The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PRIVILEGE
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (09:31): Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I wish to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 51. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, JSCEM, has authorised me on its behalf to raise the following matter of privilege in the House of Representatives.
I wish to report to the House that in the course of the committee's inquiry into the 2016 election (a) the committee considers that GetUp! has provided false and misleading information to the committee; (b) the committee considers that the provision of false and misleading information substantially obstructed the committee in the performance of its functions in relation to the inquiry; and (c) the committee has authorised this matter to be raised in the House of Representatives as a potential contempt of parliament and requested that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members Interests.
Principally, this involves GetUp!'s misleading responses over more than a year and a half to questions from the committee about its 2016 election Vision Survey. The survey asked participants to prioritise 10 issues. Five times GetUp! failed or refused to provide the full results of the survey, instead providing misleading and, on one occasion, false information while giving implausible reasons for this refusal. All of this misled the committee about the high priority survey participants gave to the issue of dismantling offshore detention. Ultimately, GetUp! only provided the full results under a threat of summons. I will table a document that details the pattern of misleading responses to the committee. To conclude from the train of events that are reflected in the document I will table that GetUp!'s repeated obfuscation and prevarication constitutes a clear pattern of behaviour which has impeded the committee in its work is impossible to ignore or condone.
In relation to its 2016 election Vision Survey, it is clear that GetUp! fashioned its public announcements about the top three priorities purportedly voted by its members to eliminate the issue of dismantling offshore detention and for over a year and half prevaricated and misled the committee in response to questions about the full results of the survey, including tinkering with the results in order to give the impression that dismantling offshore detention was less important to the respondents than it actually was.
This was a serious and calculated persistent cover-up which impeded the committee's efforts to establish the truth about the results of their 2016 election Vision Survey for over a year and a half and therefore impeded the ability of the committee to reach conclusions on the inquiry. The committee was impeded in reaching conclusions on item 4 of its terms of reference—namely, the extent to which expenditure by third parties is conducted in concert with registered political parties. This is because instead of campaigning strongly on dismantling offshore detention, in line with its members' priorities, GetUp! campaigned on hospitals funding, thereby dovetailing with the campaign of one of the major political parties. GetUp! has also impeded the committee's examination of donations from Stan Sharkey and the Australia-USSR Friendship Association.
The question of whether an organisation aligned with, directed by or potentially funded by Russia has sought to fund a particular GetUp! campaign is a substantive one, deserves a definite answer and goes directly to the committee's examination of item 2 of its terms of reference, relating to examining donations from foreign sources, person, entities and foreign owned subsidiaries to political parties, associated entities and third parties. These are very serious matters that, because of the pattern of deliberate misleading and obstruction, substantially interfered with the committee undertaking and completing its work on the inquiry. They amount to an improper interference with the work of the committee and constitute a contempt of the committee and the houses. It is important that the House make it clear that such contempt for the authority of our committees will not be tolerated.
I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider giving precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the House Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests for inquiry and to report to the House. I also advise you that I have a statistical analysis of other answers given in response to GetUp!'s 2016 election Vision Survey which will corroborate this submission and which I can provide to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests if the matter is referred. To assist you in your consideration of this matter, I table my letter to JSCEM which formed the basis of its resolutions.
The SPEAKER ( 09:36 ): I thank the member for Tangney for raising this matter. I note that the matter has been considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and that the committee has come to a position on it, as the member outlined. Therefore, I will not, as is practice, ask the committee to further consider the matter. I will, as required by the standing orders, give consideration to the matter raised by the member for Tangney and the supporting information that he has just tabled. I will get back to the House as soon as possible. That will be some time next week.
BILLS
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting Retirement Incomes) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Families and Social Services) (09:37): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill implements measures announced as part of our government's 2018-19 budget to enhance the standard of living of older Australians by giving retirees greater choice and flexibility when it comes to managing their finances in retirement.
This bill provides for three changes to support Australians in retirement, including new means test rules to encourage the development and take-up of lifetime retirement income products, an expansion of the Pension Loans Scheme and an increase and expansion of the pension work bonus.
In 2017 the government introduced changes to the superannuation regulations, facilitating the development of innovative retirement products in Australia. This bill outlines how these products will be assessed under the social security means test. These new rules pave the way for the development of retirement income products in Australia that support greater choice and flexibility for Australians in retirement.
The new means test rules will take effect from 1 July 2019. They fairly assess pooled lifetime income stream products. A pooled lifetime income stream is a product that involves grouping a number of people's savings together. Those who contribute then receive a regular payment for the rest of their life. These products can help manage the risk of a person running out of savings in retirement.
The new means test rules will apply to all pooled lifetime income products held by social security or veterans affairs income support recipients that are acquired or purchased on or after 1 July 2019. Products purchased before 1 July 2019 will not be affected by these new rules. The rules will not change for account based income streams, the most common retirement income product.
Under the income test, the new means test rules will assess 60 per cent of payments from a pooled lifetime income stream as income. This reflects that part of the payments made by the income stream are a return of a person's initial investment amount, and therefore not income.
Under the assets test, the new means test rules will assess a proportion of the total purchase amount for the pooled lifetime income stream. At the time of purchase, 60 per cent of the purchase amount will be assessed. This will continue for a minimum of five years, or until the person reaches the life expectancy of a 65-year-old male (currently age 84), whichever is longer. After this point, 30 per cent of the purchase amount will be assessed.
This treatment takes into account the restrictions placed on these products by the superannuation regulations. When someone invests in a pooled lifetime income stream, they have limited access to their initial capital investment. By assessing only 60 per cent, we recognise the limited ability for these income streams to be 'cashed in' for self-support. By assessing 30 per cent in later life, the rules also recognise that the pooled lifetime income stream continues to have some value to the person, but avoids unfair outcomes when there is no ability to 'cash in' the income stream.
An income stream can be sold outside of superannuation, where it is not bound by the new superannuation regulations. In these situations, the new rules have some additional provisions to make sure that this is factored into the means test assessment.
The bill also amends the rules that apply to investment-type life insurance products. These products function similarly to additional benefits that can be attached to pooled lifetime income streams. The rules for investment-type life insurance products have been amended to make sure they are consistent with the new rules for pooled lifetime income streams. This stops two pensioners buying products with very similar features, but that would result in very different means test outcomes.
Stakeholders in the financial product and retirement income industries have been consulted throughout the development of the new means test rules. Stakeholders have been broadly supportive of this means testing approach, and the new rules take into account their feedback.
Whilst it is expected that the take up of these new products will be modest in the near future, because of these new means test rules it is expected that more products will be able to come to market, giving pensioners more choice and flexibility around how they manage their retirement savings. Pensioners will now be able to buy these products confident in how their pension will be impacted by their purchase.
The new means test rules are estimated to cost $20.2 million over four years.
Secondly, this bill increases and expands the pension work bonus. The work bonus encourages pensioners of pension age to undertake employment to supplement their pension. Presently, under the work bonus the first $250 of employment income a fortnight is not counted in the pension income test. This works in addition to the standard income free area (currently $172 per fortnight for a single pensioner). This allows, for example, a single age pensioner, with no other income, to earn up to $422 a fortnight from employment and still receive the maximum rate of age pension.
Pensioners are also able to build up any unused amount of the $250 fortnightly exemption to a total of $6,500. This amount can be used to exempt future earnings from the pension income test, so a pensioner could earn up to $6,500 a year extra without it affecting their pension. Any unused amount of the work bonus is held in a work bonus income bank. The income bank amount is not time-limited—if unused it carries forward, even across years.
The changes to the work bonus in this bill will commence from 1 July 2019. These changes will allow pensioners of pension age to earn more from working without reducing their pension payments. Social security pensioners of pension age, and Veterans' Affairs pensioners of service pension age, will be able to earn up to $300 per fortnight from work before this income is assessed under the pension income test. Additionally, the work bonus maximum accrual amount will increase to $7,800.
The work bonus was set at $250 per fortnight when the current scheme was introduced in 2011 and has not been increased since. Increasing the work bonus amount will allow pensioners to retain more of their pension when they receive income from work.
For example, consider Rohan, a single age pensioner working two days a week and earning $500 a fortnight. He has no other income and his assets are below the asset test free area. His pension is currently reduced because of his earnings. Under the changes, the first $300 of Rohan's earnings will not be assessed, and only $200 will count for the pension income test. His pension will increase by $25 per fortnight.
The bill also expands the work bonus to the self-employed. Earnings from self-employment are currently excluded from the work bonus. By expanding the work bonus, this bill will reward all work done by pensioners, including work done by the self-employed.
To understand how the changes to the work bonus may impact a self-employed person, consider Nisha. Nisha is a single part-rate age pensioner who runs a small business. She earns an average of $1,000 a fortnight. Her assets are below the pension asset test free area. As Nisha's income from self-employment is now eligible for the work bonus, the first $300 of her income will be excluded from the pension income test, and Nisha will receive a higher part-rate age pension. Her pension will increase by $150 a fortnight.
A personal exertion test will apply to ensure that the work bonus is only available to self-employed people who earn income from an engagement in gainful work—not those who receive income through financial or real estate investment businesses.
Overall, the changes to the work bonus will increase the payments of about 88,750 social security pensioners and 1,000 allowance recipients from 1 July 2019. Approximately 1,150 people will become eligible for a social security pension for the first time. Approximately 3,000 Veterans' Affairs pensioners will also benefit.
The changes to the work bonus are estimated to cost $227.4 million over four years.
The bill also expands the Pension Loans Scheme. The Pension Loans Scheme is currently available through Centrelink to part-rate pensioners and some self-funded retirees who own real estate. Under this scheme, a person of age pension age can nominate an amount up to the equivalent of the full rate of pension, with the payments accruing as a debt secured against real estate owned by the person. The debt accrues interest at a low market-related interest rate (currently 5.25 per cent). Safeguards ensure the amount of the maximum loan that can accrue is limited. The debt is either repaid if the property securing the loan is sold or recovered from the person's estate. The scheme is voluntary and can be withdrawn from at any time.
From 1 July 2019 the Pension Loans Scheme will be expanded. The available Pension Loans Scheme fortnightly loan-plus-pension amount will increase to 150 per cent of the maximum rate of fortnightly age pension (including the pension and energy supplements, and rent assistance where applicable). This will allow, for the first time, maximum-rate pensioners with securable real estate in Australia to receive a loan. Previous rules preventing some self-funded retirees from participating in the scheme will also be removed.
The change will also allow existing Pension Loans Scheme recipients to increase their existing pension-plus-loan amount up to the new threshold of 150 per cent of the maximum fortnightly rate of pension. As with the existing scheme, the debt is either repaid when the secured property is sold or recovered from the estate. Existing safeguards limiting the maximum loan amount will also remain.
These changes will give older Australians more choice to draw on the equity in their homes to support their standard of living in retirement. Full-rate pensioners will be able to increase their income by up to $11,912 (singles) or $17,958 (couples combined) per year (based on the current rates of pension) by unlocking the equity in their home.
Currently there are around 1.8 million age pension recipients who own their own home. This includes around 1.1 million maximum rate age pensioners who are unable to access the existing Pension Loans Scheme. Around 6,000 eligible pensioners of age pension age are expected to take up a loan under the expanded scheme over the next three years.
For example, consider Bob and Sue, a 70-year-old maximum rate pensioner couple with a house valued at $850,000. Their combined age pension income is currently $1,381.40 per fortnight or $35,916 per year.
Under the expanded Pension Loans Scheme, Bob and Sue are now able to access some of the value in their home. They choose to receive $2,072.10 per fortnight or $53,875 per year, the full amount of 150 per cent of the maximum rate of the age pension. This means that Bob and Sue receive an additional $694.70 per fortnight ($17,958.20 per year) in income. The value of the additional pension increases over time in line with pension indexation.
Over the next 20 years, Bob and Sue receive additional pension payments under the Pension Loans Scheme at an interest rate of 5.25 per cent. After 20 years, Bob and Sue sell the house for $1.6 million. While the balance of the Pension Loans Scheme loan owed to the government has grown to $900,000, Bob and Sue pay out this balance from the sale proceeds and retain $700,000.
Over the 20 years, Bob and Sue receive around $500,000 in additional income to support their standard of living in retirement.
The changes to the Pension Loans Scheme are estimated to cost $11 million over the forward estimates.
Key stakeholders across the retirement income sector and peak bodies representing seniors have supported these three measures. The Council on the Ageing has noted they are a 'welcome range of measures to improve the standard of living of older Australians'.
The bill also includes technical amendments to confirm that income support recipients of age pension age qualify for the employment nil rate period.
The 'employment nil rate period' arrangements play an important role in encouraging age pensioners to engage in the workforce. They enable a person whose pension payment is not payable due to employment income to remain connected to the pension system for a 12-week period. During this period, the person retains their concession cards and can immediately return to the pension if their work ceases without needing to submit a new claim or be subject to applicable waiting periods.
In conclusion, this bill affirms our Liberal-National government's commitment to older Australians by giving retirees greater choice and flexibility when it comes to managing their finances in retirement. It will support home-owning retirees to receive more income in the form of a loan. And it will allow older Australians to keep more of their pension when they work.
Debate adjourned.
Intelligence Services Amendment Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Families and Social Services) (09:53): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The work of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) is undertaken outside of public view.
ASIS's operational successes are not heralded openly, and recognition of the individual achievements of the women and men who make up its ranks are necessarily discreet.
Nor is it possible to be completely candid about the circumstances in which those achievements come about, including the specific hazards officers have overcome in the course of their duties.
Nevertheless, I can say to the House today that much of ASIS's operational work overseas is necessarily conducted in hazardous environments, including in war-like zones and other high-risk environments.
This reflects considerable change in the operating environments for ASIS officers since the original passage of the Intelligence Services Act in 2001.
The original form of the act limited the ability of ASIS officers to act even in their own self-defence, reflecting the findings of the second Hope royal commission in 1984.
By 2004, drawing on three years practical experience immediately following the September 11 attacks, and also drawing on ASIS's acknowledged role in direct support to the Australian Defence Force after the September 11 attacks, the act was amended to allow ASIS officers, where authorised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to train in—and in certain circumstances use—weapons for self-defence.
Since the time of those amendments, successive governments have asked ASIS to do more in response to national security priorities and unfolding events, and to do so in new places and new circumstances unforeseen in 2001 or in 2004.
In the fifteen years since the last amendment related to ASIS's use of force, the world has indisputably become even more complex—and Australia has become more of an international terrorism and espionage target.
As a consequence, this bill seeks to amend the Intelligence Services Act to:
enable ASIS to better protect its officers and other persons when operating in hazardous environments overseas, and
better protect Australia's national security interests, especially in counterterrorism operations, overseas.
Protection of Additional Persons
The first amendment proposed would enable the Minister for Foreign Affairs to specify additional persons outside Australia who may be protected by an ASIS staff member or agent under schedule 2 of the act.
This would be at ministerial discretion and could potentially include a range of individuals or categories of persons as appropriate to each context.
Currently, schedule 2 permits the use of weapons by ASIS staff members or agents for self-defence, to defend other ASIS staff members or agents or persons cooperating with ASIS under division 2 of the act, or for training purposes.
The proposed amendment will mean that ASIS officers will be able to use weapons to protect a broader range of persons.
This will address a legal uncertainty identified by the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) in the ability of an ASIS staff member to be compliant with the act when defending certain other persons including bystanders, and to train for the use of force in those circumstances.
Use of Reasonable Force
The second amendment proposed will enable the use of reasonable force by an ASIS staff member or agent in undertaking specified activities outside Australia in the proper performance of an ASIS function.
It is important to note that this does not solely refer to the use of firearms.
This amendment will address several grey areas in the use of force under the Intelligence Services Act, particularly the use of reasonable and limited force to restrain, detain or move an individual who may pose a risk of the compromise of an operation, or where a staff member anticipates a possible safety risk.
The ability to use force will only apply where there is a significant risk to the safety of a person (this would likely, but would not necessarily need to be, an Australian person), or where there was a significant threat to security or significant risk to the operational security of ASIS.
This ability to use force where reasonably necessary for the performance of the specified activity will be a change for ASIS officers given that, as I have noted, their ability to use force is currently constrained to situations of self-defence.
Oversight
Before directing a specified activity, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be required to consult with the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Defence and other relevant ministers.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs would also need to be satisfied that arrangements are in place to ensure any actions taken by ASIS officers are necessary and reasonable, having regard to the purposes for which the direction is given.
It is important to note that any use of force will be proportionate—it will be the minimum reasonable force given the circumstances.
While lethal force may already be used in self-defence as a last resort to protect an officer or another protected person from serious harm or death, it is explicitly provided that in undertaking such an activity ASIS staff members or agents will not, and must not, engage in torture; cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment; sexual assault; or unlawful killings.
An example of the use of force under these circumstances could include the keeping safe of an uncooperative person from a source of immediate danger during an ASIS operation, including by removing them from the source of immediate danger, even if they are in shock or paralysed with fear.
Like the existing ability to use weapons for self-defence, the amendments for the use of force will be a ministerially authorised exception to the general prohibitions in ASIS activities against the use of violence against the person.
Oversight arrangements for these amendments will be critical, and will include key roles played by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS). Importantly, the inspector-general and her office were consulted in the development of this bill.
Among other independent accountability and authorisation methods, the inspector-general will need to be provided with copies of the ministerial approvals to undertake these specified activities and copies of ASIS's guidelines on the use of weapons and use of force.
Additionally, the inspector-general, on receipt of the guidelines on the use of weapons and use of force, or changes to them, would be required to offer to brief the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the content and the effect of the guidelines or the changes.
This would be consistent with the remit of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in matters of ASIS's administration and would provide a means for the committee to be satisfied that there are appropriate settings for the use of weapons and use of force.
Additional accountability
There is an additional accountability measure I can advise to the House. The 2017 Independent Intelligence Review made a number of recommendations, including recommendation 19: to delegate to the Director-General of ASIS certain authorisations, currently exercised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in relation to the training of ASIS officers in the use of weapons, and the deployment of such weapons.
I make it clear that this recommendation will not be implemented by the government.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs will retain the authorisation power in relation to the training of ASIS officers in the use of weapons, and the deployment of such weapons.
The amendments before the House instead underline the continuing importance of the role of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in authorising the use of weapons by ASIS.
If this bill is passed, the conduct of a specified activity by ASIS or its agents would require that the Minister for Foreign Affairs consult with the Attorney-General before authorising such an activity, and this provides an additional opportunity for legal concerns to be raised, if any. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will also be required to consult with the Prime Minister and any other relevant minister.
If this bill becomes law, the independent Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will oversee compliance with the bill to ensure that ASIS's conduct is consistent with the law and with the Australian public's expectations of propriety.
Addressing misconceptions
It is perhaps unavoidable that having an intelligence agency whose core task is to undertake covert activities gives rise to myths and misconceptions about its activities and the rules under which it operates. This is despite the advent of the Intelligence Services Act itself, and its clear articulation of ASIS's functions and oversight arrangements.
There is, perhaps, a risk that the amendments made by this bill could precipitate a similar set of myths and misconceptions.
It is therefore important to articulate what these amendments do not allow in addition to articulating what they do allow.
The first such misunderstanding may be a confusion between ASIS's modern mandate and authorisations, compared to ASIS's pre-1984 'special operations' function, which was ended after a recommendation of the second Hope royal commission.
These proposed modern measures are in no way the same as ASIS's pre-1984 role: there is no need for ASIS to conduct special operations. Australia has an existing special forces capability within the Australian Defence Force.
While the amendments are directed towards self-defence, it is possible that some members of the public may equate this with paramilitary offensive action. Nothing could be further from reality.
ASIS does not have, nor is it seeking, an offensive armed capability.
Lethal force may currently only be used as a last resort to protect an ASIS officer or protected person from serious harm or death. This will not change.
The amendments allow this self-defence provision to be extended to those not directly part of an ASIS operational team, such as hostages being rescued, or bystanders who need to be kept safe from a source of immediate danger.
Further, to avoid any doubt, the amendments make explicit by law that which has always been understood through the action of other legislation and conventions: ASIS staff members or agents are specifically prohibited from engaging in torture; cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment; sexual assault; or unlawful killings.
Current Challenges
ASIS has trained and deployed with weapons in certain situations since 2004. But, as I have already noted, challenges to Australia's national security require ASIS to operate more frequently in hazardous circumstances overseas—especially against increasingly sophisticated and ruthless armed terrorist groups.
The current provisions of the act are leading to unintended and unsafe situations for ASIS officers, and others.
For example, under the current act, an armed ASIS officer undertaking an operation overseas may only use a weapon in defence of another officer, agent or a limited category of person co-operating with ASIS. The act currently prohibits an ASIS officer from using a weapon in defence of an innocent person who is threatened by a terrorist or kidnapper, even where this threat is present in front of the ASIS officer.
The proposed amendments will allow an ASIS officer confronted with this situation to act appropriately in defence of the innocent person.
Nevertheless, these amendments do not affect the existing prohibition in section 6(4) of the act that prevents ASIS officers from planning or undertaking paramilitary activities.
The need for action
Members will be aware that another recommendation of the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review was for a comprehensive review of national security legislation to be undertaken. Such a review has already been established under the leadership of eminent retired public servant, Mr Dennis Richardson AO.
I advise the House that the amendments in this bill do not pre-empt the outcomes of Mr Richardson's review. That review is not scheduled to complete its final report until the end of 2019.
Enhancing the protection of ASIS officers conducting operations in the name of Australia, including rectifying gaps and shortcomings, is required in the near term.
Conclusion
In conclusion, each day the women and men of ASIS go about their work to protect and advance the Australian national interest. They are often called upon to do so covertly, at considerable personal risk and hazard, and in environments of significant danger.
As the world becomes more complex, it is clear that the legislation that governs ASIS operations also needs to evolve to ensure that staff members, and the agents who assist them, have the appropriate capacity for self-defence, as authorised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hawke.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Special Minister of State) (10:09): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased today to present this bill to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to enable the Australian Electoral Commission to better align work practices with their contemporary behaviour and expectations of voters. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018 increases transparency around candidate eligibility and positions the AEC to facilitate more efficient, cost-effective and timely service delivery. This will result in improved public confidence in Australia's electoral system.
The bill implements recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in two of its recent reports:
Excluded: the impact of se ction 44 on Australian democracy, which made recommendations to improve the candidate nomination process to increase transparency of information relevant to the status of candidates for election under section 44 of the Constitution; and
The Third interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 federal election, which recommended that the Electoral Act and Referendum Act be amended to improve efficiency, timeliness and efficiency of AEC operations.
In line with these recommendations, the bill remedies errors, defects and anomalies in the legislation, and supports improvement in the conduct of federal elections. The bill applies the existing six-metre exclusion zone for polling booths on election day to prepoll voting centres, to improve the consistency of application across in-person voting methods.
The bill also includes provisions that makes minor changes to the composition of the Redistribution Committee for the Australian Capital Territory.
Schedule 1 – Candidate nominations
Schedule 1 of the bill makes a number of changes to part XIV of the Electoral Act to include an obligation for persons wishing to nominate as candidates in elections to provide information, in the form of a checklist, relevant to their eligibility under section 44 of the Constitution. The checklist will improve the nomination process and allow members of the public to scrutinise the information provided by all candidates. This will increase transparency and provide great certainty to voters, before polling, that the candidates are qualified to sit in parliament.
The bill will make completing the checklist a mandatory requirement for all candidates at the next federal election. The checklist is consistent with the form previously established by regulations and used at the recent by-elections. Information provided in the checklist is also consistent with the form used by current senators and members of parliament which is published on the respective parliamentary citizenship registers.
Schedule 2 – Amendments relating to voting and scrutiny processes
Schedule 2 to the bill makes a number of amendments to the Electoral Act and the referendum act, to modernise and simplify AEC operations to allow ballot papers to progress more quickly to the scrutiny process, without reducing count integrity.
Firstly, the bill allows for declaration vote ballot boxes to be opened and reconciled at the polling place, rather than being sent unopened to the divisional returning officer for reconciliation. This will eradicate the need for two to three days of additional work at out-posted centres before the declaration vote exchange can be finalised. The amendment is important for the effective and timely delivery of the next federal election.
The bill also makes a number of changes to electoral processes that are necessary to keep pace with modern technology. Currently, voters are required to use pencils to record their votes on ballot papers. This bill broadens the provision to allow for votes to be recorded using the most suitable and cost-effective implement or method. The purpose of broadening the provision to include reference to a 'method' of recording votes is to ensure that the legislation is futureproofed to reflect the increasing range of possible voting approaches, some of which may not have even been developed.
Canvassing for votes or soliciting the vote of an elector within six metres of the entrance of a polling booth, is prohibited. The bill will apply this six-metre exclusion zone to prepoll voting centres as well to ensure all voters can cast their vote in a neutral polling place, free from intimidation or harassment. These amendments do not prevent candidates and parties from distributing their campaign material or prohibit them from discussing issues with voters who might wish to engage prior to casting their vote. The amendments only restrict engaging in these activities within the immediate vicinity of a prepolling place.
The bill also makes several technical amendments to the legislation to remedy defects and facilitate efficient service delivery by the AEC.
Schedule 3 – Amendments relating to a Redistribution Committee for the Australian Capital Territory
In schedule 3 the bill changes the composition of Redistribution Committee for the Australian Capital Territory to allow a senior AEC staff member to be on the committee, rather than a senior divisional returning officer. This increases flexibility and improves the redistribution process without reducing the rigour and public consultation currently associated with this critical function of the AEC.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the bill introduces reforms to one of Australia's oldest pieces of legislation—the 100-year-old Commonwealth Electoral Act—to modernise and improve electoral processes and AEC operations for the benefit of the Australian voting public. These amendments will assist the AEC in the responsibility of delivering efficient and timely elections and promoting public confidence in a key democratic institution.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Price, for Mr Coleman.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for the Environment) (10:15): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction
The Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2018 will enable enhanced scrutiny and improve the integrity of our visa programs, decrease visa-processing times and ensure that only genuine and valid applications are made.
Currently, after a visa application is lodged, the minister or his or her delegate may request that personal identifiers be provided. Personal identifiers are already collected by the department when applying for a specific visa from a specific country.
This bill will establish the legislative framework which will require certain applicants of certain visa classes to provide personal identifiers at the time they lodge their visa application.
This bill retains the definition of personal identifiers under section 5A of the Migration Act 1958. For example, under this bill, a person applying for a specific visa from a specific country will be required to provide fingerprints, photographic ID or any other personal identifier as defined by the Migration Act 1958 at the time the application is lodged.
The collection of personal identifiers is essential to establishing the identity of noncitizens, as checks using personal identifiers are more accurate than document based checks of biographic details such as name and date of birth alone.
This bill does not remove the discretion to require personal identifiers from visa applicants at any time after a visa application has been made. The minister would continue to be able to require additional personal identifiers after lodgement of the visa application, where for example the identity of the visa applicant remains uncertain.
Protections
These amendments fully retain the existing protections associated with the collection of personal identifiers in the Migration Act, such as those relating to privacy, humanity, and dignity.
This bill does not change meaning of personal identifiers as stipulated in section 5A of the Migration Act 1958. Rather, this bill is about enabling the streamlining of the process by which personal identifiers are required and provided at the time of a person applying for a visa.
It is important that identity checks are able to be conducted against personal identifier data to detect individuals of concern as soon as they make a visa application. Personal identifiers are superior to checks undertaken using biographic details such as name and date of birth that are contained in identity documents.
Recent terrorism related events both in Australia and overseas highlight the need for the Department of Home Affairs to know who is applying for a visa as soon as they make a visa application through the provision of personal identifiers. These amendments will enable enhanced scrutiny, improve the integrity of our visa programs, and reduce the risk of terrorism.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this bill enables the department to conduct identity, security, law enforcement and immigration checks immediately following lodgement of a visa application and mitigate unnecessary delays or fraudulent lodgements.
This bill enhances the integrity of Australia's visa programs and protects Australians from persons who are a criminal threat or a risk to national security.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018
Consideration in Detail
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (10:20): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (3) as circulated together.
Leave granted.
Mr ROBERT: I move:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
3. Schedule 5, Part 1 |
The later of: (a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 2; and (b) immediately after the commencement of the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Act 2018. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur. |
|
4. Schedule 5, Part 2 |
The later of: (a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 2; and (b) immediately after the commencement of items 1 to 11 of Schedule 1 to the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Comprehensive Credit Reporting) Act 2018. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur. |
|
5. Schedule 5, Part 3, Division 1 |
The later of: (a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 2; and (b) immediately after the commencement of Division 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No.1) Act 2018. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur. |
|
6. Schedule 5, Part 3, Division 2 |
The later of: (a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 2; and (b) immediately after the commencement of Parts 3 and 4 of Schedule 5 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No.1) Act 2018. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur. |
|
7. Schedule 5, Part 4, Division 1 |
The later of: (a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 2; and (b) immediately after the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Act 2018. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur. |
|
8. Schedule 5, Part 4, Division 2 |
The later of: (a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 2; and (b) immediately after the commencement of Schedule 2 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Act 2018. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur. |
|
9. Schedule 5, Part 5 |
The later of: (a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 2; and (b) immediately after the commencement of Schedule 6 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No.1) Act 2018. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur. |
|
10. Schedule 5, Part 6 |
The later of: (a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 2; and (b) immediately after the commencement of sections 3 to 249 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2018. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur. |
|
(2) Schedule 3, item 19, page 140 (lines 7 to 11), omit section 288K, substitute:
288K Provisions subject to an infringement notice
(1) The following provisions are subject to an infringement notice under this Part:
(a) strict liability offences against this Act;
(b) other prescribed offences against this Act;
(c) prescribed civil penalty provisions;
(d) prescribed provisions of the National Credit Code containing key requirements (as defined for the purposes of the National Credit Code).
(2) This Part applies in relation to a provision prescribed under paragraph (1) (d) in the same way as it applies in relation to a civil penalty provision.
[provisions subject to an infringement notice]
(3) Page 183 (after line 7), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 5—Contingent amendments
Part 1—Amendments contingent on the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Act 2018
Corporations Act 2001
1 In the appropriate position in subsection 1317E(3)
Insert:
subsections 596AC(1), (2), (3) and (4) |
avoiding employee entitlements |
corporation/scheme |
2 Schedule 3 (table item dealing with subsection 596AB(1))
Repeal the item, substitute:
Subsections 596AB(1), (1A), (1B) and (1C) |
10 years imprisonment |
Part 2—Amendments contingent on the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Comprehensive Credit Reporting) Act 2018
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009
3 Subsection 133CR(1) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
4 Subsection 133CR(3) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
5 Section 133CT (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
6 Subsection 133CU(1) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
7 Section 133CW (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
8 Subsections 133CZA(2), (3) and (4) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
9 Subsections 133CZC(1) and (2) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
10 Subsection 133CZG(6) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
11 Subsection 133CZG(7) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Criminal penalty: 6 months imprisonment.
12 Subsection 133CZH(2) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
13 Subsection 133CZH(3) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Criminal penalty: 6 months imprisonment.
14 Subsection 133CZI(1) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
15 Subsection 133CZI(3) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Criminal penalty: 6 months imprisonment.
Part 3—Amendments contingent on the commencement of Schedule 5 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Act 2018
Division 1—Amendments contingent on the commencement of Division 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Act 2018
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009
16 Subsection 133BF(1) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
17 Subsection 133BFA(2) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
18 Subsection 133BFB(2) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
19 Subsection 133BFC(2) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
Division 2—Amendments contingent on the commencement of Parts 3 and 4 of Schedule 5 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Act 2018
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009
20 Subsection 133BS(1) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
21 Subsection 133BT(1) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
22 Subsection 133BU(2) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
23 Subsection 133BV(2) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
24 Subsection 133BW(2) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
Part 4—Amendments contingent on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Act 2018
Division 1—Amendments contingent on Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Act 2018
Corporations Act 2001
25 In the appropriate position in subsection 1317E(3)
Insert:
subsections 994B(2) and (9) |
failure to make and make available target market determinations for financial products |
financial services |
subsection 994C(2) |
failure to review target market determinations |
financial services |
subsection 994C(4) |
engaging in retail product distribution conduct in relation to financial products before review of target market determinations |
financial services |
subsection 994C(5) |
failure to inform regulated persons of obligations not to engage in retail product distribution conduct in relation to financial products before review of target market determinations |
financial services |
subsection 994C(7) |
engaging in retail product distribution conduct in relation to financial products before review of target market determinations |
financial services |
section 994D |
engaging in retail product distribution conduct where no target market determination |
financial services |
subsections 994E(1) and (3) |
ensuring that retail product distribution conduct is consistent with target market determinations |
financial services |
subsections 994F(1) and (3) |
failure to keep records |
financial services |
subsections 994F(4), (5) and (6) |
failure to report complaints and other information |
financial services |
subsection 994F(8) |
failure to comply with requirements of regulations |
financial services |
section 994G |
failure to notify ASIC |
financial services |
subsection 994H(3) |
failure to provide information to ASIC on request |
financial services |
subsections 994J(7) and (8) |
failure to comply with stop order obligations |
financial services |
26 In the appropriate position in Schedule 3
Insert:
Subsection 994B(2) |
5 years imprisonment |
Subsection 994B(9) |
1 year imprisonment |
Subsection 994C(2) |
1 year imprisonment |
Subsections 994C(3), (5) and (6) |
5 years imprisonment |
Section 994D |
5 years imprisonment |
Subsections 994E(1) and (3) |
5 years imprisonment |
Subsections 994F(1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (8) |
1 year imprisonment |
Section 994G |
2 years imprisonment |
Subsection 994H(3) |
2 years imprisonment |
Subsections 994J(7) and (8) |
2 years imprisonment |
Division 2—Amendments contingent on Schedule 2 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Act 2018
Corporations Act 2001
27 In the appropriate position in subsection 1317E(3)
Insert:
subsection 1023P(1) |
engaging in conduct contrary to a product intervention order |
financial services |
subsection 1023P(2) |
failure to notify retail clients |
financial services |
subsection 1023P(4) |
failure to take reasonable steps to make others aware of product intervention order |
financial services |
28 In the appropriate position in Schedule 3
Insert:
Subsections 1023P(1), (2) and (4) |
5 years imprisonment |
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009
29 Subsection 301P(1) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
30 Subsection 301P(2) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Criminal penalty: 5 years imprisonment.
31 Subsection 301P(3) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
32 Subsection 301P(4) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Criminal penalty: 5 years imprisonment.
33 Subsection 301P(6) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
34 Subsection 301P(7) (penalty)
Repeal the penalty, substitute:
Criminal penalty: 5 years imprisonment.
Part 5—Amendments contingent on Schedule 6 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Act 2018
Corporations Act 2001
35 Schedule 3 (table items dealing with subsections 1021NC(1), (2), (3) and (4))
Repeal the items.
Part 6—Amendments contingent on the commencement of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2018
Insurance Contracts Act 1984
36 Subsection 11(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of relevant court )
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2);
The amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018 clarify how the commencement of the strengthened penalty framework will operate with the commencement of certain other legislation that is currently before or has recently passed parliament and that introduces or amends certain offences and civil penalty provisions.
The amendments are made to the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Act 2018, the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Comprehensive Credit Reporting) Act 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Act 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Power) Act 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Act 2018 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2018. The amendments also make very minor and technical changes to the bill to clarify the operation of the infringement notice regime.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (10:21): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (10:22): I rise to speak on this bill, but before I do so I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Government's failure to match Labor's commitment to 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave, which is part of this Government’s wider failure to ensure all Australian workers have decent pay and workplace conditions".
Tragically, on average, one woman a week is killed in Australia as a result of domestic violence. It is the leading cause of death, disability and illness amongst women age between 15 and 44 years of age. Domestic and family violence doesn't discriminate. It's a public matter as much as it's a private matter, and it intrudes into many aspects of life. According to media reports, Australian police are dealing with 5,000 domestic and family violence matters per week. This is not an issue that we can simply leave to the police to deal with. The complexity of the issue requires a strategic approach by all levels of government, business, unions and the community. It is a national tragedy which requires a multipronged response, including a workplace response.
Labor has listened to victims, frontline workers, businesses, unions and organisations that deal daily with domestic violence. Their clear message is that people who've experienced domestic violence need more support in the workplace. The ABS estimates that around two out of every three women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce. There can be no doubt that a comprehensive response to domestic violence involves a workplace response. Labor welcomes the government's belated response to domestic violence by providing five days unpaid leave in the National Employment Standards.
The Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 follows the decision of the Fair Work Commission in March this year to insert a clause into modern awards providing five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. This decision came into effect from 1 August this year, meaning that more than two million award-reliant employees are now entitled to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. The bill amends the National Employment Standards to provide all employees with an entitlement to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave if they are experiencing family and domestic violence, they need to do something to deal with the impact of that family and domestic violence and it is impractical to do that thing outside their ordinary hours of work. The provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 appear to reflect the model clause and provide that the five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave entitlement: will apply to all employees, including casuals; will be available in full at the commencement of each 12-month period, rather than accruing progressively through the course of a year; will not accumulate from year to year; and will be available for full-time, part-time and casual employees.
It is somewhat disappointing that it's taken this long for the government to move from their absolute opposition to family and domestic violence leave to their belated support for unpaid leave. We note that the relevant minister at the time first committed to unpaid leave at the end of March but did not introduce this bill until September. Following Labor's persistent criticism and calls to bring the bill on for debate, the government have finally relented.
While this bill is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough. It should provide for paid family and domestic violence leave. Almost a year ago, Labor announced that a Shorten Labor government, if elected, will introduce 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave into the National Employment Standards. Labor are leading the way on this important issue. We are disappointed that the government have refused to join us in this important reform.
We know that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she is leaving a violent relationship. She may need to find new accommodation security, get an apprehended violence order from police, seek treatment for injuries or perhaps attend court appearances. Women should not also have to worry about losing their jobs or losing income while they are in an abusive relationship that has them fearing for their lives and, in some cases, fearing for their children's lives.
The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee recently completed an inquiry into the bill. The dissenting report comments:
… it is a missed opportunity to make far reaching and more meaningful changes to family and domestic violence leave through the implementation of 10 days paid leave.
One of the numerous submissions was from the Law Council of Australia, which echoed Labor's position, recommending:
… additional measures, including increasing the number of leave days and providing for paid leave, in accordance with best practice, be considered in the future.
In addition to the Law Council, the Catholic Women's League Australia advocated in their submission for the leave to be paid, as did the Australian Human Rights Commission, Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, the ACTU and a number of other unions. These organisations called for paid family and domestic violence leave because they are well aware that the financial and other implications of an absence of such leave for too many women are serious. Too many women cannot risk the financial pain of losing pay by taking time off work to deal with and leave an abusive relationship.
You just have to think about how quickly the costs accumulate when you consider what needs to be done to leave an abusive relationship—lawyers, counsellors, doctors, schools, real estate agents and moving house. This takes time, often in work hours, and costs money. This combined stress should not be compounded by fear of losing your job or the financial disadvantage of going without pay. If a woman needs to take time off work to do these vital things to keep herself and her family safe, she should be able to count on continuing to receive a pay cheque and being able to go back to work.
Without financial independence, how can we expect women to leave abusive relationships? Financial insecurity significantly impacts on women's decisions to leave or stay. Anecdotal reports from domestic violence frontline workers indicate that some women delay leaving violent relationships because they fear the time off work required will lead to them losing their job, undermining their ability to support themselves and their children. For some women, their workplace is a support mechanism. Their work colleagues, and sometimes their employer, may be the most important support that they have in these situations. The financial security of paid employment will help women avoid becoming trapped in violent relationships, while maintaining their home and standard of living.
The Law Council's justice project highlighted that women who experience family violence often:
… have a more disrupted work history, are on lower personal incomes, have had to change jobs frequently and are [more] often employed in casual and part time work, compared to women with no experience of violence.
In their submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill, Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia commented that:
… for many individuals experiencing FDV—
family and domestic violence—
it is simply not possible to forgo a full week of wages in order to take unpaid FDV leave.
Domestic violence directly impacts on women's financial security in both the short and long term. According to estimates by the ACTU, leaving a violent relationship can cost on average $18,000 and take 141 hours. A 2015 PwC report submitted to the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence estimated that the financial cost to a woman experiencing physical violence, sexual violence and emotional abuse by a partner is on average $27,000.
We call on the government to join Labor's lead, accept that this leave should be paid and start to genuinely support women who are subject to this violence. Other jurisdictions have introduced paid domestic violence leave. They've led the way, given there's a void in the federal jurisdiction. Indeed, even other countries are leading the way. For example, in July this year New Zealand legislated paid family domestic violence leave, guaranteeing 10 days paid leave for all workers who are experiencing violence and need to escape. Queensland and Western Australia offer 10 days paid domestic violence leave to public sector employees, while South Australia offers 15 and Victoria and the ACT offers 20. Last week the New South Wales Liberal government announced 10 days paid leave for public servants. If the New South Wales Liberal government can see how important this is, why can't the federal Liberal government?
In the federal system, many employers already provide paid family and domestic violence leave to their workforce through enterprise agreements. More than 1,000 enterprise agreements approved under the Fair Work Act between 1 January 2016 and 30 January 2017 provided for 10 or more days of paid domestic and family violence leave. The companies include flagship companies such as Telstra, Carlton United Breweries, NAB, Virgin Australia, IKEA, Qantas and Aldi Australia. Indeed, many companies, through negotiation with their workforce and their unions, have been providing 10 paid days leave. These are big companies in the private sector who fully understand and appreciate the support they must give those employees who might be subject to this awful, dire situation.
When you can see that companies in the private sector, along with state governments and other countries such as New Zealand, understand the need to provide real support, not token support, for women in these dire circumstances, surely the minister, who likes to stand at the despatch box opposite and talk about how much support this current government is providing to women, can see the need to accede to the request and allow for paid domestic and family violence leave. But it would appear that these pleas have fallen on deaf ears. This government is not listening to a constituency that is hurting or to the stakeholders that work in this area each and every day picking up the broken pieces of families that have been torn apart by violence and women who have been subject to physical, emotional and sexual abuse. This government can't find it in its heart to accept an amendment that is now becoming, to be honest, a mainstream workplace right in many, many workplaces in this country. The government is not leading the way but slowly following, in the most modest of terms, to provide any form of support for many of our people in our community who are suffering.
I do applaud those companies. Either they've done this subject to negotiation or they've done this unilaterally and chosen to create a policy that provides 10 or more days paid leave. I pay tribute to them, as I pay tribute to the unions. The unions have been campaigning for paid family and domestic violence leave over many years and negotiating domestic leave coverage in Australian workplaces. There is now a critical mass of workplaces that provide domestic violence leave. One of the arguments the government has put forward against this is, 'We can't do this in the private sector.' Companies are moving to do this, and have been doing this. It would appear, in so many ways, that this government is so far behind community expectations and community aspirations. It is so far behind. It is stuck in the past and doesn't understand the need to move decisively and properly in this area.
It would be remiss of me not to remind people of the government's history. Along with the deficient and belated policy, the Liberals have an appalling record of opposing family and domestic violence leave. We can't forget that the finance minister, Senator Mathias Cormann, rejected domestic violence leave, saying:
We just believe it's another cost on our economy that will have an impact on our international competitiveness.
Senator Cormann is obviously confused. It's domestic violence, not domestic violence leave, that costs our economy and harms our international competitiveness.
In a terrifying display of how out of touch the Liberals really are, the former Minister for Women even argued that family and domestic violence leave would make women less attractive to employers, saying that it would act as a perverse disincentive. The idea that employers may not consider employing women because they may be attacked by their partner one day, that that's the reason why employers may not employ women, is as absurd as it is insulting. Yet it does underline the mindset of this government, which is so far behind community standards, community expectations and community aspirations for our citizens and, in particular, for women in relation to this public policy.
In 2016 the Abbott-Turnbull government prevented approximately 30 Public Service departments, including the Prime Minister's, from providing for paid family violence leave in their enterprise agreements. The government is completely out of touch. The government was taking this backward stance at the same time as the Male Champions of Change 2015 report, Playing our part, suggested, '10 days paid leave appears to be a developing norm.' Labor knows that, in addition to the terrible personal and social cost of domestic violence, there is a significant cost to business. In May 2016 KPMG estimated the cost of violence against women and their children on production in the business sector at $1.9 billion for the 2015-16 year. The cost is domestic violence, not the need to provide support for women who are subject to domestic violence. The National Retail Association's submission to the Senate committee estimated a significant cost to business for not acting on domestic violence:
The NRA estimates that for the period 2014/15, almost 45,000 women working in the retail industry experienced some form of family or domestic violence, costing the industry approximately $62.5 million per annum in lost productivity, absenteeism, and staff turnover, with a direct cost to employers of $1,404 for each instance.
