shut because little girls who lie go to hell, or the good Catholic boy who, every time he was sexually abused by his priest, had to confess the sin of his impurity to his abuser.
Sometimes children kept silent to protect others, to shield a younger brother or sister from abuse. Sometimes children were kept quiet through a terrible false hope that, if they did what they were told, then their mum and dad would come back and take them home. Sometimes children kept quiet because compliance was the only realistic survival strategy they had. As one said, 'I needed to do what I could to survive.'
In all of these heartbreaking cases, children often kept their abuse a secret for years and years to spare themselves the shame, because, amongst all of the vile and unforgivable things that these perpetrators did, perhaps the most devious and manipulative was to put the blame on the child itself, as if somehow the child had something to be ashamed of. One of you said to me last week: 'You can't underestimate the damage that does. The shame lives with you every day. And, even though you know what has happened to you was not your fault, even though your head tells you that, your heart still feels the powerlessness and the shame.'
It is worth repeating now on behalf of our nation: it was never your fault, not at all, not then, not now. You have nothing to be ashamed of. There was nothing wrong with you, and you did nothing wrong. The abusers did it because they could. And they did it because they were confident they could get away with it.
I said before that people have been saying, 'Why didn't we know about this?' Well, make no mistake: institutions knew. They knew and they did worse than nothing. Too often they put their land, their buildings, their reputation and their revenues ahead of the safety of children in their care. They bullied and intimidated the victims, adding vicious insult to injury. They used their wealth and their resources and their lawyers and their insurance companies to suppress the truth, to engage in a strategy of litigation to exhaust and to bankrupt survivors. And they protected the perpetrators, sometimes for decades.
Instead of being sent to jail, the people who committed these crimes were quietly shipped to another town, another unsuspecting parish and another pulpit, to hypocritically and sanctimoniously sermonise on a Sunday about values which were the exact opposite of what they were practising in private every day. And, instead, the young people and the children—you—were the ones treated like criminals, stigmatised, ostracised; your words disputed; your characters assassinated; the trauma rippling down through the rest of your life.
We read so many accounts of the people who've never been able to fully trust another human being again, for whom intimacy, touch and affection are foreign and frightening concepts; people who can't bring themselves to do something as simple as to use a public toilet because of the memories it re-stirs; people who left this country and swore they would never return; people for whom abuse began with a chain of events which has led them into prison; even people who think that everything has gone away, that they're okay, that they're all right, but it can be triggered by a phone call out of the blue from a long-lost relative who never contacted you in the 50 previous years, but today has led a sudden spark of interest. It can be triggered by something as wonderful of the birth of your own child, or the moment that your precious child reaches the age that you were abused at. Perhaps it's even hearing today's apology and so many who say that their darkest nightmare is growing old, worried that they will find themselves back in another institution, a nursing home, where, helpless and powerless, they could be abused again. Everyone's been affected differently by what they have endured, which is why everyone must have the right to access the counselling and the care they need for their own recovery in their own time. This cannot be measured on an insurance actuarial table, and we can't do this on the cheap.
The measure of this day will not be known today. It will be in the months and years to come that as a parliament—as a nation—we can look back and say, 'It was this day that people could feel some hope and some healing.' But it should be this day that people say, 'There was a redoubled commitment to action.' If we can say that this day was the day that child sexual abuse could be driven from its final hiding places, not just in institutions but across our homes and families, and brought into the light; if we can say this day was the day that Australia finally faced up to our responsibilities, that we lived up to our obligation to do the right thing by the people we failed for so long—on these questions, time will tell. History will judge our words today.
I say to all of you—to you here who treat this parliament with respect by gathering here, to those in the Great Hall, to those on the lawns and across the nation, to the people who couldn't be here because of illness or trauma, to people in prison or trapped in poverty and addiction, and to the family members who have a member who's passed away and who we remember—you matter to all of us. We've come too late to this day. There are wrongs that cannot be made right, but know that today Australia says sorry. Australia says: we believe you.
In years to come, people will learn of your lives. They will be appalled by the suffering, they will be shocked by the cruelty and they will ask themselves how such evil could be spread so far and wide. But please believe me: every single Australian will also pause and wonder at your courage. Believe me: every person takes hope and inspiration from you. Every Australian will count themselves privileged to share this country with people as strong, as brave and as full of character and heart as you. So, in the name of the Australian people, in the spirit of humility and healing and with hope for the future, I commend this motion to the House.
The SPEAKER: To signify their support, I invite all present to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (11:43): by leave—I move:
That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion relating to the National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse be referred to the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 11:43 to 14:30
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:30): On indulgence, those who received the apology today, the victims of institutional child sexual abuse, have waited a long time for what has happened today. In light of today's events, the Leader of the Opposition and I have discussed this matter and, with the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition—for which I thank him—we believe that question time can wait until tomorrow. I ask that questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:30): The Prime Minister and I, and indeed all the members of parliament, had the privilege of meeting survivors, victims and families in the Great Hall and down at Federation Mall. We got to hear some of their stories and see what this day and the national apology have meant to them. I said earlier this morning that this day belongs to these Australians. Some of them have fought for this moment for decades; others have not lived to see justice done. All their lives, people in authority have told them that their interests come second, that there are other more important things. Today they come first.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:31): 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.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Centenary of Armistice
The SPEAKER (14:31): As a courtesy, I want to update members on how Australian Parliament House will be commemorating the Centenary of Armistice. From tomorrow, members will begin to see poppies being installed along the pink wall on the first floor outer wall of the Great Hall, which overlooks the marble foyer. This display will be in place until February next year.
From 5 November, the installation will be progressively rolled out across the forecourt. This part of the installation will remain until 19 November. The forecourt poppies will stretch from the Great Verandah out to the parade ground, creating a strong visual link to the Australian War Memorial, and will complement the poppy display that's already in place there.
These two poppy installations are a partnership with the organisation 5000 Poppies and Phillip Johnson Landscapes. Many members may be aware of the 5000 Poppies project, which was started in 2013 by Lynn Berry and Margaret Knight, who crocheted 120 poppies to plant at the Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance on Remembrance Day in honour of the service of their fathers.
If I have further updates for members, I will of course do that between now and Remembrance Day.
BILLS
Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018
Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018
Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017
Assent
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Reporting Date
The SPEAKER (14:33): I have received a message from the Senate transmitting the following message agreed to by the Senate:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on its inquiry into PFAS contamination be extended to 3 December 2018.
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
Reporting Date
The SPEAKER (14:33): I have received a message from the Senate transmitting the following message agreed to by the Senate:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse be extended to the second last sitting day of March 2019.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018
Customs Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at the Border) Bill 2018
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on National Capital and External Territories
Report
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (14:34): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on National Capital and External Territories I present the committee's report, entitled Commonwealth approvals for ACT light rail, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr MORTON: by leave—As our Commonwealth seat of government, our national capital, Canberra, is home to Australia's principal government, judicial, cultural, scientific, educational and military institutions and holds special meaning not only for its residents but for all Australians.
The Commonwealth and this parliament have a responsibility to safeguard Canberra's character and heritage. The committee has sought to facilitate the simplest possible Commonwealth approvals process for the light rail project. We did not seek to slow or hinder the process, but rather to provide certainty for the ACT government and to the people of Canberra. We want to ensure that time and money are not wasted pursuing a route that is not endorsed by the Commonwealth and therefore is not feasible.
The light rail stage 2 project passes through and adjacent to a number of key cultural and heritage sites. Like all projects and proposals in these areas, it must be consistent with the legal requirements imposed by the National Capital Plan. The plan provides for public transport and sets out the location of transport corridors suitable for express public transport systems, such as light rail. I'd like to reiterate this point: the existing National Capital Plan provides for express public transport systems, such as light rail, already. The National Capital Plan has been considered by the Commonwealth and has been considered by this parliament, and those express public transport routes, such as light rail, are provided for in the National Capital Plan for Commonwealth Avenue, Kings Avenue and State Circle already.
However, the committee has found that elements of the route alignment proposed by the ACT government are not consistent with the existing National Capital Plan. The ACT government proposes that light rail cross directly through the Parliamentary Zone, deviating from the routes that are provided for in the National Capital Plan. If the ACT government were to pursue a route that is consistent with the plan, it could do so with confidence knowing that that plan, as I just explained, had already been considered by the Commonwealth and by this parliament, and therefore approval for that route already exists. What wouldn't be approved already are the works required to complete the project, but the certainty that can be obtained from following a route consistent with the National Capital Plan is certainly there.
However, if the ACT government chooses to pursue a route alignment that deviates from the National Capital Plan, it is this decision that will unavoidably add further complexity and time to the approvals process. That's why the committee is of the belief there should be a two-stage Commonwealth approvals process in the event the ACT government remains committed to its choice of route—that route that is only partially consistent with the National Capital Plan and that has elements of the route that are inconsistent with the National Capital Plan.
The ACT government would work with the National Capital Authority to ensure Commonwealth approval of the route alignment by way of amendment to the National Capital Plan. Following this, the usual Commonwealth and parliamentary approval processes, which focus on detailed works and considerations, can commence. This two-stage process will ensure that the ACT government does not risk investing in the necessary and considerable funds for the development of detailed designs and assessments for a route that may not be approved or is even feasible.
The committee has made other recommendations in relation to specific heritage aspects of the light rail project, including those areas that the committee believes should definitely be using technology of wire-free running. The committee welcomes the ACT government's proactive approach in seeking guidance and advice, both in the preapplication discussions with the National Capital Authority and throughout our inquiry. It is important to ensure that this cooperation continues in the most efficient way, not to slow down the project but to ensure that it can proceed lawfully and effectively with this parliament and this Commonwealth having the necessary processes in place to consider the impact of this project on those important national capital areas that are important not only to Canberrans but also to all Australians.
We thank the ACT government and the National Capital Authority, in particular, and we thank all of those who participated, particularly those residents of the Canberra area who participated, for their contributions. As chairman of this committee, I particularly thank Gai Brodtmann, the member for Canberra, for her participation as the deputy chair; the members of our committee, who have taken approach to this issue; and the very capable secretariat staff, who have worked very well in ensuring that we can all better understand what, at times, seem very complicated Commonwealth and parliamentary approvals processes for this project.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (14:40): by leave—As Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the report of the inquiry into Commonwealth and parliamentary approvals for the proposed stage 2 of the Australian Capital Territory light rail project. I'd like to take this opportunity to associate myself and colleagues from this side of the chamber who are on the committee with the comments made by the chair. As the chair has mentioned, we have very productive and constructive conversations and a very productive and constructive relationship in the committee. We are all working to ensure that we deliver the best deal for those in the external territories, those associated within the Antarctic policy, and also those who are very much associated with our wonderful national capital here—particularly the area that is covered by the National Capital Authority and, through that, the parliament. So thank you to the chair for his comments and for the contribution that his side of the chamber have made in what I think is a very enjoyable committee, and one that really does deliver quality advice and reports in its area of responsibility.
This inquiry investigated what should and would be done in terms of necessary Commonwealth approvals for light rail stage 2 in the ACT. It was not an investigation as to whether stage 2 should go ahead. The chair and I were at pains to make this clear—that this was not an investigation into the pros and cons of light rail and it was not an investigation into the pros and cons of stage 2 of the light rail project. It was about looking at what the next steps would look like. It's important to note that the inquiry had bipartisan support and was welcomed by the ACT government.
The terms of reference for the inquiry included the relevant parliamentary approval processes for works within the Parliamentary Zone; the roles of the National Capital Authority and the Australian government and the associated approval processes; possible impacts on the Parliamentary Zone and parliamentary precincts, including any impacts of the heritage values and the national importance of the Parliamentary Zone and our national capital; and the identification of matters that may be of concern prior to formal parliamentary or Australian government consideration of the project.
This inquiry gave the committee the opportunity to explore the heritage value of the parliamentary precinct, as well as the roles and approval processes of the parliament, the ACT government, and relevant Commonwealth and ACT government agencies. We were very, very keen to get an explicit understanding of that through this inquiry, because the proposed stage 2 of the light rail project crosses the historic and iconic parliamentary precinct of our nation's capital. Because of this, we need to ensure the approval processes for this project respect the heritage value and history of this significant area. That's particularly of importance for me as the member for Canberra, because the proposed stage 2 area of the light rail project crosses into my electorate, which is an area full of government agencies, cultural agencies, scientific agencies, educational agencies and military institutions that hold significant and special meaning for my community here in Canberra, but for all Australians.
Like in all states and territories, it is the responsibility of the local government to improve the public transport network for residents and visitors.
The ACT is in a unique position, as to this responsibility, in requiring approvals from the parliament and an investigation by the committee. So the ACT is unique in that it has these Commonwealth agencies that are involved in influencing the way that it can manage some of its decisions, and this is particularly the case as to stage 2 of the light rail.
The committee developed six recommendations in the inquiry, and I just want to run through those. The committee recommended: that it be notified by the responsible minister of any work applications or amendments to the National Capital Plan relating to the light rail project, prior to its tabling in the parliament; that, if the ACT government chooses to pursue a different route to that of the National Capital Plan—and the chair of the committee has outlined where we're at, in terms of the status of it being partially consistent with the National Capital Plan—then there should be a two-stage process for seeking Commonwealth approval, and the chair has outlined in broad details what the process is; that the National Capital Authority should require any light rail bridge design on either the Commonwealth or Kings Avenue bridges to adhere to a range of standards regarding design, size and visual impact; that any light rail on or crossing major roads, including Commonwealth Avenue, State Circle and Kings Avenue, should be wire free; that the placement and appearance of light rail stops, landscaping and signage should be unobtrusive and complementary to the heritage value of nearby buildings, views of parliament and the character of the Central National Area and Parliamentary Zone; and that the removal of any trees with heritage value be met with an appropriate replanting and landscaping strategy that maintains heritage values in the Central National Area and the Parliamentary Zone. Speaker, you will be aware that, in that area, particularly just over the road, on Commonwealth Avenue, there are trees that were planted by Weston which are an integral part of the national capital's history—deeply connected to the history of Canberra and the beginning of this city as the national capital.
There is a lot of good about this report and the fact that it aims to—and I hope it does not just aim to but does—provide clarity to the ACT government, to Commonwealth agencies who are involved in this, and to the parliament and the committee about the next steps for the proposed stage 2 of the light rail. I commend the report to the House.
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (14:47): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The SPEAKER: The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (14:47): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (14:48): The scourge of terrorism, tragically, seems to be an all-too-common theme in our daily news cycle. That's why Labor supports this bill, because we understand that it is crucial to ensure our national security arrangements are kept up to date and responsive to the environment. We have an obligation to keep our communities safe, to keep Australia safe and to protect the freedoms that we enjoy in our society, and, to do that, we need to ensure our systems, our methods and our responses are kept up to date in response to the scourge, as I said, of terrorism that we face, tragically, too often, almost on a daily basis.
This bill, the Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018, addresses that commitment to keeping Australians safe, keeping our nation safe, and protecting our freedoms. That is why it, like most areas of national security, has bipartisan support. In July 2017, the government announced a number of measures to enhance the support provided by the Australian Defence Force for national counterterrorism arrangements, and this bill is part of those measures. The Defence Act 1903, as it currently stands, outlines two types of call-out powers: an order for the Australian Defence Force to be called out immediately and a contingent call-out order whereby the ADF can be called out if specified circumstances arise. The Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill amends that act to make it easier for states and territories to request ADF support; to simplify, expand and clarify the ADF's powers; to enhance the ADF's ability to respond to incidents occurring in more than one jurisdiction or across jurisdictions; and to allow for preauthorisation for the ADF to respond to threats on land, at sea and in the air, typically used as part of measures during major events such as the G20 or Commonwealth Games. State and territory police forces will remain the first responders to terrorist incidents and a call out of the ADF will only be able to be considered following a request by the state or territory.
This bill will help us respond quickly and appropriately to terrorist attacks, should they happen here in Australia. The threat is real, and the threat is now. Tragically, that is the reality for everyone throughout the world, which is why we need to be as responsive as possible and our legislation and regulations need to be as up to date as possible. In Australia, a terrorist attack is defined as an act that intends to coerce or influence by intimidation, death or danger to a person, property or the public and serious interference with, disruption to or the destruction of critical infrastructure, such as telecommunications or electricity networks. As the shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity and defence, this last point is something I am particularly interested in. In fact, it has become a bit of an obsession of mine—that is, the interference, disruption or destruction of our critical infrastructure through cyberattacks.
The Australian Cyber Security Centre's Threat report 2017 noted that CERT Australia responded to 734 incidents affecting private-sector systems of national critical infrastructure in 2016-17. This equates to significant cyber incidents occurring on these networks more than twice a day. Critical infrastructure sectors are vital to Australia's social cohesion, our economic prosperity and our public safety. They're the facilities and services that keep our hospitals operating, our homes heated, our lights on and our stores stocked. They are the facilities that keep our water running, our water clean and safe and our economy operating. The disruption of this infrastructure—either from physical or cyber-related threats—can have a serious impact on our national security, our social cohesion, our economic prosperity, our economic stability and the stability and security of the nation.
Unfortunately, Australia only addresses four sectors as being at the highest risk in the last act that was passed by the parliament a couple of months ago. We have eight other sectors that have been identified in the TISN, but unfortunately only four sectors were actually covered in the act that passed through the parliament—that is, on the bill that was debated by the government. I do regard that as a significant lost opportunity. The sectors that were discussed in that bill were electricity, water, gas and ports. Each of these sectors has experienced some form of cyberthreat in the past 12 months.
As I said when I was speaking on that bill, while we've got those four sectors that have been the subject of cyberthreats over the last 12 months, we also have the eight sectors that are identified elsewhere. These sectors are very underdone when it comes to the rest of the world. We have a focus on these critical infrastructure sectors. There are eight that we've identified that are crucial to our social cohesion, our economic stability, our prosperity and our democracy. Only four of the eight were actually included in the bill that went through just recently. The eight is a good start. Having only the four, as I said, it was a lost opportunity that the government had with that act that we debated just recently. We really do need to be starting to take the cybersecurity and the physical security of our critical infrastructure seriously. I think we can start doing that by broadening out what we classify as critical infrastructure. In the United Kingdom they've identified 13 sectors that they regard to be critical infrastructure—that is, infrastructure that is vital to the social cohesion, economic prosperity and stability of that nation. In the United States, they have 16 sectors that they've identified as absolutely critical to cohesion, stability, security and prosperity. Canada has identified 10 sectors and Singapore has identified 11 sectors. Here in Australia, as I said, we're a bit underdone in that we've got only eight sectors.
The sectors recognised by these nations that aren't necessarily recognised here include emergency services, information technology, chemicals manufacturing and electoral systems, and it's this last sector that I want to focus on. At the least, electoral systems in Australia should be treated as critical infrastructure, particularly after what we've seen in the United States and in France. We hear throughout the world, whenever an election is held, of fake news and attacks on systems. We need our democracy to be protected. We need people to maintain trust in the way our democracy and our electoral systems and processes are run. They have got to have trust and faith in the underpinnings of our democracy, which are our electoral systems—election days, the ballot system. They have got to have trust and faith in the way we conduct elections and the way the results are collated and published. They need to have trust in the integrity of those electoral systems.
In the US, they've acknowledged that their electoral systems are vital to social cohesion and to their democracy, which is why electoral systems have been recognised in the US as a critical infrastructure sector. I do encourage the government to consider including electoral systems among Australia's critical infrastructure sectors. I also encourage the government to broaden out our list of critical infrastructure sectors to make it more up-to-date and more in keeping with those of other nations, particularly our like-mindeds. As I've said, eight is pretty underdone, and recognising only four in the critical infrastructure bill was a significant missed opportunity, as was the fact that cybersecurity wasn't actually mentioned in that bill. There was no mention of cybersecurity despite the fact that cyberthreats pose as much risk to our critical infrastructure as physical threats do.
We need to think beyond just the protection of critical infrastructure from a physical perspective. We need to start thinking about the protection of critical infrastructure from a cybersecurity perspective, and we've got to start taking our critical infrastructure seriously. It's not enough only to protect the physical safety of our critical infrastructure, or to partially list those services and facilities that are vital to our cohesion, economic prosperity and public safety, or to ignore international cybersecurity standards, or to pretend that threats end where the supply chain starts.
The terrorist attacks that are addressed through this bill are not just about threats to our buildings and infrastructure. They're also threats to our way of life. The threats come not just through physical attacks but also through cyberattacks, which is why we need to start thinking more broadly about threats to this nation, not just in the kinetic sense but also in the cybersense.
In the past four years, 84 people have been charged with terrorism related offences in Australia. We know that it is real and it is now. According to the National Terrorism Threat Advisory System, it is classified as 'probable'. This bill will give our Defence Force the ability to address this probable threat. It will make it easier for states and territories to request ADF support; it will simplify, clarify and expand on the ADF's powers; and it will allow the ADF to respond to multiple incidents across different jurisdictions. It will increase Australia's security in the event of an act of violence here.
That's why Labor supports this bill. The security of our nation is at the forefront of everything we do here, and this bill will continue to lead us in the right direction to ensure a safe, secure and prosperous nation.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (15:00): Can I thank the member for Canberra for her contribution and say how important it is that we acknowledge the work she's been doing and continues to do in the cybersecurity domain. It's an area about which she has a great depth of detailed knowledge. She's provided us with advice here this afternoon on the need to think about how we concern ourselves with and how we define critical infrastructure. I think that we need to comprehend her advice. The member for Canberra pointed to the election processes and the interferences that have been noted elsewhere, internationally. We shouldn't discount the possibility that that sort of interference could happen here, effectively eroding, potentially, the confidence of our community in our democratic processes. Therefore it is really important that we acknowledge the potential for these sorts of cyberterrorist attacks, as they are.
We need to understand that, whilst the Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018 deals with role of the ADF, the ADF does have capacity in this space. Indeed, the leaders in cyber research and knowledge have historically rested in the defence community. We need to acknowledge that and understand that they have the skills, capacity, background and intellectual horsepower to be able to provide the nation advice on these and related issues. I want to thank the member for Canberra for her contribution and for making sure that we understand that the sorts of issues which she talked about to us are issues about which we should all be thinking.
We know already that, in the cybersecurity space, the commercial world have started to recognise—belatedly, really—the importance of cyberdefence of their own systems. The government plays a very important catalytic role in making sure that they get the right advice around those issues, emanating from the central agencies here in Canberra. But we need to acknowledge, as they do now, how important cyberinterference could be in terms of our economy, and we need to comprehend what that means. Think of the power systems in this country. Think of the water systems in this country. All of them could potentially be hacked by some cyberfreak. We need to know that that sort of terrorist activity could come from an international source, or it could even, indeed, come locally. So having our cybersecurity framework properly set in place and understanding its role in preventing cyberterrorism are extremely important.
I know that the intelligence community is fully aware of this. I know that we can have confidence in the capacity of our cybersecurity networks, but we need to make sure that we're aware of the potential for things to happen, and I don't think everyone is really aware of it. So I want to thank again the member for Canberra for her very important contribution. Thank you.
In the second reading speech for this piece of legislation which is before us, the Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018, the minister made, I think, some very relevant and pertinent observations. As he said and we on this side of the House accept—we're supporting the legislation—'police and other emergency services are, and will remain, our first responders' to terrible local events. We have, as the minister pointed out in his second reading speech, 'a broad continuum of operational response to terrorist attacks spanning from general duties police to the specialist members of the ADF'. As he further pointed out, the actions of these first responders 'can have the greatest impact' in terms of saving lives and neutralising any threat in these instances. We acknowledge, as the minister said in his speech:
Each state and territory police force has specially trained personnel who have expert capabilities to respond to terrorist attacks, but they sometimes need additional support—
and it's that support that the ADF, with its expertise, can properly provide. We know, as the minister says in his second reading speech, that the ADF's primary responsibility in terms of counterterrorism is offshore, but the ADF, as many will know, has the personnel, the resources, the capacity and very much specialist sets of skills that can assist our emergency services to respond in the event of a terrorist attack.
I think it's very important that we in this parliament, let alone the general community, acknowledge the depth of training in particular parts of the ADF; their knowledge, as I have outlined; their expertise and their professionalism, which, internationally, is really above par. There may be one or two defence forces in the world that have such highly trained technicians as we have in this country, but I doubt it. We can be very pleased and proud of the capacity which has been developed by our Defence Force and Defence Force systems, including those civilians who work in the defence space and provide technical and other advice and expertise. We can have a great deal of confidence in their capacity.
As I alluded to earlier, as a minister previously I had responsibility for Defence Science and Technology Organisation. Let there be no doubt about the capacity and knowledge of those people, their expertise and their capacity to research and provide solutions to the types of really difficult problems for which we need to have confidence that they can. Most of what they do is unknown to many and will remain unknown. But I can say from my own observations, experience and knowledge is that what they do is very, very important. They have the scientific engineering and other skills that are required to develop responses on our behalf, and they do. So I think it is very important that we acknowledge that capacity and capability
But, more broadly, we need to see that our defence forces have specialist capabilities such as tactical assault forces; chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear response and recovery. These skill sets have been developed by informed work over many years by our defence forces, working in collaboration in many instances with partners in universities and indeed, in some cases, in the private sector. But the IP, the intellectual grunt, has largely been driven out of the Department of Defence and its organisations, and we need to be aware of that. They're well beyond the sorts of skill sets that you would expect to find in the police force in any jurisdiction in this country. So, understanding that, it's no surprise that we should be contemplating this legislation to ensure that Defence is able, when required, to contribute effectively to domestic counterterrorism efforts. It is in that context that we feel very confident in supporting this legislation.
I will just go to the explanatory memorandum of the bill to explain very briefly its purpose. The explanatory memorandum says:
2. The amendments contained in the Bill will implement the recommendations from the Review of Defence Support to National Counter-Terrorism Arrangements , and complement efforts to enhance the Australian Defence Force's (ADF) posture and capability to respond to incidents of domestic violence and terrorism. The amendments will also implement measures to enhance the ability of the ADF to support state and territory law enforcement agencies in responding to domestic violence.
3. In broad terms, the purpose of the amendments is to streamline the legal procedures for call out of the ADF and to enhance the ability of the ADF to protect states, self-governing territories, and Commonwealth interests, onshore and offshore, against domestic violence, including terrorism.
The Department of Defence has already implemented a number of very important initiatives to provide greater practical support for state and territory law enforcement agencies, including but not limited to an enhanced counterterrorism liaison network, an enhanced program of asbestos training activities and streamlined police access to defence facilities such as ranges.
This piece of legislation will amend the Defence Act to: make it easier for states and territories to request ADF support; simplify, expand and clarify the ADF's powers; enhance the ADF's ability to respond to incidents occurring in more than one jurisdiction or across jurisdictions; and allow for pre-authorisation for the ADF to respond to threats on land, on sea and in the air, typically used as part of measures during major events such as the G20 meeting or the Commonwealth Games.
It's important that we acknowledge, though, that, even despite what I said earlier, the first responders will remain territory and state police forces. That is really very important. They will be the first responders to any terrorist incidents. The call-out of the ADF will only be able to be considered following a request by a state or territory. I think that needs to be understood. The context of this legislation is very much a secondary role to the primary responders, who are the state jurisdictions.
The four principles which underpin the proposed changes to call-out provisions are these. The ADF should only be called out to assist civilian authorities if, when the ADF is called out, civilian authorities remain paramount. The ADF members remain under military command. When called out, ADF members can only use force that is reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances. Importantly—and this needs to be comprehended—ADF personnel remain subject to the law and are accountable for their actions. So that's the framework, and it's very important that we appreciate that framework. First responders are the state and territory police, and the ADF personnel will be required to remain subject to the law and accountable for their actions. That is something which I know many people will take a great sense of security from.
I don't intend to go through each of the four headings, but there will be an increase in the requirement for the ADF to consult with state and territory police when it's operating in their jurisdictions. It's very important that that communication framework exists and is open. An additional matter in this legislation will be adding the Minister for Home Affairs as a named alternative authorising minister for the expedited call-out.
This is a very important piece of legislation for this country. It gives us a contemporary set of arrangements designed to meet contemporary circumstances—those of today and into the future—and I'm very pleased to be able to support the legislation.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (15:14): I would like to acknowledge my colleagues the member for Canberra and the member for Lingiari for their considerable contributions and expert knowledge. Firstly, I would also like to acknowledge the serving members in my electorate of Herbert who last week participated in a welcome home parade to mark their return from overseas deployment. Your service to this nation is truly valued and appreciated and we are grateful for the work that you undertake. I am personally thankful that you have returned home safely to your families. I also want to particularly thank your families, who all too often are not acknowledged for the sacrifices they make whilst you are deployed overseas. It is because of these brave men and women that we live in one of the best democracies in the world. Whenever I speak with current serving members, they always acknowledge the fact that they could not do the work they do without the support of their families. So an additional acknowledgement to family members is needed in this place.
There is no greater responsibility for every member in this place than keeping Australians safe. When it comes to fighting terrorism and Islamic terrorism, we are all in this together. Terror is random, unpredictable and alien to our values, our faiths and our way of life. Yet, we have come to recognise a pattern and a ritual. We light up our landmarks and our candles. We share stories of heroism and survival. We send sympathy and we stand in solidarity. There is absolute value and merit in all of this activity. But unity in grief is not enough. We owe those who have lost their lives defending our freedoms more than mourning. We have a responsibility to see justice done and to ensure that terrorism is prevented, defeated and eliminated. We must defeat terrorism on the open battlefield abroad.
Both sides of this parliament support the international coalition mission in Iraq and Syria. Both sides of this parliament support, admire and salute the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who put their lives on the line in our country's name for the causes of freedom and peace. Important progress is being made against the so-called Islamic State. Its territory is being eroded, its resources depleted. Australia is doing its fair share as a good international citizen to deny safe havens for terrorists, restricting their ability to export violence. We must continue to work closely with our allies and friends around the world to neutralise the transnational efforts of extremist groups, including choking off their financial and communication capabilities. We need a renewed focus on cyberthreats, from attacks on government institutions, breaches of individual privacy, identity theft, industrial espionage and interference in elections. We must ensure that our agencies and security personnel are properly supported, equipped, funded and paid for the important work that they do for all Australians.
In the fight against terrorism, we must all play a part—governments and opposition at every level. That is why I stand here today with my Labor colleagues to support this bill, the Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018. It is so important to make sure our national security arrangements are kept up to date to keep Australians safe and protect the freedoms that make our society what it is today.
In July 2017, the government announced a number of measures to enhance the support provided by the ADF for the national counterterrorism arrangements. The Department of Defence has already implemented a number of initiatives to provide greater practical support for state and territory law enforcement agencies, including an enhanced counterterrorism liaison network, an enhanced program of specialist training activities and streamlined police access to Defence facilities such as ranges. This bill is part of those measures announced in 2017.
The Defence Act 1903, as it currently stands, outlines two types of call-out orders: an order for the ADF to be called out immediately or a contingent call-out order, whereby the ADF can be called out if specified circumstances arise. There are four principles which underpin the proposed changes to call-out provisions. The ADF should only be called out to assist civilian authorities. If the ADF is called out, civilian authorities remain paramount, but the ADF members remain under military command. When called out, ADF members can only use force that is reasonable and necessary in all circumstances. ADF personnel remain subject to the law and are accountable for their actions. These principles are important and have guided the necessary changes outlined in this bill.
The Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018 amends the Defence Act on four points. Firstly, the bill will make it easier for states and territories to request ADF support. Currently, the Defence Act prevents the ADF from being called out until such time as states and territories are not, or are unlikely to be, able to protect themselves or Commonwealth interests against domestic violence. The amendments provide a more flexible and responsible threshold that requires ministers to consider the nature of the violence or threat and whether calling out the ADF would be likely to enhance the state or territory's ability to respond to the threat. This amendment bill will allow greater flexibility for the ADF to provide the most rapid, effective and appropriate specialist support in responding to terrorist incidents while at the same time respecting the states and territories' position as first responders. The state and territory police forces will remain the first responders to terrorist incidents, and call-out of the ADF will only be able to be considered following a request from the state or territory.
Secondly, the bill will simplify, expand and clarify the ADF's powers. The bill simplifies, expands and clarifies the ADF's search and seizure powers when they are operating under a call-out order. This means that ADF personnel will be authorised to search for and seize items and search for and detain people that are likely to pose a threat to a person's life, health and safety or to public health or safety generally. Currently, the ADF search powers in specified areas focus predominantly on dangerous things and do not authorise them to search for and detain people.
Thirdly, it enhances the ADF's ability to respond to multiple incidents occurring in more than one jurisdiction or across jurisdictions, as well as to incidents which cross jurisdictional boundaries, including offshore.
Finally, the bill will allow for pre-authorisation for the ADF to respond to threats on land, at sea and in the air. Typically used as part of measures during major events such as the G20 or the Commonwealth Games, pre-authorised or contingent call-out allows ministers to pre-authorise the ADF to respond if specific circumstances arise. Currently, contingent call-out is limited to the protection of Commonwealth interests from air threats. This type of contingent call-out order has been regularly made as part of security measures to protect major Commonwealth events such as the G20, the ASEAN summit and the Commonwealth Games from air threats. The bill will extend contingent call-out to be available for the protection of both Commonwealth interests and state and territory interests from threats in the land, air and maritime domains. The purpose of this amendment is to remove potential delays in seeking ministerial authorisation for ADF support once a threat is considered imminent or immediately after the event occurs. It will also provide additional support options in planning for major events such as the ASEAN Special Summit or the G20.
The bill also contains a number of provisions in support of those amendments outlined above, including an increase in the requirement for the ADF to consult with state and territory police where it is operating in their jurisdiction, and adding the Minister for Home Affairs as a named alternative authorising minister for expedited call-out.
Defeating the scourge of terrorism demands our every effort, our total energy and our complete unity of purpose—unity in this parliament through continued thoughtful bipartisan cooperation; unity in the nation, working with the Muslim community to identify people at risk of radicalisation and prevent them from heading down a path of, sadly, no return; unity in the region, where we face the ongoing challenge of returning foreign fighters driven out of the Middle East by the efforts of Australian forces, among others; and unity with other free nations, standing against terrorism's assault on the rights of their citizens to live in peace and security. I am the member who represents the largest garrison city in this country. These changes are important to allow those serving men and women to do what they do best: serve and protect this great nation. I am very proud to support this bill.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:24): There are a lot of freedoms and rights that we enjoy in Australia that make us the stable, peaceful democracy that we are. Indeed, so desired are we as a place to live that so many people around the world want to come here and live here. A big part of that is that there are, unlike in a number of other countries, a number of basic freedoms that we can all take for granted. When we respond to threats to Australia, we need to be careful that we don't pass legislation that actually takes away some of those rights and freedoms. In this instance, with the Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018, where we're dealing with a bill that brings about a very significant shift in the role of the military in Australia, this is a time for careful and considered discussion, for nuance and for restrictions to make sure that our freedoms are in fact defended.
In Australia, we are not used to seeing the military on our streets. We're used to seeing a police force on our streets and we accept that as a community; but we are not used, as they are in many other countries, to seeing the military out on the streets. That's because we have a clear understanding in this country that the police have the role of preserving law and order domestically, whereas our military—our defence forces—are trained to do a different job. They're trained to defend the country. They're trained to go overseas and fight wars or they're trained to defend us should we be attacked here. They're trained in a very different matter. Police forces will have an emphasis on keeping the peace. In the military, in a conflict situation, it is a very, very different environment and you are trained for different things and for different objectives.
As is the case in this bill, if we have legislation that comes to us that says, 'We now want to expand the circumstances in which the military can be put onto the streets in Australia,' you would expect that there would be some very significant checks and balances in there, you would expect that it would be very highly restricted and you would expect that it was there to deal proportionately with threats that we are facing. You might expect, given what you've heard some speakers say on this bill so far, that this bill—which allows for the call-out of military personnel and the defence forces into the streets in Australia—was limited to terrorism or had some role in relation to cybersecurity attacks. If that was the case, we might be able to have a debate about it.
Given that this bill arose out of an inquiry dealing with the Lindt siege and some problems that were found there with our laws allowing for the call-out of certain forces, is it there a definition of terrorism or does this bill pick up existing definitions and does this bill talk about the limited instances in which we could call personnel out? That's not what this bill does at all. Every speaker so far has used the threat of terrorism to justify this bill. Pretty much everyone in Australia would want to make sure that we are in a position to deal with threats of terrorism. But this bill goes much further. This bill allows the call-out of the ADF onto our streets not when there's terrorism and not when there's even exceptional circumstances but when there's so-called 'specified' circumstances. That is not even defined in the bill.
That should give a lot of people some great cause for concern. When all of a sudden, now at the whim of a minister or of a government, the military can be called out onto our streets and there's virtually no restriction—legally, in the bill—on how and when that could happen, that should give people grave cause for concern. That's why the Law Council of Australia has said that they are very, very concerned that, under the proposed sections 33 and 35 of the bill, it raises the risk that:
… ministers will feel it necessary to call out defence forces, on a routine basis, in order to enhance the State or Territory's ability to protect itself or Commonwealth interests without exceptional circumstances …
Now, given everything that people have said so far in speaking to this bill — that the government and the opposition are on another unity ticket — there should be no reason we can't amend this bill to limit the ability to call out the Defence Force to exceptional circumstances only . That should cover all the instances that they've raised—but no.
Allow ing this wide-ranging ability to bring the Defence Force out onto our streets is something that most people in this country would not agree with if they knew it was happening. And this is not in any way a slight either to our police forces, who are currently doing this job, or to the defence forces who are being referred to in the bill. It ' s about us as parliamentarians deciding what is the dividing line between the two , and in what instances we think it is okay to become one of those countries where it's the military that is on the streets doing the policing . I would argue, and I think most people in the country would argue , that you would want that to happen in only the rarest of circumstances and you would want there to be some significant checks and balances on ministers who do that so that the Defence Force is not call ed out whe n there's a big disturbance that some might characterise as a protest , that it's not called out because it's seen that there is a threat to a way a particular business is operating— that it's only used in legitimate circumstances. But that's not what this bill does.
That is why t he Law Council is ringing the alarm bells about this bill and saying, to paraphrase them , that we're potentially about to trade off some of the rights that this bill is supposedly about defending. And it goes further in that respect. Under this bill, w hen the defence forces are called out , they will have the power to take away a number of our civil liberties. For example, you lose the right to silence in a number of respects , a nd personnel who are called out are able to demand that you answer certain questions and do certain things. Again, maybe in an emergency situation, in an exceptional situation, that's something the Australian public would accept. But the bill isn't limited to that ; it's basically limited to whenever the minister wants, more or less. G iven that huge breadth, is it right that , when that provision is triggered by a federal government or by a state government, all of a sudden as a citizen you lose some of your right to silence ? Again , I think, if people knew that that was what is being proposed here, they wouldn't agree with that either. But that's what we're being asked to support.
It's something that, again, the Law Council, together with Lawyers f or Human Rights, have said should be amended in this bill. It should be narrowed, given the grave threat to our civil liberties and to our human rights that are in the bill . I stress the point : most people in this country are up for the discussion about whether we've got the balance right. But what is really worrying is when governments use horrific incidents to then engage in a process of overreach and say, ' The only thing that will prevent that happening again in the future is to trade away your rights in a variety of other respects. '
Again I make the point that this bill is not limited to terrorism. This bill is not limited to terrorism. It's expansive, and it covers a very, very broad range of situations. Not only is there the power to force people to answer questions, the loss of the right to silence; it goes together with the power to have your property seized and your personal liberty restricted. That's in an instance where there is a threat to a person's health or safety — not where there's a terrorist threat to the nation but whe re someone could potentially be seen as inconvenienced. It doesn't even need to be a threat to someone's life; i t's a threat to someone's safety. When that threshold is met, you lose your rights then as well.
