The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Petitions Committee
Report
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:01): Today, I present the 34rd report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament.
PETITIONS
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:01): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following 50 petitions:
Health Care
This petition of the citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: Over 6 million Australians regularly use natural medicines to improve their health, finding natural products and services to be safe and effective, helpful in preventing disease and value for money. Public expenditure on natural medicine research does not reflect the widespread popularity or the potential health benefits offered by natural treatments. Between 2005 and 2015, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) spent only 0.03% of their funds on natural medicine research. Further, the NHMRC is currently being investigated by the Ombudsman for bias and scientific misconduct in natural medicine research. The petitioners believe that the NHMRC is not the appropriate organisation for oversight of scientific research into the diverse medical and health care systems of natural and integrative medicine. Australia has the expertise to take the lead in developing an international research agenda into how we may better and more safely both prevent and manage chronic diseases utilizing natural and integrative medicines and therapies.
We therefore ask the house to:Create an Australian Government agency, independent of the NHMRC, to:
distribute natural therapies research funding through appropriate centers of academic excellence;
conduct independent unbiased reviews of the safety, effectiveness and cost-benefits of natural therapies; and
determine the potential national health and federal budgetary benefits of encouraging unrestricted private health fund access to established and evidence-based natural therapies and qualified practitioners.
from 30,985 citizens (Petition No. PN0388)
Toowoomba: Refugee and Migrant Support
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
This petition of certain citizens of Toowoomba, Queensland and Australia draws to the attention of the House the recent Federal funding cuts to CatholicCare's Toowoomba Refugee and Migrant Support (TRAMS) program. The reduction of nearly 60% of TRAMS funding is misguided and unfair for the hundreds of new Australians that TRAMS supports each year. Funding cuts will render TRAMS less able to support this vulnerable group towards independence.
We, the undersigned, therefore ask the House to restore the previous amount of Federal funding to TRAMS.
from 225 citizens (Petition No. PN0395)
Toowoomba: Refugee and Migrant Support
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
This petition of certain citizens of Toowoomba, Queensland and Australia draws to the attention of the House the recent Federal funding cuts to the Toowoomba Refugee and Migrant Support (TRAMS) organisation. The reduction of nearly 60% of TRAMS funding is misguided and unfair. TRAMS supports hundreds of new Australians in Toowoomba with a variety of invaluable services. Funding cuts will render TRAMS less able to cater for growing numbers of refugees in the Toowoomba Region.
We, the undersigned, therefore ask the House to restore the previous amount of Federal funding to TRAMS.
from 122 citizens (Petition No. PN0396)
Asylum Seekers
This petition of the Darwin Asylum Seeker Support and Advocacy Network (DASSAN) and the undersigned members of the public –
Draws to the attention of the House:
Australian policy has exiled asylum seekers and refugees since 19 July 2013 to Manus Island in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Nauru. There they are held involuntarily and indefinitely in harsh and dangerous conditions. To save lives, this cruel policy must end immediately. Twelve men have died.
The humanitarian crisis and medical emergency is escalating daily. Suicide ideation is widespread, suicide attempts are frequent, and everyone is physically and mentally unwell. Australia's continuation of this 'offshore processing' regime contravenes the UN 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, and we allege breaches the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and its incorporation into Australian law in the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth). It is in the public interest to uphold the rule of law and redeem Australia's international reputation by an immediate change of policy.
We therefore ask the House to:
Immediately –
Close all detention centres and holding accommodation on Manus Island and Nauru.
Bring to Australia all refugees and asylum-seekers remaining in PNG and Nauru to live in community with appropriate health care and support to rebuild their lives.
Accept New Zealand's offer to resettle refugees, regardless of the status of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016.
from 1,788 citizens (Petition No. PN0397)
Asylum Seekers
This petition of the Australian Refugee Action Network, draws to the attention of the House that: • Indefinite detention has undeniably harmed innocent people seeking asylum, both on shore and offshore, • Refugees have the right to protection, and opportunities to rebuild their lives in a safe environment, and • Nauru and PNG do not offer prospects for a reasonable future for people in need of protection.
We ask the House to: • Provide permanent protection to refugees who have sought protection in Australia, • Evacuate all offshore camps and bring all of the people detained there to safety in Australia, • End indefinite detention, • Ensure that determination processes are thorough, fair and timely, • Cease the demonisation of refugees, and lead a constructive and respectful dialogue, and • Legislate to protect the rights of refugees and people who seek asylum in Australia.
from 8,564 citizens (Petition No. PN0399)
Consumer Goods: Planned Obsolescence
I want to start this petition because I believe planned obsolescence is a world wide problem that is taking money from family that don't have it. Planned obsolescence also increases e-waste that contains toxic substances that impacts human health. With the support of this petition, I strongly believe this will raise awareness and start a conversation between Government and industries to stop the use of Planned Obsolescence.
We therefore ask the House to consider working with industries to stop the use of Planned Obsolescence. The reduction of Planned Obsolescence will reduce e-waiste and the issues this has on the environment and the additional cost for households. These costs relate to having to purchase new products due to their built in used by date. I am a Year 6 student from Trinity Grammar School Sydney, Australia.
from 45 citizens (Petition No. EN0755)
Assange, Mr Julian
I am starting this petition on behalf of Julian Assange who is in grave danger because of his work exposing the deception and treachery of some governments and people - which in itself is not illegal, but rather journalism. I would ask that you please provide urgent consular and legal assistance, and repatriation from London as soon as possible for Mr Assange; Furnish him with a current Australian passport; Ensure he gets appropriate medical assistance as a priority; Engage diplomatically on his behalf with other states or parties; and do everything in your power to promote his welfare and safety as an Australian citizen in consultation with him (and his lawyers and family as required.) If you are not able to fulfill all requests immediately, please help him to the best of your ability now and return to address those other parts as and when you can. Thank you.
We therefore ask the House to urgently, with the Prime Minister, recognise the singular vulnerability of Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, and ensure his health and safety by repatriating him, advocating on behalf of him, and address his medical needs, as would be appropriate for any Australian in trouble abroad.
from 14 citizens (Petition No. EN0757)
Defence: Superannuation
The current deferred IOU benefit scheme within military superannuation has been failing for over a decade to be competitive or provide for ex-servicemen in retirement. This was highlighted in the 2008 Military Superannuation Review under recommendation 8. Accumulation funds are returning 7-9% per annum whilst the deferred scheme is significantly less and unlikely to support anyone in retirement. Military superannuation has it's own special legislation that allows less privilege and rights.
We therefore ask the House to approve the transfer of military deferred benefits to an approved accumulation fund of the member's choice.
from 66 citizens (Petition No. EN0758)
Electoral System
The reason for this partition is to give the people their choice in an electorate when voting for a member to parliament is required instead of preferences causing a less voted person winning and entering Parliament
We therefore ask the House to remove preferences from the voting system and have a first past the post system so the majority of people who have voted for a member to parliament will have this member in parliament
from 27 citizens (Petition No. EN0760)
Prime Minister
We the Australian People are Sick and Tired of seeing our Duly Elected Prime Ministers Undermined and Forced out of Office by Party in-fightings and faceless Men. Australia is Quickly becoming a Laughing Stock in World Politics. No Foreighn established Government knows who the Australian Prime Minister is, and who they are Dealing with when it comes to Trade and Foreighn Policy. A change in Prime Minister is always followed by a cabinet Re-Shuffle! We have had enough. We the Australian People Vote a Prime Minister and their Party into office, and therefore should be the Only People with the Power to Vote them Out of Parlimentary Office. This would Stabalise Government over the 4 Year Term, allowing for Legislation and Policies to be Fulfilled and the Country to be Properly Governed over the 4 Years. We Vote for the Prime Minister in on their Merits, Not only the Party.
We therefore ask the House to Change the Law, so that a Duly Elected Prime Minister attaining to Any Elected Party, however Popular or Un-Popular within His / Her own Party, be allowed to Complete their 4 Year Term of Government. That a Prime Minister is Only to be Removed from power after Completion of their Elected 4 Year Term and be Removed by the Voting People of Australian. If for any reason the Elected Party is not able to Function under it's Sitting Prime Minister, then that Party Must Resign and allow an Early Election.
from 5 citizens (Petition No. EN0762)
Health Care
I request that the House of representative Remove Race & Condition Restrictions on Neo B12 injections and other B12 injections so it can be derestricted so it can be relisted on PBS Scripts for people with Rare Defects condition and for other Medical uses.
We therefore ask the House to Remove Race and Condition Restrictions on Neo B12 injection and B12 injections on PBS Scripts and relist it.
from 8 citizens (Petition No. EN0763)
McInnes, Mr Gavin
Robinson, Mr Tommy
Requesting the banning of Tommy Robinson and Gavin McInnes coming to speak and hold rallies in Australia, to prevent further anger, hatred, racism and the fuelling of these things within the Australian public. Tommy Robinson was the head of the EDL for many years, and has incited hatred within the UK for many years, and Australia, I think, is better than this. He has also been incarerated within the UK, and has been convicted of previous charges against him, and therefore, should not be allowed into the country. ( https://www.the-round.co.uk/charges-on-tommy-robinson-rap-sheet/ )
We therefore ask the House to stop Tommy Robinson from entering the country due to his incitment of hatred, racism and his views on the Muslim community. As a person who has a 'rap' sheet within the UK, he should not be allowed to visit, the same as any other person trying to enter the country with a record.
from 7 citizens (Petition No. EN0764)
Climate Change
I write to the House in response to the Prime Ministers latest remarks in which he has stated that Australia will no longer commit future funding to the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The GCF has been developed as a global platform to assist developing nations to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to help vulnerable societies adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change. As climate change is a global problem, it requires global cooperation. Some of our closest neighbours lie only 2 metres above sea level and as the latest IPCC report highlights, drastic and immediate action must be taken by all countries to prevent irreversible sea level rises, which would, of course, lead to mass migration and therefore national security issues.
We therefore ask the House to reconsider its position on the GCF and commit to future funding of this fund, ensuring that Australia is part of the solution toward helping nations mitigate and adapt to climate change rather than acting as an inhibitor.
from 5 citizens (Petition No. EN0766)
Dividend Imputation
Objection to Labour's proposal to remove franking credits. I am an 87 year old with a SMSF. With 8% annual return with the mandatory increases of minimum annual draw downs of 9% To14%,fund returns will decrease 26.33% and fund balance by30% over next 10 years. Imputation credits are 16% of my pension. Loss of imputation credits will reduce income by35.6% and fund balance by 39% over 10 years most likely requiring a Govt. pension.
We therefore ask the House to strongly advocate the retention of Imputation Credits
from 4 citizens (Petition No. EN0770)
Internet
In light of the relatively recent incident regarding Facebook's misuse of users' private information, Google's left-wing bias, YouTube's demonetisation and often outright censorship of particular political views, and hosting services denying clients their services for reasons that are quite evidently political in nature, it has become clear that the internet cannot exist in an absolute libertarian state. Social networks have grown in usership to the point where they have become digital iterations of public spaces, and as such, must be treated as public utilities. In addition to this, said public utilities must be beholden to the law - specifically laws regarding freedom of speech and expression, and anti-terrorism.