This is why many small businesses, where employers and employees have a close working relationship, already support their staff to take paid leave to deal with the consequences of domestic violence. And that's another argument: that it will affect small business. But small businesses are closest to their workforce, and most good small business employers will always lend a hand to their workers who are subject to such violence. Again, that is an argument put up by the government to dissuade this place to enact legislation that will provide paid leave.
We know that while 10 days paid leave is crucial for these women who need it, it is not likely that the uptake across the economy will be significant. For example, a 2015 joint study by the University of New South Wales and the ACTU, Implementation of domestic violence clauses—an employer's perspective, found 'The average time off for paid leave in the past 12 months was 43 hours'. Research by the Australia Institute in 2016 estimated that domestic violence leave wage payouts 'are equivalent to less than one-fiftieth of one percent of existing payrolls (0.02 percent)'.That study also found:
The costs to employers associated with those payouts are likely to be largely or completely offset by benefits to employers associated with the provision of paid domestic violence leave: including reduced turnover—
and reduced absenteeism and lower recruitment and training costs—
and improved productivity.
Employers understand the costs associated with losing good employees; that's why they're good employers. Many of the big employers—and others, including small ones—are already providing paid domestic violence. But it should be legislated. It should be codified by the parliament and inserted into the National Employment Standards so that it applies to everyone. Why should employers who do the right thing lose any competitive advantage—if there is one—because it doesn't extend across the labour market? It's such an important issue, which the government says it really does concern itself with. I believe there is a genuineness. Surely, all of us in this place must be horrified by the examples and the stories of what happens too often to women in this country. Yet, where is the policy response from the government to attend to the needs of some of our most endangered citizens? I have to say, it's left wanting. This bill is so deficient, because it really only looks to go as far as the decision of the Fair Work Commission, and that's not far enough.
As I said, employers understand the cost of losing good employees. Often, helping women through these situations means that they hold onto a very good staff member. Paid domestic violence leave benefits those who take it and it benefits their employers too. It does something else too, which we really need to understand. The stigma of domestic violence is such that it's very hard for victims of domestic violence to come forward. Too often, women have had to hide the abuse they have suffered. We know that, historically. They have to find an excuse for why they might have a bruise or why they've been injured in some way. They find an excuse for that. Why do they do that? They do that because we've stigmatised the victims, and they feel ashamed of being a victim of domestic violence. We've got to destigmatise this abuse, and one of the ways to destigmatise this abuse is to make very clear that, as a nation, we stand up for women who are subject to this abuse—so they understand they're not at fault for being a victim; it's the perpetrator who's at fault. We need to do that in many ways.
As I said at the outset of this debate, we need a multi-pronged response to domestic and family violence and this is just one way to do that. By codifying a right for women in workplaces to be provided paid leave, we're not only providing a benefit they can use, that can give them support in their hour of need; it's also saying as a nation we do not accept that a woman should be ashamed that she is a victim of violence. So it's something deeper than just providing a form of support such as paid leave; it's saying to women of Australia who are subject to this abuse that we are on your side—it's not your fault; it's the fault of the perpetuator—and we're going to give you material support as well as other forms of support to help you through these dire circumstances. So it's a very important benefit. It's a very important reform under Commonwealth law.
This bill, we support. We do support the bill but it is deficient; it does not go far enough. It's somewhat tokenistic to provide unpaid leave for a staffer who may have worked in a workplace for 20 years, finds herself subject to abuse, and has to take unpaid leave to find new accommodation. I know most good employers would provide that leave anyway. Don't be silly. You may have to go to court to deal with a matter, of course—I'm not going to dock you for that. But why should it be left to the discretion of an employer who wants to do the right thing?
It's about time we did more to support women in these circumstances in the industrial space. In the industrial relations space, this is one way we can do that. This is a second reading amendment that I'm speaking to but I ask the government to think about what Labor is saying, think about what the companies that have acceded to this request have done and what they're saying by agreeing to paid domestic violence leave. Think about the frontline workers who, each and every day, have to deal with women who are subject to such abuse. Think of the women who have been subject to this abuse and who are still ashamed to say they are. What could be better than this parliament agreeing that we give real support for victims of domestic violence and we do so by providing a law that will allow them in times of dire circumstances to take leave to attend to matters so they can be safer and so they can recover from what is, of course, an awful experience?
Workplace policies aimed at reducing domestic violence and supporting victims and survivors will help alleviate the impost on our economy but, more importantly, will help women who need our help, and we ask the government to seriously consider the amendment moved by the opposition.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Rishworth: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (10:48): It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. I would agree with a number of points that the member for Gorton has made—in particular, the impact of the scourge of domestic violence on particularly women and children. I have spoken in this House previously in support of another bill related to the area of family violence, the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018, and I can say that both these bills are a great example of the commitment by this government to fighting the scourge of domestic violence and supporting the victims of the egregious harms that are inflicted on women in particular.
If we reflect, last Sunday was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I'd like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation for his hard work and commitment in his portfolios. Disappointingly, we see a number of people each and every day requiring financial assistance and crisis payments. I was talking with John and Michaela Porter from Nightlight last week. Just in the last week and a half they've had four calls—sadly, most of them late at night—for support for people in crisis, and in some cases as a result of domestic violence.
I think it's important that we continue to look at ways that we can support women, in particular, in very difficult circumstances. And we are doing that through the measures outlined in this bill. The bill is designed to provide an entitlement to five days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave to all employees under the Fair Work Act. This means that some eight million Australian workers will have access to this leave if they experience family or domestic violence.
To be clear—and I'm sure the community would be relieved to know this—the leave is not available to perpetrators of family or domestic violence. This government has demonstrated in a number of ways, which I will go into a little later, its full commitment to assisting people when they're facing the terrible situation of family and domestic violence. I spoke the other day on a wonderful local organisation, Lilly Pilly, which is trying, in very difficult circumstances for families, to bridge some of the gap and the divide which occurs as a result of family and domestic violence.
Sadly, as we reflect on the first 11 months of this year, we see that some 72 Australian women and 20 children have been murdered due to domestic violence. Across the country, a total of 212 Australians have died in 2018 as a result of murder or manslaughter, with male violence accounting for some 90 per cent of that. This situation is only worsening. We've seen a steep increase in domestic violence deaths this year compared with last year.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's February report found that one in six Australian women and one in 16 Australian men had experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous partner. And one in four women and one in six men had experienced emotional abuse by a current or previous partner. Sadly, the report showed that those most at risk were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, young women, pregnant women, women with disabilities and women experiencing financial hardship. And women and men who experience abuse have witnessed domestic violence as children.
As I've said in this place recently, family and domestic violence is about men, women and children. It's not about statistics; it's about human beings—not the numbers but the mothers, daughters, fathers, sons and grandparents. It's about the people next door, many who keep it secret and choose to suffer in silence for weeks, months and years. Sadly, it's in every community, every electorate and every strata of life. It's a human cost to our society that is both devastating and intolerable. And it's part of that human toll that this bill seeks to address.
Through the leave being enshrined in the National Employment Standards, all employees covered by the Fair Work Act will be guaranteed the minimum leave entitlement, regardless of whether they're full-time, part-time or casual, or covered by awards, enterprise agreements or individual agreements. As the member for Gorton outlined, it's heartening to see that many businesses have already decided to take that step in and of their own volition. A full five days leave will be available each year from the anniversary of the date on which somebody commenced employment.
In addition to this bill, the government is taking comprehensive action to address family violence. We have zero tolerance for violence against women and children. We're committing well in excess of $300 million to address their safety. At the recent federal budget, the government committed an additional $54 million for women's safety initiatives, including $11.5 million for 1800RESPECT, $6.7 million for DV-alert, $14.2 million for the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to help make cyberspace safe for women and $22 million to combat elder abuse.
In 2015, this government committed $100 million to a women's safety package. Under this package, the government committed to $12 million to trial with the states the use of innovative technology to keep women safe such as GPS trackers for perpetrators. There was $5 million for safer technology, including working with telecommunications companies to distribute safe phones for women. There was $17 million to keep women safe in their homes by expanding initiatives like the Safe at Home program to install CCTV cameras and other safety equipment and by conducting risk assessments of victims' homes, helping change their locks and scanning for bugs. There was $5 million to expand 1800RESPECT, the national telephone and online counselling and information service, to ensure more women get support. There was $2 million of increased funding for MensLine for tools and resources to support perpetrators not to reoffend and $15 million to enable police in Queensland to better respond to domestic violence in remote communities. And there were a range of other measures.
So we can see that, across the spectrum, we are seeking to find ways and solutions to provide support and assistance to women and children who are in very, very difficult situations. Within the framework of the national plan, the government is delivering on its commitments made under the third action plan with another $100 million investment over three years, announced in 2016. As we see, the bill has implemented or matches the decision of the Fair Work Commission for award based employees. I think it is important that we continue to find ways to support women who generally in these situations may not also be the primary income earner in their household, which means that, in these difficult circumstances, it is even more difficult for them financially. There is a cost to trying to relocate.
There are some great services in my community of Forde that provide enormous help for women in domestic violence situations. I mentioned Nightlight earlier. There is Twin Rivers, which provides crisis care and support; and Logan Women's Health and Wellbeing Centre, which has just merged with WAVSS Across the Redlands to create a new organisation focused on women's health and wellbeing. All of these are supported with the programs that I have outlined the government is funding and continues to fund to support women and children in these difficult circumstances.
The importance of this bill is that it gives women, when they need to have time off as a result of family or domestic violence, protection from unlawful adverse actions by their employer. They want to know that, if they do need this time off, they have a job to go back to, that they're going to be well looked after and well treated by their employers in a very difficult circumstance. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of employers in Australia, irrespective of whether this is in law or not, do look after their employees when they're in this situation. But I think there are those who do not. I think that to enshrine these standards in the Fair Work Act is an important step in protecting and supporting women in facing family and domestic violence situations, which, sadly, as I noted earlier, occur more and more frequently. I commend this bill, in its unamended form, to the House.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (11:00): I rise to support this bill. I also rise to say that while we think this bill goes some way to addressing the challenges facing individuals experiencing family or domestic violence, it does not go far enough, and we can do more and we will do better. A job means putting food on the table. It means paying the rent, paying the bills and buying schoolbooks for your children. It means having an income. No-one should have to choose between all of that and their physical safety and the safety of their children, their emotional safety and the safety of their children, or their psychological safety and the safety of their children.
We know about the fear, anxiety and uncertainty of leaving a violent or abusive relationship. When should I leave? How will I leave? Where will my children sleep tonight? What will we take with us? How can we do this? What if they show up at work? Will I keep my job? How will I pay for things? No-one should have to make these heartbreaking choices between two fears—the fear for safety and the fear for livelihoods.
Family and domestic violence is a scourge on our nation. It is a national shame and it is a national crisis, and it should be seen as that. It is a leading cause of death, disability and illness among women between the ages of 15 to 44 years. We hear time and time again the statistics of homicides. We also need to think about the fear that is passed onto children. We need to understand the intergenerational effects of violence in the home. It can be in many, many forms.
As my colleague the member for Gorton has pointed out, two out of every three women who experience domestic and family violence are in the workforce. The workforce, therefore, represents an important space in the prevention of family violence. The Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 will amend the National Employment Standards to provide all employees with entitlement to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. Employees, including casuals, will be entitled to this leave if they are experiencing family and domestic violence and they need to do something to deal with the impact of that violence, and if it's impractical for them to undertake this outside their ordinary hours of work. It will be available in full at the beginning of each 12-month period so employees will not have to accrue this leave. It will not accumulate from year to year. It will be available in full irrespective of full-time, part-time or casual status.
This follows the decision of the Fair Work Commission in March to grant five days unpaid leave under modern awards, which provided over two million award employees with this leave. This bill will provide this to all employees but, unfortunately, it does not go far enough. Individuals experiencing violence should not have to choose between their pay and their safety. We know that often perpetrators continue their abuse while the victim is at the workplace. We know that the loss of income can act as a barrier to escaping a violent relationship. We know that those experiencing family violence are often on low incomes, lack job security and are very seldom in circumstances where they can confidently negotiate leave arrangements.
The Productivity Commission inquiry's Workplace relations framework report, published in November 2015, cited the National Domestic Violence and the Workplace Survey, which surveyed individuals experiencing domestic violence. Nearly half reported that the violence affected their capacity to work, often the result of the victim suffering physical injury or restraint. But the survey also found that the violence and abuse continued at the workplace itself. This included constant, ceaseless, threatening or emotionally abusive phone calls, text messages or emails. It also included the abuser physically attending the victim's workplace. The workplace itself became another space in which individuals were placed at risk.
The workplace is an important component of the family violence policy area. We know that one of the most dangerous times for a woman is when she is leaving a violent relationship. She will need to work out a time to leave; she will need to find a place to stay; and she may have children, and she will need to ensure her children have a place to stay and are safe and secure. She may need to prepare for and attend court to seek a protection order, she may need to see the police and she may need to seek treatment for her injuries. All of this can take time. She may need to find counselling. She may need to find legal advice. This takes time, effort and resources. It is essentially turning your world on its head. It can be costly, both financially and mentally, and, as I said, it takes time. It is a dangerous and an incredibly anxious and stressful time as well.
As the Productivity Commission report stated:
… a single incident may trigger a chain of major events, including interactions with the health and legal systems and needs for new housing and new schools. All of these interactions take time, are stressful and can affect a victim’s ability to work. They can have repercussions in workplaces.
The National Domestic Violence and Workplace Survey found that 16 per cent of victims reported being distracted, tired or unwell. Ten per cent needed to take time off, and seven per cent were being late for work. Individuals fleeing violent relationships should not have to worry about taking time off, losing pay or losing their jobs. We know that these considerations, these economic factors, represent barriers to escaping violence. The Australian Law Reform Commission states:
… employment is a key factor in enabling victims to leave violent relationships, providing longer-term benefits associated with financial security.
The Law Reform Commission went on to say:
… the ALRC acknowledges the role that financial security and independence through paid employment can play in protecting people experiencing family violence.
They should be able to count on continuing to receive their pay and being able to go back to work.
We have listened to the sector in this space. We have listened to those who have been affected by violence. We have listened to frontline workers. We have listened to businesses, unions and advocates. Their message was clear: workers experiencing domestic violence need more support in the workplace to leave violent or abusive relationships in the home. The Productivity Commission cited that victims of family and domestic violence:
… 'have a more disrupted work history and are consequently on lower personal incomes, have had to change jobs more often and are employed at higher levels in casual and part time work' …
They are also more susceptible to economic abuse. To that end, a consistent income or lost income is more critical to their welfare. They are a particularly vulnerable class of individuals, and they are least likely to be in positions to negotiate domestic violence related provisions in their workplace agreements.
Family violence is complex and pervasive. It comes in many forms; it does not discriminate. It can be physical, emotional, financial and other forms. It finds its way into all aspects of the community and all aspects of society. It will require fundamental cultural and attitudinal change for awareness and education over the long term. But we also need to do everything we can now to make it easier for women to leave violent and abusive relationships as quickly and as safely as possible. Labor has made this an immediate and urgent priority. This is why Labor is focused on delivering more safe places for women to go to leave violence, making it easier and safer to find legal relief and reducing financial barriers to escaping violence. Labor's policy position is paid domestic violence leave for 10 days. Labor will invest in new safe-housing funds to increase housing options, including for women and children escaping domestic violence.
We have also announced $18 million in funding for the Keeping Women Safe in Their Homes program. We will also invest in advocacy and make sure that people who are directly affected by this terrible scourge are listened to. Labor will back in new laws prohibiting direct cross-examination by alleged perpetrators by boosting Legal Aid funding to meet the increased demand on Legal Aid. Labor is committed, as I said, to legislating for 10 days paid domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards.
As we have said, the complex and widespread nature of domestic violence means prevention is everyone's business. Everyone has to play a role in preventing family violence—government and non-government; community and family. It has been great to see government and the private sector embrace their respective roles and responsibilities in this space. I commend those government and private sector organisations that are embracing 10 days paid leave. We need to listen to the leading advocates in this space.
While we support the principle of this bill—affording leave to those fleeing family violence—it is simply not enough. If we want to provide those fleeing violence with real and substantive support, it needs to be 10 days and it needs to be paid. We call on the government to join with Labor and commit to the same. In that context, we will support this bill, but we do say very clearly that we have a different view on the length of time that women need in order to leave violent relationships and we have a very different view about the nature of the leave: it should be paid domestic violence leave for 10 days.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:11): I want to thank the shadow minister for her fine contribution. We are pleased that the government have finally introduced legislation on the issue of domestic violence leave. We will support the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, despite the fact it's half the amount of leave we believe victims of violence require and despite the fact it's unpaid leave that the government's proposing, not paid leave, because something is better than nothing. We support some family violence leave rather than none, but the job is only half done with this legislation. Five days of unpaid leave is not enough.
We will continue to work towards our policy of 10 days paid leave for victims of domestic violence, because we have heard too many stories, mostly from women, of those who have risked losing their only source of income because they have been dealing with domestic violence in their home. To take one example, I heard the story of a woman with two children under the age of six when her partner started physically abusing her. The first attack came when her children were very little. After the second attack, she went to the police. She was told that she needed to apply to the courts for an intervention order to protect herself from her ex-partner. Most of the meetings that she needed to go to—the court appearances, the meetings with police and legal meetings—were only available to her during working hours, and that's no surprise. This woman was taking time off work. She was taking it as sick leave. She started to genuinely worry that she would lose her job because she had to take so many days, half days or hours off work. She finally went to her employer to say: 'I haven't been sick. I've been dealing with this terrible trauma at home.' Luckily, this employer actually offered domestic violence leave. This woman was able to be frank with her employer and take the time off as domestic violence leave. But most women don't have the same experience.
About 210,000 Australian women were victims of domestic violence in 2016, and about two-thirds of them were in paid work. But as a victim of domestic violence you can be further victimised by losing your job, or being at risk of losing your job, just through dealing with the violence. Women are taking time off to deal with injury, they're taking time off to attend medical appointments, they're taking time off to get a restraining order or to pack up and move house.
We know that financial insecurity can make women more vulnerable to domestic violence. We know that being a victim of domestic violence means that you are much more likely to experience lifelong economic disadvantage. Having a job allows you the independence, the choice, to leave an abusive relationship, because you've got somewhere to go, you can pay the rent and you can feed the kids. We know that too many women stay in or return to violent relationships because they don't have the financial wherewithal to leave those violent relationships. And being a continuing victim of violence is not a price that any woman should have to pay to keep a roof over her head or food on the table for her children.
I've met with so many frontline workers. The Australian Services Union, I have to say, have been phenomenal in bringing frontline domestic violence workers to Canberra to tell members of parliament about what their members see every day—women and children fleeing violence—and the impact that 10 days paid leave would have for those women and children they see every day. In 2016, Labor first committed to five days paid domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards. We saw that as a very important first step. But the clear message to us from these frontline workers that the Australian Services Union, and other unions, were bringing to Canberra to talk to us was that five days is not enough—one day at the police, a couple of days at court and a couple of days sorting the kids out at school. So we agreed to increase our commitment to 10 days paid leave in the National Employment Standards.
The thing to remember is this doesn't mean that all Australian women or that some women and some men will need to take this leave. It will be an unusual circumstance where people will be taking this leave, but, for the people who need it, it is sometimes literally a lifesaver. It certainly means they can keep a roof over their heads when they leave a violent relationship. And we see companies like ALDI Australia, Carlton & United Breweries, Telstra, NAB, Qantas, Virgin Australia, IKEA, Dulux, Blundstone—just to name a few major household names—have been prepared to provide paid domestic violence leave to their staff, and I congratulate them for that. Medibank provides unlimited personal leave for employees to deal with issues relating to family and domestic violence. Congratulations to them. Many small and medium businesses don't get the publicity but are supporting their staff to deal with domestic violence through providing leave and other supports.
These companies realise that it's not only the compassionate and humane thing to do but also the just and economically responsible thing to do, because if an employee can be frank about what they're experiencing at home, can take the leave to deal with it, you can keep that employee. You don't have to go searching for another one, train them up and all the rest of it. It also makes economic sense for these companies to allow their employees to be honest about what they're experiencing, support them through the experience and see them come out the other side.
I think being able to be frank with your employer about domestic violence is important in another really important way. Firstly, it's important for safety if someone is actually under threat from a violent partner. We have heard too many stories about violent partners turning up to workplaces and assaulting, or even killing, women who have escaped from them. Your employer should know for safety reasons what you're experiencing. Secondly, being able to be honest about what you're experiencing as a victim of violence relieves you of the burden of secrecy or the stigma that has for too long been attached to victims of domestic violence, when the people who should be ashamed of their actions are the people who are perpetrating the violence.
KPMG has estimated that domestic violence is currently costing the Australian economy about $22 billion a year. So simply from this perspective, by making sure that people who are victims of violence can stay in a job and not join the welfare queue, we reduce the cost to the community of domestic violence. So I congratulate those businesses, but let's also remember that unions have fought long and hard for employers to include these provisions in workplace agreements. It is Australian unions and their members that have campaigned on this issue and brought it to the forefront of public debate. Thousands of activists have worked particularly hard to bring this about, and it means now that unions have negotiated family violence leave in agreements that cover over two million workers. What an achievement that is. I said earlier that the Australian Services Union have been particularly instrumental in bringing frontline workers to Canberra. I want to pay particular tribute to Natalie Lang from the ASU, who has been really instrumental in this campaign, but she has not been alone and the Australian Services Union have not been alone.
Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT now provide 10 days paid domestic violence leave for public sector workers in those states. South Australia and Victoria provide even more. And just earlier this month the Liberal government in New South Wales announced that they will provide 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave to full-time and part-time government employees. If every Liberal state government in the country has accepted that 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave is appropriate, why can't this government accept that it's important for other Australians to have that support? Why do they have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to this position with such reluctance? Every time there's an important social change—marriage equality, paid parental leave, removing discrimination against GLBTI children in our schools—they have to be dragged there. The Australian community—business, unions, everyone—is way ahead of the government, again, on this one. The former Minister for Women, Senator Cash, said she thought that domestic violence leave would provide a 'perverse incentive for employers to discriminate against women'. That is exactly the same argument that was used to oppose paid parental leave for so long. Even after the government finally conceded back in March—and it's taken since then to bring this legislation in, inexplicably—that they would introduced some form of family violence leave, they continued to delay bringing on the legislation. We had Senator Cormann describing paid domestic violence leave as another cost to the economy. 'Perverse incentive not to employ women', 'a cost to the economy': they are the same arguments that were used against paid parental leave.
It's disappointing that we don't see more government members speaking about this important issue, but I'll leave that for them. For too long women have had to bear the costs of leaving violent relationships. They have dealt with the emotional cost for themselves and their children. They have dealt with the physical abuse itself and the toll that takes on their health and wellbeing. On top of that, they have been condemned to immediate poverty and lifelong economic disadvantage. The very least we can do is reduce the impact of that economic disadvantage by helping women keep the jobs that are so often a lifeline, not just providing financial security during the most traumatic time of their live but also providing contact with other adults and emotional support—sanity in a crazy world. When everything you believed about your family and the person who is supposed to love you is turned on its head, actually being able to go to work can be the thing that keeps people tethered to the life that they knew and that they wished for themselves and their family.
Of course we'll support this bill, because it's a step in the right direction. But I really urge government members to consider—if they have the power and if they're able to do this—working towards longer leave and paid leave. That's what Australian women need to keep themselves and their children safe, to keep a roof over their heads and to keep food on the table. Ten days paid leave can make the difference between losing your job and keeping it and being financially secure enough to leave the violence behind to start a new life. Why would we not want that for these families? Why would we not want to give them the security and the hope of a better future that 10 days paid leave offers?
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (11:25): It's a pleasure to rise in this House and to speak. It's always an honour, but it's such a privilege today when I have a school from my local community sitting up in the gallery watching me give this speech. My only hope is that the improvements we're able to make here for these year 6 students are not things that we're still talking about 20 years from now.
The irony of giving this speech on this particular amendment to the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 is not lost on me, and giving it on day No. 5 during the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence is also a poignant reminder of why we still need this and the 16 days of activism.
For too long impunity, silence and stigma have allowed violence against women to escalate to pandemic proportions. One in three women worldwide experience gender based violence. The time for change is here and now. In recent years, the voices worldwide of survivors and of activists through campaigns such as Me Too, Time's Up, Ni Una Menos, 'Not one more Niki', Balance Ton Porc and others have reached a crescendo that can no longer be silenced anymore. Advocates understand that while the names and contexts may differ across geographic locations, women and girls everywhere are experiencing extensive abuse and their stories need to be brought to light.
Having to stand here and advocate for this change to our National Employment Standards is heartbreaking. When we know better, we do better. I don't want to be here for discussions anymore. I'm tired of the talk; it is cheap and it's time to make the change necessary. This is what I signed up for: the opportunity to make our country better and to give a voice to those who don't have one or who have temporarily lost the courage to use their own. I'm here to make that change—the change we have long been fighting for and the change that can save a woman's life right now.
We have the opportunity to create the legislation that will change those lives. It won't help those 63 women who have already been murdered at the hands of a partner or a male this year. We know that more than one woman a week is dying at the hands of a current or former partner, a person they once loved and trusted. The bill we're arguing about can save lives, and it's a serious matter, not to be trivialised by devaluing arguments such as, 'It's going to impinge on business,' or, 'It'll stop people getting employed because they'll be discriminated against,' or trying to say that unpaid leave is the same thing as paid leave.
The government has proposed an amendment to the National Employment Standards to provide all employees with unpaid leave. It doesn't touch the sides of what's actually needed. Victims have been heard; frontline workers' expertise has been recognised; and business, unions and organisations that deal with domestic violence each day have been recognised. Their message is clear: people who have experienced domestic violence need more support in their workplaces. That goes for all workplaces, in all industries and all sectors, whether that's here in the parliament, in a cafe or at the bank.
It has taken this government a long time to drag its feet even to where we are now to join this important discussion. But—credit where credit is due—I welcome them to the floor to debate it. We've moved them from complete and utter opposition into something that they consider themselves to be happy with now. They have slow-turning wheels, it seems though, and are too busy now talking about themselves as opposed to talking about the rest of the country and those who need paid leave when they exit a violent home. They made their big announcement to support unpaid leave back in March, and here we are in November—the peak time for violence in families—one week after the bill was finally introduced.
I just want to repeat that this is actually a life-and-death issue that we're standing here to debate. In those eight months, while we waited, 40 women and their children have died. If we were speaking about terrorism—which I don't doubt is equally important—would the government be dragged kicking and screaming to this reform? But they're still only halfway there, and I will not stand here and support a bill that is half-cocked. It is 10 days paid leave or just get out of the way. The lives of Australia's women are at stake.
Earlier this week, I rose in this place to move a motion on the UN day for the elimination of gendered violence, and I'm proud to rise in support of a campaign to end violence against women and girls. I shared my own personal story in this place two years ago in the hope that women and girls throughout Australia would know the strength and resilience you can have after the violence ends, and that anyone, no matter where they come from or their achievements in life, can have their life interrupted by violence perpetrated against them.
Taking the first step and removing yourself and your family from a domestic violence situation takes a great deal of courage. Logistically, it takes much more. There is so much you need to do, and you can't achieve much in five days unpaid leave after you have finally escaped from a frightening situation. How can you care for your children, find a new safe home, visit the local police station, attend court for an AVO, move kids to schools, get them into support, attend appointments with doctors, counsellors, psychologists—wherever you need to go? Five days unpaid leave will not support all of that.
In March 2018, the Fair Work Commission agreed to insert a clause into modern awards to provide for five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. When this decision finally came into effect in August, two million award-reliant workers became entitled to unpaid leave. But, again, what use is unpaid leave when you need finances, you need security and you need the ability to go on as normal, or as close to normal as possible, in your day-to-day life?
I speak about sliding doors wedged open by crisis points, and we as a nation are at a crisis point. Domestic violence is a major factor in deaths in Australia. Last year, Sherele Moody won a Walkley Award for her brave coverage of domestic violence issues in Australia. She spoke of the 39 per cent of murders that were attributed to current or former partners or family members in one year alone. That's 39 per cent, a huge number, yet we're in here squabbling over giving people access to paid or unpaid leave. We also know the most dangerous place for a woman is in the company of her partner at home on a Saturday night, yet we have to fight to give women financial and job security during a crisis. I wonder: what more it will take? Our nation wants change. People are consuming the media around domestic violence and are clearly now standing up saying, 'This is not okay.' What is lacking is the will in this place, on the other side, to do something about it.
This year's Gold Walkley went to the podcast The Teacher's Pet. It was a true crime investigation series that gripped the nation in horror that a husband was able to get away with murdering his wife. As it was set in the 1980s, you would think we might have learned something from that devastation, but we continue to allow this to grip our country, and the statistics just continue to increase. We continue to be horrified at every report and every incident.
The government need to take a good hard look at themselves and this shameful suggestion of a bill. Could those opposite find suitable accommodation for their children in five days? The women in my electorate certainly can't. The women that I speak to each day, who come in for support, who come in for referrals and who come in for help, certainly cannot do that. In a fragile mental state, fearing for the safety of herself and her children, a woman will often reach this sliding-door moment very quickly. Maybe one incident escalated too far—sexual, physical, emotional or financial abuse tipped over. We know that violence against women in their home denies them and their children security and safety and destroys the foundation of their identity. At this sliding door, a woman will potentially have isolated herself in shame, reducing her sense of belonging and connection to her family, friends and community.
Emotionally completely damaged, a DV survivor may not have the visible scars, but there are certainly open wounds just below the surface that need the time to heal. Women who experienced abuse during childhood are 1.5 times more likely to experience all kinds of violence during adult life. For some, the workplace is their respite from home and, for some women, their workplace is their support mechanism. Their colleagues, sometimes their employer, may be the most important support they have in these situations. This moment is our government's sliding-door moment. They have opened it, they have peeked in and they have thrown women experiencing domestic violence a few bones. But that's not enough; we need the full 10 days of paid leave. Labor has committed to doubling that number provided by the government.
It is an appropriate time to be highlighting the necessity for real DV leave. It's not groundbreaking, and this is just the point. There is precedence from more empathetic governments around the world. Other jurisdictions have introduced paid DV leave, and Labor believes that Australia's federal workplace system should also, importantly, provide this leave.
The member for Sydney just talked about the statistics in Australia. Every Liberal state government in this country has now moved to allow for paid DV leave for their government workers. In July this year, the New Zealand government legislated paid family and domestic violence leave, guaranteeing 10 days paid leave for all workers who are experiencing violence and who need to escape. Many employers already also provide paid family and domestic violence leave to their workforce through their own enterprise agreements. More than 1,000 enterprise agreements approved under the Fair Work Act between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2017 provide 10 or more days of paid DV and family leave. These companies include leaders in this space such as Carlton and United Breweries, Telstra, NAB, Virgin, IKEA, Qantas and Aldi. These employers and many others have paved the way and helped reduce the stigma that often accompanies DV. So too have Australia's unions campaigning for paid DV and family leave over many years, negotiating leave coverage in Australian workplaces. I would like to give a special mention to Sam Parker, a frontline worker in my electorate from the ASU who recently won an award to recognise her commitment and longstanding advocacy for the clients that she works on behalf of in my community of Lindsay.
We do not anticipate that there would be a significant uptake of 10 days paid leave, unlike the slurs that this bill is sometimes reduced to by those on the other side saying that people will somehow fake being in a situation just to get access to this leave. It's hardly a credible argument when most people who are actually in it wouldn't even own up to it or want to be in it. It's crucial that this leave is available for the women who need it. The economic impact of domestic violence is significant and affects every single person in this country. It is estimated at a cost of $22 billion each and every year. There is an absolute financial business case, if not a moral imperative from an empathetic and compassionate country standpoint.
A study by the Australian Institute found that the cost would be almost completely offset by the benefits to the employer, not limited to a reduction in turnover and higher productivity. Let's keep it in perspective: the cost is 5c per day, per worker to institute this into our agreements.
We have already reached a national crisis point. I'm not quite sure why parliaments around this country are not being convened for special sittings to deal with the epidemic that we face. How many more women and children must have their lives interrupted before this epidemic is addressed in a substantive and meaningful way? It has never been tolerable to allow this crisis to continue. We are a smart nation. We already know what needs to be done. What we don't have is the political will on the other side, the understanding or the desire to fix a problem facing half the nation's population, that being our women. We have leaders who are men in parliaments. Most of our parliaments still, sadly, are predominantly filled with men, who statistically are not likely to have been on the receiving end of family or domestic violence. If you haven't experienced it, it can be hard to understand it.
We know what needs to be done. Our experts and our communities tell us. The list is short, it's simple and it's common sense. It's time to fund women's crisis centres so when it's time to leave there is somewhere for women to go. It's time to support women through legal services and proper family court systems so when a woman does leave she isn't facing a flawed system. It's time to eliminate current behaviours that enable violence against women through education and through supportive programs that shift attitudes to create a society rooted in equality. It's time to ensure that men who are perpetrators are held to account by treating it as a criminal offence. No longer is it a private matter. It's time to give women access to this paid leave so when a woman does leave she can continue her employment and know that her job is secure. Unpaid leave and access to her own super does nothing to support a woman who needs to go.
It's time to end the gendered slurs in our workplaces and in our senior roles, and the use of them as a way to bring smart, clever, capable women undone. White Ribbon Australia's vision is that Australia is a nation that respects all women and a nation in which every woman is able to live in safety, free from all forms of men's abuse. Along with the UN 16 Days of Activism and Our Watch, we already have the tools we need to start addressing this. This is just one part. It's time this was a national priority of all levels of government. It's costing women their lives, many their future, and costing our nation $22 billion each year. It is time.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (11:40): I should make it clear from the outset, as my other colleagues have, that Labor is supporting the passage of this legislation, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018. But, in doing so, Labor certainly has a reservation that this bill does not go far enough. It's certainly way short of Labor's commitment to introduce 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave.
Many of us on both sides of the House spoke in this place only last week about violence against women. We once again commemorated White Ribbon Day, the day that the UN selected to commemorate our efforts to eliminate violence against women. Everyone on both sides of the House spoke not only about this reprehensible crime being perpetrated, primarily against women, but also about the effect it has on women themselves, who are victims and survivors, and their families. When we have a situation where, at the moment, on average, one woman is being killed each week at the hands of a partner or a former partner, there's plenty that we should be doing.
When I spoke last week, I was able to recount to the House that I have spoken to the police and I know that, in my electorate alone, more than 50 per cent of all physical assaults reported to the police are assaults that arise out of domestic violence. This is a real issue, and it is not something that should be trivialised by thinking, 'We will extend unpaid leave for the situation.' We are talking about women who are being physically attacked, assaulted and threatened, and that's just the physical nature of it; the psychological aspects of this are probably, in many instances, even greater. We still find many women reluctant to go and report domestic violence to the police out of fear of reprisals and, mainly, out of concern for their children.
That's a heck of a lot on a woman's plate if she's a victim of domestic violence. To think that we cannot give 10 days paid leave—just think of it: if you're a victim of violence and you do have the courage and tenacity to stand up and do something about it by going to the police, then, apart from seeing police officers and making a statement, you're probably going to have to go and see your solicitor. There will be court time required of you, time for swearing your apprehended violence order, time for looking after your children and maybe time for seeing a psychologist or a doctor or doing other things to assist with your injuries. We're saying, in this piece of legislation, 'That's all good, but you can only get unpaid leave off your employer if you can actually state that you cannot do all that outside normal work time.' For goodness sake, we're talking about women who are out there supporting their families. To think we're going to trivialise this by saying, 'Unless you can do this by yourself, outside paid employment time, you're not entitled to unpaid leave, let alone paid leave.'
The ABS estimates that two out of every three women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce. The 2011 National Domestic Violence and the Workplace Survey found that nearly half of the women respondents who experienced domestic violence had their ability to work affected. Of course it affects your ability to work. Of the main impacts of violence that were reported by victims in the survey, 16 per cent of the survivors reported how it distracted them, how they felt unwell, how they felt uncomfortable going to work after experiencing violence—and then probably having to explain it to everybody or cover it up from everybody—and 10 per cent said they had to take time off work because of their injuries. The government's legislation in this respect means that those 10 per cent who had to take time off because of their injuries could, in that case, have unpaid leave. Pretty cold comfort for a woman who is supporting a family, and who has to do all of those other things that I mentioned, to simply be told, 'Well, in that instance, you can have unpaid leave.' For some people, unpaid leave, despite the circumstances, is not a reality.
I don't know about all of those on the other side of the House, but I happily represent a very multicultural community—as a matter of fact, the most multicultural in the country. It's a very colourful and vibrant community. I'm very proud to represent my seat of Fowler. But it's not rich. The average household income in my seat is just a little over $60,000. Now, that's not individual income; that's average household income. If a woman is supporting a family and works, which most in my community do, and is a victim of domestic violence—regrettably, incidents of domestic violence are also overrepresented in my community—the simple fact is that she cannot afford not to go to work.
This piece of legislation, whilst it goes some distance to acknowledging that this is a reality in the workplace and something needs to be done about it, certainly falls far short of community standards—what many like to refer colloquially to as the 'pub test'. You could have a situation where people can experience this violence at home. They will be affected and there will be many responsibilities they have to take on their shoulders as a consequence—as well as looking after their families—but we're not prepared to write into legislation that it's paid leave? We have paid leave for many other things that the ACTU and our union movement have fought for over the years. Maybe in the past our forebears did not see the necessity for domestic violence leave. I'm sure it's not something of a recent vintage; perhaps domestic violence was just something that was not spoken about. You don't have to go too far back in the history books to find out that even the police, say 25 to 30 years ago, would probably have taken the view that issues of domestic violence—'Well, that's just a matter in the household. That's not really a matter for us as police.' Whereas now, in my community—and I can't speak for everyone else—more than half of the assaults reported to police are domestic violence related. This shows there's very much a need to act.
The bill which is now before us provides for five days unpaid leave. It will be provided by employers, of course; they will have to grant it. It will be available at the commencement of each 12-month period. It will not accumulate, nor would you expect it to, quite frankly. It will be available for full-time as well as part-time workers. As a piece of federal legislation, this is an advancement. I've got to give it to the other side; it is an advancement. But when you see what is occurring—one of the worst aspect of being in public life, against many good things, is seeing the effects of domestic violence on your community. I'm lucky to have very active people in my community who do a lot to assist in looking after victims of domestic violence, including the Bonnie Support Services group, chaired by Betty Green and her executive officer, Tracy Phillips. They have a huge and committed team of young people who do a heck of a lot in trying to look after women who are in probably the worst sort of environment you could think of.
I see a couple of fellas up there in the galleries and, when it gets down to domestic violence, this is something we should be personalising. In my case, as most people know, I'm married to Bernadette. Of my three kids I have Elizabeth, and of my 10 grandchildren I have six granddaughters. According to all the statistics that we accept out there, one in five are going to be affected by violence in their lifetime. One in five girls will be affected by violence in their lifetime; that means that my family is absolutely overrepresented. So, for me, this whole issue of what we do about domestic violence is personal. I would not like to think that we can stand by and allow something to affect deleteriously one of the eight or so females in my immediate family—if I chuck my mother in there as well!
As legislators, we can do better than that. We have to be here in this place to make change for the better. It can't be that our ambition for being here is for the money or the glory of having a seat in parliament or anything else. Unless we're here with a view to making a change for the better in our communities, quite frankly, we shouldn't be here.
We're talking about making changes, and I know that the ACTU did a lot of research on this—as my colleague from Batman said. The union has fought very strong and hard for these conditions and made sure that women's rights are understood in the workplace. That is the testament: the trade union has been very responsive.
I would also indicate a young woman who addressed our caucus passionately about paid domestic violence leave some time back. I'd like to acknowledge the commitment and determination of Natalie Lang. She is the secretary of the Australian Services Union—an extraordinary young woman who is very passionate in her fight for domestic violence leave and also in her support for the rape crisis centres which were subjected to defunding by this government. She made the case for 10 days paid domestic violence leave very passionately to our caucus. She did that not only on behalf of her members—and I imagine that the Australian Services Union would have a lot of female members; probably 50 per cent at least—but for every woman in the workplace. No doubt, she was doing her job, but she did it in a way that was really able to electrify the whole room to understand that this may not just be a public servant or another woman doing a job but that this could be any one of our kids or our grandkids into the future.
I don't know about everybody else here, but if it were my kids who were being affected I would probably want to go to see the police myself and I'd probably want to engage lawyers who I knew so that they got the best representation. I'd probably go to court with them—you would do all that as a father or as a grandfather. And, yet, many of these women in various communities out there don't have access to the same levels of extended community. They still have the key responsibility of putting food on the table and looking after their own children, not just in the motherly way but, in many instances, in very much a physical way. That we can only extend five days unpaid leave to them when they are confronted with domestic violence is, I think, wrong of us—and particularly wrong of a government that thinks it can do many other things, like giving tax cuts to big business.
This is something that will make a change. Labor's policies will make a change for the better. (Time expired)
Mr GILES (Scullin) (11:55): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on this very important bill, which deals with some issues of fundamental importance. It's been a pleasure to have been in the chamber to hear the contribution of the member for Fowler and, before him, the member for Lindsay; in particular, to hear once again the personal and affecting perspective that the member for Lindsay brings to this debate. This debate, for all of us, at one level at least, is personal and affecting, and it goes to the core of our responsibilities as lawmakers.
Like all my colleagues, I rise in support of this legislation but also to say that it is too little and too late. In saying that it's too little, I will make some criticisms of the government over the course of my remarks. When I say that it's too late, that's a criticism that belongs to all of us in this place. It belongs to all of us in this place when we think about our responsibilities to women at work and our failure to acknowledge a broad understanding of what workplace regulation means for people at a whole range of challenging times in their lives. It's hard to conceive of more difficult circumstances for working women than having to deal with family and domestic violence issues and having to absent oneself from work using other forms of leave or, perhaps, without support at all.
The introduction of this bill follows a significant change that came through a decision of the Fair Work Commission earlier this year that, for the first time, inserted a clause into modern awards that provided for unpaid family and domestic violence leave of five days. This provision came into effect on 1 August. So a significant change has happened, and it's important that that be acknowledged. More than two million award employees are now entitled to this important part of the framework of their workplace entitlements. Unfortunately, it isn't enough, and Labor has been pushing for quite some time now for 10 days leave—beyond the change to the National Employment Standards provided for in this bill—and for this leave to be paid.
The journey to where we have come to today hasn't happened solely through this place. Though I speak about this bill being too late, it's important to acknowledge the work of advocates in the family and domestic violence sector. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of my union, the Australian Services Union, which has led from the front in this regard. I acknowledge, in particular, my dear Ingrid Stitt, who recently left the union to join the Victorian parliament as a member of the Daniel Andrews government but who did so much in this space; my friend Lisa Darmanin, the secretary of the ASU SACS branch in Victoria; and Linda White, who has been a powerhouse in that union at a national level for such a long time. Their advocacy on behalf of their members, and on behalf of women in workplaces across Australia, is something that I'm very keen to recognise.
This bill before us, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, will amend the National Employment Standards to provide all employees with an entitlement to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave, mirroring, in effect, the principle adopted by the Fair Work Commission this year. This will be available if the worker in question is experiencing family and domestic violence, needs to do something to deal with the impact of that family and domestic violence, and it isn't practical to do that thing outside their ordinary hours of work. So it does seem to be the case that the provisions reflect fairly the model clause and provide that entitlement, which will imply that for all employees, including casuals, it will be available in full at the commencement of each 12-month period, rather than accruing progressively over a year of service; will not accumulate from year to year; and will be available in full to part-time and casual employees, which of course is very important, given the patterns of work of many Australian women.
These provisions are significant. They are a step forward and a step in the right direction, but do not go far enough. This is too little. This bill should provide for paid family and domestic violence leave. It is disappointing that it's taken so long for this government to move—and we welcome that move—from absolute opposition to any leave to this support for unpaid leave. I've spoken about the delay generally and reflected upon it being a responsibility of all of us, but it is of course most particularly a responsibility of those opposite, those in the government of the day. The commitment to unpaid leave was made in March. We're now very nearly at the end of the year. It's disappointing that effecting a reform such as this, even in terms that we on this side are critical of, has taken so long. It's not exactly like the legislative calendar has been particularly crowded. It's just difficult for me to understand why putting forward a provision to deal with this fundamental challenge, a challenge that, I must say, was spoken about with passion and authority by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull—it is a bipartisan commitment. It is a matter of concern to all members of this place and the other place to respond effectively to family and domestic violence. This is a piece of legislation which ought to have been brought before the parliament earlier.