It goes further, because it grant s Defence Force personnel a much greater range of legal protection s for activities that might even be outside the purpose for which they were called out. What does that mean? It means that , if a member of the Defence Force is called out to deal with a certain threat and they exercise force as part of being called out, they would gain a much greater level of immunity for the exercise of that force than, say, members of the police force, depending on which state or territory you're in.
So that, again, has attracted the concern of the Law Council of Australia. They have made what I think is a very sensible recommendation, which is: let's limit that to minor or technical noncompliance with the obligations that are set out in the intent of the bill. That would seem to make a lot of sense, given that, if you listen to some of the speeches in support of it, they're saying, 'There should be instances in which—for example, where someone forgets to wear their name badge—even though it's something they might be required to do, they shouldn't lose their protection just because they haven't done that.' Well, if that's what the bill is about, let's limit it to that.
But what this does is something much, much broader. For example, there could be an exercise of violence in this situation where someone is called out; it might be inadvertent; it could result in someone being seriously injured or dying. You may have no recourse in that situation because of the effect of this bill.
Again, most people would be up for a discussion about it. We understand that, in situations, for example, where there are legitimate acts of terrorism, people are required to make decisions very quickly, and people are doing it to protect life, limb and property. Most people in Australia are up for a discussion of and understanding about the difficulties of acting in that situation. We just need to think back to the Lindt siege.
But what people aren't up for is the removal of the checks and balances that allow us to have the confidence in our institutions that we currently have. There's a simple answer to that, which is: listen to what people like the Law Council are saying when they say that this bill trades away many of the rights that it is supposed to defend, or it is there to allow our Defence Force defend us from attacks, and go back and have another look at getting the balance right, because there are a number of experts in the field who've looked at the drafting and said, 'No. This goes much, much broader than what its stated purpose is. It goes much, much broader than terrorism.'
The reason this is so significant—and here I come back to the point that I made at the start—is that not only do you, as an individual citizen, lose a lot of your own rights when the provisions of this bill are triggered, but it allows a line to be crossed. This bill allows a line to be crossed, where it's not the police on our streets who are keeping law and order but the military.
We can and we should continue to have debates in this House about when our military are deployed overseas. I and the Greens have argued for some time that we should have a parliamentary debate before we deploy troops overseas. It should come here, at a minimum, to parliament, and parliament should be involved in the process, as is the case with many other democracies. And there's a lot of support for that. I understand that there are some arguments against it, but there is a lot of public support for the idea that we should have that debate here.
I think people would want the standard to be even higher when it comes to calling out the military on our own streets not because we're calling them out to deal with a crisis from a natural disaster—and those crises are going to become all the more common under climate change—but when we're calling them out to deal with another kind of incident. I think people would want to know that we haven't crossed the line to the point where it becomes, potentially, normal to have that happen—where, in response to a law and order issue, it becomes normal to call out the military onto our streets. But that is the road that this bill is taking us down, the Law Council and others are telling us.
The bill should not pass in its current form. The drafters should go back and pare it back to what they say is its intention. Let's deal with exceptional circumstances. Let's limit the ability to remove people's rights. If the government is serious that that's what it's all about, then they should have no objection to doing that. So, in its current form, this bill cannot be supported.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (15:39): I rise to continue the opposition's responsible support for the Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018. I was particularly interested in the very specific suggestion from the member for Canberra that this bill should actually be wider and take into consideration other critical infrastructure, apart from the four mentioned in the bill. I thought it was very wise of her, having concentrated so much on the effect of cybersecurity attacks in Australia and cybersecurity warfare generally, to mention the electoral systems as being critical infrastructure.
We have seen claims from many countries that their electoral systems have been interfered with various hostile non-democratic powers. I was recently in France and had the great pleasure of introducing Senator Pauline Hanson to a young Muslim member of the National Assembly who was moving responsible legislation to restrict the Russian Federation from interfering in the French elections in the future as they had done recently to try and influence the candidacy of Mr Macron. It was a sort of piquant moment to point out to someone who was 'so uncritical' of all Muslims that here was a young responsible member of the National Assembly doing her bit for the security of democracy in France.
Other countries have similar systems to that that is being legislated at the moment in relation to the ability to call out members of the defence forces in specific circumstances. There are countries in Europe which, regrettably for them, have to access the power of the military more often because they've had terrible terrorist attacks on their citizenry. Other countries that have similar legislation to this that I have been able to discover at short notice are Canada, Italy, Denmark and the United Kingdom. The United States has very longstanding laws against the US military which serves overseas being called out onto US streets. But, of course, the US has the National Guard, which can be, and indeed has been, deployed in terrorist incidents. That's the American way of dealing with their quaint constitution and the burgeoning issue of terrorist attacks in the United States.
I also took very seriously the comments of the members for Lingiari and Herbert—which, in most part, answer the member for Melbourne's criticisms—that there are very specific rules that govern the military's behaviour if they are called out in these circumstances. These are restrictions which democratic countries like Australia would support. The member for Canberra pointed out the context locally of this and other laws on counter-terrorism. They include the fact that there are 80 people currently being charged with terrorism and that the level of terrorist attacks in Australia is probable. These are all circumstances that we haven't brought about, that we don't like and that we wish never occurred but that responsible governments of all kinds have to face up to.
There's a further piece of context to this particular amendment that's quite regrettable. That is the report of the coroner and the widespread media reporting of the New South Wales reaction to the Lindt cafe siege. Frankly, I would think that most Australians would have much preferred the highly professional Australian military to have handled those circumstances. Can you imagine circumstances in which the commander of the terrorist situation went home to sleep? Can you believe that stun grenades were thrown by the police forces against closed doors? Can you believe that there were no operational telephone lines operating between the commanders and the people at the coalface? Can you believe that there was failure to have modern breach equipment to get into the cafe to save all of the poor Australians who were there, including the two people who were killed, who were just doing their normal business and should not have been victims of that person who should have been arrested and long been in jail?
Given the member for Melbourne's comments, this has further context. The member for Melbourne represents the Greens political party, which has voted, as far as I can work out, against every proposal in this place and in the Senate to protect the safety of Australians against the threat of terrorism and Jihadists in and out of Australia. Currently, we have the problem of the return of former foreign fighters, and that's determined by the rule of law, and a consideration, of course, is given to children who are returning from a declared war zone. We also have a non-partisan concern, or maybe it's a bipartisan concern, about the few Australians, probably about a hundred, who are seeking to leave Australia to fight in Iraq or Syria. They're being denied a passport, I think with support of both sides of parliament, and, therefore, denied the right to travel to those countries. We've got to be tough on these combatants seeking to return, to protect the safety of all Australians, which should be our No. 1 priority.
As I said before, the Greens party, as with their opposition to this legislation, has fought every attempt in this parliament over the years that I have been here to face up to these responsibilities. As I said again, we did not seek these circumstances. Australia or Australians are the potential victims. We did not seek this increase in terrorist circumstances, but we as a responsible parliament must face up to it. Even before the Batman by-election, which the Labor Party thankfully won, you would have thought that the Greens political party would have been a bit more cautious and shown a bit more responsibility. No. Their leader, Senator Di Natale, insisted on the ABC's Q&A that foreign fighters and jihadists be allowed to return to Australia. The Greens party chief described these people as 'good people who've made mistakes'. They are not. They are the enemies of Australia and people who are a risk to ordinary citizens who want to go about their lives in peace and security. The most fundamental human right that all of us have is the right to safety and the sanctity of human life. If anyone, for some gratuitous overseas political reason or some ideology that goes back to the 6th century, says that they have the right to kill Australians, I say this parliament has to do everything possible to make sure that we address those new circumstances and defend our fellow Australians.
I want to make this point particularly clear to my electorate. During every weekend hundreds of volunteers in my electorate work to protect the safety and security of local institutions. These people are selfless. They work very closely with the Victorian police and they've been highly successful—I won't go into details—in preventing even attacks in Melbourne. We've seen recently—there is a court case ongoing at the moment—that three people planned a terrorist attack on Flinders Street station and St Paul's Cathedral in Christmas 2016. These threats are ongoing, extant, and very, very local as far as we're concerned. It should be crystal clear to the voters of Melbourne Ports, which will be renamed Macnamara, that there is a key difference between the Labor Party and the Greens political party at the next election. One is a responsible party that has, of course, a huge range of views on domestic matters that are different from those of the government but is responsible and wants to protect their circumstances, their safety and their lives. Unfortunately, we must address, and we do address with this amendment bill, circumstances that Australia and Australians didn't generate. We need this Defence Force legislation for the reasons that they have such legislation in so many countries overseas, because of changed circumstances.
In my electorate, if you want to vote for a responsible political party at the next election, it's absolutely clear that anyone who does not support this or other antiterrorist legislation cannot be voted for without it saying that the lives of people whom they live amongst are unimportant and only the political ideologies of the Greens political party—
Mr Bandt: You are a grub.
Mr DANBY: and their others are important. The safety of all Australians is important. While the member for Melbourne calls me a grub, I'm proud to stand up for the 95 per cent of Australians, in my seat and in all the rest of Australia, who think antiterrorist legislation, including this bill, is important.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Deputy Leader of the House) (15:50): I'd like to begin, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, by recognising your interest, in particular, in this bill given your former role as Minister for Defence. Also, in the spirit of the Invictus Games, which are occurring right now in Sydney, I want to recognise and thank all serving ADF members for their service to our nation.
I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018. I also thank the opposition for its support for the important amendments in the bill. The amendments are the most significant changes to the Australian Defence Force's call-out powers, under part IIIAAA of the Defence Act 1903, since the provisions were enacted in 2000 in the lead-up to the Sydney Olympics.
The contemporary terrorist threat environment is more complex than the threat Australia faced when part IIIAAA was introduced almost 20 years ago. It's characterised by the threat of highly mobile attackers that move quickly across large areas. The recent events in Borough Market, London, and at the Bataclan theatre in Paris are illustrative of this type of attack. At the same time, the Manchester bombing showed that attacks and threats related to the use of explosive devices continue to pose a significant risk. The amendments will ensure that the ADF is better able to respond effectively to this contemporary terrorist threat.
I'd like to respond briefly to the member for Melbourne, who said the bill would see ministers calling out the ADF on a routine basis. Of course that is not correct. States and territories will retain responsibility, as first responders, for domestic security incidents, and the threshold limits the ADF's role to augmenting that response in the most serious of circumstances, such as a terrorist incident.
I would note that in the debate on the bill a number of my parliamentary colleagues stated that these amendments were developed in response to the Lindt cafe siege. I'd like to clarify that the bill was not developed in direct response to the Lindt cafe siege. The review of Defence's support to national counterterrorism arrangements, announced by the government in July 2017, was initiated in response to the changing nature of the terrorist threat, as seen in the terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels and Ankara. The coroner's report on the Lindt cafe siege, and the subsequent attacks in London and Manchester, added context to the review. The amendments will ensure that the ADF is better able to respond effectively to the current and future terrorist threat environment. The bill will enhance the ability of the ADF to support state and territory police in responding to incidents of significant violence occurring in Australia, including terrorism.
Under the amendments, states and territories will continue to have primary responsibility for protecting life and property in their jurisdictions. State and territory police forces are well equipped to respond to domestic terrorism incidents and play a primary role as first responders within minutes of an attack. However, the amendments will ensure that the Commonwealth can more easily respond to requests from states and territories for ADF assistance. The amendments remove the existing legislative threshold requirement that the states and territories are not, or are unlikely to be, able to protect themselves against incidents of significant violence. Instead, in deciding whether to call out the ADF, the Commonwealth will need to consider the nature of the incident and whether the ADF would enhance the state's or territory's response.
The amendments will also ensure that the ADF has the powers it needs to respond quickly and effectively to contemporary terrorist attacks in support of states and territories. In particular, they will allow the government to pre-authorise the ADF to respond to specified threats on land, at sea and in the air; they will simplify, expand and clarify the ADF's power to search, seize and control movement during a violent or terrorist incident; and they will enhance the ability of the ADF to respond to incidents occurring in more than one jurisdiction. While the ADF's primary counterterrorism role is offshore, the ADF has personnel, resources and specialist skills that can assist our emergency services to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. This support includes specialist capabilities such as tactical assault forces and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear response and recovery.
The amendments will ensure that the ADF is able to utilise these skills and capabilities to contribute effectively to domestic counterterrorism efforts. The reforms are part of a suite of measures being rolled out to enhance Defence's support to national counterterrorism arrangements. Since the government's announcements of the outcomes of the Defence counterterrorism review last year, Defence has made substantial progress to further enhance the practical support it provides to state and territory police, including through an enhanced counterterrorism liaison network, an increased and broadened program of support for specialist training activities, streamlined police access to Defence facilities, such as rifle ranges, and expansion of the capacity and capability of highly trained force elements on call to assist police to respond to domestic security threats. These reforms will ensure the Commonwealth can be more flexible and agile in the way it supports states and territories.
The government has tabled an addendum to the explanatory memorandum which comprises the government's response to the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. It provides further information regarding what may constitute specified circumstances in the context of a contingent call-out order. The addendum also responds to the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. It provides further information about the meaning of domestic violence and Commonwealth interests, the new threshold, time limits on call-out orders, the use of force in relation to declared infrastructure, aircraft and vessels, and the good-faith provision in subsection 51S(1). I would like to thank these committees for their detailed consideration of the bill.
In conclusion, the bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring Australia's counterterrorism legislative framework remains robust and that ADF is well equipped to support our law enforcement agencies in responding to the evolving threat of terrorism. I'd like to thank my parliamentary colleagues for recognising the need for these important measures. And, again, I would like to thank our serving ADF members for their service. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes for this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Deputy Leader of the House) (16:01): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
Reporting Date
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Deputy Leader of the House) (16:02): I move:
That the House agrees with the resolution of the Senate, transmitted in message No. 443, extending the time for presentation of the report of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to the second last sitting day of March 2019.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:03): I rise today to speak on the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018. This bill will make minor amendments to the shipping registration process in order to modernise the system. The amendments remove the shipping registration certificate from existing regulations and allow them to be directly approved by the national regulator, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. By taking the certificate forms out of the regulations, they can be updated and changed as needed, without going through the lengthy process of amending the regulations themselves.
The bill includes a suite of other minor associated reforms, including requiring the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to publish forms on its website, clarifying responsible authorities for a variety of existing provisions, creating the ability for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to exempt some ships from ship marking requirements—for example, heritage ships—and allowing the authority to specify the forms that must be used in applications for shipping registration.
Labor support these minor reforms, but we are somewhat disappointed that, whilst the government are bringing forward legislation on these very minor reforms, what they're not doing is addressing the need for an Australian shipping industry to actually get the support of the government—indeed, at each and every step they are busy undermining it. We know that Australia does need a domestic shipping sector. The combined value of our sea-going exports is over $400 billion every year. That represents about one-quarter of our GDP. Our shipping task is in fact the fifth largest in the world. This industry is simply critical to the health of our nation. But this government is overseeing an industry in decline as Australia's merchant fleet and its proud workforce are disappearing.
I've spoken many times in this chamber on the importance of Australian shipping, but there are some points that are worthy of repeating because it seems that the government just doesn't get it. The existence of a vibrant Australian shipping industry serves Australia's economic, environmental and national security interests. A strong shipping industry supports Australian jobs. The shipping sector trains highly skilled and highly valued workers. These are skills which are critical for Australia to possess as an island continent. They represent the continuation of a proud industry that is linked so much with Australia's history. A strong shipping industry supports our environment. Australian seafarers know our coast and care for our maritime treasures—maritime treasures like the Great Barrier Reef. In fact, all of the major maritime accidents to have occurred in our waters in recent decades have involved foreign flagged vessels crewed by foreign seafarers. A strong Australian shipping industry is also vital for our national security. We know that there's an absolute link between the merchant fleet and our navy. The existence of a strong maritime workforce ensures there's a pool of highly skilled labour that can be mobilised in a time of conflict or national emergency.
But these issues of the national interest are of no interest to this government. Labor has always prioritised more Australian seafarers crewing more Australian flagged ships and carrying more Australian goods around our coastline. The former federal Labor government spoke to industry, unions and the community. We listened to what they needed to prosper and we reformed shipping in the legislation in 2012. But this government seems determined to either ignore that legislation or undermine it. We made it easier for Australian shipping companies to do business. We created a zero tax rate for Australian shipping companies and made a range of regulatory changes which made it easier to employ Australian seafarers. We created the International Shipping Register to allow Australian flagged vessels to employ mixed Australian and foreign crews on internationally agreed rates and conditions. We created the first National Ports Strategy. We removed complex and conflicting state and territory laws with one set of modern national laws and one regulator, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.
The opposition at the time said they would undermine it were they come to office, and that is certainly what they have tried to do. In 2015 they introduced their infamous 'WorkChoices on water' legislation—legislation designed to have the Australian flag on the back of Australian ships replaced by foreign flags and Australian workers replaced by foreign workers being paid foreign wages and conditions. This attack is something that wouldn't be seen in other sectors. If you want to transport goods from Brisbane to Melbourne down the coast on the blue highway you should, of course, have to pay the same courtesies and conditions that apply if you're transporting those goods down the Newell and Hume highways.
The fact is, though, that under this government they want to see the blue highway being used by foreign ships with foreign workers being paid foreign wages and working under foreign conditions. That wouldn't occur if you were talking about truck drivers on the highway. You have to have an Australian registered truck and you have to have an Australian employed under appropriate wages and conditions. That should be what happens if you are using the blue highway as well. But the government are simply so determined to undermine the rights of people who happen to be members of trade unions and who have a history of acting collectively—a proud history—in the Maritime Union of Australia and other unions, including the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers. Those unions do have proud histories of acting collectively. Under this government, the way to solve that is to simply remove those people from the workforce and have them replaced. That doesn't make sense at all, so, whilst the government are focused in this legislation on some very minor amendments, I say to them that we've now had myriad ministers: Minister Truss came and went, and then Minister Chester came and went, and then we had Minister Joyce, who came and went, and now we've got the new minister, Minister McCormack, and he's struggling to hold onto his job because he's under threat from Minister Joyce, who thinks it would be appropriate for him to come back. I say to Minister McCormack that this is an opportunity for him to differentiate himself from his predecessors and actually implement a policy that would be supported by Australian industry, who were here last week having their national conference.
We are determined to work with industry, to work with unions, to work the community sector and to work with all those who use Australian shipping and to reach out across the chamber and work with those opposite as well in the national interest. But our national interest demands that we have an Australian shipping industry, and on this side of the House we will certainly fight for it. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (16:12): I rise today to speak on the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018. The Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018 introduces sensible reforms. These changes will make the shipping registration system more flexible and more responsible to a crucial industry in Australia's economy. Despite the rife and rocky seas this government is facing, Labor will be supporting these reforms. The bill places decision-making about the form of shipping registration certificates and application processes in the hands of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. This is the right decision. Furthermore, the bill makes other important changes to the shipping registration system. These changes clarify existing provisions and make technical tweaks to improve the registration process. These changes are the right moves. They remove red tape and simplify the processes for an important Australian industry. We want the shipping industry to have the best possible conditions to flourish as a sector.
As an island continent girt by sea, Australia sits in a relatively removed part of the world. We rely on the shipping industry for almost all our imports and exports. Importantly, almost one-tenth of the global sea trade flows through our ports. We know how important shipping is to the Australian economy, but there is a problem: Australia's own merchant fleet is disappearing, along with the skilled workforce it trains and employs. Despite the continued importance of shipping, we're not attracting and training enough employees to the industry. We must keep in mind that, for all Australia's economic advances, industries like shipping have continued to have relevance even today. Both jobs within the industry and jobs that follow from this industry are important today and for Australia's future prosperity. We should relish our task to put the wind back in the sails of the proud industry, not just to anchor our economic prosperity but also to protect Australia's environment and security interest.
Commercial shipping and defence shipping do not exist in isolation. There are clear synergies between Australia's naval and merchant shipping fleets. Domestic maritime workforces know shipping. They know the ins and outs of how to maintain vessels, and this is important not just in times of peace and prosperity but in times of war and national emergency as well. Importantly, Australian seafarers who are employed in this industry undergo stringent background checks.
By safeguarding our support for the Australian shipping industry, we ensure that those who have the most intimate knowledge of our coastlines are the ones who are guiding ships along them. We're ensuring that those who have vested interests in protecting Australia's natural beauty are entrusted with the navigation of the ships. History supports this stance. All of the major maritime accidents that have occurred in recent decades have, unfortunately, involved foreign vessels with foreign crews.
Who could forget the images of the Pasha Bulker, run aground on a beach near Newcastle? The ship had an entirely foreign crew and did not heed the storm warnings requesting ships to move further out to sea. The ship was beached, and the resulting clean-up operation cost the Australian public $1.8 million.
Another foreign ship with a foreign crew, the Shen Neng 1, also caused unprecedented environmental damage to one of Australia's most important natural attributes. When the Shen Neng 1 collided with the Great Barrier Reef, it was over 10 kilometres outside the shipping lane. The reef still bears a three-kilometre scar where the ship irreparably damaged precious coral and destroyed marine life.
When it comes to ensuring that our natural beauty is protected for generations to come, we must put environmental protection first. Foreign ships with foreign crews do not have the interests of Australia's precious natural environment at heart when they sail through our waters.
Unlike this government, Labor understands the importance of the shipping industry. Australian seafarers should be provided with secure work. It is important. The former federal Labor government had a clear goal: more Australian seafarers crewing more Australian-flagged ships carrying more Australian goods around our coastlines. When we were in government, we created the international shipping register. This allowed operators of Australian-flagged vessels to employ mixed Australian and foreign crews on international rates and conditions.
We also enacted the first major rewrite of Australian maritime laws in over a century. These updates ensured that oil companies must take financial responsibility for all damage that is caused by their ships. We developed Australia's first National Ports Strategy. Furthermore, we replaced a myriad of confusing and conflicting state and territory laws with just one regulator administering one set of modern national laws. If upheld, these reforms would have ensured that our maritime industry continued to remain in the best shape.
The government were not satisfied with white-anting these reforms when they were in opposition. Once elected, they raced to scrap the reforms altogether and sink what remained of the industry. All of us want to reduce the cost of doing business in Australia, but we need to do better. Reducing transaction costs faced by strategically critical industries is good but cannot come at any cost. The government's proposed changes in 2015 touted removing red tape to strengthen the shipping industry. I'm sorry, but since when does removing red tape equal removing Australian jobs and drowning the entire domestic industry? Along with that legislation was a regulatory impact statement. The statement laid bare the true intentions of the government. The RIS confirmed that all of their savings from the legislation were going to come from shipping operators sacking their Australian crews and replacing them with foreign ones.
We need to make sure that this doesn't happen. It is very important that Australian jobs stay here. Shipping is an incredibly important industry. Whilst my electorate of Werriwa may be landlocked, our industries depend on shipping to survive. For this reason, we support the reforms in the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018, but we will be keeping an eye on the government's treatment of this critical industry.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (16:19): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018. It's a topic that I have spoken on a number of times in in place. As an island nation, our coastal shipping fleet is a vital part of our nation's infrastructure. For an island state like Tasmania, my home state, it is even more critical. Over 99 per cent of Tasmania's freight volumes are moved by sea. The timely and efficiently movement of passengers and goods between Tasmania and the mainland not only means hundreds of local jobs but also supports key Tasmanian industries in the tourism, agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, mining and manufacturing sectors.
Over 12.5 million tonnes of freight is moved through Tasmania's publicly owned ports, and forecasts indicate these volumes will increase. An additional $2.4 million of freight has moved through Port Latta, which is in my electorate. Eighty per cent of Tasmania's sea freight is for interstate trade. With only 17 per cent international exports, a small amount is direct overseas freight. The ports of Burnie and Devonport are Tasmania's two major freight ports and are based in my electorate. These ports are well serviced by three Australian owned and crewed shipping companies: Toll Shipping, which operates our of Burnie; SeaRoad and TT-Line, which both operate out of my hometown of Devonport.
All three companies are investing in the Bass Strait route. Toll Shipping has announced that its two new Bass Strait freighters are expected to start operating on 1 March next year. The vessels will operate between Burnie and Melbourne and are purpose-built at a cost of $170 million. The project also includes $141 million to upgrade terminals, wharfs and berthing facilities at both ports. SeaRoad launched its $110 million Searoad Mersey II vessel in 2016. That lifted the operation's capacity by 62 per cent. TT-Line are also in the process of replacing its two Spirit of Tasmania ships with larger vessels to cater for increased passengers, vehicles and freight. At the moment, all three companies have the confidence to invest.
Tasmania's maritime industry is part of our way of life. It is part of our who we are and of our heritage. Like hundreds, if not thousands, of Tasmanians, my family has a connection with the sea. My father was a seafarer on the Princess of Tasmania, the Empress of Australia and the Abel Tasman, whichsailed the Bass Strait between Sydney and Devonport and then Melbourne and Devonport.
While this side of the House welcomes this legislation and will be supporting it, one has to question how long there will be a viable Australian shipping industry that will actually need ships to be registered. The actions of the coalition indicate that what they want to do is destroy Australia's shipping industry. It seems that their ideological bent against the Maritime Union of Australia has warped their logic. In their efforts to wipe out the MUA, it appears that they are prepared to wipe out Australia's shipping industry as collateral damage.
When Labor was last in office, we took a number of steps to rebuild the Australia's shipping industry. We had a simple goal: more Australian seafarers, crewing more Australian flagged ships, carrying more Australian goods around the Australian coastline. Labor made a number of reforms that the shadow minister at the time and the member for Grayndler has articulated to the House. This included a zero-tax rate for Australian shippers and other regulatory changes to make things easier, including the establishment of a single national regulator. Labor reforms were about balancing the playing field. They were developed in consultation with the industry. We also established an international shipping register, allowing operators of Australian flagged vessels to employ mixed Australian and foreign crews on internationally agreed rates and conditions.
Importantly, Labor's changes did not preclude the use of foreign vessels. They simply required firms needing to move freight between Australian ports to first seek out an Australian operator. When none were available, foreign vessels could be used so long as they paid Australian-level wages on domestic sectors. That all makes perfect sense and seems very fair. We also enacted the major first rewrite of the nation's maritime laws in almost a century, making sure that oil companies pay for any and all damages that their ships may cause. We also developed Australia's first National Ports Strategy. However, for Labor's suite of reforms to work, they needed time.
In 2013, upon the coalition's election, those sitting opposite set about destroying the industry, with their first piece of legislation designed to open up our waters to foreign flagged ships with foreign crews. Notwithstanding the risks to national security, fuel security or the environment, the coalition was determined to wipe out the Australian shipping industry. They said that was not the case, but you only had to look at the regulatory impact statement that accompanied that legislation. That document confirmed that nearly all the savings expected to be produced by that legislation—88 per cent—was to come from shipping operators sacking their Australian crews and replacing them with cheaper foreign crews.
Tasmanian owned shipper SeaRoad said at the time it could possibly be forced to replace local crews with foreign workers. There are people in my electorate working for SeaRoad—literally hundreds of them. SeaRoad was also concerned that this bill could ultimately lead to reduced services and increased prices. The government's own modelling on that bill anticipated that four of the six ships servicing Bass Strait would be foreign flagged if that bill were passed. That would have been a disaster for Tasmania. Fortunately, though, the Senate rightly blocked that legislation.
We had hoped, by now, the government would have come to their senses. But, no, they are back at it again. A bill has shamefully passed this chamber putting Australian crewed vessels at a competitive disadvantage. If it passes the Senate, it will allow temporary licences for foreign flagged vessels to significantly vary their freight volumes and days they are carrying domestic freight, while at the same time making it almost impossible for an Australian general licensed ship to contest those movements. This means Australian shippers simply won't know what is being carried until after the event. In effect, this means any half-smart foreign operator and compliant local freight company can game the system to use foreign flagged ships. The end result would be that these proposed changes would make it easier for foreign ships with exploited crews to operate on the Australian coast.
I've been accused when standing in this place and talking about Australia's maritime industry of only supporting the Maritime Union of Australia. But there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs not just in Tasmania but across this country that would be lost because of this government's ideological attacks on our maritime industry. I will stand here every day to support those 400-plus workers associated with the maritime industry in my electorate. I will be here protecting their jobs.
Bizarrely, this government did not even consult with Australia's peak shipping industry body, the Maritime Industry Australia Ltd, or MIAL, on this bill. MIAL membership includes Toll, SeaRoad, ANL, North West Shelf Shipping Service Company and BP Shipping, just to name a few. No Australian maritime business, except Carnival Australia, which is a cruise operator, were invited to participate in the consultation sessions on the changes to the coastal trading act. How can you possibly consult on shipping changes without actually speaking to the shipping companies? If the minister had consulted with MIAL he would have heard this, which is from MIAL's media release in September last year:
… there is nothing in the Bill to assist Australian shipowners compete with foreign ships that have all but unfettered access to coastal trades. We held low expectations on that front and unfortunately haven’t been disappointed there.
This is a damning indictment from Australia's peak shipping industry body on this bill.
I have made a number of calls on this government in this place to give a 100 per cent guarantee that under its proposed legislative changes Tasmania's domestic sea freight task will continued to be serviced by Australian flagged and crewed ships across the Bass Strait. It is very concerning that, to date, not a single member of the coalition is prepared to give that guarantee, not even the Tasmanian Liberal senators. That's why there is not a Liberal member of the House of Representatives sitting opposite. But I once again make that call. If the government can give a guarantee Tasmania's fair share of the GST will remain, it should be able to give a guarantee that a shipping lifeline is secured.
Each sitting week I look with interest at the legislative agenda for the Senate, and each week the coastal trading amendment bill does not appear. I guess that tells us the government do not have the numbers to get the legislation through. And why would they when the legislation contains provisions that would make it easier for Australian flagged ships to replace Australian crews and those very workers who are from my electorate? I will also be watching in the Senate how Tasmanian Nationals senator Senator Martin votes. Senator Martin is from my home town and was previously the Mayor of the City of Devonport, a city that has a very long seafaring tradition, with many workers in the city of Devonport attached to the maritime sector. Senator Martin is on the public record opposing changes to our coastal shipping laws. I would like to remind the senator and his new National Party colleagues what he has previously said on this issue as reported in The Advocate newspaper when Senator Martin stood at the last general election when he was still at that time formally the Mayor of the City of Devonport. This is from the newspaper article:
Alderman Martin said an Australian presence in coastal shipping was needed.
He is quoted directly in the article:
"I don't believe in getting in cheap labour and losing Australian jobs over that," he said.
Let's hope Senator Martin keeps his word to his community, which didn't elect him—he was put in there through the demise of Senator Lambie. But, if he wishes to be re-elected, he should stand up for those maritime jobs that are in the hundreds, if not thousands, in Tasmania.
Senator Martin should also take note of correspondence that I received from local people in our community on this issue when debating coastal shipping legislation in August of this year. One such piece was from Callum, who is a local master mariner, and one that Senator Martin would like to continue to so-called represent. Callum says:
I just watched the video of you—
that's me—
speaking against the Coasting Trading Amendments Bill in the House of Representatives and wanted to thank you for your passion and efforts in looking to secure the Bass Strait for future generations.
I am a third generation Master Mariner.
My late grandfather … came to Australia from Scotland as an Extra Master Mariner and became the first Principal of the Australian Maritime College.
He was a key figure in establishing an amazing training facility—
which is world renowned—
and the subsequent high standard of Australian Seafarers, particularly Master Mariners and Deck Officers.
He was then approached to become the principal of the World Maritime University in Malmo, Sweden. He was awarded an Order Of Australia for his achievements.
My point is we are on the brink of losing all of his hard work and the hard work of many others. It would be absolutely devastating to lose the Bass Strait.
The impact it would have on my family and many others in Tasmania, Victoria and Nationally would be monumental.
Recently I received another piece of correspondence, from Monica, who wrote to me in response to an editorial in the local paper that was written to support maritime jobs:
Dear Justine,
… … …
Finally, recognition of the impact on Tassie of the selling off of Australian coastal shipping and the jobs that go with it!
I am a Cadet Engineer … I'm also studying at the Australian Maritime College in Launceston.
When I finish my course I would like to have an ongoing job in the shipping industry and in Tasmania.
It seems there would be little chance of that if the government's proposal to amend the existing Coastal Trading legislation goes ahead!
I have read the draft ALP policy platform proposing "a strong Australian flagged shipping industry with a secure Australian workforce".
Which is fantastic!
… … …
In the next election, will you as the Labor candidate for Braddon be campaigning for locally-crewed and owned shipping for Burnie & Devonport?
Best wishes,
Monica.
I can assure both Monica and Callum that Labor will continue to campaign for locally crewed and locally owned shipping operations out of Burnie and Devonport. Their correspondence symbolises what I spoke about earlier many times in this place—the connection between the people of Tasmania and the sea. It's a connection that goes beyond transporting passengers and freight. I shudder to think what would happen if Tasmania were left to the mercy of foreign-flagged ships and crew, particularly in difficult economic times when volumes may not be as profitable as they are now. Do they just all leave and leave Australians' freight task to someone else to pick up? Maybe the state or federal government need to then go into their pockets.
As I said at the beginning of my contribution, Labor will be supporting this bill. But the bottom line is that there is a very real difference between the two sides of politics when it comes to shipping. Labor strongly believes Australia needs a viable, competitive and growing domestic maritime industry. The coalition doesn't.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:33): Famously, when the current Prime Minister assumed his office, he awarded every member of his cabinet a lapel pin, which was the Australian flag. Now, tellingly, it wasn't this flag. It wasn't this flag that he put on the lapel of every one of his cabinet members. And there's a very good reason for that. Most of his time over the last five years he's been conspiring with shipowners to have this flag—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): Order! I remind the member about props.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: removed from the back of Australian vessels so that it can be replaced with the flag of a foreign nation. Over the last 20 years, international sea freight to and from Australia has nearly doubled. But, at the same time, the number of Australian-flagged ships has been going down and down and down. And at the same time the number of Australian seafarers working on ships up and down the Australian coastline has been going down and down and down.
Australia is an island continent, located in a relatively remote part of the globe. Almost all of our imports and exports are transported in the hull of a ship. A 10th of global trade flows through our ports. Statistics on vessels operating on the Australian coast between 2014 and 2015 reveal the decline in Australian-flagged vessels. In the major trading fleet, there were four vessels registered to Australia for major international trading—a decrease from nine between 2005 and 2016. For coastal trading, there were 20 registered ships—down from 32, 10 years prior. In 2016 there were 27,516 ship arrivals in Australian ports by 5,719 foreign-flagged vessels. Port Hedland was the busiest Australian port for foreign vessels.
However, despite our obvious reliance on the maritime industry, Australia's own merchant fleet as well as the skilled workforce it trains and employs are fast disappearing. The disappearance of our merchant fleet and skilled workforce has correlated with an increasing use of flag-of-convenience vessels used to transport cargo around the Australian coastline. Currently, the International Transport Workers' Federation has declared 35 countries to be flag-of-convenience countries. The crew on flag of convenience vessels can earn as little as $1.20 an hour. They have less training and are often unaware of our country's fragile coastal environment, directly making Australian seafarers unemployed and, in effect, effectively taking their jobs under this industry of rorting and vandalising Australian workers' rights.
A recent example I would like to remind the parliament of is the CSL Thevenard, which had been operating around the Australian coast for nearly a decade carrying cement, fly ash, gypsum, mineral sands and other goods. This work had been conducted safely by qualified Australian seafarers. Last year, the ship was sailed to China, purportedly for dry-docking, where its Australian crew were sacked. There were 40 Australians who worked that ship. They were from Tasmania and South Australia, and one of the crew members was from my electorate, coming from Moss Vale. With extraordinary indifference to the fate of this crew and hundreds of other workers like them, the coalition government issued the company that owns this ship a temporary licence, allowing it to continue to operate in Australia with a new crew of overseas workers. I do not blame the overseas workers. Many of them are coming from some of the lowest-waged countries on earth. They are only struggling to do what they can to put food on the table of their families back home. I do however blame the Australian government, which has facilitated this direct transfer of Australian jobs from the former Australian crew to these overseas workers.
Collectively, in 2016, Panama, Liberia, and the Marshall Islands accounted for the registration of more than 60 per cent of shipping vessels—a marked increase from only four per cent of ship registrations in the 1950s. Other countries not traditionally associated with the shipping industry are increasing their presence on international waters via ship registration. This includes landlocked countries like Mongolia, not known as a centre of maritime navigation. We have only to look at the impact flag-of-convenience shipping has had on the United States and Britain—once proud shipping nations. Research has shown that over 70 per cent of privately-owned American ships are registered outside that country. In Britain, it has been reported that the majority of ships are now registered under flags of convenience, with only a third of British-owned vessels registered under a British flag.
Our task must be to prevent the demise of our proud shipping industry. It's about more than jobs and skills, as important as those are. There are also sound national security and environmental reasons for us to do so.
Regarding national security, there are clear synergies between our naval and merchant fleets. It is not uncommon for people to have moved between one service and the other in the course of their working careers. Defence experts have long recognised the importance of maintaining a domestic maritime workforce. It ensures that Australia has a pool of highly skilled labour that can quickly be mobilised during times of war or other national emergencies. Furthermore, Australian seafarers undergo stringent background checks to ensure that they pose no threats to our national security. By contrast, overseas seafarers, whose backgrounds are a mystery to us, do not undergo such close scrutiny.
Can I talk about the environment. Australian seafarers are familiar with our coastlines and have a vested interest in the protection of our world-renowned environmental assets, such as the Great Barrier Reef. They have a vested interest in it because, like all Australians, they take great pride in the fact that they belong to a country with such a magnificent maritime coastline. It is a fact that all of the maritime accidents that have occurred on our waters in recent decades have involved foreign-flagged vessels crewed by overseas seafarers.
The Labor Party understands the importance of the shipping sector and the need to provide Australian seafarers with secure work. The former federal Labor government had a goal. It was quite simple: more Australian seafarers crewing more Australian-flagged ships carrying more Australian goods around our coastline. In government, Labor created the international shipping register, allowing operators of Australian-flagged vessels to employ mixed Australian and overseas crews, on internationally agreed rates and conditions. There are currently around 12,000 vessels recorded on this register. Labor also enacted the first major rewrite of the nation's maritime laws in almost a century, made sure that all companies pay for any and all of the damages that their ships may cause, and developed Australia's first national ports strategy—all visionary; all long overdue.
The coalition government, quite simply, does not have the best interests of our maritime industry at heart. Once the coalition government were elected, they quickly moved to scrap Labor's reforms altogether and to dismantle what had remained of the industry. All of us want to reduce the cost of doing business in Australia—but not at any cost. It is simply not possible for an Australian shipping operator to compete when the rates of labour being offered by foreign-flagged vessels are as low as $1 or $1.20 an hour. If that is the race to the bottom that the government is encouraging and urging upon Australian shipowners, then it is a race to the bottom that we must resist with great vigour.