We therefore ask the House to introduce what could be called a "Digital Bill of Rights" to circumvent these issues by means of loose but clear-cut anti-censorship regulations, and prevent the internet from becoming a corporation-governed oligarchy.
from 3 citizens (Petition No. EN0773)
Okonma, Mr Tyler Gregory
Allow Tyler Gregory Okonma (stage name ‘Tyler the Creator’) access to Australia so that the artist may visit the country to perform and practice his art in our culture rich society
We therefore ask the House to repeal the existing ban or any other ban on any future VISA application the artist makes in order to enter the country
from 19 citizens (Petition No. EN0779)
Censorship
the netflix series "the chilling adventures of sabrina" is an evil and dark series that depicts and advocates satanic rituals and witchcraft. It is deeply concerning of the negative impact it could stir in ones house hold, as viewing such programs with satanic reference to invite evil spirits into your homes.
We therefore ask the House to PLEASE Ban this program "the chilling adventures of sabrina." Thankyou
from 2 citizens (Petition No. EN0780)
Consumer Rights
This petition is for action on the lack of power the consumer has when it comes to the supply of food and beverage container size and pricing and the lack of a powerful commission to make complaints to . For to long now the suppliers of food and alcohol have had the right to reduce volume and increase price without any valid reason things are getting smaller and dearer and wages are stymied and pensions are pitiful
We therefore ask the House to recommend an open investigation into price gouging by suppliers and implement a decent complaints avenue for consumers than the toothless ACCC as its just a merry go round to negotiate through their system after this present government stripped funding of them
from 1 citizen (Petition No. EN0782)
Okonma, Mr Tyler Gregory
Requesting the House to remove the ban of Tyler, The Creator coming to Australia.
We therefore ask the House to remove the ban of Tyler, The Creator to enter the country
1,from 467 citizens (Petition No. EN0784)
Child Support
The Child Support system requires urgent review - it’s unfair, outdated, and discriminatory - contributing to financial ruin, and potentially leading to the deaths of people who have been emotionally and financially destroyed. Issues: 1. Basing the income of a supporting parent using gross annual income - resulting in tax dollars contributing to other systems (eg Centrelink) – multiplying the economic cost. 2. Male total average weekly earnings (MTAWE) is used to calculate the ‘costs of children’ table, as well as the ‘self-support’ amount. This is sex-based discrimination. 3. The ‘self-support’ amount is 1/3 of the MTAWE which does not increase when income increases, even though the cost of child goes up based on higher income. 4. The Child Support system suppresses economic productivity. Parents who choose not to work and not contribute to the tax base are given more money to continue doing this.
We therefore ask the House to initiate a Productivity Commission review to examine the individual, family and economic impacts of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. If this cannot be achieved then review, update and improve the following: (ii) Income assessments - use net income, or reasonably adjusted incomes. (iii) The “cost of children’ table and ‘self support’ amount to reflect a more realistic view of the individual and their circumstances – requires a review of the MTAWE in order to reflect the current legal environment. (iv) Support economic productivity and development – ensure that both parties earn a living and be active in obtaining full time work to support their children.
from 1,475 citizens (Petition No. EN0787)
New Zealand Citizens
To ban the deportation of Permanent Residents who have children who have been born in Australia and who are specifically New Zealand Citizens. It is proposed that a Risk Assessment should be obtained to evaluate the rights of the children to be upheld to support the children to continue to have regular access to the parent who is facing deportation by allowing the parent to remain living within Australia to ensure that the children remain protected within Australia without the need to leave Australia in order to have contact with their parent. An emphasis should be made to uphold the children's rights where possible, except in cases whereby it would result in an unacceptable risk to a child. ie; Matters of domestic violence.
We therefore ask the House to not cancel Australian Permanent Resident Visas for New Zealand Citizens who have children born in Australia unless such leniency would result in an unacceptable risk to the child.
from 5 citizens (Petition No. EN0788)
Infant Formula
To restrict and make illegal the movement/export of baby/ infant formula purchased at retail outlets from Australia to Asia in order to maintain the availability and affordability of baby/infant formula specifically for at risk (low income families) and the further general population who rely on this product for their own family.
We therefore ask the House to make it illegal to export through the postal or available courier services any more than one unit of baby/infant formula that has been purchased within the retail sphere for personal gain. We ask that no fines or other punishment be imposed but simply that the product be confiscated along with any other items contained within the package and that the sender be contacted to explain within 7 calendar days the reason for sending the formula. If it is then determined that the formula (including any other associated items) have been sent for the purpose of financial gain (for example: arbitrage profiteering), that all items be confiscated and surrendered at the senders loss to Federal/State authorities for distribution to charity organizations within Australia
from 5 citizens (Petition No. EN0789)
Federal Independent Commission Against Corruption
Due to the on going irresponsible and unethical actions of certain members of parliament
We therefore ask the House to institute a Federal Independent Commission Against Corruption to uphold the integrity of the position allowed and entrusted to them by the people of Australia.
from 7 citizens (Petition No. EN0792)
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
draws the attention of the House to the fact this community is without reasonable access to the supply of Pharmaceutical Benefits by a pharmacist approved under Section 90 of the National Heath Act 1953. This community of approximately 12,500 residents has been denied reasonable access to the supply of Pharmaceutical Benefits due to an unintended consequence of the application of the Pharmacy Location Rules. The current level two approved pharmacists to supply Pharmaceutical Benefits to this community does not provide the population of more than 12,000 residents with reasonable, timely nor adequate access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). The current level of supply of Pharmaceutical Benefits does not allow residents to improve their health outcomes through access to, and quality use of, medicines in a timely manner.
We therefore ask the House to give the community of Cowra and surrounds reasonable access to the supply of Pharmaceutical Benefits by requesting the Minister for Health exercise the Discretionary Power under subsection 90A(2) of the National Health Act 1953 to approve the pharmacy premises at Suite 4, 167 – 169 Kendal Street, Cowra, NSW, 2794
from 1 citizen (Petition No. EN0793)
Schools
Draw to the attention of the House that the right of religiously-based schools to only employ teaching staff who hold and demonstrate views in line with the founding principles behind the formation of the school, is currently being questioned. However, some jurisdictions are at the same time maintaining that political parties should have the right to exclude from employment consideration, persons who do not hold to the fundamental political philosophy of the party. Your petitioners see these two propositions to be fundamentally inconsistent with each other - whatever rule applies to a religiously-based school should equally apply to a political party.
We therefore ask the House to enact / maintain laws that allow organisations formed with a major purpose to promote a particular worldview, to exclude from employment consideration people who do not hold to that particular worldview.
from 4 citizens (Petition No. EN0795)
Dental Health
This petition draws the attention of the House to the importance of dental care and the need for the whole of society to be able to access it, regardless of finances or private health insurance status. Dental health is an intrinsic element of overall health and barriers to maintaining it affect the level of health in the whole community. Necessary dental care can be prohibitively costly for individuals, especially those on low incomes or pensions, however publicly funded dental care would increase early intervention, reducing costs and improving the entire system.
We therefore ask the House to include dental care in Medicare.
from 73 citizens (Petition No. EN0797)
Live Animal Exports
Ban live exports of animals
We therefore ask the House to ban live exports of animals
from 13 citizens (Petition No. EN0799)
Childcare Benefits
Request to the House of Home affairs/ Central Link to consider Skills Migrants be child care benefited. Request is regarding skills Migrant’s persons (Currently i am on Visa SUB457) to be eligible for Child care benefits where both Partners are working as Full time and Permanent employees. Currently Permanent Residency process is very time taking and even if process started it will take minimum a year to get invited/granted (or more depends on individual situation). Child care in Australia is highly expensive where if one with average package need to pay complete salary as Child care fees. There are many families struggling due to high childcare fees and not able to contribution more to the Australian economy and labor force. Many partners just don't start working due to this and sit at home to take care of kids. If considered, this will give better opportunities and encouragement to women's and help in increasing women empowerment. Therefore, request to please consider and review childcare policies for temporary visa holders also get benefited so that both partners can work and contribute to the Australian economy, either to be considered with specific conditions.
We therefore ask the House to review policies relating to Child Care benefits for temporary visa holders where both partners are employed on a full time and permanent basis.
from 48 citizens (Petition No. EN0800)
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018
I write regarding a bill sponsored by Senator Wong to change the exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act regarding faith-based schools. It is more a responsibility for the guardian to choose the school on what they offer or not offer.
We therefore ask the House to, in the interests of freedom and enable choices to be available for people to discern and select, I would greatly appreciate you advocating for amendments to this bill which achieve the following: In situations where indirect discrimination is claimed, the faith context of the school is considered in such a way that would provide the school with some protection to manage standards of behaviour within the school. That faith-based schools be legally allowed to teach in good faith in accordance with the school’s core theological beliefs. Similarly for churches. The definition of teaching in legislation be broad enough to apply to all subjects taught at that school, not just religious education or Christian studies classes. and Faith-based schools be allowed to employ teachers who are personally committed to the school’s core theological beliefs. Thank you for being willing to consider protecting the religious rights of Christian schools.
from 1 citizen (Petition No. EN0801)
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018
I write regarding a bill sponsored by Senator Wong to change the exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act regarding faith-based schools.
We therefore ask the House to: In the interests of religious freedom, I would greatly appreciate you advocating for amendments to this bill which achieve the following: In situations where indirect discrimination is claimed, the faith context of the school is considered in such a way that would provide the school with some protection to manage standards of behaviour within the school. That faith-based schools be legally allowed to teach in good faith in accordance with the school’s core theological beliefs. The definition of teaching in legislation be broad enough to apply to all subjects taught at that school, not just religious education or Christian studies classes. Faith-based schools be allowed to employ teachers who are personally committed to the school’s core theological beliefs. Thank you for being willing to consider protecting the religious rights of Christian schools.
from 1 citizen (Petition No. EN0802)
Ball Pythons
Ball pythons are an exotic reptile and are illegal to own in Australia. These snakes are small friendly and docile. They do not attack and are to small to consume anything bigger than a small rat. They would be a great starter snake because of there size and personalities. These snakes should be legal to own in Australia.
We therefore ask the House to legalise ball pythons in Australia.
from 4 citizens (Petition No. EN0804)
Goods and Services Tax: Remedial Massage
Remedial Massage and other Soft Tissue Therapies can be used to help correct postural issues such as scoliosis, kyphosis, head forward posture, rounded shoulders, hip rotation, knock knees etc, and can alleviate many types of ache, pain and headaches. Remedial Massage, Myotherapy, soft tissue therapy and other bodywork therapies are health services and should not be subject to GST. Remedial Massage is used by Insurance Companies to assist people injured in Workers Compensation and Motor Vehicle accidents. The government has allowed ADF Family Health Card holders access to free Remedial Massage and retained the eligibility of Remedial Massage for health fund rebates when 16 other natural therapies were dropped. The government has thereby recognised the health benefits of Remedial Massage, Myotherapy etc and should abolish the GST on Remedial Massage and other forms of soft tissue therapy. There are many people who suffer from chronic pain and fibromyalgia, who find relief from Remedial Massage and other soft tissue therapies. GST is an extra tax burden on the people who can least afford it. The petition below on change.org includes photos demonstrating the effectiveness of soft tissue therapy in dramatically improving someone's posture, and you are invited to look at these photos: https://www.change.org/p/removal-of-gst-from-remedial-massage-and-other-soft-tissue-therapies There is no GST on massage if it provided by a physiotherapist, so the time has come to correct these anomalies.