There are other ways in which this matter could have been addressed, of course. I think about the example of my own state, the example of the Andrews Labor government, which was recently re-elected. The Andrews Labor government kicked off its time in office by initiating a royal commission, under Commissioner Marcia Neave, into family violence in Victoria and made clear at the start that that government would adopt every recommendation of the commission. Following that in-principle decision, one of the early decisions of the Andrews government after the commission handed down its recommendations was to make it compulsory for new public sector enterprise agreements to include paid family violence leave—20 days separate and additional to sick leave. That's leadership. That is a fair recognition of the significance of this issue to Australian women and their children and their families more broadly, and indeed of the significance of this issue to the functioning of the Australian economy and the functioning of Australian society. Provisions such as these aren't simply the code that governs the relationship between a worker and her employer. They set the standard for the sort of society we want to live in. They set the standard for the world of work, which is not simply about a purely commercial relationship.
We on this side of the House have been talking a lot about the need to change the rules at work. Members opposite will hear us talk about it quite a bit more often. We want to get the balance right between those who work and those who employ them. That is principally about ensuring that people get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, that people who work for a living get to share in the prosperity they generate or get a reasonable remuneration for their contribution to the public good through employment in the public or community sectors. But it isn't simply about the dollars and cents. Work is much, much more important than that. I stand here at the dispatch box as a member of the Australian Labor Party. The clue is in the name. We understand the value of work and its significance. For most of us, what we do in the paid workforce defines who we are and how we see the world. On issues like this, which are a crisis and a scourge on society, to simply pretend that they can be divorced from the world of work, from people's obligations at work and from people's involvement at work is not only a nonsense but an offensive one.
Again, I ask government members, if any want to make a contribution to this debate—I think only one has put his name down—to think about how we can go further, how we in this place can set out a stronger framework to ensure that women who are workers, as most women are, can be appropriately supported if they are subject to family and domestic violence, as way too many of them are. I don't think it's too much to ask. I think the moral argument is unarguable. I think the economic argument is unarguable. I hope that government members can reflect on both of those questions when they think about the passage of this legislation or alternatives. I ask them to consider the amendment that has been moved by my friend the member for Gorton. It's the sort of step that advocates have been looking for. It's the sort of step that Australian women, particularly those who are victims or potentially victims of family and domestic violence, deserve.
I will go back to the Victorian example. I note that in February this year The Guardian Australia reported that since the introduction of the Victorian changes two years ago, more than 1,000 days have been taken by 143 people from the 10 core agencies of the Victorian government, including Victoria Police and VicRoads. It's quite striking that 143 people were able to avail themselves of this. At a time of, no doubt, extraordinary stress and challenge in their life, they had one less worry. They were getting paid and they were able to look after themselves. I don't know the stories of these 143 women, but I'd like members opposite to think about those stories and think about the circumstances those women are in. Think about how much easier it was to deal with awful circumstances affecting them, perhaps affecting their children, perhaps affecting their parents—affecting all who are dear to them—knowing that they were going to get paid, and they were able to focus on resolving this immediate crisis.
Of course, other jurisdictions have dealt with this matter in the way that Labor proposes. In July of this year New Zealand legislated paid family and domestic violence leave on pretty much the same model that the member for Gorton and the Labor Party are proposing. We see that jurisdictions within Australia other than Victoria, such as Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the ACT are also making provision for this.
I acknowledge that there are many good and decent employers who have taken the right step here, and who have sent the signal that I think legislators across the parliament should send. They have agreed, through bargaining, or perhaps otherwise in some cases, to provide for paid family and domestic violence leave. I note that they seem to have paid heed to reports, such as that of the Male Champions of Change, Playing our part, which have suggested that '10 days paid leave appears to be a developing norm'.
I note that there are more than a thousand enterprise agreements approved that provide for 10 or more days of paid domestic and family violence leave. These agreements include those entered into by some of our major employers. I think about companies like Qantas, Virgin, Telstra and NAB. This is a list of employers, and many others like them, who have taken a big step forward for their workers—the thousands of them—and, as I said earlier in my contribution, to the wider Australian community to reduce the stigma that too often still accompanies domestic violence.
Again, in talking about these agreements I acknowledge, having spoken a bit about the ASU and the Australian union movement more broadly, that it's been heartening to see so many trade unions that are dominated by men leading the charge here. I should acknowledge my dear friend and neighbour the member for Batman and the leadership that she showed in her previous office. I hope she doesn't mind me saying that I'm very pleased she's left her previous office and has joined us in this place, where she has made an extraordinary contribution. The member for Batman made an extraordinary contribution on behalf of the working people, and in particular the working women of Australia, in her unflinching advocacy in this area.
Lastly, I just want to touch on the community that I represent, the City of Whittlesea, which constitutes much of the electorate of Scullin. A community wellbeing indicators report last year exposed deeply distressing news about the prevalence of domestic violence in the Whittlesea community. In the years 2013-16, the number of incidents per 100,000 'increased annually from 1,127 in 2013 to 1,452 in 2016'. That's an increase of nearly a third. It is very significantly higher than the Victorian average.
This is an issue that affects too many of my constituents. I don't stand here to say that any change to the Fair Work Act will resolve all of those issues, but it is a nonsense to pretend that we can divorce the world of work from taking seriously our moral obligation to support victims of family and domestic violence as we seek to bring family and domestic violence to an end. It's also a nonsense to suggest that we can't ignore the economic arguments at two levels: to the workers forced to lose income and their dependants, and to our community across the board. I thought the Liberal Party were interested in boosting our economy. Here's an idea in this amendment that would help them do just that.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (12:10): I thank the member for Scullin and apologise for not being here at the beginning of his speech because I should have been here on my pins, so thank you. I acknowledge the member for Batman whilst she's in the chamber. She lightens this place up in every possible way. I'm sure that those people for whom she has worked so diligently and hard over many, many years in the trade union movement are happy she's here representing their interests, but her legacy as an advocate for women in the workplace is particularly important and really well understood. Advocacy around domestic violence leave was a significant part of her job as a leader of the trade union movement, so thank you to the member for Batman. You bring insights into this place which we need. I say that because you're a special person.
But, really, when we look at those people opposite, I don't think there's a lot of understanding about what the workplace really means and what it is. Whilst it's nice to be the CEO of a big company, and I'm pleased to see, as others have said, some of the decisions which have been taken in this space by some big companies, the truth of it is, unless we're in the shoes of those people who are being affected by family violence, it's very difficult for us to understand what it really means. I recall in a previous life—I did have one—many years ago in a workplace that I was involved in, a young woman who was working with us who was subject to consistent violence at home. I remember her distress. It was unusual in the sense that exposing your work mates to the idea that you are subject to family violence would have, for many, been seen as an embarrassment. But we could see the impacts of the family violence, so it was easy for us to have that communication. I remember vividly, and I can almost walk you down the street and to the house, when she said, 'I've got to leave but I'm afraid.' A couple of other people and I escorted her to her home to provide her with the security to be able to leave that environment. That's something which I would expect a lot of people would do. But when you contemplate the impact on her life, both before and after, it's really, really difficult to accept the proposition that, somehow or another, it's inappropriate to provide this sort of leave to employees in the community—whether they're women or men, but principally women. In my own community, I see—I don't have the data—the impact of violence in the community on an ongoing basis. We know that in a lot of cases, at least in my community, alcohol is a driver of that violence, in part. It certainly plays a significant role.
The people who suffer the consequences of this violence are women and children. We, as sympathetic employers, need to understand what that impact really means for those individuals and their families, instead of seeing it, really, as being around the bottom line. This is about caring, this is about respect, this is about understanding and this is about acknowledging we all have a role in not only stopping the perpetration of violence but also providing a safety net, safeguards and wraparound services, if you like, to those people who suffer from the indignity of being abused and violated at home. Whether it's by a partner or someone else close to them, it's simply not acceptable, and I know that there's no-one in this parliament who would see it as being acceptable.
What I find difficult is: if you accept that it's unacceptable—if you accept and see what the impact is on the individual, their families and, ultimately, their community and the costs that are involved—how could you not say, 'The best thing we could do is provide paid support for these people who suffer from the abuse'? Why can't we do this? I've seen the objections from some in the business community. I note, in particular, the expressions of the National Farmers' Federation, and I'm indebted here to the Bills Digest. There is a piece in the Bills Digest about unpaid or paid leave. It says:
The arguments in favour of providing unpaid … leave focus on the cost to employers, particularly small business …
It then quotes the National Farmers' Federation, which said:
… the NFF cannot support changes which would require employers to provide paid leave. The NFF is unwilling to support such changes primarily due to the increases in operating costs (without demonstrated productivity gains) which it could impose on farmers. … These are small businesses, 'price takers' who operate on very tight margins with minimum cash flow and limited capacity to find replacement workers on short notice.
Well, there's an argument in itself for providing support for these workers. The NFF went on to say:
They cannot afford any additional operational expenses, and the cost of paid leave cannot be absorbed or easily managed. For that reason an entitlement to a new form of paid leave must be resisted.
Those are strong words—strong, pitiful words. I would have thought the person who said those words would be ashamed, because the evidence that's been brought out in this debate has shown the productivity gains to be garnered as a result of actually providing the support which we're advocating here. So let's not gloss over this. This sort of resistance, this sort of perverse advocacy, is against our community and individual interests as well as the national interest.
We need to be stronger than that. The NFF have admitted, in this advocacy of the NFF, the fact that they've got a problem finding workers. Well, treat the workers you've got with respect and that might help you. It's not a benign place this. This is not contested space in the sense that you don't need to provide the support. I think that advocacy is disgraceful. We know from the evidence—which, as I say, has been demonstrated before—what this means.
I go again to the Bills Digest and use their evidence:
Proponents of paid FDV leave also reject the argument that paid FDV leave would be an unreasonable burden on employers …
They refer to a study by the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute which:
… conducted research into the economic impacts of introducing an entitlement to ten days of paid FDV leave. It used data on the incidence of FDV and its impact on work attendance …
The analysis concluded that around 1.5 per cent of female and 0.3 per cent of male employees—this is very important—would be likely to access this leave each year. Really? This is some outrageous cost burden? The findings continue:
It further estimated that, assuming an entitlement of ten days of paid FDV leave, the cost to employers of wage pay outs would be modest, and likely to be almost completely offset by benefits such as improved productivity and decreased turnover.
That in itself refutes the accusations and the assertions which were made in that absurd statement from the NFF—something which I think we should all reject.
Others have spoken about flagship companies, such as Carlton & United Breweries, IKEA, NAB, Qantas, Telstra and Virgin Australia, who have done significant work in this space. The member for Scullin spoke about his union and the role of the trade unions, and I've referred already to the member for Batman. We need to understand that there's a community movement here that's heading inexorably to 10 days paid leave. Why the government's not in this cart is absolutely beyond me. Work undertaken by the ABS estimated that around two out of every three women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce. There can be no doubt that a comprehensive response to domestic violence involves a workplace response.
Again, I go to the Bills Digest:
In 2011 researchers from the Centre for Gender Related Violence Studies at the University of New South Wales, funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, conducted a national survey of union members investigating the impact of FDV in the workplace. Around thirty per cent of respondents indicated that they had experienced FDV, and around half of those reported that the violence impacted their ability to attend work.
This is not wearing our hearts on our sleeves here. This is, in part, a practical economic response to what is a tragic issue. We absolutely need to address the cause of domestic violence. Any violence, whether domestic or otherwise, is unacceptable, but if you accept, as I do, that people who are subject to domestic violence have difficulty in the workplace, that it affects their output at work and that it affects their mental health, then why can't we see this 10 days paid leave as an investment in future productivity? Because that's what it is. And why can't we see this 10 days paid leave as an indication of our loyalty to our workforce and compassion for and understanding of the circumstances in which they live and the suffering they have endured as a result of violence?
Of course, it's legitimate, absolutely legitimate. All sorts of activities need to take place if, for example, people are trying to extricate themselves from a relationship. They need time off. They might need to see a lawyer, they might have medical needs, they might have children to care for—all sorts of things which are impossible to do outside of work hours, which need to be done during normal work hours.
It is possible for us to do this. I accept that we've come some way in at least acknowledging the importance of domestic violence leave. That's what this bill does, and we'll be supporting it, but we'd like to see it go a damn sight further and provide people with the paid domestic leave that they are entitled to.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (12:25): I rise to support the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018, but, of course, I don't believe it does go far enough in providing a comprehensive support plan for those affected by family violence. I commend the comments by my colleagues the member for Fowler, the member for Scullin and, just now, the member for Lingiari. I have great confidence that my colleagues very much understand the importance of addressing the issue of family violence. Were we in power, we would undoubtedly have a comprehensive management plan. I also commend the member for Batman, who I sit with in the House now, who has supported women in the workforce for many years and has introduced measures to deal with family violence in the workforce.
I believe that family violence is a scourge on our society and that urgent action is needed. The fact that one woman or more is killed per week in Australia in an act of family violence, and that a significant number of children die each year in Australia from acts of family violence, is an absolute tragedy and one that we should be addressing on an urgent basis. The prevalence of domestic and family violence across our nation absolutely disgusts me, upsets me and baffles me. It has no place in Australia, or anywhere else for that matter. How it's been allowed to continue to occur in our communities without urgent and effective action saddens me no end. I do not think that there is a silver bullet and I do not profess to have all of the solutions, but I do know that we can be doing more as a society to prevent, address and punish acts of family violence. Such heinous acts are inexcusable.
We've all been exposed to stories of domestic violence over the years, and we seem to be almost inured to urgent action. I've been exposed to and made aware of a number of instances of domestic violence that have occurred in my community throughout the years I've worked in my community. I've seen family members, women and children, who have lost their lives to family violence. As a paediatrician, I saw the scars of domestic violence, both physical and emotional, in my patients and their families far too often. Family violence takes a toll on people that cannot be expressed in mere words. The scars might not always be visible but I saw them in my over 35 years of work as a paediatrician in our community, over a number of generations. We do know that there is much more that can be done that's effective. We know that early intervention works. We know that children exposed to domestic violence, unless they are managed well, will themselves be prone to acts of domestic violence. There is much more that we should be doing. Each case that I became aware of haunted me. It wasn't just the patients who bore the emotional scars of domestic violence for decades. Mothers, fathers, siblings, carers, grandparents, aunts, uncles and community members are all affected by family violence.
When I saw an ill child or a child with behavioural problems, or even just a healthy newborn getting a check-up, I did form a bond with those kids and their families. To see people who I know and whose children I've looked after lose their lives in acts of violence still haunts me to this day. How could it not? You do share significant moments with the patients you look after. Most of those are good, some of them are quite daunting and some of them are tragic. But, when you see a random act of violence affect a family so that people are severely injured or lose their lives, that stays with you forever. To me, it's a continuing tragedy that these incidents occur week after week, month after month and year after year. That should be seen as a national tragedy, and we should have a national response.
Sometimes I would see families in which violence had occurred but which may have been masked. But it was generally fairly obvious that violence was occurring in a family, with major effects on the children—on their behaviour, on their learning and on their disposition. It was often very difficult to formulate an adequate response. I like to think that I always put the safety and wellbeing of my patients and their families as the No. 1 priority, but sometimes you just can't help but feel helpless in a situation where there is violence in a family that you know is going to be ongoing. It was never my wont to remove children from families if there was a better option. It was never in my power, or really even my responsibility, to tell a parent to leave their abusive partner. But I always wondered if there were better ways by which we could support these families and these people.
Upon my career change I thought that my exposure to some horrendous cases of domestic violence would be over, but that was not to be the case. Perhaps it was a little selfish of me to think that, but that's what I thought. Now, as a member of parliament, I am continually exposed to families who have had violence inflicted upon them in ways that I now see in a broader picture. There are people presenting with the need for housing, for example, or who need help in supporting their children who are severely traumatised. Or they need help in the workforce in trying to maintain a job in the face of having to leave the family home and to avoid a violent partner. I realise now that there is much more that we could and, indeed, should be doing.
For too long, our society has been content with ignoring domestic violence. It's a topic that makes people uncomfortable; it makes them uneasy and it makes them sad. Hearing about instances of domestic violence isn't very pleasant. But it is simply unacceptable and reprehensible to turn a blind eye to it. If we want to address this epidemic—and I do call it an epidemic—we must be willing to fight it with every ounce of our collective strength. I am truly hopeful that society has turned the page on this, with wonderful advocates like Rosie Batty ensuring that the topic is discussed in institutions right across the nation. That includes large companies taking notice and formulating policies that will help.
What I discovered on entering the political sphere is that I can continue to help people with this—and I'm not offering medical advice. I've discovered that I can help in a new way by connecting families with wonderful local services and institutions to ensure that they can escape domestic violence and get on with their lives. Centrelink has been very helpful for people navigating the financial difficulties associated with family violence. The Macarthur Legal Centre in my electorate has been absolutely outstanding in supporting women who have been exposed to domestic violence, in particular, and their children. I do think that, with the right supports, people can escape domestic violence and that we, as a society, can support them. We can offer a helping hand, and we can make sure that the children who are exposed to family violence are managed in such a way that they are less likely to commit ongoing family violence. We can make sure that the perpetrators, while feeling the full brunt of the law, are also provided with support to change their behaviour.
The crux of this debate and this legislation is that the Labor Party do believe that there's more to be done, and we do believe that at least 10 days paid domestic violence leave should be incorporated into the National Employment Standards. It makes me proud to be a member of the Labor Party that suggested this. In particular, when the New South Wales branch supported paid domestic violence leave at our national conference, it was extremely moving to be in the room and to watch every delegate stand in solidarity on this front. Whilst I believe that this bill is a step in the right direction, I do not believe it goes nearly far enough. We need to be doing more to address this crisis, and to show that we care, through real and tangible action. I believe that making paid domestic violence leave a universal workplace right, by legislating it into the National Employment Standards of the Fair Work Act, is a good place to start. But it is only a start. It's not sufficient for us, as parliamentarians, to merely say we've tried; we need to be bold. We need to make our attempts to tackle domestic violence enact real change. The fact that one woman a week is killed every year, as well as a significant number of children, is a disgrace. It's a crisis that needs addressing.
Countless mothers, fathers, daughters and sons fall victim to acts of domestic violence and family violence every day. We do not truly know the extent of domestic violence because a lot of it goes unreported and unchallenged. We need to be bold in our initiatives to address this. We know that many victims of domestic violence are too scared to come forward. We need to allow them ways to make it easier to come forward, and we need to make sure that they can be supported and helped when they do try to flee domestic violence. It's not simply a matter of telling someone who has fallen victim to domestic violence about who can provide them with support; we, as a society, need to formulate a plan to help them on a stepwise basis.
I'm firmly of the belief that, if a woman needs to take time off work to do the things she needs to do to support her children and herself, she should be able to do this without being inflicted with any detrimental effects at her workplace. The most dangerous time for a person is when they're attempting to leave a violent relationship, and we need to support them through this. We know that around two out of every three women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce, so a thorough and adequate response to address domestic violence must involve a workplace response. My colleagues in this chamber would be very much aware that many private enterprises have been taking the lead on this—firms such as IKEA, Telstra, Virgin Australia, NAB, Carlton & United Breweries, Qantas and many more—and are doing the right thing, but it's important that we formulate a national response. Our union movement has been leading the charge, and its efforts over many years have led to subsequent coverage in many Australian workplaces and much change.
I acknowledge that this bill will provide all employees with entitlement to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave, but it is a very small step. This should not be unpaid leave; it should be, I believe, paid leave. And I don't think five days is sufficient. I believe this legislation should provide for paid family and domestic violence leave of at least 10 days. Even some Australian states and territories—Queensland, Western Australia and the ACT—have been taking action to have more than five days. South Australia offers 15 days and Victoria offers 20. This is the example we should be following. I strongly believe that it is only fitting that, as a national government, we have a comprehensive national plan, and I do not believe that five days leave is enough.
This legislation starts the process, and I do believe that we are at least starting to change. It's disappointing that the government's taken so long. Initially, they were totally opposed to family and domestic violence leave, so it is a small start. I'd like to think we could eventually have a bipartisan approach, but I do not believe the government has its heart in this legislation and I think there's much more that it could be doing.
I would like to finish by saying this is a good thing, but there's much more to be done, and I strongly believe the Labor Party will do much better should we come to power in the next election. The government should follow our leadership on this, and I think there's much more they should be doing. Thank you.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (12:40): I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 and of course stand in support of the amendments moved by the member for Gorton. This bill has been on the Notice Paper for a number of weeks now, although it's been relegated to the end of the day every single time, so I'm pleased to see it's now being debated. It's incredibly disappointing, though, that we have one government member speaking on this bill. I hope something can change in the time before we adjourn.
One woman a week is killed as a result of domestic violence. There's no question that this is a national crisis. The ABS estimates that two out of every three women who experience domestic violence are currently in the workforce. To me, it would just make sense that, to implement a truly comprehensive response to domestic and family violence, we must legislate a workplace response. For our government and for the business community, this won't be a world-changing adjustment, but, for an individual who is trying to escape an abusive relationship or abuse in the family home, this could really change their world—obviously for the better.
While the government has been putting off debating this bill—as I said, it's been on the paper for a number of weeks—more and more businesses have already begun writing paid domestic violence leave into their employment contracts. This is at least in part, of course, due to the leadership role of the trade union movement, who have stood up for workers during bargaining and called for change. Unions like United Voice, the CFMMEU and the Finance Sector Union, just to name a few, have been strong champions for victims of domestic violence.
Before entering this place, for a number of years I was an organiser with United Voice working with early childhood educators, trying to get the best and fairest outcome for those workers in that sector. I remember that, back then, for many employers the concept of paid domestic violence leave was still fairly foreign. This was something I knew to be important not just because it made sense but because I'd been listening to workers and heard what they thought was vital in a workplace agreement. When you speak to workers, they don't just talk about their hourly rate. They don't just talk about health and safety. They share their stories and what's important to them and their families.
I also note that yesterday the member for Fairfax, on the MPI, stood up here in the chamber and said his government was here representing people and yet Labor was here representing unions. Well, I'd like to remind the member for Fairfax what, in fact, a union is: it's a collective of workers, of course, and workers, of course, are people.
Mr Hill: Don't listen to him; it's generally a mistake!
Ms LAMB: Thank you to the member for Bruce for that interjection. He's absolutely correct.
I remember once in bargaining with a particular employer, sitting down, the delegates were calling upon the employer to move on a log of claims, and one of those claims was for paid DV and family leave. I will tell you, Deputy Speaker Claydon, it was frustrating being knocked back constantly, hearing the predominantly female workers being knocked back on their log for DV leave. I remember at that time that the employer wouldn't budge until there was this one day. I remember really clearly how quickly the employer's stance changed and it seemed to be overnight. What had happened was one of the union delegates at the bargaining table shared her personal story. It was very brave. I know it was incredibly hard for her to retell her experience of domestic abuse. She directly made a huge impact on the lives of her colleagues that day, many of whom may not even have known she had been suffering at the hands of an abuser. It had a huge impact because the employer abruptly changed their stance and added 10 days paid DV and family violence leave to their agreement immediately after hearing that story. With this move, they joined countless businesses who have shown support for their workers. Businesses like Telstra, Virgin Australia and IKEA were among more than 1,000 businesses that had enterprise agreements approved under the Fair Work Act between January 2016 and June 2017 providing 10 or more days of paid domestic and family violence leave. I was speaking with the regional general manager from Westpac bank just yesterday, and he advised me that Westpac provides for 20 days of domestic violence and family violence leave for their employees.
Let me be clear: this isn't a paid holiday for any of these men and women who may need to access this leave. It's an opportunity to get your affairs in order, an opportunity to escape abuse. Escaping isn't just as easy as walking out of the door. For some, it can be as significant as restarting your life, starting your life over again. It can mean having lots of meetings with doctors, lawyers, financial advisers and support groups. It can mean making arrangements for your children. It can mean finding new accommodation, getting electricity connected and meeting the real estate agent at the new home. If the children have to go to a new school, you have got to get them enrolled and purchase new uniforms. All of those things happen during business hours, Monday to Friday. As we all know, some abusers like to use financial control as a means of power, so it could also mean opening a new bank account and securing funds just to put food on the table. Getting through all of this can be extremely difficult at the best of times; there's no doubt about that. But, for a victim who is already in a vulnerable state, struggling just to keep things together, it can be next to impossible. So imagine trying to do that without an income.
In its submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, the Law Council of Australia, in speaking to the employment related impact of domestic violence and family violence, at point 8, said:
The implications of this are serious for victims, who may be suffering financial abuse, and may feel that they are unable to take time-off work in order to leave an abusive relationship out of fear of losing their job. Financial hardship can bind victims, often women, to abusive relationships.
That was part of the Law Council's submission to this Senate inquiry. Legislating for paid domestic violence leave isn't just about the money. Obviously that's a huge part of it, but it can also be about time. I was speaking to a young lawyer recently in Brisbane who was telling me about a case she had worked on. It was a DV case where a woman was looking to escape the abuse she suffered from her partner. Every day, she would go to work. Every day, she would come home to an incredibly toxic environment. This agonising cycle continued for some time until the victim decided that she had enough. So, one day, when she clocked off from work, she went to a friend's home to start the process of getting her affairs in order. She didn't go home to her family home; she went to a friend's home. That she didn't come directly home sent her abuser into a frenzy. The next day he showed up at her workplace and caused a huge scene which ultimately saw her position terminated. If this woman had had access to paid domestic violence leave she could have covertly got her affairs in order during work hours. She could have organised accommodation and sought police support so that her abuser could not follow her to her place of employment. And she could have retained her position.
I'm not sure that we need any better example than what I've just given to get this amendment about 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave up. I don't think there could be clearer example than the one I've just given. It's our job to make sure this doesn't happen again. It's our job to support vulnerable Australians when they need it the most. Last year, Labor sought to do exactly that, announcing that a Shorten Labor government would introduce 10 days paid domestic violence leave into the NES, the National Employment Standards. We've been advocating strongly for it ever since.
In March this year the Fair Work Commission inserted into modern awards a clause providing for five days of unpaid domestic violence leave. This decision came into effect on 1 August this year, meaning that two million award-reliant employees are now entitled to five days of unpaid DV leave. This amendment bill amends the National Employment Standards to provide all employees with an entitlement of five days of unpaid domestic and family violence leave if they are experiencing family and domestic violence, need to do something to deal with family and domestic violence, and it's impractical to do that thing outside their ordinary hours of work. The story I've just shared with you shows that even the simplest of duties can be impractical to achieve outside work hours when you are a victim of abuse constantly being controlled by your abusive partner. I would argue that we need to be careful with the interpretation of what is practical or impractical when quite literally we're talking about someone's life being at stake here. We know the most dangerous time for a woman is when she's leaving a violent relationship, so we need to do what we can to ensure that women can do that safely.
While this bill is, of course, a step in the right direction, it simply does not go far enough. It still leaves the federal government standards out of step with thousands of businesses and falls short of what is offered by the state governments all across Australia. It's very disappointing that it has taken the government so long to move from their absolute opposition to family and domestic violence leave to this belated and, seemingly, begrudging support for unpaid leave. The minister first committed to unpaid leave in March but, as I said, we're at the end of November and we're only now debating it. It's frustrating that they have waited so long to even bring it up for debate.
We don't expect there will be a huge uptake of domestic violence leave when this bill passes. We don't expect every victim to access it in its entirety. For many, particularly in small businesses where employers and employees have a really close working relationship, the workplace acts as a support mechanism for victims. It's where you spend a lot of your time. You are able to discuss with friends and colleagues what you're experiencing. Work offers the semblance of normalcy and routine that can be so important when you're trying to get your life back together. Because we don't expect there to be a huge uptake of this leave when the bill passes, we don't expect there to be too much cost to business. In fact, it's likely to have a positive effect. In May 2016, KPMG estimated that the cost of violence against women and their children on production and the business sector was sitting at $1.9 billion for 2015-16. This, of course, doesn't include the terrible personal and social cost of domestic violence.
In closing, I'd like to share with the chamber part of the QNMU submission to the Senate inquiry. It said:
As the bill provides five days unpaid domestic violence and family violence leave to be included in the National Employment Standards (NES), it will likely affect nurses who are remain award reliant or who have no such provisions in their enterprise agreement. AINs—
assistants in nursing—
who are employed in aged care comprise a significant proportion of these workers. They are amongst the lowest paid and therefore most in need of a secure, continuous income during periods of domestic violence.
I call on the government members to take a greater interest in this. Like I said, disappointingly, we've got one government member speaking on this bill. I say to government members: if you genuinely care about the Australian people, your constituents, and if you care about Australian small business, stand up and speak on this bill. There is still time. Or, better yet, stand up and throw your support behind Labor's call for a legislated 10 days of paid domestic violence leave. Our country is in crisis. We are in crisis. We must lead the way for this change.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:55): I rise to support the amendment moved to the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 by the member for Gorton. This bill is a small step forward, but it doesn't do what is required. The bill proposes that the National Employment Standards be amended to provide all employees with an entitlement to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. It follows the decision of the Fair Work Commission in March of this year to insert a clause into modern awards with an entitlement providing for five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. This decision came into effect from 1 August. It has provided more than two million award-reliant employees with up to five days unpaid domestic violence leave. This is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough.
In just the first two weeks of October, seven women in Australia lost their lives to violence. The majority of these crimes were committed by people they knew. The statistics on violence against women in Australia are indeed shocking and shameful. In Australia, on average at least one woman a week is killed by a partner or former partner. One in four Australian women have experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner. Women are five times more likely than men to require medical attention or hospitalisation as a result of intimate partner violence and five times more likely to report fearing for their lives. Half of these victims have children in their care. Women with disabilities experience high levels of violence. Indigenous women experience higher rates of more severe forms of violence than the rest of the population. Domestic violence is the leading cause of death, disability and illness amongst women aged between 15 and 44 years. It is higher than motor vehicle accidents, blood pressure or smoking. Just think about that.
I have had the privilege of serving as both the minister and the shadow minister for transport. One of the big issues that we deal with is road safety and trying to get the number of fatalities and serious injuries on our roads down. We developed the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-20. That was recently inquired into in a good piece of work initiated by the government to have a strategy over the next three years, 2018 to 2020. That inquiry consulted people who were families of the victims of road fatalities and trauma. There was a great deal of attention given to that. But the figures pale into far less significance compared with what happens to women in homes around our nation. Whilst very few road fatalities occur as a result of a deliberate act by someone behind the wheel, these fatalities and trauma occur as a direct result of deliberate actions by someone—overwhelmingly men, overwhelmingly the partners or husbands of women—who makes a conscious decision to commit an act of violence, which, at its most extreme, can result in a murder. Yet, tragically in my view, it has not received the significance or the attention that it deserves of this parliament or, indeed—because this isn't just an issue for this parliament—of our society.
When you look at the statistics, they tell you that it must be the case that all of us have friends or family members who are engaged in this activity. That must be the case, given the quite horrific numbers that we are talking about. Domestic violence destroys individuals, destroys families and destroys communities. The insidious reach of domestic violence across our nation places an obligation on the national government to do what it can to support those affected. I do want to pay tribute to those amazing women who work in centres, including the one located in my electorate, that deal with victims of rape and domestic violence. Those women do extraordinary jobs under what must be extraordinary emotional pressure to improve the lives of women and their children.
If we need an argument for strong intervention, beyond common sense and decency, it's that so much of the research tells us that there's an ongoing cycle of violence in families once it has occurred. The fact that young people are exposed to that is tragic. It is something that requires a response from the whole of our society. But we also have an obligation to do what we can, and we are in a position to make a difference. That's why I implore the government to show a bit of courage and support the amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Gorton and put in place 10 days leave, which should be, in my view, a minimal requirement.
We know that the ABS estimates that around two-thirds of women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce. What that means is that some 800,000 women are experiencing some form of violence in their homes at a time when they are also contributing to an income, largely to look after their kids as well as themselves. Quite often, we also know that physical violence will be associated with violence of other forms—psychological violence and violence of intimidation, including the withholding of financial support for women in those situations. So, very clearly, we should do what our neighbours across in New Zealand have done and introduce 10 days paid leave. They did it in July of this year. It makes sense.
Apart from the significant personal impact of violence, we know that there are also costs to employers when a worker is living with violence—increased absenteeism, increased staff turnover, decreased performance, decreased productivity, conflict among workers and safety issues if the perpetrator of violence has to be at the workplace, because, as we just heard from the member for Longman, sometimes the perpetrator of that violence will turn up at the workplace. In a report into the economic aspects of domestic violence leave by The Australia Institute, Dr Jim Stanford confirmed what domestic violence counsellors have been saying for decades—that economic insecurity is one of the most significant obstacles confronting women in their decision of whether to leave or not leave a violent relationship.
We know that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she is leaving a violent relationship, and many of us have had those experiences firsthand. This time, in addition to fearing for her safety, she will need to find new, secure accommodation, get an AVO, seek treatment if required and, potentially, attend court appearances. Introducing paid domestic violence leave into the National Employment Standards provides an important opportunity to reach people living with violence and to give them support. It sends a clear message that domestic violence is not acceptable in any workplace or in our society.
Senator Mathias Cormann has said that domestic violence leave is just another cost on our economy that will have an impact on our international competitiveness. The former Minister for Women, Michaelia Cash, said that paid domestic violence leave is 'a perverse disincentive' leading to women not getting jobs. These are ill-informed and ignorant claims which are dangerous and negligent. It's time that these senior members of the government step back and had a rethink on an issue that should be well above politics, because we know that some of Australia's most successful and profitable businesses have introduced paid domestic violence leave—Qantas, IKEA, NAB, Westpac, Woolworths and Telstra. Indeed, more than 1,000 enterprise agreements approved under the Fair Work Act between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2017 provide for 10 days or more of paid domestic and family violence leave. Both the Queensland and Western Australian governments offer 10 days paid domestic violence leave to public sector employees. South Australia offers 15 days. In Victoria and here in the ACT, it is 20 days.
Make no mistake: not paying domestic violence leave is not free. There's a cost to those experiencing family violence, but there's also a cost to the economy. Paid domestic violence leave will make it easier for women to leave violence. It will make it easier to keep children safe. It will make our workforce healthier and safer, and it will save lives. As with every other major social and economic reform, there are some who will say that it will damage business, but the reality is that the cost of inaction is far too high. It's 2018; we know what the circumstances are. There are no more excuses for not taking action and for not taking action in this parliament.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (13:10): Family and domestic violence is a wicked act that's not caught on CCTV footage like a hold-up at a convenience store or a robbery, which are often beamed into lounge rooms across the country on the nightly news. This insidious violence takes many forms, often occurring under a dark shroud, behind closed doors. It's hidden from view. It's perpetrated by cowardly people in the kitchens, bedrooms and living rooms of homes all across the country. According to several estimates, this year 63 women have lost their lives as a result of the actions of men. One in six women experience family and domestic violence, and Indigenous women experience violence at even higher rates. These numbers are unacceptable. These numbers should be zero.
Family and domestic violence is a problem that begins and ends with men. Mainly it is men who perpetrate this violence against their partners and their family. It is men, imbued with entitlement and misogyny, who scar our collective national consciousness. And it is men, not women, who must change their behaviour. It's clear that we need to alter the way that we raise our boys. We need to teach them to respect women and that violence is abhorrent. It's clear that we all have a role to play to stop this from happening. But until then we must live with our failure, and living with our failure means acknowledging the reality that's before us, that family and domestic violence is an ongoing problem that we must address now. While parliament cannot flick the switch immediately and prevent another woman dying an unnecessary death at the hands of their partner, we can do something. One of the things that we can, and should, do is offer victims of family and domestic violence paid leave—not this unpaid leave, which many people have at the moment, but paid leave.
The reason that paid leave is so important is that leaving a family and domestic violence situation is one of the hardest things that a person may attempt to do in their lives. It's not a matter of packing a bag and walking out the door. The perpetrators of family and domestic violence erode the liberty, the freedom and the independence of their victims. They don't just inflict fear and pain; they paralyse and isolate people. And not only is the cost of domestic violence to our society vast; the cost of escaping and leaving a violent relationship is significant. According to the ACTU, on average it takes $18,000 and 141 hours to escape such a relationship.
When you think about it, starting a new life is not easy. You need to do simple logistical things, like hire a truck to move possessions and spend time finding a new place to go—things that in many circumstances are stressful enough, but when you have the added burden of experiencing family and domestic violence or knowing someone who has it makes it all the harder. If you're trying to start a new life while escaping an old one you may also need to pay lawyers, seek support to deal with the trauma, apply for Centrelink, look for new schools for your child—the list goes on and on and on. And many of those things get done during work hours. To say you can only do those things on an unpaid basis inflicts further injury on people who are already injured.
Many women consider their financial capacity while they're thinking about leaving an abusive situation, and a majority of those women—in fact, about two-thirds—are in paid employment. But right now, instead of automatically having the support of their workplace, women in abusive relationships are trapped in a scary catch 22. Leaving work to create more time means sacrificing income, financial independence and possibly their job, but staying at work may hinder their ability to get organised and get out. So, in that context, the simple thing that we can and should do is say that leave should be available to everyone and that leave should be paid.
According to a report from the Australian Human Rights Commission, women who experience family and domestic violence are more likely to have lower personal incomes and a disrupted work history. Almost half of the women said that it affected their ability to work. The point is that this impossible choice of, 'Do I stay in the workplace and build up my financial security but potentially risk the ability to leave an abusive relationship?' is a false choice. There's another option for these women if this place has the courage to choose it. We can give another option to millions of women across the country. Ten days of paid family and domestic violence leave would give women the flexibility to take time off work to arrange for their own safety.
Right now, this parliament could grant what should be a universal right for every single worker in this country: the right to safety. It's because the Greens are committed to this position that we were the ones who first introduced a bill into this place that would give 10 days of paid leave. That bill has so far failed to get the support of the parliament, but, given that we are now debating the best way to support women who are leaving abusive relationships, we should put that question of paid leave back on the table, because what is absolutely clear right now is that we are not doing a good enough job at preventing family and domestic violence from happening in the first place and also at calibrating our policies to ensure that people who are in abusive relationships can leave them. So we're failing on both fronts.
The number of women who are dying dwarfs the kinds of death that we see from other things, like terrorism, that often make the front pages. Perhaps if it received as much media attention there would be as much action in this parliament, but it's our job here not just to be led by whether or not something makes the front page; it's to look at what is happening in our society and decide how we are going to best act on it. Some may say, 'Well, 10 days of paid leave costs too much,' and, of course, one answer to that is to say: 'What about the costs to businesses and the cost to the economy of forcing people to stay in abusive relationships? What does that mean for the workplace?' But the better argument is also to say, 'At the end of the day, we should not be putting a price on people's safety.' There is scant evidence that the ability for people to have 10 days of family and domestic violence leave would in any way be misused. It is an important safety net for many people—for many women—that in many instances may well, in fact, be the difference between life and death.
So I'm glad that we are seeing some action on this front and that there is at least some step being taken. This bill will, of course, improve the current situation. But, if we are having a discussion about how best to support the victims of family and domestic violence, paid leave must be on the table. It must be on the table because almost everyone who works in this space says many of the acts that women need to take to escape abusive relationships have to take place during working hours. They tell us very clearly that one of the most important things we can do at that time is to ensure that women—and it's mainly women—have financial security and that that financial security is not further compromised.
So, whilst this bill is in many respects a good start, I urge the government to go back and have a look at the bill that the Greens introduced into this place back in February. Not only does it allow family and domestic violence leave to be available at the rate of 10 days of paid leave—and, as I said, we were the first ones to suggest that in this place—it also has better provisions than are in the current bill as to who is eligible to access it. I'll flag now that during the consideration in detail stage of this debate we're put forward a number of concrete suggestions that I hope the government and the opposition will take on board. These will broaden the eligibility of those who are able to access it to include, for example—because it's not just about someone who's directly suffering family and domestic violence themselves—someone who is a close relative of someone experiencing family and domestic violence. That is something that we've recognised in our leave provisions for some time.
Over the years, we've expanded, for example, sick leave to include carers leave so that if you have a child that's sick you have the capacity to take some of your leave to look after them. Leave provisions have also developed over time. So should it be with this kind of leave. If someone has to offer support to a close member of their family who is going through family and domestic violence leave then they should also be able to access some of this. There should not be a need for impracticality, for example, before you can take the leave. It should be there as of right.
There are a number of provisions that I think will make this bill operate better and give a better expression to its true intent, which is to support people who are suffering family and domestic violence, that I hope the government and the opposition will take on board and that could pass if this bill passes. I hope the government, before this debate concludes, reconsiders the question of paid leave and perhaps comes back to this place with a bill that incorporates something that would make a real difference and potentially save lives: that we can have 10 days of paid leave for those experiencing family and domestic violence.
Mr HART (Bass) (13:22): In February this year, I met with representatives from the Australian Services Union. Some of their members had come to ask me to sign their We Won't Wait pledge. The objective of the We Won't Wait campaign is to get 10 days of paid family violence leave under the National Employment Standards, the NES, so that all Australian workers have access to this important support.
The contents of the pledge are as follows: 'I recognise the critical need for all sectors of society to work to prevent and respond to family violence. Workplaces are not immune to family violence, and workers attempting to survive the impacts of family violence need time to relocate and address legal issues, the welfare of their families and their own wellbeing. Maintaining employment through the process is critical to securing their family's long-term safety. For these reasons, I support the We Won't Wait campaign to make family violence leave available to all Australian workers.' I was proud to put my name to this pledge, and I'm proud that Labor is leading the way on this very important issue, having announced in December 2017 that an elected Labor government would legislate for 10 days paid family violence leave in the National Employment Standards.
Domestic and family violence is a scourge on our community without regard to income or social status. A recent report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that:
One in 6 Australian women and 1 in 16 men have been subjected, since the age of 15, to physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous cohabiting partner …
The same report indicated that:
Family, domestic and sexual violence happens repeatedly—more than half (54%) of the women who had experienced current partner violence, experienced more than one violent incident …
White Ribbon Australia has some scarily similar statistics, again, emphasising the scope and urgency of the problem: that one in four children in Australia are exposed to domestic violence, that domestic and family violence is the principal cause of homelessness for women and/or their children, that violence against women is estimated to cost the Australian economy $21.7 billion each year, and that oft quoted figure—that is, over 12 months, on average, one woman is killed every week in Australia by a current or former partner. This is a shame. It's a national tragedy.
A person who is trying to remove themselves and their family from domestic violence should not be further burdened by the rational fear that, in making the request to have time off to deal with that situation, that could result in the loss of their job, nor should they see resignation from employment as the only way forward to get the time that they need. I'm pleased that the government has acknowledged the impact that family and domestic violence have on employers and employees in the workplace. We see this response to this issue in this legislation—that is, the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018.
This bill proposes to amend the NES to provide all employees with an entitlement to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. This is in line with a recent decision from the Fair Work Commission to include a clause for five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave in all modern awards. The model clause from the FWC notes that often it is impractical to do the things that you need to do when dealing with the impacts of family violence outside of ordinary working hours. This is, of course, self-evident, practical and sensible for things like finding accommodation, securing an appropriate apprehended violence order from the police, seeking legal advice, getting medical treatment, seeing a counsellor or perhaps attending court hearings. All of these issues take time and, of course, they do not fit in with an out-of-hours schedule to suit a person's working arrangements. I say again: these are not things that can wait until a weekend, until the end of a shift or the end of a work day. For this reason, domestic and family violence leave should be a universal workplace right, not something that relies upon the goodwill of an employer; although I do know that there are many who would act with the sort of empathy necessary to help someone through this sort of crisis. For this reason, Labor will not be opposing this bill.
This bill is certainly a step in the right direction. However, we on this side of the House do not believe that it goes far enough. Labor's commitment, as I said earlier, is for 10 days paid family violence leave—paid. It is absolutely essential that domestic and family violence leave is paid leave available to every Australian worker. I'm concerned that with this legislation the government is saying that only the women who can afford to take unpaid leave are entitled to take the time required to remove themselves from a domestic violence situation, remove themselves to protect their families, remove themselves to seek support, to seek safety.