The legislation and policy that have put ideology ahead of our national interest should be resisted. So we will support this legislation, but a government that is committed to securing the future of an Australian maritime commercial shipping fleet and the workers upon that fleet should be introducing—or, should I say, reintroducing—legislation which mimics the former Labor government's legislation, which was designed to secure the future of our maritime industry.
Globalisation has helped to fuel a race to the bottom, and we believe that we should not be in contention for this race. There are much better ways for us to compete than on the basis of offering shipping with the lowest rates of pay in the world. We should prevent the demise of our proud shipping industry, protect our fragile coastal environment and ensure our national security. I do support the bill before the House, but I also support calls from the industry that the government reintroduce the bills that they had to amend and remove the Labor reforms so we can get back on the path of ensuring that we secure the future of our proud maritime industry.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:45): I rise to make a few brief remarks about the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018. Further contributions from the Greens will come when this matter goes to the Senate and our spokesperson, Senator Janet Rice, has the opportunity to speak on it more fully. What's become clear is that, every time the government introduce a shipping bill to this place, it's either because there are technical or minor amendments, as is substantially the case with this bill, or because they're seeking to further deregulate the industry, as they have moved to do in the past.
Most people in this country would scratch their head and wonder why it is that Australia, as an island nation with a once proud shipping fleet, has seen the number of Australian-flagged vessels drop and drop and drop at the same time as trade has gone up and up and up, especially as other countries have had the foresight to realise that, like the UK, for example, when you have a country with lots of coastline and you have a substantial reliance on shipping, it is actually an opportunity. What the government could be saying is that we've got an opportunity to secure and grow an Australian shipping industry, to grow the number of registered Australian vessels, to bring in some revenue for the government and to skill up our workforce. Other countries have done that successfully, but we're going in the opposite direction. Why are we going in the opposite direction? We're going in the opposite direction because, for too many years, accelerated by this government—but it kept on going under Labor, it must be said—we have seen a rise in the government statement that, even though we are heavily reliant on getting goods from place to place within Australia, as well as from Australia to overseas or from overseas to Australia, on our coastal shipping routes, we don't care what flag is flown on the back of those ships. As a result we have seen the decimation of our local shipping industry.
If the government were sensible, they would understand that, in exactly the same way as we can look at and regulate and potentially get some benefit, including taxation benefit, from goods that we ship by other means around Australia, we could be doing that for all the goods that are shipped from port to port around our coastline. By regulating that, by limiting the instances in which overseas-flagged vessels are able to come here and do the work of transporting from port to port around Australia, and by getting some taxation revenue from it, it could be a win for everyone. The government could increase the revenue—and that's the lesson the UK government have learnt—and we could grow jobs domestically. But, instead, we are seeing a hollowing out of our workforce and we are seeing so much of the work done on our ships that are transporting goods—and I repeat this: in many instances, just from one port to another within Australia—by people who are paid substantially less than if there was a local enterprise agreement.
How does this sometimes happen? It sometimes happens like this. You have an overseas-flagged vessel that's registered somewhere else—it doesn't matter where it's registered—and the people who are working on that vessel, before they leave their home country to come here, are asked, 'Do you approve enterprise agreement X, which will apply to your working conditions?' and they approve it, and they approve it in instances where sometimes the local union or the local workforce doesn't even know that the agreement is being signed. It is just approved.
In many instances those agreements that are signed are well above the conditions that the workers would experience in their home country. Many of them are living in near-poverty in less developed countries than Australia, so who can blame them? It is a completely legitimate position for them to take. I certainly don't blame the people who are signing up to the deals. They see an opportunity to come and do some work, including around Australia, and get paid substantially better than they would otherwise get. But these deals are at substantially lower rates than if they had been negotiated here in Australia. That leads to exploitation of the overseas workers. When they realise that they are getting dudded the employer says, 'You can arc up if you like, but we'll just send you back home.' So they are in a very tenuous position. But it also undercuts local wages and stops the development of skills here.
We're seeing with the shipping industry a repeat of what we saw with the mining boom. With the mining boom, 83 per cent of profits went overseas. After the boom was over we did not end up with a hugely skilled workforce here in Australia. The profits went overseas and the skills went back overseas as well. We lost a massive opportunity to skill up the country and use the money and save it for a rainy day. Instead we said, 'We don't care how much money we send overseas.'
The same thing is happening with shipping. We are missing out on a massive opportunity. We should be having a discussion. Instead of this bill, this minor technical bill that's before the House—or instead of previous bills the government has introduced that have just been about seeking to deregulate everything—we should be saying, 'Let's design a shipping policy that works for us.' We shouldn't be saying, 'Let's write a shipping policy that suits big multinationals who want to come to Australia and travel around Australia and then leave Australia.' And if that requires a shipping policy that says that some of these big multinationals might have to pay a bit more for the privilege of coming here or moving things from port to port, but in return we're going to end up with fewer people unemployed and more skills here, then that's a discussion that we should be having. But the government seems incapable of having that discussion. In doing so, we're going to miss out, in a number of ways, on potential boom industries of the future.
One of those industries that is looming, and that we have got to get behind, is liquid hydrogen. The IPCC has told us, crystal clear, that we have to get off coal. They told us a couple of weeks ago that, to have a decent chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, two-thirds of the world's coal-fired power stations need to shut down by 2030. That is 11 or 12 years away. That is how quickly we need to transition if we're to avoid dangerous global warming. One fuel that could replace coal and gas—and the fracking that is required to extract huge amounts of gas in Australia—is renewably produced liquid hydrogen. Everyone is engaged in a race to see who can be the first to produce it cheaply and renewably, and then turn that into an industry. We have the opportunity here to be putting not LNG into the freighters that are shipping it off overseas but perhaps some form of solar fuels. Whether that's in the form of ammonia or whatever—to transport it—that's what everyone's racing to find out now. We could be exporting clean, renewable energy in the form of solar fuels to the rest of the world. And if we got our shipping policy right we could be making some money out of it and training locals up to work in that industry. But it's never going to happen if we just say, 'The only answer is to let big corporations write our shipping rules'—and that is what is happening with this government at the moment.
One of the other reasons that we have to have a better discussion about how we regulate our shipping industry than what is being suggested in this bill is that, when we have tighter regulation, we are able to better protect our environment. As the previous speaker, the member for Whitlam, said, it's the case that the big incidents in Australian waters have come from overseas-registered ships. There are many places along our coastline where we would benefit from having local captains or pilots with local knowledge who are able to navigate what can at times be very dangerous waters, and it would be better for our environment, as well as for our people, if we were to get back to having a properly supported Australian shipping industry. But, again, that's not high on the order of priorities for this government.
So, whilst this bill in and of itself isn't seeking to bring about great reform, it's notable that it's a missed opportunity and that it comes on the coat-tails of other efforts by the government to wind back support for a proper shipping industry in Australia. As mentioned, when this bill gets to the Senate, our transport spokesperson there will make it clear that the Greens stand for a proper shipping policy in this country to revitalise our shipping industry because that is good for people and that is good for the planet.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:56): This legislation, the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018, makes the shipping registration system of Australia more flexible, and transfers the registration process to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. It effectively simplifies the registration process, particularly when changes need to be made to the registration process itself, and that is something that Labor welcomes and supports.
As the minister pointed out in his second reading speech, approximately 12,000 vessels are currently registered on the Australian general shipping register. Most of those vessels, I suspect, are likely to be fishing or tourism vessels, because the reality is that Australia has very few cargo ships domestically registered and flagged. For an island country with—as the member for Grayndler quite rightly pointed out—around $400 billion annually exported through shipping, which represents about 90 per cent of our exports, it should be a national concern that so few of those ships are registered in Australia.
It is not just Australia that has lost its shipping fleet over recent decades. In fact, over the past four decades, in deadweight tonnes, the ratio of merchant ships flagged in developed economies has fallen from around 55 per cent in 1980 to about 25 per cent today. Panama, Marshall Islands and Liberia alone now account for around 56 per cent of vessel registrations based on deadweight tonnes. Countries including Malta, Antigua, Barbuda, Bahamas, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Saint Vincent and Cambodia are also places where ships today are being registered. All of those countries I named are not exactly countries that are thriving. Indeed, they are all developing countries. The ships, however, whilst registered in those countries, are owned by entities that are based predominantly in Greece, Japan, China, Germany and Singapore. None of those countries could be described as developing. The trend to shift the registration from developed economies to developing economies is done for particular reasons. In particular, it is because the places that those ships are registered are generally considered to be low-tax jurisdictions. But, more importantly, once the ships are registered in those countries and carry the flags of those countries, they can employ much cheaper, Third World labour from countries where seafarers are paid a pittance, as other speakers on this side of the House have quite rightly pointed out.
The trend in Australia over recent years has been identical to the international trend. I quote from a Senate inquiry that reported back to the house in July 2017. It's the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. I noticed that the member for Whitlam used some of the same statistics. I want to quote directly from paragraph 1.29 of that report. It says:
Statistics on vessels operating on the Australia coast in 2014-15 reveal the decline in Australian-flagged vessels:
in the major trading fleet there were four vessels registered to Australia for major international trading, a decrease from nine in 2005-06;
for coastal trading, there were 20 registered ships, down from 32 ten years prior; and
there were 15 major Australian registered ships (over 2000 dead weight tonnes) operating under a general licence, a decrease from 33 vessels in 2005-06.
Those statistics paint a very clear picture about the demise of Australian shipping.
One shouldn't be surprised that we have had that demise, because, for the last two decades, coalition governments have been doing their best to destroy the Australian shipping industry. We had the Patrick dispute 20 years ago, where the Patrick Corporation and the coalition government led by then Prime Minister John Howard, with support of his minister Peter Reith, connived and concocted a scheme to sack Australian shipping crews, replace them with scab labour and ultimately replace them with foreign shipping crews.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): Order! Members will cease interjecting.
Mr ZAPPIA: A paramilitary antistrike force with guns and dogs was used to escort hardworking Australian sea crews from their jobs and have them replaced with more compliant workers. There was no consideration for those workers' families and no consideration for their livelihood or for their future. The only concern of the Howard government at the time was the interest of the corporate profits. It was only court action and Justice North's court judgement that scuttled the Howard government's plan.
It was, however, not the end of attempts by coalition governments to get their way and to dismantle the Australian shipping industry, because coalition governments have never given up on their tricky schemes to cut out Australian seamen from Australian shipping. Why have they gone down that course? For two reasons: firstly, to destroy the Maritime Union of Australia and, secondly, to ensure that increased corporate profits flowed to those companies that were using the shipping.
Every piece of legislation that this government introduces with respect to shipping further opens the door to Australian seafarers being replaced by overseas crews. That is not in Australia's economic interest or in the national interest, let alone in the interests of the workers who are already in that industry and the environment of this country.
For example, the International Energy Agency requirement for fuel stock reserves would have countries have a 90-day supply of those reserves. Australia falls short of that 90-day-reserve quota not just by a little but by a lot. According to one analysis, Australia holds 21 days of petrol, 16 days of diesel and 19 days of aviation fuel. That is roughly 20 per cent of the requirement of the International Energy Agency.
That leaves Australia clearly vulnerable to the mercy of overseas shipping operators and foreign entities for our fuel supplies. It is not a good position to be in. It occurs simply because corporate greed is put ahead of national security and local jobs. If there is a conflict with another country and we only have, at best, 21 days of petrol supplies, where does that leave Australia? That's particularly the case given that my understanding is that some 75 per cent or thereabouts of our own crude oil is exported overseas, and most of our petrol is imported from overseas, so we don't have the capacity to refine it here in Australia.
The other concern that I have as to all of this has already been raised by other speakers from this side of parliament. We also have a responsibility to try to protect the Australian coastline and the environmental assets that are there. As other speakers have already made clear, it's Australian seafarers who not only understand the Australian coastline well but also value, and are likely to protect, that coastline—more so than seafarers from other countries on ships that are flagged in other nations.
Of course, the concern with all of this comes down to the missed opportunity that arises, because shipping in itself represents a huge economic opportunity for this country. Quoting the figure of $400 billion each year of exports, one can see the amount of volume that equates to that figure, and, therefore, the amount of economic activity it generates. It would be in the national interest to have as much as possible of that product handled and transported via Australian-flagged ships, where tax to the Australian government would be paid by not only the operators but also the seafarers when they earn their own income. So the income tax generated would have to be massive.
It would be akin to suddenly saying, 'We will wipe out the Australian trucking industry or the Australian airline industry,' if we were to turn our backs on those two industries. Yet we don't, because they operate within our landmass, and we tend to take the view that what's outside of the landmass doesn't really matter. But it does matter, because it's still part of Australian territory. But, regrettably, it is not on this government's radar to look at the opportunities that shipping provides and to support the industry so that it will not go backwards but rather will grow. If we consider that, we now have a situation where it is not only the shipping that has been essentially put into foreign hands; much of the resources that those ships carry are also controlled by foreign entities. And we have now allowed the port of Darwin, for the next 99 years, to be effectively controlled by a foreign entity.
We are clearly going down the wrong track, in terms of not only national security measures but also generating and building the economy of Australia. Shipping represents an opportunity to do that. This legislation, whilst it will be supported by our side of parliament, only makes a minor difference to the shipping regime in this country and does nothing to grow what could be a major economic asset for the future of this country.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of The Nationals) (17:08): I'm very pleased to rise to sum up on the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018. Before I get to my overall remarks about the legislation, I just want to pick up on the member for Braddon's criticism of Senator Steve Martin, as I believe those remarks were ill-advised and misdirected. In Senator Steve Martin, a former Devonport mayor and a very good local government member as well, the Nationals have someone who is passionately committed to fighting for Tasmania and is getting things done, achieving outcomes—delivering. He is the sort of regional representative you want in this parliament. I support his endeavours. He's advocating for better logistics for his state and for more infrastructure and improving the freight task, by air, by road or by sea. If it's advancing Tasmanians, Senator Steve Martin will no doubt be pushing it, and I certainly commend him for his efforts.
To the actual bill before the House: the government is committed to ensuring efficient shipping registration continues in this nation. This bill will ensure that this happens by making minor technical amendments to the Shipping Registration Act to allow for the remaking of the Shipping Registration Regulations, prior to their sunsetting date of 1 April '29, and I heard the member for Makin, in his introductory comments, talk about that very thing. These are minor technical amendments. It's important that shipping gets this sort of legislation passed.
The bill maintains the existing shipping registration framework and does not alter the policy intent or substance of the Shipping Registration Act. The bill will reduce the regulatory burden on the Australian industry by ensuring the shipping registration regulations will no longer be required to prescribe the forms for shipping registration certificates. Instead, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AMSA, will approve forms, providing flexibility to change certificates as needed to suit government and, most importantly, industry. The amendments to the Shipping Registration Act ensure that shipping registration regulations are remade according to modern drafting standards. This is in contrast to the present situation, where any changes to the form of a certificate must be tabled in the parliament.
Currently in some provisions of the act, the head of power needed to give the regulations authority is either missing or unclear in its wording. This bill will correct those errors by clarifying the head of power for those regulations and ensure that the Shipping Registration Act and shipping registration regulations comply with modern standards.
I thank those members who have contributed to the debate on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of The Nationals) (17:11): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (17:12): I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018 and 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:
(1) this Government has previously tried to cut the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme and has no real commitment to protecting employee entitlements;
(2) in May 2017 Labor proposed a suite of measures to combat illegal phoenix activity; and
(3) under this Government wages are stagnant, underemployment is stubbornly high, worker exploitation is rife, and work is increasingly precarious”.
Labor is pleased to see this bill come onto the agenda. The reforms in the bill are sensible and, in some cases, the bill adopts announced Labor policy.
I note that the government first announced its intention to address the corporate misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Scheme, or FEG, on 5 October last year. So this has taken some considerable time to come before the parliament. Interestingly, the government released an exposure draft of the bill and gave stakeholders the opportunity to comment, in stark contrast to the way it engages in drafting the union-busting bills that have been and continue to be the main focus of this government. In those instances, there was not consultation or, if there was consultation, it was lip-service paid to consultation not genuine efforts to engage with stakeholders affected by those proposed bills. Again, we support the introduction of this bill and we do support the fact that there was some sensible consultation.
We're pleased to support the changes to the Corporations Act in this bill, which will hopefully see a greater degree of recovery for employees who are owed entitlements, and successful prosecutions of directors and corporations who deliberately avoid liability for these entitlements. The provisions of this bill will also give the government new options to recover from liable companies and directors at least some of the taxpayers' money which is paid out under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme and will enable employees to seek compensation from liable companies and directors.
This bill will amend the Corporation Act to, firstly, make it easier to prove the criminal offence of entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employee entitlements by including recklessness as a mental element; and, secondly, increase the maximum fine for that offence. The current maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment or a fine of $210,000. This bill increases the fine for an individual to whichever is greater of $945,000 or three times the total value of the benefits that are obtained through the offence and, for a body corporate, to whichever is the greater of $9.45 million or three times the total value of the benefits that were obtained through the offence or 10 per cent of the body corporate's annual turnover during the 12-month period before the offence. Further, it will introduce a new civil penalty provision for avoiding paying employee entitlements and will give the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Jobs and Small Business standing to commence civil compensation proceedings. It will extend liability for unpaid entitlements to related corporate entities and extend ASIC's powers to disqualify directors and other officers, either directly or on application to the court, where they have a track record of corporate contraventions and inappropriately using the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme to pay outstanding employee entitlements.
Labor believes this bill could be improved to give registered organisations standing to commence civil proceedings, as they currently have under the Fair Work Act, and standing to make applications for compensation on behalf of the employees they represent. Where a union is entitled to represent the industrial interests of an employee or group of employees, they should have standing to represent those people to assist them in obtaining compensation for loss of entitlements. We have informed the government that it's our intention to move amendments in the Senate to make these improvements, and we do hope to receive the government's support. I've had discussion with the minister and the minister's office, and I believe, in those conversations more broadly about this and other matters contained in the portfolio, that the minister was open, at least, to engaging with the opposition and reconciling the differences between the opposition and the government wherever possible. I say that sincerely. We do hope we can engage on more substantive amendments that we moved in the other place that would look to improve this bill to strengthen the protections for employees, to ensure that we can go after those directors who deliberately seek to effectively steal public moneys by using a scheme designed for companies that collapse, not ones that are contrived in a manner to avoid obligations to creditors or, in this case, to employees. So, whilst I won't be so naive as to think that we can reach agreement on all of these matters, we will go into the negotiations with the government with respect to the amendments we'll be moving in the Senate with a view to finding common ground to improve this bill.
It's no surprise to Labor that some companies and directors are specifically structuring their arrangements to avoid paying employee entitlements. We established the FEG scheme when last in government because employees should not be punished, when an employer's business fails, by the loss of their legal entitlements—leave, superannuation, unpaid wages. The premise of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme is simple: when a company goes bust and employees lose their jobs, through no fault of their own, employees should receive what is owed to them. They are the innocent parties to those practices.
It is particularly egregious when workers lose their entitlements because a company has deliberately structured its arrangements to avoid paying them. It has been a crime to do so for 18 years now, yet no-one has ever been successfully prosecuted for it. That's why, to make it easier to prove, Labor announced in May last year that a Shorten Labor government, if elected, would introduce an objective test to the offence of deliberately avoiding employee entitlements. We also announced that we would reform provisions for accessorial liability. So we are pleased that in this bill the government has, after almost 18 months, effectively adopted Labor policy.
There is no doubt that corporate activity has led to the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme being used more in the last four years. The average costs under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme have more than tripled, from $70.7 million in the four-year period between 1 July 2005 and 30 June 2009 to $235.3 million in the four years between July 2014 and 30 June this year. That's a very considerable increase in the expenditure of a very important scheme. According to the government, the startling fact behind these figures is that the increase in FEG claimants can be attributed to a small number of corporations shifting their liability. In fact, the former member for Fairfax has some level of responsibility for this cost blowout, with nearly $70 million paid out to former employees of his Queensland Nickel company.
The FEG was always designed to be a safety net, as the guaranteed way in which employees could be paid their entitlements in a timely manner and not have to wait for drawn-out processes before they received a cent. There's nothing worse than losing your job other than losing your job and not knowing whether you are going to be paid the entitlements owed to you. It's just not right when the owner of a particular company says: 'Sorry, folks. I know you've been working hard for me. I know you've helped produce profits. I know you've helped make millions of dollars, which I can donate to a political concern. But, by the way, now that it's your turn there's nothing there for you.' With respect to that company, you'd have to say it was a disaster for those workers in terms of losing their jobs, but the scheme at least, though it didn't pay all the entitlements owed to those workers, paid a very significant proportion of them. That was as a result of this scheme.
It is true to say that this government has not always supported this scheme, and I think it's important to note that. Whilst, as I say, we're in broad support of the provisions of this bill, I think it's important to note the history of fair entitlements. The first entitlements scheme, GEERS—a very bare, stripped-back scheme very different to the FEG scheme—was established, under the Howard government, off the back of the collapse of National Textiles. There was some scuttlebutt, of course, that one of the directors of the company was Stan Howard, the brother of the then Prime Minister, but the government was right to introduce a scheme to at least, in a very minimal way, underwrite and protect some of the entitlements owed to those employees in the face of that collapse, namely the collapse of National Textiles. The Labor opposition supported the then government, the Howard government, to introduce that scheme. To that extent, it was the beginning of at least some capacity for workers who'd been deprived of what could have been a very significant proportion of their own personal wealth, people who were not very rich and who had worked hard. I applaud the then government for at least introducing that scheme at the time.
When Labor were last in government, we built upon that scheme. We introduced the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme, which afforded a greater level of protection. So instead of, for example, 16 weeks as a maximum payout, it allowed for 52 weeks of the redundancy payout—so a maximum of 12 months. That might have meant that some workers on very good redundancy schemes did not receive their full entitlement. They might have worked for 30 years and had 18 months or two years owing to them. But 12 months compared to 16 weeks and compared to nothing before the GEERS was certainly the right direction to look after those workers. That's why we introduced the scheme to build on the original scheme.
This government made an awful error in the 2014 budget by seeking to cut this scheme back to the original minimalist scheme. The effect of the 2014 budget when introduced into this place in May 2014 was to strip away the building upon the original scheme so it would go back to the 16 weeks maximum. Labor could not abide that. We did not abide that. We did not support that proposition and we fought it and fought it until this government dropped its inclination to cut away those potential entitlements to those who were victims of corporate failure. I made comment about people's support for that at the time, and I did make comment about the former member for Herbert, who was memorably standing next to the then Minister for Employment, Senator Cash, up in Townsville, crying about the loss of jobs for those workers. I said, 'You don't get to cry in Townsville and come to Canberra and vote against those workers without someone saying something.' I did say something because he did vote, as a member of the government, to cut away the entitlements, which would have left those QNI workers a lot worse off if the 2014 budget had passed the House and the Senate unamended with respect to the Fair Entitlements Guarantee. I think that has to be noted.
The government have taken a different position or, at least, haven't pursued reducing the scheme in recent times. It may still be formally the policy of government, but there have been no efforts to test the parliament in relation to that. They failed when the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, and the then Treasurer, the then member for North Sydney, were pushing hard for a very austere, pretty brutal budget which of course was the beginning of the problems that beset this government, I would contend. So I am glad to say that the FEG is still standing. It's a good scheme.
I do agree with the government and the minister to this extent: we have a generous scheme, but that doesn't mean that corporate directors or companies get to game the system to steal taxpayers' money by contriving arrangements to get access to that scheme. It should be for genuine corporate failure. When that occurs, when everything has been done to prevent that happening and everything has been exhausted to prevent taxpayers having to underwrite such entitlements, only then should the scheme come into effect. We should not have a situation where a contrivance and potential crime is committed and the taxpayers exposed and yet the directors are not held to account or not charged, convicted and, if necessary, imprisoned or, for that matter, sufficient fines contained within the bill are not imposed on individuals or, indeed, on a company that acts in a manner to effectively steal from the public in order to get access to this scheme. That cannot be. We cannot allow that to happen. To that extent, the motivation behind the government's action is right. The government's motivation is right to stop that corporate misconduct or that corporate criminal behaviour, as it would be in some of the instances we've seen. Therefore, that's why, of course, in the main we support this bill, but we do move amendments to broaden out this debate.
The FEG was always designed to be a safety net as the guaranteed way, as I said before, that employees could be paid their entitlements in a timely manner. But the fact is that the FEG means that workers can receive their entitlements in a timely manner, move on to find another job and get on with their lives. We have seen the problems when the government started to think about slashing these entitlements contained within this scheme. As I've said, we were right in 2012 to pass the Fair Entitlements Guarantee legislation.
On this side of the House, we know that employees who lose their jobs through insolvency or the bankruptcy of their employer have enough to worry about. They have to worry about paying their kids' school fees, buying children's clothes, helping even grown-up kids at university, paying the mortgage or paying the rent, and putting food on the table and petrol in the car—the usual household pressures that many families experience. Therefore, I think it is fitting that the government seeks a way to prevent this scheme being gamed. We also believe that these employees should not have to worry about being paid what their entitlements are under law and has now lost through no fault of their own.
As I say, it's really a warning to this government. If they are genuine about protecting the interests of employees who may be able to access this scheme, then we say to this government: we do not want to see a repeat of an effort to take away many of the provisions of the FEG scheme that have been improvements since the original scheme. Of course, it's not just about that. Under this government, as we've said—and I said it when I moved the amendment—wages are stagnant. There's no point suggesting otherwise. We've got the lowest wage growth in 25 years. For over the last three or four years, the wage growth has been low. The government likes to welcome improvements in employment, and so do I—any new job should be welcomed—but underemployment is still a challenge and something we need to tackle. Wage stagnation is a challenge, and we need to tackle that too.
It's not just a phenomena of this nation—that's true too. We're seeing it in other parts of the world where the usual course of events is you see some decline in unemployment leading to some commensurate increase in employment, a reduction of underemployment or, indeed in this case, an increase in wages. That hasn't happened. We haven't seen an increase. There hasn't been a correlation between any reduction in unemployment and a consequential increase to wage growth, and that is a concern to us. This is the legacy for Australian workers from this government, I would contend.
As I mentioned, on 24 May last year I announced, accompanied by Andrew Leigh, the member for Fenner, Labor's policy to crackdown on abuse by directors and the problems associated with illegal phoenixing activity. While this bill adopts and implements some of our policy initiatives, unfortunately there's more for the federal government to do. We put to this government that we want to negotiate with this government and consider substantive amendments in the Senate.
For example, the government has dragged its feet on implementing the director identification numbers to stop directors going from failed company to failed company, wreaking havoc as they go. Despite making promises to the crossbenchers in order to get the crossbenchers' vote for the ABCC bill, this government has done nothing to reform security of payments to make sure that subcontractors on major projects aren't left unpaid when contractors go bust. So there's plenty of work in this policy space. Indeed, there were commitments made to a number of crossbench senators, and, as yet, they have not been fulfilled. They have not been realised. I do think the government could also look at some of the other areas where we're seeing corporate malfeasance and misconduct by companies.
As is the case far too often with this government when it is dragged kicking and screaming to do something to help working Australians, it is, sadly, too little, too late. Having said that, when it comes to the provisions of this bill, we do see that it will benefit employees and, as an extension of that, taxpayers, who will have their valuable funds returned to them.
So this is an important bill. I have to say, of all the bills I have had to rise and speak to in this place since I have been shadow minister, this is one of the better bills. I give a pass maybe—yes, I give the government a pass.
Ms O'NEIL: B minus!
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: B minus! Do you use the alphabet system still? Yes, we'll give the government a pass because it is actually going in the right direction. It is attending to the problem of corporate misconduct. It's seeking to protect the interests of the public and the taxpayer by preventing the scheme being misused and public moneys being accessed improperly, completely against the spirit of the scheme. It's not a focus on stripping back the scheme, as was the original intention of the government in 2014—and I think they held that position for many years after that. But there's been no real debate about that. I'm glad to say that Labor were stalwart resisters of the proposition by the government that we should strip the FEG scheme back to the original Howard scheme.
This bill is worth supporting, but we think it can be a better bill if some of the amendments that we will be moving in the Senate are considered. We will have plenty of time; the Senate won't debate this matter until the end of November. Well, it may come on before then. If it does come on before then in the Senate, I'm willing to speak directly with the minister. She's invited me to talk to her about a range of matters, including this one, and I will take her up on that invitation and talk to her about the ways we think we can improve the bill.
We would start by looking at whether, in fact, we need to consider some elements around fighting the phoenixing that occurs all too often—where a company goes bust and then reappears, and somehow manages to avoid its creditors and its corporate obligations. We'd like to think that we could also improve this bill in other ways, and I think there are opportunities for us to do that. If the minister and the government are serious about that proposition, I think this bill—quite a good bill; deficient but quite good—could be a better bill. It could be better for workers insofar as giving them better security, better for taxpayers in terms of protecting their interests and better at holding companies and directors to account.
There have been criminal sanctions on the statute books for 18 years, and yet no-one has been convicted under those provisions—which really speaks to, I think, a failure; there's no point having such sanctions contained within our statute books if they're never going to be used—even when there's been misconduct that should have seen, at least, sentencing of certain individuals who acted in contravention of those laws. So I think there is an opportunity to improve the bill, and I would be very happy to discuss this with the minister soon and see whether we can reach agreement on all matters that are relevant and incidental to the substantive provisions of this bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (17:39): I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (17:40): There's much in the member for Gorton's contribution that I can agree with, but there's also some that I can't. I'm sure that was his reverse position on the bill as well. It is always important to recognise that, as we are seeking to pass legislation such as this to protect employees' entitlements, we also reflect on the number of other things that we are doing as a government to ensure that people have the opportunity to work, are paying lower taxes and are better able to meet their day-to-day cost-of-living needs. In that regard, I think this is a very important piece of legislation as it seeks to further protect employee entitlements by strengthening enforcement and recovery options to deter corporate misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee.
The FEG, as the member for Gorton has outlined, commenced in December 2012, replacing previous schemes that applied from January 2000, namely the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme. The FEG is designed to provide financial assistance to employees left with unpaid employee entitlements due to liquidation or bankruptcy of their employer. The FEG scheme remains an important safety net for workers and ensures the Australian people are not left out-of-pocket if their employer becomes insolvent. The government implemented the FEG Recovery Program from 1 July 2015 to more proactively pursue recovery of FEG payments, and the recovery of these payments has doubled since the recovery program commenced.
The objective of this bill is that we aim to better provide and protect entitlements to employees that are payable on the termination of these employees through the FEG scheme, including unpaid wages, annual leave, long service leave, payment in lieu of notice and redundancy pay. Over time, there are been receipted instances, sadly—and the member for Gorton mentioned a couple, but I'm sure there are many others—where employers have avoided their employee entitlement obligations and exploited the FEG scheme. The consequence of that is that it leaves a burden—an unfair burden at that—on the Australian taxpayers who do the right thing; not just individual Australian taxpayers but also corporate Australian taxpayers and small-to-medium business Australian taxpayers who do the right thing by ensuring that their employees are paid the entitlements they're due. It's disappointing that we as legislators in this House have to be in the position where we have to pass laws such as this because a small number of our business community don't take the responsibility of ensuring that they pay their employee entitlements as and when they are due and they leave that burden unfairly on the taxpayer. It is important that we ensure that these entitlements are paid.
The scheme originally, when it was set up, was to be used only as a last resort. In some cases, it's fair to observe, it could create an unfair commercial advantage between those who are seeking to do the right thing and those who aren't. That is why the government is the committed to implementing these legislative reforms, to stop the corporate misuse of the taxpayer funded FEG scheme.
Raising the professional responsibility of employers will not only play a significant role in saving the taxpayers' dollars, it will provide the Australian people with greater income security and confidence. We need to remember that many of these entitlements, particularly superannuation, are forgone wages; if it wasn't being withheld to go into superannuation, the companies would actually have to pay that in wages. So I don't see—and the government doesn't see—that it's fair to allow the actions of a few to result in the improper shifting of costs onto the Australian taxpayer.
We strongly believe that the responsibility of all employees is to pay their workers' entitlements as and when they are due. As of 30 June 2018 a total of $2.8 billion has been paid to over 203,000 workers under the FEG and predecessor schemes since they were introduced in 2001. This excludes another $383 million paid to 13,000 former employees of the Ansett Group under a special scheme. As you can see from those figures it's crucial to address the impost on taxpayers of the scheme's annual bill, which has more than tripled over the past nine years from $70 million in the four-year period between July 2005 and June 2009 to $235 million in the four-year period between July 2014 and June 2018. Sadly, what this reflects is a poor outcome for the employees in Australia who are missing out on their entitlements and, importantly too, a poor outcome for the taxpayer.
I think it is good to see that, as part of this bill, we are seeking to minimise the cost to the taxpayer whilst ensuring that Australian employees get their entitlements. This bill will deter and penalise company directors and other persons who engage in or facilitate transactions that aim to prevent, avoid or reduce employer liability and employee entitlements in insolvency. The framework introducing the bill enables a swift recovery of employees' entitlements from other entities in the corporate group, or closely connected economic relationships, where it will be just and equitable and where these other entities have unfairly benefited from the work done by hardworking employees. The bill also strengthens sanctions for directors and company officers with a track record of corporate contraventions and insolvencies where the FEG is repeatedly and inappropriately relied upon.
The reforms build on other actions the government has taken to protect employee entitlements, including introducing legislation to tackle non-payment of the superannuation guarantee by targeting employees who fail to meet their superannuation obligations and releasing draft legislation to combat illegal phoenix activities involving the deliberate avoidance of company debts, including employee entitlements, by company operators and pre-insolvency advisers who facilitate this activity. We've also released draft legislation that contains discussion around director identification numbers.
This bill will mean that Australian taxpayers don't bear the cost of business doing the wrong thing, it will mean employees don't miss out on their entitlements and it will mean hardworking Australians can continue to provide for their loved ones. These new laws mean we will have stronger levers to ensure employers are held accountable for their obligations. The new criminal offence and civil penalty provisions will strengthen the ability of ASIC to take enforcement action against directors and facilitators who do the wrong thing. The criminal offences will carry the highest penalties available under the law to act as a strong deterrent to these egregious behaviours that hurt all hardworking Australians. This sends the strongest possible message to employers, large and small, and reminds negligent businesses that, when it comes to paying your bills, this government believes your workers come first.
By expanding the parties who can commence compensation proceedings to include the ATO, the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Department of Jobs and Small Business, we're enhancing prospects for the recovery of unpaid employee entitlements, for the benefit of all Australian workers. The new disqualification powers will enable ASIC to strike off those company directors and officers whose behaviour has inappropriately impacted the FEG scheme, acting as a deterrent to those who make a habit of liquidating their businesses and leaving their employees behind. The changes are tightly targeted to deter and punish only those who seek to avoid their employee entitlement obligations and exploit the FEG. They will not affect the overwhelming majority of companies who are doing the right thing.
The unfortunate reality is that businesses can become insolvent, but that does not absolve them of their obligation to pay their employees. The FEG related law reforms contained in the bill aim to put a stop to this behaviour and prevent wrongdoing, with new measures holding businesses accountable for ensuring employees are paid all their entitlements for as long as they are operating. These reforms send a strong message to those who are seeking to exploit the FEG scheme: don't rely on the FEG to do this for you when you can do it, and should be doing it, for yourself and your employees today.
This bill upholds the government's commitment to protecting the entitlements of those in our community who go out every single day to work to build wealth not only for this country but for their families, allowing them to put a roof over their heads, put food on the table, educate their children and contribute to our community, as so many of them do.
I commend this bill to the House in its original form—despite the pious amendment from the member for Gorton—because we owe it to those people in our community who work so hard each and every day to protect the entitlements that are due to them.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (17:52): I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018; in particular, to speak on the second reading amendment moved by the member for Gorton. The amendment points out that the government has previously tried to cut the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme and is not committed to protecting employee entitlements; notes Labor's suite of measures, announced in May last year, to tackle illegal phoenixing activities; and points out that under this government we've seen real wages flatlining. It is a government bereft of policies to get wage growth going again, to get Australians the pay rise that they deserve.
Let me go to those points in turn. Labor is pleased finally to see coming onto the government's agenda a bill that will have some benefit to workers. It contains some sensible reforms to the Corporations Act to better deter and punish directors and companies who deliberately avoid liability for employee entitlements. As I said, this measure follows on from an announcement on 24 May last year by the shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, the then shadow minister for small business and financial services and me. We announced that Labor, were we to win government, would introduce a suite of measures to crack down on abuse by directors and the real problems associated with phoenixing in this country. We support a director identification number. The government has some process or other which it promises might one day produce a director identification number. The fact is that dodgy directors have been burning firms and hurting honest businesses, workers and taxpayers for well over a year, since Labor first called for a director identification number.
Part of the package announced by Labor in May 2017 was that a Labor government would introduce an objective test for transactions depriving employees of their entitlements. We also announced we would reform provisions for accessorial liability. The government bill adopts and implements those measures.
This bill follows on from an announcement in October last year that the government would make changes to the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. There were consultations as a result of that, although in our view that consultation process could have been better. We are pleased to see the changes in this bill which should see a greater degree of recovery for employees who are owed entitlements and, indeed, for the government, which will be able to use these new capabilities to recover taxpayers' money to replenish the millions of dollars currently being paid out under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. It will strengthen the Corporations Act to better deter and reduce the incidents of dodgy companies and their associates structuring their affairs in a way that avoids paying employee entitlements and deliberately shifts liability for unpaid employee entitlements to the Commonwealth via the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme.
The Corporations Act currently contains a criminal offence provision which covers activity commonly known as 'illegal phoenixing activity'. That is where a director structures a company in a way in which they are deliberately aiming to avoid having to pay employee entitlements—in essence, allowing them to walk away from a collapsed business without paying up what it is owed to workers and then to start a new business. This has been a criminal offence under the act since 2000, but there has never been a conviction under it. Labor announced in May last year that we would reform the criminal offence of deliberately avoiding employee entitlements to make it easier to prove and make it easier to prosecute accessories. We're pleased that the government has, over a year later, adopted Labor's position on the bill.
The bill amends the Corporations Act to make it easier to prove the criminal offence of entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employee entitlements by including 'recklessness' as a mental element. It significantly increases the maximum fine for the offence of entering into an arrangement to avoid paying employee entitlements. It introduces a new civil penalty provision for avoiding paying employee entitlements, with an objective reasonable person test. It gives the Fair Work Ombudsman, the tax office and the Department of Jobs and Small Business standing to commence compensation proceedings to recoup money paid out via the Fair Entitlements Guarantee. It extends liability for unpaid entitlements to related corporate entities, and it extends ASIC's power to disqualify directors and other officers, either directly or on application to the court, where they have a track record of corporate contraventions and of inappropriately using the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme to pay outstanding employee entitlements. Labor believes this bill could be improved to give registered organisations standing to commence civil proceedings under the new provisions for compensation and the recovery of unpaid entitlements.