We therefore ask the House to remove GST from Remedial Massage and other Soft Tissue Therapies in the upcoming April Budget.
from 100 citizens (Petition No. EN0807)
Asylum Seekers
Australian policy has exiled asylum seekers and refugees since 19 July 2013 to Manus Island in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Nauru. There they are held involuntarily and indefinitely in harsh and dangerous conditions. To save lives, this cruel policy must end immediately. Twelve men have died. The humanitarian crisis and medical emergency is escalating daily. Suicide ideation is widespread, suicide attempts are frequent, and everyone is physically and mentally unwell. Australia’s continuation of this ‘offshore processing’ regime contravenes the UN 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, and we allege breaches the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and its incorporation into Australian law in the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth). It is in the public interest to uphold the rule of law and redeem Australia's international reputation by an immediate change of policy.
We therefore ask the House to: Immediately –
Close all detention centres and holding accommodation on Manus Island and Nauru.
Bring to Australia all refugees and asylum-seekers remaining in PNG and Nauru to live in community with appropriate health care and support to rebuild their lives.
Accept New Zealand’s offer to resettle refugees, regardless of the status of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016.
from 1,003 citizens (Petition No. EN0808)
Child Sexual Abuse
The reason I'm petitioning the House is because the laws surrounding child sex offenders are too lenient. The laws do not give the victims the comfort they deserve nor do they even come close to serving justice for those who have had their lives ruined by someone who is untreatably sick.
We therefore ask the House to look over the laws and penalties they enforce on those who sexually assault children. We’re asking the House to listen to the victims stories and how the incidents has given them life sentences whilst the offenders get minimal gaol sentences/penalties. We’re asking the House to enforce the toughest penalty possible to set an example of them and hopefully eliminate, if not atleast minimise the incidents.
from 79 citizens (Petition No. EN0809)
Child Sexual Abuse
Lifetime Health Cover is a Government initiative which was introduced on 1 July 2000, and designed to encourage people to take out hospital insurance earlier in life, and to maintain their cover over their lifetime. The system is fundamentally flawed as it is based on a persons age and not their ability to pay. Further more, individuals who find themselves in a better financial position later in life are not encouraged to take insurance due to the high amount of loading which is the opposite to what was intended. Also migrants have two years before the loading is applied to them, for many it takes more than this to get into a financially secure position to be able to afford health cover. We can find no supporting evidence this legislation is working as intended. There are already tax and medicare levies in place to encourage those in the financial position to afford heath insurance to have it.
We therefore ask the House to remove the current legislation for Lifetime Health Cover Loading.
from 13 citizens (Petition No. EN0811)
Climate Change
There is increasing evidence that CO2 has very little impact on 'Global Warming' which the UN-IPCC alarmists have now re-labeled as 'Climate Change' due to the current drop in global temperatures, despite the rise in CO2. This demonstrates the machine that actually drives global climate is extremely complex and there are many other factors besides CO2 as the cause. There are further studies that suggest increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature, and may actually be an effect of rising temperatures and not the cause. The science behind the 'Global Climate Change Scare' is in-exact and relies on select data, and computer models to prove it to be true. The "97% consensus of all scientist" agreeing to AGW was also mis-reported. Ten yeas ago, Al Gore predicted there would be no polar ice in 5 years. Studies now show there has been in increase in ice on Antarctica. The world has been fooled into believing a theory that has never been proven. The citizens of the governments who are fooled will be paying for this mistake for a long time.
We therefore ask the House to withdraw from the Kyoto agreement until the proof that CO2 emissions are the cause of global climate change, to no longer partake in any form of 'Carbon Exchange' and lobby the UN-IPCC to announce the real reason they want to force countries to reduce emissions (Distribution of Wealth).
from 3 citizens (Petition No. EN0813)
Income Tax
As fifo workers we give up our lives for weeks on end,isolated working 12.5h days in extreme heat and poor camp conditions . We pay 45c in every dollar tax 90k a year. While trying to save to be set up for a future and having to pay stamp duty on cars and houses we pay enough taxes without being taxed half our wage every week . We still pay rent,ridiculous fuel tax ,bills,insurances and private health, as Australians we pay enough taxes why should we pay more income tax for making sacrifices
We therefore ask the House to lower personal income tax rate for fifo workers
from 2 citizens (Petition No. EN0814)
Q Fever
Q fever continues to affect regional, rural and remote communities in Australia, but testing and vaccination against this disease remains cost-prohibitive for many citizens. With dire drought conditions across the east coast, our rural communities are facing an increased risk of Q fever. Research shows that there is a clear relationship between decreasing rainfall and increasing Q fever incidence. Dry and dusty conditions, increased animal movements, increased movement of hay, and a greater presence of macropods put our farmers, their families and their towns at risk. Q fever costs time, costs money, and is costing lives. Australia relies on high-quality cattle and sheep production, but does little to protect our citizens from diseases associated with livestock. We believe it is unacceptable that Australia is the only country in the world with access to a human vaccine, yet we do not have an adequate level of vaccine coverage in our rural, regional and remote populations.
We therefore ask the House to reinstate the National Q Fever Management Program to subsidise the cost of testing and vaccination with Q-VAX until a new vaccine is commercialised. We also ask that the House of Representatives consider the allocation of funding of a new human vaccine by the Australian Rickettsial Reference Laboratory in the upcoming budget.
from 1,015 citizens (Petition No. EN0815)
Workplace Relations
We draw to the attention of the House: That the recent decision by the Federal Parliament to cut penalty rates has not resulted in the increased work hours or employment which was originally promised. Instead, the cuts to penalty rates have resulted in workers being paid less money for the same work, and caused real financial hardship for retail and hospitality workers. People that rely on penalty rates rely on this money to pay the bills and to raise their children.
We therefore ask the House to reverse the cuts to penalty rates to protect workers and their families.
from 31 citizens (Petition No. EN0816)
Food Labelling
Reason
Hi im asking for the government to ask shops to be fair 90% of all products on shelves are halal certified now this is so muslims of islamic faith know what products are pork and alcohol free . That means products are blessed under islamic law the problem is what about the rights of none muslims > catholics no religion people. jews .church of england baptists where are there rights i think all shops should provide a choice halal and none halal and proof of none halal thanks
Request
We therefore ask the House to examination of the religious rights on none islamic faith to purchase none halal products thanks
from 5 citizens (Petition No. EN0822)
Consumer Rights
Can you make it illegal for business and organisations to charge people late fees it is not right that business and companys and other organizations can take there time to pay you or reimburse you yet they can charge you for being late threaten you with legal action harrase you where is the rights of the consumer for this reason it should be fair for both partys if business and other organizations cant gaurantee imediate action then they should not be allowed to charge late fees or the consumer should be allowed to charge a fee for the product being late or broken this is only fair
We therefore ask the House to examine your rights for business to charge late fees when they themselves dont get charged for being late or supply faulty equipment
from 1 citizen (Petition No. EN0828)
Banking and Financial Services
Could you abolish the fees banks and other business request ! If you pay by credit card they charge you a percentage if you pay bills like phone a others they charge you to go into there business to pay the bill .atm fees for withdrawal of your money . So called account keep fees by business these fees need to go they need to be abolished
We therefore ask the House to examine why these fees are given to consumers
from 6 citizens (Petition No. EN0829)
Health Care
Request that the House consider extending to all Australian Citizens the NSW arrangements introduced in 2015 for the payment of co-payments for those suffering from cancer and chronic illness.
We therefore ask the House to support that the Federal Government in Australia introduces a consistent policy throughout the country, following the example made by New South Wales in 2015, whereby the Federal Government will pay patient co-payments for Section 100 (s100) drugs and medicines to help ease the financial burden for people with cancer and other chronic conditions. This will assist people living with cancer, as well as those with conditions such as HIV, patients with organ and tissue transplants, schizophrenia, hepatitis, Crohn´s disease, ulcerative colitis, cystic fibrosis, psoriatic and rheumatoid arthritis, and severe allergic asthma and rare diseases, particularly those affecting children, including juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Chronic disease knows no barrier in terms of race, colour, creed, where you live or your status in life. Australian Citizens pay taxes and Medicare federally, and as such all Australian Citizens should receive the same preferential benefit that has been allowed to be introduced in NSW.
from 360 citizens (Petition No. EN0831)
Judiciary
Petition Against Judicial Mediation. Judicial power is the power to adjudicate the rights and liabilities of disputing parties (Alexanders’ Case 1918). Mediation is not a technique deployed in its exercise. The law does not allow the judiciary to self-confer new powers (s 77 Constitution 1901; s 80 Judiciary Act 1903). None-the-less, procedures for Judicial Mediation in family law disputes were outlined by the now Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, William Alstergren, in Practice Direction No. 1 of 2019: <http://www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fccweb/rules-and-legislation/practice-directions/>. The petitioners respectfully assert that Judicial Mediation: i.Blurs the line between judicial and executive power; ii.Undermines the institutional integrity of a Court by judicially facilitating contractual resolution of disputes irrespective of the parties’ rights and liabilities at law; iii.Makes the authority of the mediator ambiguous; iv.Is inconsistent with the judicial oath; v.Abuses judicial remuneration; vi.Makes Court processes non-transparent; vii.Compounds power imbalances in disputes; viii.Magnifies opportunities for judicial bullying and corruption; and ix.Makes for too-radical a cultural change.
We therefore ask the House to legislatively clarify that Judicial Mediation shall play no role in the resolution of disputes arising under federal legislation.
from 21 citizens (Petition No. EN0836)
Asylum Seekers
Requesting the House of Representatives to grant the request of asylum for Rahaf Alqunun of Saudi Arabia.
We therefore ask the House to allow Rahaf Alqunun to be granted asylum in Australia and to be transported from Bangkok Thailand.
from 3 citizens (Petition No. EN0837)
Political Parties: Registration
Can you abolsh the rules for registering a political party to run in elections dump the amount of people dump the price dump the specifics everyone should have the right to run without being charged a fortune and crazy rules
We therefore ask the House to examine the changes needed to make it easy for people register and run ! It should be free to represent the people
from 6 citizens (Petition No. EN0838)
Banking and Financial Services
Introduction of a "Bank Star Rating" based upon a criteria derived from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. Similar to the same Health Star rating present on food labels in Australia, Bank Star Rating will allow Australians to compare banks and financial products more easily, empowering people to make better choices when purchasing financial services.
We therefore ask the House to introduce a Bank Star Rating system based upon criteria derived from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.
from 45 citizens (Petition No. EN0839)
Sport: Broadcasting
Cricket remains the only truly national sport in Australia, with strong support across the country. However, over the last year, an increasing number of matches have been shown exclusively on pay tv, to the detriment of the majority of Australians who cannot afford this service. In the past the Australian One Day International and T20 matches have always been shown on free to air tv, yet now no matches in these formats are shown on free to air tv. These matches are of national significance, as cricket is our only national sport. I do not understand how these matches cannot be on the anti-siphoning list. What is the point of having a anti-siphoning list if our most important sporting events are not present on it?! I see very few sporting events more worthy of their presence on this list......should this list solely consist of the afl and rugby league grand finals?! I understand that changes have been made to the anti-siphoning laws in recent years, with many sporting events removed from the list. ACMA has refused to investigate the removal of cricket from this list- despite a widespread public outcry- yet has given no reasons for this refusal.