It is a fact that women are more likely to be in insecure work, or working casually or part time whilst also taking on the caring responsibility for their family. Often this means that taking unpaid leave will put them at even more financial disadvantage. If a woman is in the situation of needing to take family and domestic violence leave, it's likely that she is also counting on continuing to receive a pay cheque and being able to go back to work while she takes on the task of dealing with the impacts of family violence. A March 2018 article in The Conversation by post-doctoral research fellow Kate Farhall noted there has been research into the costs leaving an abusive relationship. These costs can be many, they can be immediate, and the costs can be long term. The costs will include relocation, including lease-break costs, costs to—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, when the speaker may seek continuation.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Junior Eurovision Song Contest
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (13:29): I would like to congratulate Jael Wena, a 12-year-old student from Hazel Glen College in our electorate of McEwen, who stunned audiences and took out third prize in the highly prestigious international Junior Eurovision Song Contest earlier this week.
Jael, who travelled all the way from Doreen to the Minsk-Arena in Belarus, performed her song, Champion, in front of a worldwide audience. The talented year 7 student often performs at assemblies at Hazel Glen, but this was a totally different experience. After her win, Jael thanked everyone who had supported her, including her parents, who travelled to Belarus with her; her manager, YoYo Music; and broadcaster ABC ME.
Like everyone at Hazel Glen, we're so proud to have Jael represent us so spectacularly, sharing Australian values and talents with a worldwide audience. What an incredible achievement for Jael and what a source of inspiration she can be for her fellow students and students right across the nation. We are so proud to have such an immense young talent coming out of our community, and we wish Jael luck in her future musical endeavours. She is truly an Australian champion.
As Molly Meldrum would say, do yourself a favour, get out there and listen to Champion. And keep an eye on this wonderful student as she embarks on what is going to be a sensational musical career in the future.
Ryan Electorate: Country Women's Association
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:31): Today I want to pay tribute to the Country Women's Association, which advances the rights of women, families and communities through advocacy and empowerment, especially for those living in regional, rural and remote Australia. Having said that, I'm honoured to have more than one branch in my electorate of Ryan. Indeed, the Moggill group is one of the largest in Australia. I'm sure that many of you know the iconic Country Women's Association cookbook, a household staple. It's just a piece of the puzzle, and today I take time to recognise the many hardworking volunteers behind the success of the Country Women's Association.
The Queensland CWA prides itself on diversity, empowerment and friendship, and the Moggill branch is well known for its variety of activities. They're not just the ones you'd expect, like cooking and fundraisers. Moggill also do birthing kits for poorer nations in the Pacific and they reach out on an international basis. They also have some very talented art-and-craft workshops as well as a fabulous choir. Recently, they had their annual Christmas stall at the local Kenmore Plaza. The stall raised community spirits, with members selling quilts, kitchen items and Christmas decorations. Importantly, the funds were all directed to the QCWA's rural crisis fund, which helps families and communities struggling through the drought. I take my hat off to those wonderful volunteers at the CWA.
Braddon Electorate: Blue Hills Honey
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (13:32): It's no secret that my electorate of Braddon is home to some of Australia's best producers. In 1960, Blue Hills Honey, located in the far north-west town of Mawbanna, out in the hills behind Smithton, was the first Australian company to export honey to Japan. In 2004 they were the first Australian producer to introduce the industry-initiated B-QUAL quality program based on hazard analysis and critical control point principles. And in 2018 they've been recognised as the Tasmanian Export Awards winner, and are now a national finalist in the 56th Australian Export Awards, in the category of regional exporter. This successful family business of three generations is competing on the global stage and sending its products to more than seven countries. It increased its honey exports by 45 per cent in 2017-18, despite its production being hit by bushfires in January 2016.
Blue Hills Honey is all about innovation. Their Japanese sales increased by 700 per cent after developing products such as honey-flavoured mouth spray, pet care products and single-use sachets. It's my great pleasure to congratulate Nicola and Robbie Charles and their staff for these fantastic achievements.
But the Australian honey industry must be protected. The honey 'launderers', who are tainting the integrity and reputation of our honey industry by exposing consumers to blended honey, are infiltrating our markets, frustrating customers and producers alike. I call on the government to act on the ACCC's call for Australia to develop an agreed approach to honey testing, and I call on this government to act now.
Diabetes
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:34): On 23 August we had a bit of a disruption in this place, it must be said. It was the day that we changed prime ministers and, unfortunately, that interrupted the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Kids in the House push. But they brought 100 children in, a repeat of 2012. It is one of the most successful lobbying programs that we have seen in this parliament. We've had some fabulous success in fighting diabetes and we've had announcements by the minister recently about the extension of the constant glucose monitoring system, the inclusion of FreeStyle Libre devices and extending that cover to those who suffer rare forms of diabetes, like neonatal diabetes.
I take my hat off to the minister, Greg Hunt, for hearing the pleas of the Davies family in Port Pirie. Young Baylee was diagnosed at four weeks old and badly needed a continuous glucose monitor, which she now has. This is a great result. Connor Gilfillan came to this place. He's from Kadina and he suffers from diabetes. I walked with Connor last Sunday in Kadina for their One Walk program. He knocked up after about the first 400 metres, so about 2½ kays later, with Connor on my shoulders, I struggled back into home base. But it was so good to see the turn-up there—the people who want to assist and help. I thank my group and I thank the minister. It's a good outcome.
Bendigo Electorate: Climate Change
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:35): Tomorrow, school students from around the country will go on strike, including students in the town of Castlemaine in my electorate. This is the second time that students from the town of Castlemaine will go on strike this month. Earlier, students went on a two-day strike. Students from the Steiner school and from the secondary school travelled to Bendigo to protest out the front of Senator Bridget McKenzie's office, and then, on the second day, out the front of my office. I met with the students. I was fortunate to be in Bendigo and had time to meet with them when they arrived at my office. I asked them why they were striking. It is a big deal for anybody to go on strike, whether you are a worker or a student. It is part of our democracy and social fabric that people go on strike to demonstrate around an ideal or a value. These students were striking about climate change and the inaction of the government to take climate change seriously. They are concerned about the use of fossil fuels. They want to see a just transition away from coal-fired power stations to newer, greener, cleaner energy. They were also protesting in support of protecting our environment and are devastated that in some areas we're still fighting for just and fair land-clearing laws. This what is the young people, these students, are striking about.
Deakin Electorate: Roads
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (13:37): As another year comes to an end, traffic in Melbourne just keeps getting worse and worse. Therefore, I'm very proud to be part of a government that has made it a priority to ease congestion for people on our roads, particularly those in the outer suburbs, who are most affected.
In my electorate of Deakin, I'm proud to have overseen the commencement of an $8 million upgrade to the Maroondah Highway, Dorset Road, Bellara Drive and Exeter Road intersection in Croydon. Tens of thousands of cars use this intersection every day, including many heavy vehicles. This intersection has consistently been in the top 10 troublesome intersections in RACV's Redspot survey, with wait times of up to four cycles of lights. This upgrade will improve traffic flow at the intersection, reducing it from four changes of lights to one before you can get through the intersection. I'm very pleased to report that phase 1 is about to be completed, and that includes lengthening the Maroondah Highway left turn into Dorset Road, widening Dorset Road, some minor works on Belara Drive and median strip works. Phase 2 has now commenced—the widening of Dorset Road. I want to thank the Croydon community for their patience while these works have continued, but the road and the intersection will be so much better once it's completed, and we're very pleased to be delivering it.
Canberra Electorate: Broadband
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:39): Here is Elliot Crighton's NBN saga, part 4. On 19 November, NBN Co advised me that Elliot Crighton's apartment in Coombs was finally activated for service. After 10 days, it wasn't activated. I sought an update from NBN Co, and they've decided to provide Elliot with a case manager. Hurrah, hurrah!
I let Elliot know, and he said: 'I appreciate the update; however, I'm not riddled with optimism, as I had an NBN case manager around one to two months ago that was extraordinarily unhelpful and was unable to answer any questions or issues. That particular case manager also took almost two weeks just to report they had no information.'
Elliot's provider, Aussie Broadband, told him his apartment has a location number that is provided only after NBN is connected. The apartment developer has no outstanding requests from NBN Co and has tried to contact them on multiple occasions to find out why there is the delay, and all it's been is absolute crickets. From Elliot: 'One possible solution is that the case manager finally advises what needs to be done by the developer before the address is listed as activated, or they simply change the status of the resident from phase 0 to phase 3.' I'm calling on the minister to pay attention to the NBN rollout and pay attention to Coombs, because this is a greenfields site. (Time expired)
Forde Electorate: Rural Fire Brigades
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (13:40): I'd like to take this opportunity to commend my local rural fire brigades—Cedar Creek Wolffdene Rural Fire Brigade, Ormeau Rural Fire Brigade, Chambers Flat Rural Fire Brigade and the Coomera Valley Rural Fire Brigade—who are working tirelessly to support the people not only in my electorate of Forde but across Queensland today. This morning, nearly 200 fires are burning across Queensland and, while conditions are easing, 105 of those fires continue to burn—some of them out of control. The Coomera Valley Rural Fire Brigade has been fighting fires for the past week and a half, deploying crews and task forces across South-East Queensland and even responding to fires yesterday in my own electorate: one on Elevation Drive in Wongawallan and another just next door in Oxenford. The Ormeau Rural Fire Brigade also responded this morning to a fire in Yatala while also deploying teams across Queensland.
On days such as these we rely on hardworking, community focused organisations like our rural fire brigades. I'd like to highlight to the House the great work and achievements of all the brigades I've mentioned and pay tribute to all who have contributed during this statewide emergency. I'd like to thank again the hundreds of volunteers and firefighters on the ground today who are keeping our communities, our homes and, most importantly, our loved ones safe. They fill all of us with great confidence in preparedness for this year's fire season.
Broadband
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (13:42): The National Broadband Network is obviously still causing great frustration for many people, including those in Canberra as well as in Hobart. For example, a constituent tells me NBN refused to connect his house because they insisted his house didn't exist, although more recently he's been told the house does exist but he won't be connected until 2019 even though he first contacted NBN in 2017. Another constituent had his whole street connected but not his house, and there's no sensible explanation. Adding to people's woes is that there's no effective complaints mechanism. Yes, there's the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, but it's run by industry and simply isn't up to the job of investigating complaints quickly and effectively. Indeed, one constituent tells me he contacted the TIO to complain about poor speeds and dropouts in September and was told it would be several weeks before they could even look at his complaint. Then came the cycle of blame shifting between NBN and the ISPs.
In other words, there's simply no way to hold these organisations to account, and that's why the government should establish an effective complaints mechanism for all NBN related problems and not just let the industry continue to investigate themselves and shift the blame. The public is quite rightly fed up with the delays and blame shifting with the NBN. It's beyond time the government took control and fixed it, starting with setting up an effective complaints resolution process.
Bonner Electorate: Community Garden
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:43): I'm fortunate to be involved in so many amazing community driven schemes that benefit so many of my constituents. One of these is a campaign to establish a community garden in Wynnum Central. I was approached by Kieran, the owner of Wynnum business Frenchies Cafe, who flagged the idea of a community garden with me, but, when I approached Charlene Leftley, owner of Crystal Rose Gallery, this is when things started to grow. Some background: there is quite a bit of green space next to the Woolworths shopping centre on Florence Street. Attracting people to Wynnum Central has been an issue for a while now, so Charlene thought setting up a community garden would help draw people to the area. I thought this was a fantastic idea, so I was happy to put my name to a petition and throw my full support behind a community garden. The petition has already gathered over 150 signatures and was only launched two weeks ago. What an amazing show of support. I will be advocating 100 per cent for this community garden to go ahead.
I have to thank another Wynnum business owner, Cherie from Reel Cutz for Men, for her help in promoting the petition. Cherie tells me that a community garden would help give the clients purpose. She says many of her clients would like a space where they can give back to the community. I want to encourage my bayside constituents to sign the petition at Crystal Rose Gallery on Edith Street. Cherie and Charlene have formed the new Wynnum Merchant Movement, and I can't wait to see the other local initiatives that they have in the pipeline.
Jasiri Australia Girls Takeover Parliament Program
Ms KEARNEY (Batman) (13:45): Yesterday I had the privilege of hosting a participant of the Jasiri Australia Girls Takeover Parliament program. The Girls Takeover Parliament program aims to encourage more women to enter parliament and does this by hosting young women from the ages of 13 to 25 in the office of a member of parliament to provide them with skills and experience and to encourage them to pursue future political careers or public leadership positions. The program aims to encourage more women to become involved in politics as a way of encouraging further gender equality across Australia.
As we know, women make up less than half of the Australian parliament, as opposed to making up roughly half of the Australian population. Encouraging more women to enter politics is a crucial step towards having a genuinely representative democracy and to making sure that women are not only given a voice in politics but also given equal representation on significant national issues, such as women's superannuation, the tampon tax and domestic violence.
As part of this program, I hosted a first-year university student from the Australian National University named Savannah Benson, and she is here in the gallery today and wrote this speech for me. Savannah accompanied me to important meetings and took over in my office yesterday, gaining valuable experience of the workings of the Australian parliament whilst also gaining important skills and knowledge to pursue her interests in politics and to encourage more young women, such as herself, to pursue political careers.
Fisher Electorate: Roads
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:46): Yesterday, in a scene too familiar to residents in my electorate of Fisher, there was a serious accident on the Bruce Highway. An overturned truck blocked both northbound lanes and thousands of people were trapped stationary on the closed road for many, many hours. Our community needs action to improve this notorious road, and the coalition government are delivering. Since my election, we've committed $3.13 billion to much-needed upgrades between the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane, and works are already underway now between Caloundra Road and the Sunshine Motorway. Among other funding, we've committed further packages of $530 million and $880 million to upgrades between Caloundra Road and Pine Rivers, which should allow us to deliver three flood-proof lanes each way.
Queensland Labor minister Mark Bailey recently delivered, more than nine months late, just one of the three project-planning reports we need to progress these upgrades. I encourage the Deputy Prime Minister to consider the one report as soon as possible. However, despite his promises to have planning for this section of the highway complete by the end of 2017, we are still waiting for two further planning reports from Minister Bailey. I want to see the federal government's money invested as soon as possible, so I say again to Minister Bailey: the Sunshine Coast is waiting; stop the delays and get us all three planning reports that we need now.
Music Education
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (13:48): Music drops deep as does student education
The kids ain't learning if they've got no motivation.
Music plays second fiddle to maths and English
But did you know that kids do better when they learn some boom-tish.
The ABC TV just filmed a new show
It's called Don't Stop the Music and it had a fab flow.
It was filmed at Challis, a school in my area.
Where the kids' prospects could be fairer.
But Guy Sebastian of Aussie Idol fame
Is doing what he can to attempt to make a change.
A change to the story for the future of these kids.
To see them flourish and not end up on the skids.
Music has so many benefits than just notes and song,
Did you know kids who study are far better at working all day long?
Sixty-three per cent of primary schools in Australia have no music education.
But research shows the benefits are causing a sensation.
Kids who study music have high cognitive capacity,
Specifically their language and numerical tenacity.
Kids are happier and they're more attentive
Their test results show their learning is more receptive.
We need more programs like this one in lower socio-economic areas
If we don't future prospects of these kids are quite precarious.
In Tassie and Queensland music in state schools is compulsory
I think this needs to spread across the nation in summary.
Congratulations to Challis and the ABC
The work you have done is very clear to see.
I look forward to you continuing to change the story
It's initiatives like this that should receive more glory.
Well done to the teachers, students and the ABC
The progress you've all made feels me with glee.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): You did very well to contain yourself to your seat, Member for Burt.
O'Connor Electorate: Radiation Therapy
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:49): I will start today by giving a big shout-out to Isabel Kent and Digby Smith, all the way from the tiny town of Frankland River in the deep south of my electorate, who are here with their grandparents Barrie and Judi.
I'd like to share some great news with the House and with families living with cancer in the Great Southern region of O'Connor. Our fight to bring a radiotherapy machine to Albany is one step closer to reality. In June 2017, this government provided a $6.6 million to GenesisCare for a machine in Albany. GenesisCare already treat cancer patients in the Great Southern, but their patients travel hundreds of kilometres to access radiotherapy. GenesisCare want their machine located in the Albany Health Campus to create synergies with existing diagnostic, surgical, chemotherapy and hospice services. This will cost around $3 million, but building a private facility from scratch would cost almost double and take twice as long.
Together with our health minister, Greg Hunt, I called on the WA Minister for Health, Roger Cook, to meet with GenesisCare and discuss their proposal. In a major breakthrough, Minister Cook finally met GenesisCare on Tuesday and agreed to a feasibility study towards locating this machine at the Albany Health Campus. This is terrific news for people like Mary Williams and her dedicated team of volunteers, who've been raising awareness and funds for the Albany radiation machine for over two years. Our government's funding is making their dream a reality, but there's still a long way to go. Please continue to show your support by signing or sharing the petition to get this machine installed as soon as possible.
Polish School of Sydney
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:51): Kingsford Smith is home to one of Australia's largest Polish language schools. Each Saturday morning at the Polish School of Sydney in Randwick children and adults learn and develop their language skills. Language helps to build and maintain a connection with the culture, traditions and history of Poland. Around 180,000 Australians proudly claim Polish heritage, while 48,000 speak Polish at home. Some of our famous geographical landmarks reflect the names of Polish explorers and heroes—think of the Strzelecki Ranges, in the south-east of the country, or our tallest mountain, Mount Kosciuszko.
Since 2004, the Polish school's mission has been quite simple: to make language learning fun and beneficial. It was my pleasure to help celebrate the school's 15th anniversary and reaffirm that mission at a gala dinner in Little Bay on 3 November. We were joined by the Vice-Consul of the Republic of Poland in Sydney, Joanna Splocharska. The evening was an opportunity to recognise a schools achievements and look forward to the future. To Alicja Batorowicz and the board of the Polish School of Sydney I'd like to say, 'Gratulacje!' Congratulations on your 15th anniversary.
Family Life
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:52): Congratulations to Family Life, on receiving the gold award in the Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Awards this morning for their Together We Can campaign. The campaign is a comprehensive project bringing together community organisations to reduce family violence. It has led to a 23 per cent reduction in reported incidents of family violence across south-east Melbourne. The campaign has been steered by a Family Life, a local Sandringham based family service provider that is changing the lives of vulnerable families, children and young Australians. This morning, the award was received by Jo Cavanagh OAM, who has led Family Life for over 22 years and is rightly acknowledged for her contribution and service to our great country. She was joined by Carol Jeffs, Tom Nairn, Julie Nairn and Stephen Sparrow. The campaign was also stewarded by Allison Wainwright, the deputy CEO of Family Life; Ally Madden, a community team leader; Liz Weaver, from the Tamarack Institute; David Rose, from The University of Melbourne; Stephen Sparrow at Cardinia shire; and Victoria Police. Congratulations to the Together We Can team. We are proud of your work and what you are doing to reduce family violence in our community. You are great citizens, and if more of the country will like you we would be a better nation.
Stars Foundation
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (13:53): Last week I was honoured to visit the Stars program at Heatley Secondary College with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for education, Tanya Plibersek, where Labor announced a $19.5 million boost to intensive in-school mentoring designed to lift school attendance, year 12 completions and employment rates. Labor's investment will create almost 8,000 new places in the Stars Foundation's successful program to tackle educational disadvantage faced by First Nations young women. This will triple the number of girls supported each year.
The Stars Foundation offers full-time in school mentoring and engagement programs for young women to help them realise their full potential in all aspects of their lives. Existing Stars programs have raised the year 12 completion rates for stars students to 96 per cent. In 2017 stars closed the school attendance gap by 39 per cent in the Northern Territory programs, and more than 90 per cent of the 2016-17 graduates remained in employment or further study a year later. The $9.5 million commitment will allow the Stars Foundation to build on its successful programs in the Northern Territory and Queensland to expand in schools across the country.
Empowering First Nations women through education delivers improved economic, health and social outcomes for young women themselves, and their families and communities. Labor's investment in stars will change these young women's lives and build upon a terrific start— (Time expired)
Federation University Australia
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (13:55): I rise to congratulate Federation University which will embark on a major redevelopment at its Berwick campus following an incredible $40.7 million injection from the federal government. This is absolutely fantastic news for local students, having a first-class educational facility at their front door. I must also thank very much Professor Helen Bartlett, Federation University's vice-chancellor; Mr Greg Jakob, director of Berwick campus; and Professor Andrew Smith and Professor Leigh Sullivan, who we have worked very closely with.
Federation University will be receiving funding for an additional 758 bachelor places in 2019, increasing to 1,000 in 2020 and to 3,000 by 2022. New developments at Berwick campus will include a third nursing clinical learning environment; an additional science laboratory; additional academic technical and professional staff work areas to accommodate projected increases in staffing; more courses for nursing, teaching, community and human services, VET, arts, business MBA; and expanding the library and learning support centres. I'm very excited about this. This is something we have been working on for the last 12 months. It brings, as I said, a first-class university facility in Federation University to Berwick. The government is giving them 110 per cent support.
Gender and Sexual Orientation
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:57): I rise to talk about gay conversion therapy, a thoroughly discredited practice which is not only damaging but can be deadly. The AMA has been clear in its condemnation, as has the World Medical Association. Given this you would expect senior government members to stand shoulder to shoulder with experts in their unequivocal denunciation. But you would be wrong. Indeed, of the three most senior government members who have been asked, not one was willing to reject this vile practice. Not the federal Minister for Health, not the Deputy Prime Minister and shamefully not even Prime Minister Morrison himself, who just brushed off the question, saying it wasn't an issue. That this man, who prides himself on his moral fibre and purports to represent all Australians, would essentially endorse such a twisted and barbaric activity is utterly abhorrent. We have come a long way recently, but this foul episode shows that we can't be complacent. We must stand up to discrimination and bigotry wherever it appears, especially if it's in our federal government.
I am pleased that the University of Newcastle students association council has signed the Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Survivor Statement, pleading with our governments to stop harming LGBTIQ Australians, and to call for a ban on gay conversion therapy in every state and territory. There's no place for it. If this government won't act, a Shorten Labor government will. (Time expired).
Gregson, Mr Wayne
Mr DRUM (Murray—Nationals Whip) (13:58): I'd like to acknowledge a staffer, who worked for me when I was a state member of parliament, by the name of Wayne Gregson. Wayne and Linda were a husband and wife team who worked for me—Linda for 14 years and Wayne for 10. Wayne has recently been diagnosed with an inoperable cancer and the prognosis is not good for Wayne. But he's not sad and he's not downbeat. In fact, he's lucky that he can look back and say he has lived his life to the fullest. He's one of the funniest, smartest and most talented journalists that the Central Victorian Bendigo region has ever had. He has an extensive work record, but he has loved life as well as anybody could ever wish to love life. He recently left full-time employment, but then he worked for the radio stations, and he's done an amazing job in that regard. Wayne and Linda have an amazing relationship. They have so many friends and such an amazing social network.
I just want to thank Wayne for the 10 years that he worked in my office. He is totally bipartisan and totally without politics but a great supporter. He loves everything to do with Bendigo, the region of Bendigo and central Victoria and he has a fantastic reputation within the journalist fraternity in Victoria. I send my full wishes to Wayne Gregson as he goes through this next battle for the next few months.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Australian Natural Disasters
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:00): I rise on indulgence to update the House on the storms and the bushfires. The storms were in New South Wales, of course, and the bushfires are in Queensland.
As we know, Sydney and other parts of New South Wales are mopping up after a major storm—one of the worst in Sydney's memory. The storm system that moved across greater Sydney yesterday brought about 200 millimetres of rain, more than one month's average in a single day, as well as damaging winds, hail, severe thunderstorms and hazardous surf. Roads were closed due to flash flooding, fallen trees and landslides, and in Western Sydney a number of vehicles were trapped in floodwaters. There were blackouts and school closures as well. In total, 18 floodwater rescues took place, with the New South Wales SES receiving 2,063 requests for assistance. The Central Coast, and I know that the member for Robertson would be concerned here, and the south coast region, so the same for the member for Gilmore, were also hit by this system.
Three deaths have been attributed to the storms. This is a terrible tragedy. One of those deaths was an SES volunteer who was responding to the storms—out there helping others when he lost his life. He was a volunteer with a young family. It is truly heartbreaking and our thoughts are with his family at this terrible time for them. Nine people have also been injured, including two police officers—again, selflessly serving and out there for all of us.
I have spoken with Premier Berejiklian and conveyed the Commonwealth's willingness to assist as and when is needed. There has been no formal request for assistance from New South Wales at this time, and I want to commend the New South Wales State Emergency Services and other authorities for the tremendous work they've done in supporting their citizens.
While these events have unfolded in New South Wales, Queenslanders have been facing challenges of a very different kind. Major bushfires are burning—more than 105 active bushfires and grassfires—and extreme conditions are expected to continue in the northern and eastern parts of the state over the next seven days. The Bureau of Meteorology has assessed that the current conditions are easing, which is welcome. However, they remain concerned, as winds are set to increase this afternoon.
As well, forecasts are for severe to extreme heatwave conditions from Cooktown to Gladstone and extending into Central and north-western Queensland over the next seven days. Emergency warnings are current for fires burning at Deepwater and seven watch-and-act fires are burning across the state, and also one advanced fire. I should also say that there is an emergency warning at Captain Creek.
Evacuation centres are open at Rockhampton Showgrounds, the Central Queensland University at Rockhampton, Miriam Vale, Gladstone and Sarina. To those Australians in these areas, or who face similar warnings in the days ahead, I simply say this: please take the advice you are given. You can rebuild a home, but you cannot rebuild a lost family. It's now time to listen, to stay calm and to put those you love first.
I commend the response of Queensland authorities. That tremendous response is being bolstered by support from around the country—New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and Western Australia. Tasmania is also in the process of sending assistance. Their contribution is being coordinated out of the State Disaster Coordination Centre in Brisbane.
I can report that I have continued to keep in contact with Premier Palaszczuk and that the Commonwealth disaster assistance plan has been activated. This is the formal mechanism which creates an open channel between the Queensland state government and the Commonwealth for Queensland to seek assistance in any range of areas from the Commonwealth.
The ADF are providing support, as required, and stand ready to respond to any request that is put to them, according to their capabilities, from the Queensland government. That includes, currently, the refuelling of firefighting aircraft out of Amberley. In the last 24 hours we have responded to a call for such assistance, from the Queensland government to help the Gladstone local government area, and this is what we will continue to do in the days and in the months ahead.
Earlier today the Deputy Prime Minister and I, with the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, attended the Crisis Coordination Centre here in Canberra, where we were further briefed on both of these situations. Our emergency services around Australia are doing tremendous work. Our state governments are doing a tremendous job, whether in Queensland or in New South Wales. I commend Premier Palaszczuk and Premier Berejiklian on the work of both of their governments.
The members for Capricornia and Flynn are not here today; they are with their communities in Queensland, as is Senator Canavan. They attended the local disaster management meeting in Rockhampton overnight. They are a vital conduit between the Commonwealth and these communities. I know there are other members here in the chamber who represent these communities, like the member for Leichhardt, the member for Wide Bay and other members. They, I know, will be keen to get back to their communities. Everyone is lending a hand and stepping up. Mates are helping mates. They're stepping up, they're reaching out and they're helping and comforting those in need. That's the Australian way.
I conclude with these remarks. This is going to be a tough summer ahead for all of us. This is the brief and the warning we've already seen from Emergency Management Australia. There is currently material being prepared by Emergency Management Australia that will be available to all members which will assist them in working with their communities to ensure that they can provide any role they can in supporting their communities to prepare for the summer season ahead of us. It may well be that more homes will come under threat, and we pray they will not be lost; that more hectares could be ravaged, and we pray that that won't happen; and that more lives could be affected, and we'll pray and do everything we can within our power to ensure that that does not occur. To those affected already: on behalf of this parliament, I offer our thoughts, our prayers and the support of 25 million people who will stand with you for as long as it takes.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): On indulgence, I rise to associate the opposition with the heartfelt remarks of the Prime Minister. Perhaps not every Australian knows where the town of Gracemere is. About 8,000 people live there. It's a fast-growing satellite suburb of Rockhampton. It was the site of the first European settlement in the Rockhampton district. I hope all Australians learn where Gracemere is now, because, last night, over 8,000 people from there had a very restless sleep at the showgrounds and in the homes of Rockhampton people who invited them in all the way from their own homes. The reason I think all Australians should know where Gracemere is is it was actually the biggest evacuation in the history of the area—a massive, cooperative effort—and it went seamlessly, exactly as the people there had planned. To me, that represents all of what's good about our volunteers and professionals when they do the work. With levels of government working together, 8,000 people were moved safely in a very short period of time. That should make us all very proud.
I understand Premier Palaszczuk and the local member for Rocky, Barry O'Rourke, are in Gracemere right now, as we speak. Even more pleasingly, so are relieved people returning to their homes. Whilst evacuated last night, Gracemere was still standing when the sun rose this morning. The fire did get under the railway bridge and across the main road, but the dedication, courage and professionalism of firefighters and all the other support services kept it safe. I think people in this place are relieved to hear that things are looking better there today than they were yesterday, but there are big parts of Queensland which are still exposed to severe fire danger. Only hours ago, residents of Winfield and Broken River were asked to leave immediately. It does remind us that we're a big country and that, all too often, natural disasters are a rollcall of small towns. And, when we see these towns, they remind us of an Australia which perhaps, in our city life, we forget still exists, but it does. Some of the towns and hamlets are still under great pressure. Mount Larcom, Agnes Water, Deepwater, Finch Hatton, Rules Beach and Oyster Creek are still on alert.
The heatwave gripping this part of Queensland is expected to last another five days, with no significant rain on the horizon. Communities, people and volunteers are battling the fire right now. They're not dealing in days; they're thinking in minutes and hours; they're thinking direction of wind. That's how quickly things can change. Yesterday I mentioned Baffle Creek to the House and how the Gladstone mayor, Matt Burnett, explained to me that, if the coast road was cut off, the people still there would be trapped. Hours later, after I spoke to the House, the remaining families in that area seeking to leave had to be evacuated from the boat ramp. The fire did indeed jump the road. When I see the fires, I think about the bushfires in 2009, Black Saturday, where 177 people perished. I learnt, talking to survivors, that fire fronts are so fast moving; they change direction so rapidly. It is vital that everyone does as the Prime Minister said: listen to and follow the warnings from emergency services and do so immediately. We salute the hundreds of interstate firefighters, all the local brigades and all of those helping or going to help.
I think the House might be interested to know, in conclusion, that one of the reasons a major disaster was averted in Gracemere yesterday was because they used a fire simulation system designed and financed in Victoria after Black Saturday. It is proof that, whilst we never wish these disasters to happen, Australians can learn from tragedies of the past, and we're cooperating when they happen in the future. And, speaking of lessons learnt, following on from what we've seen after floods, fires and other previous events, I think it's appropriate to put banks and insurance companies on notice that this is not a time to reach for lawyers and litigation and fine print. It's time to reach for the cheque book and give a helping hand. I'm sure they will.
We don't know what tonight holds, but, be it the floods and rainstorms in New South Wales or the bushfires in Queensland, I know that members of the House are hoping that Queenslanders and people affected by the storms stay safe in the days ahead.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Banking and Financial Services
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (14:12): Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. This Prime Minister voted against a banking royal commission 26 times and called it 'a populist whinge'. Last night, every member of the government voted against Labor's amendments to strengthen punishment for corporate criminals with tougher 15-year jail sentences for the most serious crimes and bigger fines for misconduct. Isn't it the case that, no matter what this Prime Minister pretends, he'll always stick up for the big banks and the top end of town?
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right!
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:12): This Prime Minister, as Treasurer, instituted the royal commission on banking and finance. That Leader of the Opposition and all of those opposite, when they sat on the government benches, did absolutely nothing. I will allow the Treasurer to conclude the answer.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the Treasurer, I'm going to say to the House that the levels of interjections are not only disruptive but also demeaning to the House. When I became Speaker I said that of course this is a debating chamber where there'll be a vigorous debate—and there should be. But it doesn't have to be loud all the time or rude all the time with some of the personal abuse that's coming out. I'm not going to yell back; I'm just giving fair warning: I'm going to deal with it. I really am.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:14): In six years, the Labor government did absolutely nothing to increase the penalties for misconduct. In fact, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, when Labor were in government, you had the collapse of Trio with 5,000 victims; you had 4,000 Storm Financial clients suffering losses of up to $3 billion; and you had Opes Prime, with 1,200 investors. It's been left to this government to establish the Financial System Inquiry. It's been left to this government to establish the ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce, which involved an expert group. This expert group had three professors, the president of the Law Council and the CEO of the Consumer Action Law Centre. The bill before this parliament, which passed this House, was based on their recommendations.
As a result of the actions that this government has taken, we have increased criminal penalties for corporate misconduct for individuals fivefold. We have increased civil penalties for corporations and their misconduct tenfold. The other side of the House, the Labor Party, came in here and engaged in a political stunt. Thank you to the crossbenchers who supported the government in defeating those amendments. But, if that's not bad enough, what's happened in the Senate today is even worse. What the Labor Party has sought to do is to send the bill off to committee and defer the implementation of tougher penalties for another six months. So the people of Australia will not be protected from strong penalties against misconduct for months and months because of Labor's tactics and political stunts.
It's an inconvenient truth for the Leader of the Opposition that on his watch, on Labor's watch, you had the collapse of Trio, Storm and Opes. It's an inconvenient truth for the Leader of the Opposition that it's been left to the Liberal-National government to increase penalties for misconduct for individuals fivefold and to increase penalties for corporations tenfold. Only the coalition can be trusted to hold these financial institutions and individuals to account.
Budget
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:16): My question is to the Prime Minister. I note that next year our government is handing down a surplus budget, which is the product of a strong economy and the first one since the Howard-Costello years. This means we can keep Australia safe without increasing taxes. Will the Prime Minister outline the consequences of an alternative approach?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:17): I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question and the fact that he has noted that indeed this government, our government, the Liberal-National government, will hand down a surplus budget next year, before we go to an election, and the Australian people will be able to see that quite plainly. As the member was putting his question, the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party said, 'You've been in government for five years.' Yes, and we're delivering a surplus. They were in government for six years and they took it from surplus to deficit.
It is true that the budget that will be handed down by the Treasurer will come down as a surplus. That has been achieved by the careful stewardship and financial management over that period of time: getting expenditure under control, getting taxes under control and ensuring we put the policies in place to grow a stronger economy which is seeing a resurgence in core performance around the country. That plan for a strong economy has got unemployment down to five per cent. It has meant 1.1 million more jobs have been created since we were first elected. It has meant economic growth running at 3.4 per cent through the year. I note today the median wage, as of August, is up 5.4 per cent. That is a result of people getting more hours because of a stronger economy, and that is the strongest growth in the median wage in a 12-month period for 13 years. That is welcome. We've also had growth in non-mining investment—again, positive in the quarter—and that means we've had the longest-running growth in non-mining investment growth in 30 years. That's what the stronger economy is delivering.
That stronger economy does enable our government—that stronger economy; not higher taxes—to deliver the essential services that Australians rely on. That is health, that is education, that is infrastructure, it is roads and it's pipelines up in Townsville. It's all of these things, but it's also keeping Australians safe. Our government has put $2.2 billion worth of additional investments into our national security agencies. In the budget that I handed down back in May, there was $294 million for aviation security upgrades around our country, including: $50 million for 64 regional airports; $121.6 million to enhance screening capability for inbound air cargo and international mail; $121.9 million to increase the presence and specialist capabilities of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Border Force; $102 million to manage biosecurity risks; and $62.2 million for the continuation of Operation Sovereign Borders. Our government is able to live up to our national security credentials—where we lead, never follow—because we're delivering a stronger economy, which means we can invest in keeping Australians safe.
Banking and Financial Services
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:20): My question is to the Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has spent two years voting against a banking royal commission 26 times; has spent three years trying to give the big banks a $17 billion tax handout; and, last night, voted against tougher 15-year jail sentences for corporate criminals whilst, at the same time, cutting billions from schools and hospitals. Why does the Prime Minister put big banks ahead of schools and hospitals?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:20): Why does the leader of the Labor Party lie all the time? Why does he do that?
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister needs to withdraw that. The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat unless he's got something additional after I've dealt with this. The Prime Minister needs to withdraw that word.
Mr MORRISON: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. I could say, why does the leader of the Labor Party misrepresent the truth? Why do they do this all the time? At a time when our government is increasing investment in hospitals, schools, affordable medicines and all the essential services that we rely on, because of a stronger economy and a stronger budget—a budget that will be back in balance, in surplus, when we hand down the budget in April next year. This is delivering the essential services without increasing taxes, which is the Labor Party's plan: $200 billion and more in higher taxes that will suffocate the Australian economy, which will mean fewer jobs for Australians; fewer hours for Australians; lower wages for Australians; and more services under risk, including affordable medicines. We know that, when they were in government, because they couldn't manage the budget and couldn't grow the economy, they couldn't list lifesaving medicines on the PBS.
Our government has been dealing with the issues in the banking and financial sector for years. The toughest banking executive accountability laws this country has ever seen. A financial complaints authority that enables people to get actions and outcomes from their disputes without having to lawyer up. We initiated the royal commission into the banking and finance industry. Those opposite, they talk and they talk—it's talk, talk, talk and no action ever from the Leader of the Labor Party. It's the literary awards next week here in this chamber, and the Labor Party's policies will be making an entry in the fiction category, because, when it comes to the Labor Party, whenever they're talking you know it's fiction.
Economy
Mr DRUM (Murray—Nationals Whip) (14:23): My question is to the Treasurer. I note that our government is handing down a surplus budget, and that is a product of a strong economy. This means that we can fund essential services that Australians rely on without increasing taxes. Is the Treasurer aware of any other approaches to running the economy?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:23): I thank the member for Murray for his question. He knows, and we on this side of the House know, that next year when we deliver the budget it will be a budget surplus. It will be a surplus for every single Australian across the economy. We will do that without increasing taxes.
As the Prime Minister has said, the benefit of a strong economy is that you can provide the essential services that people need. And we have created jobs: since coming to government, more than 1.1 million new jobs. More than 100,000 young people have got a job over the last year—the highest number on record. We are backing small business, as the backbone of the Australian economy. We've provided tax cuts for 3.3 million small businesses. We're giving them greater access to finance. We're cutting $300 million worth of red tape. We have a $75 billion infrastructure project—more road, rail, airports, dams and other water infrastructure. And there's our health spending. Health spending is at record levels and, since the government came to power, we have listed 1,900 additional medicines on the PBS. When it comes to schools, there's more than $24 billion of additional funding going to Australia's schools, putting education funding at a record level. And, when it comes to defence, we have a $200 billion defence plan that has commissioned 54 naval vessels to be built here in Australia.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
Mr FRYDENBERG: How many naval vessels did—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will just pause for a second. The member for McEwen—
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I think the member for Barker's completely missing the moment. He will leave under 94(a).
The member for Barker then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: I don't think the member for McEwen had anything additional to raise?
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: All right, then.
Mr FRYDENBERG: We have a $200 billion defence industry program that has commissioned 54 naval vessels to be built here in Australia. How many naval vessels to be built here in Australia did the Labor Party commission during their term in government? None.
The alternative to this plan from the government that's creating jobs and lowering taxes is the Labor Party's plan to put $200 billion of additional taxes on the Australian economy. They will suffocate the Australian economy with $200 billion of additional taxes. What about negative gearing? Anyone who owns a home will see their home worth less as a result of Labor's policy. Under Labor's policy, anybody who rents their home will see their rents go up. What about retirees? There will be 900,000 retirees worse off after Labor's desperate tax grab. What about the carbon tax? It's coming back—as the member for Isaacs let out of the bag the other day. Only the coalition can be trusted to grow the economy, create jobs and lower taxes.
Liberal Party Leadership
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. What was the impact on Australia's international standing when last night Malcolm Turnbull tweeted:
A centrist government was blown up; in August and it wasn’t done by moderates.
Does the Prime Minister agree with Malcolm Turnbull? How does the Prime Minister explain to his international counterparts why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer the Prime Minister?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:27): I agree with Malcolm Turnbull when he says that the Leader of the Labor Party is the biggest risk to the Australian economy. That's what I agree with Malcolm Turnbull on, and I have for many, many years. I agree with Malcolm Turnbull that supporting small and family business is the right way to grow the economy, and that's exactly what our government is doing. I agree with all of those who understand that a stronger economy is the way you pay for essential services, and I agree that it's a stronger economy that should be the way, not the higher taxes that are being proposed by the Labor Party.
I also agree that it is reckless to have a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, not a 26 per cent emissions reduction target. The people who said the emissions target of 26 per cent is appropriate and achievable were the Business Council of Australia—that's what the former Prime Minister also said was the case—and that 45 per cent is an economy-wrecking target.
The Labor Party's record, when they were in office, when it came to the economy was dismal, absolutely dismal. And when it came to managing a budget it was also dismal. That is why we have spent the past five years and more cleaning up the economic and financial mess that was left to us by the Labor Party. The good news for the Australian people is: yes, we said we'd stop the boats, and we did; yes, we said we'd get rid of the carbon tax, and we did; and, yes, we said we'd bring the budget back into balance, and in April we will deliver on that promise as well.
Health Care
Dr PHELPS (Wentworth) (14:29): My question is to the Prime Minister. Many Australians are concerned about the privacy of their health data, as there is no more important or sensitive personal information. Despite improvements in privacy protection passed by this House this week, there remains massive scope for the monetisation of this data through third-party use. Will the Prime Minister guarantee to provide the business case for the My Health Record database to this House in this sitting fortnight? This will be the final opportunity before the opt-out period ends on 31 January 2019, and the Australian people need to be assured about the true intentions of this program.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:29): I thank the member for her question. I'll ask the Minister for Health to respond.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health) (14:29): I want to acknowledge and congratulate the member for Wentworth on her election and also thank her for joining many members of the House this morning at the World AIDS Day breakfast, where a new medicine, Juluca, for over 860 patients with HIV was announced, and new self-testing equipment, for the first time, was there. With the member for Wentworth's history, I particularly acknowledge that.
Legislation in relation to My Health Record was passed unanimously through this House on Monday this week. I am very happy to inform that that included a guarantee that My Health Record would be in public ownership forever. There is no scope for revenue; there will be no revenue raised. I have confirmed again today with the deputy secretary in charge of financial matters within the Department of Health that no revenue has been projected from My Health Record. I'm happy to provide a guarantee that there is no capacity, there is no projection and there is no revenue anticipated. I'm also happy to provide the very documents which she is seeking.
The way it's framed by the Australian Digital Health Agency are the My Health Record expansion programs benefits measurement, the benefits measurement approach and also the corporate plan. Those documents address the very issues which she raises, more broadly. I would note that the benefits are about helping the 230,000 people in Australia who have some form of medication misadventure or medication clash avoid those clashes and to ensure patients have direct access to their own records. As her successor at the AMA, the current President of the AMA, Tony Bartone, wrote only very recently, 'The electronic record can save lives'. And as the Consumer Health Forum said only yesterday:
We believe that the amended measures protecting MHR users will assure the benefits of a national health records system will reach many more people more quickly, particularly those with chronic and complex conditions who rely on an accurate record of their medication, diagnostic tests and treatment.
I think that's a perfect summary of the benefits of the record.
Infrastructure
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (14:32): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. I note that next year our government is handing down a surplus budget that is a product of a strong economy. This means we can invest in local infrastructure projects that Australians can rely on without increasing taxes. How would a different approach to managing the economy impact the delivery of these essential infrastructure projects, including in my electorate of Dawson?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of The Nationals) (14:32): Next year, the Liberal and Nationals government will hand down a surplus, which is a product of a strong economy.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I hear the member for Sydney yelling out 'surplus'. You might consult the Macquarie Dictionary; it's in there. I know you don't know exactly what that word means. It is between 'short-change', which is what Labor is intending to do to retirees, and 'tax', which is what Labor intends to do to all Australians. Surplus is in the dictionary. Look it up and you will understand what the meaning is.
A surplus means we can fund the essential services that Australians rely on. That's what you can do when you have a strong economy, which is what we've got at the moment. It's what you can do without increasing taxes. You can have essential services such as water security, which was what the member for Dawson asked me about. More water means more jobs. More water means more business confidence in Mackay and elsewhere across the nation. More water means more opportunities to grow food and fibre, and our farmers grow the best food and fibre in the world.