It's worth acknowledging that the increase in the financial penalty for the criminal offence is significant. At present, that penalty is minor relative to the amount that individuals and bodies corporate may be squirrelling away through complicated mechanisms to engage in phoenixing activity. Currently, the penalty is 10 years imprisonment or 1,000 penalty units, which equates to a little over $200,000. The new penalties for an individual would keep the imprisonment period the same but would raise the penalty to the greater of 4,500 penalty units, currently a little over $900,000, or three times the total value of the benefits obtained by committing the offence, or both. Including in the penalty provision some reference to the ill-gotten gains is, we believe, appropriate. For a body corporate, the fine is the greater of 45,000 penalty units, currently a little over $9 million, or three times the total value of the benefits obtained by committing the offence or 10 per cent of the body corporate's annual turnover during the 12 months before the body corporate committed or began committing the offence. We think that increasing the penalties will reinforce the serious nature of these crimes and act as a deterrent for people who might otherwise seek to engage in these types of evasive behaviours.
It's also the case that the civil penalty provision will make it easier to hold directors and companies liable for avoiding liability for employee entitlements. Labor established this scheme, the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, because employees should not be punished through the loss of their legal entitlements when an employer's business fails. Employees should not lose their leave, superannuation and unpaid wages. It is even more egregious that workers might face the prospect of losing their entitlements in a context in which the employer has deliberately structured their arrangement to avoid payment. The average annual cost under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme has more than tripled. For the four-year period from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2009, the scheme cost taxpayers $71 million. For the four-year period from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2018, the scheme cost taxpayers more than three times as much—$235 million.
The Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme was always designed to be there as a safety net—a guaranteed way to ensure that employees could get what they deserved in a timely fashion. Labor passed the Fair Entitlements Guarantee legislation in 2012, delivering the strongest protection for workers' entitlements ever seen in this country. We did this because of Labor's history of standing up for jobs and standing up for workers. But, in contrast, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has attempted to cut the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. It said in 2014 that the current scheme created a moral hazard, encouraging 'employers and unions to sign up to unsustainable redundancy entitlements, safe in the knowledge that, if the company fails, the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and the Australian taxpayer will pay for it'.
Labor doesn't agree with that philosophy, and I'm pleased that at least the first speaker opposite hasn't sought to reprosecute that argument. It is appropriate that workers have decent redundancy provisions in their contracts. Workers shouldn't be forced onto contracts with inappropriate redundancy provisions simply because the government is concerned about the cost of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. The primary motivation here should be looking after the voters who put us in this place, not simply trying to penny-pinch on the Commonwealth budget.
Labor recognises the value that the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme plays as a safety net for Australians, yet we have a government which is united never more than when it is attacking workers and their representatives and which is doing nothing about the fact that underemployment is stubbornly high; that wages are stagnant; that worker employment is rife and work is, for many workers, too unsecure; and that we have, as Andy Haldane, the Chief Economist of the Bank of England has put it, a 'divided' workplace in many advanced countries, which is leading wages to depart from productivity growth. We're seeing solid productivity growth but a lack of real wage increases, even in places like the United States, where the unemployment rate is below four per cent. So we support the intent of the bill to the extent that it benefits employees, but we also warn against attempts to penny-pinch on the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme in a way that would hurt workers.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't also call upon the government, as it looks to improve the standing of protections for workers, to adopt Labor's plan to require large listed firms to report the ratio of CEO pay to median worker pay. This is done in Britain; this is done in the United States. It provides a measure of transparency when firms are required to report not just on what the CEO earns but on the ratio between what the typical worker in the firm earns and what the CEO earns. Last year in Australia we had the situation where the average total pay of ASX 100 CEOs rose nine per cent, which is four times the speed of average wage growth. The typical ASX 100 CEO now earns more than $4 million, and the best-paid Australian CEO, according to work conducted by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, was Don Meij, who was estimated to have made $37 million last year.
Mr Meij supports Labor's plan for CEO transparency, so it does make you wonder why the coalition won't come on board. If the person judged by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors to be the No. 1 paid CEO in Australia is comfortable with listed firms that employ more than 250 people having to report the ratio of CEO pay to median worker pay, then why on earth wouldn't the coalition come on board, back this transparency measure and get real wages growing again?
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (18:04): I rise to support this bill in its original form, the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018. This bill is the government's move to better protect employees' entitlements and the Australian taxpayer. We have all seen in our electorates what happens when a company folds or becomes insolvent. It has a particular impact in small rural and regional communities. Most recently, perhaps, we saw the devastation for families and small local businesses and communities with the Queensland nickel refinery issue. But for those of us who live and work in rural and regional areas, it has a real knock-on effect to a whole range of people: the employees are immediately impacted and the creditors, particularly small business creditors, are directly affected. There are times when I've seen small businesses fold as a result of the amount that's owed to them by the company that's become insolvent.
The Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme follows on from the earlier coalition government General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme, known as GEERS. It was introduced in 1999. It was a relatively non-controversial measure by the Howard government, a simple protection measure. The importance of it showed in 2001, when Ansett Airlines collapsed with a debt which meant its employees would not have had their legislated entitlements such as leave and long service payments. So GEERS has been in place as an administrative option for government to use for some time.
In 2012 the Fair Entitlements Guarantee was created, putting GEERS on a legislative basis. Subsequent to the collapse of Ansett, FEG has been called on a number of times, and too many times. Like GEERS, the FEG scheme is meant to be a safety net. It's a scheme of last resort, with assistance available for eligible employees. It's vital legislation which really goes to hold to account companies that try to evade their obligation to workers and simply shift the obligation and burden to taxpayers. We see this through employees who lose their wages, their superannuation and a whole raft of other benefits, whether it's their unpaid wages, their lost wages, their super—you name it. Of course, the company then attempts to shift that burden to taxpayers.
The Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme is not there for the sole purpose of enabling a corporation to avoid their responsibilities. It is not there for corporate misuse. It's not a vehicle for corporate misuse. It does place an unfair burden on Australian taxpayers, who ultimately bear the cost. Companies that choose not to pay their employees correctly are basically, by default, achieving an unfair commercial advantage over their business competitor who is trying to do the right thing by their employers and by the business. So this bill means there will be stronger levers to make sure that employers are accountable for their obligations, including stronger penalties, stronger options to recover entitlements—really important—and stronger powers to deal with directors and companies that deliberately evade their obligation. The FEG is an important safety net for all Australian workers.
We know that while the overwhelming majority of companies are doing the right thing, unfortunately, some employers shift employee costs onto the FEG scheme for their own advantage or simply to exploit the scheme. That, by default, exploits Australian taxpayers.
These changes that the government has introduced are tightly targeted to deter and punish those who seek to avoid their employee entitlement obligations and who simply exploit the scheme. This exploitation is contributing to a significant increase in the cost of the scheme, and that was never the purpose. The average annual costs have more than tripled, from $70.7 million in the four years to 30 June 2009 to $235.3 million in the four years to 30 June 2018. This evidence indicates that misuse of the scheme is rising.
Some of the amendments in this bill strengthen enforcement and recovery options under the Corporations Act, and that's specifically designed to deter company directors who facilitate transactions that are aimed at preventing, avoiding or significantly reducing employer liability for their employee entitlements in the case of insolvency. These changes include extending the fault element necessary to contravene the existing criminal offence in the Corporations Act, and it includes, now, recklessness; increasing the penalties applicable to contraventions of the criminal offences in the Corporations Act and introducing a new civil penalty for entering into a transaction that's likely to avoid, prevent or significantly reduce recoverable employee entitlements, and this is done with an objective test based on what a reasonable person in the circumstance would have known about the transaction. Also they expand the parties who can commence civil compensation proceedings to include the Australian tax office—as they should—the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Department of Jobs and Small Business.
Other amendments in this bill enable the court to make a contribution order against an entity or a corporate group or entities with a closely connected economic relationship with an insolvent company, where that company has unpaid employee entitlements and where the other entity has unfairly benefited—this is from the work done by the insolvent company's employees—and where it would be just and equitable for the court to make the order. These amendments ensure that courts have the ability to order companies that may be misusing the FEG scheme to provide funds to contribute to the FEG scheme, meaning that the taxpayer is then not left with the cost of paying those entitlements. This is a great part of the intent of this legislation.
The last set of amendments in this bill strengthen the ability of ASIC to disqualify company directors either directly or on application to the court where they actually have a track record of corporate contraventions and of inappropriately using the FEG scheme to pay outstanding employee entitlements. It's like repeat offenders.
The reforms are the result of extensive public consultation processes during 2017-18. They've been developed with the government's insolvent trading safe harbour reforms in mind, and are tightly targeted to deter and punish only those who actually do the wrong thing by their employees, the workers, and taxpayers. They will not affect the overwhelming majority of companies who are doing the right thing.
We need to make sure that working Australians have their entitlements protected. They've worked for these entitlements. They've worked for their wages and their super. These reforms build on other actions that the government has taken to protect employee entitlements: amendments to the Fair Work Act to protect vulnerable workers, including increasing penalties up to tenfold for serious contraventions of workplace laws.
We know that those opposite have talked about the unions in relation to this. The union movement has a fair bit to say. But it is an inescapable fact that the policies of this government have seen the creation by business of over one million jobs since 2013, and the opposition leader, with his relationship with the CFMMEU, announced that, if he were elected Prime Minister, he would run Australia like he ran his union. Does this then mean that some of the lower paid workers will find themselves in the same place as those workers? Will they be taken to the cleaners like those workers at Cleanevent? Perhaps they will be treated like second-class workers, kept in the dug and literally fed manure, like those at Chiquita Mushrooms?
This government believes in as many people as possible being able to get a job and keep a job. As we've said repeatedly, the best form of welfare is work. We have policies to help businesses to employ more people. I want to talk, particularly in the moments I have left to me, about the PaTH (Prepare, Trial, Hire) Program and numbers of young people who, as a result of the actions of this government, actually have access to work that they've never had before. We see young people, who have been receiving Centrelink payments, who then have been provided support and nurturing to actually apply for a job. Some young people have come from families where they may be the second generation or the third generation that hasn't worked. The preparation process in the PaTH program is exceptionally good and gives them the ability to have the confidence to actually apply for work in the first place.
There is then trial period, where there's actually a job at the end of it should the employer and the employee find that they work well together and the skills and the intent of both work particularly well together. We have seen this repeatedly. I see young people in my electorate who have got an opportunity that they wouldn't have otherwise had if it wasn't for the policies of the government, particularly around the PaTH program. They then go on to get a job. I was speaking at a school graduation recently. One of the things that I encourage young people to do is to take whatever job they can as a starting point and, equally, to know that there's nothing that gives any of us the self-respect, the independence and the experience that a job does.
I want to acknowledge so many of the small businesses in Australia that often offer our great young people, particularly in rural and regional Australia, their first-ever job. It can often be with a small business. The other side of what small business does well, as we've seen with over one million jobs that have been created, is they often offer senior Australians their last job. With small business, often they will take on people that others will not. They see the value and the opportunity they want to create for young people. They also see the great value in mature-aged workers who have so much experience, often a lot of patience and a real commitment to the job itself, because they understand that on many occasions they find it a challenge to actually get a job in the first place. Some of the measures of this government have made it possible for more older Australians seeking work to be able to find that work as well. It has encouraged employers to consider more mature-aged employees and the amount of experience they actually bring to that job. I'm very pleased to support the bill before the House today.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (18:18): I think most people who were around at the time will remember where they were when the planes flew into the World Trade Centre back in September 2001. I certainly remember it and remember watching it, because at that time there was another matter that was unfolding that I was up to my eyeballs in as a young lawyer. That matter was the collapse of Ansett. People will remember that Ansett, at the time, was one of Australia's big airlines, employing tens of thousands of people. Nobody thought anything could go wrong, and then it did. They grounded the fleet because they had run out of money and a deal with Air New Zealand wasn't working out quite as hoped. All of a sudden, tens of thousands of people, who had been working for a company that people had thought was safe as houses, all of a sudden found themselves out of a job. Grounding the airline was, I still think, a very poor decision by the administrators at that stage, because coming in the context, as it did, of the attacks on the World Trade Centre made it very, very difficult for it to ever get off the ground again. People lost their jobs. Thousands of people lost their job that day.
What also became apparent, perhaps for the first time—it was certainly brought to the attention of people for the first time on a very large scale, with one exception, which I'll come back to in a moment—was that people thought that all of their entitlements were secure and, all of a sudden, they weren't. They found out that, when the deal fell through and when the company went belly-up, all their long service leave, their redundancy pay and the annual leave that they'd earnt and was theirs was not available to them. The money had not been put aside in the bank and there was no law requiring the company to put the money aside. When people found that out, naturally it came as a shock, as it would, and people asked, 'What can we do about it?' It turned out that the only recourse at that stage was to line up, under company law, with all the other creditors and put yourself on the same footing as a big company, such as an airline company that might have had a contract with Ansett and was able to bring in lawyers to litigate. You had to line up with them. We spent a long time with the union. The union organised the ASU. The union organised all of their members who were about to be out of a job to get together and work around the clock to take the steps they could under the Corporations Law to try to get their money. Some people waited years and years and years to get their full payout and some people didn't see their full payout.
I note as an aside that the bill that the government are introducing is about strengthening protections available to workers. It's notable that they can't even let a speech go by without kicking unions, as the previous speaker did. Can I say that, if it weren't for the union involved at that stage, the ASU, those workers would never have seen their entitlements, because they had to front up just like every other creditor, push and go to court to get them. What that Ansett case opened the lid on is that this was happening right around Australia. There were many, many other companies that were engaging in shark practices as well—not putting money aside for people's entitlements and leaving them in the lurch when their company went belly-up, through no fault of the workers; the company went belly-up and, all of a sudden, they found the money wasn't there.
One other case that we were involved in was for textile workers—very low-paid workers. It turned out when their company went belly-up that the employer had transferred their employment a few years earlier, from the company that they signed their employment contract with to another one that, just coincidentally, had absolutely no assets at all. So, when the employees said, 'Where's our money? Hang on, you're a very profitable company,' they said, 'No, you're not actually employed by company A, which you signed up with; you're employed by company B.' We had to go to court to get that undone. If it weren't for the union taking the company to court, those low-paid textile workers would never have seen their money. They were only able to get some kind of partial redress because of their union. Those scandals paved the way for the entitlements scheme to come in. It was called by a different acronym then, but it paved the way for legislation to come in to say, 'No, the Commonwealth government had better step in.' Until that point—I stand to be corrected on this—the only workers in Australia who had been beneficiaries of federal government support when a company had gone belly-up were the workers who were employed by former Prime Minister John Howard's brother's textile company. When they went belly-up, they got a Commonwealth bailout, but everyone else had to go to court and wait years and years for their final payments.
When the federal government took the steps to say, 'No federal government has a role here,' that was certainly something that we supported. It's been disappointing to see that the scheme that is there to say, 'You may find out, when your company goes belly-up, that no money has been put aside for your annual leave, redundancy, long service leave or other entitlements,' is a scheme that the Liberal government previously tried to cut, saying, 'We'll only cover part of it.' I have to say, as someone who has spent a lot of time with workers who had been left in the lurch, that that cut hurt. That cut was very, very significant.
When you have an agreement, it might give you more generous provisions for annual leave or long service leave, for example, than others in the community but you're often trading that off—you're saying, 'I'll accept lower wages in return for getting more benefits.' But the federal government said, 'Well, no, we're only going to pay you up to a certain amount.' Some people found themselves in enormous strife, because they had been counting on this annual leave and redundancy pay and it turned out the government wasn't going to step in and support them when the company went belly-up—through absolutely no fault of the employees. So we know the government's motivation historically has been to cut the amount of support available and the amount of money going towards the scheme.
It is also worth noting that there are alternative ways of trying to skin this particular cat. Some have argued very, very strongly that we should have industry trust funds, where employers contribute a small amount across employers, but if you've done the wrong thing you have to contribute more, and it goes into a pool—effectively some sort of self-funding scheme—and that's then available to people when the company goes belly-up. So there might be a way of doing it off the government's books. The government hasn't wanted to explore that, so we've got that this scheme—and this scheme, in the absence of anything better, should definitely stay and should definitely be strengthened.
One thing that the government are doing in this bill, though, which I applaud, is they are finally saying, 'If you want to reduce the amount of money that government has to pay because company directors have engaged in dodgy practices and have tried to do over their workers, maybe we should go after those company directors a bit harder.' That's something that many of us have been saying for some time. It's good to see that, in this instance—even though it is motivated by a desire to save money—they are at least listening. The government are now saying that we need to have a go at some of those company directors who might be engaged in some of the practices that I have spoken about—perhaps trying to transfer employees from one shell company to another to limit their liability; perhaps saying, 'It's not our fault; it's the parent company.' It is good that now, as a result of this bill, if it passes, the penalties they're going to be exposed to might be strengthened. That is a good thing. At the end of the day, a company is an amorphous thing, but it is run by directors who are human beings. If they sit down and say, 'How can we structure it in a way that we don't have to pay out people's entitlements, because we know the government is going to foot the bill?' they should be chased down. They should be chased down and they should be stopped. That is the right approach.
But where the rubber is going to hit the road on this is whether or not any of this bill gets enforced and whether any directors have to pay the penalty. As someone who worked in this field for 13 years, not once did I see the federal government chase a rogue employer for underpayments or non-payments when they'd gone belly-up. It was left to the workers and their unions to use their union dues to chase an employer to do nothing more than to pay them money that was legally theirs in the first place. This wasn't seeking a pay rise or that some grand penalty be imposed; it was just saying, 'We just want the money that we're legally entitled to. You've stolen it from us, and we're now going to have to dip into our own pockets through our union dues to get it back.' Not once did I ever see a federal government come to the table and say, 'Well, actually, it's probably our responsibility to chase some of these companies.' So I would hope that, if we're going to change the law, it comes with a change in law enforcement.
Perhaps there are better things to do to get our workplace regulators working on than chasing down unions, because they happened to give a donation to a group a while ago, and raiding their offices in the full view of the TV cameras. Perhaps there are better things to do than coming in here with bill after bill that's designed to do nothing more than restrict people's legitimate and internationally recognised rights to organise. Perhaps it might be better to put some resources into chasing down rogue employers, given that this bill is an admission that they are there and that they're costing the public money. Well, if they're there and they're costing the public money, I hope it is only a matter of months before the first prosecution happens. But I fear that this is one of those instances where the government does something good on paper and then doesn't back it up.
A good provision in this bill is saying to those directors who have done the wrong thing, 'This is potentially going to follow you.' We have seen it often in the construction industry that a company goes belly-up just before Christmas—and, all of a sudden, everyone is left without pay—and then pops up in another guise after the Christmas holidays and starts hiring workers again when everyone has gone without their Christmas pay or leave entitlements. That is phoenixing. It's good there is a provision that says, 'If you try and do that, or if try and do versions of sharp practice, it's going to follow you as an individual and you're going to be restricted from being able to set up those businesses again in the future.'
But what concerns me—and I think this will be a test for our regulator—is that, when it comes to policing the banks, ASIC hasn't exactly covered itself in glory. We are seeing those practices exposed in the royal commission that we led the charge for in the teeth of opposition from the old parties—finally one came on board and then the other one did. I hope that we don't have to have a further inquiry or investigation into why it is that, despite passing these bills, we are still finding people going without their legitimate entitlements getting paid. We are putting ASIC on notice that it should pay more attention to this bill than it did with the banks. We will be expecting a much higher level of vigilance to go after directors who do the wrong thing by their workers than ASIC has shown with bank CEOs who have done the wrong thing by customers.
As this bill passes through the parliament, if there are suggestions for improvements, hopefully the government will consider those if opportunities arise. But I do hope that, perhaps in the summing-up speech, the minister could come in and tell us how the bill will be enforced, how we can have confidence that these provisions are going to result in rogue employers actually facing the full force of the law. In the absence of that, it might look good, and you might book you a budget saving, but it won't be realised unless the laws are enforced. It's certainly been my experience that directors have been more than willing to steal from employees and take the money that is lawfully the employees' money and then make them jump through hoops just to get it back. And that is what fundamentally we're talking about here. Money that people have earned and is theirs is not being made available to them and directors are holding it back, using legal fictions to do it. It's time that we closed the ability for them to do that. If some of them have to go to jail in order to learn that lesson, then that's what should happen because it is nothing short of theft.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (18:33): I apologise in advance—I have one of those shocking colds that's going around at the moment. I actually cancelled speaking on every piece of legislation today, but not this legislation. That shows you that the spirit and the intent is wholeheartedly supported by me and also by the government. I will begin by acknowledging the Marxist member for Melbourne and his speech, as he acknowledged the speaker before him. You're always so negative, Marxist member for Melbourne—'negative, negative, lemon negative,' as they would say in The Thick of It. Never has there been any legislation brought into this place by the government that has not attracted your contempt, your ire or your ridicule when we're simply trying to do the right thing.
The thing about this government and this parliament is it's intention, at every point, of working for the Australian community so people are able to realise their own dreams. We're the people who actually back people who get up every day—and I've spoken about it before—and have their breakfast, brush their teeth and get on with helping to build the future of this nation, if by doing nothing more than taking care of themselves and their families, being able to buy their own home and being able to go on and retire with security. The provisions in this bill are about turning around and saying: 'If you have been wronged, we're going to back you too. If you have been wronged because the company you worked for has done the wrong thing—has sought to minimise its obligations and not meet the reasonable expectations that any worker in this country has around unpaid wages, annual leave, long service leave, payment in lieu of notice and redundancy pay—we're going to expect the company to do the right thing.'
Responsibility and loyalty go both ways. Workers who do the right thing deserve to have employers do the right thing by them, because they have offered their labour—a fair day's work—for a fair day's pay. Where that is denied then the employer must have the responsibility in return, rather than seeking to buck-pass it through trickery, through finding different legal instruments or different ways—phoenixing, as the member for Melbourne talked about before, and others—to minimise their obligations. That isn't a society built on responsibility. It's certainly not a society built on the responsibility that, I would hope, we all think employers have to workers and government has to citizens, where appropriate. Equally, workers have a responsibility to their employer, because it's not some uni-transaction where employers come along and seek to manipulate, and take away advantages, and screw over the workers—though sometimes that does happen. I'm not sure whether 'screwing over' is unparliamentary language. I saw that question mark.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): It is.
Mr TIM WILSON: I'm happy to withdraw it, Deputy Speaker. 'To take advantage of'—how about that? We also can't have it that workers take advantage of employers. It's one of those beautiful things. We go back to the wonders of economic philosophy and the principle of voluntary exchange, people being able to come together to advance mutually beneficial relationships. We actually want people to do the right thing.
Of course, the government has put a backstop into the arrangements around making sure that workers get their pay through the establishment of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. The principal scheme is quite straightforward when it comes down to it. If, for some nefarious or ill-gotten reason, an employer cannot meet their obligations to employees, ultimately the Australian people have those workers' backs. But we know, as it's often the case, that people always align themselves to incentives. We have experienced a demand on the FEG scheme where annual average costs have more than tripled, from $70.7 million in the four-year period between 2005 and 30 June 2009 to $235.3 million in the four-year period between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2018. That's not sustainable. We shouldn't be rewarding people for finding ways to minimise their obligations to their fellow Australians. The job of the government isn't to turn around and just accept that. Ultimately, that's somebody else's money—meaning taxpayers'. It was taken from taxpayers' pockets to line the Treasury for the collective good of the nation and it shouldn't be misused. We should hold those people who have done the wrong thing to account. And that's what we've sought to do with this piece of legislation.
It's not the only space where this government is working. As the member for Forrest, our Chief Whip and somebody who is fierce in her advocacy for her electorate, rightly pointed out, this government is working at every point to try to provide Australians with opportunities to realise their dreams and their success. The PaTH program is designed to encourage more people to get into work. We are trying to remove the barriers that inhibit the capacity of small businesses to go on and employ more people. We provide tax relief so that, when people actually do work, they're in a better position to support themselves. We're trying to minimise the tax burden so that people are able to not just support themselves, although that's critically important, but go on, of course, and fuel the rest of the economy, because only people pay taxes, and people are in the best position to drive the economic growth of this country. But we're also looking beyond the issues specifically around workers and their entitlements from a consequence of work—that's why it's an entitlement—and the obligations of employers to looking at what happens in other areas of the economy as well.
One of the things that I have the privilege of doing at the moment is being the Chair of the Standing Committee on Economics. We're dealing with some of the challenges we face around the banks, and we've been having inquiries looking into the four major banks by bringing forward the CEOs. We've just finished a round recently. We're holding big banks to account to make sure they're meeting the expectations of the Australian people, because ultimately this piece of legislation is about that: accountability and responsibility. We've been turning around to the banks as well and asking: 'Are you accountable? Are you responsible in meeting the expectations of your consumers, your clients and Australian shareholders and, of course, their critical role in greasing the wheel of the Australian economy?' Just like Labor is a critical part of the Australian economy, so is capital. Everybody has to be accountable, everybody has to be responsible and everybody has to be part of building this nation's future. When we grill those bank CEOs, just like when company directors are grilled by those who seek to liquidate companies or insolvents, ultimately it comes down to what you're doing, what your conduct is and making sure you're doing the right thing.
The practical reality, and it's sad to say, is: there will always be incentives for people to do the wrong thing. That's the story of human history. Well, I believe that justice sits in the hearts of most Australians and of most people around the world. The reality is we know that there have always been people who have sought to make a quick buck by doing the wrong thing. You just need to look at the illicit drugs trade. You just need to look at the illicit tobacco trade, where, of course, when you increase taxes and introduce regulation that creates interchangeable products, like plain packaging, people then go and take advantage of that to finance their nefarious agendas, whether it be crime, terrorism or organised activity, at the same time.
There will always be people who do wrong. The question for the people in this place is: do we have the legal system in place to have the infrastructure and the framework to incentivise people to do the right thing and the punitive measures in place when people cross that line? That's what the government are trying to do. I would have thought it's one of those little things that the opposition should back, but I see, once again, as part of their constant efforts of trying to draw attention to themselves and their utter irrelevancy, they've moved an amendment to this bill as well. I look forward to having the pointless and needless division that we're going to have for no purpose and no sake because they simply want to go up and grandstand in front of the nation. They're more than entitled to do so.
Mr Conroy: You're very generous!
Mr TIM WILSON: I'm a charitable man by nature! But, in the end, I'm reluctant to even mention it, simply on the basis that we actually think what you're fighting for and what you're engaging your cheap parliamentary tactics in is somehow causing problems or a waver, rather than, I'd imagine, tiring out a lot of your own people from the mundanity and repetitiveness of it. But such is the parliamentary system that they are welcome to do so.
If they want to distract from the good work that this government is doing in making sure we're able to deliver a better outcome for the Australian people, then so be it. But, ultimately, Australian workers who are wrong will know who did what was right. We've done what is right here because we recognise that workers should be protected. We've have done what is right here because we have said that rogue employers should be held to account. We've done what is right because we believe that the taxpayers of this nation should be protected, and I would have thought that that's a pretty good framing and the foundation of public policy in this great country.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (18:44): I will begin by wishing the member for Goldstein a speedy recovery. He clearly isn't very well. I saw him walk in with a tissue—I thought he might have still been wiping the tears away from Saturday's by-election, but he's clearly not very well.
I do rise to speak in support of this bill, the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018. I must say that every time I see a government bill on the Notice Paper with the word 'employee' in it, I tend to brace myself, because it seems that whenever this government seeks to discuss industrial relations it uses it as an opportunity to attack pay and conditions that workers have fought really hard for over years and years. It's happened time and time again. It shouldn't be a surprise. You can look to the Liberals slashing the take-home pay of hardworking Australians all around Australia or to the government turning a blind eye to the rampant exploitation of labour hire in this country, allowing the issue to get worse and worse. Or you can look at the sluggish wage growth, which has stagnated under the LNP, allowing economic inequality to skyrocket in Australia.
Deputy Speaker Howarth, you and I share a really beautiful part of the world, the Moreton Bay region. You and I both know, with respect to the three areas that I've just raised, that we have tens of thousands of hospitality and retail workers that live in the Moreton Bay region. You know and I know that they don't deserve to have their take-home pay slashed, and that's exactly what this government has done to those workers that live in our beautiful region.
It did come as a huge relief to see that this bill amends the Corporations Act to deter unscrupulous employers from deliberately avoiding liability for unpaid employee entitlements and from shifting that liability to the Commonwealth via the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, or, as many people know it, the FEG. Let's be clear though; let's be honest: essentially this bill is a repurposed Labor policy. Tired of this cowardly government's inaction, Labor announced in May last year—that was nearly a year and a half ago—that we would reform the criminal offence of deliberately avoiding the paying of employee entitlements. Labor's policy would make it easier to prove and it would make it easier to prosecute accessories. It's good to see the government have adopted Labor policy in this bill, even if it took them over a year. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so it's nice to see the government acknowledge which party it is that's developing this policy which will lead Australia forward—a party that's got vision, a party that is truly leading Australia. So I would like to call on the government to continue following our lead, to follow Labor's lead. Maybe then we will finally see a greater focus on protecting workers in this country.
I suggest the government should start by listening to Labor and improving this bill. The member for Goldstein picked up that Labor wants to move some amendments, and that's because we want to make it the best bill, the most protective bill, for workers in this country. And we want to do that by expanding the powers of registered organisations. In giving registered organisations standing to commence civil proceedings under the new provisions for compensation and unpaid entitlements recovery, workers will be far better off. I know this. Labor knows this. In their heart of hearts, I'd suggest that all the members on the other side of the chamber know this as well. We have all seen registered organisations stand up for workers in these situations before. It's what the trade union movement does. The Australian trade union movement has always stood up for workers and it's always there for them when they're being ripped off by a shonky employer.
It was about a decade ago that the early childhood education sector was thrown into absolute turmoil when ABC Learning closed, almost overnight. Loyal early childhood educators went from having a stable job, decent pay, decent conditions and accrued entitlements to losing any form of stability. It was the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, which has now changed to be known as United Voice, that stood there beside its members, beside those workers. It was the union that supported each and every one of its members who had been mistreated. It was this union that made sure, together and united, their voices were heard. Giving it the ability to truly represent its members and commence civil proceedings would be an absolutely huge win for Australian workers. In a submission, the Australian Council of Trade Unions championed this suggestion. They identified that it would give an option to workers, instead of insisting that they rely on the tax office, Fair Work or the department to represent them. It's a proposal that's got merit. It could bring a dash of fairness back to a system that so desperately needs it.
Just last year, the then President of the ACTU and now member for Batman, the amazing Ged Kearney, who sits behind me here in the chamber, made note that between 11,949 and 19,800 Australian companies have been involved in potentially illegal phoenixing activities. Can you believe that—nearly 20,000! That's according to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Tax Office. The now member for Batman and, at the time, ACTU president Ged Kearney recognised that:
Allowing dodgy company directors to tank a company to avoid paying working people their entitlements is a serious abuse of power. It is an indication of where corporation rules and regulations are too lenient and favour business over workers.
When you look at the facts, the statement of Ged Kearney, the member for Batman, looks increasingly relevant. Since their introduction into the Corporations Act in 2000, there have been no successful criminal or civil recovery actions for the intentional avoidance of underpaid employee entitlements. Let me repeat that: there have been zero successful criminal or civil recovery actions. None whatsoever. I'm hopeful that this bill will be seen as a step in the right direction in evening out what can only be described as a lopsided playing field.
Despite not yet including the ability for registered organisations to represent workers, as it stands, part 1, schedule 1 of the bill makes available three courses of action to pursue persons who engage in and facilitate transactions to avoid paying unpaid employee entitlements. The first course goes to proceedings to seek criminal sanctions for when a person intends to enter into or recklessly enters into or causes the entry into a transaction that avoids, prevents or significantly reduces the recovery of employee entitlements. The second point goes to civil penalty proceedings for when a person knows or it was reasonable for the person to know a transaction is likely to avoid, prevent or significantly reduce the recovery of employee entitlements. Point 3 goes to civil compensation proceedings to allow the liquidator or potentially the tax office, Fair Work or even the department to seek compensation for the loss or damage suffered as a result of a contravention of the civil penalty provision. These are sensible reforms. They are sensible reforms that will help protect countless workers who have been let down by a system that still lacks proper protections that are so, so desperately needed.
I'd love to commend the government for bringing these reforms forward, but I do have to note that the bill hasn't come from a new-found support for working people. No, not at all. The primary motivation of the government in raising this bill is to reduce the fiscal cost to the Commonwealth of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee rather than any true commitment to protecting workers and their entitlements. While looking to the budget is certainly not a bad thing—I'm not saying it is—it's disappointing to know that the Liberal-National Party haven't changed their tune and aren't now advocating for workers.
The memorandum that accompanies this bill notes that the average annual costs under the current FEG scheme have more than tripled from $70.7 million in the four-year period between 1 July 2005 and 30 June 2009 to $235.3 million in the four-year period from 2014 to 2018. That is a huge rise—an absolutely huge rise. This sharp rise in costs can be attributed to a small number of corporations shifting the liability of paying out employee entitlements onto the FEG rather than paying them out as they should.
One such operation was the ill-fated Queensland Nickel, to which the Queensland businessman Clive Palmer has strong ties. I note that the member for Herbert is here in the chamber now. I would suggest that, if I sat down right now and allowed the member for Herbert to have my remaining 3½ minutes and all of the rest of the speaking spots, the member for Herbert could tell you some stories about Queensland Nickel and about the workers who are still suffering in Townsville. I would suggest that she could probably finish the night off, if we allowed her to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): She can take an intervention if she likes.
Ms LAMB: But I find it rather galling that, while many Queensland Nickel workers—I join with the member for Herbert and I would back, 100 per cent, everything she would be able to tell us about those workers in Townsville—still haven't had their entitlements paid out, Mr Palmer is throwing huge buckets of cash at advertising companies to get his face above every road in Australia. If you put on the radio, all you hear is Clive Palmer. If I put on Sky TV in my office, all I hear is Clive Palmer. Well, I'll tell you what: what we want to hear is these workers in Herbert who haven't had their entitlements.
I support this bill. Don't get me wrong; I support this bill. As a member of the party that has always stood up for working people, for bringing fairness into the industrial relations system, I will always support legislation that brings the system a little bit closer to an even playing field, which can quite often just seem like a fanciful pipedream.
The LNP have never fought for working people. It's not in their DNA. They don't even know how. I'm going to be honest: they don't know how. They're more into cutting workers' rights. At the moment, after months of turmoil, they are dysfunctional. They are divided. But there's one thing that does unite them, and that's attacking workers' rights. Under this government, wages have remained stagnant. You can't argue about that. Underemployment is shockingly high. The exploitation of workers is all too common, and work is increasingly insecure.
I'll tell you what: you don't have to go very far in my electorate to hear these stories. Go on a Tuesday night or a Saturday to Caboolture Community Action. Go and hear the stories there about the people and about underemployment. They're turning up there for a meal. No, they're not unemployed; they're underemployed. There's enough money to pay the rent and put a bit of fuel in the car, but that's it. They're underemployed.
This is what's happening under this government. Great community groups like Caboolture Community Action are picking up the pieces where this government is letting people down. It is letting them down. When you cut their take-home pay, when you force them into insecure work, when they can't get the hours that they need to raise their families, this is what happens.
Nonetheless, these reforms are a step in the right direction. They certainly aren't all that is needed, of course. We know there's only one way to get every reform that working people in this country need, and that is: we need a Labor government.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (18:59): This bill, the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018, goes to a very, very important issue, and that is: what happens to working people when the firm they work for goes belly up and there is an insolvency. As you know, Deputy Speaker Howarth, what happens under the Corporations Act is that employees are ranked ahead of all other unsecured creditors for the distribution of remaining moneys of the corporation, but they are ranked behind all of the secured creditors. So if a bank or another lender has a mortgage or a charge over the assets of the company that is going into liquidation then that bank or other lender gets priority ahead of the employees and also ahead of other unsecured creditors, like some small businesses that might have been contracting to the corporation.
So it is very important to say: what happens to those working people in the event that the company they work for goes broke? Often, they might see a few signs along the way. Maybe the pay has been late coming in. Maybe they didn't get paid for a week that they were supposed to and are having to argue with the company about underpayment of wages. It can be quite gradual. But sometimes it's just all of a sudden—the boss walks in and says: 'I'm sorry. The company has gone broke and we're going to have to wind up.' In that situation, once the bank gets their cut and once the other secured creditors get their cut, then sometimes there can be just nothing left over for the employees. And that's terrible. You've just lost your job; you may not even have got your last pay, so you are owed that; and then you are owed your annual leave, your long service leave and the other entitlements that you might get paid out on termination, such as payment in lieu of notice, but the company itself is out of money.
That's why this scheme matters to working people, because this is a scheme of last resort. It's a scheme that says, 'All right, if the company has gone bust, working people then end up getting at least some of their entitlements covered by public funds.' In other words, the failure of the firm to make provision for the working people that it employs then gets socialised into a loss that the entire Australian public bears. Obviously, I think it would be preferable if firms could make continuous provision for their employees' entitlements and we wouldn't be asked as a nation to pay entitlements that should be paid by the firm. But of course it's not a perfect world, and there are situations where firms are going to go broke.
This situation, though, that I've described, where a business goes broke, the bank or the other secured creditors get their cut and then there is nothing or only a tiny fraction left over for the employees, really is all too common in Australia. I know that, recently, the government pursued measures to make the insolvent trading provisions less strict, and the argument for that was an argument that had been supported by the Productivity Commission, which said that, if you could give directors less risk, then they could do more to trade out of trouble and the benefit for everyone would be that the company would still exist and the employees would still have their jobs. I was very pleased to support some sort of safe harbour to allow that to happen, but what the government did and what the government created went further than the recommendation of the Productivity Commission report in relation to a safe harbour. It was a more extensive provision. Labor raised concerns about that, at the time, in the Senate, but, ultimately, the provision was passed, and we have a situation now where there has been an erosion or reduction in the strictness of the insolvent trading provisions.
What that means, of course, is that the risk, when it gets taken off the shoulders of directors, has to fall somewhere else, and, in a regime where there are employees and other unsecured contractors or creditors—it might be a small cleaning firm, for example, that isn't a secured creditor but is a bit out of pocket because it gets paid in arrears—the risk is now, in part, falling onto them. That makes it even more important that the people whose only source of income is the employer for whom they work have some form of protection.
So I welcome the strengthening of this scheme. It is important that people are not left destitute when they lose their job. It might be the failure to pay redundancy pay. It might be the failure to pay notice. It might be the failure to pay annual leave or long service leave. If you've just lost your job and maybe didn't get your last pay either, a lot of people in that situation are in incredibly dire straits. They've got to turn to unemployment benefits, and then they've got to think about what they can possibly do to get the money that they are lawfully entitled to but which they haven't received. That is why this scheme is important, as I say.
I do welcome some of the changes in this bill that the government is bringing in. They're part of the announcements that we made, the policy that we had, in relation to looking at cracking down on phoenixing behaviour—phoenixing, of course, being the deliberate misuse of the corporate form to avoid your obligations to employees and other creditors. But this goes beyond phoenixing because it goes into situations where firms might have had the best of intentions but ended up going broke for whatever reason. This is important to those firms. A lot of those firms see their employees as family. They don't want to do the wrong thing by them, but sometimes, even with the best of intentions, you go broke. So this is important in that situation as well.
I think it is very sensible to change the provision about arrangements aimed at avoiding paying entitlements—to move from being one solely resting on intent and moving to recklessness. This is the phoenixing situation where you make an arrangement to avoid entitlements. I always thought that the requirement to demonstrate intent was pretty tough, as, obviously, you're trying to bring a case about what was in the mind of the people leading the corporation. The new threshold of recklessness will make it more workable. So I congratulate the government on doing that.