We therefore ask the House to reassess the changes made to the anti-siphoning laws, consider reinstating the sporting events that have been removed from this list, and investigate the impartiality and effectiveness of ACMA (particularly in light of the failings of other regulatory bodies recently-ie. APRA).
from 10 citizens (Petition No. EN0841)
Defence: Superannuation
The DFRDB Authority failed to disclose to veterans the whole-of-life impost of a Lump Sum Commutation on superannuation payments reduced by a factor, based on redundant Notional Life Expectancy data and an individual's Service data. Limited disclosure of the whole-of-life deductions was made by DFRDB, 37years after the Scheme was launched, but never to members so affected. Direct debit by DFRDB has been incremented and escalated over time, to a level where the original lump sum has been reimbursed multiple times. This effectively means that veterans are subsidising their own benefits. There was no definition of the term 'commutation' within the legislation or in any document provided by DFRDB to superannuants, until its disclosure advised above. The direct debits were shown in the legislation and the DFRDB's Administrative Manual to be a finite amount, not an escalating continuum. On advice from DFRDBA all superannuants understood Commutation as an advance of Benefits to be reimbursed to DFRDB by fortnightly debits over a finite period and at a finite rate. How deluded Veterans were through DFRDB's failure to disclose their interpretation of the Legislation, before the fact, thereby committing Veterans to an ever increasing, spiralling, life-term DEBT-SENTENCE
We therefore ask the House to Instate the NLE point of each affected veteran as the point where full reinstatement of their Commutation obligation is fulfilled; and, Reimburse to each DFRDB veteran, all over-subscribed payments forfeited by direct debit by them, once their original lump sum was repaid in full.
from 8 citizens (Petition No. EN0842)
Workplace Health and Safety
Requesting that the house update Australia's Work Health and Safety Act to ensure that businesses have the same obligation to provide mental health first aiders as they do physical first aiders.
We therefore ask the House to recognise mental health in the workplace the same way they do physical health and make it compulsory to have mental health first aiders available for every employee in Australia, as they would physical first aid
from 115 citizens (Petition No. EN0843)
Petitions received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:01): I present 60 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House:
Death Penalty
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for letter of 11 December 2018 regarding a petition seeking a constitutional amendment to prevent the reintroduction of the death penalty in Australia, which was referred to the former Attorney-General on 13 February 2017. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention. The Attorney-General's Department advises that no response was provided to the original referral due to administrative error, for which it apologises.
Neither the Attorney-General nor the Attorney-General's Department provide legal advice to the public. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment on legal aspects of the proposal raised in the petition. However, the following general comments may be of assistance.
Section 128 of the Constitution requires that a referendum be held in order to make any change to the Constitution. In order to be effective, a proposed amendment of the Constitution must be approved at a national referendum by a majority of voters overall and by majorities in a majority of States (that is, in four of the six States). These requirements mean that only proposals with very widespread support succeed at a referendum.
The Australian Government is not currently proposing any constitutional amendment of the kind contemplated in the petition. The Australian Government is committed to ensuring that serious crimes are met with appropriate penalties, but has a long-standing policy of opposition to capital punishment. As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol, Australia has an obligation not only to abolish the death penalty in its jurisdiction, but also to ensure that our laws and policies are consistent with those requirements.
The Commonwealth Parliament passed the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Act 2010 to extend the application of the current prohibition on the death penalty to state and territory laws. This ensures that the death penalty cannot be reintroduced anywhere in Australia in the future.
Thank you for raising this matter with me. I trust this information is of assistance.
from the Acting Attorney-General, the Hon. Greg Hunt MP
Infrastructure: Rail
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2017 to the Hon. Darren Chester MP, the then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, regarding High Speed Rail (HSR) issues raised in petition number EN0072. Your letter was forwarded to me for consideration as I am the minister responsible for the matter you raised. I apologise for the delay in replying.
The HSR Study Phase 2 Report that was released in 2013 assessed the feasibility and cost of implementing HSR to connect Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane. The total cost was estimated at $114 billion (in 2012 dollars).
Due to the high project cost and the alternative uses of expenditure on transport infrastructure, the Australian Government is not progressing with HSR at this stage.
While the petitioner was referring to HSR it should be noted that the Australian Government is committed to exploring the opportunities for faster passenger rail links between our major cities and our regions.
In the 2017-18 Budget, the Australian Government announced $20 million in funding to support the development of business cases to demonstrate faster passenger rail travel times through new or upgraded rail infrastructure. On 20 September 2017, the Australian Government launched the Faster Rail Prospectus seeking proposals from government, individuals and consortia to investigate faster rail.
Following a highly competitive staged assessment process, I announced on 9 March 2018 the three proponents that will develop business cases for faster passenger rail. These are as follows:
North Coast Connect Consortium — Brisbane and the regions of Moreton Bay and the Sunshine Coast
New South Wales Government — Sydney to Newcastle
Consolidated Land and Rail Australia (CLARA) — Melbourne to Greater Shepparton
The list and further details about the successful proponents is available at www.infrastructure.gov.au.
I note that following my response being considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions, it will be presented to the House, recorded in Hansard and posted on the Committee's website.
Thank you again for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Michael McCormack MP
Former Member Entitlements
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 1 March 2017, regarding a petition (EN0099) presented to the House of Representatives.
The previous defined benefit parliamentary pension scheme closed more than a decade ago. Any Senator or Member first elected since, or in, October 2004 is unable to access the previous parliamentary pension scheme and is not entitled to a pension upon retirement or leaving Parliament.
85 per cent of current Federal Parliamentarians are members of the new superannuation scheme that subsequently took effect, under which superannuation benefits provided to parliamentarians are similar to those that apply to many members of the community,
These arrangements provide for the payment of monthly employer superannuation contributions during a parliamentarian's term of office. No defined benefit pension is payable to them when they leave Parliament.
Over time, as the small number of MPs first elected prior to October 2004 decreases, the number of beneficiaries under the old pension scheme will be reduced to zero.
Yours sincerely
from the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cabinet, Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan
Sexual Crimes
Dear Mr Vasta
I refer to your correspondence of 20 March 2017 to the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis QC, regarding petition number EN0129. The Attorney-General has requested that I reply given that the subject of the petition falls within my portfolio responsibilities.
The petition states that mandatory life sentences should be imposed for convictions of rape involving a minor and bail should be automatically denied in these cases. These reforms are intended to prevent alleged offenders from committing sexual offences while on bail.
Under Australia's federal system of government, the Commonwealth, states and territories have different areas of responsibility. Criminal law enforcement is primarily a matter for the states and territories, with each managing their own criminal justice system including courts and prisons.
States and territories are generally responsible for crimes against the person, including sexual offences against children, and for setting the penalties available to the courts when sentencing offenders for these crimes. The states and territories also have primary responsibility for bail policy. As such, you may wish to seek input on this issue from the state and territory Attorneys-General.
While noting the Commonwealth has limited legislative power under the Constitution, the Australian Government has introduced federal laws on child sexual offences to the full extent of its powers. This includes offences which apply to conduct occurring online (such as online grooming and the online distribution of child abuse material) and to acts committed by Australians overseas (such as child sexual tourism). These offences carry significant maximum penalties of up to 25 years' imprisonment.
The Government is also committed to combatting the online sexual exploitation of children in an environment of evolving technology and expanding methods of communication. The Government recognises that laws need to keep pace with the speed of technological change and the way technology is used by those who would harm children.
The recent passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017, known as 'Carly's Law', has strengthened the laws that protect Australian children online. This law follows the murder of 15 year old Carly Ryan by a 50 year old man who posed online as a teenage boy. Carly's Law has made it an offence for online predators to prepare or plan to cause harm to, procure, or engage in sexual activity with, a child under the age of 16. This offence enhances the ability of police to intervene prior to any child being harmed, and will serve as a strong deterrent with a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.
On 30 May 2017, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Julie Bishop MP, and I announced that the Government would introduce tough new laws to prevent Australian registered child sex offenders from travelling overseas to sexually exploit vulnerable children in countries where the legal framework is weaker and their activities are not monitored. The new laws will: make it a criminal offence for these offenders to try to leave Australia without permission from a competent authority; and will require the Minister for Foreign Affairs to deny passports to offenders when requested by a competent authority.
In October 2016, I announced the formation of a national working group of senior police and justice officials from each Australian jurisdiction and New Zealand to combat child sex offending. The working group will build on and enhance existing protections for children in Australia and overseas from the risks posed by Australian child sex offenders.
The working group is exploring a range of emerging operational and legislative issues in this area, including the sentencing and management of persons convicted of child sex offences. The working group will report to the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council, which comprises the law and justice ministers from each Australian jurisdiction and New Zealand, by the end of 2017 on its findings and recommendations.
Another measure that has been taken nationally to protect children from physical or sexual abuse and exploitation is the creation of the National Child Offender System (NCOS).
The NCOS, launched in September 2004, is a national database that contains details of persons who have been convicted of sexual offences or other serious offences against children, either domestically or while overseas. Details of convicted offenders are provided to the relevant state or territory police authorities and are made available to relevant federal law enforcement authorities.
The NCOS enables law enforcement authorities to track and monitor the movements, activities and whereabouts of these convicted offenders once they have been released into the community. Access to information on the NCOS is generally only available to law enforcement authorities, as they are best placed to keep track of where convicted child sex offenders are living, assess whether communities are in danger, and take action as required.
People who have been convicted of a child sex or child abuse offence are legally required to be registered under the NCOS in their state or territory of residence. They are also required to comply with ongoing reporting conditions under the relevant state or territory legislation, and to report their personal details to the authorities. If a person who is registered under the NCOS fails to comply with any of their reporting obligations, or if they provide false or misleading information to the authorities, this can attract significant penalties.
Importantly, the Australian Government is also taking strong action to prevent child sexual abuse in the future, working with state and territory governments, law enforcement agencies, the community sector and researchers to keep children safe. In particular, this includes work through the Third Action Plan of the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2009-2020 and funding a range of early intervention and prevention services such as the Children and Parenting Support Program, Communities for Children, and the Intensive Family Support Service.
I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism, the Hon. Michael Keenan MP
National Broadband Network
Dear Mrs Wicks
National Broadband Network rollout
Thank you for your follow-up letter of 11 December 2018 regarding the August 2017 petition (EN0246) which my Office has no record of receiving at the time. The petition asks the House of Representatives to evaluate whether the fibre to the node/building (FTTN/B) component of the National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout is commensurate with Australia's educational needs and global competiveness, and promotes all-fibre connections to the remaining premises as a better option.
Universal access to fast broadband is of immediate and fundamental importance to Australia, as it is a significant driver of productivity and innovation with flow-on benefits to employment and competitiveness. For these reasons, the Australian Government has put the NBN on track to affordably deliver high-speed broadband to all Australian homes and businesses by 2020. By giving NBN Co Limited (NBN Co) flexibility and discretion in network design, the Government has enabled a rapid broadband deployment.