Liberals and Nationals support Townsville's future development and continued growth. No matter what you're doing in regional Australia, whether you are a farmer, a small-business owner or whatever, you need water security; you need long-term water supply. Thanks to the Liberal and Nationals strong economic management, we're securing Townsville's water supply. This government understands the importance of water security for our regions and that's why last week we announced an additional half-a-billion dollars—$500 million—for the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. As well as the existing $2 billion loan facility, more than $3 billion is now available to state and territory governments to help build water infrastructure.
We're backing Queenslanders—backing them all the way. We're building dams, we're delivering tax cuts, we're building infrastructure and we're backing small business.
Mr Burke interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Yes, we are, member for Watson! You wanted to pinch the water from our irrigators. We're getting on with the job of piping Australia, plumbing Australia and making sure that Australia is more droughtproof.
We're also investing in the Hughenden irrigation system and Hells Gate Dam. This is action to secure Townsville's water supply for decades to come. It's action because the member for Dawson and the LNP candidate for Herbert, Phillip Thompson, have fought hard for this project. We know how important it is for the region. It's action because you can't grow a city, you can't grow a region, you can't grow food, you can't grow fibre and you can't grow confidence without reliable water.
The CSIRO recently conducted the Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment. This identified and looked at three catchments—the Darwin, the Fitzroy and the Mitchell—identifying six potential dam sites. We'll certainly look at that as part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. We'll look at those potential dam sites and we'll get on and build dams. We'll pipeline Australia. We'll make sure that we droughtproof this nation. You over there just talk about it; we get on and actually do something. (Time expired)
Morrison Government
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:36): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that just this week the government lost Wentworth on Monday and lost Chisholm on Tuesday, and it was reported on Wednesday that it's about to lose Hughes? Is this why the Prime Minister has a policy to have a part-time parliament, because he can't bear the consequences of having all the members of the government in the one place at the same time?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:36): It's an interesting fact that, with fewer than half the opportunities the opposition actually have to ask questions in this place, their questions aren't about policy and they're not about what's happening in this country. It's all about politics and smear. They're interested in their political games and they're interested in the good old Canberra bubble. That's what they're interested in.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton is warned.
Mr MORRISON: What they're not interested in is what is actually happening in this place and the work that is being done. It could be the work that's being done to support our farmers through the drought, because we have been getting on with the job of extending that assistance to shires and councils all around the country. They're missing the point when they don't understand that the laws that we introduced into this place this week—which are what we've been focused on—ensure that we can have an Australian Citizenship Act amendment that will mean that those who commit terrorist attacks in this country and are convicted of them will have their citizenship stripped. That's what we've been focusing on.
We've been focusing this week on announcing—like last night—that if you're between 21 and 24 you will get access to the adult apprenticeship scheme. There will be $4,000 worth of support for you to be in that position, which is a gap that has been created and that we've filled. We announced last night that we could ensure that small businesses would get access to free advice to deal with their complaints and issues when working those through with the ATO. We've been taking action on the securitisation fund to ensure that small business can get access to cheaper finance from more lenders. This is what our government is doing.
The Labor Party doesn't come in here and talk about policies that make the economy stronger. They don't even ask about policies that could make the economy stronger. They just come in here and think that all they have to do is be full of hubris, full of arrogance and full of the swagger that you're used to seeing with the cocky union militant official walking onto the site, walking up to a small-business owner and telling them how it's going to be. That's what the Labor Party are proposing for the Australian people. They're swaggering around electorates all around the country. They're going to be changing it all if they get the opportunity to win the next election. There would be a 45 per cent emissions reduction target that would wipe out industries across this country, including aluminium smelters up in Gladstone and on Boyne Island. That's what their proposal is: to slug retirees with a $5 billion-a-year retiree tax for the simple fact that they went and bought Australian shares. They are going to wipe out negative gearing as we know it today and increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent at a time when our housing markets have eased off and are going through a soft landing.
The Labor Party's plans for our economy are a big change—a big change—and the Australian people need to have it explained to them why Labor wants to change things so much.
Small Business
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations and Minister for Women. I note that next year our government will hand down a surplus budget that is a product of a strong economy. This means that we can support small businesses in industries Australians rely on, without increasing taxes. How would a higher taxing approach hurt small-business owners, including in my electorate of Tangney?
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Women and Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations) (14:40): I thank the member for Tangney for his question and I thank him for his strong and passionate advocacy on behalf of the more than 15,000 small and family businesses in his electorate. I got to see that firsthand when I visited him last week and he was able to advocate with me the government's plan to reduce taxes for small, medium-sized and family enterprises. Since coming into government, we have reduced the tax rate for them from 30 per cent down to 25 per cent for 2020-21. This is great news for the more than 3.3 million small, medium-sized and family enterprises. We have a sustained commitment to them, because we understand that they are the engine room of the Australian economy. Whether we are extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off, slashing red tape to ease their compliance costs or establishing the $2 billion Australian Business Securitisation Fund to lower the cost of funding, we know that it is important for small business to be able to get on with their business, to be able to invest in their business, so that they can employ more Australians. More than seven million Australians are currently employed by small and medium-sized businesses.
We are not resting on our laurels. The Prime Minister announced last night more support for these businesses right around the country, making it easier for them to be able to settle tax disputes with the Australian Taxation Office, making it cheaper and quicker. We do that because we recognise we must make it easier for small business to get on with employing other Australians. Of course, those opposite would make it harder for them, because they have a reckless approach, a high-taxing approach, to small, medium-sized and family enterprises. Those opposite would in fact make it much more difficult for them to employ Australians, because they have a plan to increase tax with the more than $200 billion worth of new taxes that they would hammer the economy with. This would hurt their suppliers, their employees, their customers and their families with taxes on investments, on saving and on superannuation, and let us not forget the mega retiree tax.
Australians can trust that the coalition will continue to deliver a stronger economy, budget surpluses and record jobs growth. We can do that without raising taxes. The only thing that the Leader of the Opposition can be trusted to do is put his hand in your pocket and take more money out.
MOTIONS
Morrison Government
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:43): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
1. notes that since moving on Malcolm Turnbull, the Government has:
a. cancelled Parliament because it couldn't decide who was Prime Minister;
b. lost two Government Members, with at least one more on the way;
c. been forced into minority Government, which the Government previously said would create uncertainty in our economy and instability for the country;
d. created the first part-time Parliament in the history of Federation by scheduling just 10 sitting days in eight months;
e. cancelled the Treasurer's trip to the G20;
f. voted for a National Integrity Commission even though it doesn't support one;
g. voted against tougher 15 year jail sentences for corporate criminals;
h. abandoned the National Energy Guarantee – a policy which was designed by the Treasurer, which the Prime Minister promised would lead to lower electricity prices, and which the Member for Curtin still supports;
i. been described by the Minister for Women as "homophobic, anti-women, climate-change deniers"; and
j. been described by its own Prime Minister as "The Muppet Show"; and
2. therefore calls on this ramshackle, reactionary Government to stop fighting itself and start focussing on the needs of the Australian people.
Australians are outraged that this government is too scared to turn up to parliament, with the parliament just sitting—after it rises next week—for 10 days in the next eight months. The rest of Australia doesn't get to take months and months off work when it feels scared about coming to work, so why is the Prime Minister insisting on a part-time parliament? I believe that this part-time parliament confirms that we have a part-time Prime Minister who is running a part-time government that is not, at any time, in the interests of the Australian people.
The Prime Minister is fond of saying, 'If you have a go, you will get a go.' But obviously it doesn't include saying, 'You need to go to work to have a go.' What a work-shy government. I have wondered what would happen to members of the CFMMEU if they ran an industrial action campaign and proposed this in the lunch shed one morning: 'I have a great idea. Let's only go to work for 10 days in the next eight months.' They would probably be sacked. Indeed, this government would like to put them in jail. But it's one standard for the Morrison ministry and another standard for the workers of Australia. Who on earth in Australia gets to say, 'I'm not happy with my job today or next week, so I won't come for the next eight months, except for a total of 10 days'?
The Australian people, in all seriousness, are our employers. They remain deeply unimpressed that they have a government of parliamentarians who seek for the people to vote for them to be in parliament but, once they have voted for them to be in parliament, those Liberal and National parliamentarians feel no obligation to actually report to parliament. The part-time parliament, however, points to a bigger issue. This is a government that has simply ceased to govern. Not only have they given up governing but they have given up pretending to govern. They have no agenda and no legislation. They are just being swept along by the currents of hate and division in the river that is the government coalition ranks.
An example that demonstrates their lack of agenda, or lack of commitment to an agenda, is that on Monday they voted in favour of a national integrity commission. We thought this was a positive development because, for a year, they had rejected our idea to have a national integrity commission. As we explored the logic of this government, by question time the Prime Minister told us that an integrity commission and the issue of integrity in parliament is a fringe issue. Furthermore, he couldn't explain if he actually supported one or not. But the government did, implausibly, say that one of the problems with having a national integrity commission is that it might mean that ABC journalists would be picked upon by that commission. You could see the fingernail marks in the marble all the way from the blue carpet in the executive section of the parliament as they were dragged to vote for this national integrity commission.
The reason why they voted for it was that they were scared of the debate. We should have seen, on Monday, a forecast of things that were to come. They don't want to be in parliament, even though they collect the wages of people who are expected to go to parliament. But there's a second reason, other than their lack of agenda and their inability to do anything other than respond to events, why they don't seek to be in parliament. There is another reason. The reason why the government don't like to turn up to work is that those in the government can't stand being in the same city as their other colleagues in the government, much less the same room. Australians are confronted with the sorry sight of a part-time parliament because the government have a full-time obsession with fighting amongst themselves. The parliament is part time under this Prime Minister, but the civil war in the Liberal Party is a full-time occupation.
The ramshackle, reactionary coalition sitting opposite are so consumed by some form of existential identity crisis, some bizarre debate about what it means to be a real Liberal. They watch and rewatch the old footage of John Winston Howard and they roll him out, in some sort of video, to prove that they were once Liberals. They reinter the speeches of the 70-year-old Menzies era as some sort of ouija board to help give them advice as they go forward in their current crisis. They talk to themselves about themselves in conservative echo chambers. They pontificate about this mythical right-wing base, and they write-off whole communities as irrelevant.
'Don't worry,' they say, 'Batman isn't the real Australia; Perth isn't the real Australia; Fremantle isn't the real Australia; Mayo isn't the real Australia; Braddon isn't the real Australia; Longman isn't the real Australia; Wentworth isn't the real Australia; and Victoria isn't the real Australia.' Rather than face up to their failures of policy, change their out-of-touch attitudes and take responsibility for the cuts and chaos, they prefer to engage in conspiracy theories. Yet again, we saw it on the front pages of The Australian newspaper. The conservatives see the invisible hand of Malcolm Bligh Turnbull in every decision, like Tiberius with a Twitter handle. You have to feel for Malcolm Turnbull, and I'm sure some of you do now. He must be wondering why he never had this mythical, Keyser-Soze-like influence when he was the Prime Minister of Australia. The economic shift is extraordinary too. After all, the Liberal Party used to believe in the invisible hand; they used to be the party of the invisible hand. Now, they are scared of the invisible hand; they blame it for everything that's going wrong.
The problem is: as humorous as it might be at one level, the nation is tired of this government. I stood at the polling booths in Victoria, and whilst all credit goes to Premier Andrews—and there were many state issues—the truth of the matter is: when you see polling booths in Flinders down in the Nepean state electorate or in Kooyong in Hawthorn or in Higgins in Malvern and you see people who have only ever voted Liberal in their life asking, 'When is the federal election?' you know that this is a government that is not only scared of the parliament but also of the Australian people.
They should be scared for good reason, because Australians want more than the chaos of the government, the division of the government, the dysfunction of the government and the internal hatreds of the government. Labor know that, in the path which they have adopted, the Australian people will resoundingly reject policies which come from a government which is based on fear. The only argument that this desperate government have is saying, 'We are not Labor.' But one of their failings is that they personalised this dispute. I thought it was remarkable—even as remarkable as the part-time parliament!—when the Prime Minister said it's all about me and him. No, Prime Minister; it is about the Australian people. It is about the penalty rates that you won't restore. It is about the school-funding promises you broke and will not keep. It is about the growing out-of-pocket costs for health care and for X-rays and diagnostic imaging. It is about the fact that you won't give three-year-olds universal preschool. It is about the fact that you have 120,000 people in aged care. It is about the fact that you want to hand on to the next generation inadequate action on climate change. It is about the fact that you ignore rising power prices because of your obstinate denial of climate change. We look forward to the next election, but what we say about it to this government in the meantime is: do not be a part-time parliament; show respect to the people, turn up to work and do your day job until the people get to evaluate your job at the next election.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:53): I second the motion. Look at what they've become. Let's not forget what we were told before they became the government. Let's go back six years to what they told us a Liberal-National Party government would be like. What did they say about a surplus budget back then? Joe Hockey said this: 'We will deliver a surplus budget in our first budget and every budget after that.' Well, since then, they've doubled Australia's debt and taken it to half a trillion dollars and are now boasting that maybe in the financial year after the next election they'll, for the first time, fulfil what they said they'd do before they ever came to government. That's where they're at now.
That's because the first Prime Minister they tried on, the first Prime Minister they had a go with, started by saying, 'We can now bring back adult, stable government.' That's what he said—that he'd be able to deliver a stable government. It might not have been stable, but it's been consistent, because the number of prime ministers is three, the number of treasurers is three and the number of deputy prime ministers is three. There's been a consistency to what they've done, but it has been the exact opposite of what Liberal Party voters thought they were going to get when this mob were elected. They promised cabinet government. That was one of the things they said they would deliver: proper, orderly cabinet government. Well, there's an embassy decision that you might have thought you would have had a cabinet submission for, an embassy decision where you might have thought, 'Maybe we should let the security agencies know before we announce this one.' But there was no process, nothing other than, from the Prime Minister in this despatch box, 'Our candidate told us it would be a good idea.' That was with all the resources of government and all the things they told us they would be.
The Leader of the House, when he was the Manager of Opposition Business, would say time and time again, every time the parliamentary program was brought down, 'The House is not sitting enough.' He'd tell us each time: 'You're running scared if you're not willing to have the parliament sit. It's a test of whether or not you're a government.' And now, for the first time since 1901, the parliament is planning to sit for only 10 days in an eight-month period. A lot of the debate has been, 'Maybe that's because they're scared of the numbers on the floor of the parliament,' but we're missing the other point: every time the parliament meets, the party room meets. The Prime Minister says to us: 'You're all getting so cocky. You all think you're going to be able to beat a Morrison government.' Well, we don't even know if we'll be up against a Morrison government. All the indications and the little publicity stunts from the people who are a little bit more popular than the Prime Minister raise a whole lot of questions. I can understand why they want to reduce the number of party room meetings between now and the election.
We were also told that, if they won the election, there'd be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no changes to pensions and no cuts to the ABC—every single one of them untrue. But we don't need to go through our critique of them because, in truth, the brutality of our critique of them doesn't match the brutality of their critique of them. In the newspaper articles we're reading now, it's really hard to get a Labor Party quote in because we're competing with every anonymous backgrounder from the frontbench and the backbench, and their language is so much more colourful than ours. Having promised adult government, they then give us a Prime Minister describing his own mob as a 'muppet show'. It wasn't us who described the Minister for the Environment as being on L-plates; it was one of their own senators. It wasn't us who ridiculed the Leader of the House as being a legend in his own lunchtime; it was the man sitting next to him, the Treasurer of Australia.
The Prime Minister seeks to describe who cares about the real issues and what sort of work people are doing here. This is the speakers list that's been distributed on the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill, which is being debated in the chamber right now. It's a list of Labor speakers, with only one government member speaking for the government's own bill. It's not that their backbenchers are busy—they're on the phone, ringing up people there. They've got lots to say about the government but very little to offer to the Australian people. (Time expired)
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:58): They're very pleased with themselves, aren't they? They're very, very pleased with themselves. But I note that what has happened under this government is more Australians have turned up to work than ever turned up to work under their government. There are more Australians who have a job today as a result of the policies we have been putting in place from the day we were elected than there were under their government. There are 50,000 fewer people on the unemployment list today than there were at the last election. There are more Australians turning up to work under the Liberal and National parties than ever turned up to work under the Labor Party.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRISON: Under our government's policies, unemployment has fallen to five per cent. Under our government's policies we have had the strongest growth in the median wage in the last 13 years. We have had the strongest growth in non-mining investment—the continuous growth record in 30 years—under our government. We have the lowest level of welfare dependency of working age Australians in 25 years and more. Under our government, and under the policies and the convictions and the principles of the Liberal and the National parties, more Australians are getting into work and fewer Australian are going onto welfare. That is the product of a government that understands and believes that the best form of welfare is a job. It is the product of a government that believes, absolutely, that if you have a go, you will get a go.
They are the policies which say that you should keep more of what you earn, because you have worked incredibly hard for it. That is the policy of this government. That is why, as a government, from the day we were elected we have been setting about the plan that has been making Australia stronger, that has been making Australia safer and that has been bringing Australians together. Our plan, which we have been implementing, is tax relief to encourage and reward hardworking Australians. It's $144 billion worth of tax relief, which means that more than 90 per cent of Australians will not pay a marginal rate of 32½c or more than that. 32½c and less is what the majority of Australians will face under the legislated tax plans of our government, that means Australians going to work today on a middle income over the next 10 years will not see bracket creep, the vast majority of them, for their entire working lives.
When you believe that Australians should keep more of what they earn you believe in reducing taxes for all Australians. You don't hold the view that to give tax relief for some you've got to come and pull others down. That is the dangerous politics of envy that can only come from a Labor Party that is intent on driving division throughout this country, division in our workplaces and division between parents as they stand on the sidelines watching their children play sport. They want to set parents who send their children to state schools against parents who send their children to non-state schools. The Labor Party has a plan to divide this country.
The Labor Party has a plan to undermine the very principles of a fair go that have made this country the strong, united, vibrant country that it is today. Australians, I believe, will get the opportunities to see that between now and the next election. They will know absolutely when they go to the next election that the leader of the Labor Party and the Labor Party itself want to disrupt the living standards of Australians by imposing their ideological and reckless agenda on the Australian people. But not this side of the House—not the Liberal Party and not the National Party. We are providing tax relief to Australians and we're providing tax relief to hardworking small and family businesses.
It is our government that has brought forward and implemented the tax cuts for small and family businesses, bringing it down to 25 per cent. It's our government that introduced the instant asset write-off to ensure that small businesses ploughing back into their businesses, and working hard in their business, could keep more of what they earn and could invest in the equipment that makes a difference. It is our government that raised the definition of a small business from $2 million to $10 million, liberating thousands and thousands of businesses to ensure that those small businesses can get the cash flow benefits of pooled depreciation and doing GST on a cash basis.
This is real policy I'm talking about here. I don't know what the Labor Party's talking about, but I know on this side of the House when we come here we talk about real policies—policies that make a difference, that are being legislated and are being implemented, to ensure that we can enrich the small and family business culture of this country.
The Labor Party doesn't understand small business because there aren't many union employees in small business. It is one big blank vacant space when it comes to the Labor Party. They disrespect their contribution to Australia and they disregard the interests that are so important to them. It's our government that has ensured that more than 90 per cent of times, bills of a billion dollars and less are being paid within 30 days by the Commonwealth government, and on 1 July next year that's coming down to 20 days. More than that, at the end of this year I'll be asking all the states and territories not only to match our commitment to 20 days but to match New South Wales government's commitment to 20 days, because if you're a small business you shouldn't be used as a bank by large businesses and you shouldn't be used as a bank by a government, state or federal. We're taking action on that and we're calling on all large businesses, through a transparency initiative, to ensure that the payment business of large businesses is on record so small businesses know who they can do business with.
Next year, on 2 April, our government will deliver the first surplus budget in 12 years. That's what our government is going to be doing because we've got expenditure under control with the lowest spending growth of any government in 50 years and more and we've got taxes under control. That budget is coming back into balance because of the work we have done to manage that budget carefully and to grow our economy by doing things like investing in infrastructure and in liberating and supporting our science and technology sectors so they can grow and they can flourish with the investments we're making. We're ensuring that we're recognising our traditional sectors in agriculture and resources, in mining—mining and resources are dirty words to the Labor Party. They're dirty words to those in the Labor Party, but we know that those who make steel out of the resources that are mined in this country have real jobs that deserve protecting and deserve recognition. The Labor Party has sold out the resources, mining, steel production and aluminium smelting industries of this country and they have done that by embracing reckless policies that will continue to drive up electricity prices under the reckless policies of the Labor government.
We're guaranteeing the funding for schools, for hospitals, for affordable medicines, for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for the pension and for the disability support pension because the only way you can look the Australian people in the eye and tell them that you can guarantee the support that we're guaranteeing them is when you can back it up with the fiscal management and the economic policies that deliver in season and deliver out of season. That's why we can back our farmers in the middle of the drought. That's what we've been focusing on. We've been focusing on those sectors that support living standards and support Australians on a daily basis.
So we are delivering across all of these areas. We're focused on policy. We're focused on a strong economy. We're focused on keeping Australians safe, not following on national security but leading on national security, ensuring that we're delivering the laws and the powers and we're kicking out the druggies who are selling drugs to our kids. We're kicking out the bikies who roll up at the CFMEU conferences at will and run the numbers for Labor Party members all across the country. No wonder they weren't cancelling visas for bikies and criminals. We've cancelled 3,000 visas for bikies, criminals and suspected terrorists in this country because we take these things seriously.
The member for Watson posed the question: what was put to the people back in 2013? I'll tell you what was put to the people. The member for Warringah will remember it very, very well. What we put to the people in 2013 was that we would stop the boats, and we stopped the boats. We said that we would get rid of the carbon tax, and we got rid of the carbon tax, and the Labor Party now wants to bring back a carbon tax. We said we would bring the budget back into a surplus, and on 2 April next year the Australian people will see that we will deliver that surplus budget, which demonstrates that only the Liberal and National parties can be trusted to run a strong economy that guarantees the essential services that Australians rely on without the higher taxes of the Labor Party.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
The House divided. [15:13]
(The Speaker—Hon.Tony Smith
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Family Responsibilities Commission
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah) (15:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Queensland government intends to abolish the Family Responsibilities Commission? Can the Prime Minister tell the House the impact this will have on the communities of Cape York, where this commission has done so much to improve school attendance and improve family cohesion? What is the government going to do to ensure that these communities once more have their right to take responsibility restored?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:19): I thank the member for Warringah for his question, his career-long commitment to ensuring that Indigenous Australians can realise their full potential and his support for policies that have always ensured that communities can have their sovereignty in dealing with the many challenges that they face.
The Queensland government's unilateral decision to close down the Family Responsibilities Commission is deeply troubling. It is deeply, deeply troubling.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs can leave under 94(a).
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: The Cape York Institute and the people of the Cape York Welfare Reform communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge have been at the cutting edge of addressing welfare dependency and school attendance in this country. I commend all of those who have been part of that community-led approach.
The Family Responsibilities Commission is a model centred on the community that supported the restoration of the local Indigenous authority. The FRC is acknowledged as the most critical component of the CYWR, and the FRC conferences encourage individuals and families to engage in positive behaviours whilst promoting the interests, rights and wellbeing of children and vulnerable community members. The positive impact on communities has been driven by the excellent work of the local commissioners. Taking such a strong stance against antisocial behaviour has been a very challenging and demanding commitment for these leaders; however, they have stuck fast to their vision of strong communities that are free from the welfare trap. We should all commend them for the amazing work and their resilience.
The profound damage arising from the Queensland Labor government's decision not to reappoint commissioners or continue to fund and support the Family Responsibilities Commission will end more than 10 years of critical work that has been improving the lives of Indigenous Australians in these communities. Minister Scullion has written to the Treasurer of Queensland, urging her to reconsider what I would describe as a foolhardy decision to abandon the Family Responsibilities Commission. He has repeatedly indicated the Commonwealth government's support for the FRC. It is the most critical component underpinning the Cape York Welfare Reform agenda. We've been unable to commit further funding to the FRC while the Queensland government, whose legislation the FRC is established under, has not been clear whether the FRC would continue. We wanted to invest more in these communities. We wanted to support more of these kids to get into school. We wanted to support local Indigenous community leaders to continue to get into their communities and to set the standards so that they could lift their own people and take them forward. That's how we believe social welfare policy should be implemented on the ground: in partnership with communities and not making excuses when it comes to the things that have to be done in these communities. I have strongly supported, and do strongly support, the Family Responsibilities Commission—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister's time has expired.
Mr Morrison: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 13 of 2018-19
The SPEAKER (15:22): I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 13 of 2018-19, entitled Disability support pension—follow-on audit:Department of Human Services; Department of Social Services.
Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:22): 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.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Pensions and Benefits
The SPEAKER (15:23): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Chifley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's failure to promptly process pension applications.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (15:23): In 10 minutes time the minister at the table, the Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation, should open his remarks with just one thing and one thing only, and that is: 'I'm sorry.' He should be apologising on a number of different fronts for the failure, under his watch, to look after people who, at a point in time—after they've worked hard, they've paid their bills, they've raised their families—expect that they will be able to get their age pension. They've been denied that for a host of reasons that go to the way in which this government, under this minister, has mismanaged the whole process of age pensions.
It's not enough that we've seen under this government the changes to the age pension, for example, and the way in which older Australians were hit with changes to the asset test. Labor had to block the Abbott-Turnbull government cuts to pension indexation in the 2014 budget. Mind you, after they went to an election saying there'd be no changes to pensions, they then tried to bring those in, breaking a promise they had made to older Australians in the lead-up to the 2013 election. They did that and we blocked the Abbott-Turnbull government's attempts to reset the deeming rate thresholds, changes that would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off. It wasn't enough.
Ms Burney interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: The government would not know what it means, Member for Barton. It was not bad enough. On top of that, for ages they refused to relent on a plan to axe the energy supplement, a payment designed to help vulnerable Australians with the cost of energy. It wasn't enough that they did that. They tried to abolish it three times. Labor opposed the abolition of that supplement, stood up for pensioners and vulnerable Australians. And it was only at the last minute, in a desperate attempt not to save older Australians but to save themselves that they decided they would change their minds. It was not because it was the right thing to do for older Australians but because it was the only thing they could do to try and save themselves.
On top of that, the government then had the plan to have the oldest pension age in the advanced world, making people retire at the age of 70. Time and again, we on this side said we would oppose this. Time and again, those opposite said they would not budge. And what happened? In the aftermath of trying to save themselves after that chaotic week in August when they repeatedly tried to knock off the former Prime Minister—and in the end they got there—they decided they would drop that plan. Again, it was not because it was the right thing to do by older Australians but because it was the only thing they could do to save themselves in the process.
Now what are we seeing? After all that, now what we're seeing is people applying for the age pension and not being able to get it. As some age pensioner applicants have said, this paperwork should only take a matter of weeks. See the length of time people are being forced to wait to get their age pension. A lot of my colleagues repeatedly tell me what they're experiencing. The minister has received feedback in this House on those delays. We are getting it all over the place, even on platforms like Facebook, where people have reached out to me and said, 'This is what I'm experiencing,' or, 'It took 12 months to get paid.' Some examples I was given include: 'I'm eligible for the pension and was told to apply at least 13 weeks before my date of eligibility because of the waiting times people are experiencing to get their pension,' and 'I've been waiting since June for a response on my healthcare card application; it's pathetic,' and, 'I've waited months and months and on the phone for hours at a time,' and, 'It's a shame that us baby boomers are ageing and causing financial difficulties for the government.' This is how they feel. Others say: 'They should have been more prepared'—how true; the government should have been more prepared—and, 'They assessed my mum incorrectly for aged care placements nine months ago and we're still waiting for the refund.' These are the types of systems that have been put in place by this government, and people are being held up as a result.
I've mentioned the experience where people have been told to wait and have been waiting for months to get the pension. I'm going to get to the stat that the government lives by, that it says it will assess these pensions by. Before I get to that stat, you might have noticed this week, in a desperate attempt to save itself, the government's been coming up with all these good news items. The one stat I just want you to bear in mind is the one that the member for Kooyong, the Treasurer, has been going on about. He's been talking it up quite a bit. I'm going a long way on this but bear in mind this stat is what the government have been talking themselves up on. The Treasurer said:
The Coalition Government recognises the importance of cash flow for small businesses. That’s why the Government is setting an example by paying our bills on time. … now the Government will be required to pay invoices … within 20 days
That is a good figure, and it's the right thing to do. That's good.
Let's go to pensioners. Do you know what amount of time the government set themselves to pay a person who applies for the age pension, who is on a low income and who is waiting for access to the pension to be able to pay their bills and meet their needs? They're told by this government—not 20 days, no—49 days. They tell people to wait 49 days, but the reality is people wait for six months to a year—18 months on some occasions—because this minister can't get his act together. Mind you, that KPI of 49 days was increased from 36 days to 49. They even had to go longer, because they couldn't pay people on time, which is an absolute disgrace.
When we put that to the government in estimates their own departmental secretary said: 'We're clearing through this. Thousands per week, we're clearing. We'll get through this in no time.' Wrong! People are still being forced to wait, and they're being forced to wait right now, before Christmas. Minister, what are you going to say to those age pension applicants who want to have the certainty of their pension and have their bills paid before Christmas but are still waiting? Maybe they have the temerity, the outrageous ambition, to want to buy a Christmas present for their grandkids with some of the money they get but are forced to wait and dig into their savings because of what you're doing. The answer from those opposite is: we're putting more jobs on. Wrong! They've cut jobs. On top of that, a media release the minister put out the other week said, 'We've put on 2,750 jobs.' What he didn't tell you is they're all contractors being brought on. Instead of putting on their own people, they've been cutting jobs and putting on people who are working for less than the public servants and who are costing the Commonwealth more. That is what's happening. Do you know what the most disgraceful thing is? In defending that decision, the minister said of the public servants that he oversees: 'The contractors are more efficient than the public sector.' You owe an apology not only to age pensioners who've been held up but to your public servants. How disgraceful it is that you say to your own public servants that they aren't as efficient as the contractors! Those public servants are then getting calls from the public, who say, 'We don't want to talk to you; we want to talk to the contractors.' You owe them an apology for what you have said to them. And then, tough guy that he is, he says he's got a report to back him up. Why won't he release the report? What does he do? He says, 'I've got a report that says they're more efficient,' but he won't release the report. It's disgraceful that you would hold vulnerable—
Mr Keenan interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: Then don't quote them, Minister. Don't quote the report. If you don't have the guts to release it, don't quote it. You owe age pensioners an apology. You owe your own public servants an apology. If you knew the decent thing to do, you'd give up your job because you've failed those pensioners. (Time expired)
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation) (15:33): I'm not going to take lectures from the Labor Party, whose policy approach is to pick the pockets of older Australians who've been out there working hard to save for their own retirement. That's the Labor Party's approach to older Australians, and I personally think it's disgraceful.
I quite like the shadow minister, I hate to say—I'm happy to make that confession to the House—but he is woefully uninformed about this portfolio. He has absolutely no idea what is going on within the Department of Human Services. People who apply for the age pension are people who deserve our support. They are people who have built this country, who have worked hard, and when they come to retirement age they are entitled to get the best possible service from their government. We are working to ensure that that is the case.
When we came to office, we inherited a department that had had 20 per cent of the frontline workforce cut out of it by the Labor Party between 2007 and 2013. There had been 4,800 people cut out of the Department of Human Services between 2007 and 2013. What happened to call waiting times when the Howard government left office? Call waiting times in 2007 were 90 seconds—a minute and a half. When the Labor Party left office in 2013, their waiting was, what, 12½ minutes? It had blown out to 12½ minutes because of their savage cuts to the front line of the Department of Human Services. They're happy to talk the talk, but, when they have the opportunity, of course, they never walk the walk.
I am very proud of the work my department does. It's a very large department and it provides an extensive range of services to the Australian people. We pay five million Australians' payments every single year, and the total we expend is $174 billion, which is roughly 40 per cent of the government's total expenditure. In the 2017-18 year my department took 48 million phone calls. We dealt with Australians face to face 18 million times, and Australians transacted 900 million times on our digital platforms. We run the largest call centre in the Southern Hemisphere, and last year there were nearly 3½ million claims of income support, payments and concessions. The vast majority of this 3½ million were processed within four weeks.
Already this financial year my department has supported many Australians in need. We've taken 17.3 million phone calls, we've had 5.7 million face-to-face transactions and Australians have transacted on our digital platforms 164 million times. So far this year my department has processed more than 1.2 million social security and welfare claims, and we remain committed to making sure that Australians can get services as quickly as possible. As I said, the vast majority of claims are processed within four weeks. We are focused relentlessly on the customer experience when people come to us for assistance. We're spending $1.2 billion to upgrade the ICT platforms, which improve staff productivity, and develop new and innovative ways that people can claim welfare online. We're also using data analytics in a much more effective way to manage our core volume.
Most importantly, we're putting on an additional 2,750 people. These additional operators are going to improve my department's ability to answer calls, they're going to allow us to process more applications and they're going to make sure that we can continue to deliver a service in line with our customers' expectations. As a result of this very significant investment—and not all of these new contractors are on yet; we're putting on an extra couple hundred a month, and the full total will be on by April next year—busy signals are now down by 40 per cent, call waiting times are significantly down, processing times are significantly down and we will continue every single month to put on more people and to make sure our service offering continues to improve.
The shadow minister has an affliction against employing people in the private sector. He thinks it's terrible that people in the private sector would get work, but what I would say to him—and I offer him this invitation—is that we have call centres now operational in Brisbane, in Melbourne, in Adelaide and in Perth. He wants to sack these people for the crime of working in the private sector. I've gone and seen all of our new call centres with the exception of the one in Adelaide, which I'll be visiting next week, and this contractor workforce is a very good workforce. They specialise in taking people who are long-term unemployed. They have special programs for people who find it hard to get into employment such as Indigenous Australians and Australians with a disability. I would like the shadow minister to go down, look those people in the eye and say, 'If we win the election in May, we're going to throw you all on the scrap heap because we don't like people working in the private sector.' That's Labor's policy: throw people on the scrap heap because they work in the private sector. If Labor get into office, they plan to get rid of these 2,750 people—
Ms Collins: That's rubbish.
Mr KEENAN: The shadow minister is interjecting at the table and saying, 'That's rubbish.' There are three more Labor speakers in this MPI debate, so let's give them a chance to put on the record that they won't be sacking these 2,750 people—put it on the record when you get the opportunity, because that's your stated policy. They don't believe in employing contractors. Labor's plan instead is to hire an extra 1,200 permanent public servants. That means there'll be a deficit in the workforce of 1,550 people. That's their plan to improve service: to throw 2,750 Australians out of work, for the crime of working in the private sector, and then employ 1,200 permanent public servants. That is a deficit of 1,550 workers.
I work very hard to make sure that the service experience, when Australians contact DHS, is as good as it can be. Customers claiming the age pension often have complex tests that they need to satisfy—income tests and assets tests—and they require supporting documentation and, sometimes, specialised assessments. A range of factors can cause delay but, normally, about 50 per cent of the delays that occur are because people haven't submitted all the required documentation with their initial application. This occurs in about half of the cases. It requires my department to go back to the person and seek further information so that their claim can be processed.
Notwithstanding the complexity of age pension claims and the fact that we do require that information, according to our legislative requirements, it did become apparent to me through anecdotal evidence and the metrics that the department has kept that, at about the middle of the year, we were accumulating a backlog of people applying for the age pension. We consistently measure our service. I meet with my department every week to go through how our service provision is going. When it became apparent to me in July that we were getting a backlog in age pension processing times, and processing times were therefore creeping up, I instructed the department to set up a task force to ensure that age pension applications were being processed as quickly as possible. As a result of that task force, the department put an extra 100 staff into claim processing and I'm pleased to say that they are making excellent progress.
The backlog that existed in July has now been eliminated. We processed 4,000 pension claims last week—we usually get about half that coming in on any given week. That's a 70 per cent increase on the processing of age pension claims on this time last year. The total backlog has been eliminated, and the people who are applying for the age pension would have noticed a very significant improvement to their service. We also continue to encourage anyone who is applying for the age pension to apply up to 13 weeks in advance, before they become eligible. That way, we can make sure that the appropriate paperwork is provided and we can process claims before applicants become eligible, which includes a seamless transition onto the pension.
We are proud of our record in making sure that the Department of Human Services has the resources it needs to do its job. These contracted workers, 2,750 people, who are proud of what they're doing, who are working very hard and who are getting results for the government and the people whom they serve, are people who the Labor Party are going to throw onto the scrap heap. That's not surprising, because their record in government was completely woeful. Almost 5,000 people were cut out of the Department of Human Services, resulting in a tenfold increase in the time it took for people to get their phone calls answered when they called through to the department. Don't believe me; look at the ANAO report from Labor's time in office. (Time expired)
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (15:43): The minister just told us that age pensioners in this country deserve a government that delivers the services they need. That was probably the only true and accurate statement in the 10-minute speech we just heard. Let's talk about all of the vulnerable people in our communities, in my electorate and in electorates around the country who are getting appalling, negligent service from this government. Let's start with the aged-care sector—I'll come back to the minister's portfolio—and I see the shadow minister here. Let's talk about the over 1,200 people still waiting for a home care package.
Ms Collins: It's 120,000.
Ms BIRD: It's 120,000. Thank you, shadow minister. One hundred and twenty thousand are waiting for a home care package. My office spends week after week after week dealing with elderly people in our communities who have been assessed as needing a level 4, the highest level package that can be provided, and who still are waiting 12 months to actually get one allocated. That means that their families—if they're lucky enough to have the support of a family—cannot function while they're trying to fulfil the responsibility that this government has assessed it should be delivering, and it's taking a year.
Let's talk about the people in our community with disabilities. Let's talk about the mismanagement, the poor planning and the under-resourcing by this government that has gone into the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme across our electorates. There are many people who were anticipating, as all of us were, the implementation of this major, important reform for people with a disability. If it works well this is a great thing. I hear from people in my electorate how great that is. But let me tell you, under this government, when it's not working, and when there are problems, it's appalling. It's an appalling experience for people.
Again, there is case after case in my office where we are having to fight and battle to get decent, reasonable outcomes for people when they have problems. Similar to what the shadow minister said about this sector in human services, a lot of it's because they haven't resourced it properly. They haven't been able to ensure that the people who are in place running it at the departmental level have continuity, experience and skills. These are complex matters. The minister himself admitted that with pensions. You need experienced people to be able to work in that space.
Let's talk about our littlest children, our most vulnerable under-five-year-olds, who need preschool education. This government can't even guarantee ongoing four-year-old preschool for those kids who really need preschool to be able to be prepared to perform when they go into kindy. They can't even guarantee what they have already got, the four-year-old preschool, let alone meet Labor's commitment to give two years of preschool.
In the minister's own portfolio area, and in my seat—that borders with my colleague the member for Whitlam—we have some of the most disadvantaged communities across the suburbs of Warrawong, Port Kembla and Berkeley. What has this government done? They've taken away their Centrelink and Medicare offices. So single mums with toddlers have to try and get on a bus and go into Wollongong to meet their requirements for Centrelink. Many of the aged people in those suburbs are from non-English speaking backgrounds. Forget the phone system for those people, let alone the massively long waits you get when you ring. It is complex for them. They need to talk to someone face-to-face. They've taken away their Medicare and Centrelink offices at Warrawong. This is what this government is doing to the most vulnerable in our communities. The age pensioners that I am hearing from in my office day after day are experiencing exactly what our shadow minister described.
I won't use their names, but Mr L of Figtree lodged a claim in early May this year. He approached our office in October because he hadn't heard anything. We had to chase it and get it resolved for him. Mr G of Figtree lodged in December 2017. He was rejected in March, appealed and had to come to us again in October to get a resolution, that's what they're struggling with. The government needs to wake up to how it's treating these vulnerable people.
Mr BROAD (Mallee—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (15:48): It is important to talk about age pensions and it is important to talk about our senior Australians. It was said to me once that when you get to about 50 years of age you start to think about what your financial plan is. There are many Australians who are concerned about their financial plan as they prepare for their senior years, and also for age pensioners who are receiving benefits from the Commonwealth.
The government doesn't have any money; it has your money. It administers the money of Australians. We will be handing down a balanced budget next year at the next budget in April. What that simply means is that the money that we collect equals the money we spend. That is called responsible government. If you spend more money than you collect, you accumulate debt. As a result of that debt, what you are doing, effectively, is borrowing from our children and our grandchildren. Instead, if we're proud Australians, we should be investing in our children and grandchildren and not leaving them with a legacy of debt because we haven't lived within our own means. People on age pensions in Australia are fortunate that we have sound, responsible government that enables them to receive an age pension.
Not only do our senior Australians receive an age pension; they also receive the benefits of our health budget. To remind Australian people who might be listening just how fortunate we are, living in a country with a population of 25 million and with the 15th biggest economy in the world, if you added up the total gross domestic product of the 40 poorest countries in the world and you put all that money into one bucket, that would be the same amount of money as Australia spends on our health budget for 25 million people. Just think about that for a moment. We invest in the health of Australians substantially.
We also invest in the welfare of Australians substantially. Australians spend $115 billion a year on health—$70 billion from the federal government and $45 billion from the states—largely for our senior Australians. On welfare, Australians spend $174 billion—a third of our total expenditure as a country. That is for five million Australians. If the criticism here today is that somehow we're a little slower than we should be at paying out that welfare, because we want to make sure that when someone applies that we do our due diligence and we administer it properly, then that is a criticism I'm prepared to take. Because I want to know—if we're going to run a balanced budget and not borrow from our children and our future children—that the people who are applying for benefits are bringing the right documentation to us and are legitimate in their claims. We say to Australians, 'If you are going to receive an age pension, you know when that date is coming.' It's not like an unemployment benefit. If you're unemployed, you might be working one day, you turn up to work, and the next day you're out of work. In that instance, you do need payment instantly. But if you know that you're coming towards the time that you'll be eligible for your pension, you have time to plan to get your paperwork in, and it is appropriate that there is integrity in our welfare system. We are very fortunate to have such an essential welfare system.
If you talk to people in my electorate, our retirees and our pensioners, they want the capacity to be able to earn a little bit of money as well as receive their pensions. We have just made changes that allow them to go from earning $250 a fortnight to $300 a fortnight. And another benefit in this is that they can earn that in a lump sum. Because of the seasonal nature of my electorate—which has almonds, olives, table grapes—we are now seeing more and more of our senior Australians coming in, working, and earning up to $6,500 in a lump sum. This does not affect their pension eligibility, and they then go off and spend that as they travel around regional Australia. Our government is delivering for pensioners. Our government is delivering a solid budget, a stable budget, so pensioners can have confidence that their pension is going to be paid. They can have confidence that they're not living at the expense of their children and grandchildren. That is what good government is about it. That is why we're a great country. It is not just an accident; it's because we manage the economy well. Our senior Australians know that. They trust us, and that's why they're going to vote for us at the next election.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (15:54): The member for Mallee gave us a little bit of a tutorial on how government finances work and how budgets work. But, clearly, when governments have money they put it into areas that are their priorities. Under this government, older Australians are certainly not a priority. In my electorate of Braddon, I have a disproportionately high number of older Australians in my community. There are approximately 15,000 age pensioners, and many, many more waiting to go onto the age pension in the coming months and years. But what we've seen under this government are constant attacks on older Australians. Every single time, Labor has fought against those attacks.
What we're seeing now inflicted on our older Australians are these ridiculous delays in processing age pension payments, absolutely ridiculous delays. I don't know how many on that side hear from people in their communities about these delays. We never hear people on the other side tell stories of their constituents who come to their office for support, but I feel a bit like a pseudo Centrelink office. People come to me when they're at their wits' end. We know that they are spending their savings while waiting for their payments to be processed. If they don't have savings, what are they doing? How are they surviving? This government doesn't really seem to care that these people are waiting and waiting. The minister talked about processing times, the target time and so forth, but that is not the reality out in voter land at all.
I have many stories of people in my community who have come to me at their wits' end. In May I heard from Marsha from Boat Harbour, who waited seven months to receive her age pension. She kept contacting Centrelink—when she could actually get through—asking, 'What else do I need to provide you?' They said: 'Nothing. You don't need to give us anything else. You just have to wait. There are some delays.' Then there are Annette and her husband from Wynyard, who made an application in July and were informed that their payment would be made on 18 September. That seemed okay, a two-month wait. They could probably wait that out. But, after that, they continually received messages from Centrelink advising them that there was a backlog of applications and there would be a further delay. Four months from the application date, two months after the original advised payment date, Annette and her husband's pension was finally granted, and that was because of my intervention. I'm sure every member on this side has intervened at every opportunity they can to help people access their pension payments.