I do worry, though, about a point that has been made by some of the other speakers in this debate around who will have standing to bring a proceeding under the existing provision or who will have standing to seek compensation under the new civil provisions that are being inserted by this bill. As I understand the bill, the people who will have standing are some regulators and the employee themselves. But what's missing from that is the employee's union. As an employee, if you've just lost your job and maybe haven't got your last pay, haven't got your redundancy, haven't got your notice, haven't got your annual leave and haven't got your long service leave and you don't have savings, as a lot of people don't—a lot of people are living week to week—you're in no position to personally bring legal proceedings to enforce your rights to seek compensation. You are just not going to be able to afford to do that. That means that, unless the union has the standing, you have to rely on the regulator.
Even the best regulators in the world don't have unlimited funds. It's our job in this place to give them the right level of funding but we can never give them unlimited funding. So there'll always be priorities when it comes to regulators. We shouldn't as a nation expect working people to have to rely on the goodwill of regulators or the willingness of regulators to bring proceedings and we also shouldn't want to spend our nation's money on regulators having to do everything when there is a body of people out there who have the capacity to do it—in terms of ability and their specialist knowledge—but not the right.
One way to do this is to allow unions to bring these proceedings. You might ask, quite reasonably, why the union wouldn't just represent the worker, with the worker bringing the proceeding themselves. It is because a lot of people in unions who would do this sort of work are not necessarily lawyers who'd be able to represent a person in that way. But the unions themselves have rights of appearance in the Federal Circuit under the legislation. So, if they were able to do it, that would be a win-win. It would be a win-win-win, really. It would be a win for the public, because public funds wouldn’t be expended on the bringing of proceedings; it would be a win for the worker, because they would be represented rather than having to self-represent or shell out for a private lawyer at a time when they've just lost their job and haven't had their entitlements to paid; and, frankly, it would be a win for the court. The Federal Circuit Court already has a lot of self-represented litigants, and that slows down the administration of justice. The court wants to make sure that the litigant gets a fair go, but of course the person rolling up to court for maybe the first time ever doesn't know how it works. You are not going to know how it works in a court if you've never been to a court and suddenly you're in this situation where, through no fault of your own, the firm you've worked for, perhaps for a long time, has gone belly-up.
So it would make sense to allow registered organisations, trade unions who represent working people in commissions and courts all the time and have recognised rights under the law to appear in the relevant courts, to bear the cost of bringing these proceedings—to spend the money on doing it through their expertise that they've already developed in industrial law and related legal issues through representing people in tribunals and commissions for years. It would certainly make sense for the working person themselves, instead of having to find the money for a private lawyer or instead of having to turn up and run the race in a really unfamiliar and alien scenario with an overworked judge who has 300 cases on their docket—and they might range from migration, to bankruptcy, to human rights, to industrial relations, to family law. Rather than having to turn up to see a judge who is already overworked and who is then trying to help them to make sure that they get access to justice in a meaningful way, it would just make sense to allow workers to combine together, put their money towards an organisation that will be able to represent them and allow that organisation to do what it's meant to do, which is to represent those people. I do think that is an omission in this bill. I don't think this is an ideological question. It doesn't go to the questions of unions going on strike, unions' bargaining rights or any of that. It just goes to the question of what would be the most efficient way of ensuring that the people on whom you are conferring rights can actually exercise those rights? There is no point having a right that you can't enforce. You can have all the rights in the world, but if we don't have the capacity to enforce them then they're meaningless.
This law shouldn't be meaningless; this law should help people in their darkest hour, when they have lost their job. It is terrifying to lose your job. It's terrifying when you boss comes in and says, 'I'm really sorry. This firm does not exist anymore. I'm shutting the company down. I know you've worked really hard. It's devastating for me. I see you as my family, but I have to shut it down. We've gone broke.' That is a terrible time in your life, whether you're the boss or whether you're the worker. To have a situation where there are some rights that could be exercised if only there was the ability to exercise them, but the law just leaves it a little bit short, would be incredibly frustrating. That could be fixed in a fairly straightforward manner.
Most of these provisions in this bill will really go some way to improving this scheme. It is, in my view, quite sensible to think about other ways in which we can ensure that the loss that arises when a business goes broke is fairly attributed so that people fairly carry the burden of that loss. I think there are legitimate questions about the extent to which employers should bear the loss, employees should bear the loss, small creditors should bear the loss, banks should bear the loss and, for our purposes, the public should bear the loss. This scheme is really an admission that, despite the best of intentions, there will still be situations where the loss falls on the public to ensure that people are not ripped off when a business goes broke.
Some of that is about dealing with phoenixing. Some of it is about dealing with insolvency generally. All of it is about making sure that people are not left out of pocket, with their entitlements ripped away, in a situation that is completely outside of their control and outside of their responsibility. They may have been an absolutely model employee and yet they find themselves in a situation where they are without a job—and for various reasons, of course. Maybe it was technological disruption that sent the company broke, maybe it was poor management that sent the company broke or maybe it was deliberate phoenixing to rip people off that sent the company broke. I believe that we would all agree that's the minority of corporate insolvencies in this country, but we also can't ignore that it happens.
There is a very strong bipartisan view that we need to do more on phoenixing. We've been critical about some of the delays from the government in responding to the issue of phoenixing. We've called for measures like this one for some time and other similar measures, like the director identification number. The director identification number is incredibly important to make sure that people can't just have different records on the ASIC database and get around the law through administrative means. I believe that everyone in this place would like to see an end to deliberate phoenixing, deliberate rorts, deliberate rip-offs and deliberately ripping off the people who are employed, the small cleaning contractor, the small security firm or whoever has provided services on a payment-in-arrears basis.
It's also about that much broader perspective of looking at a situation where we have an economy in which, quite rightly, we seek to remove the barriers to new businesses starting. We don't want to have anticompetitive rules and regulations in place that make it harder to start a business or make it harder to run a business. But the quid pro quo of that is the issue of corporate insolvency, including small business corporate insolvency, and where the loss and the risk falls as a consequence of that corporate insolvency. That's something that we have to keep addressing in making sure we protect the most vulnerable.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (19:14): I rise to make a contribution on the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018. From the outset, I support the amendment moved by the shadow minister. Having said that, I find much of this bill contains sensible reforms to the Corporations Act, particularly the measures to deter and punish companies and directors who deliberately avoid the liability for their employees' entitlements, shifting liability to the Commonwealth and through the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. We support that because Labor introduced the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme and Labor will always fight to make sure that we protect the integrity of employees' entitlements. So we will protect this scheme.
There are two essential facts to this. Firstly, back in 2012 we passed the Fair Entitlements Guarantee legislation. It was the strongest protection of workers' rights ever seen in this country to guard against companies that lose market share and go bust or that, alternatively, by design, move their assets and become liquidated to rise in another entity but free of having to maintain the entitlements of the original employees that regrettably lost their jobs. So that's why this occurred. Secondly, in 2014 it was this government that attempted to abolish the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme. So it shows that they had no real compassion for employees. I understand the statistics to be that something like 20,000 companies fell under this scenario. It's not all that long ago—2014—that they were going to remove this safety net.
You have to ask: why the change of heart? I am glad to see a bill come before us on which I think the government has a reasonable agenda—that is, to ensure that employees' entitlements are being honoured. But what is the primary motivation for it? I think it gets down to cold hard cash. I suspect the primary motivation is the reduction in fiscal costs to the Commonwealth. Liabilities could accrue to the Commonwealth resulting in them having to pay out as opposed to chasing and then forcing dodgy employers to pay the entitlements that employees are due.
I note the explanatory memorandum to this bill talks about the annual costs involved under the FEG scheme. Since 2009, annual costs under this scheme have more than tripled. In the four years to 30 June 2009, the cost was $70.7 million. In the four years to June 2018, the cost increased to $235.3 million. That's a very significant cut to the government's bottom line. There's a motivation there as to why we should not simply sit back when we know there is a prospect that, with a few amendments, we can force employers to pay the appropriate entitlements to employees. Regardless of the motivation, this bill is, nevertheless, protecting the safety net.
The Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme was designed to be a safety net. It wasn't there to simply pay the entitlements for everybody. Employees' entitlements are the responsibility of the employer. It is to ensure that, for whatever reason a company goes bust, employees are paid in a timely manner and without having to wait for a very long, drawn-out legal process to able to access their entitlements. I think it's probably common ground in this place that, where a firm does go bust for whatever reason, which is always a tragedy—but apart from the tragedy of the firm going under—there are all those people who lose their jobs and all those people who lose their future employment prospects. But, where all those people lose their superannuation, lose their accrued leave and lose unpaid wages, that becomes very, very different.
Within my family, we've been through some of this. One of my sons is a builder. When he was a lot younger, he worked with a very small company. I don't know what the reasons were, but the work dried up. They closed the company down, but there was no money to pay my son. His entitlement was a second-hand drop saw. He left there with nothing in his bank account and nothing to pay for his vehicle or anything like that. He carries a second-hand drop saw because the employer told him that there was no money left. That was certainly before the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme, but it shows that these things aren't new. It's been happening for some time. There are people who will restructure their finances and do things like this—or, alternatively, it could be quite legitimate. But, nevertheless, employees can lose out. I would imagine that there would be people on the other side of the House who would probably have a similar experience to that.
There are very clear positives in the provisions of this bill and the way it streamlines and improves the way it acts as a safety net. Part 1 of schedule 1 of the bill amends the act to strengthen the enforcement and recovery options so as to deter and penalise company directors and other persons who engage in or facilitate the transactions that are aimed at preventing or significantly reducing the employer's liability for employees' entitlements in insolvency. What it does is it extends the fault element requirement to initiate criminal proceedings under the act to include 'recklessness' and a significant increasing of the penalties applicable for the entering into arrangements to avoid paying employees' entitlements. It also introduces new civil penalty provisions for avoiding paying employee entitlements, with the objective of the reasonable-person test. I think that, for many, that would be quite significant. But it also extends the standing of parties who can commence compensation proceedings to recoup moneys paid out via the Fair Entitlements Guarantee to the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Jobs and Small Business.
As the member for Griffith only just recently said, this bill could be improved by extending it further to incorporate registered organisations, principally trade unions. When you think about it, there are many occupations that are covered by the trade union movement. People of their own volition decide to join a union for one reason—for protection. Unions don't exist under our Constitution. Unions only exist to fulfil a need, and that is the need to protect employees. That's why the unions should have actually been included in this. Expecting unions to recover unpaid wages and expecting unions to chase unpaid entitlements would ordinarily be regarded as the bread and butter of the trade union movement—looking after workers. So you have to ask: why would the government purposefully sideline trade unions? There's got to be a reason for it. You'd have to think it goes something along the lines that they have a very clear view when it comes to the trade union movement. They despise the trade union movement. I don't know why.
The only union I've heard mentioned in this place for some time is the CFMMEU—I hope I got all those letters right! But for all the registered trade unions in this country who do good work looking after their members and ensuring that their members are in safe working conditions and safe environments, I just haven't heard this government yet say one good word—not about the trade union movement let alone individual unions in the trade union movement. That's unless you call the National Farmers' Federation a trade union. I suppose it's a registered organisation. I have heard the government mention the National Farmers' Federation occasionally. But their prejudice about the trade union movement is just taking the debate too far when it comes to protection of entitlements, because they know this is what trade unions do. They are in existence to look after workers.
The fact that the government want to try to sideline unions quite frankly leads one to ask, 'Why would you do that?' But, as I remind my colleagues, you shouldn't get too inquiring about this, because we are talking about those opposite, who are the party of Work Choices. I was around when the conservative government of the day introduced Work Choices. It had such an impact throughout the community. The reason why was that Work Choices made it legal for the first time in Australian history to be able to pay people below the award rates of pay. So that's what it's all about. It's no wonder there was such a revolt against the Howard government in 2007 about these things, because people started to understand that people could be paid less than the award rate of pay. It may not have affected the mums and dads out there who had solid jobs or professionals, but the ones who approached me were the parents and the grandparents worried about kids coming up into such a workforce. They did not like to see the government use an anti-union piece of legislation that could impact adversely on their kids and grandchildren.
This bill, as I said at the start, I think actually goes some distance to try to streamline the provisions that allow for the recovery of unpaid entitlements so they're not coming out of the Commonwealth coffers. It is ensuring that the companies that are directly responsible are the ones that are held liable . Even if they enter into arrangements and become liquidated, it also makes it allowable to chase those directors—effectively to follow the money—to see where the assets went and to go after any other entity that benefited from the exchange of assets. They can, too, be held liable in proceedings for the unpaid entitlements for their employees. That is pretty significant when you think that, at this stage, something like 20,000 companies fall under this scenario.
We want people in business to act honestly and with integrity, as we do employees who work for businesses. This should not be something that we need to be focusing on, but it is a reality. It is something that has occurred and is occurring with a fair degree of repetition. But we should ensure that we do everything we can to discourage this form of objectionable behaviour at a corporate level.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ) (19:29): It being almost 7.30, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Crimes Against Wildlife
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (19:29): I rise to raise my voice once again regarding concerns about incidents of brutality against wildlife in Victoria—in Australia—and also overseas. Last month, I gave a speech in parliament in relation to banning domestic trade in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horns in Australia. This important issue is one that I have brought to the attention of the House before due to Donalea Patman, the director of Love of Wildlife. I'm indebted to her for her advice and information about the problem. Cruelty to animals is unacceptable. When it's iconic wildlife, it's totally reprehensible, whether it's occurring in Australia or, as I said, overseas.
I first of all thank Donalea Patman for the great work she's done. We've worked closely together to ban the importation of any lion parts. This has stopped Australians from going overseas, getting their hunt trophies and coming back in, so congratulations, Donalea, for the work you've done. When it comes to rhino and elephant ivory, we're working again. A great report has been tabled under the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. I thank the chair, Craig Kelly. We hope this is on the COAG agenda in December this year.
I'm very keen to work with the environment minister, Melissa Price, when it comes to the killing of and cruelty to Australian wildlife to ensure we have consistent national laws. We need to increase the maximum jail term of up to seven years for animal cruelty, particularly against wildlife. The state and territory governments should increase penalties and fines after the killing of more than 400 wedge-tailed eagles and the targeting and running down of emus by a man in a four-wheel drive vehicle. Bringing penalties in line with public expectation would give police access to phone interception and listening devices to assist with the investigations on acts of cruelty and, in particular, wildlife smuggling. Wildlife smuggling is a big business for organised crime.
Offences for the killing of native wildlife differ greatly across the states and territories: a fine of $7,928.50 and six months imprisonment in Victoria; one year in jail in the Northern Territory; and in Queensland the fine is up to $50,000. Unfortunately, the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—the EPBC Act—does not apply to wedge-tailed eagles, except the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle, which is listed as an endangered species for the purpose of the EPBC Act. Killing or injuring a member of a listed threatened species on a Commonwealth area is a federal offence, with an applicable penalty of imprisonment for two years, or $210,000, but, again, the penalty is far too low. Also, there is a fine of $105,000 for a strict liability offence—that is, without having to establish a fault element, such as a person intending to do the offence or being reckless and offending. Again, this is only relevant to the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle. Other species of eagle are not listed as threatened species and do not fall under the scope of federal laws.
It appears unlikely that telecommunication intercept acts could be used to investigate wildlife crimes. The issuing of interception warrants are regulated by the federal Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. This allows authorised state and territory agencies and relevant state and territory police to apply for two types of interception warrants: a telecommunications service warrant, which allows an agency to intercept communications made to or from a particular telecommunication service, or a named person warrant, which allows an agency to intercept communications made to or from any telecommunications service.
This is a very important issue in my electorate of La Trobe and right around Australia. People hate seeing our native wildlife brutally killed, for fun or even because some believe they are a pest. We do need national laws. We need to have stronger laws, have a consistent approach and put our wildlife first. I think that's something Australians expect.
Climate Change
Ms KEARNEY (Batman) (19:35): I rise today to speak on the disaster that is this government's climate change policy. While the rest of the world has accepted that we are experiencing a climate emergency, including those in the electorate of Wentworth, it's clear that this is not a priority for the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Those who sit opposite are collectively burying their heads in the sand, with no desire or political courage to start to repair the damage that global warming is inflicting on our planet.
Just two weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a multinational panel comprised of the world's top climate and environmental scientists, released a report on the impacts of global warming. The report calls for drastic action to reverse global warming. It warns of current and further damage to coral reefs and warns there will be more extreme hot days and more extreme droughts. The IPCC also warns of the consequences of climate related risks to our health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and, of course, economic growth. This change will disproportionately affect people living in the developing world and the Pacific. The IPCC is not some radical body. International bodies like the IPCC are, by their nature, more likely to be conservative because of the consensus required from a vastly diverse membership—and still the warnings are stark. The earth is already too hot, and urgent action is required now if we are going to even begin to mitigate the already devastating effects of climate change.
And what was our government's response? It was to dismiss it entirely. The Prime Minister just called this 'some sort of report. The responsible minister referred to it as 'just an opinion'. When the former Prime Minister, the former member for Wentworth, who was once strident in his belief in combating climate change, delivered his budget this year, there was zero dollars to combat climate change and address the climate emergency-zero dollars. Their lack of will to act on climate change demonstrates their complete disregard for the future of our planet, for our people and for our neighbours. They place all Australians at risk of serious climate events growing irreversibly disastrous. On this issue they are reckless. Even the IPCC report places our earth on a disastrous trajectory towards irreversible temperature rises, drought and natural disasters. We need a whole-of-economy response and we need to start now.
Many countries are stepping up to the plate, but Australia has fallen behind the rest of the world as our international counterparts move their economies into renewable energy and a more sustainable future. This doesn't happen magically. It requires leadership and a plan—a plan that will reverse global warming as fast as possible, start cooling the planet and start protecting our environment. The government, sadly, has no plan. With certainty instead of chaos, we could be encouraging clean energy production, sustainable industries, and investment in jobs and the growing renewable economy. We could be taking measures to cool the rising temperatures and stop further rises. We could be preparing affected communities for a just transition.
Labor have a plan to tackle climate change, to transition our economy, and to support communities and our environments. We will ensure that no worker is left behind, ensuring a just transition for Australian communities that rely on polluting industries. Our plan is comprehensive, it's ambitious and it's achievable. Our plan is to act immediately. We must tackle the complexities of climate change and give policy certainty to clean energy investors craving opportunities to set up in Australia. Only a party that can form government and appreciate complexity will be able to build a policy framework that foresees the future for vulnerable industries, with expert analysis, time lines and dedicated financial resources. I know this will be a priority for Labor if we have the opportunity to form government. Labor's targets for renewables and emissions cuts are not absolute; they are targets and, with fast action, could be surpassed.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the wonderful climate activists in my electorate of Batman, soon to be Cooper. They work so hard to keep the truth alive and to keep the emergency foremost, to call for fast political change and to save the future for all of us. I say thanks to the groups who care for our creeks, the #StopAdani activists, the forestry groups, our Future of Waste teams, our solar campaigners, the local Climate and Health Alliance folk, DCAN and everyone who cares enough to help me. I'd particularly like to acknowledge Jane Morton, along with Helen Kwiecien, Susan Dwyer, Amaryll Perlesz, Libby Muir and Katherine Barraclough. Your work is absolutely vital to this very important issue.
Bibi, Ms Asia
Pakistan: Human Rights
International Development Assistance
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (19:40): Tonight I wish to raise again in this House the case of Asia Bibi, a 53-year-old Christian woman who since 2010 has been facing death row in Pakistan. Her crime? She's alleged to have committed blasphemy. Indeed, in 2010, Asia Bibi was accused by two Muslim women of having polluted a cup of water by drinking from it, and she has since spent eight years in jail, away from her five children. Earlier this month, Ms Bibi had her appeal heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and she is now waiting indefinitely for a verdict. Many international onlookers stand by Asia Bibi and see her plight as a symbol of suffering in the face of terrible intolerance and injustice.
The imminent decision provides both a challenge and an opportunity for the people of Pakistan at a time when fundamentalists continue to exert pressure. The blasphemy laws in question were introduced in 1987, and it's estimated that Pakistan prosecuted fewer than 10 people for blasphemy in the four decades before the passage of these laws. In the three decades after, that number has skyrocketed to 1,500. These laws have also been interpreted to in effect impose an apostasy law, which can result in a death penalty for Muslims whose choose to convert religion or become an atheist.
In 2011, a bodyguard murdered Punjab Governor Salman Taseer for visiting Asia Bibi in prison and for calling these blasphemy laws a 'black law', prone to abuse. There's a growing concern that these laws are becoming a tool to target minority groups. Indeed, two months after that event, gunmen killed Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian politician who also opposed the law. The leader of the TLP, an Islamic fundamentalist party started three years ago, hails the murderer of Mr Taseer as a martyr and has called for all blasphemers to be killed.
However, these are not matters just unique to these individuals. During the general election campaign in the middle of this year, the now Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, vowed to defend these blasphemy laws. He claimed that the death penalty for blasphemy helps maintain peace in society.
Whilst many pundits and commentators around the world offer sympathy to Asia Bibi and those in her situation, the time for vain platitudes is over. This year Australia is going to spend over $40 million in direct foreign aid to the government of Pakistan. When Australia supports foreign aid, as it does, it has a number of objectives in mind, one of them being 'supporting stabilisation and resilience'. A program overview says that supporting 'Pakistan's stability is critical to economic growth and human development'.
If this objective is ever fully to be realised, our support must be contingent on countries like Pakistan ensuring that they don't violate these most basic of human rights. The people of Australia expect aid to reach those people in need, not to prop up extreme regimes, and no person requires more assistance than those who are prevented from access to the most basic of human rights: thought and life.
In Australia, we are so fortunate to live in a society of opportunity, fairness and justice. We have a legal system that ensures a fair trial, and a political system that gives a voice to minorities. We have a country where people can walk down the road to their church, synagogue or mosque without fear of imprisonment or death. So some might ask: why would an Australian politician come to Canberra and speak up about these issues? It is because one of the last members of the government in Pakistan to speak out against the injustice for Asia Bibi was killed. This is not an option to those politicians in Pakistan. Australia and countries like it which provide generous assistance to countries like Pakistan have an ability to speak up and must speak up.
My point is: Pakistan can and should seek to benefit financially as a global citizen, but it must do it by stamping out terror and abuse of its own citizens. Holding a belief is not a crime. A regime killing people for an alternative belief is.
Tasmania: Health Care
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (19:45): Tasmania's health system is in crisis. We have elective surgery waiting lists blowing out day after day. People are waiting in pain in our emergency departments. The Royal Hobart Hospital has triggered the highest level of internal emergency alert it can, level 3, which means a severe effect on flow activity, yet the Tasmanian state government and this Liberal coalition government are doing absolutely nothing to stem the flow of hurt and pain that the system is causing Tasmanians.
And it keeps going on. From 1 November this government will be turning on the discrimination tap and denying older Australians Medicare rebates for GP-ordered knee MRIs. It is a measure that was introduced by the Prime Minister in his last budget as Treasurer. People living in regional areas, like my electorate of Braddon, will be forced either to wait in pain for an MRI until the next available appointment with a visiting specialist or travel long distances at their own cost to get an appointment. These people now face the expense of not one but two expensive specialist visits, one to get the referral for an MRI and the other to have the results reviewed. That is instead of having a GP order and review the scan. This costs Medicare many hundreds of dollars and costs the patient around $100 out of pocket for each specialist visit. While other medical specialists will be able to order knee MRIs, the Prime Minister's Medicare freeze has driven the average fee to see a specialist up to $85, and much more in many cases. The fee for an MRI sits at around $400 to $500.
How is it fair that a 49-year-old can get a rebate but a 50-year-old can't? How is it fair that this ageist, discriminatory rationing system will affect around 80,000 Australians a year aged over 50? In my electorate I represent an ageing population, many of whom, like millions of Australians, do everything they can to keep fit as they get older. It is completely contradictory that we're constantly encouraging older Australians to stay healthy while at the same time making access to critical health care harder and more expensive for them. It just doesn't make sense.
You could be forgiven for thinking that there would be no more important priority for any government than the health and wellbeing of its people, yet here is a government that is actively discouraging people from looking after their health, because of the associated costs. Making people pay specialist fees just to get a knee MRI so they can stay healthy is like an ageing tax for the over 50s. It isn't right. That is, of course, unless you're a sports star earning a six-figure salary, because, despite the push by this government to claw back costs, the provision remains open if you're over 50 and have had kicked a few balls in your time.
We know that under this government Medicare will never be safe. We know that under this government our health system will never be safe. And now we know that under this government our older Australians' health will never be safe. The coalition government axed TAZREACH in 2016, resulting in people from the far reaches of my electorate—places like King Island, Circular Head and the west coast—being forced to travel five-plus hours to urban centres like Hobart, or even interstate, to medical appointments. The program was the difference between someone getting the care they needed or missing out. And here we are again staring down the barrel of this coalition's discriminatory health policy, watching as those opposite continue to hurt those who can least afford it.
A Labor government will restore the funding to TAZREACH and invest a further $30 million in reducing Tasmania's elective surgery waiting list. Labor believes that supporting medical specialists' visits to regional and remote areas of Australia, including those of digital imaging specialists, will save people in these communities stress, time and the cost of travel and ensure that they get the health care they need. Providing a functional health system is what a good government does for its citizens.
Does this government even have an alternative plan to ensure timely and affordable access to knee MRIs for those over 50? The government must come clean about what it has done with the $190 million in savings it's made from this policy cut and other changes. Until it does, Australians will rightly suspect that this is just another cut to health from the same government that introduced the GP tax, the Medicare freeze and the $715 million in cuts to public hospitals. This is just another hit in the guts to those Tasmanians who are waiting on the elective surgery waiting list, waiting for specialist appointments and waiting in our emergency departments, as Tasmania's health system is in a deep, deep crisis.
Queensland: Health Care
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (19:50): It's interesting that the topic I'm speaking on tonight is health as well, but I'm going to talk about health in Queensland. There is only one government in Queensland that's cutting health funding, and that's the state Labor government. I want to talk about the great work we're doing for Queensland in the health space and in my electorate of Forde, but also to highlight for the House what the state government in Queensland is doing to rip money out of the health system.
Our government has increased public hospital funding to the Metro South hospital network in my electorate of some $83.4 million, but, in that time, the Queensland Labor government has hit Metro South, cutting $39 million of state funding last year. Once again, we see the state Labor government pointing fingers and passing blame but not actually taking any responsibility for their actions.
This comes just a month or so after Queensland health minister Steven Miles's and the state government's $500,000 plan to rename the Lady Cilento to Queensland Children's Hospital, while, at the same time, interestingly, stripping funds from children's health. They are prioritising the rebrand while slashing more than $10 million from Queensland Children's Hospital, which treats some of the sickest children in Queensland. It is just another example of the shortcomings of Labor in government. The health minister's funding woes—in fairness to him—are the products of his Labor government's disastrous mismanagement. From the swingeing cuts to our local hospitals, it is clear that state Labor does not have the health needs of the people in my electorate of Forde at heart.
Funding data released last week by the independent National Health Funding Body shows the state Labor government cut a total of $49.6 million out of public health spending between the 2016-17 and 2017-18 financial years. The result is that federal funding, which is allocated based on treatments provided to patients, increased for every service in the state, but state government funding was reduced for six services across the state.
The impact of these cuts is already being felt in my community of Forde, sadly, by those on the lowest incomes, by parents supporting sick children and by new mothers and babies. The most vulnerable members of our society, those who are most in need of our support, are being short-changed. Local services, which are there to keep our children well and out of hospital, are being slashed at every opportunity across the state. The Queensland government has scrapped funding, putting unnecessary financial stress on our local hospitals, which are trying to do their best every day to deliver life-saving care for our communities.
In that regard, I would like to acknowledge the tremendous work done by the nurses, the doctors, the administrators, the volunteers and all the auxiliary staff in our hospitals for delivering those services, each and every day, to the best of their ability. But what I can say is that this government is committed to funding public hospitals. The government has offered a new five-year funding agreement, which will deliver $130.2 billion in Commonwealth hospital funding, including $30.2 billion in funding across Australia, delivering millions of dollars of additional hospital services to patients right across the country.
I urge the Queensland Labor government to sign our agreement, which will deliver an additional $7. 4 billion to public hospitals across the state. Understandably, parents whose children are suffering most are disappointed to see the cuts in hospital funding from a state Labor government and the increased cost to patients. Labor's actions are an alarm bell for the future of the financial health of hospitals, and for families across Australia who rely on a strong health system. I urge the Queensland health minister and the government to start prioritising the health of children across Queensland, instead of pouring money down the sink of a hospital rebrand. But I commend this government on the hard work we're doing to ensure we continue to fund a strong and sustainable healthcare system for all Australians.
Immigration Detention
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (19:55): I would like to take this opportunity tonight to respond to the huge amount of correspondence I have received in my electorate office in relation to the situation of the children on Manus and Nauru. I'm sure many other of my colleagues in this chamber will have received similar volumes. It's quite ironic that, on this day when we have spent a lot of time catching up with history and dealing with the heinous situation of children over the decades, with our hearts aching to bursting over their stories, we have a situation right now where we have responsibility for children who are not receiving the attention and support that they need. That's happening now. So, well that we reflected on the situation today, but my constituents are demanding that we take action to resolve this situation.
The amount of information that has come out from respected medical institutions and practitioners and people involved in dealing with these children is now overwhelming. It's at least rung alarm bells that this situation has to be dealt with seriously, and we need independent medical advice and support to resolve it and then deal directly and quickly with these children in these situations. We've had the AMA President, Dr Tony Bartone, writing to us all. We've had Medecins Sans Frontieres making its reports.
We've been concerned about this situation for a long time now. For five years we have seen this situation evolve. It was never meant to be this way. It had been the intention to clear out those people on those two locations in very short order under Labor's plan, and the fact they're still there is really outrageous and a stain on our nation. We initiated a Senate inquiry in 2016 because of the serious allegations of abuse and self-harm and neglect that were emerging from Manus and Nauru, and still none of those recommendations from that report have been implemented.
In the course of the last few years, Labor's been evolving a policy to respond to this problem at heart, so dealing with the situation of establishing offshore processing centres at point of first landing for these people, but also the situation of how we respond to people who are in facilities. Having an independent children's advocate is one of the measures that we have delineated in that suite of policy measures. But we're also concerned now to deal with this situation as a matter of urgency. So we will be putting forward legislation which addresses that need. In particular, we have seen that we have an independent health advice panel that only intermittently deals with these matters. Our proposal would be to have that panel operating full time and presenting regular reports on those issues; to have independent medical advice provided directly to the minister, with the minister being obliged to act on that; and that these reports and the minister's dealings with these matters be transparent and open to the public, with the caveat that privacy issues be protected. We would also prioritise and make a matter of primacy the recommendation of treating clinicians, and the health of the child would be the primary consideration. We want to retain the option for medical transfer to third countries. It's not necessarily the case that Australia has all the medical answers for what situations might exist there, and certainly places like Taiwan and Singapore offer opportunities for that medical treatment.
The situation, quite simply, is this: these are children. If we had a human face to these kids, I do not believe that there would be an Australian in this country that would hesitate for a moment to agree that these children must be removed immediately from this situation. The fact that we can't see their faces is a problem. But it should not, nevertheless, allow us to escape our responsibility for dealing with it and dealing with it now. It's wonderful to speak fine words and recognise the situation that we did today. But we have an opportunity now, and it should not be political. We have the opportunity to work across this chamber in a measured, calm, calculated way to deal with an emergency. I would call on all members of this chamber to raise their voices in their party rooms—as three outstanding members of the Liberal Party have done—and to join with us to produce a solution to this situation that we can hold our heads high about, that we can be proud about. It has to be done now.
House adjourned at 20:00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Wicks) took the chair at 16:04.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Wicks) took the chair at 16:04.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Indigenous Soldiers
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:04): Earlier this year grades 3, 4, 5 and 6 students at St. Bernard's Primary School in Wangaratta read the storybook Alfred's War by Rachel Bin Salleh. It's the story of an Aboriginal World War I veteran who suffered as a result of his experiences in the war and highlights the thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who served Australia during that war.
The students felt strongly enough about the lack of recognition for these veterans that, with the advice of their teacher, Ms Stubberfield, they wrote to me. Ethan wrote:
I think all soldiers should be remembered because of their service, no matter what their race, as long as they help our country.
Milli wrote:
Please try and make Anzac Day more about all the soldiers ... You can mention Aboriginal soldiers in the marches and you can play clapping sticks.
Xavier wrote:
What if an Aboriginal was related to you that fought in the war and wasn't remembered?
Grace wrote:
I didn't know that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders fought in World War I, which tells me that they need to be recognised a lot more.
And Seth wrote:
When it was the Great War, Aboriginals were not remembered at Anzac Day ceremonies.
To all the students at St Bernard's, thank you for caring, thank you for writing to me and thank you most of all for acknowledging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Colleagues, as we gather on the 11th of the 11th a hundred years later, let's remember the service of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander soldiers.
La Trobe Electorate: Cardinia Gujarati Association
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (16:06): Last Saturday I attended an event organised by the Cardinia Gujarati Association in Packenham. It gave me the greatest pleasure to be part of the event, which is a festival of Gujarati folk dance celebrated in Navratri—a celebration lasting nine nights. I was amazed to see how the women and men were performing traditional dances as part of the Navratri celebration in Pakenham. They were dressed in red, pink, yellow and orange—brightly coloured traditional wear. They wore heavy jewellery such as two to three necklaces, sparkling bangles, waist belts and very long earrings. It was a great occasion, even for the children.
I'm thankful to the organisers who took the initiative to organise this kind of event for my La Trobe electorate residents, where all communities can come together regardless of race, colour or religion. I would like to acknowledge the organisers Brijal Parikh, Harpreet Kandra and Siddharth Piolwala for organising the Indian Gujarati community event in order to inculcate and sustain traditional values in the younger generation. I was delighted to be part of this Navratri cultural event, which highlights the Indian Gujarati culture and art to the Cardinia shire region community. Thank you to all the communities for their support throughout this event to make this a very special evening and occasion. Once again, thank you for everything you did that night. It was a fantastic night.
Symonds, Mr Christopher
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (16:07): Lake Michigan in the US is a far cry from the humble Inglis River in my electorate on Tassie's north-west coast, but that's exactly where Wynyard local Chris Symonds made his mark recently, competing in the 2018 Para World Sailing Championships, where he took out the men's single-handed Hansa 303 dinghy class race convincingly and brought home gold and the world champion title. Chris is no stranger to success and has picked up numerous titles over the years in both para events and open competitions, which include predominantly able-bodied competitors.
Chris suffers from Kennedy's disease, a rare and progressive genetic condition which affects mobility and speech—but he doesn't let that hold him back. Once he hits the water, he has proved himself to be a threat to whomever he is racing against. Chris personifies true north-west coast grit and spirit. He is not able to walk 10 metres unaided and has limited strength in all areas of his body due to the effects of Kennedy's disease. But the correct equipment and support network around him mean that he is able to achieve outstanding results. I congratulate Chris and his team on this wonderful result for local sailing and I commend the Wynyard Yacht Club, Chris's home club, for their continued work in making the sport inclusive to people of all abilities. I had a wonderful time last year when I went out with Chris on the water in his special Hansa boat. It is certainly something that I could not compete in.
St John, Emeritus Professor David
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) (16:09): I take this opportunity to recognise a University of Queensland success—Emeritus Professor David St John, who is a local Ryan resident. David has been a mainstay of the materials science and engineering profession not only in Australia but also at an international level. He has been the recipient of many prestigious awards, including the John Campbell Medal, American Society of Metals Henry Marion Howe Medal, Materials Australia Silver Medal and Magnesium Technology Award. This is in addition to his more than 300 publications in journals and conference proceedings.
Professor St John has also made a significant contribution to developing research partnerships with industry and obtaining financial support for research and education facilities. In March 2018, Professor St John was awarded an honorary fellowship with the Defence Materials Technology Centre for his significant meritorious contribution to the centre's goals and objectives. DMTC enhances Australian Defence Force capability and boosts Australian industry capacity through collaborations that are underpinned by Australia's world-renowned research expertise. In March next year there'll be a symposium named in Professor St John's honour at the international TMS2019 conference in Texas. TMS brings together more than 4,000 engineers, scientists, business leaders and other professionals in the minerals, metals and material field. Professor St John is a local Ryan resident and I congratulate him. He's yet another success story from the University of Queensland.
Tasmania: Bureau of Meteorology
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (16:10): It was my privilege to be able to speak to a rally of 150 or so locals about the Bureau of Meteorology's plan to remove local forecasting out of Tasmania. Locals remain very, very concerned about this plan—so concerned, we now have more than 2,600 signatures to our petition to stop local forecasting being moved out of Tasmania. Tasmanian concerns are: if this forecasting is done by computers in Melbourne, what happens when that system fails? Where are the locals? Over the long term, are we going to continue to train and have forecasters based in Hobart?
We are concerned, but it's not just Labor that is concerned. I've had approaches from local farmers, boats, marine, fishers; I have had them from bushwalkers, the local tourism industry, the local small aviation industry. Everybody in Tasmania is very concerned about this. But really concerning is that the firefighters union came out on Friday at the rally to say that even the volunteer fire brigade and the local firies are concerned about it. We had our police commissioner raise concerns. What we're concerned about is that we need locals, with local knowledge, who know Tasmania, who know the types of information we need in Tasmania, to remain local and stay so we have that expertise in our state. We do not want to see local forecasting lost to our state over the long term. This is critically important for Tasmania.
Bennelong Electorate: Granny Smith Festival
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:12): I'm always proud to represent Australia's capital of innovation. Bennelong is home to our most innovative companies and has given the world such innovations as the cochlear implant and wi-fi. But our greatest and most ubiquitous invention is undoubtedly the Granny Smith apple. It was this apple that we celebrated in Eastwood on the weekend at the Granny Smith Festival. This year, tens of thousands from far and wide braved the weather forecast to celebrate 150 years since the apple was first grown and, more importantly, to celebrate our wonderfully vibrant community. And the weather held for most of the day to allow exploration of hundreds of stalls and enjoyment of the extensive performances on three stages which showed the cultural diversity of our corner of the city.
The parade was the longest I've seen in years and I had the joy of travelling with a fellow and his son who had bonded over their vintage Wolseley. The Granny Smith Festival is a highlight of the Bennelong social and cultural calendar and a reminder of the commitment of local people to our community. To walk around the festival is to see the huge diversity and pride of our residents, from shop owners, cultural groups and volunteers who help fellow residents to local service providers. We have a wonderful community, and it's days like this that amplify to us how lucky we all are. Thank you to all involved for this great celebration of our region and who we are.
Booth-McNeill, Ms Tanieka
Oxley Electorate: Darra Street Festival
Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:14): I rise to acknowledge the entrepreneurial spirit of local year 9 student, Tanieka Booth-McNeill, who attends Springfield Central State High School. At the age of 14, she has won valuable mentorship opportunities and a $10,000 prize for her start-up business, Shielded Socks. Her creative business idea is centred around socks for high school students that inspire confidence and help them throughout the day by a colourful and positive message embroidered into the souls of the socks. As reported in the Springfield News, so far she has beaten eight finalists across Brisbane and she won the right to pitch her idea at the Brisbane finals this week by winning her school's shark tank competition in August earlier this year. She was also supported by the wonderful Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce, led by president Neil Coupland, with a backer from the chamber already committing $3,000 to get her socks into the marketplace. The first batch will be ready by the end of the year.