In September 2013, fewer than three per cent of Australian premises could obtain a service on the NBN. Now more than 8.1 million homes and businesses, just under 70 per cent of Australian premises, can access the network. Furthermore, almost 4.7 million consumers have already activated a service, with around 100,000 additional businesses and households connecting each month.
In 2013, the Government decided to switch to the multi-technology mix approach based on the advice provided in that year's Strategic Review. The review estimated an all-fibre NBN would not be completed until 2024 at the earliest. This would have left hundreds of thousands of Australians facing a wait of a decade before they could obtain access to online education, the opportunities of the digital economy, and in some cases, any online services whatsoever.
Five years on, the NBN has been integral in bridging the 'Digital Divide', by bringing quality online education resources and cutting-edge tools to all students, young and old, wherever they live.
This is particularly true for educating tomorrow's workforce, especially in the STEM subjects of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. These fields may well uncover the next big technological innovation. High-speed broadband is also a major factor driving a new era of self-education and is empowering Australians to take their business, skills and talents to the next level through virtual classrooms.
FTTN was the first technology to be launched under the Multi-Technology Mix, and was scaled rapidly in 2016. Now at the beginning of January 2019, there are more than 3.9 million premises ready to connect through FTTN/B technology. The build has been at an average cost of $2,300 per premises compared to $4,400 cost for FTTP connections. For these reasons, and combined with the ease of deployment, the proportion of FTTN/B premises will amount to 48 per cent at the end of the total NBN build.
The Australian continent has a unique geography, with a large proportion of the urban population living in detached housing in suburbs. The FTTN/B rollout has upgraded Australia from ADSL2+ quickly and within budget. Testing by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has shown the migration from ADSL2+ to FTTN/B has realised an average 6-fold jump in peak wholesale download speeds.
While the Government expects the network will provide peak wholesale download data rates (and proportionate upload rates) of at least 25 megabits per second (Mbps) to all premises, the majority of FTTN/B premises in the fixed line footprint are experiencing better results, with about two-thirds of customers getting speeds of 50 Mbps or higher.
Recent research by the consultancies, AlphaBeta and 89 Degrees East, has calculated that the NBN added $1.2 billion of additional GDP in the 2017 financial year, and will add an additional $10.4 billion of GDP a year by 2022. In fact, the 'Connecting Australia' report found that Australia is expected to move from the bottom ten OECD countries in 2012 to the top ten OECD countries in terms of broadband equality by 2021.
All Australians can feel confident this country will be a world leader in fast universal broadband access in the coming years. The NBN will undoubtedly provide our nation with a strong competitive advantage in a world of accelerating digital change. Once the network is complete, Australia will be the first country of its size to have universal access to high-speed broadband.
Thank you for g the petitioners' concerns to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield
Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 18 June 2018 about the Referral of Petition EN0263, which requests the removal (or substantial increase in time) of the two-year limitation to access a subsidy certificate under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 (Cth).
Further to my letter to you of 4 September 2018, I have sought advice from the departments of Defence, Veterans' Affairs and Finance in relation to this request.
For background, prior to July 2008 a number of housing assistance schemes were offered to both current and former Australian Defence Force (ADF) members in recognition of their service, such as the Defence War Service Home Scheme and the Defence Service Home Loans Scheme. These schemes were reward schemes that recognised the contribution of men and women who have served in the Australian Defence Force.
The Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme commenced in July 2008 and was one of several key measures designed to improve attraction and retention of ADF personnel. It remains an important primary housing benefit.
Following consultation with the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Finance, Defence has assessed that while the Scheme continues to fulfil its attraction and retention intent, extending the two year timeframe will provide transitioning members more time to decide on a final location in Australia in which to settle and secure a property which meets their families' needs.
Our Government is committed to supporting our veterans and enhancing support for ADF members as they transition to civilian life. Therefore, I support the proposed extension of the two year timeframe to five years, and I will write to the Prime Minister to seek policy approval for this initiative in due course. The qualifying criteria for this benefit will remain unchanged, and I have also determined that this will not be a retrospective amendment.
I trust the above information is of assistance and I would like to thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Yours Sincerely
from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, the Hon. Darren Chester MP
Tobacco
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 2 January 2019 concerning petition number EN0285 on illicit tobacco in Australia. Your correspondence has been referred to me as the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs as the matter falls within my portfolio responsibilities.
I appreciate the concerns raised in the petition and can assure the Standing Committee on Petitions (the Committee) that the Australian Government has put in place a range of measures to deter those who trade in illicit tobacco. This includes a suite of new measures announced as part of the Black Economy Package Combating Illicit Tobacco in the 2018-19 Budget.
New initiatives include the establishment of the new multi-agency Illicit Tobacco Taskforce on 1 July 2018, led by the Australian Border Force (ABF) to coordinate responses to illicit tobacco across Government. The Illicit Tobacco Taskforce builds on the previous success of the Tobacco Strike Team, further enhancing the Government's approach to targeting, disrupting and dismantling serious actors and organised crime syndicates involved in the trade of illicit tobacco.
The Department of Home Affairs and the ABF will also further strengthen border controls by prohibiting the importation of tobacco without a permit from 1 July 2019. This will deter the trade in illicit tobacco by providing the ABF with new enforcement options to seize illicit tobacco and infringe tobacco smugglers more easily.
From 1 July 2019, importers will also be required to pay all duty when tobacco is imported into the country, rather than when it leaves a licensed warehouse and enters the domestic market. This will reduce potential revenue leakages from warehouses to the black market.
I note the petition refers to a number of legislative reforms announced in the 2016-17 Budget and I can advise the Committee that the Government has implemented these measures. This includes the introduction of strengthened illicit tobacco offences targeting the importation, possession, purchase, sale and production of illicit tobacco.
The Government has implemented changes to the Customs Act 1901 that extend the investigation and enforcement powers of ABF officers to new 'reasonable suspicion' offences contained in the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Another recent change to the Customs Act 1901 will reduce the burden of proof for tobacco smuggling offences. Under this change, prosecutors will no longer need to demonstrate that there was an intention or knowledge to defraud Commonwealth revenue.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, Senator the Hon. Linda Reynolds CSC
Telecommunications
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 2 January 2019 referring petition EN0294 on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 (the Assistance and Access Act) pursuant to Standing Order 209. I note that the petition itself asked that the House not support any proposal to force companies to institute backdoors into their products, or any proposal to restrict the use of encryption. Please accept this correspondence as my response to the committee.
Encryption is a vital security measure for digital data and the Australian Government is committed to strong protections for personal and commercial information. It makes the communications and devices of all people more secure. While encryption is an important aspect of modern communications it is routinely employed by terrorists, child sex offenders and criminal organisations to mask illegal conduct. This is an impediment to our agencies' ability to detect and disrupt serious threats to the public.
Rapid technological change means that valuable sources of evidence and intelligence are diminishing; 95 per cent of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation's (ASIO) most dangerous counter-terrorism targets and 90 per cent of communications lawfully intercepted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) are encrypted and unreadable. By 2020, it is expected that all communications among terrorists and organised crime groups will be encrypted.
The Assistance and Access Act was introduced as a direct response to this challenge. The legislation passed both Houses on 6 December 2018 and received Royal Assent on 8 December 2018.
The need for a modern and fit-for-purpose legal framework was highlighted by the recent fatal terrorist attack in Melbourne, and the subsequent disruption of alleged planning for a mass casualty attack by three individuals. Encrypted communications commonly facilitate the planning and execution of such attacks and it is the Government's duty to ensure that Australia's law enforcement and security agencies have the requisite tools to protect the Australian public.
The Assistance and Access Act balances the needs of investigators with important limitations and safeguards that protect the privacy of Australians, maintain the security of digital systems and ensures law enforcement's powers are used appropriately. Robust transparency, oversight and independent scrutiny measures ensure that industry and the public can maintain confidence in the products and services that allow them to communicate securely online. The new laws are not about breaking encryption. It is paramount that the services and devices that Australians rely on remain secure.
I want to assure the committee and petition signatories that the Assistance and Access Act contains express protections and prohibitions on the creation of systemic weaknesses or vulnerabilities into software or devices that would jeopardise the security of innocent parties (so called 'back doors'). For example, section 317ZG makes clear that any assistance that makes systems' encryption or authentication less effective for general users, is strictly prohibited. Other forms of assistance such as the construction of new decryption capabilities, preventing companies from patching existing security flaws in their systems or doing things like removing password rate limits from devices is also prohibited.
Australian agencies are committed to working collaboratively with industry. The regime sets out how this collaboration will occur and builds greater partnerships between providers and Australia's key law enforcement and security agencies. This is a framework for assistance and does not allow for unwarranted access to communications content, or unauthorised access to telecommunications data. Any underlying warrant or authorisation is subject to strong oversight mechanisms and subject to scrutiny by the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
Any technical capability notice which requires a designated communications provider to build a new capability can be referred to an independent assessment panel consisting of a technical expert and a retired judge. This panel has a mandate of determining whether requirements contravene the explicit prohibition against backdoors.
I hope the limitations and safeguards I have outlined above assure any signatories to the petition that the laws as passed do not force any company to institute backdoors into their products or restrict the use of encryption. The Government is committed to supporting both the communications and tech industry and ensuring that Australians can benefit from the strongest cyber security protections.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon. Peter Dutton MP
Taxation
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter dated 21 May 2018 to the former Prime Minister, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, about petition EN0497, which received 28 signatures and requests that the funding provided to Indigenous Business Australia (IBA) is redirected to Indigenous community enterprises. I have been asked to reply on the Prime Minister's behalf.
The concerns raised in this petition have been the subject of extensive reform efforts in IBA. In the 2016-17 Budget, the Government reformed IBA's funding arrangements which had the effect of ensuing any amounts not expended by IBA's Indigenous Business Development and Assistance Program are returned to the Government and reinvested in the Indigenous business sector. These changes have coincided with a record breaking year for IBA in 2017-18
I am confident that these reforms and the Government's broader Indigenous business policies alongside the support provided by IBA are making a real difference to the lives of Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander Australians. I do not believe any further change to IBA's funding arrangements are necessary.
IBA plays an important role in the Government's Indigenous Business Sector Strategy, which is designed to continue the strong growth of the Indigenous business sector.
Census data has shown the Indigenous business sector has grown 30 per cent between 2011 and 2016, driven in part by Government policies like the Indigenous Procurement Policy. IBA also plays a key role in supporting Indigenous home ownership and investing for impact through its Investment and Asset Management division.
IBA supports over 6,500 customers across in urban, regional and remote areas, many of whom have difficulty accessing mainstream sources of capital and support needed to achieve their economic goals. It is an independent Commonwealth entity, with its purpose, powers, functions, administrative and operational arrangements set out under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005. IBA is also required to meet the requirements of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, which regulates the governance, performance and accountability of, and the use and management of public resources by Commonwealth entities.
The petitioner has requested that funding be diverted from IBA to Indigenous community enterprises based on IBA's cash reserves, as set out in its financial statements as at 30 June 2017. These financial statements present the consolidated financial position of IBA including its subsidiaries, funds that have been co-invested with Indigenous organisations and funds from the New Housing Fund that are quarantined for use in home lending and were earmarked for home loans pending approval and settlement.