Geoff from Port Sorell applied for his pension on 28 April this year. After contacting Centrelink on 4 August, four months after lodgement date, to check on what was happening—as you would—he was told he should expect another three to four months delay. Geoff was told that, as he had money in the bank, his modest savings, he would just have to wait a bit longer. I mean, how unfair is this? These people are making decisions to end their employment, to go onto the age pension, they get everything organised, they wait a few months thinking, 'This is okay; I can live with that,' but then are told, 'Oh, no, you've got to wait even longer still.' It shouldn't have to come to that.
I remember doorknocking during the by-election recently when I met Gary from Burnie. I knocked on his door and he said: 'I have been waiting four months for my pension. I don't have any money left. What am I to do?' I said, 'I can help you with that,' but he said, 'I shouldn't have to come to my MP to help me get a payment that I have been waiting four months for.'
This is what the people on the other side don't seem to understand. This is because this government has continued to trash Centrelink staffers, to demonise those workers in our public sector. They're privatising Centrelink by stealth. They're putting people on contracts in labour hire companies—people who are paid less, who are casualised, who don't have security of work, who are dealing with complex Centrelink applications—when we have a public sector who are trained well, who are very, very competent, who are mostly in regional communities like mine. I know the member for Bass has a number of Centrelink staff there as well. But this government wants to privatise that service.
What will Labor do? In my electorate there are 30 empty Centrelink desks—30. We will employ 50 public sector workers to fill those desks. Five of those will be roving Centrelink staff so that they can go to the communities, because not everyone can get on the internet. Not everyone has a computer, nor do they have access, particularly in regional Australia—and I think the regional members would appreciate that. Those staff could go to areas like King Island, Circular Head, the west coast of Tasmania and help those people with complex Centrelink needs and make sure they get their payments processed on time.
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (15:59): I am pleased to speak on this matter today because those opposite and their state colleagues in South Australia—my home state—have a particularly horrendous record when it comes to taking care of our senior Australians. In my electorate this is felt particularly keenly. On this side of the House, the government have a plan for a strong economy, which means we can afford to be as generous as we can be and we can afford to guarantee the essential services that our senior Australians need.
Last year there were nearly 3.5 million claims for income support payments and concessions, including the age pension, and the vast majorities of these claims were processed within four weeks. It is the coalition government that has cleaned up the mess that Labor left us when they cut almost 20 per cent of the customer-facing workforce—that was 4,800 staff—in the Department of Human Services, resulting in long delays and poor customer service. Are those delays any surprise when they had cut 20 per cent of the customer-facing workforce, 4,800 staff?
In comparison, on our side of the House, we have a plan for a strong economy that has ensured we have a social security system that is efficient, sustainable and supports senior Australians. It supports them to work longer and to retire comfortably. Life under Labor, for our senior Australians, would be very, very different. Those opposite will impose a retiree tax on our senior Australians which will hurt around 900,000 Australians who have worked hard and saved hard to provide for themselves in their retirement. Australia's tax system has been designed to ensure that shareholders pay tax on the dividends they received at their marginal rate. By abolishing tax refunds on dividends, Labor is effectively introducing double taxation.
Where will Labor's taxes end? The $45 billion tax grab will hurt thousands of people in my community who will have no choice but to rely on our social welfare system to survive, despite having worked hard throughout their lives to be self-sufficient in their retirement. If that weren't bad enough, Labor's housing tax will go after these same people, who own their own homes and might own investment properties as a form of stable investment. Those opposite's negative gearing policy would further destroy the nest eggs that Australians have worked hard to build over their lifetimes.
Many senior Australians have investment properties that they acquired to fund their retirement. Those opposite want to punish self-reliance. Their housing tax will hit 1.3 million Australians who negatively gear their properties, across every state and every territory, and it will hit every Australian with equity in their home. What about the pensioners who rent their home? They will be worse off as well, due to having to pay more thanks to the negative impact on the housing market that Labor's policy will have. This is, without a doubt, a lose-lose policy. If you own your own home, it will be worth less. If you rent your home, it will cost you more. Labor has no concept of fairness and absolutely no care for our senior Australians.
In contrast, our government, the coalition government, is protecting senior Australians and their retirement savings that they worked hard to create. It is also a government that is looking after the health and welfare of our senior Australians, particularly in the aged-care sector. Coming from South Australia, not one single one of us can or will ever forget the devastating impact of the Oakden disaster and the treatment there of our most vulnerable South Australians and their families. That's what happens under Labor governments. They neglect those people who most desperately need our care and protection. Our government is ensuring this will never happen again with a one-stop shop for aged-care complaints and a royal commission into the aged-care sector.
It was also the state Labor government that closed down our beloved and iconic Repat hospital, which catered to so many of my senior residents, senior Australians and our veteran community. It cared for them for more than 70 years. I am proud to say that I am working closely with my state Liberal colleagues in the Marshall Liberal government to reopen Repat, reopen the services and look after some of our most vulnerable senior Australians.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (16:04): When it comes to the federal government and the Commonwealth, it's hard to think of a more important service responsibility than providing income support through pensions for older Australians and people with a disability. It's in the nature of income support that, when people need it, those people need it badly and they need it quickly. If you can't get that support, you go without. If you can't get that support, you're put under severe pressure. There is no good reason for older Australians and Australians with disability to be prevented from accessing income support. We've heard people in this debate today talk around it. They talked about other aspects of policies that may or may not affect older Australians, but they haven't addressed the point of this matter of public importance: why are these intolerable delays occurring? Why are they getting worse?
There's no good reason we can't expect that pension applications in this country get processed quickly. We should expect that technological change makes processing easier and faster, not slower, more dehumanised, more painful and more frustrating, but that is exactly what has happened since the very dawn of this government. What is happening is that people who need income support and who are eligible for it are waiting longer and longer. They are waiting for months and months. It's not because, as the assistant minister suggested, there's some question or some evidence about peoples' eligibility; they are waiting months and months because of a basic service delivery failure of this government.
Those delays began with the very beginning of this government, and they were entirely predictable. All of us in this place hear from people experiencing what are extraordinary Kafkaesque delays. You would have seen, through constituent statements and adjournment debates over the last several years, members on this side getting up and telling those stories, and silence from the other side. Their officers are hearing it too, but they're not speaking up on behalf of those people facing those kinds of intolerable delays. In the last financial year alone, the average processing time for the age pension went from 36 to 49 days. There are 5,000 claims sitting with the department that have been waiting for more than 70 days. Last year, 48 million calls—almost two phone calls for every living and breathing Australian—to Centrelink went unanswered, and millions of people abandoned calls out of sheer frustration and, I'm sure, on occasion, sheer exhaustion.
Earlier this year in March, I was contacted by a resident in North Fremantle. She was still awaiting the resolution of her age pension claim that was lodged last July. It was lodged in July 2017. This person was diagnosed with cancer in the middle of last year. At age 67, after working in Fremantle hospitals for more than 30 years, she decided it was time to step back from her demanding role in a cardiac care unit and look after herself. She waited nine months to have her pension application processed. This is a stark, bizarre and unacceptable failure of basic service delivery.
But there's no great mystery as to how the failure occurred. Under this government, it was entirely predictable, deliberate and self-inflicted. The recipe for this astonishing failure was pretty obvious: you cut the Public Service, you cut staffing levels, you freeze wages, you remove workplace flexibility, you outsource services and you undermine skills, morale and corporate knowledge within Centrelink and—hey, presto!—you wreck it. You wreck our social compact. You wreck the age pension system in this country.
It does make me think of a Mike Myers film—I can't remember exactly what it was called; he was some sort of self-help guru. He had a self-help book called Does it hurt when you do that? Don't do that. You would think that that's some advice that this government could take. Instead, vulnerable people in our communities around this country are waiting for months. They're facing the insecurity and the stress of going without income support. Instead of bearing down on the problem and fixing it—instead of doing something about it—this government's focus is on cutting public sector jobs, squeezing and demoralising the public sector workforce and privatising and outsourcing anything and everything that moves.
They've always been obsessed with small government. They're taking that to bizarre levels this week: the government is getting smaller with each passing day. Instead of looking after the people who need support, this lot are always on the lookout for enemies. Their enemies are the public sector, the public broadcaster, the Community and Public Sector Union and just about anyone who needs help in this country, especially disadvantaged and vulnerable Australians. We on this side of the House take a different approach. We're going to restaff Centrelink, maintain the energy supplement for seniors in this country and restore funding to the public broadcasters. We've got a completely different agenda. I think Australia and Australians are looking forward to seeing a change in this place after five years of hopelessness from that lot over there.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (16:09): It's great to rise in this place today to talk about pensioners and older Australians in my electorate. I want to thank all the pensioners in my electorate, almost 20,000 of them, for their contribution to Australia. I often speak in schools, and I'll go and talk to the young people. We know that we have the best country in the world, and that's because of those older Australians: the legacy that they've left us, the work that they've done and the contribution that they've made to Australia. That's why it's so important that we continue to run a strong economy. We know that in April next year the budget will be in surplus for the first time since the Howard government some 12 years ago. That's great news, not just for older Australians who rely on essential services but also for our children, the younger people in our electorates right around the nation, because they won't be hit with higher taxes and debt because of this current generation. So a surplus will be great.
Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, did you know that the unemployment rate nationally is down to about five per cent? Listening to those opposite, you wouldn't know that over a million jobs have been created in Australia over the last few years, and so many more in just this year alone. Every fortnight, there are five million Australians who receive a pension.
Mr Husic: What about pensioners digging into their savings?
Mr HOWARTH: If you listen, I'll explain. Every fortnight, five million Australians receive a pension. I want to thank those Centrelink staff in Deception Bay and in Redcliffe who help out constituents in my electorate. Five million Australians is a lot of people who receive the pension every fortnight. Every week, the federal government invests some $3.3 billion in pensions. That works out to $174 billion a year, which is well over a third of our budget. The best way that we can provide certainty to older Australians is to continue to run a strong economy. When over a third of your budget goes on social services and on pensions, when healthcare costs continue to go up and the government's increasing funding, when education costs are going up and the government's increasing funding and when defence costs are going up and the government's increasing funding, it's all because of a strong economy.
Last year there were nearly 3½ million claims for income support payments and concessions, including the age pension. I want to say to people in my electorate that, if you are going to claim the pension, it is best to claim before you hit that age pension age. We know that the member for Chifley and others increased the age pension age to 67. That's what it is at the moment. So the government recommends that you apply up to 13 weeks beforehand so that we can properly assess the application. For most applications, the wait time is often because of documents that are needed. The application doesn't progress until all documents have been lodged, so it's very important that you give plenty of time.
For those listening, I want you to know that, if you do have to wait, of course it's back paid. All of the pension is back paid. If you listen to those opposite—
Ms Burney interjecting—
Mr HOWARTH: No, you've had your turn. I'll speak now, thank you. It is back paid if you're waiting. The government is managing millions and millions of dollars every week—billions of dollars every fortnight—and these applications have to be properly assessed. I've been able to help a few people in my electorate, such as: Caroline from Mango Hill, whose application was granted and back paid; Wayne from Burpengary East, whose application was granted; and Thomas from Margate, who brought in a chocolate bar to the staff to say thank you. Thank you, Thomas, but my job as the federal member is to help you. There was Sandra from Deception Bay, who was applying for the age pension and got back paid $6,000, and she was very happy with that; John from Mango Hill, who was applying for the age pension and got $6,000 back paid; and Janice from Redcliffe, who I helped last week. She met with me in the front of my office, and she came in with a bottle of wine for my staff because she also got her age pension. That's my job. I'm very happy to do it.
The pension has never been stronger, our economy has never been stronger and everything is at risk with those opposite, who want to put higher taxes on housing, income, business and electricity bills. When the member for Herbert gets up, she might like to talk about those pensioners who she's about to flog with higher electricity bills because of increased taxes— (Time expired)
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (16:14): For the information of the member for Petrie, let me share with him what happened to a gentleman named David McIntosh, of Holland Park, when he actually did submit his paperwork 13 weeks in advance as suggested. He waited for his money for a further 10 weeks. He waited for a letter to arrive. It did, eventually, informing him that he was ineligible because of his assets. Four visits to his Centrelink office and six weeks later it was approved. He said:
It seems the assessors couldn't add up the information I had provided, and each time they came up with a different total.
Not that hard to add six numbers together—
but apparently for Centrelink it was problematic.
Time and time again our pensioners have received nothing but chaos, cuts and attacks from the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, and time and time again Labor has fought every one of those LNP government cuts. First there were the Abbott-Turnbull government's changes to the age pension. Labor voted against these changes to the pension assets test, but unfortunately the Greens and the Liberals did a deal to cut the pension. Then Labor blocked the Abbott-Turnbull government's cuts to pension indexation in the 2014 budget. Those cuts would have seen pensioners lose $80 a week over 10 years. Then Labor blocked the Abbott-Turnbull government's attempts to reset the deeming threshold rate, a change that would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off. The out-of-touch LNP government also tried to reduce the pension for retirees who go overseas for more than six weeks—too bad if you had family to visit.
On top of that there was the Turnbull government's unfair plan to axe the energy supplement, a payment designed to help vulnerable Australians with the cost of energy. The LNP voted three times to cut it, and Labor fought that every step of the way. Then there was the most ridiculous of them all, when the out-of-touch LNP government tried to increase the pension age to 70. This change would have meant Australia had the oldest pension age in the world. How out of touch could LNP members be to think that a builder, a concreter or a farmer could work until they were 70?
The Secretary of the Department of Human Services, Renee Leon, conceded:
Our models about how we plan and staff for the workload are not quite working for age pension when we get that six-month delay …
These major delays are simply injustices to older Australians and a result of the systematic mess the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government have created. The No. 1 issue raised with my office is from constituents who have major issues because of the significant delays in accessing their pensions. Imagine going to a Centrelink office to try and get your pension sorted, be delayed time and time again and then be told: 'When you're down to $1,000 in your savings, come back and see us. We might be able to help you.' It's simply not good enough.
A female constituent applied for the age pension in April 2018 but has heard nothing. She's been waiting almost nine months. My office contacted Centrelink, who advised that the application was being processed but were unable to provide a time frame. A male constituent applied for the age pension on 17 February this year and was given an estimated completion date of 7 April 2018. This constituent phoned the hotline on 16 May 2018 and was informed no progress had been made and all the required documents had been uploaded. He was advised there was a backlog of claims for age pensions. After waiting six months, he attended the Centrelink office on 13 July, when it was confirmed that no progress had been made. The gentleman made this point very clear to my office: he said that even though there are significant delays the staff at the office had spoken to him very respectfully and were helpful. He said, 'It's not the Centrelink staff's fault.' We know it's not the fault of the Centrelink staff. This government has put staff under incredible pressure by making severe cuts to staffing and through the use of outsourcing and privatisation by stealth, using labour hire workers.
Last financial year 48 million calls to Centrelink went unanswered. How on earth could the government respond to that? They cut a further 1,280 jobs from Centrelink and outsourced 1,250 jobs to labour hire. Prime Minister Scott Morrison was the architect behind these cuts—let us not forget that. He signed off on them when he was the Treasurer, and he continues to support job cuts, outsourcing to labour hire and the significant delays in accessing pensions for thousands of older Australians. (Time expired)
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:19): Thank you to the members opposite for bringing forward this matter of public importance, and I mean that sincerely. With millions of Australians on the age pension, ensuring the pension is sufficient, accessible and fair is critically important, and bringing forward this matter today allows us to explain the great work done by this government to help retirees across the country.
Each fortnight, Centrelink delivers payments to more than five million Australians, providing more than $174 billion in payments every year. In 2017-18 alone, the Department of Human Services had more than 967 million interactions with Australians. Last year there were nearly 3.5 million claims for income support payments and concessions, including the age pension. The vast majority of these were processed within four weeks.
This is a very different story from when those opposite were in government. During their time, they ripped out more than 4,800 staff from the department. This was almost 20 per cent of the customer-facing workforce that processes claims, answers questions and helps people get the services they need. We understand that it's essential to invest in people and digital services, which is why the government have engaged an additional 2,750 staff to help us continue to improve our customer experience, especially for older Australians. This gives older Australians access to the services they need, where and when they need them.
Delays can also occur if applicants fail to provide all the required supporting documentation when lodging their claim. This occurs in more than half the cases and often requires the department to go back to the person before the claim can be processed. When all the required supporting information has been received, the claim is finalised quickly. We also encourage all people to apply for the age pension up to 13 weeks before they become eligible. That way, we can ensure that all the appropriate paperwork is provided and process claims before applicants become eligible, ensuring a seamless transition to the pension.
It's quite clear that some of those opposite don't quite get how pensioners earn—or how the economy works, for that matter! The policy of those opposite to take away dividend refunds will take a sledgehammer to the income of retirees and double dip into taxes. Under Labor, most retirees, or anyone on an income below $37,000, will lose their dividend refund. For the 900,000 Australians hit, this is worth around $2,200 a year for each individual. Currently, most retirees who receive dividends from those shares get a refund on the company tax that has already been paid on their behalf. By abolishing tax refunds on dividends, Labor would take a double tax dip. Eighty-four per cent of the individuals impacted are those on taxable incomes of less than $37,000, and 96 per cent of the individuals impacted are on taxable incomes below $87,000.
The Australian tax system has been designed to ensure that shareholders pay tax on the dividends they receive at their marginal tax rate. Labor's retiree tax would hurt those who saved to be self-reliant, who planned diligently for their future and who want to have a stable retirement.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The time for the discussion has concluded.
COMMITTEES
Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ) (16:23): Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip that she has nominated Mr Leeser to be a member of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (16:23): by leave—I move:
That Mr Leeser be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs.
Question agreed to.
Electoral Matters Committee
Reporting Date
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ) (16:23): I have received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018 be extended to 29 March 2019.
BILLS
Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018
Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018
Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018
Returned from Senate
Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment.
Modern Slavery Bill 2018
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Clause 11, page 10 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add:
The Minister may request an explanation from an entity about the entity's failure to comply with a requirement in relation to modern slavery statements, and may also request that the entity undertake remedial action in relation to that requirement. If the entity fails to comply with the request, the Minister may publish information about the failure to comply on the register or elsewhere, including the identity of the entity.
(2) Page 13 (after line 27), at the end of Part 2, add:
16A Explanations for failure to comply etc.
Request for explanation or remedial action
(1) If the Minister is reasonably satisfied that an entity has failed to comply with a requirement under section 13 or 14 (which deal with requirements to give modern slavery statements), the Minister may give a written request to the entity to do either or both of the following:
(a) provide an explanation for the failure to comply within a specified period of 28 days or longer after the request is given;
(b) undertake specified remedial action in relation to that requirement in accordance with the request within a specified period of 28 days or longer after the request is given.
Example: For a request relating to a failure to give a modern slavery statement to the Minister within the period required by section 13, remedial action specified under paragraph (b) of this subsection may be to give a modern slavery statement to the Minister within a further period specified in the request.
(2) The Minister may extend, or further extend, a period specified in a request under subsection (1) by written notice given to the entity. The extension may be given before or after the end of the specified period (or that period as previously extended).
(3) A request under subsection (1) must include a statement of the effect of subsections (2) and (4) to (6).
Publication of information about failure to comply with request
(4) If the Minister is reasonably satisfied that an entity has failed to comply with a request under subsection (1), the Minister may publish the following information on the register, or in any other way the Minister considers appropriate:
(a) the identity of the entity;
(b) if the request relates to the entity's failure to comply with subsection 14(2) (joint modern slavery statements) in relation to a modern slavery statement—the identities of the reporting entities covered by the statement;
(c) the date the request was given, and details of any extension given under subsection (2);
(d) details of the explanation or remedial action requested, and the period or periods specified in the request;
(e) the reasons why the Minister is satisfied that the entity has failed to comply with the request.
(5) An entity fails to comply with a request if, and only if:
(a) no explanation is given in response to the request within the period specified in the request under paragraph (1) (a) (as extended, if at all, under subsection (2)); or
(b) no remedial action is undertaken in response to the request within the period specified in the request under paragraph (1) (b) (as extended, if at all, under subsection (2)).
Review of decisions
(6) Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the Minister's decision under subsection (4) to publish information about an entity's failure to comply with a request under subsection (1).
(3) Clause 19, page 14 (line 22), omit "under section 13 or 14", substitute "for the purposes of compliance with section 13 or 14 (including a statement given in response to a request under section 16A)".
(4) Clause 21, page 16 (line 8), omit paragraph (c), substitute:
(ba) annual reports about the implementation of this Act;
(c) the 3‑year review of this Act;
(5) Page 16 (after line 24), after clause 23, insert:
23A Annual reports about implementation
(1) The Minister must cause a report to be prepared for each calendar year (including the year in which this section commences) about the implementation of this Act during the year, including the following (without limitation):
(a) an overview of compliance by entities with this Act during the year;
(b) the identification of best practice modern slavery reporting under this Act during the year.
(2) The report must be:
(a) started as soon as practicable after the end of the calendar year for which it is prepared; and
(b) completed before the end of the calendar year in which it is started.
(3) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the report.
(6) Heading to clause 24, page 16 (line 25), omit the heading, substitute:
24 Three - year review
(7) Clause 24, page 17 (after line 2), after paragraph (1) (a), insert:
(aa) compliance with this Act and any rules over that period; and
(ab) whether additional measures to improve compliance with this Act and any rules are necessary or desirable, such as civil penalties for failure to comply with the requirements of this Act; and
(ac) whether a further review of this Act and any rules should be undertaken, and if so, when; and
(ad) whether it is necessary or desirable to do anything else to improve the operation of this Act and any rules; and
(8) Clause 24, page 17 (line 3), at the end of paragraph (1) (b), add "to implement review recommendations".
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (16:24): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
Report
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:25): On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, I present the committee's final report, incorporating dissenting reports.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr LEESER: by leave—This committee was asked to consider the work of the expert panel, the former joint select committee and the Statement from the Heart of the Referendum Council. The Statement from the Heart was a major turning point in the debate about constitutional recognition. Not only did it bring a new element—the voice—into the debate, but it rejected all previous proposals for constitutional recognition. This rejection was a shame because there were previous proposals which would command broad political support, but we acknowledge that at Uluru they were taken off the table.
At the centre of the Statement from the Heart is the voice. The voice is the matter on which we focused most of the efforts of the committee. In the interim report we flagged that the next step of process towards constitutional recognition would be co-design. That's what we promised in the interim report; that's what we've delivered in this final report. Ultimately, the form of the voice will emerge from the co-design process, but the key point is that the voice will be designed with government by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, adapted for local conditions right across the nation.
The voice will provide a mechanism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be consulted and engaged on the policies and laws that affect them and it will provide a forum for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to bring issues to government. Such a process has as its goals better social and economic policy outcomes for our First Nations peoples. After the co-design process is complete, the legal form of the voice can then be worked out. It will be easier to work out the legal form of the voice after we have clarity on what the voice looks like.
Since the interim report, a division of opinion has emerged as to the political tactics that should be used to achieve constitutional recognition. Some have argued there should be a referendum as the first step. Leaving aside any questions of the need to build further political consensus, it's difficult to proceed to a referendum today when this committee has received no fewer than 18 different versions of constitutional amendments without consensus. Our judgement, therefore, is that, before the voice proceeds to the next step, the co-design project must have been successfully completed.
I would like to pay tribute to my co-chair, Senator Dodson. The committee would not have functioned as well if the relationship between us had not been as open and cooperative as it was. It was a privilege to work with him as it was with all the other members of the committee, and I acknowledge the members for Indi, Lingiari and Barton, who are all in the chamber at the moment. While acknowledging we all came from very different perspectives, at all times the committee sought to focus on what we agreed on, not what we disagreed on.
During the life of this committee, my son James was born, and he's in the gallery today for the first time, with my family. I hope that, when he looks back on whatever his father achieves in this place, he will be proud of the efforts his dad made towards constitutional recognition of and reconciliation with our First Nations peoples. This remains one of Australia's great national goals.
I know our time is short today, and I intend to seek leave to make further remarks on this point when the matter goes to the Federation Chamber, and so I therefore move:
That the House take note of this report.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (16:28): The Labor Party joins the Independents and the government in tabling this report. The Labor Party recognises and accepts fully the Statement from the Heart from Uluru and believes that constitutional reform is a great priority for Australia. We believe that there is a very real need for further consultation and discussion with Indigenous people to design the voice, design the timing and also design the question that will be put to the Australian people in a referendum. We're also very committed to having a referendum in the first term of our government, if we are afforded the great privilege of being elected.
We have focused in this committee, as the member for Berowra said, on what we could agree on, not what we disagreed on, and that was very important. We'll be using the old ATSIC regional boundaries as the basis for discussions going forward in the co-design of the referendum and the voice to the parliament. We on this side of the House also accept very much the need for a makarrata commission and a national truth-telling process, which has formed part of the way forward. I join with all my colleagues who have participated in this in very good faith.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:29): I move:
That the order for the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (16:30): It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Morrison Government
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:30): I want to talk today about the appalling damage this government has done to our proud public sector and the services they provide to Australians. Over the 2016-17 year alone, public sector jobs were cut by 3,500. Since this government came to power in 2013, there have been more than 14,000 jobs cut from the public sector—and Parramatta has copped it badly. Over that time, the public sector has halved from 3,216 to 1,567. That's more than half of the public sector jobs in Parramatta gone during the term of this government.
The result of this kind of sabotage should have been pretty obvious to anybody who thought about it, and we're seeing the result of this short-sighted government's attempts to save a few bucks at the expense of our proud public sector and the people they support. The real people who voted us all into this place—mums, dads, students, pensioners, the unemployed, people with disability and anyone who has fallen or might fall on hard times in the future—know the effect that job cuts to Centrelink have had.
I'm sure everyone on the government benches also knows—this government is probably sick of hearing it—that the cut of 1,200 Centrelink jobs has led to 55 million calls to Centrelink going unanswered. That was the figure for one year alone, for 2017-18. Who knows what it will be this year as those cuts continue. There are people in my electorate who've told me they've waited up to three hours to speak to someone at Centrelink, and many more call my office in frustration because they couldn't get through to anyone at all. And yet the cuts continue. Now older Australians are waiting for months to get on the age pension, and I know this because my office takes calls from constituents who have been waiting and waiting and waiting. I know two couples who are homeless are waiting to get their applications processed when it's really clear they're eligible.
These cuts are hurting my community. Two days ago, a woman called. She'd been waiting for nine months for her pension to be processed—nine months!—and she's not the only one. Meanwhile, this government has the audacity to gloat about outsourcing these jobs. Last month Minister Keenan put out a media release stating that Centrelink staff numbers had been boosted by an additional 2,750 jobs. What he failed to mention was that these weren't new positions with Centrelink, but privatised labour brought in to fix the government's mess. And they're not fixing it. How can the private sector do that without the training and experience that all of those people who have lost their jobs have had?
Centrelink and Medicare staff have told me that wait claim processing times have stretched out to catastrophic levels because of staff cuts, privatisation and poorly implemented technology changes. They complain about losing a number of full-time, experienced staff who have not been replaced. And the training provided to the new staff members has not filled the corporate knowledge and experience gaps left by these cuts. The staff just want to be able to do their job and help the people from my community who rely on them. Instead, their days consist of apologising to people for processing delays that are out of control. No need to wonder why there was a 40 per cent increase in Centrelink complaints this year alone.
ATO workers visited my office earlier in the year because they were worried about losing their jobs to outsourced workers. And sure enough, shortly after I met with them, 50 positions in Parramatta, Box Hill and Dandenong were made redundant. They were replaced by a mix of labour hire, non-ongoing staff and ongoing staff stationed in Brisbane and Perth. When we lose our public sector, we lose in three ways. We lose the ballast that those good, secure, full-time jobs provide in our local economy, holding the economy stable through the winds that buffet less secure workers. We lose the quality of service of people who join the public sector because they want to serve; we lose the quality of people who join the public sector on lower wages than they can get elsewhere because that's what they want to do with their life.
Perhaps most importantly for the future decision-making of this country, we lose the corporate memory. We lose the by-product that people get from serving the community of knowing what worked and what didn't and what impact policies had. All that corporate knowledge that sits within the full-time workforce of the public sector, which we draw on when we need to think as a government, will be gone and replaced with labour hire and short-term contracts, which will never be able to replace the level of care, the corporate knowledge or the security of the workforce that supports our local economy. I want the government to consider what they're doing here. This is sabotage of the public sector writ large and they really should rethink it.
Vocational Education and Training
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (16:35): I rise to say a few words about our university education system, apprenticeships, vocational education training and skill shortages in the country and their influence on immigration. At the moment we have over 1.1 million students enrolled in universities around the nation. Universities employ over 100,000 staff. International education is in fact one of our major exports. They are significant contributors to local communities, not only providing employment but also developing cultural and other sporting bodies.
University research stimulates innovation and delivers solutions to the economic, social and demographic challenges facing the nation. The rate of return on publicly funded research is between 20 per cent and 60 per cent—a very good return on a big investment. Universities are extremely important to our national and regional economy. There were 270,000 Commonwealth supported places started last year, with approximately 480,000 commencing students. You can see the proportion of overseas students that contribute to the income for the nation.
But there is a problem. I note that some of the figures I've looked up look at completion rates or drop-out rates of 15 to 16 per cent. On those figures, that equates to up to 75,000 people who realise that a university degree doesn't suit them. At the same time, pathways to permanent residence figures in 2017-18, to 30 June this year, record that 39,800 people on temporary resident skilled visas were granted permanent residence or a provisional visa—a decrease of 21 per cent compared to the same period last year. But the vast majority of these people are bringing skills that we haven't developed in our nation or that we can't provide in places around the nation that have shortages. Only 3.2 per cent of these were in the family scheme.
The moral of the story is that we need more vocational education training and skills development in the nation. We are far too dependent on other nations, and we are addressing these shortages. We have a lot of incentives for Australian apprenticeships. We have starting incentives of $1,500 for employers, and completion incentives. For young apprentices, we have living-away-from-home allowances. We have youth allowance which can be accessed, depending on means testing. We have trade support loans of up to $20,000 over a four-year apprenticeship. Upon successful completion, there's a 20 per cent discount on the loan.
These are major incentives, but I'm really pleased to clarify and reannounce that there has been a new trial announced for regional and rural apprenticeships. If apprentices are on the National Skills Needs List, and if they're starting from 1 January, there is a wage subsidy available for employers to take them on. When it was first released, there was some confusion about whether existing apprenticeship employers and trainers would be eligible for this. I wish to clarify for the House, and for people in my electorate of Lyne, that employers who have been training apprentices for many years are eligible for this. That is fresh advice that I've confirmed with the ministry. People who have been keeping skills going in Australia are the very people we want to support, because they will take on more apprentices.
That trial is available for 1,630 people from 1 January 2019, and the wage subsidy is 70 per cent the first year, 50 per cent the second year and 25 per cent the third year. I really encourage all those people to look into this, coming up 1 January this year. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that the adult apprenticeship incentive scheme, a $4,000 payment to employers on successful completion of the first year, will be extended to adults up to the age of 21 years. There are all sorts of support for apprenticeships and skills training. We certainly need it. Universities have a wonderful part and role in the nation, but we should focus more on filling the skills shortages.
Morrison Government
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:40): This week, we've heard a lot of fantasy from those opposite. For example, how the chaos and dysfunction within the Liberal coalition government are not affecting the governance of this country. We know it is, and the Australian people know it is. Of course, we have also heard fantasy that having 10 sitting days in the next eight months is just business as usual, normal business of the parliament. Of course, we know that is absolutely not true as well. But probably the biggest fantasy we've had today has been espoused by the Minister for Women, who said the Liberal government was the natural government for women. Well, this is from the same minister who declared the day before that the Liberal Party was anti-women.
Well, it's time to get out of fantasy land. This government has consistently over the last five years displayed a terrible attitude to Australian women. I don't forget and neither do the women of Australia forget that this government, after promising to increase paid parental leave, spent years in government trying to cut the paid parental leave system. Not only did it try to cut it by introducing legislation twice into this parliament, which would mean you could not access both your company and government provided paid parental leave, but it did so by demonising a new mother or father in an awful way.
The now Treasurer argued it was somehow unfair if women wanted to take more time off work by accessing both schemes and that cutting paid parental leave was a fairer deal for taxpayers. The now Attorney-General backed in the fairness claims, somehow arguing that cutting paid parental leave was fairer. Then the Minister for Women argued that women should cop a cut in paid parental leave because they saw it as a trade-off for helping families with child care. But best of all was the now Prime Minister, who on Sky News told women of Australia, in the defence of the cut to paid parental leave, 'You shouldn't be able to double-dip' and 'I think it is a rort'. This is the now Prime Minister's view on the Paid Parental Leave Scheme—a rort and a double dip.
Well, today in this place, we are absolutely sick of being lectured to by the government when it comes to supporting women. This government have done nothing to support women and have spent the whole time backing in cuts. The cuts to penalty rates were another great example—penalty rates that supported more proportionately women who do weekend work in retail and hospitality. The government sat by and watched those cuts happen. They could have intervened, they could have done something, but they sat on their hands. They also argued against increases to the minimum wage that disproportionately benefit women. This was an appalling display of not understanding how tough it is out there, how tough it is to make ends meet and how tough it is on the minimum wage. Instead, they argued against the increase in the minimum wage.
They have an opportunity now before the House. There is legislation that could potentially bring in 10 days of paid domestic violence leave. Of course, the government have a bill in the parliament for five days of unpaid domestic violence leave, but we have an amendment before the House that could bring in 10 days of paid domestic violence leave. It has been disappointing to see so few people from the government on the speaking list. We have one member of the government wanting to back in unpaid domestic violence leave, as opposed to 10 days of paid domestic violence leave. But of course, we've also had the former minister for women say that domestic violence leave would just be a disincentive not to employ women, and we had the Minister for Finance say that it was somehow a drag on the economy. This is the attitude that the government has about women in Australia. The women of Australia deserve better from this government, and if the government won't provide it then the Australian Labor Party will.
If we are elected we are going to do a range of important things to improve life for Australian women. One of the significant ones is to pay superannuation on paid parental leave. This is a really important step to make sure that we increase the retirement savings of Australian women. There is more to do when it comes to Australian women's superannuation, but that's our first step.
Moore Electorate: Joondalup Men's Shed
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:45): As patron of the Joondalup Men's Shed, which is currently based at the former Padbury Senior High School site, I'm pleased to advocate for new premises for the group to meet in, and from which to operate their workshop. A purpose-built facility with a suitable long-term lease will provide the group with future certainty. More than 200 local men actively participate in the Joondalup Men's Shed. The median age of members is 65, with the youngest member being 18 years old and the oldest member aged 85.
The Joondalup Men's Shed raises funds through sponsorship and fundraising activities, such as sausage sizzles and selling handcrafted items at community fairs, in a bid to be financially self-sustainable. In addition to developing hands-on skills through practical, productive activity in the areas of woodwork, metalwork and craftsmanship the group provides friendship in a place which reaffirms the positive aspects of masculinity. Men enjoy the lack of compulsion, opportunities for hands-on productive activity, mentoring, socialising and belonging. Men can enjoy getting out of the house. Men's sheds can provide a place for some men to start to talk about a whole range of life issues, including mental health and wellbeing.
The men's shed movement promotes the positive value of leisure activity and friendship with other men, contributing to better health, fitness, relationships and emotional wellbeing. It provides a supportive environment, helping to cope with life challenges associated with unemployment, separation, ageing, disability and retirement. The men's shed movement encourages local men to develop, share and enjoy lives and identities beyond work and home. I commend the men's shed for their generous assistance provided to community groups and the donation of toys, and other handcrafted items, to many deserving local and charitable causes.
In order to meet the needs of current and forecasted membership growth, new premises are required to accommodate the group in the long term and provide certainty going forward. Ideally, the premises will include a spacious workshop area to accommodate machinery, a tools store, materials storage area, meeting room, kitchen, general purpose activity areas and associated car parking facilities. The facility should be spacious and flexible enough to accommodate for future expansion as the local population grows.
A number of sources of grants are available to secure the necessary equipment, tools and furniture required, including possible funding through Lotterywest. The local business community can also get behind the men's shed by providing financial sponsorships or equipment and materials in kind. A proposed site has been identified in the Winton Road business park in Joondalup, which will require renovation and extension to meet the needs of the group. The proposed venue is well located and accessible by public transport.
The City of Joondalup council has been very supportive in making provision of $2.7 million in its 2018-19 budget for the relocation into new premises. I commend Mayor Albert Jacob and councillors for their support of the Joondalup Men's Shed and look forward to working with the City of Joondalup and the WA state government, to bring all three levels of government—local, state and federal—to work co-operatively together with the private sector to secure the necessarily funding and corporate sponsorship for the new premises.
I understand that a detailed report is due to be presented to a future council meeting for approval. I acknowledge the dedication of president Bob Allen, secretary John Spence and treasurer Michael Robinson over many years in working to secure a more permanent location for our local Joondalup Men's Shed.
Greenway Electorate: Schofields Station
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (16:49): In September, I was pleased to rise in parliament to talk about an important development in one of the long-running community campaigns in my electorate: the urgent need for more commuter parking at Schofields train station. Federal and state Labor have announced a joint commitment of $30 million in funding to build a multistorey commuter car park at the station. This announcement is the culmination of a combined community effort to ensure that long-suffering communities in Greenway do not go ignored any longer.
This is one of the biggest issues for residents in Greenway's northern suburbs. It impacts significantly on the quality of life of residents who rely on public transport daily. Greenway is experiencing significant growth, and it is crucial that this growth is matched by public transport infrastructure. Residents in suburbs including The Ponds, Kellyville Ridge, Stanhope Gardens, Schofields, Quakers Hill and Riverstone are all impacted on by the chronic lack of parking at Schofields train station.
Following Labor's funding announcement, I call on the Liberals to match this funding commitment and to get the project started without delay. Irrespective of who wins the upcoming state election in New South Wales, or the federal election due next year, this car park needs to get built and it needs to get started now.
On 29 October I wrote to the New South Wales Liberal Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Andrew Constance, making him aware of federal and state Labor's $30 million commitment to build this car park. I reiterated the dire need for this project to the minister and I offered to make this project a bipartisan commitment so that work can begin straightaway. As of today, it's been a month since my letter, and I'm still awaiting a response from the minister. I know he's probably busy administering some of the debacles that are currently going on in transport in New South Wales, including the Sydney Light Rail, but this needs to get done as a priority.
Over the past few months it's become crystal clear just how focused the Liberals are on their own problems and divisions, without a focus on the quality-of-life issues that matter to the Australian people. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has been asleep at the wheel for more than five years when it comes to public transport infrastructure in New South Wales. Alongside the state Liberals, they've failed to listen to the community, which made its views loud and clear on the urgent need for parking upgrades at many of our stations, including at Schofields.
I heard the Deputy Prime Minister in question time this week talking about Western Sydney infrastructure. Well, he should listen to the residents of north-west Sydney, where the barriers to accessing public transport are at absolute breaking point. Schofields Station is a hub of commuter activity every weekday, but with the existing car park full well before 7 o'clock in the morning commuters are regularly forced into rushing for the trains, sometimes walking for 20 minutes or so in the rain or on uneven ground just to get to the station. By the time many residents reach the station of a morning, they've already been up for several hours—making lunches, getting their kids packed and dressed for school and preparing for work themselves. The lack of commuter parking is an added daily frustration that Greenway residents should not have to endure.
Just this week the local paper, the Rouse Hill Times, published another story about these frustrations. The residents surrounding the station are reporting that the number of cars parking them in and over their driveways causes daily frustration. Residents who work night shifts cannot park in their own streets when they arrive home. This is a problem for both commuters and residents in the streets surrounding the station. This chronic lack of parking at Schofields Station also continues to have a significant adverse impact on the nearby train stations at Quakers Hill and Riverstone. Many residents are forced to travel further afield to the stations to catch a train, causing further parking availability issues and impacting on peak-hour traffic congestion in the local area.
The Liberals have neglected the infrastructure needed to keep up with growth in Western and north-western Sydney. Their inaction at our federal and state levels is letting down the hardworking residents I represent, who already lead busy lives. Improving their quality of life should be our top priority. I implore the Liberal-National governments at a state and federal level to join Labor in the commitment to expand commuter parking at Schofields Station so the project can get underway straightaway.
I am firmly focused on improving the quality of life for my constituents and I implore the Liberals to do the same, because that is what matters to local residents: the quality of life that they lead every day and ensuring that their families have the time and attention they deserve, without the added complication of not even being able to access public transport each day.
GetUp!
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (16:54): This morning we heard that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters considers that GetUp! obstructed it by giving it false and misleading information. This afternoon I want to talk about how many people there are who think that they're members with influence in GetUp! but sadly are not. Again, that's because GetUp! is misleading them.
At the May Senate estimates, my colleague Senator Abetz asked ASIC why a schedule attached to GetUp!'s constitution, which should have listed GetUp!'s full members, was blank. GetUp! claimed that this was an accident, but in July GetUp! overhauled their constitution, abolishing any requirement to list its full members by abolishing a category of ordinary membership and by erasing all clauses about maintaining a public register of its members. This was a blatant attempt to shield GetUp!'s real members—those who actually really call the shots at GetUp!, those people who are in charge.
Last Thursday, I visited GetUp!'s Sydney office to exercise a right that everyone has under the Corporations Act to inspect GetUp!'s register of members. I'm talking about the actual members of GetUp!, GetUp Limited, the public company limited by guarantee—those people, akin to company shareholders, who really call the shots. I was prepared to walk in and see reams and reams of paper listing all of GetUp!'s members that they claim to have. But the reality is that GetUp!'s membership register does not reveal a grassroots, democratic, activist organisation; rather, it reveals an incredibly tightly controlled company. I have here a one-page register of members. That's it. The membership of GetUp! fits on one small page. Apart from its three founding members, GetUp!'s actual members, called 'full members', are its board of directors, nominated by two existing members and then approved at a full-members meeting. They relinquish their full membership when they exit GetUp!'s board, thus GetUp!'s directors are answerable only to themselves and the three founding members. Thus, GetUp!'s board is basically a self-perpetuating entity. It's a club of 11 hardcore Labor, union and left-wing activists. GetUp! promotes a fiction that it acts on the wishes of its claimed one million members, who are really only subscribers to their emails.
It saddens me when I get emails from people who think they're GetUp! members and are bewildered when they discover they're not. I had an email from Chris in my electorate, who claims he's an actual GetUp! member. I said to Chris, 'Mate, you're not a GetUp! member at all.' In fact, there's not even a person called Chris who's a member of GetUp!, yet this poor fellow believed that he was a member of this organisation when he is not. It is a shame that GetUp! is being so mischievous in this misinformation, because GetUp! is not a membership-driven organisation. Its issues based campaigns are subordinate to its deceptive left-wing and union political agenda of installing Labor and Greens governments.
Former GetUp! directors have revealed that GetUp! was formed as part of the architecture for Labor winning office and the infrastructure for defeating the coalition. Former GetUp! director Evan Thornley set out a diagram depicting GetUp!'s role as part of an apparatus for Labor retaining government. Former GetUp! director Anne Coombs has described how GetUp! grooms its members using their interests in one campaign to enlist them in others. GetUp!'s email subscribers, donors and volunteers who get involved in a particular campaign are oblivious to GetUp!'s larger political purpose. One GetUp! member wrote to me, saying:
Every year I let Getup know of the issues that are most important to me, Getup collates these surveys and acts on the issues most important.
It seems to me that a grass roots organisation funded by individuals, acting on individuals concerns is the very example of free speech.
But, in GetUp!'s 2016 Vision Survey, respondents nominated dismantling offshore detention as one of their top two, if not single, most important issues, as they have done year in and year out. Yet GetUp! misrepresented the results, because those who really control GetUp! know that the government's border protection policy has broad support. Instead, GetUp! campaigned on mythical cuts to hospitals, dovetailing with Labor's campaign, repeating this again in the Longman by-election.
So what you have is 11 hardcore union and left-wing activists—GetUp!'s actual members—who dupe people into supporting GetUp!. They dupe people to believe that they are members of GetUp! when they are not. In the last week, GetUp! took out full-page ads paid for by people who think they're members, and they are not.