It's also like to take the opportunity to recognise and acknowledge the tireless work and dedication of the Darra Community Group, led by Mr Brad Butcher. They recently held their 15th annual Darra Street Festival for our local community, almost two weeks ago, and I was delighted to help open it. Originally set up as an alternative to the Brisbane Ekka, this signature local event has grown in stature every year. Although the weather may have dampened crowds this year, Brad and his amazing team of volunteers did a terrific job. Congratulations to all involved, and I look forward to attending next year's event, even bigger and better.
Brisbane: Live Music
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (16:15): Last month here I raised my concern that Brisbane's live music scene is under threat. The state government is imposing a one-size-fits-all policy that's killing Brisbane's live music industry and our night-life, which in turn is having a negative impact on our city, economically and culturally. Labor's laws aren't fit for purpose; they're straight from a nanny state playbook. Venues are being pushed to the wall and forced to reduce their opening hours to avoid prohibitive additional costs involved in meeting the requirements, including around the way that mandatory ID scanners are being applied. Overwhelmingly, this is impacting on Brisbane's small businesses as well as musicians, sound engineers, hospitality workers and of course all of the patrons, who just love live music.
I'm pleased to report that hundreds of people have raised their voices on this issue and signed my petition in support of live music in Brisbane. The industry is very willing and trying to be constructive to help guide better policy making, suggesting a commonsense approach that applies differently between large venues, small venues and venues that are set up predominantly for stage and live music. The state government needs to show it can listen and act on these concerns before further opportunities dry up for musicians and patrons. As I've done consistently now, I'll continue to campaign for Brisbane's night-life and the live music industry, which makes such an important contribution to our city.
Hunter Surf Life Saving Club: 100th Anniversary
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (16:17): Today I would like to congratulate the Hunter Surf Life Saving team on the very special milestone of its centenary. One hundred years ago, the First World War had ended and our surf lifesaving club saw a massive expansion as returning soldiers signed up in droves. Newcastle is famous for our coastline and spectacular beaches, and the six surf lifesaving clubs in my electorate have always been central to our community and our lifestyle. I'd like to formally recognise the immense work and contribution of Stockton, Newcastle Nobbys, Cooks Hill, Dixon Park and Merewether surf lifesaving clubs to the Newcastle community and pay tribute to their amazing team of volunteers and the extraordinary work they do, both individually and collectively. Through these clubs, generations of Nippers have been trained, thousands of volunteers have undertaken countless hours of patrolling our shores and, undoubtedly, thousands of lives have been saved. I'd also like to commend the great local initiatives that ensure children with disabilities, refugees and other vulnerable or sometimes socially isolated groups get to enjoy the surf safely. For this and for everything else that the surf lifesavers and surf lifesaving clubs do in our community, I say thank you and I send to you my very best 'Happy 100th birthday' wishes to each and every one of you.
Breast Cancer Network Australia: 20th Anniversary
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (16:18): This year marks the 20th anniversary since the founding of the Breast Cancer Network Australia, the BCNA, and the inaugural tribute, Field of Women, held here in Canberra in 1998. Just last week I was truly honoured and moved to join inspirational BCNA founder, Lyn Swinburne; CEO of BCNA, the wonderful Kirsten Pilatti; board member Raelene Boyle; and many other passionate advocates and supporters of Australian women affected by breast cancer. At the Field of Women anniversary, there was a sea of pink on the lawns of Federation Mall, with Parliament House as a backdrop. It was a poignant and moving tribute to the survivors and the women we've lost.
It is estimated that over 18,000 women each year are met with a diagnosis of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Network Australia have worked since 1998 providing vital information, care, treatment and support to the thousands of women affected by breast cancer. BCNA is a superb organisation with a big heart and a big soul, where particularly the power of women supporting women comes to the fore. As the founding chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Women's Health I'm proud to be a passionate advocate for women's health and the wonderful BCNA and to provide my heartfelt support to all women and their families who are facing the challenge of breast cancer.
International Veterans Art Exhibition
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:20): This week the inaugural International Veterans Art Exhibition is being held alongside the Invictus Games. This exhibition is the result of over 12 months of planning by a dedicated team of volunteers from ex-service organisation the Australian National Veterans Art Museum, ANVAM. I would like to congratulate the co-curator of this exhibition, former New South Wales police officer Jillian Oliver. I was introduced to Jillian by Lieutenant-Colonel Steve Jenkins. Jillian, after losing a hand in an accident as a police officer, taught herself to paint with her left hand as part of her rehabilitation. A print of a painting she drew of a dawn service in Afghanistan is in my office, and I invite members to drop by. I was proud to introduce Jill to ANVAM's founder and head of arts programs, Tanja Johnson, and the two have worked closely on this watershed exhibition ever since. For the first time, veterans of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US along with veterans from Ukraine and Poland are exhibiting their work in a single exhibition. Members and senators will have also received an invitation from me to an ANVAM exhibition of veterans art right here in Parliament House, so please RSVP and come along.
Toowoomba: Floods
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (16:21): Just yesterday afternoon Toowoomba endured another significant storm event, with more than 25 millimetres in less than an hour, high winds, trees and branches down causing some damage, and local flooding as well. Mayor Antonio told me on the phone this morning that he's very happy with the performance of the detention basins and other flood mitigation initiatives throughout our city that have been completed since our tragic 2011 floods that saw the loss of life in our city. This is a stark reminder of the need to complete the final part of the flood mitigation jigsaw puzzle: the east creek, at the Kitchener Street intersection, and west creek, adjacent to the PCYC, upgrades on James Street, part of the Warrego Highway through our city. I lobbied the department before this year's budget. We found savings on those Warrego Highway projects elsewhere to fund these final upgrades. I took the Deputy Prime Minister there in April. He publicly agreed then and just recently that it's a priority. He has since confirmed that the federal and state governments have agreed on the project and are ready to announce. He's waiting on Minister Bailey, the state minister. Minister Bailey says he's waiting on the Deputy Prime Minister. The mayor's in the mix as well. I say enough is enough. I say to all of them: if there are any political games, we need to cut them out and get on with it.
Child Sexual Abuse
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:23): This morning in Parliament House several hundred people from around Australia gathered to listen to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition deliver on behalf of parliament and the nation an apology to the victims of institutional child sex abuse. I was very pleased to have invited amongst them Jennifer Beer, a constituent from the Southern Highlands in my electorate. She was joined by Karen and Caddie Rees, her daughters, and Eva Klima, her granddaughter. Karen and Caddie, her daughters, were both victims of child sex abuse dating back many decades, where they were abused at the hands of their parish priest in Cooma. Caddie was less than three years of age at the time that this abuse occurred. I'm delighted that we're able to offer an apology to Karen, to Caddie and to the thousands and thousands of other victims: 6,875 survivors have had their experiences heard during the royal commission. Many of the survivors said that speaking up about what happened to them was very difficult, not a one-off event. Surprisingly, though, one in 10 of the survivors said speaking at the royal commission was the first time that they had told anyone. Congratulations to all of them. We believe you. We will do all that we can to ensure that we do not create another generation of victims.
Cunningham, Mr Barry Thomas
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:25): Barry Thomas Cunningham was a Labor member for McMillan from 1980 through to 1990 and then 1993 to 1996. He was a friend of mine, a friend of the family and a friend of the community. In his younger days he was a beautiful, beautiful footballer. He should have played for Collingwood, but, coming from a dairy farm family, Dad said, 'Come home. You haven't got time to play with Collingwood. You will play with Nar Nar Goon,' which he did from the age of 14 until he was 38 years of age. And he was also a contractor a farmer himself.
He was more than just a member of parliament. He was one of the new breed of local members who were able to be contacted by their constituency. He was a great fighter for the dairy farmers of his district because he came from a dairy farm. He was a fighter for all that was good about Gippsland. He was the right man for the right time. Of course, I sadly defeated Barry, and it was my role to defeat him in the whirlwind victory of the Howard government in 1996.
We were friends; we remained friends till his death. However, one of the best eulogies I have heard in my life was delivered about Barry by his brother, Jerry. Jerry, I say to you: you honoured your brother, you honoured your family, you honoured the community. Vale Barry Thomas Cunningham.
Iran: Human Rights
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (16:26): Three Iranian Kurds—Ramin Hossein Panahi, Zaniar Moradi and Loghman Moradi—were executed last month at Raja'i Shahr prison in Iran. The government of Iran arrested Zaniar and Loghman for the alleged murder of the son of an imam. In December 2010 Zaniar and Loghman were subsequently brought before the Islamic Revolutionary Court in Tehran, where they were sentenced to death by public hanging in a trial that lasted only 20 minutes. The office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said:
During the trial, they both denied the charges in court and explained that they had confessed to the crimes only due to torture following their initial arrest.
The case of Ramin Hossein Panahi has also been condemned by the UN. The case lasted the less than an hour. Panahi was arrested last June for alleged membership of the Kurdish nationalist group Komala. There have been reports that Panahi had suffered human rights violations before and during the trial, including torture, denial of access to a lawyer and denial of adequate medical care.
Despite the formality of a sentence of capital punishment, the absence of proper due process means the death of these three men can only be described as arbitrary executions—executions that have rocked the Iranian and Kurdish communities in my home state of Victoria, many of whom have fled the oppressive Iranian regime themselves. I call on the Australian government to make representations to the Iranian government, imploring them, pressuring them to ensure all people in Iran are given the right to a fair trial as outlined in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Charitable Fundraising
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:28): As it is an electorate with rural areas, Berowra residents have an intrinsic connection with farmers. That's why our government's response to the drought crisis has been welcomed. With an assistance package of $576 million, we're providing support to community organisations, mental health services, concessional loans and an extended farm household allowance scheme. We've also cut red tape to fast-track transportation of hay and fodder around the country to farmers who need it most.
Berowra locals have made a significant contribution to drought relief. Led by the president, Kathy Bray, and by club executives Paul Rapp, Tony Goode and Rob O'Neil, the Rotary Club of Kenthurst has very active members doing remarkable job of raising funds. A community barbecue organised by Victoria Burakowski $10,000. At the Kenthurst Country Fair, the club raised $8,000, with special mention to Valerie Smith, who kindly donated homemade jam which, along with the raffle and petting zoo, was extremely popular.
Earlier this year I was delighted to attend the West Pennant Hills Rotary Club's trivia night, which raised $7,000 to help drought distressed farmers in the Coonabarabran region. Trivia masters Andrew Little and Max Henderson hosted a wonderful fundraising event, and congratulations to Anne and Colin Sharpe, Rosemary and Rob Clarke, Gino and Roslyn Savio, Andrew and Desley Little, Peter and Julie Cleary and Larissa Marcossi, who made the journey to Coonabarabran to personally present the funds they raised for our farmers.
Finally, my constituents Sreeni Pillamari, President of the United Indian Association, walked from Sydney to Canberra to raise $25,000 for our farmers for drought relief. Congratulations to Berowra residents making a difference.
Broadband
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:29): Feedback is still rolling in about the dismal NBN rollout; and keep it coming, Canberra. I was recently contacted by Ahmed, who lives in Calwell, a suburb that's 14km from where I am standing. His suburb was set to receive fibre-to-the-node technology—that is, except for a small pocket of homes getting the more reliable fibre to the kerb. Ahmed said, 'This is totally unfair. We are being treated differently in the same area.' I contacted NBN Co to ask why and they told me it was 'cost effective'. I went back to them again and asked, 'Why do these houses get a better connection than those down the street? Why do some houses get one connection and some down the street get a different one?' While they were unable to answer, the NBN rollout map was updated and get this—the homes set to receive fibre-to-the-kerb technology have now been downgraded to fibre to the node. Once again, I went back to NBN Co to ask them, 'Why has the technology changed?' Once again, I'm yet to get an answer. When I met with NBN Co last month, I was told—guaranteed—it was going to happen, that all of Canberra would be on the rollout map by Thursday 4 October. Then I was told it would be 18 October. It's now 22 October and parts of Canberra that have some of the worst internet speeds in this country are still not on the map. It's time to prioritise the NBN rollout in Canberra.
Dawson Electorate: Roads
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:31): Stage 1 of the Mackay ring-road, a half a billion project, is already creating 500 jobs in the local economy. But there's more to come. The shorter stages, 2 and 3, will close the loop on this ring-road. I'm keen to see specific funding allocated for completion of the future stages before the first stage is completed. We want to see a smooth transition of works from stage 1 to stage 2 and then stage 3. Labor has tried to play politics with this project, knowing nothing about it. They offered a promise, for what that's worth, to fund less than a third of what's required to keep it go going.
North Queenslanders want to see more than tokenism. They want to see this project fully funded. That's what I am fighting for. Earlier this year, I sadly donned lycra to recreate a Beyonce music video, telling the Deputy Prime Minister, if he liked the money from the Mackay economy then he should put a ring-road on it. We have had tremendous support for a petition calling for funding to be released instead of that video but It's time to take the campaign to the next level. I will release another video this week to drive home the message to Canberra that this ring-road is important for the Mackay economy. Closing the loop or putting a ring-road on it will not only create jobs, it will make our local roads safer in the Mackay region. It will make industry and productivity all the more efficient. I wholly support the ring-road, and not that video coming out.
Asylum Seekers
Mr HART (Bass) (16:32): Today this parliament issued a national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. I must acknowledge the extraordinary work that was done to advocate for the royal commission, particularly considering the shameful denial of the truth of child sexual abuse. Today is a day to honour not just those who had the political will to implement a royal commission but also those who argued against the weight of public opinion to garner support for victims and survivors.
The role of public interest advocacy as a tool and driver for change should not be underestimated. I received many representations on behalf of refugees and asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru. I recently wrote to the minister enclosing a great number of personal letters seeking a more compassionate and direct response to the plight of children presently on Nauru. I must say, whenever I receive a letter from a child highlighting the plight of children presently on Nauru, I cannot ignore the fact that there is potential for further shared trauma involved in ignoring the plight of those children.
Just as we facilitated a system whereby the denial of sexual abuse and violence against the abused children was subject to today's apology, we must face the fact that the potential for trauma, for damage to the children on Nauru should be enough to drive us to action. We must act. We must listen to those advocating for their repatriation, medical assessment and treatment.
Boothby Electorate: Shaz's Ride to Cure
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (16:34): Earlier this month, local Boothby resident Adam Beaumont set off from the Brighton Bombers Football club on Shaz's Ride to Cure. Sixteen-year-old Adam lost his mum, Sharon, to pancreatic cancer in December last year after a 20-month battle. She was only 51. To honour her memory and to raise money for research into this devastating disease, Adam decided to create Shaz's Ride to Cure bike ride from the Brighton Bombers to the MCC via the Great Ocean Road. Joined by friends Adam Brown and Matt Greer, and with the support of his dad, Wayne, Adam completed the eight-day journey on Saturday 13 October. Averaging over 100 kilometres per day, they navigated some stormy conditions to make it to Melbourne. Adam's ride raised a massive $31,395 for the Pancare Foundation, well and truly exceeding his $20,000 target. This is a fantastic effort and I congratulate Adam on his commitment to finding a cure for pancreatic cancer and on this wonderful tribute to his mum.
I would also like to recognise all of the local businesses, community groups and supporters who donated to Shaz's Ride to Cure, including: the Pancare Foundation; my state colleague Corey Wingard MP, whose Winter Warmers event supported Adam's cause; the Brighton Bombers footy club; and Better Brick Paving & Landscaping in Seaford. Adam, you and your beautiful mum, Sharon, your dad, Wayne, and your mates Adam and Matt are an inspiration to us all.
Dobell Electorate: Toukley Preschool Kindergarten
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (16:35): On Saturday I was privileged to join the celebrations for Toukley Preschool Kindergarten's 50th anniversary with my nephew John. Now John's at big school, he was delighted to visit his old preschool again. The preschool began with the vision of Pat Chambers, the first director, and her good friends Neisha Farrell, Faye Northey and Florence Shergold, who, walking down the main street of Toukley in 1961, said, 'This place needs a kindergarten.' Sadly, Pat died in September. She would have loved to have joined the occasion.
Today, the preschool enrols children aged three to five years and has two rooms, the wombat room and the koala room, each with twenty children. The director, Dianne Rayner, describes the program as the evolving of learning: the first time that a parent or carer entrusts their child to someone else's care, and so begins their evolution of learning in all areas of social, emotional, physical, cognitive and mental health. The director strongly supports a two-year preschool/kindy program. She said to me:
At this early age children's brains absorb so much, therefore children given the opportunity for an early childhood education during this period will commence primary school more confident and resilient.
I would like to congratulate the many committee and staff members of Toukley Preschool Kindergarten who have contributed to 50 years of quality early childhood education, and acknowledge the preschool's status as an exceeding centre. I would particularly like to acknowledge Aunty Bronwyn Chambers, Pat's daughter-in-law who welcomed us to country, for sharing her fond memories and for her strong role in education on the Central Coast. Congratulations, Toukley Preschool Kindergarten.
Murray Electorate: East Shepparton Bowls Club
Mr DRUM (Murray—Nationals Whip) (16:37): The East Shepparton Bowls Club in Shepparton is one of the most vibrant sporting clubs of the Goulburn Valley. The club is a completely self-funded, privately-run club with 120 members, who all get together and make sure their club is vibrant and works well. They have competition pennant bowls and they run numerous social events for members and local community non-members.
They have a project on the way at the moment that is going to cost $1.2 million. They need to put a roof over two of their greens to create an all-weather bowls structure. They already have $600,000 of their own money and the local council, the City of Greater Shepparton, has put together $30,000 to assist them with this project. We are currently waiting for the state government, leading into an election, to pledge their support for the East Shepparton Bowls Club, because this is going to be, well and truly, a fantastic project. We are also looking for federal support and we are working towards trying to see if we can get federal support, but firstly we will need to see if the state will get on board.
We are also looking to see if we can use this as a way of honouring one of their legendary bowlers, Ray Henderson. Ray passed away last year from an illness he contracted while travelling, and it would be great to have this structure named in his honour.
Parragirls
Survivors & Mates Support Network
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:39): Today the federal parliament apologised to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, some six years after the royal commission was called in 2012 by the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. For many, of course, it is decades late. I know I'll get a chance to speak more fully in this place in coming weeks, but today of all days I wanted to acknowledge two organisations in my electorate that have worked for years to bring about this beginning that we made today in the Australian parliament to bring redress to the victims of child institutional sexual abuse.
The first are known as the Parramatta Girls or Parragirls, the girls who were incarcerated in the Parramatta Girl's Home. They were mentally, physically and sexually abused while under state care in one of the worst institutions when it came to physical and sexual abuse. They have been coming together as the Memory Project since 2012 and Bonney Djuric in particular has been tireless in calling for a site of conscience in the location where that abuse took place.
The second is the Survivors and Mates Support Network, known as SAMSN, a not-for-profit organisation working to increase public awareness of the effects of childhood sexual abuse can have on men in their adult lives. They support adult male survivors of child sexual abuse and their families. In particular I would like to acknowledge Craig Hughes-Cashmore, a survivor himself and co-founder and director, who has worked incredibly hard to ensure that an apology took place and we began this new phase.
Flynn Electorate: Agriculture
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:40): In my electorate of Fynn, we have the potential to be one of the nation's premier suppliers of a broad range of products and produce. The strength of our agricultural production and agri-business manufacturing sector continues to rapidly grow. Flynn provides a natural choice for a diverse range of agriculture investments such as cattle, sheep, sugar cane, avocado, blueberries, cotton, mung beans, chickpeas, nuts, grains, wheat, sorghum and citrus. Through development of the Rookwood Weir on the Fitzroy River, the region can further the agriculture industry's position as a major agricultural food bowl for the region and beyond. The Rookwood Weir site is approximately 66km west of Rockhampton on the Fitzroy River and the development is proposed in two stages. Better than never, the Queensland government has brought on this monumental project that we have championed for years. I now call on the state government to come forward with their planning and funding to make this job happen. It's now been finalised with a signature from both federal and state governments that that project will start in the dry season of next year.
Herbert Electorate: Water
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (16:42): I have spoken in this place time and time again about Townsville's dire water situation. In fact, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record but I will not give up. Townsville's desperate need for long-term water security has been reported in the Townsville Bulletin time and again. There is a solution. Labor committed $100 million over 18 months ago to stage 2 of the Haughton pipeline, which will give Townsville 5o to 60 years long-term water security. As reported in the Townsville Bulletin this last week, the member for Dawson, whose electorate includes parts of Townsville, and the LNP candidate for Herbert, Phillip Thompson, are lobbying to take Townsville's money for a project that is not a water solution for Townsville. The Hell's Gates report clearly states that Hell's Gates could not be considered a competing potable water source for Townsville. Those who say otherwise are not strong advocates for Townsville, and shame on them. Typical of this Morrison government, totally out of touch with regional communities, it has not listened to the people of Townsville in terms of water. How dare the member for Dawson, George Christensen, and the candidate for Herbert, Phillip Thompson, think they can rip off the people of Townsville by taking our money into a project outside of Townsville.
My question to the LNP candidate for Herbert is: why is he lobbying his government to take money out of the electorate of Herbert? Surely he should be fighting for funds in our community and not be looking to break promises of the Prime Minister? I fought for Townsville's long-term water security. That's why I got $100 million for stage 2.
Henderson, Mr Alan
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (16:43): I rise this afternoon to acknowledge a resident of Doncaster East in my electorate of Menzies, namely Alan Henderson, who was awarded the Council of the Ageing Senior Achiever Award by the Governor of Victoria. Alan's been involved for some 20 years in the Neighbourhood Watch program in the local community, but more recently his focus has shifted to assisting those with dementia, particularly the prevention of dementia. Alan has participated in a 10-year study with his twin sister into looking at relativities between twins in relation to the contracting of dementia.
Alan is a founding member of the Manningham senior carers group, which commenced in 2012, and he has been very active in the local community in providing feedback on the way in which the changes to the guidelines for the operation of the aged-care system affect people both in residential care and in relation to home care packages. But, more significantly and more recently, as I said, Alan has been a valued and founding member of the Manningham Local Dementia Alliance Group. In this regard, I had the pleasure of speaking to the group recently. They've been developing a Manningham dementia information card, which will be made available to residents of the local community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Cambodia
Mr HILL (Bruce) (16:45): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes Australia's proud legacy of working for peace and democracy in Cambodia, led by the work of the former Labor Foreign Minister the Hon. Gareth Evans QC in fostering the Paris Peace Accords in 1991;
(2) reiterates that as a longstanding friend of Cambodia and the Cambodian people, Australia must continue to urge the Cambodian Government to take steps to allow free and open political debate without violence and intimidation;
(3) condemns the sham election in Cambodia last month and expresses grave concern that:
(a) the illegitimate election may sound the death knell of democracy, reversing more than 25 years of work to establish and strengthen democracy in Cambodia; and
(b) Prime Minister Hun Sen's 'victory' is a sham and cannot truly be said to represent the will of the Cambodian people because freedom of expression and association underpin democratic societies, yet in Cambodia the:
(i) main opposition party, the Cambodian National Rescue Party, has been banned;
(ii) opposition leader Kem Sokha remains in jail on politically motivated charges;
(iii) media and civil society have been silenced and harassed, with Hun Sen publicly threatening a civil war if he lost the election;
(iv) National Election Committee is not credible nor independent; and
(v) official 82 per cent turnout figures are not credible, noting the opposition boycotted the election and international media reported that election day was quiet in many places;
(4) calls on the Cambodian Government to immediately release Kem Sokha from jail and guarantee his safety;
(5) considers that Australia must now consider stronger measures and calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) review Australia's international development assistance to Cambodia to ensure the program is focused on humanitarian and civil society support rather than broader cooperation with Hun Sen's regime;
(b) examine the introduction of targeted sanctions such as visa restrictions and asset freezes for members of Hun Sen's regime and their families, given the reported strong links between the regime's key officials and Australia;
(c) lead and support multilateral efforts with other nations, starting with signatories of the 1991 Paris Peace Accords, to develop coordinated measures to increase pressure on Hun Sen's regime to allow free and open political debate without violence and intimidation;
(d) fully investigate allegations of illicit activities, including money laundering, by members of the Cambodian People's Party in Australia; and
(e) guarantee the rights of Australians of Cambodian heritage to live safely and free from intimidation, and determine whether the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme may apply to expose community groups which may be operating covertly in Australia in support of Hun Sen's regime;
(6) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) withdraw from the refugee resettlement deal; and
(b) promise not to enter into any further such deals with Cambodia; and
(7) acknowledge the tireless advocacy of the Australian Cambodian community in support of democracy and human rights in Cambodia.
The motion speaks for itself, but time permits focus on only a few aspects. When I last spoke on Cambodia, I made clear my view, strongly held, that enough is enough and that it is time that Australia honoured the legacy of Gareth Evans and the then Labor government in support of peace and democracy and examined sanctions on Hun Sen's regime, including visa bans and asset freezes. Events were bad enough then, but in recent months the opposition leader, Kem Sokha, has remained under house arrest even though their fake election, in which, farcically, Hun Sen's CPP won 125 seats out of 125 seats, is over. Shockingly, the Australian filmmaker James Ricketson was convicted on trumped-up charges. Hun Sen is now jailing Australian citizens. What on earth will it take for this government to stop sipping champagne with a dictator?
Australians who are not familiar with the history and situation in Cambodia may well wonder what this has to do with us. Aside from our legacy, aside from good international citizenship, there are growing concerns in the Australian community, especially amongst those people of Cambodian heritage, that this thuggish regime's tentacles now reach our cities and suburbs, influencing our politics, committing crimes here and exploiting and threatening Australians. In August, I hosted Mona Kem, daughter of Kem Sokha, here at the parliament. In her meeting with the then foreign minister, they discussed the potential for tougher measures. I understand the then minister expressed doubt as to whether targeted sanctions by Australia would have any effect.
Cambodians fighting for democracy argued that, in fact, the regime would be most concerned by Australian action—second only to the UK's—as so many senior members of the regime come and go with family and assets here. I have no confidence that our desperate, divided caretaker government will act, so I will use my remaining time to name just a few of the people of concern to those in the Australian community who fight for peace and a true democracy in Cambodia. Some of these people warrant consideration for sanctions, such as visa bans and asset freezes, to put pressure on Hun Sen's regime. An important caveat is that some may now be Australian citizens, so visa bans will not be available. Some warrant investigation for crimes, including money laundering and worse. Many should register when the new foreign influence laws take effect, as they're trying to influence Australian media and MPs, including Liberal MPs.
Within the CPP elite, Hun Manet, Hun Sen's son, has visited Australia many times and oversees CPP political infiltration operations here and in New Zealand. Hun To, Hun Sen's nephew, who has children and assets in Melbourne, has been implicated in a heroin and money-laundering syndicate targeting Australia. Dy Vichea, Hun Sen's son-in-law and deputy chief of Cambodia's police—a gangster force—has mysterious business in Australia, Cambodia and China. Kong Vibol, the head of Cambodia's tax department, involved in shutting down Cambodian media, has owned millions of dollars' worth of property in Australia, including in suburbs in my electorate, and appears to have falsely claimed he's an Australian resident. Kim Santepheap, from Cambodia's Ministry of Justice, is involved in CPP's Australian operations. He visited with Hun Manet and is described to me as a 'vicious' and 'sharp' operator.
The CPP has divided Australia and New Zealand into regions and has front groups overseen by key people in most Australian capital cities. Lau Vann is in Melbourne. He has business links to Hun Sen, is an army general and apparently has children in an elite school in Melbourne. Hou Hap, who is in Sydney, holds Australian citizenship now. Vong Visiddh is in Brisbane. In Meatra is in Adelaide. Sara Nary, or Jason Nary, is a CPP operative making connections with the Liberal Party. Ravuth Lac is allegedly involved in money laundering and labour-hire scams.
We have information regarding dodgy community fundraising events organised by other goons, such as Tong Eang Te and Phany Thai. We have accusations that Samnang Huor is a CPP operative running Chompran Enterprises, involved in labour hire rorts in south-east Melbourne, ripping off workers. We have six Australian community groups which are really just local fronts for the CPP and were reportedly run out of their embassy in Canberra. Koy Kuong, Cambodia's ambassador to Australia, is president of the CPP committee for Australia and New Zealand. There are media reports suggesting that the Cambodian embassy has been involved in smuggling black market alcohol and tobacco.
Regarding the money laundering allegations, Australian banks may have been loaning money and facilitated transactions, which of course raises questions about their compliance with anti-money-laundering laws. Ministers of this government assure us, 'Don't worry, money launderers will be caught.' I don't believe them because Australia's anti-money-laundering laws are shamefully weak. They cover banks but still do not cover other critical gatekeeper professions—most importantly, real estate agents, accountants and lawyers. The government's ongoing silence and failure to list even one speaker on this motion, when giving tens of millions of dollars for refugee deals with Cambodia, is a disgrace. It's about time they fronted up and spoke up.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (16:50): I second the motion. It is easy to take for granted the openness and fairness with which democracy is practiced in this country. Indeed, it's easy to forget the foundations of democracy are hard fought for, and people are right to be naturally wary of any moves to curb their right to be represented and participate in government and decision-making. Australia has a proud history of working for peace and democracy in our region, but particularly in Cambodia. I note the Paris Peace Accords struck in 1991 and the work of the Hon. Gareth Evans in bringing them to fruition.
However, recent events in Cambodia, including the national election held on 29 July, do not reflect those accords or the sentiments with which they were reached. The election saw no other serious contenders challenge Hun Sen's Cambodian People's Party. Other parties which did contest the vote were being propped up and promoted by Hun Sen to foster the illusion of democracy. The election has been rightly seen as a sham, with all 125 seats secured by the Cambodian People's Party. The EU said the result was not legitimate. The White House commented that the poll was flawed. The only credible opposition force, the Cambodia National Rescue Party, was dissolved by the Supreme Court of Cambodia last year, and many of its leaders, including Kem Sokha and Sam Rainsy, are either in exile or have been imprisoned in Cambodia. The opposition press, including The Cambodia Daily, have been shut down. Recently, Australian journalist James Ricketson was arrested and jailed for six years for filming at an opposition political rally in June 2017. The trial has been described as farcical.
The Cambodian community in my region are very concerned about the escalating political situation in their country of birth. I've met with members of the local community, along with my colleagues the members for Fowler and McMahon, to discuss the situation. I also met with a delegation when they came to Canberra in December and have had regular correspondence contact with them. They are concerned, and rightly so, about the threats that have been made to Australian Cambodian citizens living in Australia. I strongly encourage the investigation of such threats. If correct, it is simply unacceptable for a foreign government to threaten Australian citizens in Australia.
The Cambodian community has a strong presence in my electorate. They arrived here as refugees seeking a better life for their families away from conflict. They still retain strong ties with their ancestral homeland and their family and friends in Cambodia. I would particularly like to acknowledge the efforts of Chhayri Marm and Sawathey Ek for raising awareness around this important issue in the wider local community. I've received petitions signed by several thousand members of the Australian Cambodian community in Sydney, citing their grave concerns about the current situation in Cambodia. They know without strong, independent institutions, including press, governments are not held to account and the foundations of a free and democratic society are placed at risk.
They remember all too vividly the previous Cambodian regimes and the lasting impact they have had on the country and its people. I was particularly moved by one member of the community: a small, softly spoken woman. With tears in her eyes, she told me her experience of the Pol Pot era. She lost all her family. Her brothers, aged seven, nine and 13, were taken away and never seen again. Her parents were not spared either. She said to me:
We looked to the sky constantly waiting for the helicopters to come, for help to arrive it never did, we had to flee; please don't let this happen again.
Unfortunately, this story isn't unique. Almost all of the Australian Cambodians have similar harrowing stories. It is these experiences that led Australia to help broker the 1991 Paris Peace Accords. It is time that Australia again showed leadership in this area and ensured that the promises made then for fair and democratic elections and country are formally put into place. We should be promoting and protecting the freedom of political expression, not sipping champagne with dictators.
I'm deeply concerned to see voices being unfairly silenced and I share the concerns of my colleagues, particularly the member for Bruce, who have risen to speak to this motion. I especially note that this motion calls on the government to induce targeted sanctions and guarantee the rights of Australians of Cambodian heritage in this country. I draw the other points of the motion to the attention of the House and fully support their implementation now.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (16:55): 'The standard you're prepared to walk past is the standard you accept'. This is a quote you would ordinarily apply to bullying, domestic violence or other egregious acts within the community, but it also puts in perspective our collective need to recognise but, more importantly, act when it comes to human rights.
As past humanitarian disasters have taught us, to remain silent in the face of brutal attacks on freedom or on human rights is just unacceptable. Clearly, this now applies again in relation to the deteriorating human rights situation in Cambodia. On behalf of the many concerned Cambodian Australians, I lend my voice to support human rights and a true democracy in Cambodia.
I strongly condemn the recent Cambodian national elections, which have effectively seen the reinstatement of Prime Minister Hun Sen's 33-year rule. It's apparent that the election was neither free nor fair and failed to represent the general interests of the general people, given the level of voter intimidation and the absence of any viable challenger to either the Prime Minister or his government. I believe it represents a significant setback for democracy in Cambodia, undermining the valued and principled work of the international community in the lead-up to the Paris Peace Accords as Cambodia now effectively returns to being an autocratic, one-party state.
Over the past year, Prime Minister Hun Sen has launched a broad crackdown against critical independent voices. This includes the arrest of opposition leader Kem Sokha, the dissolution of the main opposition party and an assault on the media organisations and NGOs that have been critical of government policies. It is particularly concerning that Cambodian people have not been able to participate in choice or control over their political processes, reversing 27 years of efforts in building democracy in Cambodia. The Cambodian elections were nothing but a sham and cannot be seen to be legitimate by any means.
If this weren't concerning enough, the influence of Hun Sen is now being played out in Australian universities, businesses and charities. The Cambodian government has been involved in recruiting students and members of the Cambodian diaspora in Australia and actively building support networks for this Cambodian dictator. I am told that Hun Sen's son, Hun Manet, has visited Australia on many occasions for this purpose, recruiting and radicalising students from Cambodia into youth movements. I have even been approached, under the guise of charities, to support their activities in this regard.
We cannot ignore the illicit activities by members of the Cambodian People's Party in Australia, particularly when it comes to visa fraud and money laundering. I urge the government to follow the lead of the US and apply targeted sanctions, visa restrictions and asset freezes on members of the Hun Sen regime and their families. I also call on the Australian government to immediately withdraw from the Cambodian refugee resettlement deal, where we've now contributed $55 million and yet only seven people from Nauru were settled in Cambodia, of which only three remain at present. Apart from being an expensive failure, the Hun Sen government must be held to account for these funds. We risk aiding corruption unless we have transparency and assurance that these funds are not being utilised to undermine human rights and democracy in Cambodia.
Now, while it's pleasing that the Australian film director James Ricketson has been granted a royal pardon, released from prison and deported to Australia, his ordeal demonstrates the judiciary's lack of independence, with the courts clearly operating at the will of their government. In the early 1990s, we saw significant efforts by Australia and the international community to transform Cambodia from a communist dictatorship to a multi-party democracy. Time has come again for the same level of commitment. We cannot play the role of bystander. Given that tomorrow marks the 27th anniversary of the Paris Peace Accords, it's only fitting to conclude with the words of Gareth Evans, one of its principal architects:
Peace and freedom are not prizes which, once gained, can never be lost. … Their foundations must be sunk deep into the bedrock of political stability, economic prosperity and above all else, the observance of human rights.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (17:00): It's a pleasure to speak after the member for Fowler and the member for Werriwa, and I also want to congratulate and thank the member for Bruce for moving such an important motion.
My community is home to a large and vibrant Cambodian population. I spent a really enjoyable evening two Saturdays ago celebrating Ancestors' Day at the temple on Third Avenue in my community with all of my friends from that particular temple. I will say here what I said then: I'm proud to represent a big Cambodian community here in this place, and I'm very grateful, very thankful, that they have welcomed me so substantially into their community. I work very closely with them, and I consider many of them to be personal friends of mine. I stood proudly here in Canberra with 23 Cambodians from my community last December after they drove here to protest against the denial of basic political rights and freedoms in their home country. I have also been privileged to repeatedly meet with representatives from Cambodia's opposition party over the years to hear about their plight to restore proper democracy and freedoms to Cambodia. It's been an honour to lend support to their cause, along with so members on this side of the House.
Having heard their stories of their struggles, it is with a sense of anger and revulsion that I watch what's going on in Cambodia at the moment. Earlier this year, I stood in the parliament to condemn Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen's despicable and deplorable threats of violence against those who wanted to peacefully protest against him at the ASEAN Summit. And I also said that we condemn many of the other activities that he has undertaken to condemn basic political rights. This is a man who banned the main opposition party and silenced any effective opposition in his country to win what's been slammed among the international community as a 'sham election'. This is a guy who cracked down on and suppressed media and NGOs and civil society in his country, and publicly threatened civil war if he lost the election. These are despicable things.
On top of that, party insiders have told Al Jazeera recently that members of Cambodia's ruling elite are involved in money laundering and visa fraud in Australia, and the member for Bruce went through some of these issues in some detail. These revelations are in addition to a Four Corners investigation that uncovered more than $15 million worth of properties and companies in Australia owned by members of Hun Sen's extended family and his political allies. There are also serious questions to be asked about the official 82 per cent election turnout figure, especially when you consider the opposition boycotted the election and many polling stations were quiet.
Despite all of the despicable remarks and his disgraceful actions, Hun Sen was formally reinstated as Prime Minister for another term just a couple of months ago, where he had the gall to tell parliament that this was the end of a free, just, fair and transparent election. We in this parliament, and indeed people around the world, know that that election was not free or fair; it certainly wasn't just and it wasn't transparent. It didn't properly represent the will of the Cambodian people, nor did it uphold the ideals of democracy that those of us in free societies value.
I do think it is a little bit disappointing that there is not a speaker from that side of the House to join with Labor to condemn all of these actions, whether it be the money laundering, the interference in elections, the suppression of basic political rights. It is disappointing that we do not have a single speaker from that side of the House so far. On this side of the House, we're proud to stand with the Cambodian people—the member for Cowan is here and the member for Hotham. Right across the board, we are proud to stand with our Cambodian friends. I want to also acknowledge the work of Senator Penny Wong in the other place. She has done a great job advocating for the Cambodian people, calling for a condemnation of the suppression of democracy in Cambodia, reiterating our concerns about Cambodia's sham election and expressing our extreme disappointment that the Cambodian people have been denied the right to a fair and truly democratic election.
We call on the government to fully investigate the allegations of illicit activity, including money laundering. We urge the Cambodian government to allow free and open political debate without intimidation and threats of violence. And we call on the government to consider, in coordination with our other partners, additional measures to support democracy in Cambodia. We owe this to our Cambodian friends who have fled a repressive regime in their homeland. We reassure them that they have the right to protest peacefully here. We thank them for their tireless efforts to advance and support human rights and democracy in Cambodia, and we stand in solidarity with them.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (17:06): I congratulate the member for Bruce for moving this motion. I think it's a great pity that he feels the need to move the motion, that we need to speak on this motion. It would be much better if Cambodia had seen the error of its march against democracy and had corrected the mistakes of recent years. But, alas, here we are again—not for the first time, but I hope for the last—calling on the government of Cambodia to embrace a return to democracy.