IBA is using its capital at its highest ever levels to support more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their economic aspirations, as reflected in IBA's annual results and its financial position as at 30 June 2018. In 2017-18 IBA had its strongest year on record, investing or lending over $400 million in capital across its housing, business and investments divisions. This represents more than 12 times the amount of funds IBA receives from the government to use as capital for lending.
In 2017-18 IBA approved 363 business finance applications to the value of $51.5 million for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander entrepreneurs and businesses. 2017-18 also saw IBA providing over 1,000 instances of business support and holding the first ever Strong Women, Strong Business conference which hosted over 180 Indigenous business women from a range of backgrounds. Other new initiatives to support Indigenous businesses include new business accelerator programs, a start-up finance package, a procurement loan for businesses accessing the Indigenous Procurement Policy, new forms of equipment leasing, a working capital product and a performance and warranty bond for Indigenous construction businesses.
IBA also wrote 913 home loans to Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander peoples. This is the highest level of approvals in any one year since inception of the Indigenous Home Ownership Program in 1975, almost double the amount. Since that time the program has supported over 19,000 Indigenous families into home ownership — equating to more than $2.3 billion in assets in Indigenous ownership. A study by Deloitte Access Economics estimates that this has also generated over $700 million in social and economic benefits.
Since 1 July 2016, IBA's Business Development and Assistance Programme appropriation has been redirected to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, to be granted back to IBA under a funding agreement. For 2017-18 and 2018-19, IBA is receiving 75 per cent of its former business appropriation via grant, or $27.5 million per year. The remaining 25 per cent is being redirected to the other initiatives to support the Indigenous business sector, as part of the Government's 10 year Indigenous Business Sector Strategy.
The Indigenous Business Sector Strategy sets out a series of actions to improve access to business and financial support for Australia's growing Indigenous business sector. It was developed in consultation with over 200 Indigenous businesses and sector partners over 2016 and 2017. Building on the success of this consultation, I am absolutely committed to working Indigenous businesses as we roll it out.
Thank you again for your letter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator the Hon. Nigel Scullion
Legal Defence
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 21 May 2018 regarding petition EN0498 presented in the House of Representatives on 21 May 2018 seeking action to recover the legal costs of parliamentarians ruled to be ineligible under section 44 of the Constitution and ensure that in future a parliamentarian ruled to be ineligible is 'liable for all legal costs in these matters'. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
In the recent dual citizenship matters referred to the Court of Disputed Returns, the Court ordered that the Commonwealth pay the party/party costs of each of the referred persons and of other parties to those matters. Accordingly, those referred parliamentarians are entitled to recover from the Commonwealth the legal costs they reasonably incurred to progress the judicial determination in the relevant matter and resolve the issues between the parties to be determined by the court. All parties to High Court proceedings, including the Commonwealth, must comply with orders made by the Court.
Thank you for raising this matter with me. I trust this information is of assistance to you
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, the Hon. Christian Porter MP
Bullying
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 11 December 2018 regarding petition number EN0518 asking for more education in schools about the effects of bullying.
The Australian Government agrees that bullying and cyberbullying are pressing social issues affecting our children and young people. A working group of senior officials, led by the Department of Education and Training, was established in February 2018 by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to consider existing and potential initiatives to address bullying and cyberbullying.
On 12 December 2018, COAG noted the Education Council's work program, Enhancing Community Responses to Student Bullying, including Cyberbullying, which was published alongside the COAG communique. The work program identifies 14 actions under three priorities:
preventing and responding to bullying and cyberbullying behaviours,
building knowledge through student voice and coordinated research, and
communicating available information and avenues for support.
In addition to this coordination of national action, on 19 October 2018, I launched the Australian Student Wellbeing Framework (the Wellbeing Framework), which supports schools to provide every student with the strongest foundation possible to reach their aspirations in learning and in life.
The Wellbeing Framework is a foundational document that promotes student safety and wellbeing, and describes the elements required for schools, teachers and school leaders to support contemporary issues faced by students in Australian schools, such as mental health and cyberbullying. It can be found on the Student Wellbeing Hub at www.studentwellbeinghub.edu.au.
The Student Wellbeing Hub also provides information and resources for students, educators and parents aimed at protecting young people against bullying. It links to the
Bullying. No Way! website at www.bullvingnoway.gov.au. School registrations are now open for this year's National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence, which will be held on Friday 15 March 2019.
It may be worth noting that Life Education Australia, with Healthy Harold as its mascot, currently delivers a module on cybersafety for Year 3-5 students called bCyberwise. The module focuses on cybersafety, cyber ethics and building positive relationships with friends online and offline. It includes discussion of strategies to deal with bullying and cyberbullying. In addition, the 'Relate Respect Connect' module was released in 2018 for Year 5 to Year 7 students.
As part of the 2018 Budget, the Government is also delivering an extra $247 million to continue our strong support for the National School Chaplaincy Program. This funding means School Chaplains can continue to provide pastoral care, run programs such as breakfast clubs and coordinate volunteer activities within the school community, for around 3000 school communities across Australia each year.
A requirement of the renewed funding is that School Chaplains will also undertake anti bullying training to be provided by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner. This additional training will support School Chaplains to manage student wellbeing issues such as the effects of bullying, and ensure they are better equipped to deal with the current challenges in school communities.
In a similar vein, there will be new resources rolling out in 2019 to support teachers with age appropriate materials and resources to plan their lessons and engage students on the topic of respect. The 'Respect Matters' initiative is about developing the foundations for respect and healthy, respectful relationships among Australia's school age students, and was funded for three years as part of the $100 million Women's Safety Package announced in 2015.
It is important to note that while the Australian Government plays an important role in developing national priorities for education, it is the constitutional responsibility of state and territory governments and non-government education authorities to ensure that appropriate measures are in place so that students can learn in safe and supportive school environments, including those free from bullying.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance in responding to the petitioners.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education, the Hon. Dan Tehan MP
M1 Pacific Motorway
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 18 June 2018 regarding the petition presented to the House of Representatives (EN0595) regarding the expansion of the M1 Pacific Motorway between Garden City and Robina in Queensland.
As part of the 2018-19 Federal Budget, the Australian Government announced a $1 billion funding commitment for the upgrade of the M1 Pacific Motorway between Eight Mile Plains and Daisy Hill and between Varsity Lakes and Tugun.
These upgrades will include, widening, ramp consolidation, installation of managed motorways technology, provision of auxiliary lanes, pavement reconstruction works, busway extension and better active transport connectivity between centres.
This $1 billion commitment builds on the $225 million already committed by the Australian Government towards two projects currently under construction on the M1 Pacific Motorway:
Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes ($110 million)
Pacific Motorway/Gateway Motorway Merge ($115 million)
The Australian Government is committed to partnering with the states and territories to invest in infrastructure projects that relieve congestion and increase productivity. The Australian and Queensland governments will continue to work together to identify future infrastructure priorities.
I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Michael McCormack MP
Environment: Pharmaceuticals
Dear Mrs Wicks
I refer to your letter of August 2018 concerning petition EN0628 - assessments of the environmental i:acts of pharmaceuticals in Australia
The Liberal National Government is committed to conserving, protecting and sustainably managing Australia's biodiversity, ecosystems, and environment. The Government has implemented a range of legislative and non-legislative mechanisms to manage pharmaceuticals, and works closely with state and territory governments to provide robust national water quality frameworks.
The supply and manufacture of human pharmaceuticals in Australia is regulated by the Australian Government under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, administered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The TGA is responsible for ensuring that therapeutic goods available for supply in Australia are safe and fit for their intended purpose. The potential for adverse effects on the environment from the use of human pharmaceuticals however, does not fall into the remit of the TGA.
The TGA has recently introduced a program to reformat the Product Information (PI) advice available for prescription medicines. This PI advice provides a summary of the essential scientific information for the safe and effective use of each prescription medicine. The information is written by the pharmaceutical company responsible for the medicine and approved by the TGA. All PIs in the new format will include the following information: 'In Australia, any unused medicine or waste material should be disposed of by taking it to your local pharmacy'. This initiative is supported by an existing program called Return Unwanted Medicines (The RUM Project - www.returnmed.com.au), where pharmacies accept unused medicines from consumers for safe disposal at no charge. This program was established in 1998 and is funded by the Australian Government. In 2015-16 pharmacists collected more than 700,000 kilograms of unwanted medicines. RUM bins are located in all PBS approved community pharmacies across Australia.
The Government also regulates chemical products containing veterinary pharmaceuticals up to the point of retail sale. The registration of veterinary medicinal products in Australia is regulated by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) which considers environmental safety in its decisions. The APVMA follows guidance from the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH) to assess the environmental impacts of veterinary medicinal products.
There are existing national frameworks in place under the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) to assist in establishing safe limits for chemical contaminants in drinking water and the environment. They include the National Guidelines for Water Recycling and the Australian & New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh & Marine Water Quality. These frameworks can be used by states and territories to maintain water quality for human and environmental uses, and to develop toxicant and stressor monitoring programs. The Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling developed under the NWQMS and overseen by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) includes guideline values for a range of human and veterinary pharmaceuticals in drinking water.
The Environmental Health Standing Committee of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (enHealth) plays a key role in supporting a consistent approach to management of new and emerging water-related public health risks across all Australian jurisdictions. The enHealth committee regularly discusses water quality issues through its Water Quality Expert Reference Panel, and provides feedback to the NHMRC national water quality guidelines. Safe water is an ongoing strategic priority for enHealth.
Water quality managers in the states and territories of Australia currently have access to rigorous and science-based frameworks that they can use to develop new water quality criteria and monitoring programs where any new concerns have been identified.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, the Hon. Greg Hunt MP
Taxation
Dear Mrs Wicks
Standing Committee on Petitions (EN0650) — to alter the tax status of the Catholic Church
This letter is in response to your correspondence of 13 August 2018 to The Treasurer, The Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP, concerning Petition number EN0650 to alter the tax status of the Catholic Church. As the issues raised fall within my portfolio responsibilities as Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance, your correspondence was referred to me for reply.
The Government provides a number of tax concessions to charities and other not-for-profits with purposes ranging from advancing education and religion to operating a local sports club. The advancement of religion has been accepted as a charitable purpose throughout the history of charity law and as such, religious organisations have access to the tax concessions provided to charities.
Comparable international jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States and New Zealand also consider the advancement of religion a charitable purpose and provide similar tax concessions to religious institutions as they do to other charities.
Access to tax concessions generally requires a religious institution to have Australian Business Number registration, registration by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) and, in most circumstances, Australian Taxation Office (ATO) endorsement. On-going registration and endorsement are subject to a number of requirements and conditions to ensure tax concessions are only available to genuine Australian charities and other Australian community organisations.
Prior to 2012, all religious institutions were automatically entitled to a range of tax concessions. Following the introduction of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 (ACNC Act), religious institutions now access tax concessions under the same process, and subject to similar conditions, requirements and safeguards, as all other charities.
Eligibility for registration as a charity by the ACNC is determined by reference to, amongst other things, the definition of charity as set out in the Charities Act 2013. The Charities Act codified and modernised over 400 years of common law cases and principles that had been the basis of Australia's charity law until 2013.