The SPEAKER: It being 5 pm, the House stands adjourned until 10 am next Monday.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Ms M. M. H. King: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, and for related purposes. (National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2018)
Ms M. M. H. King: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Government:
(i) established a panel to review the Small Amount Credit Contract (SACC) laws on 7 August 2015, which provided its final report to the Government on 3 March 2016; and
(ii) released its response to the SACC review on 28 November 2016, in which it agreed with the vast majority of the recommendations in part or in full;
(b) the then Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, the current Minister for Industrial Relations, Jobs and Women, said at the time that ‘the implementation of these recommendations will ensure that vulnerable consumers are afforded appropriate levels of consumer protection while continuing to access SACCs and leases’;
(c) the Minister claimed in an interview on Lateline on 28 February 2017 that Treasury was drafting legislation to implement the review’s recommendations;
(d) a consultation draft of SACC legislation was published by Treasury on 23 October 2017 but was only open for comment for two weeks; and
(e) it has since been 1,209 days since the commencement of the SACC review, and 729 days since the publication of the final report;
(2) acknowledges that consumer credit contracts and consumer leases have been shown to cause unnecessary hardship to vulnerable consumers, and that the Parliament should act to protect vulnerable consumers;
(3) recognises that the delay in introducing legislation for consideration by the Parliament, to implement the SACC review recommendations, results in unnecessary continuation of hardship to vulnerable consumers and their families; and
(4) calls on the Government to introduce legislation, for consideration by the Parliament, to implement the SACC review recommendations as a matter of urgency.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:00.
Werriwa Electorate: Schools
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (10:00): As the end of the year draws near, it's time for many of the schools across my electorate to celebrate and reflect on their achievements this year. It has been both a privilege and a pleasure to spend time across the diverse spectrum of Werriwa schools over the past few weeks. Today, I would like to speak briefly about some of the things going on in these schools.
On Saturday night, 10 November, I attended Unity Grammar's Reach For The Stars Gala 10th year anniversary celebration. It was a very special night. The school showcased the incredible talents of its diverse students and staff, not only academically but also in community and charitable works. Unity Grammar is a shining example of a vibrant multicultural community, educating Australia's leaders of tomorrow. They have achieved so much in the past 10 years. I can't wait to see how the community grows and flourishes in the 10 years ahead.
Two weeks ago, I attended the girls high school graduation at Amity College. Amity College is another stand-out example of a dynamic, supportive multicultural community in my electorate. I am always blown away by Amity's results in the HSC and the incredible things its students go forth to achieve. Amity College has a long, proud history in my electorate. It was first built by Turkish families with a vision of quality education. It has grown into a thriving, multicampus community. It was a privilege to help send off their latest graduating cohort. I know that they will all make the Amity community and the rest of us proud.
A few weeks ago, I had the exciting task of presenting Thomas Hassall Anglican College with a parliamentary chamber flag. This flag flew outside the House of Representatives on 22 August. This was the day that the school opened their new sports centre. The Rawdon Middleton VC Sports Complex is a state-of-the-art facility, and I hope it will be enjoyed by students and community members for generations to come.
To mark Remembrance Day on 11 November, I joined with the principal, staff and students of Cecil Hills High School to dedicate their new, beautiful remembrance garden. One of their retired teachers has done a lot of planting and other things in the garden. The garden focuses on a local soldier, Lawrence Hanna, who lived in Liverpool, whom the students had looked into and found out about. It was especially momentous to be at the service with Mr Hanna's daughters and granddaughters. Lest we forget.
It is always a pleasure and an honour to be asked to events in my electorate. I want to celebrate the students and teachers of all the schools in my electorate, who do such a great job every day with our upcoming children.
Banks Electorate: Community Organisations
Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (10:03): On 23 November, I attended the St George Creative Art and Craft Centre annual exhibition in Penshurst. This is a fantastic event every year. The St George Creative Art and Craft Centre has been around since 1978 in the old Pole Depot building in Penshurst. Over that time, literally thousands and thousands of people, especially kids, have been through the centre, learning about art and craft and challenging themselves in painting and drawing, and in so many other parts of the creative arts. It is a wonderful organisation, and it has some fantastic people behind it.
I want to thank Margaret Conlon, who has recently been elected president again. Margaret has worked at the centre in a voluntary capacity for many years, and we're all very grateful for her efforts. I also want to congratulate the kids who received the Banks Outstanding Achievement Awards on the evening for their efforts at St George Creative Art and Craft. The arts have been around for basically as long as human beings have been around, and there is a reason for that. They're very important. They're a critical part of our society. It was wonderful to celebrate the local achievements in Penshurst last week.
On 16 November I visited Padstow Community Care, a wonderful organisation which does great work in our local community. It was great to announce that Padstow Community Care will receive over $600,000 in funding under the federal government's Financial Wellbeing and Capability grants. Manager Grant Heslop, Jamie Wendt, Jenny Antognelli, Trudy Soligo, Donna Johnson and the many other people involved in Padstow Community Care do wonderful work with people in our community going through difficult times. I thank them for their work, which has extended over many years now.
On 4 November I attended the Penshurst RSL Junior Rugby League Football Club presentation day at Evatt Park in Lugarno. Penshurst RSL is a great rugby league club. It has been around since 1961, one of the longest-standing in our entire region. It was wonderful to present Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement Awards to some of the young league players at the club. I thank President Graham Chong Sun, vice-presidents Richard Morgan and Chu'mana Lee, Secretary Dave Cahill and Treasurer Steve Rogers. It's a fantastic organisation, one of the strongest rugby league clubs anywhere in Sydney, and it was a great pleasure to visit on that day.
Lawler, Mr Thomas 'Tommy'
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (10:06): I pay my respects to Tommy Lawler, a dedicated family man, Territory firefighter, local footy legend and, although I can't attest to this, a terrible fisherman. Sadly, Tommy lost his long battle with cancer on 27 October this year. He was born on 3 December 1957. I knew Tommy well. He was a wonderful human being. He was tough as teak, but he was honest, loyal, a wonderful family man and, as others have described him, a straight-up bloke. He leaves behind a legacy to be proud of. He was a devoted family man to his wonderful wife, Eva Lawler MLA, who is a minister in the Northern Territory government; his two children, Kirby and Lindsay; and his two young grandchildren. He was someone you wanted to be around. He was a larrikin. As I said, he was loyal and honest, and generous to a fault. He was also a bit of a practical joker and could tell, as a lot of Territorians do, a bloody good yarn. Tom and his family lived in my electorate in both Coolalinga and Alice Springs for over 30 years, and he was very well connected to the community.
He was, as you would expect, a Labor Party member and a member of our Northern Rural Branch. He has always been there to help out. During the last federal election campaign, in 2016, he did many thousands of kilometres with our branch president, Anthony Venes, campaigning and looking after our local polling booths. Tommy was also a life member of United Voice, which is a testament to the fight he fought for Territory firefighters for a cancer compensation scheme. Tom was diagnosed with leukaemia in 2006 at the age of 47, which was a bit surprising to the doctors, who said that this type of leukaemia was normally for a much older person. As we know, firefighting is tough, and firefighters in general are two, three and sometimes five times more likely to get cancer as a result of their work. In their line of work they come across all sorts of toxins. Even though they wear protective clothing, inhalation and absorption through the skin quite often cannot be stopped.
Tommy's application for compensation was first rejected due to Territory laws at the time, which placed the burden of proof onto firefighters. It was Tommy's continued fight, with help of mates such as Jock McLeod, that saw the legislation finally get through and compensation payable. Presumptive legislation has now been introduced into the Northern Territory. Firefighters, including volunteers, now get the respect they deserve. The legislation has been made retrospective to 2011. That's a boon as a result of his sacrifice and the work that he has done. Tommy played football for the Darwin Buffaloes. He was a great football man and a great person. Vale Tommy Lawler. Old Buffaloes never die.
Roleystone/Karragullen Cricket Club
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (10:09): I rise to share with the House an exciting project, in my electorate of Canning, that I believe to be deserving of this government's support. The Roleystone/Karragullen Cricket Club has been around since 1950. For almost 75 years they've been an important part of the Hills community. Today, they're one of the biggest clubs in the city of Armadale. They're the only cricket club in the city with a first grade men's team, a junior girls' team and a senior women's team. They've been serious about getting girls involved in the game and now boast more female Junior Blasters than any other club in Western Australia. They're the only club in the state to offer free membership for juniors. This is made possible through the fees of senior players and by additional fundraising. I think they are an absolute credit to the Roleystone and Karragullen community.
The club is also marked by a spirit of independence and self-determination. Recently I met with club president John Lewis for a tour around the grounds and to talk about the issues. They've come a long way since the fifties, when the field wasn't so flat and it paid to be hitting downhill. The improvements are largely thanks to the club's own effort. They recently built their own training nets, paid for through community fundraising and constructed by the members themselves. But the club lacks facilities. There is no canteen and there are no toilets and change rooms. The clubhouse itself, while filled with character, has seen better days. Many of the kids currently get changed in an old nearby public toilet that should have been condemned years ago. This is a problem also shared by the nearby Roleystone Netball Club.
For a long time the Roleystone/Karragullen Cricket Club has been working on a solution. They're not just looking for a handout. Over the past 10 years the club has raised $250,000 towards a new pavilion that would meet the needs of their growing members. They've also reached an agreement with the netball club that would make this a joint facility, capable of meeting both of their needs and available for use by the whole community.
But there's still a long way to go. Despite their outstanding efforts in fundraising, the club still needs $500,000 to make this dream a reality. And so, through the City of Armadale, the cricket and netball clubs have applied for a Community Sport Infrastructure grant, offered by this government. The grant program is designed to help provide new infrastructure to sporting organisations. That will get more people active and improve community participation. It is my view that this project more than qualifies, especially when you consider that they have raised the first $250,000 on their own. It is an incredible effort.
Today I'll be meeting with the Minister for Sport, Senator Bridget McKenzie, to make the case for them. Over the coming weeks I'll be working with the Roleystone community to make this project a reality.
Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (10:12): Recently I was disturbed to learn that scores of community organisations were to be stripped of federal funding from the Financial Wellbeing and Capability Activity program emergency relief stream. One of the organisations affected by this decision is the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service Inc, which services my electorate. Riverstone is an area of Greenway that is going through tremendous change—once a rural area but now home to so many new people, with huge growth in housing estates, but with significant pockets of great socioeconomic disadvantage. The determinations made to cut the funding were both callous and reckless, particularly given that emergency relief funding supports the most vulnerable in our community. Some of the residents of Riverstone who have benefited from this have very challenging circumstances.
The existing funding arrangements had ensured that the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service was well equipped to provide material support to those in need with such things as food hampers, clothes and utilities vouchers in times of crisis. But the centre also views intergenerational inequality as a significant long-term issue and believes that long-term strategies are essential to address the challenges facing those households. Accordingly, emergency relief funding administered by the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service is also dedicated to providing a range of services beyond material support, including financial counselling, no-interest loans, family support programs, drug and alcohol counselling, family violence support and mental health services.
The centre is the only service provider of its kind in the Riverstone area and delivers these significant services with a small funding pool. It is readily available for local residents, many of whom experience serious mobility issues or simply cannot afford to travel considerable distances for support. I pay tribute to all their staff and volunteers. This government's bungling of the approval process for emergency relief placed all of these important initiatives at risk. It did so recklessly in the lead up to Christmas. The last-minute backflip to extend the funding by a year by the newly appointed minister, Paul Fletcher, lays bare this government's totally dysfunctional state. So I'm pleased to see that the Riverstone centre is now going to be in receipt of federal funding extended into 2019, but the question remains whether organisations like the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service will be required to submit to a competitive process at the end of 2019, despite the fact that the funding sought in 2018 was for a longer tender. Community groups like Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service deserve certainty. They do not deserve to be subjected to any further reckless and callous decisions of this government, which are clearly a result of its dysfunction and mismanagement.
Australian Hotels Association (New South Wales) Awards for Excellence
Lifesaving World Championships
Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Speaker) (10:15): There are many reasons why people love living on the northern beaches of the Coffs Coast, and why tourists flock to our region throughout the year, not the least of which is the wonderful hospitality industry we have, which has recently been recognised in the AHA awards. Congratulations to the North Coast Hotel Group, which includes both the Moonee Beach Tavern and the Seaview Tavern in Woolgoolga. Winning the Best Family Friendly Hotel award was the Moonee Beach Tavern. The tavern is renowned for its community involvement, and it has a kids corner that makes the tavern a very family-friendly venue. Well done to director, Harry Barry, and his wife, Jennifer, as well as the rest of the management staff—Mark Pearce, Damien and Sylvia Duggan, and Tim Hayden. In the Chef of the Year category, the Seaview Tavern chef, Gerard Geerligs, was highly commended, which was a great achievement given that the category attracted some 200 entrants. Congratulations, Gerard!
Last week, the Lifesaving World Championships were held in Adelaide, with the Yamba Surf Club sending boat crews and individuals to compete. The women's boat crew, consisting of Leah Essex, Jo King, Andrea Nikas, Tash Hancock and sweep, Ray Wiblen, won a bronze medal in their division of the masters 160-plus years category and narrowly missed qualifying for the women's reserves quarterfinals. The men's reserves crew, consisting of Dylan Greeff, Michael Barker, Zac Brotherson, Ray Wiblen and sweep, Rodney McSkimming, surged through the heats and qualified easily for the final on points. The final was a close race, with Yamba being pipped at the post. To claim a silver medal on the world stage is a great achievement, given that this crew has only been together for just over a year. It was also the first time they had ever made it to the podium. There were some very impressive individual results as well, with Dylan Greeff finishing eighth in the two-kilometre run and David Frakes placing seventh in the over-70s ski race. My congratulations to all the competitors!
Last week, the Woolgoolga Surf Life Saving Club travelled to Adelaide to compete in the 2018 Lifesaving World Championships, coming home with a bronze medal . The open women's crew consisted of Katherine White, Rachel Kee, Julie-Anne Templeton, Meg Matthews and sweep, Damien McSkimming. This was Woolgoolga surf club's first time competing at the international event, and to win a medal is an outstanding achievement. Congratulations to all the crews that took part, and I would also like to thank the boat captain, Trevor Clarke, for the wonderful job that he does at the club.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:18): I rise today in response to a call made to me from local early intervention services for children with disabilities in my electorate. They are very concerned that there are currently 560 children who will be starting school in late January and who, at that point in their first year of school, won't be involved in the NDIS. This is alarming. Sitting behind them are another 1,400 children who will require support who need to be transferred quickly into the NDIS.
The NDIS only rolled out in my electorate in October this year, and I have to say, if I go back in time to the rollout plans for the NDIS, I took some comfort from the notion that most of the issues with the NDIS would be rolled out, because we all know that rolling out a large program like this for the first time across the nation is going to be difficult work. There are going to be problems that arise as the implementation progresses. So I took some comfort from the notion that being late in the rollout would mean that those people in my electorate who were in need of support in this program would have smooth sailing through the system. Lo and behold, that's not true. That is not true for the young people across the western region of Melbourne—2,000 of them, from zero to four years of age—who will be going into this system now without an advocate and without support. Some will be starting school with no support for, potentially, six months. This is just not good enough.
Of course, we're not surprised, because the NDIS has been through the merry-go-round of ministers, as we've seen. What this government has done with this incredibly important initiative is that they've taken a hands-off, arms-length approach. We have ministers on the other side and parliamentary secretaries on the other side who refuse to get their hands dirty in the nitty-gritty detail of what is a critically important program across this country. It is now going to impact on four-year-old children starting school. It's going to impact on their scores, it's going to impact on their teachers and it's going to impact on their families, as they are unsupported in this transition. I call on this government and I call on Minister Fletcher, the member for Bradfield, to get his hands dirty in the NDIS rollout, to make sure that we're ironing out the issues as we go and, please, to intervene to ensure that the funding gets put in place to ensure that these children get the support they need now. This can't wait until January; the action needs to be taken now.
Hinkler Electorate: Regional Deal
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (10:21): I rise to discuss the regional pilot deal that was announced in recent weeks for the electorate of Hinkler. In my electorate, between Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, we have roughly 105,000 voters. As many of the people in this chamber know, as they have heard me talk about this before, we have some challenging circumstances. In fact, the per capita income for my electorate is just $34,000 per year. It has been at that low level, or certainly on the bottom of the statistical area, for many years—in fact, some decades. That is unacceptable. We have challenges around high levels unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, and multigenerational welfare dependence.
Earlier in the year we did get manage to get legislation through for the implementation of a trial of the cashless debit card in my area. That is a tougher but necessary policy. To dovetail with that rollout, we have announced the Hinkler Regional Deal as a pilot program for the electorate. This is about addressing the local economy, because stronger regional economies mean more local jobs. As local members, that is something we all strive for.
Between the two regional council areas, between the Bundaberg Regional Council and the Fraser Coast Regional Council, they are already working on proposals and they are already looking at projects with potential. I look forward to seeing what they put forward. Discussions at official-to-official level have commenced. Of course, the state government does need to be involved. The great benefit of a regional deal like this is that it ties all three levels of government to an economic plan, to an economic strategy, which they are committed to and which is funded. But we need all three levels to be on board.
Whilst I have tried—diligently, I must say—to have meetings with both the Premier and the Deputy Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk and Jackie Trad, to date I have not been successful; but I believe I do have a meeting in a couple of weeks. We need the state to be on board. We need them to demonstrate their commitment, because they are not just a state government for the south-east corner. They should be a government for all of Queensland.
I congratulate our local councils. They are acting diligently. They are working to put together real projects with real economic benefits, but we should consider what we can do with additional linking infrastructure. There is an opportunity here to put in place significant road infrastructure, in particular. In Hervey Bay, I know that they are very passionate about finishing the Boundary Road extension, a project that has been on the table for two decades. That will provide another north-south route through Hervey Bay without having to travel through those very heavily populated and trafficked areas of Main Street, Boat Harbour Drive and along the Charlton Esplanade.
This is about driving local jobs. The projects that have been put forward, such as the presentations proposing the development of a central business district in Hervey Bay and tourist attractions into Bundaberg, will all be considered. But we need to ensure that we have realistic views, that we are putting forward realistic projects and that everyone is on board. Once again, I call on the Premier of Queensland to commit to this project and commit to delivering for our people.
Broadband
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10:24): 1,799: that is the number of residents who have been in touch with me about problems with the NBN since the Liberals were elected in 2013. This number includes people who have waited unacceptable periods of time to be connected. In particular, there are those residents who are still waiting to be connected due to the government's bundling of the HFC rollout. In my electorate, there are 4,500 homes that have been impacted by the delay. Most of those homes will now be waiting until 2020 to be connected. David from Sheidow Park has been impacted. He said:
The ongoing delay of the rollout of the NBN to Sheidow Park is extremely frustrating.
The NBN currently finishes at my back fence. My mobile has a faster connection than my house!
Out of those 1,799 people, there are those who are connected to the Liberals' copper based NBN, only to receive slow and unreliable broadband—often slower than they previously had with their ADSL connection. There are people like Peter from Aberfoyle Park, who was connected to the fibre-to-the-node NBN and since has been incredibly unhappy with the speeds. He's also unhappy because his connection drops out when it rains. Peter was going to set up a business at his home but, because of the poor and unreliable internet connection, he's setting up a business in a suburb kilometres away. Poor NBN is actually driving business out of our community.
Of course, then there are the people who contacted me because they've been unhappy with the service provided by NBN Co. I could provide many examples of poor service in my local community, but I'll just stick with one today. A resident from O'Halloran Hill contacted me after an NBN Co technician turned up to his property unannounced, apparently to fix a fault in the line. Long story short, the technician ended up severing the internet cable for both his and his neighbour's properties. When there is an NBN fault, often there will be a blame game going on between NBN Co and the service provider. This gentleman and his neighbour had to go back and forth and back and forth with NBN Co to get them to fix it. Eventually, three weeks later, it was fixed. People do not want a blame game; they just want decent service. They want a fast internet connection. This is what they were promised, but they are not getting it.
The problems that are happening with NBN Co are unacceptable. It is time that this government took seriously fixing the internet problems that many residents continue to have and took seriously the importance of the internet, because residents in my electorate do. (Time expired)
Corangamite Electorate: Infrastructure
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite—Assistant Minister for Social Services, Housing and Disability Services) (10:27): I rise this morning to call on the Victorian Labor government, in particular Premier Daniel Andrews, to start investing properly in roads and rail infrastructure across the region I proudly represent, including the Corangamite electorate. That includes investing in a high-speed rail service from Geelong to Melbourne and right down the Warrnambool line. Very disappointingly, the Morrison government has delivered $254 million—a quarter of a billion dollars—for the Geelong rail duplication project, the upgrade of the Warrnambool line, and in four years Labor delivered only $20 million. In the state election Daniel Andrews did a lot of talking about delivering, but for our region he did very little, and that is incredibly disappointing. The best we got was an election commitment, but what we need is high-speed rail akin to what the Liberals committed to, which is a metro line opening the Colac to Bannockburn line and also a new service for Werribee through to Waurn Ponds.
We need an upgraded Hamilton Highway, which is more like a goat track than a highway. We need guaranteed ongoing funding for the Great Ocean Road. It's of particular concern that Darren Cheeseman has been elected as the member for South Barwon, because when he was the member for Corangamite he did not support funding the Great Ocean Road. In fact, he accused the Liberals of saying we were going to build a four-lane highway. He had such little intellectual rigour in his assessment of the importance of that road that he did not back it. So I'm calling on Labor to back the Great Ocean Road, to deliver the funding commitments that we've made to regional roads and to get on with the work.
We've delivered $5 million to the Forest-Apollo Bay Road safety upgrade, and very little work has been done—none of the slow pull-out lanes that Labor committed to. We need an upgraded Deans Marsh-Lorne Road. We need to ensure that the Princes Highway duplication is of a proper standard. Too many parts of that road have not been built to standard and have had to be redone. We need a proper western road link for Geelong and, of course, Labor's West Gate Tunnel Project. Labor committed to commute savings of 20 minutes for Geelong commuters and, of course, we've now discovered that that was not the truth. It's 10 minutes at best.
We need a proper road link from the ring-road extended through to the Bellarine Peninsula. It's taken Labor four years to get going on the Drysdale bypass. There have been too many failings on roads and infrastructure in our region. Labor needs to get serious and get on with these projects, and start putting money into the regions, particularly into the Corangamite electorate and into south-west Victoria.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): If no member present objects, three-minute statements will continue for another 30 minutes.
Richmond Electorate: Charitable Organisations
Richmond Electorate: Community Services
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (10:30): I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all those local residents who have supported my Christmas toy drive again this year. The overwhelming generosity and kindness of our community is truly inspiring. Donations of new toys are flowing in from right across our area. This will hopefully put some smiles upon the faces of local children this Christmas. One of the most wonderful things about our region on the New South Wales North Coast is the strength of our community spirit. Last year, local residents donated over 200 toys for my first Christmas toy drive, and we're on track to help even more children this year. We all know there are lots of families who do it tough, especially at this time of year. Unfortunately, that means there's often not much left in the budget for presents, so it's great that, together as a community, we can help bring the magic of Christmas to children in need right across our area. This year the toys will be wrapped by volunteers and distributed to local families by the Salvation Army. I'd like to thank and acknowledge the Salvos for their involvement in the toy drive. I also acknowledge the role of the local VIEW club in collecting presents, and I especially thank Rosie for her role and leadership in this particular project. I'd also like to recognise John Lee from the local charity You Have A Friend, who last year distributed the toys, and I acknowledge his ongoing support for those in need in our community. We're still accepting toys, so I encourage locals if they want to make a donation to please bring new, unwrapped toys to my office by 14 December.
I also want to mention a great number of local projects and funding announcements that are happening in my electorate of Richmond under the Stronger Communities Program, and I want to acknowledge and thank the state Labor candidates for Tweed, Lismore and Ballina for their strong advocacy and support of all these projects. Recently in Murwillumbah I announced more than $9,000 for the Wedgetail Retreat to fund the upgrade of their bathroom facilities. Wedgetail Retreat is a purpose-built hospice providing care for those at the end of life requiring palliative care and support. I commend the remarkable work that they do at Wedgetail: it is outstanding. The Tyalgum Community Hall Association received more than $7,000 in funding from this program to refurbish the main hall and stage floors. This is an outstanding country hall with a rich history, which will greatly benefit from this restoration.
We recently made two other fantastic announcements in Ballina. Firstly, Ballina Jetboat Surf Rescue received $9,000 in federal funding to purchase a replacement rescue jet ski—very important. Ballina Jetboat Surf Rescue has a 43-year record of saving lives. We were also at the Ballina Fox Street Preschool, who received $13,000 for the ongoing development of their outdoor interactive garden space. The kids certainly enjoy that; it's a remarkable garden space they have improved on. I'd like to congratulate everyone on those projects in Ballina. I look forward to further announcements in the Tweed tomorrow: we will have some other announcements under the Stronger Communities Program at the South Tweed Bowls Club, the Salt Surf Life Saving Club and the Kingscliff Mini School, and many more exciting announcements for other projects in the coming weeks.
Petrie Electorate
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (10:33): Earlier this week I asked locals on my Facebook page what they wanted me to raise in parliament. Shirley Watts would like to get rid of political pensions and perks. I can confirm, Shirley, that members elected after 2004 will not receive political pensions, including people like the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison: he was elected in 2007 and will not receive a political pension. These changes have been made. They came in 2004.
Jacquie Nunn said she would like to see citizenship removed from dual citizens who are known terrorist offenders, and Jane Uksi wants to ensure our borders are safe. Ladies, the Prime Minister made a statement on 22 November 2018, along with the Minister of Home Affairs, that addressed this. We already strip terrorists of their citizenship if they have dual citizenship but that requires, currently, a sentence of six years or more. We will be moving this week and next week to make sure that we remove that requirement and toughen up the law so, if people are convicted of terrorism and they have dual citizenship, their Australian citizenship will be able to be removed.
Craig Brown asked me my position on the sale of the North Lakes Golf Course. I am against the sale of the North Lakes Golf Course. I'm against the rezoning of it from sport and recreation to residential. I've called on the council to not accept a DA and to vote against it. North Lakes is built around that golf course. I'll be fighting hard to make sure it remains a golf course. We already lack sport and recreation facilities in Griffin, North Lakes and Mango Hill.
Gary Von Dohlen wants an MRI machine for Redcliffe Hospital. I am currently fighting to make sure I get an MRI licence for the Petrie area.
Barry Grant and David Unwin would like the Bruce Highway upgraded. We have funded six lanes all the way from Caboolture to the Sunshine Coast. They're currently working on the new Caloundra Road and Sunshine Coast Motorway interchange. That's a good thing.
John Williams also commented. Terrip Anala said her biggest concern was lies being told by the Labor Party. That is a concern. At the moment there is the website laborlies.com.au. That will address all of the lies you are so concerned about.
I thank the people in my electorate for commenting on my page. I will get through more of them. I will do my best to continue to represent you well here.
Centenary of Armistice
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (10:36): The Centenary of Anzac 2014-18 is one of the most important commemorative periods in Australia's history. This year Remembrance Day marked 100 years since the Armistice of the First World War. I was privileged to support community groups to commemorate this solemn anniversary through the Armistice Centenary Grants Program. The program allowed grants for community based projects and activities to commemorate the end of the First World War, to remember Australian service men and women from all conflicts and to reflect on a just and secure peace. I was pleased to bring together local RSL sub-branch representatives and the National Servicemen's Association to select the local projects. I would like to acknowledge and thank for their participation in the panel: Steven Reynolds from The Entrance Long Jetty RSL Sub-branch, David Pankhurst from the Ourimbah-Lisarow RSL Sub-branch, Mr Bob Wilson from the Toukley RSL Sub-branch, Bill Hansen of the National Servicemen's Association Tuggerah Lakes Branch and David Mehan, member for The Entrance and keen military historian.
Out of a number of applications, the panel supported: the Wyong Family History Group and their commemorative banner project on Tuggerah Strait; Bupa Aged Care Bateau Bay to restore a World War I monument and host a quilting project; the National Servicemen's Association's sandstone memorial on the grounds of the Glenvale School for Excellence in Special Education at The Entrance North; the Wyong RSL Sub-branch in partnership with Central Coast Council to construct a memorial at Jilliby Cemetery for Australian service men and women from the Wyong region who contributed to the Australian war efforts; and the installation of life-sized bronze statues at the Toukley RSL Sub-branch cenotaph.
Our community honours and remembers the great sacrifice made by all Australian service men and women throughout our country's history and in particular those from the Central Coast. We'll remember the solemn sacrifice that played such a formative role in shaping our nation's identity. On Remembrance Day I was with community members of the Toukley RSL Sub-branch and earlier with the Tuggerah Lakes Nashos. We heard from local teenager Mia Thomas, whose great-great-grandfather Captain Alfred Shout was awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery in battle shortly before he died from injuries in August 1915.
The First World War touched the lives of many families, including my own. My great-great-grandfather William Henry Murray enlisted in 1915 and saw combat at Gallipoli. He was promoted to lance corporal and, whilst serving in France in the 2nd Australian Pioneer Battalion, he was awarded the military medal for conspicuous bravery for assisting wounded troops under heavy fire.
On behalf of the people of the Central Coast I would like to acknowledge and support the work done by community groups, the RSL sub-branches and the National Servicemen's Association in their care for all returned service men and women, who have given their all to Australia at home and abroad in all conflicts and peacekeeping operations. I conclude by thanking all the community groups, the RSL sub-branches and the National Servicemen's Association for their contribution to the commemorations on the Central Coast.
Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (10:39): Today I would like to update the House on the fantastic process being made to reactivate the Repat, in my electorate of Boothby. This is an issue I've been working on and fighting for for years. The Repat, formerly the Repatriation General Hospital, cared for our returned service men and women and servicemen's widows for more than 70 years. It was also a wonderful community hospital for residents in my electorate—that is, until the former state Labor government closed the Repat hospital in 2017 as part of its disastrous and, quite frankly, disgraceful Transforming Health strategy. The federal Labor opposition, I note, stood by and let this happen. This was a terrible blow to my community and reduced access to health services for residents in southern Adelaide and, in particular, reduced access to vital therapy and mental health services for our veterans. Together with my state colleagues Sam Duluk MP, Carolyn Power MP, Health Minister Stephen Wade and Premier Steven Marshall and our community, I have fought to see health services returned to the precinct, including the hydrotherapy pool, which reopened in May this year.
Not too long ago, I updated the House on community consultation that was underway to hear directly from my community and clinicians about the services they want to see return to the site. Last month the South Australian Liberal government released the results of this community consultation, and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank each and every local resident and our wonderful clinicians and health professionals who took the time to have their say about the future of this very important precinct. I would especially like to acknowledge Professor Warren Jones for his tireless work to see services returned to the Repat.
The report released by the South Australian government has identified four key priority areas, being mental health, day surgery, transitional care, and rehabilitation for brain and spinal injuries, as the services most needed in our community. At the same time, the Minister for Health, Stephen Wade, announced that 20 beds will reopen at the Repat by the end of this year, adding to the 20 beds already open to support our community. This will help take some pressure off our health system, which has been struggling to meet demand as a result of the devastating actions taken by the former state Labor government under the banner of Transforming Health.
The services that are being activated at the Repat are critical to support the senior Australians in my community and our veterans community. The Repat is a truly iconic site that not only provided health services to my community but also maintained the heritage buildings, memorial gardens and chapel that have very significant sentimental value to so many people in our local area, particularly our Vietnam veterans. That's why I will continue to work closely with my state and federal colleagues to do all I can to fight for the very best reactivated Repat hospital that I can deliver for my community.
Broadband
Mr HILL (Bruce) (10:42): It would be hard to pick the worst NBN stuff-up, but Mr Chaslett's business in Springvale would surely be a contender for that prize. It's a local software development business. Mr Chaslett signed his lease for his business in mid-2018. He did this on the basis of a clear commitment that the NBN would be available on 7 September. He even prudently built in a month or so to his business plan to allow for delays. He started off employing six people, anticipating to grow quickly over summer. He is now stuck in limbo because of the Liberals' HFC rollout freeze. It's going to cost him between $50,000 and $100,000 a month now over summer, because he can't employ more people.
Possibly the most ridiculous part is that 10 shops in the strip can get the NBN and 10 shops can't. Mr Chaslett's shop is right next door to a shop which can get the NBN. That is a social club, so they don't need the NBN. Mr Chaslett has thought about punching through the wall and paying them for their connection, and that may be what he resorts to soon. He made reasonable business decisions based on the information provided but he is now left high and dry. The NBN won't even give a clear commitment to when he can get it so he can plan. They say, 'We expect,' sort of waffle, 'maybe January, maybe not'—weasel words. It's ridiculous.
This is a business that wants to expand. His business line is software for the construction industry. I said to him: 'It sounds a bit weird, mate. Were you really going to put more people on over December-January and ramp up business?' He said: 'Yeah. What you need to understand is that my business does a lot of work with the Northern Hemisphere, and, when we're quoting to big jobs in America and Europe, that's exactly when they want tenders in, because they're in winter and they're getting ready for their summer construction season. They don't shut down for a month.' So it made perfect sense. He has planned properly. He has got a plan to employ more people in Springvale, but the NBN Co cannot get its act together to punch through the wall.
This week marks the one year anniversary of the HFC rollout freeze. Back then, the mind-bending press release from the minister was headed: 'NBN Co takes customer experience program to new levels'. It was announcing that the HFC rollout was being frozen. The fact is that, one year on, the latest NBN weekly report indicates 1.3 million premises in NBN-ready areas can't order a service. So, despite the fact that 12 months of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has rolled on, instead of fixing this mess, the government has continued to eat itself alive. It's amazing how many Liberal MPs are sitting opposite, given that most of their colleagues are stuck in crisis meetings around the building, trying to stop the government from collapsing. I hope that someone will pay attention and connect Mr Chaslett's business to the NBN.
Girls Take Over Parliament
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (10:45): Yesterday, I joined 30 other members of parliament in the Jasiri's Girls Take Over Parliament challenge. This program pairs young women and girls with politicians to ensure their voices and opinions are heard. Through this, I was paired with 20-year-old Canberra local, Jess, a disability support worker and representative from Girl Guides. Jess spent the day with me yesterday and experienced parliament through the lens of a politician, attending various meetings to gain an insight into what I do day-to-day, including helping to write this speech. Throughout the day, I learnt that Jess is passionate about supporting people with various needs and ensuring that they are heard and supported. In her spare time, for example, she volunteers for the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and is a member of the Girl Guides. She enjoys running workshops for young women to support them to become fearless leaders. Through Girl Guides, she has been able to learn about how to advocate for what she truly believes in—building the future for our children and our grandchildren to come.
At just 20 years old, Jess has taken part in campaigns like Stop the Violence and, through the Jasiri organisation, she has been involved in the Supre Foundation. Through this, she has learnt about gendered and image based violence and how to support those who have been targeted. Image based bullying has a serious mental and physical impact on the people whose images are shared. Talking about this incredibly common issue can save lives. It is these skills that she has learnt through these opportunities that have shaped the way she lives her life.
The Girls Take Over Parliament program is inspiring young women and girls just like Jess to be national leaders. Ninety-five per cent of those who have participated in the program have said that they want to be politicians after their experience. This youth-led program is inspiring young leaders, girls, to represent and stand up for gender equality. It's starting conversations, changing futures and removing barriers. It's also making way for future policymakers, politicians and prime ministers.
I was proud to join the movement yesterday and I was also proud to have Jess join me in my office, particularly as someone who is also advocating for the women and girls in my life. Being the husband of my wife, Grace, and the father of my daughter, Yasmin, I am a passionate advocate for women in my electorate and nationally as well. I was proud to have Jess, and I thank her and all those involved in the Girls Take Over Parliament challenge for their wonderful program and activities yesterday in Parliament.
International Human Rights Education
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (10:48): Yesterday, I had the pleasure of addressing the 9th annual International Conference on Human Rights Education at Western Sydney University. It's a great initiative, which was first convened in 2010 by Dr Sev Ozdowski, the Director of Equity and Diversity at Western Sydney University, following the completion of his term as the Australian Human Rights Commissioner.
This year's conference was significant as it commemorated two very significant events on the human rights calendar, notably the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 25th anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, particularly in relation to education. The conference promoted a productive discussion on human rights issues engulfing our region and around the globe and focused on an international multidisciplinary approach.
The conference was well attended. The attendees included international human rights experts, practitioners in the field, decision-makers, academics, representatives of human rights organisations and, most notably, international representation from Amnesty itself. The event covered a range of human rights issues, such as international curricula, pedagogy and best practices from various nations, and also dealt with discrimination faced by First Nations people, women, persons with disabilities, people from the LGBTI communities and, in particular, refugees and people from ethnic and religious minority backgrounds. As the co-chair of Australian Parliamentarians Against the Death Penalty, I was invited to speak. I addressed the conference on contemporary issues surrounding the use of the death penalty and the global efforts towards its abolition. This necessitated my being involved in a broader discussion, particularly in relation to nations we are working with and the levels of respect for the rule of law. I emphasised that we must appreciate that when the rule of law is being sidelined bad things are going to happen and, inevitably, the first casualty is always human rights. I used the Philippines experience, particularly in relation to their program of extrajudicial executions, as a case study for my discussion.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Western Sydney University, and particularly Dr Sev Ozdowski OAM for hosting this brilliant event and for his tireless advocacy in relation to human rights. To quote Desmond Tutu:
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.
Turramurra Trotters
North Shore Temple Emanuel
StreetWork
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Families and Social Services) (10:51): I would like to acknowledge a diverse range of organisations in my electorate of Bradfield. I would first like to acknowledge the Turramurra Trotters, which is a group of fitness enthusiasts, based in the suburb of Turramurra, who have been gathering regularly since 1974 to hold regular runs around the beautiful North Shore leafy suburb of Turramurra and surrounding regions. They first came together as a training group for the City2Surf. Over the years, their coordinator and leader, Alan Cole, has done tremendous work in keeping them together, in organising events and in recording times. On Saturday I was pleased to join the group at 6:30 am to go for a 6.5 kilometre run through the leafy streets of Turramurra, which is mostly fairly flat but with one or two fairly hilly bits. At the end of that I was then very pleased to present an Australian Government Certificate of Recognition to Alan Cole for his voluntary work bringing together and coordinating the Turramurra Trotters. Some 40 participants were there and they were very pleased to see Alan being appropriately recognised.
I'd also like to acknowledge the very important contribution to my electorate made by North Shore Temple Emanuel, one of the four synagogues in my electorate of Bradfield, but it serves areas well beyond my electorate of Bradfield. A very significant event was held on Sunday—a service marking the installation of the senior rabbi, Rabbi Nicole Roberts. It was wonderful to see an accomplished woman being appointed as the senior rabbi of this very significant institution. There was a very joyous feeling at the service as her achievements were acknowledged and there was great faith expressed by many speakers in her capacity to lead the synagogue and lead that important faith community. I was very pleased to be there.
I would also like to acknowledge StreetWork, a wonderful organisation doing work with vulnerable young people throughout the northern area of Sydney. To fund that work they need to work constantly at fundraising. They do many things throughout the year. A couple of weeks ago, they held an event at Hornsby Mall, towards the northern end of my electorate. I was very pleased to be there to lend my support and to have the pleasure of pushing one of the youth workers around on a go-cart, which was hard work! It was great to acknowledge the work of StreetWork.
Tom Uren AC Memorial Lecture
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:54): This Sunday I will host the second annual Tom Uren AC Memorial Lecture at Petersham Town Hall at 2 pm. The guest speaker is Gareth Evans on the topic 'It's time for Australia to punch our weight in foreign affairs'. Of course, Gareth Evans was the foreign minister in the Hawke and Keating governments. He was an activist minister who used his time to make a real difference, lifting Australia's international engagement to a new level as a creative middle power.
He promoted peace and stability in our region, in Cambodia in particular. His service didn't end there. He headed the International Crisis Group, the independent global conflict prevention resolution organisation, for the decade following 2000. Gareth is now the chancellor of the Australian National University. The former UN secretary Kofi Annan described Gareth Evans as 'one of the world's great internationalists'. He went on to say:
Gareth Evans's career serves as an inspiration on how a spirit of optimism coupled with a keen insight for the art of the possible can create real positive change.
He was critical in promoting Australia's role in peace and nuclear disarmament issues, including the Canberra commission.
Last year, the guest lecturer at the inaugural Tom Uren lecture was Jose Ramos-Horta, the Nobel laureate and former president of Timor-Leste. This Sunday, Gareth Evans will be introduced by our shadow foreign minister—and the person I hope is Australia's next foreign minister—Senator Penny Wong. I'm very pleased Senator Wong is giving up her time to be a part of what is an important community event. It's a community event in honour of, I believe, one of the greatest Australians: Tom Uren, a friend, mentor and father figure to me. He was a giant of the Australian progressive political movement, a campaigner for international justice and a former prisoner of war, who was not embittered about that traumatic and terrible experience during the Second World War. He was someone who came out of that experience committed to ensuring and promoting peace throughout the world, someone who was a principled advocate who always treated people with respect. I'd encourage all people in the inner west to come along on Sunday to Petersham Town Hall for what will be a momentous event.
La Trobe Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (10:57): It was a great occasion yesterday. We had a number of councils in the south-east of Melbourne attend Australian Parliament House with their vision of what is required for the south-east of Melbourne. Can I specifically think Casey council. It was great to have the mayor, Amanda Stapleton, present with the CEO Glenn Patterson and the mayor of Cardinia, Graeme Moore, with CEO Carol Jeffs. Both the CEOs have recently been appointment, and the great thing is they both have a great passion and vision for the south-east.
One of the two projects which really grabbed my attention is the Thompsons Road extension. This is a 30-kilometre extension from Clyde Road to, I believe, Koo Wee Rup. This project will actually open up an area down at Officer's south. The intention of Cardinia council is to create 100,000 local jobs, which is something very exciting, especially since I would say La Trobe is now the fastest-growing electorate in the country, after looking at the redistribution. This is something really important. The whole purpose is to make sure that local people do not need to travel on the Monash Freeway to go to work but can stay in the local area.
The other project that has been spoken about for so many years is a Koo Wee Rup airport—to have an airport out in the south-east of Victoria. I think it's vital. Victoria is growing so rapidly; it makes no sense that we have only the Tullamarine international airport. There are investors ready to build a second major airport in the south-east. They obviously need assistance there, but they also need rail and road to connect there. Again, that's something I'm very excited about.
The Monash Freeway stage 2 will be commencing soon. That is something I committed to back in March 2016. Stage 1 has now been completed from the South Gippsland Highway to Clyde Road. Stage 2 is really about going to that new growth corridor from Clyde Road to Cardinia Road, but also, very specifically, about the Beaconsfield interchange, something which I've advocated for so many years, and the extension of O'Shea Road. Why is the Beaconsfield interchange so important? It opens up another area at Minta city to create an amazing 10,000 jobs. We want to see jobs and we want to see local people in those jobs.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Melbourne: Attacks
Consideration resumed.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:00): Terror is intended to divide us. Its aim is to build anxiety about whether our everyday activities are safe. Terror is supposed to remind us that they are not, that we should fear our neighbours because they aren't what they seem or perhaps because they don't look like us. It seeks to tear us down at the very moment when we need to build each other up. But, time and again, through the worst of humanity the best still shines through—a gentle reminder that division will get us nowhere. This is true of Sisto Malaspina, who made a life out of building a community in his corner of Melbourne, the iconic Pellegrini's on Bourke Street, a place I visited many times over the years, often as an escape from meetings held in Melbourne at state parliament or the Commonwealth parliamentary offices or with members of the business community—from time to time, out the back with Sisto's great friend Lindsay Fox. There was great coffee, as has been said, but even better service, and that's because Sisto welcomed everyone. You were always welcome at Pellegrini's. Indeed, as Harold Mitchell commented at Sisto's state funeral, 'Pellegrini's was the United Nations'. It saw Hollywood stars, ministers and diplomats through its doors. But it also saw tourists and locals, all of whom would sit side by side at the cafe's long bar. It, indeed, was a little bit of Italy right there in Melbourne.
The loss of Sisto in the Bourke Street lone wolf attack on 9 November this year, which also injured two other men, is devastating for his family and for the enormous number of friends that he had. I want to pay my condolences to Sisto's wife, Vicki, children, David and Lisa, and baby granddaughter, Sofia. But it is truly the nation's loss as well, because Sisto was a larger-than-life person whose commitment to his work turned Pellegrini's into the institution it is today. Creating a legacy is no easy feat, but through his warmth and his commitment to serving his community Sisto achieved exactly that. In the days after the attack I also visited Pellegrini's with Richard Wynne, the member for Richmond, to sign the condolence book and to pay my respects to Sisto's life and contribution to our great multicultural nation of Australia.