This is a particularly auspicious time to be discussing this motion given that tomorrow marks the 27th anniversary of the signing of the Paris Peace Accord. Of course Australia is proud of its role in the Paris Peace Accord. We're proud of the role played by then foreign minister Gareth Evans, by the then Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Michael Costello, and by Prime Minister Hawke. But the progress made in the Paris Peace Accord now seems like a distant memory. Since the Paris Peace Accord, the Cambodian people have voted six times for their national government, but there is no way that the most recent occasion could be regarded as a democratic or fair election. In the last few years, we've seen Prime Minister Hun Sen and his government engage in what can accurately and carefully be described as despicable behaviour. We've seen the opposition party banned, we've seen members arrested on false charges, imprisoned or exiled, and we've seen an election held recently which any objective observer would call a sham.
In order to be truly free and fair, an election needs to have a democratic press with freedom of speech to hold a government to account, whether the government of the day likes it or not, a legitimate and authentic opposition allowed to participate, and an opportunity to vote, free from intimidation. Not one of those elements exists in Cambodia today. There have been ongoing attacks on the press. The Cambodia Daily newspaper has been closed down over a spurious tax dispute—a trumped up tax charge has seen a daily newspaper close down. In May, staff of the English language newspaper The Phnom Penh Post resigned en masse following the sale of the paper to an entity which demanded changes to an article detailing the tycoon new owner's links to Prime Minister Hun Sen—again, freedom of the press disappearing. Around 30 radio stations have been silenced because of their opposition to and criticism of the Hun Sen regime. We've also seen, frankly, threats and intimidation, and I have had the opportunity and the need to speak in the House before about Hun Sen actually threatening Australians of Cambodian heritage. When he came here for the ASEAN summit, he said if there were protests against him here, he would have those protesters followed home, with the onerous overtones that threat entailed.
It's fair to say that the local Australian Cambodian community is extremely concerned and exercised about the political interference of the Hun Sen regime in their activities here in Australia. Some of this was outlined in a recent Four Corners program. I congratulate Four Corners for taking the time and the trouble to highlight this issue, because it is a real issue. Members of the Cambodian Australian community should be able to participate freely in Australian political life and comment on Cambodian political life without interference from the Cambodian Hun Sen regime.
With opposition parties banned and soldiers at polling booths there is no way that the recent election could be called credible, and no credible organisation has signed off on the election's validity. It is the case that Cambodia is not currently a democracy, and that leads to quite extreme actions having to be contemplated. The motion moved by the member for Bruce goes through those. I know he hasn't done this lightly. There are a number of steps that Australia should consider. We don't call for changes to foreign aid lightly, nor do we say, for example, that the other activities that are contemplated by this motion should be considered lightly. But Australia should withdraw from the refugee resettlement deal. I think two refugees have been sent to Cambodia. Millions of dollars have been spent in Cambodia. It gives legitimacy to the Cambodian regime. It's not an appropriate arrangement, which was entered into by the now Prime Minister when he was the minister for immigration. Cambodia can and should have a democratic system.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (17:11): I am incredibly proud today to stand in this chamber on the side of the Cambodian people and particularly on the side of Cambodian Australians. I have the enormous privilege of representing thousands of people in this parliament who are of Cambodian descent. I don't just represent them; I represent their places of worship and their community organisations. The Wat Dhammarangsee, the Wat Khmer, the Wat Dhamaram and the Cambodian Buddhist Association of Victoria—all of this community infrastructure is located in my electorate.
It was with huge regret that Labor moved the motion before the House this afternoon. We did so because it is absolutely clear that the situation in Cambodia is going backwards, not forwards. The member for McMahon really clearly articulated the things that have happened recently, but I want to echo one of the points he made. I feel the straw was broken when we heard the leader of Cambodia, Hun Sen, effectively threaten violence on Australians who are of Cambodian descent who were protesting peacefully here in Australia when he visited. It's not appropriate for members of the Australian parliament to allow that sort of thing to go unaddressed and unspoken. That's why we've got so many Labor members of parliament standing up in the parliament today to say enough is enough.
On this special day for Cambodian Australians it's appropriate that we reflect on the past and we reflect on what we can do to secure a better future for Cambodians. Tomorrow we commemorate the 27th anniversary of the signing of the Paris peace accords. This marked the end of the Cambodian-Vietnamese war. It was an enormously auspicious occasion that seemed to herald a new way of doing things in Cambodia. The agreement led to the deployment of the first post Cold War peacekeeping mission and the first-ever occasion on which the UN took over as the government of a state. The agreement was signed and agreed to by 19 countries. The peace accord process launched a process of ceasefire, peacekeeping and rebuilding that stabilised the country, but it left deep wounds unhealed—through the 1970s genocides and the decades of war that have afflicted Cambodians.
The peace process was one of the first of its scale undertaken by the international community after the Cold War. It was an enormous amount of work, and all of us in this chamber are entitled to feel proud because our country and our government, through the foreign minister at the time, Gareth Evans, was instrumental in making sure that Cambodia was able to turn the corner towards a brighter future for democracy in their country. We love democracy in this chamber. We talk about it a lot, but most of us actually don't know what it feels like to fight to have the right to do basic things, like to vote in an election and to peacefully stand in a chamber like this and articulate a point of view. The Cambodian people understand that and that is why hopes were so high after the Paris peace accords that things were going to improve. But things have turned in the opposite direction in recent times. Cambodia became a multiparty democracy, but I don't think any commentator would describe Cambodia as a multiparty democracy today. There was a recent election in Cambodia. Enormous issues which do not reflect a democratic process have taken place there. In 2017 the Cambodian opposition leader, Kem Sokha, was arrested on charges of so-called treason, on the basis of a speech he gave in my electorate in Melbourne in 2013. That's how connected we are to what goes on in this country. It's not just the imprisoning of the opposition leader. In 2016 the Cambodian government's most ardent critic, Dr Kem Ley, was shot dead in broad daylight in Phnom Penh. The people who committed, planned and masterminded that crime have never been brought to justice.
For too long the leaders in Cambodia have been getting away with murder, literally in some instances. It's not good enough for us to keep standing in this parliament and saying we're not happy with this situation. I believe the time has come to take action. The member for Bruce has outlined some of the ideas Labor has for how this might change. One of the most obvious things we can do is call to end this ridiculous refugee resettlement deal where the Australian government, the taxpayers listening to this broadcast now, have paid $50 million for the resettlement of three refugees. We can't continue like this. On this anniversary of the Paris peace accords it's time for us to reshape this relationship and make it clear that Cambodians are not to be treated like this.
Debate adjourned.
Irrigated Agriculture
Mr DRUM (Murray—Nationals Whip) (17:16): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the importance of irrigated agriculture to the Australian economy;
(2) notes that:
(a) irrigated agricultural enterprises in 2016-17 contributed $15.5 billion to the Australian economy and accounts for 25 per cent of total Australian agricultural production; and
(b) in 2016-17 there were 22,103 agricultural businesses that farmed 2,244,000 hectares of irrigated land in Australia;
(3) recognises that of the $15.5 billion contributed to the economy in 2016-17, the major commodities included:
(a) fruit and nuts $3.5 billion;
(b) vegetables $3.3 billion;
(c) dairy $1.6 billion;
(d) cotton $1.5 billion;
(e) grapes $1.3 billion;
(f) nurseries and turf $1.3 billion;
(g) sugar cane $836 million;
(h) beef cattle $684 million;
(i) cereals $308 million; and
(j) rice $252 million; and
(4) acknowledges the commitment, hard work and investment of irrigators in every state and territory in Australia and the contribution they make to our economy.
The gross value of production at the farm gate of Australian farms at the moment is over $60 billion. Of that, $15.5 billion is in relation to irrigated agriculture. The target set by the industry and fully supported by the coalition government is to get that $60 billion to $100 billion by 2030. It's a very sharp target but one that is achievable in the next 12 years. Irrigation is going to play an enormous part in that projected growth. It is often said in this place that agriculture is the backbone of this country's economy, and I think that's true. I think that's going to be the case even more so in the future. If agriculture is the backbone then I think irrigation within that agriculture is the heart that pumps the life into our agricultural economy.
Unfortunately, there is a misinformed minority that target our irrigators and call them somewhat in the vicinity of environmental vandals. I want to correct that misconception and set the record straight. Irrigators are farmers, men and women, who are champions of producing food and fibre for this great country. These men and women are also champions of sustainability. What they have done in recent years to improve the salinity and acidity of our soils is to be commended. Irrigation farmers produce food for our tables and fibre for our clothing not only here but also to families around the world. Australia's greatest asset is its people, and Australia's greatest limiting asset is water. These efficient, hardworking entrepreneurs manage the water to feed and clothe us and are located in every state and territory in Australia. In Western Australia, it's over $990 million; the Northern Territory, $100 million; Tasmania, over $769 million; Queensland, over $4 billion; New South Wales, $3.65 billion; and the ACT, $3 million. The largest contribution comes from Victoria, with $4.16 billion in irrigated agriculture.
One of the largest sections within Australia is obviously the Murray Darling Basin. While we have a contest going on for water within the Murray Darling Basin, areas like the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District have given up an enormous amount of water over recent periods towards a better balance of water use in this country—so, putting more water back to the environment. But we need to warn everybody very, very carefully that, if we take too much water out of our irrigation systems, we're going to reach a tipping point where the irrigation systems will become unsustainable. There is an element of 450 gigalitres of water that is questionable within the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and that questionable amount of 450 gigalitres has stipulations placed upon it whereby it cannot be recovered for the environment if it is going to be socially and economically detrimental to the communities. This is an area which will hopefully be cleared up when we hold our next MINCO in mid-December.
I want to thank David Littleproud's officers and also the officers from Victoria and New South Wales, who have been working very hard on getting that neutrality test to ensure that any further water taken from irrigators in Australia can only be done so when it is proven beyond doubt that there will be no social or economic damage to individuals or their communities.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ): Do we have a seconder for the motion?
Mr Broadbent: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (17:22): I welcome this motion put by the member for Murray, because irrigation projects do make a considerable difference in regional Australia and, of course, in my state of Tasmania. Deputy Speaker McVeigh, as you and I were on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, we saw a lot of irrigation making a huge difference in regional Australia. It improves production, if it's used efficiently and effectively. It's something I think we'll all be able to take back to our respective states and state governments that report on water efficiency.
In my state of Tasmania, we have had significant investment in irrigation. The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment in a recent submission to a legislative council inquiry into Tasmanian irrigation stated:
Notwithstanding that less than 10 per cent of the state's agricultural land is irrigated, it produces 55 per cent of the gross value of Tasmania's agricultural production.
Irrigated land is estimated to produce more than 10 times the value per hectare compared with improved agricultural land that was not irrigated.
In my electorate, irrigation supports the dairy industry and a large number of crops, including potatoes, carrots, beans, peas, berries, poppies and pyrethrum. Sadly, Mr Deputy Speaker, we didn't get to go to Tasmania to see some of this magnificent irrigation at work.
It is important to note that every single irrigation project that is currently operational in Tasmania is a Labor project delivered by Labor or planned by Labor. It was Labor under the leadership of Jim Bacon who launched Tasmania's water development plan in August 2001. It's not that well-known, but beyond the west coast of Tasmania there is a large rain shadow and, even as we speak, some parts of the east coast of Tasmania are drought declared.
Labor's first project was to build the Meander Dam in the northern Midlands. In 2008, Labor established the Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd. Tasmania Irrigation developed schemes as public-private partnerships, working with private landholders to establish how much water was wanted. The cost of building a scheme was shared between the public and private sectors. It has been enormously successful. Tasmania Irrigation progress the schemes from feasibility assessment through to the construction and operational stages. State and federal Labor contributed $220 million for Tranche One projects. There are now eight operational schemes from Tranche One throughout Tasmania. At the time, Labor's irrigation program represented a public-private commitment of over $310 million.
As stated earlier, these schemes change regional dynamics. For example, in Tasmania's Midlands scheme, farms reported that they would graze sheep for wool at around $200 a hectare, but with access to a reliable, secure supply of water they could switch to growing peas at $2,000 a hectare or poppies, worth anywhere from $2½ thousand to $4,000 per hectare. If you drive down the Midlands of Tasmania, you see the landscape has actually changed quite considerably.
In my electorate, at Labor's Dial Blythe scheme at South Riana, 44 farmers grow crops including pyrethrum and poppies and now have highly productive dairy operations. The Dial Blythe area once lacked surety of water, and this scheme now resolves that issue. Tranche 2 schemes are now either complete or under construction. Some credit is due to previous state and federal governments for continuing to roll out Labor's vision for tranche 2 schemes in the Southern Highlands, Swan Valley and Duck River, which is in my electorate, but that's where the credit seems to end. This coalition government was elected in 2013 and the Tasmanian Liberal government in 2014, yet it wasn't until late January of this year and the lead-up to the state election that the state Liberal government announced tranche 3 for Tasmania's irrigation—almost four years of inaction and lack of vision. For the coalition it's five years of inaction and no vision.
Tasmanian Irrigation identified a number of tranche 3 projects, many of which are in my electorate: Detention, Don, Flowerdale, Harcus and Sassafras. In total, there are 10 projects, with an estimated cost of around $500 million, and I welcome the fact that, after years of doing nothing, the Tasmanian government has finally submitted an application to infrastructure Australia for funding towards tranche 3. But I see this with a degree of cynicism that this has only happened in the lead-up to a federal election. If the state and federal governments were generally serious about building on Labor's work, this work should have been done some years ago. On this side of the House we have a proven record of delivering irrigation projects for Tasmania, and I am very confident that, if we are fortunate to be elected at the next federal election, Labor will continue to do just that.
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (17:26): I'm very pleased to be talking about irrigated agriculture in Australia and the opportunities for growth, particularly in the WA agricultural sector. Of course, the importance of the quality of the water can't be understated. For the irrigators in the South West, we see everything: centre pivots, pipe-and-channel systems, pumping from aquifers and flood irrigation.
I see in the dairy industry Michael and Leanne Partridge at White Rocks—fourth-generation dairy farmers with an irrigated property. They've been farming almost 130 years as a family and they milk well over 650 cows. Dairy is a critical industry in my South West but is dependent on irrigation of a sort.
Out at Myalup I've got Ivankovich Farms, a family-owned growing-and-packaging business specialising in onions, carrots and shallot production. They are also supplying the local, national and export markets. Their irrigation system is actually tested to international standards, scheduled to deliver water to crops on a needs basis. They're constantly monitoring their soils and equipment. They also host a local weather station that provides evaporation data publicly available on Vegetables WA and the Agriculture and Food departmental websites. They also have solar power and battery storage and are part of the EnviroVeg program and Vegetables WA good practice. They are doing an outstanding jobs.
At Capel Farms the Norton and Blakers families grow broccolini on 150 acres of irrigated agriculture out of the Yarragadee Aquifer. They also grow avocados, chard and red beetroot lead.
Pennie and Michael Patane of Patane Produce grow carrots, potatoes, onions and broccoli and supply to the international, national and local markets. They also run 300 head of European and angus steers, part of their environmental sustainability program, so that they can consume vegetable products that are not fit for commercial use. This produces a grass-and-vegetable-fed animal, and you can imagine the quality in that.
We look at whether it's the beef industry or the dairy industry, right the way across, and I'm particularly pleased to see that our federal government has made funding available for the Myalup-Wellington project, a critical project to help secure water supplies and the quality of water in the South West region in, in my view, perpetuity. There is $140 million directly and a $50 million loan. We will see the upgrade and desalination of the Wellington Dam. This is really critical because the quality of the water is what matters. Anybody who is a farmer understands the importance of the quality of the water. This is also water for growth. It's a gravity-fed system. It's environmentally sound. It'll be upgrading the pipe system in the Collie River irrigation district. This will be a very important project for the south-west to secure the water supplies in the longer term. At the moment, the Collie River irrigation district has 200 kilometres of open concrete and earthen channel still using over 350 of the Dethridge wheel type supply points.
Negus Enterprises down at Tutunup are milking around 1,300 dairy cows. It's run by Oscar and Tammy and Oscar and Wendy. They're using a centre pivot as their form of irrigation. They are what's known as 'legendairy' dairy farmers. They milk their cows fresh about three times a day to get 15 to 20 per cent extra milk production out of them. They're constantly upgrading what they do and how they do it. They use versatile feed sources and a corn harvester.
I look around at the opportunities that go with irrigated agriculture, like beef, and at the other industries that go with it, like the abattoirs, that exist because of irrigated agriculture. In Australia, I've said previously, we tend to take our farmers and the access to quality, beautifully grown food for granted. It's irrigated agriculture that is providing a huge proportion of that on a small amount of land. I commend every irrigated farmer in Australia. I think you're doing a fabulous job.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (17:31): Firstly, of course, I would like to acknowledge the importance of irrigated agriculture to our economy. I most particularly want to concentrate on its importance to my own electorate of Lingiari. The NT farming and agriculture industry is one of the most diverse farming groups anywhere in Australia, with fruit, vegetables and fodder produced in the tropical north; table grape and melon growers in the arid south; cropping systems from centre pivots to hydroponics; and markets from Rapid Creek to California.
I want to acknowledge the role of the NT Farmers Association; Greg Owens, the CEO; their board, which is chaired by Simon Smith, who is the president; and their team at the Coolalinga office. This is a very important, proactive association that growing the agribusiness hub in Katherine, educating farmers on biosecurity and advocating governments at all levels on roads, labour, water and infrastructure needs.
I spoke about how big and diverse our industry is in the Northern Territory and Lingiari. By far, mangoes are our largest crop. In 2017, it was valued at $100 million, producing around 46 per cent of Australia's mangoes. It's a very important crop to the Australian community. The Northern Territory farming industry has developed quickly, now with 10,000 hectares of irrigated horticulture over 30 years, valued at $250 million, with a total tonnage produced in excess of 184,000 tonnes. If you contemplate that, in 1980, the figure was zero, it's enormous growth.
Agribusiness has made a very substantial contribution to the economy and businesses. Rural businesses underpin and sustain a myriad of related business, from freight and transport to packaging, fencing, fertilising and equipment suppliers. Farmers in the NT inject approximately $188 million for the purchase of local goods. Agriculture businesses also engage large numbers of permanent and seasonal staff whose wages circulate through the regional centres in the Northern Territory. Farmers in the Northern Territory, bearing in mind there was zero output in 1980, employ some 4,300 people today.
Currently in operation is the Sweetest Job NT campaign. This is a mango industry project and the latest in a series of successful campaigns and programs aimed at meeting the demand of growers for seasonal agriculture workers and to raise awareness of and connect people to seasonal work opportunities in the local area. In 2018, the Sweetest Job NT project is supported and funded by Regional Development Australia Northern Territory, NT Farmers Association, Litchfield Council and the Northern Territory Department of Trade, Business and Innovation. Launched in September this year, there are over 130 local residents registered, with 21 currently being employed. We want that, not the sort of dodgy processes that have been proposed in this federal government to make unemployed people work in industries that they are not wanted in and don't want to work in.
I would also like to make special mention the Vietnamese and Cambodian farming communities in the Top End who featured on the ABC's Landline program last year. In the Humpty Doo and Marrakai area there are about 30 farms operated by Vietnamese and Cambodian families who came to Australia as refugees from 2003 onwards and have since chosen to move to the Northern Territory and set up Asian vegetable farms with some now also transitioning to mangoes. With very little skills or money, many form small collectives and share their equipment and workers. They now contribute $40 million to the NT economy through farming, with top quality NT products sent to markets mainly in Sydney and Melbourne, filling a major gap in the domestic market as the growing season is opposite to the main markets of South Australia. These people, I emphasise, were refugees when they first came to this place.
Water is critical to every agricultural enterprise in the Northern Territory. The Territory has significant water resources but there are serious gaps in the adequacy of current water resource management arrangements and these gaps pose a threat to the future of the industry. The industry strongly supports all efforts aimed at implementing regulated water resource management arrangements to deliver sustainable, equitable and reliable access to water resources for all legitimate water users. The industry needs to have confidence in the integrity and transparency, equity, consistency, and robustness of water resources, water resource management, policy and its application. It's very important we acknowledge how great this industry is for the Northern Territory and northern Australia generally. I might say, we produce far more than they do in the Ord, which gets a lot more publicity than we do. (Time expired)
Mr JOYCE (New England) (17:37): I'd say that the Egyptians knew it and that's how they brought about the Egyptian economy. It's probably the reason why the Romans decided they wanted to basically take over or invade Egypt. It wasn't because of the pyramids; it was because of—
An honourable member: they invented everything.
Mr JOYCE: They certainly had a very good wheat crop, which the Roman empire was very interested in and that was basically what drove them into that neck of the woods. So the politics of irrigation have been with us for as long as man—as a gender-neutral term—has been on this earth. What we also noted in the growth of our nation, whether it's Sydney with Warragamba Dam or Brisbane with Wivenhoe Dam—I remember the application going through for the expansion of the water storage in Canberra to go from 4,000 to 80,000 gigs—is we have got to have water storage if we are going to have irrigation. If you don't believe in building water storages, if you don't believe in building dams then it makes sense that you will not have irrigation. It's worth about $15 billion, the irrigated industry. It is permanent plantings such as fruit, nuts and vegetables. They are in excess of $3 billion each. Cotton and dairy are also incredibly important in that space. Australia, without a shadow of a doubt, is the driest inhabited continent on earth. If you don't have irrigation then land that could be worth $30,000 an acre or, in some instances, maybe $15,000 to $20,000 an acre, will go down to maybe less than $1,000 an acre. Without water, it has much more of a reduced value. So water is wealth.
We have to drive forward. It's incredibly frustrating in this place that every time you go to build a water storage, someone comes up with some reason why you can't do it. I can go through the litany of Chaffey Dam, which we build after fighting for so long. It was the Birralong frog there. Everyone had a reason not to build it. Nathan Dam, to this day, is not built because the boggomoss snail came up there. For the expansion of Warragamba Dam, it is the regent honeyeater; and for O'Connell Creek Dam, it is the scaley snake skink that stops it. If you name a dam, I will tell you the environmental problem that apparently is why they can't build it. This of course is a dip of the lid, worshipping the god of inertia, which believes somehow you can attain wealth without developing the country.
We have so much more knowledge now of environmentally sustainable irrigation. It primarily revolves around what they call 'end of valley flows' and what is a reasonable amount of water to extract, what is an unreasonable amount of water to extract and how you keep the biota of the river in a sustainable form by letting enough through. What we also note with irrigation, of course, is the regulation that a body of water has to move through the watercourse. In times such as these—droughts—where the riverbeds would be completely and utterly dry, below the regulated dams you will still find water flowing. Therefore, because the water brings life, the capacity for the environmental regeneration is so much better. That is just a fact, because there is water in the river.
In the Northern Territory you have a different form of irrigation, which predominantly relies on things such as aquifers—and getting the CSIRO to get proper understanding of the aquifers is incredibly important. It doesn't matter where you go. In St George with the red soils irrigation for such things as onions and rockmelons is proving to be so beneficial. If you go to the Moree, there is the immense wealth that came from Copeton Dam and the irrigation of cotton. Might I remind everybody that if it wasn't for the cotton crop, you wouldn't have cotton seed. If you didn't have cotton seed one of the main dietary components that sustained our cattle through this drought would be lost. Cotton seed, absolutely and utterly, is a high-protein feed supplement that is vitally important and works symbiotically with the feed requirements of stock during the drought. In Stanthorpe it's granite soils. With granite soils you see the permanent planting. Even there now we are trying to drive the Emu Swamp Dam.
Unfortunately, the Labor Party always takes money out of our dams' portfolio. I heard before about what we're doing in the Tasmanian midlands. I was happy to be down there to open part of that, to put federal money towards the development of that, to bring wealth to the midlands of Tasmania. I have been known, in my time in parliament, to be almost pathological in my desire to build more dams. And that will remain, because if we don't have dams, you won't have irrigation. If you don't have irrigation, a lot of people in the world who we are feeding will starve to death.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (17:42): I'm pleased to follow the member for Wentworth on this motion, given that while he was the minister in charge he failed to deliver $10 million to the Werribee Irrigation District.
Mr Joyce: As a point of order, I take that as a compliment, or maybe a slip of the tongue, but the member Wentworth has not at this point been decided. I do know that I am prime ministerial in my approach. Thank you very much.
Ms RYAN: The member for New England, as minister, failed to give $10 million to the Werribee South growers in my electorate. The irrigation system for Werribee South was developed in 1912 and had not been redeveloped since, until, of course, quite recently state Labor committed, under Minister Neville, to see to the redevelopment and refreshment of that irrigation, because it's been losing up to 30 per cent of the water going down those channels to Werribee South.
I put myself on the list today to speak on this important motion, because, of the $3 billion worth of vegetables, $180 million worth of lettuce, broccoli, cauliflower and fennel are produced in my electorate. It's a small pocket of the City of Wyndham called Werribee South, and vegetable growers began there in the 1920s when Italian migrants joined our community and began farming the area. They were joined, over time, by many from Greece, Macedonia and Albania.
Those farmers have now been there for generations. They have been agile and innovative in their work. They now do four crops a year on the soil in Werribee South, aided by groundwater as well as leaning into risk and taking recycled water and using the river water from the Werribee River. They have branched into hydroponics, transport and logistics, and export. I want to commend them for the generations of work they have done and give them a guarantee that this member for Lalor, like those before her, will commit to ensuring that this farming district remains a farming district and that their contribution to the vegetables for Australian consumption will be rewarded and will continue to the next generation. I particularly say that to the latest generation of these modern farmers now, young men and women committed to seeing these traditions continue as they find new modern ways to produce their crops. I commend them also for recent innovations with the direct employment of refugees in our community, particularly those from Burma, who are relishing the agricultural work that they are being directly employed by these farmers to do each day.
I stress again the role the Victorian state Labor government has played in ensuring that this terrific agricultural area continues—that is, in the modernisation of those channels. I welcome it. At the beginning of this process when I first approached the Victorian state water minister, Lisa Neville, we looked at the impact this was having on our river, the amount of water we were losing in the channels, what that meant to our irrigators and to our river and how we could best set this area up for future generations. It's about a $32 million spend. We've finished stage 1. We're on to stage 2. There is still an opportunity for this federal government to meet the contribution by the state government and to put in their $11 million contribution that would mean so much to growers in my area, who have taken it upon themselves to lean into risk, to invest in their farms over the last 10 years and to make a commitment long term into the future of this agricultural area. They understand how important it is. They have 40 kilometres of new pipeline to replace the old channels. I call on this government to support the growers of Werribee South and make a commitment to see the modernisation of this area, so we can guarantee healthy lettuces, cauliflowers and new innovations like fennel going to market from Werribee South every week.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Gee ): The time allotted for this debate has expired.
Debate adjourned.
Bleeding Disorders
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (17:47): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 7 to 13 October 2018 is Bleeding Disorders Awareness Week;
(b) haemophilia, the most common bleeding disorder, affects more than 2,700 Australians, almost all of them boys and men;
(c) haemophilia is a genetic disease where a lack of a protein in the blood needed for clotting leads to excessive bleeding, often into joints and muscles;
(d) haemophilia impacts every aspect of day-to-day life—activities we all take for granted—as a result of hospitalisations, pain, accumulated disability and psychological impacts;
(e) treatment for bleeding disorders is delivered through specialised haemophilia treatment centres across the country and is jointly funded by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments through the National Blood Agreement; and
(f) the Haemophilia Foundation of Australia delivers vital support to Australians with bleeding disorders through advocacy, education and promotion of research;
(2) recognises that:
(a) while haemophilia treatment has improved significantly in recent years, there is still a significant need for improved treatments to deliver a better quality of life;
(b) reforms to the Therapeutic Goods Administration process to evaluate new medicines now allows for expedited priority review of new treatments for serious conditions such as haemophilia; and
(c) however, the road to fund new bleeding disorder treatments remains complex; and
(3) calls on the Government to continue working constructively with state and territory governments to ensure all Australians with bleeding disorders receive timely access to the treatments they need.
In moving this very important motion I speak in support of the more than 2,700 Australians, mostly boys and men, living with haemophilia. I acknowledge also the members of the Haemophilia Foundation Australia and thank them for not only raising awareness of this insidious disease during Bleeding Disorders Awareness Week but also the work they do delivering vital support to Australians with bleeding disorders through advocacy, education and promotional research. I also acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues, the member for La Trobe, for seconding this motion in a show of bipartisanship, and the member for Macarthur, who, as a doctor, has treated many sufferers of haemophilia, understands the importance of this motion and thanked me for raising it in the House.
Haemophilia is a rare and lifelong bleeding disorder that is complex to diagnose and difficult to manage. Australians who suffer from haemophilia lack a clotting factor and therefore suffer from bleeding due to injury, surgery or, sadly, for no apparent reason at all. It's the quality of life available for those Australians who live with haemophilia that concerns me, and that is what has prompted me to move this motion. Australians living with haemophilia face physical, financial, employment and psychological challenges throughout their lives.
Pain, patience and perseverance are the three words my Jacana constituent, David Cunningham, uses when asked to describe his life and living with haemophilia: pain because people are in pain all the time or, as he says, 'at least I am'—and that the pain of a major bleed is a nine out of 10 and can last for days on end—patience to get through the ongoing hospital visits during a lifetime of living with haemophilia; and perseverance to:
Keep going, don't give up, don't sit around and do nothing.
David is 63 years old and lives with haemophilia A. He was first diagnosed as a young boy. With no known family history of the bleeding disorder, there were limited people around David who understood the impact haemophilia was having on his life. Growing up in the sixties and seventies, David remembers that there wasn't a lot of support available to allow him to independently manage his condition. Even though he acknowledges that patients today have much greater flexibility and choice, he says there's still more to do and adds that, unless there is a cure, people like him with haemophilia still need support and relief from the disease.
David, like many others who have been living with haemophilia all their lives, has had a chance to reflect and recount what life is really like for sufferers. Even though his bleeds lessened as he got older, when he did bleed, he'd have to take a week at a time off work to recover. With sick leave used up, he resorted to unpaid leave. Then, when his condition worsened, work became untenable. David retired forcibly at 45, after 20 years in a profession he loved, including teaching the young minds at Broadmeadows West Technical School. As a result of haemophilia A and other health complications such as type 2 diabetes, David had to go on the disability support pension, and he's still on it today. This is a man who loved to play football and cricket but had to stop because of ongoing bleeding into his joints and muscles. An avid sports fan and a one-eyed Collingwood supporter, because of mobility issues he can't go to the games anymore and can only watch his beloved team on television.
He says haemophilia is an isolating disease, even more so for him. The bleeds to his knees and ankles have taken their toll, and now David has limited capacity and walks with crutches. He says:
I don't get out as much as I used to because it's hard for me to get out, sit down and then get up, so I just stay home.
David wishes that he was able to enjoy his retirement more but says living with haemophilia has made this impossible:
You get used to it—life goes on and you learn to accept it.
Haemophilia sufferers shouldn't have to get used to this quality of life that sees them retire in their prime, being unable to live an active and healthy life, suffer from financial distress and the list goes on for many of them. More needs to be done to find a cure to this lifelong disease so that we can give Australians who suffer from haemophilia the quality of life they deserve. More investment needs to go into research and development for this disease. I'd like to call on the government to work even more closely and constructively with the state and territory governments to ensure all Australians with bleeding disorders receive timely access to the treatment they need. This will ensure that people like David can finally get the care, treatment and quality of life that should be afforded to all Australians, which David says will be lifesaving for the young Australians who suffer in silence because of this disease.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ): Is the motion seconded?
Dr Aly: I second the motion.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (17:52): I rise in support of this motion. Haemophilia and bleeding disorders affect far more Australians than people are aware. Everyone is familiar with the story of haemophilia affecting the royal families, and that is the nub of the problem: the genes are the cause of these unfortunate disorders. But there are other bleeding disorders besides haemophilia. There are various forms—one milder form called Christmas disease, another one called Von Willebrand disease, and there are other very rare blood-coagulation-factor disorders that cause problems. There are these pesky little things call platelets which run around and plug up the holes when you cut yourself, and there are disorders of platelets as well. But the coalition government—as governments before us have done and governments in the future will do—administers and delivers probably the best blood product and treatment system in the world for people afflicted with bleeding disorders. I don't know of a better system. We spend about $1.2 billion on the National Blood Agreement, where the federal government kicks in that amount of money and shares the costs with the states around all of the state based haemophilia and other blood-disorder treatment centres.
There is good news. The former speaker mentioned the desire for a cure. The good news is there is a cure on the way. There are cases of gene therapy where the gene for producing factor IX is introduced into the person whose genes don't make it, and they have been cured, basically just with gene therapy.
Like CAR T therapy for lymphomas and leukaemias, it's being researched around the world as we speak. All those doctors, scientists and biochemical wizzes are working on gene therapy for factor VIII haemophilia, which is the more commonly known and severe haemophilia. We also have clever biochemists and scientists who've developed recombinant factor VIII, factor IX and various other replacement therapies so that you don't have to rely on blood products that are pooled from multiple donations, which is what was the case when I was working in the haemophilia centre at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Westmead Children's Hospital.
There was one stage in the eighties, before HIV was understood and hepatitis C was understood when, unfortunately, whole cohorts of children with haemophilia got infected because, if your products were pooled from 100 donors, only one of them had to have hepatitis C or the at-that-time-unknown HIV for the person to be infected. It was a tragedy. But recombinant technology has saved that, and gene therapy is on the way.
Parents do have a lifelong struggle. Many of them adjust, but for the child or young adult it really does mean a different life. But the wonders of modern medicine are making huge gains in the quality of life. Instead of big haemorrhages and massive bruises—which you couldn't imagine if you had normal clotting—distorting and damaging joints, in the future, hopefully, those days will be gone. There are other treatments that they can give—sprays into the nose, under the skin or infusions—which will increase the amount of factor VIII.
So there is light at the end of the tunnel for many of these people who, through no fault of their own—it just runs in their family; it's recessive and then it pops up mainly in boys. There is really amazing technology, and Professor Rasko at RPA and other people overseas have been instrumental in this initial trial of gene therapy with factor IX. It's Australian scientists who are really at the cutting edge. The European body that provides certification for these therapies and the FDA in America are both fast-tracking their assessment of this. The Medical Services Advisory Committee in Australia, which is like the PBAC that approves drugs, is looking at these new therapies as we speak.
I thoroughly support this motion because it is a dreadful impost on unlucky people, but we have a great system in Australia.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (17:58): I congratulate the member for Calwell for bringing this motion. It really is very apposite. Last week, 7 to 13 October, was Bleeding Disorders Awareness Week, and it's very important that the Australian community is able to access the best treatment for these complex and fascinating disorders. Bleeding disorders are more than just haemophilia. You may be aware that newborn babies in most developed countries now get vitamin K injections to prevent what was a very severe and sometimes fatal bleeding disorder of newborns called haemorrhagic disease of the newborn due to vitamin K deficiency. Australia led the world in introducing this many years ago.
Haemophilia is a disorder that most of us recognise as the most significant bleeding disorder, but it's not the most common. Haemophilia A, or factor VIII deficiency, is the most common severe bleeding disorder. Its counterpart, haemophilia B, or factor IX deficiency, is rarer and generally less severe but can be quite severe. But the commonest bleeding disorder was mentioned by the member for Lyne: von Willebrand disease. There are over 200,000 Australians who have von Willebrand disease—usually fairly mild and unlikely to cause a problem unless there's severe injury et cetera but occasionally quite severe.
These disorders are genetic. Haemophilia A and B are what are called X-linked. In other words, the mutation's carried on the X chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes, so they don't express the disorder; males, who have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome, will express the disorder if the genetic abnormality is on their X chromosome, inherited from their mother—although some can be mutations. The English royal family were afflicted by haemophilia B—not A, but B. The defective gene was carried by Queen Victoria, and she caused several of her descendants to have severe haemophilia B.
I've looked after many kids with bleeding disorders, particularly the haemophilias and Von Willebrand disease. The treatment used to be essentially that of replacement therapy, using factor VIII in the case of haemophilia A when bleeding occurred, derived from pooled blood products. As the member for Lyne has explained, many of these children developed HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Thankfully we now use recombinant clotting factors VIII and IX. This is bioengineered; it's not from human blood products and is much safer. We now have treatments, very effective treatments, for hepatitis C.
The central problem with haemophilia though is spontaneous bleeding, often presenting not in the newborn period, but when a child first starts to mobilise, starts to walk. The usual story is you see a child coming in covered in multiple bruises but who is otherwise well when he's started to walk. Kids, as we all know, when they start to walk, they have lots of falls and get lots of bruising. Sometimes it's a pretty traumatic time waiting to get the blood test results when you see a child like this. Is it leukaemia or is it a bleeding disorder such as haemophilia?
A diagnosis of haemophilia is quite a difficult one, because these children have spontaneous bleeding often to their joints, and this can lead to a lot of scarring inside the joint and joint deformity. Many of the older people with haemophilia in particular are left with quite significant long-term joint deformities. These days we're much better at treatment. We offer prophylactic treatment to try to prevent bruising and bleeding, to prevent ongoing joint damage. And now, just around the corner, is gene therapy. This is a fantastic new treatment. There's a new medication called emicizumab, which is a gene therapy given subcutaneously on a weekly basis that can really prevent long-term damage. So it's a wonderful new therapy, which is just starting to become available. It's a wonderful new development that I'm very pleased to see. I hope that we can provide this treatment for our children with haemophilia in the future, and we'll prevent long-term damage. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Gee ): 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.
Economy
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:
(1) recognises the positive effect of the Government's measures for a stronger economy mean that essential services are guaranteed including the Government's:
(a) support for education and childcare; and
(b) measures to support more choices for Australians to live longer, healthier lives; and
(2) notes with deep concern that the Opposition has no plan for a stronger economy that will deliver essential services to Australians
Mr GILES (Scullin) (18:03): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I'm particularly pleased that it was the member for Chisholm who put this debate on the Notice Paper. In considering my remarks, I'll go back to the very start of hers. She began her contribution by saying this:
As a very proud member of the Turnbull government I am delighted to move this motion this morning.
Well, quite a few things have changed since then, and I hope I'll be able to conclude my remarks by referring to the member for Chisholm's conclusion as well. Quite a few things have changed in this building, including over the weekend, since the member for Chisholm put this motion on the Notice Paper. But regardless of her recently acquired more independent attitude and lack of confidence in the direction of the Morrison government, I am deeply concerned by the views that she has set out here, views which are echoed by members of the government more broadly. It is telling, when I consider the contributions made in this debate so far from the government side of the House, that government members continually insinuate that there is only one choice open to Australians when it comes to managing our economy and that there is no alternative to their one-point plan for economic growth. But, in the discussion of this motion, it's also offensive that government members so often seek to tie their blinkered and ideological view about economic management to those services Australians cherish and so often rely on.