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 Telephone: (02) 6277 3187
There are 12 charitable purposes listed in the Charities Act, one of which is advancing religion. Similar to all other charitable purposes, organisations that seek registration as a charity must be not-for-profit, have only charitable purposes, those charitable purposes must be pursued for a broad public benefit, and the organisation must not pursue any disqualifying purposes (broadly purposes which are unlawful, contrary to public policy or political in nature).
Registration as a charity also requires on-going compliance with a range of governance standards, reporting requirements and other obligations, which include compliance with Australian federal, state and local laws, including child protection laws.
As an independent statutory office, the ACNC Commissioner is not subject to the direction or control of any Minister or of another government department or agency. The ACNC Commissioner is responsible for making decisions on behalf of the ACNC, including the registration of an organisation as a charity.
Some registered religious entities can be designated as a 'basic religious charity' (BRC), which may have fewer reporting and other obligations under the ACNC Act.
As the charity regulator, the ACNC relies on information from a variety of sources, including the public, to assist in its role and to implement legislation under the ACNC Act.
The ACNC takes all concerns raised seriously and investigates where appropriate. However, the secrecy provisions in the ACNC Act prevent the ACNC from providing further information about how a specific concern has or will be progressed unless and until the ACNC decides to use its regulatory powers in respect of the charity. A decision by the ACNC to use its regulatory powers in respect of a registered charity is recorded on the ACNC charity register which is available to the public at: acnc.gov.au
If a concern progresses to an investigation, the ACNC can use a range of compliance powers, including:
providing educational material or regulatory advice to the charity;
accessing any information, property and records relating to the charity that it requires to progress the investigation;
issuing directions, warnings or penalties;
entering into enforceable undertakings;
suspending or removing directors, board members or trustees; and
revoking a charity's registration or registration as a particular subtype of charity.
Similarly, the Commissioner of Taxation relies on information from a variety of sources, including the public, to ensure the proper and effective administration of the taxation laws.
Those laws include conditions applying to registered charities' access to tax concessions, such as being physical present in Australia, compliance with certain governance requirements and using its income and assets solely for charitable purposes. If the Commissioner believes that any of these conditions has been breached, the Commissioner can remove a charity's access to any or all tax concessions.
If members of the public have concerns about a charity, they can raise the matter with either the ACNC or the ATO or both. Information can be provided anonymously.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance, Senator the Hon. Zed Seselja
Telecommunications
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter dated 17 September 2018 regarding the petition (EN0655) requesting the Hon. Speaker of the House of Representatives and Members of the House of Representatives to consider the original copper wire 4v DC landline be kept in those households where it is important to keep a reliable line of communications open when there is a power outage, due to having a family member with a disability.
The Government's policy objective for NBN Co Limited (NBN Co) is to deliver broadband services to all Australians.
The National Broadband Network (NBN) is a major upgrade to Australia's telecommunications network. The Government wants all Australian premises to have access to the NBN and is committed to completing the national rollout of the NBN by 2020,
allowing all Australians to benefit economically and socially from the NBN.
In relation concerns around power outages, no communications technology whether fixed line or mobile, can provide 100 per cent resilience during power outages, natural disasters or other unforeseen events. Advice from NBN Co Limited (NBN Co) remains that, regardless of the access technology, consumers should not assume that services over the NBN will work in a power outage, and should therefore consider maintaining an alternative communications technology such as a charged mobile phone.
While in certain circumstances the pre-NBN copper network provided a fortuitous benefit that allowed traditional analogue corded telephones to be powered from the telephone exchange during a local power outage, this was not failsafe. Phone and intemet connectivity would also be unavailable if the outage affected the nearby telecommunications pillar, the local telephone exchange, or the fixed lines from the exchange to a premises. Similarly, the common use of cordless phones, ADSL modems and Wi-Fi routers for home and business internet connectivity means most communications services are reliant on a local power supply, even in the pre-NBN environment.
Mobile coverage is available to 99 per cent of Australia's population, providing a backup communications option if fixed line communications services are impacted during a power outage. There is mobile coverage for the vast majority of Australians in the NBN fixed line footprint.
The Committee should also note that the existing copper network is only being replaced in areas where the NBN fixed line network is being rolled out. Premises in NBN fixed wireless and satellite footprints, where it is most likely that mobile blackspots will occur, can continue accessing the existing copper network under current Universal Service Obligation arrangements. Therefore, consumers in fixed wireless and satellite areas can choose to have their telephone service delivered over the existing copper network, if offered by their telecommunications retail service provider. When used with a corded telephone this service may continue to operate in some power outages.
For areas with marginal mobile phone reception, there are a number of products that can improve mobile reception including the use of an external antenna. For example, Telstra and other providers offer 'Smart Antennas' to improve indoor reception on its network.
Where a consumer is unable to use a mobile phone and is concerned about being able to seek assistance during a medical emergency, there are a number of medical alarm devices and services available in the market. Consumers may also wish to consider a solution such as a monitored medical alarm device, certified as compliant with Australian Standard AS4607- 1999. These devices are required to include a battery backup capacity of 36 hours in event of a power outage. Consumers should take care to appropriately research and choose a product that best suits their specific needs.
In relation to the concerns raised about the safety of people during an emergency, the Australian Government appreciates that the continued operation of medical alarms is critical and that it is important they are properly migrated to the NBN or an alternative operating platform before the existing fixed line voice service over which they operate is disconnected.
NBN Co established the Medical Alarm Subsidy Scheme to addresses interoperability issues when moving 24-hour monitored medical alarms from the copper-based network to an NBN service. As a result, around 100,000 monitored medical alarms with 3G capability and extended run-time battery backup have been successfully installed in homes and retirement villages around Australia.
On 5 August 2018, NBN Co announced it is offering eligible consumers financial assistance to upgrade unmonitored medical alarms as part of their households move to the NBN. All new alarms provided under the offer have inbuilt battery backup and can operate over the mobile network if a user's NBN connection is affected by a power outage. Eligible consumers wanting to upgrade can purchase a new alarm from participating suppliers at an 80 per cent discount, to a maximum of $300, off the normal retail price. More information on the upgrade offer is at www.nbnco.com.au/upgradeoffer
Consumers are encouraged to register their medical alarm service on NBN Co's Medical Alarm Register. The Register is an important initiative to help identify households with medical alarms, where support may be needed to assist in migration. Further information is available by visiting NBN Co's medical alarms webpage at www.nbnco.com.au/medicalregister or by telephoning 1800 227 300.
As part of effective disaster preparation and planning, it is strongly recommended that people do not rely solely on having the ability to make phone calls in case both fixed line and mobile services are impacted. A range of information sources should be used in an emergency to stay aware of local conditions. These information sources may include battery-powered radio and/or television if power is available.
I hope this information assists the Committee in its consideration of the petition and I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the petitioners for presenting their views on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield
Human Rights
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 17 September about Petition EN0659 presented to the House of Representatives on 17 September by the Member for Makin, Mr Tony Zappia MP, as part of a Parliamentary motion.
The Australian Government is concerned about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including the arbitrary detention of Uighurs and other Muslim groups, and restrictions on Uighurs' freedom of movement and freedom of religious belief.
We have raised our concerns with China regularly, urging China to exercise restraint and to address the underlying causes of tensions, including restrictions on religious and cultural freedom. On 6 November, Australia raised its concerns during China's Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. On 8 November, I reiterated those concerns to Chinese Foreign Minister Wang during my visit to Beijing. We will continue to seek opportunities to raise our concerns with China about the mass detention of Uighurs.
The Government is concerned at reports, such as The Guardian report referred to in this petition request, from Uighur-Australians of harassment of their China-based families, including detentions. We have sought information from China, at the request of Uighur-Australians, about the whereabouts and welfare of friends and family in Xinjiang.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Hon. Marise Payne
National Security
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for referring Petition EN0667 requesting that the House agrees to the termination of the 'Force Posture Agreement', signed between the Australian and the United States governments in 2014, under the terms of Article XXI of that agreement.
The United States is Australia's most important security partner, and the US Force Posture Initiatives (USFPI) enhance Australia's national security and contribute to the stability of our region. The United States-Australia alliance delivers a capability edge to our armed forces and intelligence agencies, and bolsters our regional influence. Our engagement and cooperation with the US armed forces allow us to meaningfully contribute to US-led operations in response to regional and global security challenges wherever our interests are engaged.
Australia's support of the USFPI is a tangible example of how we support the United States' presence in the region. In the coming years, I am confident that the USFPI will provide new opportunities for combined training, regional engagement and further interoperability between our armed forces, including for humanitarian operations.
I trust that the above information is useful for the Committee's consideration.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Defence, the Hon. Christopher Pyne MP
Health Care
Dear Mrs Wicks
I refer to your letter of 17 September 2018 concerning Petition referrals — Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) definition of newborn (petition EN0682). I regret the delay in responding.
I note the position outlined in the petition. A range of work is currently underway which may, at least in part, address the concerns flagged in the petition.
To clarify the existing arrangements, the AIHW's definition of newborn qualification status (METeOR identifier 327254) has been developed from the definition of a hospital 'patient', for the purposes of the Health Insurance Act 1973. As such, it is not within the AIHW's power to unilaterally change the qualification status definition.
The Liberal National Government is, however, very aware of the concerns that have been raised in relation to the definition of unqualified newborns. This issue is being considered by my Department in the context of the national strategic approach to maternity services, currently under development. Further information on the national strategic approach to maternity services, including the consultation process, can be accessed at www.health.gov.au/maternity.
The AIHW is also conducting a scoping exercise to consider potential enhancements to the data relating to both unqualified and qualified newborns. This work is on the 2018-19 work plan for the AIHW's National Health Data and Information Steering Committee, which oversees the METeOR definitions and the National Minimum Data Sets. The AIHW will be engaging a consultant to support this work as well as seeking input from stakeholders in the coming months.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, the Hon. Greg Hunt MP
Australian Human Rights Commission
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter dated 15 October 2018 regarding petition number EN0685, which asks the House of Representatives to block the Australian Human Rights Commission Repeal (Duplication Removal) Bill 2018. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
The Australian Government does not propose to support the Bill, which seeks to abolish the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission).
The Commission has a defined statutory role to promote Australians' rights and freedoms and conciliate human rights and discrimination complaints.
The Australian Government recognises the Commission's important role in promoting, protecting and conciliating human rights issues and addressing discrimination complaints against individuals.
Though the Australian Government will not always agree with the Commission, and recognises that others may also disagree, the Australian Government considers the Commission's role is important to ensure the continuation of vigorous, diverse and balanced debates about human rights in Australia.
Thank you again for bringing this petition to my attention. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, the Hon. Christian Porter MP
Cybersecurity
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 October 2018 concerning Petition EN0689.
The subject of consumer rights relating to digital content was raised as part of the Australian Consumer Law Review (ACL Review), conducted by Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand (CAANZ).
The final report of the ACL Review was published in April 2017. It noted that consultation during the review process indicated:
Digital content is challenging traditional concepts of consumers and traders, the traditional distinction between goods and services, ownership rights, the remedies that are expected by consumers and what fit-for-purpose' means in this context.
The report proposed a further examination of whether the current ACL consumer guarantees are fit-for-purpose for purely digital products, certain market practices and emerging technologies.