Sisto's story is an Italian immigrant's story. It's a proud Australian story. Born in a small town in the Marche region of Italy in 1944, he moved to Australia in the 1960s. His career started with odd jobs in the meatworks. He went on to catering, and in 1974 he took over Pellegrini's with his co-owner and dear friend Nino Pangrazio, a business venture that has well and truly stood the test of time. He was passionate about the opera and the Essendon Football Club. His commitment to family, friends and Pellegrini's was reflected in the more than 1,300 people who paid their respects at his funeral.
Melbourne won't be the same without Sisto Malaspina, and that's a fact, but we would all do well to live by his example: to show warmth and friendship to people that we know and, importantly, to people that we don't know; to put division aside; and to build the kind of diverse, vibrant community where people are respected no matter what their background—a community that says 'no' to hate, which, in its extreme forms, leads to atrocious acts by those who act in the name of religion but who do nothing but disrespect the fundamental tenets of faith and their fellow human beings. We want the vibrant communities that make our nation the success that it is today.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (11:06): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Workplace Relations
Ms KEARNEY (Batman) (11:06): I rise to speak about one of the big issues that face many Australians—the uncertainty created by insecure jobs. Over 40 per cent of our workforce is in casual, contract, fixed-term, labour hire or gig economy work, mostly by compulsion rather than choice. Each of these types of employment has enormous negative consequences—for example, an inability to get a loan because you're on a fixed-term contract as a teacher, or an inability to plan your family life because you are a casual. Even among those with ongoing work, there are around 1.1 million part-timers who would like to work longer hours and just can't get them. Finally, these workers often struggle on low pay, which makes their lives vulnerable to shocks because they can't save.
The RBA and expert commentators lament constantly that wages growth has stalled, especially in the private sector, at 2.1 per cent per annum. This is bad for families and it's bad for the economy. It is not enough to spruik job numbers as this out-of-touch government does. It's the quality of jobs and the conditions attached to those jobs that count for as much as the raw numbers. An increasing number of our young people are trapped in low-paid, insecure work for much longer than any parent would like. Ironically, the crowing about jobs growth stands in stark contrast to the increasing fear in our communities about their economic future. The reality that my constituents experience is that a sustainable income is increasingly hard to achieve.
I would like to assure our next generation of workers that only Labor will have the policies to provide decent, higher paid jobs. Good jobs don't just happen by accident. Only Labor will reinstate penalty rates, tackle sham contracting and remove the limitations on enterprise bargaining by rewriting and changing the Fair Work Act to better balance the rights of employers and employees. Even the Reserve Bank is urging increased worker bargaining power and better wages outcomes to boost economic demand.
Only Labor will adequately support manufacturing to provide a pathway for higher skilled and higher paid jobs. We will deliver an advanced manufacturing future fund to help Australian manufacturing firms to innovate, modernise and move into high-value production, making them globally competitive.
Only Labor will help rebuild public TAFE at the national level, unlike those opposite, who've been shamed into a dodgy review. I think of the wonderful Northern College of the Arts and Technology in my seat of Batman. Along with loads of great trade courses, NCAT has established a certificate in musical instrument making and repair. They identified that there was nowhere in Victoria to send Yamaha guitars and other instruments for repair. There was effectively no skilled workforce to do that work. They aren't just providing opportunities; they are creating a niche industry and workforce. I'm proud that a Shorten Labor government will commit $10 million to NCAT to further their job-creating work.
Like Labor in Victoria, only a Shorten Labor government will build the generation-defining infrastructure which will set up our cities and regions for the next 50 years of growth. Labor's view is that migration has made this country what it is today. We don't reject migration; we embrace it. Rather than cut migration out of fear, like the coalition, we will invest what is needed to continue to make our cities the most livable in the world. To modernise our economy and our society, the next decade can't be business as usual. We have to make a huge investment. And, if it means better jobs and better cities, voters will support that increased investment, just like they did in Victoria.
Significant to that investment in future jobs will be the transition to a reduced carbon economy. That means new jobs in new technologies, in the installation of solar and wind farms, in the installation of hundreds of thousands of subsidised home-battery packs, and in the electric car industry, to name just a few. It is only Labor who will invest in our health sector, aged care, early childhood education and public health to create long-term, secure jobs—like jobs for speech therapists in colleges and public schools in my electorate, to provide the wraparound services that my Batman school principals forum regards as essential. Only Labor will deliver universal access to three- and four-year-old kinder for every family, creating thousands of new jobs. Finally, only Labor will turn free trade deals into fair trade deals, with a commitment to labour market testing so that jobs for locals don't disappear before anyone's had a chance to apply. The next election can't come too soon. I can't wait to be a part of a Shorten Labor government that cares about the quality of jobs, not just the quantity of jobs.
Canning Electorate: Infrastructure
National Security
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (11:11): As 2018 draws to a close, I report to the House on the Morrison government's commitments in Canning, and also on how we have worked to strengthen Australia's national security.
2018 has been a huge year for our region. The Morrison government has delivered record funding for important infrastructure and services across the Peel region and Perth Hills. In the May budget we delivered $253 million to extend the Tonkin Highway south past Mundijong Road in Serpentine and Jarrahdale. This will attract more jobs and investment to our region and, importantly, it will mean people spend less time on dangerous, congested roads and more time with their families. We're also spending $183 million to build grade separations on the Tonkin Highway at the Hale Road, Welshpool Road East and Kelvin Road intersections. Anyone who has travelled along the Tonkin Highway knows how frustrating the current stop-start arrangement of traffic lights can be. Thanks to this government, that problem will soon come to an end. We're also spending $241 million to extend the Armadale train line to Byford. This is big news. Byford is one of the fastest-growing local government areas in Australia. If you live locally, the train will provide easy access to job opportunities and educational opportunities in Perth.
Down in Mandurah we delivered $2 million for the business case to build a Latham train station. This is sensible, long-awaited public transport infrastructure that has strong community support. I'm currently in discussions with the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population about construction funding.
Our growing region also needs more jobs. To encourage industry development and investment, we delivered $21.75 million for stage 1 of the Peel Business Park. This locally grown project is designed to make the Peel region an agricultural and export hub. This coalition government has also been mindful of the unique challenges faced by regional communities in electorates such as mine. As such, we've had a particular focus on improving regional services through programs such as the Building Better Regions Fund. I'm pleased to report that since 2016 this government has invested over $9 million for important projects in Dwellingup, Waroona, Pinjarra, North Dandalup and Preston Beach through the BBRF. One highlight is the expansion of aged-care services this program has funded at Bedingfield Park in Pinjarra.
In parliament, my focus has been on keeping Australia safe and secure. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has led the listing of new terrorist groups and strengthened the power of police and security agencies to hunt them down. Much of our time on the committee has been spent refining laws to fight the dangerously high levels of espionage and foreign interference in Australia. We have established the Critical Infrastructure Centre. This applies a strict national security test to any foreign investment into Australia's critical infrastructure, such as electricity, gas or water assets and, importantly, our ports. The Morrison government has blocked the sale of one of our major gas pipelines to a foreign country that is vulnerable to coercion by the Chinese Communist Party.
Back in Canning, there are many important projects that I am working on in the new year. My priorities for 2019 include fighting for a better Peel Health Campus; funding for the Mandurah waterfront pool, which will transform the centre of Mandurah into the tourist hub that we all want it to be; and fighting for the Pinjarra heavy haulage deviation, which is critically important for the people of Pinjarra. Right now, there are 690 trucks driving through the Pinjarra town centre each and every day. The deviation will relieve that congestion and get the sound of Jake brakes out of the town centre.
In Serpentine-Jarrahdale and Byford, I will further increase pressure on WA Labor to extend the Tonkin Highway, as so far they have done nothing with the money we have committed to the works. In the hills, I've jointed the fight for important local institutions, like the Roleystone-Karagullen cricket club and the Save Roleystone Theatre campaign. Together we have achieved a lot and together we can achieve much more in the future. I want to thank all the constituents, local governments and community organisations who have supported me as I have advocated here in Canberra on their behalf. It's been a privilege and an honour to serve you this year.
Citizenship
Mr MARLES (Corio) (11:16): Last Tuesday week, I attended a remarkable but deeply distressing meeting at Diversitat in the northern suburbs of my electorate of Corio, in the northern suburbs of Geelong. Diversitat is a community organisation that runs a number of services in Geelong, led expertly by Michael Martinez, who is a giant within our community. Diversitat, as an organisation, is very essential to the fabric of Geelong. It grew out of the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council. It does settlement work in and around Geelong. Because it is a representative of the various communities in Geelong, it has within it a service for looking at immigration issues for newly arrived migrants, many of whom have come here under Australia's humanitarian program.
It is in that context that Diversitat were very concerned about what they were seeing in and around the Geelong community, and they wanted me to see it. It was hard to see, but I am very glad that I was given the opportunity of seeing it. I thought, maybe, this was about people on temporary protection visas and I thought maybe it was about people on bridging visas not being able to get their permanent residency, but it was about none of that. We were talking with people who had been given permanent residency in this country. They had permanent residency visas. What's important to understand about that is that means we were talking about people who will be living the rest of their lives in Australia. The fundamental judgement, which we made as a country about their security and about their fitness to live in this country, had already been made, so that was not the issue. The issue was about whether or not they could gain citizenship.
I always understood that it worked this way: we made a big judgement and a leap of faith, having gone through a whole lot of processes about whether we grant somebody a permanent residency visa in this country. But then we, in a sense, ask our permanent residents to make a leap in faith in us, as a nation, by seeking citizenship, and every one of these people has. I spoke to one man, in front of a group of 60. He came here by boat but had a permanent visa. He came back in about 2008 or 2009. By 2014, he had served his time to be able to qualify to become a citizen of this country. He put in his forms, but more information was asked for. It was ridiculous information, stuff that was going to be impossible for him to get; but he went through the process. The documents that he then provided didn't add up in terms of names, because names get changed. So he went through, in this case, the Afghan authorities here to get them changed. He had all of the documents again. In 2016, his documents were perfect. They were sent in. He has waited 18 months to get an interview.
The issue here is his ability to sponsor his family. I asked about his family. His wife and three kids are in Kabul, and have been since 2010. The kids are something like 16, 14 and 10. Think about that. They were two, six and eight when he last saw them. And this government has got him sitting there for two years without responding to paperwork, because he wants to make a commitment to us. We've already said he's going to live here for the rest of his life. It is an outrage. What is going on here is a form of persecution which is not spoken about enough. I knew something like this was happening, but I didn't know the details until I had this experience. And he was one of 60. At the end of the meeting, there was a queue of people wanting to tell me their circumstances. These are people who are already living here. We've already made the commitment to them that they can stay, but when they seek to make a commitment to our nation, this government is saying, in effect, 'No.' If we ever get the chance to govern, we will change this. But, right now, if there is a shred of decency in the Morrison government, they would change this situation right now.
Moehead, Ms Anne
Page Electorate: Schools
Page Electorate: Jacaranda Festival
Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Speaker) (11:21): Anne Moehead is a nurse practitioner in my community. She was recently a finalist in the category for Excellence in Nursing/Midwifery—Clinical Leadership in the New South Wales Excellence in Nursing and Midwifery Awards. Anne trained as a psychiatric and general nurse and her compassion and special connection with the elderly have shone in the community. She's always been known for her integrity, humility, leadership spirit and her belief in the people she's working with. She became a pioneer in caring for the elderly when she trained to be the first psychogeriatric nurse practitioner in New South Wales. She was the first psychiatric nurse who worked with an Aged Care Assessment Team in Australia. Anne also led the way in innovative dementia education. She established training modules in psychogeriatric nursing at Southern Cross University in Lismore. When she received a grant, Anne set up training modules in a web based format, making them more available for healthcare professionals from further afield. Well, done, Anne, on your tenacity, your compassion and your voice for those who need you the most. You've done a great deal for our community, and I thank you for that. I know that your husband, Grant, and daughter, Renee, who is currently in the Middle East, would also be very proud of you.
Last Saturday, students from the Glenreagh Primary School were in Sydney competing in the state finals of the Lego League. The Glenreagh Gravity Wonder Team consisted of Khorbin Wheeler, Layla Mayled, Isaac Mayled, Damien Watson, Miriyan Weller, Florence Shen, Molly Cohen, Reegan Desmond, They made the finals after beating some 22 other teams from across the region. This year's theme was 'Into orbit' and the teams had to build, program and compete with autonomous robots fully equipped with Lego Mindstorms technology. The robot then had to complete specific missions in the allotted 2½ minutes in order to score points. The competitors learn many aspects of problem-solving and how to utilise science and engineering to develop solutions. They then share their findings with other competitors. To make the finals was an outstanding achievement, given that the school only has an enrolment of just over 60 students and given that it was the first time they had ever used the Lego EV3 robots and entered the Lego League competition. I congratulate and thank the teacher and the STEM mentor, Jessica Fowler, for giving the students this wonderful opportunity. Congratulations!
During the last school holidays, St Carthage's Primary School from Lismore travelled to Darwin to compete in the Tournament of Minds International Final in the discipline of social sciences. The team won first place and were crowned Winner of the Tournament—International Champions. I congratulate the winning team, which consisted of Neve Schweizer, Charlotte Gilliland, Paddy Heffernan, Darcy Heffernan, Ruby Barnes, Chloe Lane and Liam Torrens. The trip was the result of three months of hard work and preparation that has paid off for the students and their teacher, Jeni Thompson. Jeni worked with the students every step of the way and guided them through this wonderful opportunity. It was a great achievement, with the competition boasting more than 14,200 students from Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. The school has also had great success in the tournament previously. This year's win was the second in a row, and over the years they have reached the finals no fewer than 10 times, winning five of them. Congratulations to St Carthage's.
Every year, the Jacaranda Festival in Grafton includes a special day for children. The morning starts with the Parade of Youth, which allows schools to create banners, which they then march up Prince Street to Market Square. This year Grafton Public School won first place in the banner competition with their 'Jacaranda Avenue' themed banner made from recycled materials. The festivities also included a baby competition, which has been a long-time inclusion in the Jacaranda calendar. This year's placegetters included Jack Tindal, Jayden Davis, Max Grey, AJ Payne, Keenan Blood, Amari Ellem, Olivia Payne, Isabelle Gilmour, Harley Corfe, Elizabeth Templeton, Maybelle Pope and Aria Atherton. The Best Dressed Girl was awarded to Summer Williams, with Cody Want winning the Best Dressed Boy category. Runner-Up Grand Champion was Marli Chevally, and Grand Champion was awarded to Liam Smidt. I know that Liam's father, Darryl, was proud of the win, as Darryl himself won the same award 35 years ago. I'd like to thank the festival manager, Leah Wallace, and her wonderful committee for organising another successful Jacaranda Children's Morning.
Mentally Healthy City, Townsville
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (11:26): Last week, on Thursday, 22 November, the Tropical Brain and Mind Research Foundation launched Australia's first Mentally Healthy City in Townsville, North Queensland, in my electorate of Herbert. This initiative is groundbreaking in terms of creating an opportunity for our community members to take responsibility for our collective mental health. Mental health is everybody's responsibility. I have said many times in this place that it is not possible to have a strong economy without a thriving society, and that means a mentally healthy community in my electorate and in electorates across the nation.
It was a real honour to have the former Prime Minister the Hon. Julia Gillard, chair of beyondblue, and Sir Angus Houston, retired air chief marshal, retired Chief of Defence and patron of the Tropical Brain and Mind Research Foundation, in Townsville to launch this exciting initiative. Both the Hon. Julia Gillard and Sir Angus addressed the audience at a gala dinner in Townsville. Both spoke with passion and acknowledgement that we have much to do in relation to addressing the growing challenge of mental health, not only in my electorate but across this nation. Both speakers acknowledged the importance of Australia's first Mentally Healthy City, Townsville, in reducing the debilitating nature of stigma in local communities.
I congratulate the project manager, Brendon Marty, and the board of Townsville's Tropical Brain and Mind Research Foundation: Chair Dr Cathy Day, Professor Sue McGinty, Lisa Banks, Professor Maxwell Bennett AO, Eleni Millios-Hullick, Jacqui Gillespie, Dr Lynore Geia, Alan George Newman and Matthew Keating. I also thank Professor Brett McDermott and Professor Zoltan Sornyai from JCU for their wise counsel and advice to the board.
As a previous CEO, for some 14 years, in the community mental health sector and a member of state and national boards for mental health peak bodies, I am very proud to share my support for this great initiative. A mentally healthy city addresses mental health as a comprehensive, whole-of-life health and wellbeing agenda involving individual citizens and the broader community. Townsville is a city that is willing to embrace, understand and utilise the concept of a mental health continuum. It is a city that understands and supports the need to coordinate the access to the many mental health support services that are available. It is a city that is willing to broaden its capacity to assist individuals to achieve a good life and their best mental health. Most importantly, Townsville is willing and able to play a leading role in establishing a community culture that will address the scourge of stigma.
According to Mission Australia's 2018 youth survey, almost half the young people in Townsville believe mental health is the biggest issue for this nation. More than 48 per cent of the young women surveyed in Townsville reported that they were personally worried about dealing with stress, compared with 16 per cent of males that were surveyed. For our young people in Townsville, the challenges of finishing school, finding employment, body image, financial security and housing affordability and stability are high on their list of concerns. The survey of almost 775 Townsville young people also indicated that females, when compared to their male counterparts, indicated much higher levels of concern about family conflict, suicide, financial security and social media. Placing a priority on developing a mentally healthy city will not only assist in alleviating these burdens for our young people but also go a long way to supporting our older citizens.
The objectives that I will mention now are the objectives that the Tropical Brain and Mind Research Foundation have set for Townsville's Mentally Healthy City: embracing a common understanding of the importance of holistic wellness; addressing mental illness stigma through a stigma reduction campaign; focusing on the development of mental health resilience as a high priority for the city agenda in supporting healthy children, adolescents and adults across all demographics; and for Townsville to be recognised as a national leader by having a well-developed and integrated mental health service sector. Achieving a mentally healthy city will present some challenges, but I commend the Tropical Brain and Mind Research Foundation for bringing this vision to reality. Townsville's Mentally Healthy City will not deliver face-to-face services but, most importantly, this project will coordinate existing and new local mental health services, which will certainly help the many people who are trying to navigate what is, in fact, a complex system. I was proud to secure funding through a Stronger Communities Program grant for the Tropical Brain and Mind Research Foundation to purchase equipment to assist in the establishment of their office. I was also proud to secure funding from the Townsville Hospital and Health Service to assist over the next two years in operational costs.
Bushfires
Beach Safety
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (11:31): Summer is almost here, and we have already had some very warm and wild weather in South Australia. I want to take this opportunity to remind local residents in my electorate of Boothby about what they can do to stay safe this summer and to thank all of the incredible local volunteers who dedicate their time to protecting our community at the beach and in the hills throughout the summer months.
Bushfire season has officially started in South Australia, and I urge residents in the hills zone area, and particularly in suburbs like Brown Hill Creek, Belair, Blackwood, Upper Sturt, Craigburn Farm, Hawthorndene, Glenalta, Coromandel Valley, Linton, Eden Hills, Bellevue Heights, Flagstaff Hill, Aberfoyle Park and Happy Valley, to make sure they have their bushfire action plan in place now. There is nothing more important than having a plan in place, and I will continue to remind my local residents of this during the bushfire season ahead.
To this end, I recently held a community bushfire safety forum with the member for Waite, Sam Duluk, and the member for Davenport, Steve Murray, to work with our community and our wonderful CFS volunteers to remind everyone of what they need to do. Special thanks to Sturt group officer Dale Thompson, deputy group officers David Sims and Chris Smith, regional commander John Probert, and all the CFS volunteers who contributed on the night. The CFS provide a wealth of information about planning and prevention, and I encourage all my residents to visit their website—cfs.sa.gov.au—to inform their bushfire plan. Being bushfire ready could well save lives, and I encourage all those living in fire-prone areas to prepare their bushfire survival plan if they have not done so already. We must all know the risks; prepare ourselves and our families, homes and businesses; and stay alert to our surroundings. As the CFS says: prepare, act, survive.
I want to praise the continuing work of the Sturt CFS Group, covering the brigades at Blackwood, Belair, Eden Hills, Coromandel Valley, Cherry Gardens, Happy Valley and Upper Sturt, who also help to keep Boothby residents safe each summer. To show our support for the CFS and raise awareness of the vital need to prepare, act and survive, my state colleagues and I held our annual fundraising barbecue at the Blackwood Coles just a few weeks ago, and I'm delighted to report that we raised more than $3,000 for the Sturt CFS Group. Very special thanks to the CFS volunteers who joined us on the day and to Blackwood Coles for once again sponsoring the event. Thank you to all of our local residents who were so generous with their donations.
Staying safe at the beach this summer is an important message that I am delivering to my community. I also note that surf lifesaving volunteers do so much to ensure that we can all enjoy our beautiful beaches safely during summer. Last month, I joined each of my surf lifesaving clubs to mark the start of the 2018-19 season, which means that lifeguard patrols and the red and yellow swimming flags have now officially returned to our beaches. I urge all beachgoers to follow the advice of our trained lifeguards and to swim between the flags at all times. You can visit the website—beachsafe.org.au—for more tips about beach safety. I'd like to thank President Dr Glen Patten and the Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club, President Chris Parsons and the Brighton Surf Lifesaving Club, President Warwick Holland and the Somerton Surf Life Saving Club, and President Georgie Cole and the Glenelg Surf Lifesaving Club for everything they do to keep people safe on the beaches throughout summer.
These clubs do so much more than just keep us safe. They support the development of skills, fitness, volunteering and lifelong friendships, particularly between their younger members, many of whom participate in competitions like the Lifesaving World Championships, which are currently underway in Adelaide. The Seacliff, Somerton, Brighton and Glenelg surf lifesaving clubs also regularly host fundraising activities and events, such as the Seacliff Swim, Paddle, Run, and the Brighton jetty sculptures events. I encourage everyone in our community to attend these events and support their local club in their fundraising efforts. There are so many ways to support these fantastic groups, so please get in contact with your local club to find out how you can get involved and to support the volunteers who keep us all safe on the beach.
I'm blessed to represent an area that includes the beautiful Mitcham Hills and Adelaide's absolutely best stretch of coastline, and I will do all I can to ensure my local residents stay safe this summer. I will also do all I can to thank our incredible volunteers, who do so much for our community and selflessly give so much of their time every summer to keeping us all safe.
Brand Electorate
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (11:36): I'd like to take this opportunity to talk a little bit about my electorate of Brand and what has been happening in the vibrant communities of Rockingham and Kwinana over the past few months. Last Thursday, I visited my old high school, Safety Bay Senior High School, and helped to celebrate its 40th anniversary with teachers and students, past and present.
Mr Hill: They still have you back?
Ms MADELEINE KING: Yes, Member for Bruce, they do still have me back! I'm very pleased. While the Safety Bay uniform has changed quite a lot—from green and brown to a lovely blue, a change I very much endorse—a lot hasn't, and the celebrations do remind me of how energetic, engaged and committed the Safety Bay community, and the high school at its heart, are. I want to thank Principal Alen Kursar and the organising committee, particularly Troy. They put on such an excellent event. I can't wait to see what happens at Safety Bay Senior High School over the coming years and months.
It's always a privilege to be able to support deserving community groups through the Stronger Communities grants program. I recently represented Peel Horsepower, which was previously known as the Peel Riding for the Disabled Association, with grant of over $16,000 to help build the facilities for their new clubhouse at the historic Mead Farm Settlement Property. Peel Horsepower run rehabilitative horse-riding programs for disabled and vulnerable people. This funding means they can continue running their services, which are so important for so many people in the community and which give so much joy to so many. Peel Horsepower is just one of the many incredible organisations which will receive funding for their important infrastructure projects through the Stronger Communities program.
I'm also pleased to announce the following organisations have been successful in their funding applications under the Stronger Communities grants program: the City of Kwinana, the City of Rockingham, the Comet Bay Bowling Club, the Frank Konecny Community Centre, and the Rockingham Rams footy and sporting club and the Rockingham Districts Hockey Club—both teams I support through annual donations and sponsorship. I'm a big fan of both hockey and footy, so I'm really glad they were able to get some of this infrastructure through money supplied for their important clubrooms. Other organisations that have been successful in their funding applications include the Southern Communities Advocacy Legal and Education Service, SCALES; the Koorliny Arts Centre; and the Rockingham City & Districts Softball Association. I look forward to seeing what these organisations will achieve over the coming years with the support of the Stronger Communities funding grants.
I recently went along to the Baldivis Country Fair, a fair which has been going for a long time—so long, in fact, I remember it from my childhood. It's changed a bit—it's only got bigger and better—and I was really glad to be able to go there again this year. Like all the fairs I've been to across Rockingham and Kwinana in the spring fete season, it embodies the community spirit that makes Rockingham and Kwinana, and, in this case, Baldivis, such great places to live. It's about bringing families, friends and neighbours together to celebrate and have fun. I congratulate all the organisers, particularly Renae Kaila and the Baldivis Primary School P&C, for putting on such a great event. Thank you to all the volunteers who helped out at my stalls over the past few months across the Rockingham and Kwinana areas.
While I was back in Western Australia over the break before coming back to this place I was also able to go to Jandakot, tour the Royal Flying Doctor Service western operations facility with their very vibrant WA CEO, Rebecca Tomkinson, and meet one of their incredible pilots, Megan. Western Australia is 2.6 million square kilometres, so it's an immense challenge to provide emergency medical services across this vast state. Thanks to the work of the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia, Australians in some of the remotest parts of the world are able to know they are safe and will be cared for in emergencies. I know I'd feel in very safe hands if Megan were able to rescue me in a Royal Flying Doctor Service plane, and I look forward to seeing their new planes when they arrive. I know that's a very big project for the RFDS and WA.
I also had the great chance to visit the Baldivis Children's Forest in the tuart woodlands and was shown around by Hannah, one of the forest coordinators. A small group of people came together in 1982 to build the Baldivis Children's Forest. That has been the centre point of terrific environmental education for the community of Baldivis. I got one of their great fundraising calendars. People in Baldivis, if you see them in the shops, it's a great Christmas present, and you know it'll go to a good cause, the Baldivis Children's Forest. I thank the community of Rockingham and Kwinana, and all the suburbs within it, and I hope everyone has a merry Christmas.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Laundy ): I thank my favourite comedian, the member for Brand!
Brisbane Electorate: Urban Villages
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (11:41): At the heart of our community in Brisbane are a number of urban villages and shopping strips. These are places where locals come together for a coffee or to have a meal. It's where many of us buy our newspapers and grocery supplies, get our hair cut and access services. It's where a lot of the community events are held. It's even where people who want to move into our great part of the world come to look in a real estate agent's window to find a house, a home, to rent or buy. These urban villages and shopping strips are also the places where many small businesses set up. They are a big part of the local economy. That means that they're places where the new local jobs are created, including, importantly, opportunities for younger locals to get their first jobs, their first foot in the door of the jobs market, and gain their first work skills and experience.
As you know, Deputy Speaker Laundy—as I come from a small-business family, grew up on the shop floor of family businesses and then led the National Retail Association—I have an understanding of how small business is the backbone of our local economy and just how hard it is that small business owners work. I know to keep an eye out for the health of local small businesses. The positive overall news about our economy as a whole, about record job numbers and record growth, doesn't automatically or necessarily mean that things are good in all sectors of the economy or in every location or in every shopping strip.
Locally in Brisbane I've been watching carefully, as have some other locals, the number of vacancies and the amount of business turnover in a few local shopping strips. I'm thinking particularly about places like the Paddington terraces, Kedron Brook Road in Wilston, and around Racecourse Road, where the number of vacancies and amount of business turnover have been noted by some residents and some local media.
It's not all doom and gloom in these urban villages. There are good reasons to be positive about each of them, yet, since my election two years ago, I've made a point of continuing to catch up with the local small business owners there, as well as the traders' groups that represent the businesses in each of those shopping strips. After considering the various causes that can challenge small businesses these days, including some big global trends for retail, various local factors, and considering, realistically, where government can and where government can't help, earlier this year, I resolved that I'd fight for some capital improvements to help each of these business strips remain attractive, safe, special and unique for local residents and shoppers to visit.
With the community's support, I'm making the case here in Canberra that we can all play a part to love our shops and support the urban villages and the shopping strips that are at the heart of our community. It's ultimately not for me or a government to decide what's best for various shopping strips. That should and does remain the decision of local businesses and local communities coming together. Yet a good representative can ensure that the conversation happens, that the consultation is conducted, and then make the case wherever it can be made to support the local community in ways that are appropriate.
Last week I took the Treasurer to visit Racecourse Road, and we held a round table there to listen to small businesses. The Treasurer was able to hear firsthand the plans that the local businesses there and their traders group have for revitalising their shopping strip and to listen to their concerns and feedback. It was a really good grassroots discussion. Similarly, last month I took the small business minister, Senator Cash, to a small business breakfast on the Paddington terraces, where we had a similar conversation.
I continue to advocate here in Canberra for those capital improvements, and the community feedback continues to roll in. At this stage, we have thousands of people who have filled in the surveys that are available at local shops and small businesses on those shopping strips. I can say at this stage that overwhelmingly the feedback is very positive, both about the need for all levels of government to help improve our local communities and how these local urban villages hold a very special and unique place in the hearts of local residents. In the lead-up to Christmas I'm continuing to talk to local residents and businesses about what they want to see but, more importantly, I'm calling all residents to remember to love our shops and to make a conscious effort to buy at least some of our presents for family and friends from those local shops. Of course, if everyone did that, it would be like Santa paying a visit not just to local residents but to their shops as well.
Lyons Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (11:46): Railton is a small town in the north-west of my electorate—and it's a big electorate, as you know, Deputy Speaker. It's a classic Tassie town built on timber and farming but is best known these days for the topiary dotted throughout the main street and local gardens. It's a joy to doorknock and come across the various examples of imagination and creativity. But it's also a town with a long history of flooding. The floods have, in the main, been pretty rare but less so these days. What were once one-in-100-year floods are, as a result of changing weather patterns and climate change, becoming more common and unpredictable.
The floods in 2011 were especially severe, causing damage to more than 60 houses and 14 businesses, and contributing to a range of social, economic and environmental impacts in the town centre and surrounding regions. The town can't afford too many hard economic knocks. What may be relatively minor setbacks for bigger, more diverse communities can affect Railton much more severely. Five years after these floods, Railton was hit again—less severely, but still hard enough for more than 30 properties to be rendered unusable and uninhabitable.
Following the 2011 flood, Kentish Council received funding from the Natural Disaster Resilience Program to develop the Railton flood mitigation strategy. That strategy demonstrates how various water levels can affect the community and outlines what measures will best redirect water to lessen the impact. It includes the upgrading or construction of a range of infrastructure assets that would provide for a better flood protection system for the community. This includes increasing the size of culverts and channels to better manage water flow, the construction of a levy and upgrading two bridges. The estimated cost of the project overall is almost $2½ million, a price which excludes the upgrade of one of the bridges. The price tag is well out of the ability of the tiny Kentish Council to pay on its own, and it has asked the state and federal governments to support it—and rightly so.
The town of Latrobe is a mere few kilometres away and it also suffers flooding from the Mersey. Last year the federal government committed $3.4 million and the state government committed $1 million to fund the implementation of the Latrobe flood mitigation plan. It's money well spent, but it has certainly left the people of Railton asking why it's a yes for Latrobe but the sound of crickets for Railton. It surely would have nothing to do with Latrobe being in the electorate of Braddon, where there was a by-election! Surely not! It certainly led the then mayor of Kentish to ask me, 'What can I do to manufacture a citizenship crisis for myself so that we can have a by-election in Lyons and see the money flow in?' I didn't take him up on the offer, of course! So, I hope it has nothing to do with that.
But the fact is that Railton has the plan right now on how to improve its disaster resilience. All it needs is support from the state and federal governments to achieve it. I am pleased to tell the parliament that I have a petition underway—Fix Railton's Floods Right Now—that calls on the federal government to do its bit and provide funding for this important flood mitigation. It will make a significant difference to the people of Railton. It's a small town but it will make a big difference to their lives, their security and their economic security. I urge everyone in Railton to support the petition and sign it. I will be out there in coming weeks to press the case and make a nuisance of myself around Railton. They will see me out on the streets and on the corners at the shops, pressing their case with this petition to really get the government to commit to funding this important strategy, which will keep this town safe from floodwaters into the future. We need to get behind it. We need to fix Railton's floods right now. It deserves it—Railton deserves no less than the neighbouring municipalities that benefitted from having been in a by-election. This is much needed infrastructure and a much needed project and I urge everyone to support it.
To conclude, I'd like to say a big hello to the kids from Sorell and Campania primary schools, who are visiting today, and the kids from Tasman District School, who were here in the parliament yesterday. It's great to see Tassie kids coming to the Commonwealth parliament in its 30th year and enjoying all it has to offer.
Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club
Sorrento Bowling Club
Yanchep Rail Extension
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (11:51): I wish to place on record three priority projects that will benefit my electorate of Moore and that require funding in the next federal budget cycle. The Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club has a membership of 1,768 financial members, including a junior base of 640 nippers. In order to meet the needs of current and forecasted membership, support the development of junior and youth members, and provide the necessary training and community services, a redevelopment concept plan has been proposed by the committee to increase the internal building floor area of the clubhouse from 1,335 square metres to 2,124 square metres, with 885 square metres of external courtyard, deck, and wash-down areas. It is estimated that the renovations will cost approximately $8 million. As patron of Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club I am actively working to bring all three levels of government—local, state and federal—together to work cooperatively with the private sector to secure the necessary funding and corporate sponsorship required to upgrade our local surf club.
The Sorrento Bowling Club, located at Percy Doyle Reserve, is an extremely successful and recognised bowling club, fielding more lawn bowls pennant divisions than any other bowling club in Western Australia. Sorrento is also one of the largest bowling clubs in WA in terms of its five quality grass bowling greens and croquet courts. Sorrento Bowling Club's outstanding performance has been recognised, with the club being awarded Clubs WA's Medium Club of the Year award in 2013, 2016 and 2017 and Bowls WA's Metropolitan Club of the Year award in 2014-15 and 2015-16. The club's current membership capacity is limited to approximately 780 members, based on the size of its clubhouse, which is restricted by its land area, playing areas and facilities. In order to meet the needs of the current and forecasted membership base, support the development of junior and youth members, and provide the necessary training and competition facilities, a strategic plan to 2025 has been proposed by the committee. An integral part of the plan includes the construction of a sheltered green, at a cost of approximately $2 million, that will enable play to occur in all weather conditions. I look forward to working with the City of Joondalup and the WA state government to bring all three levels of government—local, state and federal—together to work cooperatively with the private sector to ensure that the necessary funding and corporate sponsorship is available to upgrade the facilities at the Sorrento Bowling Club.
The extension of the northern suburbs metropolitan railway 14 kilometres northwards, from Butler to Yanchep, is a priority. I fully support the efforts of my colleague the member for Pearce in advancing this cause, together, for the greater region, which spans several electoral boundaries. The Western Australian Public Transport Authority has already completed a business case, which highlights both the importance and the value of extending the railway to Yanchep. The cost-benefit analysis clearly demonstrates that, on merit, the railway extension should be Western Australia's highest priority major public transport project.
My electorate of Moore is located in the suburban north-west corridor of Perth, with the City of Joondalup as its main regional centre. The area represents the primary metropolitan growth region, forecast to continue developing for many decades into the future. Therefore, efficient transport systems, especially public transport in the form of the extension of the northern suburbs railway, are vital to the future development of the corridor as a whole. Perth is predominantly a linear city, with the majority of commercial activity focused around the central business district. Traffic congestion, in particular, is getting worse as transport infrastructure struggles to keep pace with the growth in the suburban population of Perth. Developing Yanchep as a strategic metropolitan centre is critical to the development of not only greater Perth generally but also the north-west corridor specifically, including Joondalup as the main regional city.
Climate Change
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (11:57): I note, as a parent of two school-age kids and as a former teacher, that tomorrow hundreds of Australian schoolchildren will grab the reins in the climate change policy debate. These kids are showing more policy leadership on climate change than the coalition government have managed over their six years in office. The big school walkout for climate change was pilloried by the Prime Minister in question time this week. Our national naysayer said, 'Kids should go to school.' This argument might have force if the coalition government had ever saddled up to govern for the future.
The Morrison government is comprised predominantly of middle-aged males, who bolted out of the school barriers many decades ago. Mr Morrison claims they will meet emissions targets at a canter, but maybe it's time they all went to reschool about the seriousness of climate change and climate deterioration. This is not the time for governments to horse around. The thing is that children can't afford to bet on doing nothing, and doing nothing goes against every lesson they learn at school about the urgent need for action on climate change right now. Unfortunately, this coalition government has made doing nothing on climate change an art form. Let's take it straight from the horse's mouth. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull—the most recent former leader of the coalition—this month said:
The truth is … the Liberal Party and the Coalition is not capable of dealing with climate change.
When you're middle-aged, looking ahead to 2030 is merely preparing for the next paddock. However, a 10-year-old will barely be voting by 2030. For schoolchildren, climate change is existential. Their future extends many furlongs beyond 2030.
The CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology are here to give us the good oil. Their website provides predictors for what the climate, in each city in Australia, will be like at various time points in the future, with specific emissions scenarios. In Brisbane, for example, it predicts that, with little curbing of emissions and with a CO2 concentration continuing to rapidly rise, by 2030 it will be one degree hotter and there will be four per cent less rainfall. But the prediction for Brisbane in 2090, with the same emissions scenario, is radically more serious. It predicts that, in 2090, it will be 4.2 degrees hotter and there'll be 23 per cent less rainfall. Just imagine what it would be like in Queensland with only three-quarters of our current rainfall. This is a catastrophic scenario. It's the difference between having a turf racetrack and a dirt racetrack, with no grass on it.
For Australian schoolchildren, the government's lack of action on climate change is putting their future at risk. As a teacher, I know that it's a big step for children to walk out of school in protest, but the children aren't the only ones who think the government's lack of emissions reduction is appalling. This week, the United Nations Emissions gap report 2018 was released, and their assessment of Australia's lack of action is a stunning rebuke to the Morrison government. Their assessment says:
There has been no improvement in Australia's climate policy since 2017 and emission levels for 2030 are projected to be well above the NDC—
nationally determined contributions—
target.
It's not a canter at all. For children, it's as simple as 1, 2, 3: there's a problem; we need to fix it, so find a solution.
A Shorten Labor government understands this. We'll take action on climate change. We'll reduce carbon pollution in line with our 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. Labor will invest in a renewable energy future which will lower power prices and also bring down pollution and secure the clean jobs of the future. We can't wait for this Morrison government to catch up with the science; we must act now. Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted is not an option. Inaction would lead to irreparable devastation as our climate deteriorates.
Australian children know that action can be taken now, and they know that it should be taken now. The practical lessons they are learning from their educators are reinforcing the fact that we can do things now to alleviate climate change, as the scientists are telling them. In my electorate, Corinda State High School, a large high school, has just been accredited as the first ever carbon-neutral education institution in Australia. That's a fantastic achievement, and I congratulate the staff and students. They are a fantastic example and, under the guidance of Principal Helen Jamieson, the school community is setting a wonderful example for the rest of us.
So what will children think when their teachers are taking action but the government is not? The people who have the power to make real change are actually doing nothing. No wonder they are putting down their books and acting. I know it's a big challenge for parents, but I understand why they are going for it with their hands and heels flying. If Mr Morrison listens only to his backbench naysayers, he deserves to be turfed out at the next election.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Laundy ): I thank the member for Moreton for his equine-laden contribution.
Petrie Electorate: Roads
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (12:01): Today I rise in frustration about the growing commute time for those travelling over the Linkfield Road overpass in Bald Hills. I want to thank the thousands of locals who signed my petition in support of calling on the state Labor government to upgrade the overpass to four lanes. In February this year, I wrote to the Queensland state government Minister for Transport and Main Roads, the Hon. Mark Bailey MP, calling on him to make it a priority. I said:
Dear Minister
I am writing to outline my concerns regarding Linkfield Road Overpass, Bald Hills and would appreciate your Government's serious consideration on funding this vital upgrade.
I was very disappointed when I read the Department of Transport and Main Roads Investment Program 2017-18 to 2020-21 and realised the only funding allocated on Linkfield Road was $45,000 to construct auxiliary lane/s.
It needs more like $120 million. My letter continued:
With major upgrades to Telegraph Road and Linkfield Road over the past few years the bottleneck has continued to worsen with cars merging from four to two lanes to cross the Overpass.
Locals have raised their concerns with me about the constant congestion and safety of this road.
I would be grateful if you could give serious consideration to urgent upgrading of the Linkfield Road Overpass and I look forward to your positive response. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further information.
That's what I wrote to the minister back in February this year. To this date, I still haven't heard a thing and, quite frankly, we need to address this issue. Locals deserve answers and surety. Local Adrian Prince from Fitzgibbon said, 'It's time to get it done.' Greg Short from Deception Bay said, 'This needed to happen years ago.' I imagine that Greg uses that road with work, because it's a fair way from him. Thankfully, though—just for Greg, while I'm here—we are upgrading the Deception Bay overpass. This will start in June next year. I secured $120 million in federal funding for that in last year's budget. That's on the Bruce Highway, where the federal government has a key responsibility. The Linkfield Road overpass is down in Brisbane on Gympie Road, which is all state roads. And, Ken Raymond, you hit the nail on the head:
… the Linkfield Road Overpass is the sole cause of the bottleneck that obstructs east/west bound traffic travelling through Bracken Ridge, Bald Hills and Carseldine. It remains a typical example of Queensland State Labor governments and their total lack of vision, planning and future proofing—
in those outer northern, Brisbane metropolitan, and Moreton Bay areas.
We've also got funding for the on- and off-ramps at Griffin on the Bruce Highway. We secured $120 million for that, that's 80 per cent of the funding, and we need the state government to throw another 20 per cent in, another $30 million. We've heard nothing from the local member for Murrumba or the government on that either. Locals deserve a long-term solution. So far they have received nothing, and the Queensland government has not allocated any funding. I say to the people in my electorate: it's not good enough, and I'll continue to fight. The state government need to find a solution and they need to find it now.
Since being elected in 2013, I've fought hard to tackle crippling congestion in my federal seat of Petrie. I have delivered funding for the Boundary Road overpass, $100 million for that, and that is now completely built. I can thank the state Labor member in that area for throwing in the 20 per cent. He was happy to work with me on that, which I was glad about. We've also got the Deception Bay Road overpass, as I said, which starts next year and it'll be a duplicate of Boundary Road overpass—for those people that live up that way, they'll know exactly what that means. We've got Telegraph Road, which we've just upgraded, in Bracken Ridge. That was a joint funding initiative with the Brisbane City Council, and I want to thank Councillor Amanda Cooper down there for working with me on that. We have also got the Rothwell roundabout upgraded: that's now a beautiful new intersection. It's helping traffic flow and it's working really well. We have $120 million for the Griffin on- and off-ramps for the Bruce Highway, as I mentioned before. And the Gateway Motorway, of which the federal government has funded 80 per cent and the Queensland government 20 per cent, will open before Christmas—that's what I've been told by Transport and Main Roads. That's really important.
I want to thank those people that have written to me on this subject. I will continue to fight my best, and we'll continue to make sure that we have a strong economy at the federal level to pay for this infrastructure.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:07
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
National Disability Insurance Scheme
(Question No. 1142)
Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Families and Social Services, in writing, on 15 October 2018:
(1) Have there been any cases of fraud relating to the NDIS; if so,
(a) how many, and
(b) what were the outcomes, broken down by
(i) provider,
(ii) carer, and
(iii) participant.
(2) How many
(a) vehicles,
(b) holidays, or
(c) recreational retreats, have been
(i) applied for, and
(ii) approved, under the NDIS.
(3) How many
(a) mobile phones,
(b) tablets, and
(c) computers, have been purchased under the NDIS per
(i) provider,
(ii) carer, and
(iii) participant.
(4) Has the NDIS made any representations to the Government for additional funding; if so, what sum was requested, and when.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) While a number of allegations of fraud have been reported, assessed, investigated or are being prosecuted, there are no complete fraud investigations relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
(2) Under legislation and operational policy, participants are not able to apply for vehicles, holidays or recreational retreats.
(3) It is not possible to provide the number of mobile phones, tablets and computers purchased. Funding is provided across several categories and participants can utilise this funding for individual items, as required.
(4) The Department of Social Services, in the course of administering the policy of the NDIS, regularly advises government of changes in the normal course of budgetary processes. The funding to be provided for the NDIS over the forward estimates is published in the 2018-19 Portfolio Budget Statements.