But, of course, there are choices, important choices, facing Australia and Australians as they consider an election that we so desperately need. We can reject neoliberalism and trickle-down economics. We can invest in those things which will secure economic growth that is inclusive. I am going to talk a bit about some of Labor's platform, but I want to be very clear in saying that the Australian Labor Party under the Leader of the Opposition is not an outlier in this regard. The sorts of things that we are talking about that will set us on the pathway to inclusive growth are things that are being recommended by bodies like the IMF and the OECD and by most significant international economists. These are not just choices that are open to Australia; they are choices that Australia must make. Fundamentally, the Australian government must change tack and show more confidence in the Australian people and their capacity, which is exactly what Australian Labor has been doing, particularly in the week since the member for Chisholm introduced the motion that is the subject of this debate.
I want to talk about two policy initiatives in particular. The first is the announcement by the member for Kingston and the Leader of the Opposition about providing certainty for four-year-old preschoolers, something this government should and must do, rather than relying on year-by-year rollover on its commitment, and extending preschool for three-year-olds. This is about the best investment we can make in Australia's future. By investing in young Australians at a time when their brain development is greatest, the return on the investment will be greatest. That's what the academics have been telling us for quite some time. There are few policy announcements which have excited me quite so much as this one, and I urge government members to reject the views of some that this can actually reduce the IQ of children participating in three-year-old kindergarten or similar programs, as was suggested absurdly. Instead, embrace what the evidence tells us; ensure that the benefits of three-year-old preschool are enjoyed not just by a select few but by all Australians. There could not be a more significant investment in growth and, indeed, in equity for the future.
The other issue around securing inclusive growth that I want to touch upon is getting our schools funding right. Now, the government does deserve a tick for eventually recognising that it was short-changing Catholic and independent schools, and we have welcomed the fact that the government has made good, admittedly too late, its cuts in the Hockey-Abbott budget. But there is more to be done. Eighty-five per cent of the cuts to schools came from our public schools—2.5 million Australian children deserve fair funding so that they can reach their potential and our country can realise its potential more broadly.
In conclusion, I just want to go back to what the member for Chisholm said near the end of her contribution:
Australians can rest assured that the Turnbull government has a plan …
Well, we know how that has ended up. I can only urge members of the now Morrison government to look at a plan B.
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (18:08): It's always a pleasure to follow the member for Scullin. Whilst I don't agree with his proposition, it's very, very clear that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you want to look at the economic strategy which is being delivered by the coalition, you need only look at the numbers. What we know is that the unemployment rate for those looking for a job in September was down 0.3 per cent to 5 per cent. We know that we have passed through parliament the reduction in the small business tax, so by 2021-22 those small businesses out there with under $50 million turnover will be paying a tax rate of only 25 per cent. We have Minister Angus Taylor. He is out there on the job, looking to drive down electricity prices. Now, I know that he is hamstrung by state governments—in particular, the hapless and incompetent ones like the Queensland Labor government led by Annastacia Palaszczuk—but he is looking to drive down the price of energy in this country.
All of those things put money back into people's pockets so they can decide what it is that they will do with their money. We know what the opposition side would do if they were in government. They would increase taxes by $200 billion. That is not a small number. That is $200,000 million in taxes which the Australian people would have to pay to those opposite. And what will they do with it? They will give it to someone else. I think it's far more important that we continue to drive our economy. We have been successful to date. We'll continue to be successful. More importantly, we are able to deliver the services that the Australian people need.
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Gee, I'm a passionate Queenslander.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Gee ): I do know.
Mr PITT: As I said, we have this incompetent Labor government in Queensland. In fact, independent figures, which were released just last week, have revealed that the Queensland government is cutting funding to local hospitals in the Wide Bay region. We hear a lot about cuts from those opposite. Here is the reality: these figures from the independent National Health Funding Body show that federal government funding has grown by 78 per cent from 2012-13 in comparison with federal Labor, and state Labor has cut nearly $4 million in the last year alone—2016-17 to 2017-18. During this time, our contribution increased by $25 million. These are the stated facts. We are putting up funding to hospitals. State Labor in Queensland is cutting those funds, and that affects our local people.
The member for Wide Bay is in the chamber. I know that he is a passionate defender of the rights of people in Wide Bay. We have offered a new five-year funding agreement that will deliver $130 billion in Commonwealth hospital funding, including $30 billion in additional funding across Australia. That is an increase. We are able to do that because of a strengthening Australian economy. We are putting the structures in place for our economy to grow. We are being successful. It is very, very clear from the numbers that it is working.
Locally, we continue to invest in regional areas, because for me, as a local member, a strong regional economy means more local jobs, and that is what we are all about. In fact, Bundaberg Brewed Drinks announced just last week that they will invest $156 million in a super brewery. That is the biggest manufacturing plant in our region, in our history, to the best of my knowledge, with the assistance of a $19 million grant from the federal government's Regional Growth Fund. So we are investing in regional Queensland, in regional Australia, and we are keeping those jobs local. An icon like Bundaberg Brewed Drinks will not be moving overseas. They'll be staying local, driving hundreds of jobs—in fact, over 213 jobs in construction and 147 jobs post construction. This is a 45,000 square metre facility on a greenfield site. It is an incredible investment. I'm very pleased that the family-owned company has actually invested in our local region again. We have Superior Pak, who are manufacturing rubbish trucks for councils all over the country. They've got about 200 staff and a very large apprentice intake, which I'm very pleased about. Consolidated Linen Service in Hervey Bay continue to grow—but back to the PMB.
There couldn't be a bigger contrast. We are driving the economy. Business is growing. We are producing more local jobs. More strength in our economy means more opportunities for our people. If the opposition get into government, there will be $200 billion in additional taxes and increases in electricity prices. If you are one of those people who have earned your hard-earned, you are a self-funded retiree and you happen to have a share portfolio, those opposite will take away your imputation credits, which could be used to pay your rates bill or your electricity bill—all of the bills that come along. There is a great risk with the opposition. As the coalition government, we are strengthening the economy and we'll continue to do so.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (18:14): I would like to thank the member for Chisholm for this motion on the economy. Clearly, it's not because I agree with the motion in any way, shape or form—in fact, quite the opposite. But, nonetheless, I would like to thank her because it gives me an opportunity to recognise, despite her claims, that it is only Labor who has a plan for Australia. It's only Labor who is fighting for a fair go for regular Australians. While the government is cutting health care and education services, it is only Labor who is investing in the future of this country.
I see the member for Chisholm notes that under this government 'essential services are guaranteed'. Colour me a cynic, but this is glaringly blatant political speak that essentially means absolutely nothing. I'd like to question what exactly is part of this guarantee that she speaks of? Is it a guarantee of more cuts under the LNP, like the $2.9 million that has been ripped out of the Caboolture Hospital, or the billions of dollars that have been ripped out of schools all across Australia? I have spent a lot of time in my community over the last few months—I dare say, a lot more than most members in the House. I can say with absolute complete confidence that this is not a guarantee that any person in my electorate would want—a guarantee of a cut.
What they want is a guarantee of the plan that Labor has detailed in its Fair Go Action Plan. It's comprehensive. It's detailed. It's a plan that the member for Chisholm so very conveniently forgot to mention when she penned her motion. I'll give the member for the benefit of the doubt, though. It's conceivable that she was too busy with the internal leadership politics of her party to notice that the stable, united Labor Party are getting on with the job and doing what government won't, and that is leading this country. Under opposition leader Bill Shorten and deputy leader Tanya Plibersek, the Labor Party have been working harder than ever in opposition—working harder than in living memory. We have had to because government have been busy shutting down parliament and cancelling sitting weeks. Someone has had to develop a vision for Australia, so Labor has done just that.
Our comprehensive suite of positive policies can be summed up in just a few dot points. They are very clear points. They are succinct. They give people a vision. Let me go through them. With our Fair Go Action Plan, Labor will restore funding to our schools and hospitals so that everyone has access to the essential services they deserve. Now, that is what I call a guarantee. Labor will ease cost-of-living pressures so that families feel relief on their budgets. We will stand up for workers, with a strong industrial relations system; invest in cheaper, cleaner energy; and, of course, build a stronger economy that works for us all.
The member for Chisholm speaks of a strong economy in her motion, but she fails to recognise what it is that makes a strong economy, and that, of course, is people. It's the people. You can't have a healthy economy unless you have a healthy society. Without schools, universities and TAFEs, people can't get the qualifications they need to get into the field of work they want. Without decent pay and conditions, people don't have the money to spend at small businesses to keep local economies turning.
Labor does have a plan. It's comprehensive. It's been crafted after many thousands of hours of consultation with stakeholders, businesses and organisations. Most importantly, this plan has been crafted because it's been consulted on. We have consulted with real people—with people who live in our communities. While the government are clearly shifting their rhetoric from the tired 'Blame Labor' routine, it's funny that they're trying to point the finger and say their opposition doesn't have a plan. It's quite humorous because, despite not holding government, the dedicated Labor team that is working along Bill Shorten has a plan and a vision for Australia. While the government are all busy looking behind themselves, watching their backs, we know Labor is looking forward. We're looking forward and we're bringing the fair go back for Australians because, as I said, that's what people have told us they want. They just want a fair go. They want to be able to have schools, hospitals and decent pay, and they want be able to raise their family within their family budget.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (18:19): I also thank the member for Longman. Our economy is getting stronger. There is absolutely no doubt about that. We see that day in and day out, every time new economic figures are released. Just last week, we saw unemployment fall to five per cent, while the participation rate in the labour market went up. When you look at what this government has managed to achieve since 2013, it is quite an extraordinary achievement. Government borrowings through the budget are down, employment is up, taxes are down, work participation is up and welfare dependency is down. Inflation, wages, all these things are at record highs or lows. Everything that should be up is up and everything that should be down is down. What we got under the opposition when they were in government was completely the opposite. It was reverso-world. The geniuses on the other side of the chamber managed to turn an $80 billion net negative government borrowing requirement into a $280 billion deficit in three short years. They took a $25 billion federal budget surplus that they inherited and turned that in one year into a $50 billion deficit. They had the gall to come into this House and say to the Australian people that they think they can manage the economy. Well, we have seen this show before. We have seen what those opposite do when given a chance to show that they're a mature government, a mature group of individuals. The louder they shout, the closer we know we're getting to the truth about what they're really up to.
Ms Claydon interjecting—
Mr FALINSKI: The member for Newcastle can shout as much as she likes, but she knows I'm on to something. She knows it because she has been hiding it the whole time.
You cannot have a strong aged-care system, you cannot have a strong education system, you cannot have a strong health system without a strong economy. And the reason we know this is because the Australian people, in a moment of insanity, elected the Rudd government. In that particular moment, what we ended up with was a system that couldn't afford to put drugs on the PBS. We couldn't afford an education policy. They announced Gonski 1.0 when it should have been Gonski 0.0 because the fact of the matter was they couldn't fund it past four years because they knew, in their heart of hearts, they didn't have a term in them. I think they know now that Bill Shorten, if he was so lucky to trip and fall over the line, would be lucky to make it one term before they were begging us to come back into government to fix their problems. From the NDIS to education to the PBS, all of it just imploded under these blokes. Has anything changes? All the same characters are there. The actors are the same. Frankly, the script hasn't even changed. In fact, frankly, nothing has changed over there. All they have got is empty rhetoric, sloganeering and what have we got? We got a proven track record of delivering. If they weren't shouting so much, they might learn a thing or two. You can borrow any of our policies you want.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr Falinski: Maybe you should turn your microphone down. The long and short of it is that all of this is absolutely critical to ensuring that we have an aged-care system that can deliver for people who are at the end of their lives and this can only be done with a strong economy. The reason it can only be done with a strong economy is because it costs money.
I often find it interesting that both sides tend to want to make criticisms of each other about the aged-care system. But the fact is, as someone who worked in it for 15, 16 years, I think both sides have a lot to be proud of in this system. It was in 1987 that the Hawke government allowed this system to be opened up. All of the Howard reforms, the Butler reforms, the reforms under Kevin Andrews and Julie Bishop led to a massive improvement in the quality of care that older Australians, that our tribal elders, receive. But we must be under no delusion. This can only have been delivered through the record funding that this government has provided to aged care and that's why I recommend this House pass this motion.
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (18:24): I'm not sure who's under delusions here, but this motion contains three false premises: firstly, that this government's measures have led to a stronger economy; secondly, that under this government, essential services are guaranteed including education, child care, health and aged care; and lastly, I refute the member's claim. Labor does have a plan to build a stronger economy, one that works for all of us. Let's have a look at the first of these.
The fact is that our economy is growing despite the current policy settings, not because of them. This government is lucky enough to benefit from the best global economic conditions in more than a decade, and yet net debt has doubled since September 2013. Gross debt has crashed through half a trillion dollars for the first time in the nation's history and is projected to remain above the threshold over the next decade, and both net and gross debt have been growing faster under this government than under the former Labor government, which had the global financial crisis to contend with.
Our economy would be stronger if we didn't have an unstable, divided government—a government that gives the biggest tax breaks to those who need them least, ripping money out of education and aged care and destroying the NBN.
Now let's have a look at just how well this government guarantees essential services and supports education, child care, health and aged care. In fact, this government's record is just a long list of cuts and failures. I have often spoken about the government's cuts to education: cuts to school funding, cuts to university funding and cuts to vocational education. I've spoken about the large number of Australians who have had to put off visits to the doctor or filling a prescription, because they simply cannot afford it. I have spoken many times about the increasingly long waiting lists for home care packages for older Australians who want to keep living in their own homes. Currently, there are 774 people waiting for home care packages on the Central Coast, with two-thirds waiting for high-level packages. That's not good enough. Many of them are living with dementia. So how can this government claim that it guarantees these essential services?
Finally, let's turn to the false claim about Labor's economic plans. No-one understands better than Labor the importance of economic growth and its role in improving the lives of everyday Australians. Economic growth was at the heart of the Hawke-Keating reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, and it was Labor that kept Australia out of recession and maintained economic growth in the face of the GFC, the worst economic crisis in 70 years. These reforms and Labor policy initiatives have underpinned nearly three decades of recession-free growth, and this focus on economic growth will continue under a future Labor government.
Labor will deliver the same tax relief for small businesses as the coalition but will do it without cutting schools or hospitals or increasing national debt. Supporting this measure provides certainty to small businesses ahead of the next election. A Labor government will deliver tax cuts for small and medium businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million a year, delivering certainty to the sector in a fiscally responsible way.
Labor has worked hard in opposition to develop a policy program that will boost investment. Whilst delaying the introduction of the Australian investment guarantee by one year in order to responsibly fund the tax cuts for small and medium business, Labor remains committed to the AIG. This important initiative will allow all businesses—small, medium and large—to immediately deduct 20 per cent of any new tangible and, increasingly importantly, intangible assets, with the balance depreciated in line with normal depreciation schedules for the first year.
Our future Asia framework aims to deepen and broaden our economic engagement with our region.
Most importantly, Labor will invest in human capital, the most important driver of economic growth in the modern economy. Labor has recently announced a $1.75 billion investment in early childhood education. A new national preschool and kindy program will guarantee that every three- and four-year-old has access to quality early childhood education they need for the best start in life and in school. This investment adds to our $14 billion investment that will transform public schools across Australia, giving all children the opportunity to reach their full potential no matter where they live or how much their parents earn. Our policies to boost skills include our commitment to reinvigorate our TAFE system, our comprehensive inquiry into post-secondary education and our commitment to uncapped places at universities.
Labor has taken difficult decisions to be able to fund its policy commitments such as making multinationals pay their fair share, reforming negative gearing, the capital gains tax discount and the tax treatment of trusts, managing tax affairs, and dividend imputation. Labor will build a strong economy that works for all of us.
Mr DRUM (Murray—Nationals Whip) (18:29): I would like to be able to believe the opposition when it comes to talking about a plan for our financial future, but the problem is that I can't believe them, because time and time again we are left with the reality that Labor cannot manage money. They just cannot manage money. They can spend money brilliantly—they are rolled gold medallists when it comes to spending money—but they cannot manage money. Like all of us that have a credit card that's getting out of control, at some stage we have to stop the spending, put a little bit back on it and somehow or other pay it back. It's a little concept that the Labor Party haven't quite picked up in the 80-plus years they have been operating. Time and time again, whether it be the Victorian government or the federal government, the Labor Party are brilliant at spending and getting into debt, and when they lose elections and hand over, the coalition tries to fix it all up. That's what we have here.
We had profits and surpluses under Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Costello. Within a very short time Prime Minister Rudd started the spending, and it didn't abate. The situation financially when we came to government under Tony Abbott was that the nation each and every day was spending $100 million more than it was making: $100 million yesterday, $100 million today, $100 million tomorrow; $100 million too much in spending. They maintained that for the six years of their own government. Whether it was Rudd, Gillard or Rudd, they kept spending $100 million a day more than they were making. Then they ladled the nation with some fantastic programs. The NDIS was fantastic program, but they didn't fund it. The Labor Party announced this great reform, one of the greatest reforms this nation has ever had, but they didn't fund it. They announced billions of dollars for Gonski, a fantastic program to spend more on better education, but they refused to fund it.
It has taken five years of a coalition government to gradually control spending and bring it back in line so that, if we go to an election in May next year, $100 million of losses each and every day will now be a very small surplus. For that the coalition government should be very proud. At the same time as bringing the books of this nation back in to surplus, we also have the lowest unemployment rate since 2011. We have created more than one million jobs: 1,150,000 jobs, 80 per cent of them full-time. The Labor Party would have you believe that we woke up one day and all of a sudden these amazing feats of running the economy happened upon us by chance. They don't understand the discipline it takes to invest in small family businesses to give them the confidence with the tax cuts they need and the instant asset write-off, one of the most practical measures to enable all those small and medium-sized businesses to invest up to $20,000 in their business and write that asset off over the first 12 months.
All of our policies are based on enabling Australians to keep more of the money they earn. If they're going to be good enough to drive this country forward by getting out of bed and running their own business or working in someone else's, we as a coalition want you to keep as much of that money that you earn for yourself. We understand that the Labor Party want to inflict another $200 billion to $250 billion in additional taxes on the Australian people. They're very clear about that and are not trying to hide it. They think that will all come out of big business and that big business will still keep employing people. You cannot go after certain sections. You cannot go after the retirees with their retiree tax, otherwise they will be in the same position they were in last time, where they didn't have enough money to put more and more drugs on the PBS, making more Australians go without the essential medicines they need for their health.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:34): It's disappointing we don't have another Labor speaker on this motion. However, we will push on. This motion and the contributions by the Labor members during this debate show us the fundamental flaw in the Labor strategy, their policy and their ideology. The one thing that they seem not to understand is that the size of the economic pie that we have in this nation is not fixed. It can rise, it can shrink and it can grow, depending on the policies that the government of the day has. Where we have policies that encourage and provide incentives for firms to go out there and invest their capital and take risks and experiment—experiment with new ideas, new products and new methods of production and distribution—some of those ideas will work. When we do that, they are grabbed and expanded, and that's what grows the economy.
If it wasn't like that and the economy was a fixed size, it would be very easy. You could just cut it up, redistribute it into equal pieces and have their so-called fair go for everyone. But that's not how an economy works. The very minute that you go in and start redistributing the pie, you actually destroy the incentives that created the wealth and created the size of that pie in the first place. This is why we see Labor governments having all these grand ideas and these grandiose spending promises. But, when they come to deliver them, the only way they can do so is to borrow more money and put this nation further in debt.
A great example is the anticoal rhetoric that we hear around the place. It seems to be no coincidence that those who run around and make the loudest noise, saying, 'I wants more spending for schools,' and, 'I want more spending for hospitals,' and, 'I want more spending for aged-care centres,' are the very same people who go around demonising coal. Fine, close down our coalmines. But this year thermal coal will generate $22½ billion worth of exports and metallurgical coal, which often gets forgotten, will generate another $35 billion worth of exports. The royalties alone, flowing into the state government coffers, are $6 billion. That's enough to employ something like 80,000 nurses. So, if you want to go around and run anticoal rhetoric and say you want to close down all these mines, what you are doing is saying, 'We're going to pull $6 billion out of state royalties,' and that gives them $6 billion less to pay for schools and hospitals.
We see the same with the company tax cuts. We've had to argue and fight to get Labor, fighting and screaming, to agree to reduce the corporate rate of tax, and we've only been able to do it for companies with a turnover of up to $50 million. It should have been unambiguous to do it for all companies. They talk about what Paul Keating did. They were the reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments. They reduced company tax for everyone because they knew that it was important to make our nation internationally competitive, to attract capital and to grow the economy. If you look at the evidence—whether it was Paul Keating or Peter Costello—every single government in this nation that has reduced the rate of company tax hasn't ended up with less taxation revenue; they grew the economy and, at the end of the day, the governments had more taxation revenue. So, even though it seems counterintuitive, with a lower rate of corporate tax the government gets more gross tax revenue, which gives us more money to pay for all those things that we so desperately need.
We've heard Labor speaking today, talking about Labor's policy on negative gearing. It is a dangerous policy that will drive house prices down and will drive rents up. It has been tried before; it has failed before. It will fail again, and I call on Labor members to get rid of that policy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Gee ): There being no further speakers on this motion, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Baha'is in Iran
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (18:40): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Baha'i community in Iran is subject to a widespread and systematic campaign of persecution;
(b) in 2012 and 2015, the House condemned the persecution and treatment of Baha'is in Iran;
(c) the discriminatory and unjust persecution continues, despite Iranian President Hassan Rouhani promising justice and equal opportunity for all Iranians;
(d) Australia was a co-sponsor of the December 2017 resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations which expressed 'serious concern about ongoing severe limitations and restrictions on the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief in Iran'; and
(e) persecution of Baha'is has recently spread to Yemen where a death sentence was passed against Mr Hamed bin Haydara in January 2018 due to his religion; and
(2) calls for:
(a) the immediate release of all Baha'is currently imprisoned in Iran for their religion, including the remaining Baha'i leaders imprisoned since 2008;
(b) the Iranian Government to repeal all discriminatory legislation and practices, including the 1991 Baha'i Question memorandum of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council;
(c) respect for the right of freedom of religion and belief for all and an end to the persecution of the Bahá’ís in Iran; and
(d) the repeal of the death sentence against Mr bin Haydara and the immediate release of all Baha'is currently imprisoned in Yemen for their religion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Gee ) (18:40): Is there a seconder?
Ms Claydon: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (18:40): I rise tonight to move this motion concerning the widespread and systematic campaign of persecution of Baha'is in Iran. I thank the member for Moore for seconding it when I submitted it and the member for Newcastle for seconding the motion tonight. I also want to recognise the member for Wills, the member for Berowra and the member for Newcastle for speaking on this motion tonight.
The points outlined in this motion are of significant concern to the Baha'i community here in my electorate of Canberra, and I imagine a considerable concern to the Baha'i community right throughout the rest of Australia and the world. I'm very pleased so many of them could join us here tonight for this discussion. Thank you so much for being here tonight. I'd like to specifically acknowledge Dr Natalie Mobini, who is director of the Office of External Affairs for the Australian Baha'i community, for her tireless advocacy for Baha'is here in Canberra and in the broader Australian community. The Baha'i faith is a peaceful faith that was founded over 150 years ago and has been present in Australia since 1920. According to the Australian Baha'i community, the faith's central theme is that humanity is one family and that the time has come for its unification in to a peaceful global society.
The Baha'i community advocates equality. It advocates education. It advocates scientific endeavour. There are more than five million followers around the world. They come from all backgrounds and can be found in virtually every country on earth. Many, as I said, can be found here in my electorate of Canberra as the ACT Baha'i centre is located in a fabulous location in Weston Creek.
The Baha'i community here in Canberra began in 1951 and, on 21 April, 1957, the community became firmly established with the election of its first local spiritual assembly, a local governing council elected by Baha'is in every locality where there are nine or more members. The community here in Canberra has continued to grow steadily and contributes to our city in many ways. From the mid-1980s, the diversity of the community was enhanced by the arrival of Baha'i refugees from Iran. Since becoming the member for Canberra, I've been involved in a number of events at the Baha'i centre by the Baha'i community. Just last week, along with a number of colleagues, I attended the anniversary of the birth of Baha'u'llah right here in Parliament House, where I was proud to share a message from the Leader of the Opposition.
In 2012 and again in 2015, I also raised private members motions in the House condemning the persecution of Baha'is in Iran. Iran has been actively persecuting Baha'is for the last 30 years. In 2008, it imprisoned the entire governing body of Baha'is. That was just 10 years ago that the entire governing body of Baha'is was imprisoned in Iran. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, Baha'is have been systematically persecuted. During the first decade of this persecution, more than 200 Baha'is were killed or executed, hundreds more were tortured or imprisoned and tens of thousands of lost jobs, access to education and other rights, all solely because of their religious beliefs.
Persecution is ongoing. One death sentence has been passed and a mass trial is ongoing on similar charges against more than 20 Baha'is. Five of these people are currently imprisoned for their faith. These developments are taking place in the northern portion of the country, which is under Houthi control in Yemen. The Houthis are strongly influence by Iran, which is continuing its longstanding persecution of the Baha'i community in its own country. The international community must call on the Houthis to drop the charges, release those in prison and cease the persecution of Baha'is. This is urgent.
Tonight, this motion receives bipartisan support, and together we call for the basic human right of freedom of religion and for an end to the persecution of Baha'is in Iran. We also call for the immediate release of all Baha'is currently in prison in Iran for their religion, the Iranian government to repeal all discriminatory legislation and practices; respect for the right of freedom of religion and belief for all; and the repeal of the death sentence against Mr bin Haydara; and the immediate release of all Baha'is imprisoned in Yemen for their religion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Canberra for bringing this motion to the parliament, and I extend a warm welcome to all members of the Baha'i community to the Federation Chamber this evening. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (18:45): I also rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Canberra. As we've heard, and as we all know and the people here know, since 1979 the government of Iran has made it official policy to discriminate against and persecute members of the Baha'i community, Iran's largest non-Muslim religious minority. It was back in 2016 that the then UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described Baha'is as the most severely persecuted religious minority in Iran. Baha'is are not recognised in the Iranian constitution, they are subjected to strict limits on the right to assemble and worship and Baha'i properties and holy places have been confiscated and destroyed.
Government led attacks on Baha'is have reintensified since 2005. That is why the Australian parliament, in 2012, 2015 and again today with this motion have condemned the persecution and treatment of Baha'is in Iran, which has been noted by all the speakers on this motion. I also note that the member for Curtin, the former foreign minister Julie Bishop, repeatedly called for the release of all seven members of the community's ad hoc national leadership group who were arrested in 2008 and sentenced to 10-year prison terms on spurious charges of disturbing national security, spreading propaganda against the regime and engaging in espionage. Six of the seven have completed their prison terms and been released. The seventh, Afif Naeimi, continues to be incarcerated despite suffering persistent and severe health problems.
Despite this persecution, the Baha'i community in Iran poses no threat to the government or the regime. Baha'is are not aligned with any political ideology or opposition movement, and nor do they engage in subversive activity or violence. They only ask simply for protection under the International Bill of Human Rights, to which Iran is a party.
Worryingly, this persecution has now spread to other countries like, Yemen where the situation is also very grave, although involving a much smaller population. In recent years, the Baha'i community there has experienced escalating persecution, particularly in the Houthi controlled northern portion of Yemen. There are currently six Baha'is in prison in Sana'a. The longest serving prisoner is Mr Hamid Kamal bin Haydara. He has been imprisoned by the authorities in Sana'a since December 2013 and has suffered severe mistreatment, including electrocution and being forced to sign documents while blindfolded. On 2 January 2018 the Specialised Criminal Court in Sana'a sentenced him to death due to his religious beliefs. Furthermore, the judge called for the dissolution of all Baha'i assemblies, thereby placing other Baha'i prisoners, as well as the Baha'i community as a whole, in further danger.
It's important to note that these developments taking place in Yemen are not being necessarily perpetrated directly by the government of Yemen. This is recognised internationally, including by Australia, as an important distinction. The Houthis have been in that part of Yemen strongly supported and influenced by Iran during the civil war. It must be said that there have been atrocious human rights abuses on all sides of the conflict. However, with respect specifically to the minority Baha'i community, Iran has been directing the persecution in a continuation of its longstanding persecution of the Baha'i minority in its own country. Multiple independent sources have confirmed that Iranian authorities are directing efforts to persecute the Baha'i in Yemen. The various forms of persecution experienced by Yemeni Baha'is bear a striking resemblance to what they have experienced in their own country, such as these spurious accusations used when they are arrested—that they are somehow a threat to national security.
The findings have been corroborated by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Mr Ahmed Shaheed. He said in a statement dated 22 May 2017:
The recent escalation in the persistent pattern of persecution of the Baha’i community in Sana’a mirrors the persecution suffered by the Baha’is living in Iran.
This means there are several hundred thousand people in Iran and Yemen that are in danger based solely on their religious beliefs. The Baha'i community in Iran numbers around 300,000. Although accurate statistics are not available, it's estimated there are now a few thousand Yemeni Baha'i. The Baha'i in Yemen are loyal citizens to their country, representing its rich and diverse culture.
Despite living through a turbulent period of civil conflict in Yemen, the Baha'i have refused to side with any particular group in this conflict and endeavour to serve all people, placing particular emphasis on youth, who are eager to dedicate their energies to the regeneration of their society through service to all. I have met many Baha'i in my own community in my electorate of Wills, and I can speak to the tremendous contributions they make to our local community. I support this motion because the important right of freedom of religion and belief is often breached by those regimes that are based on one religion—usually theocracies—and we must stand up together and be a voice for all the Baha'i that are persecuted around the world.
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (18:50): I support this motion moved by the member for Canberra calling for an end to the systematic persecution of the Baha'is in Iran and Yemen and in many countries across the world. The freedom to practice one's religion is a fundamental right that forms the core of our democratic beliefs in Australia. Our society allows freedom of religion—freedom from persecution, intimidation and harassment. There are many cases of the Baha'is being imprisoned in Iran and Yemen due to their religion beliefs.
The persecution of Baha'is has been confirmed independently by the United Nations group of regional and international eminent experts on Yemen. In its report dated 17 August 2018, the group stated:
Baha'is have also been targeted. The Group of Experts is aware of several Baha'is detained in Sana'a on the basis of their faith, some for more than two years.
Multiple independent sources have confirmed that Iranian authorities are directing efforts to persecute the Baha'is in Yemen. The various forms of persecution experienced by Yemeni Baha'is bear a striking resemblance to what the Baha'is in Iran have experienced in their country, such as the spurious accusation, used when Baha'is are arrested, that they're somehow a threat to national security. These findings were corroborated by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Mr Ahmed Shaheed. Over the years, Baha'is have endured persecution and atrocities, including economic and educational discrimination, imprisonment, torture, restrictions on their right to assemble, raids, arrests, vandalism, violence and even the ultimate sacrifice of death. Since 2005, it is estimated that more than 1,100 Baha'is in Iran have been arrested in Iran and detained.
It is incumbent upon us as elected representatives in a free society to call upon foreign governments around the world, including countries such as Iran and Yemen, to respect the freedom of religion and to allow their citizens to worship peaceably with tolerance. In raising public awareness of this issue it is hoped that world attention will be focused on addressing this grave injustice.
There is a strong Baha'i community in Australia, in particular in the northern suburbs of Perth. I've been fortunate enough to meet a number of Baha'is living in my electorate and also in the surrounding suburbs. Through my association with the local Baha'i community over a number of years, I have observed its members to be very peaceful, tolerant and family orientated. The religion should not be described as fundamentalist or extremist in nature. Rather, it is very moderate in nature. The Baha'i community is an integral part of our society, with its members actively participating in civic activities and volunteering to assist charitable organisations. They are well represented in the professions, in business and in the education sector. Over the years I have developed a closer working relationship and friendship with many Baha'is. I have attended their events and found out more about their philosophy and history, including the challenges they face with persecution in a number of countries across the world.
The Australian community's enhanced by the values of peace, tolerance, unity, family and advancement through education, which the Baha'is practise. What gravely impresses me generally about the Baha'i community in Australia is the ability of its members to integrate and assimilate to Australian society by fully and actively participating in the development and advancement of our country; by being inclusive, cooperative and participative. They have made the most of the opportunities presented to them, settled in and been embraced by their fellow Australians. The value they have placed on education, professional achievement and family values has seen them prosper in their country.
In supporting this motion for an end to the systematic persecution of Baha'is by the governments of Iran and Yemen, and more broadly an end to persecution of Baha'is by governments around the world, I urge all governments to consider the potential contributions that can be made to society by allowing the Baha'is to practice their religion freely.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (18:55): I too thank the member for Canberra, Gai Brodtmann, for bringing forward this important motion about the terrible persecution of members of the Baha'i faith in Yemen and Iran. I'd like to pay tribute and acknowledge the Baha'i communities of Canberra and surrounds, and thank you for honouring us with your presence here in this chamber.
As many of the previous speakers have noted, Baha'ism is a global religion based on the teachings of Baha'u'llah. It embraces the key tenants of many of the world's religions and sees a pathway for humanity to unite in creating a just and peaceful society. Baha'ism is built on the fundamental idea that we are all as one, equals regardless of background or belief. This principle of equality, along with the key tenants of harmony, human rights and the elimination of poverty and prejudice, form the foundation of the Baha'i belief system.
In my own home city of Newcastle there is a vibrant and dynamic Baha'i community that I have had the privilege to get to know. I'd like to make special mention of Tom Jones, the volunteer Baha'i chaplain at the University of Newcastle. Tom has been relentless in his pursuit of justice for Baha'i people facing persecution in Iran. He has brought to my attention on many occasions his grave concerns. He is also, as are many people in the Baha'i community, active in the Hunter Interfaith Network and the UN associations of Newcastle and the region. So they're people who are very thoughtful, insightful and great contributors to the community of Newcastle. In Australia, the followers of Baha'ism are free to practice their religion without hindrance. In doing so, they contribute greatly to the diversity and richness of the communities in which they live.
Regretfully, this is not the case everywhere. In Iran, where Baha'ism is the largest non-Muslim faith, with around 300,000 adherents, followers face a cruel and repressive regime of discrimination and violent oppression. As I mentioned earlier, Baha'ism is a religion of peace. It poses no threat to the regime and does not align itself with any opposition movement. Despite this, the Iranian government has maintained an official policy of persecution against Baha'is since the Iranian revolution in 1979. The ultimate goal of this is to eliminate the faith entirely. Iranian Baha'is have been subjected to violence, harassment and torture. They regularly find themselves on the receiving end of economic attacks that shackle their businesses or stop them earning an income. Licence applications are rejected, government jobs aren't opened and access to education at schools and universities is denied. There have been assaults, vandalism, beatings, arson and numerous suspicious deaths.
Since 2005 more than 800 Baha'is have been arrested or detained solely for the faith they practice. This includes the many teachers who have been jailed for their involvement in the Baha'i education program. In 2008, all seven leaders of the national Baha'i leadership group were imprisoned on spurious charges like 'disturbing national security' or 'spreading propaganda against the regime'. Despite an international outcry, the sentences stood. As the member for Wills noted earlier, while six have now been released—after finishing their sentences, I might add—one, Afif Naeimi, is still in jail even though he has ongoing health problems. In 2016 the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, described the Baha'i as 'the most severely persecuted religious minority' in Iran.
Australia does raise these issues regularly in the UN Human Rights Council, but things are getting worse, not better, for the Baha'i followers. Indeed, persecution has now spread to Yemen, with evidence suggesting that Iranian authorities are involved. In January this year, a death sentence was passed on Baha'i Mr Hamed bin Haydara solely for the religion he practises. I join with the member for Canberra, indeed all the speakers supporting this motion, in our call for fair and just treatment of Baha'is in Iran, in Yemen and everywhere they live.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (19:00): Firstly, can I welcome the members of the Baha'i community to the Federation Chamber this evening. We are honoured and it is our privilege to have you here. While I have not known the member for Canberra for very long, probably much to her gain and my detriment, it has been a matter of great privilege for the short time I have known her. Unfortunately this is my first term and she announced recently that it would be her last, and, while I would prefer to see her replaced by a Liberal member for Canberra, in the likely outcome of that, whoever does become the next member for Canberra in the next parliament will have a very hard act to follow, and this motion is an example of that. I have the privilege of representing one of—if not the—most significant houses of worship for the Baha'i in the Southern Hemisphere. Baha'i is a religion that teaches us the importance of peace, tolerance, unity and harmony, so I assume no member of the Baha'i has a Twitter account. And the reason I assume that is that those of us who enjoy the art of politics do not often get any of those sentiments on social media.
A high principle of liberalism is freedom. It's in fact one of our core beliefs, and part of that is freedom of religion, freedom to practice one's religion as one sees fit and also—to guarantee that—the separation of church and state. No person should be able to use the government in any way, shape or form to impose their views, their religious beliefs, on others. We believe in the rights of individuals, and a core part of that is the ability to practice your beliefs as you see fit. This motion says it all, as I have said previously: 'The Baha'i community in Iran is subject to a widespread and systemic campaign of persecution' for no other reason than the fact that the government of Iran does not like or tolerate other religions. In 2012 and 2015, this House, the Australian parliament, condemned the treatment of Baha'i in Iran. This is both fit and proper. The discriminatory and unjust persecution continues, however, despite President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, promising justice and equal opportunity for all Iranians—a promise easily made but not easily kept.
Australia was, as other speakers have noted, a co-sponsor of the December 2017 resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which expressed serious concern about ongoing severe limitations and restrictions on the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief in Iran, and 'serious concern' in diplomatic speak is a very serious term. Persecution of Baha'is has recently spread to Yemen, where a death sentence was passed against Mr Hamed bin Haydara—and I apologise for my pronunciation—in January 2018 due to his religion. The resolution calls for the immediate release of all Baha'is currently in prison in Iran for no other reason than the fact that they choose to practice this religion, including the remaining Baha'i leaders imprisoned since 2008. The Iranian government should repeal all discriminatory legislation and practices, including the 1991 Baha'i question memorandum of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council.
Respect for the rights of freedom of religion and belief for all and an end to the persecution of Baha'is in Iran and the repeal of the death sentence against Mr bin Haydara and the immediate release of all Baha'is currently imprisoned in Yemen for their religion is something that this parliament has no trouble expressing and no trouble unanimously passing. What is happening is wrong. It is something that would never occur in Australia. It is wrong that it occurs in other parts of the world. While ever any person is subject to the tyranny of the state for no other reason than what they choose to practise and believe in, all of us are imprisoned.
We are privileged by your presence here today and we stand with you against this horrible tyranny.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (19:05): I commend the member for Canberra for having moved this motion and brought on this debate in this place and command all my colleagues on both sides of the chamber for their words of support for the Baha'i community here in Australia and particularly their concern for members of their family and the broader community in Iran. I have a sizable Baha'i community in my electorate in Melbourne. I have very good relations with them. I see them from time to time and am happy to support them. But, more importantly, we in this place should stand for the upholding of human rights wherever that is diminished anywhere in the world, regardless of the ethnicity, the religion, the racial origins or any other characteristic of the people concerned. We should be prepared to stand up in this place.
We enjoy the luxury of living in one of the freest societies in the world. We enjoy the luxuries of free speech. We mix that with our responsibilities to give others the right to speak freely in this country. Sadly, that is not the situation which pertains in other parts of the world, including in Iran today, so I wanted to very briefly add my remarks to those of all my colleagues and once again commend the honourable member for Canberra for bringing this motion. I say that we in this parliament stand in solidarity with the Baha'i community and will continue to voice our concerns about the ill treatment and the injustice that happens in that country.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (19:07): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Mr Khalil: I second the motion.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:08