In August 2017, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs directed CAANZ to place this further examination on the forward work program. That work is now underway and I have asked the Treasury to provide relevant members of CAANZ with a copy of Petition EN0689 to assist their consideration of the matter.
I trust this information is of assistance to the Committee.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Stuart Robert MP
Pensions and Benefits
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter dated 15 October 2018 concerning a petition presented to the House of Representatives, regarding income support adequacy (petition number EN0690).
The Australian social security system aims to support the basic living standards of all Australians and increase their social and economic participation. The Australian Government is committed to a welfare system that supports the most vulnerable, encourages those who are able to work or study, and is sustainable for future generations. One of the Government's key objectives is to ensure that people who have the capacity to work support themselves to the extent possible.
The petition suggests income support payments be increased. Numerous reviews of Australia's social support system have highlighted the complexity of the current welfare system and noted the need to focus on employment outcomes. This has been the basis for recent reforms.
The Government made several announcements in the 2017-18 Budget to strengthen the welfare system. These include the following:
From 20 March 2020, a new JobSeeker Payment will be introduced as the main working age payment. As a result, seven current working age payments, including Newstart Allowance, will be consolidated or ceased.
From 20 September 2018, a suite of Mutual Obligation Requirements and extension of Annual Activity Requirements for some jobseekers was implemented to encourage more people to actively look for work and join in activities, which boost their chances of getting a job.
From 1 July 2018, the Government no longer allows welfare recipients to be exempt from Mutual Obligation Requirements solely due to drug or alcohol abuse.
From 1 July 2018, additional government assistance to help mature-age jobseekers find work was introduced.
Working age payments such as Newstart Allowance are designed to provide a safety net for people who require financial assistance, while maintaining incentives for them to join or return to the workforce where they are able. Other payments, such as Parenting Payment Single and Disability Support Pension, are paid at the highest rate of income support payments in the Australian social security system. All of these payments are funded by taxpayers and targeted to those who need them most through means testing arrangements.
Where recipients have additional costs, such as those associated with renting in the private market and raising children, supplementary payments such as Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) and Family Tax Benefit are available. Other supplementary benefits that may be payable include Pharmaceutical Allowance, Carer Allowance, Remote Area Allowance, Telephone Allowance and Mobility Allowance, as well as a concession card.
Payment rates are indexed regularly to maintain their purchasing power. Payments such as Newstart Allowance, Parenting Payment and Disability Support Pension are indexed twice a year, on 20 March and 20 September. Other supplementary payments are indexed at various points in the year.
The petition also suggests that CRA be increased. The Government will provide an estimated $4.5 billion in CRA in 2018-19 to around 1.3 million individuals and families who are renting in the private rental market or living in community housing. CRA is an important component of the income support and family payment systems. It contributes to the improvement of housing affordability and complements broader income support objectives by assisting individuals and families and eligible older Australians with the additional costs associated with renting in the private market. CRA is adjusted each year in March and September, in line with Consumer Price Index increases. This ensures that CRA continues to help those paying higher rents and improves rental affordability for those who receive it.
The Government considers the key to addressing rental affordability is to ensure housing supply is better able to meet demand. Housing supply mechanisms rest largely with state and territory governments. As part of the 2017-18 Budget, the Government announced a comprehensive housing affordability plan designed to improve housing outcomes for Australians through unlocking supply, creating the right incentives and improving outcomes for those most in need. The 2017-18 Budget included $1.5 billion for the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, $6 million to support the Homes for Homes initiative, which aims to raise funds for social and affordable housing, and a $30 million commitment to develop a range of Social Impact Investment initiatives. For more information, visit www.homeownership.gov.au.
The Government remains committed to ensuring that social security payments are targeted and sustainable into the future.
Thank you for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Families and Social Services, the Hon. Paul Fletcher
Carers
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter dated 15 October 2018 concerning the House of Representatives petition EN0692, in which legislative change is sought for unlawful or negligent actions of workers in supporting people with disability. I am Sony it has taken me so long to respond.
I acknowledge the tragic circumstances raised in the petition that led to Shane's death and the grief Shane's family would have experienced.
There have been numerous inquiries, reports and other commentary over many years on the failure to adequately safeguard the rights, safety, health and wellbeing of people with disability. Australia has a responsibility to uphold the rights of people with disability to dignity and respect, and to live free from abuse, neglect, violence and exploitation, as outlined in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In February 2017, the Commonwealth, state and territory governments endorsed a national National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Quality and Safeguarding Framework.
The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission) was established to deliver on the Australian Government's responsibility under that Framework. The NDIS Commission commenced operation in New South Wales and South Australia from 1 July 2018. It will commence in Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory from 1 July 2019, and Western Australia from 1 July 2020.
The NDIS Commission upholds the rights of people with disability participating in the NDIS. It works with people with disability, their families, carers and advocates to empower them to speak up against abuse, neglect and harm. It also works with providers to improve their ability to provide safe and high-quality supports and services to people with disability.
The NDIS Commission's responsibilities include:
registration and regulation of NDIS providers, including through new NDIS Practice Standards and NDIS Code of Conduct;
responding to concerns, complaints and reportable incidents, including abuse and neglect of a person with disability, national oversight of behaviour support, including monitoring the use of restrictive practices within the NDIS with the aim of reducing and eliminating such practices; and
compliance monitoring, investigation and enforcement action.
A new NDIS Code of Conduct has been introduced for workers under the NDIS to protect the safety and wellbeing of people with disability. The Code of Conduct applies to all workers and service providers delivering NDIS supports or services, including employees, contractors and volunteers. It requires workers to:
act with respect for individual rights to freedom of expression, self-determination decision-making in accordance with applicable laws and conventions;
respect the privacy of people with disability;
provide supports and services in a safe and competent manner, with care and skill;
act with integrity, honesty and transparency;
promptly take steps to raise and act on concerns about matters that may impact the quality and safety of supports and services provided to people with disability;
take all reasonable steps to prevent and respond to all forms of violence against, and exploitation, neglect and abuse of, people with disability; and
take all reasonable steps to prevent and respond to sexual misconduct.
The NDIS Commission can receive complaints about the conduct of a worker and registered NDIS providers are required to notify the NDIS Commission of reportable incidents including abuse and neglect, serious injuries and deaths. The NDIS Commission has a wide range of investigation, compliance and enforcement powers. For example, a contravention of the NDIS Code of Conduct can result in a penalty of up to $52,000 for individuals and $262,500 for a corporation. The NDIS Commission can also place restrictions on or ban a worker from providing services in the NDIS market.
For the first time, the NDIS Commission brings together quality and safeguards functions into a single national body to apply to all people with disability across Australia participating in the NDIS.
Thank you for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Families and Social Services, the Hon. Paul Fletcher
Workplace Relations
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 October 2018, concerning the petition (EN0699) to launch an inquiry into the Fair Work Act, Fair Work Commission, Fair Work Ombudsman and 457 visa arrangements.
A strong legislative framework that protects workers and their rights underpins Australia's workplace relations system. Similarly, the Government has announced a number of reforms to Australia's skilled visa program to strengthen the integrity of the system.
The Fair Work Act 2009 (Fair Work Act) provides all national system employees with 10 minimum entitlements called the National Employment Standards (NES). Modern awards, registered enterprise agreements and employment contracts cannot provide for conditions that are below these NES entitlements.
The Fair Work Act also provides a framework for collective bargaining that allows employers and employees to agree on terms and conditions specific to their enterprise. The enterprise agreement must ensure that each employee and prospective employee would be better off under the agreement than if the relevant modern award applied. The NES entitlements cannot be removed or traded for other conditions in the bargaining process.
Employees to whom an agreement applies cannot receive less than the base rate of pay set out in the national minimum wage order or in the relevant award. Enterprise agreements also cannot include discriminatory and objectionable terms.
The general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act prohibit adverse action (including dismissal and loss of shifts) by an employer against its employees for discriminatory reasons, including disability, sex and age. It is also unlawful to take adverse action against an employee because of the employee's workplace rights. These protections also apply to prospective employees.
The Australian Government has taken strong action to protect vulnerable workers through changes to national workplace laws that came into effect in September 2017.
These changes introduced much higher penalties for deliberate and systematic underpayment of workers and strengthened the evidence gathering powers of Australia's national regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman. The Government also provided a $20.1 million funding increase over four years for the capabilities and workforce of the Fair Work Ombudsman.
The Government considers breaches of workplace laws to be very serious. These new laws increase penalties for serious contraventions of certain workplace laws up to 10 times more than previous penalties.
In relation to Australia's skilled visa programs, the Australian Government announced reforms to the employer-sponsored skilled visa programs in April 2017. These reforms were implemented by August 2018 and included the introduction of the temporary skill shortage (TSS) visa, which is underpinned by skilled migration occupation lists. These lists are regularly reviewed to ensure they reflect changes in the labour market. In comparison to the temporary work skilled (subclass 457) which it replaced, the TSS visa includes more rigorous labour market testing, and strengthened English language proficiency and market salary criteria.
In addition to the above, the Australian Government established the Migrant Workers' Taskforce to ensure strong collaboration and a whole of government approach to addressing migrant worker exploitation. It was tasked with identifying regulatory and compliance weaknesses that create conditions that allow exploitation of migrant workers and to advise on practical measures to identify and rectify migrant worker exploitation. The Taskforce is due to report shortly.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention, and I trust this information is of assistance to the petitioners.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations, and the Minister for Women, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer MP
Election of Prime Minister
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter dated 16 October 2018, referring petition number EN0701 to me as the Minister responsible for electoral matters. The petition requests changes to electoral law to require a vote of the general population for a change of the Prime Minister, and to make voting voluntary.
In Australia and other parliamentary democracies, the executive arm of government is drawn from the legislative arm, that is, the Parliament. In practice the executive consists of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who are all elected parliamentarians. The Prime Minister is the head of the government. The Prime Minister achieves this position by being elected to Parliament, and by being chosen by the party in government. Changing to a presidential or semi-presidential system, where the head of government is directly elected by the people to this position, would require extensive constitutional reforms via referendum. Such reforms would also change fundamental features of Australian democracy, and involve significant costs.
With respect to the option for individuals to un-enrol, voting at federal elections has been compulsory under Commonwealth electoral law since 1912. It is a fundamental element of the Constitution that the Parliament is elected by the people.
For these reasons, and taking account of the Government's existing priorities, I do not support the petition's requests. Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention.
Kind regards
from the Special Minister of State, the Hon. Alex Hawke MP
Parliamentarians' Entitlements
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter dated 17 October 2018 to the Prime Minister, the Hon. Scott Morrison MP, relating to a petition about Parliamentarians' remuneration (petition number EN0704). The Prime Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf.
Conditions of employment and remuneration for Federal Parliamentarians are not determined by the Parliament. They are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, an independent statutory authority established under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. This arrangement mirrors those of other industries, where responsibility for setting award wages and conditions also sits with an independent tribunal, the Fair Work Commission, not the Commonwealth Government.
The Government acknowledges that not everyone will share the same opinion about its actions or decisions. However, we consider it important that everyone has an opportunity to have their say about the issues that matter to them. The views of the constituents on this particular issue have been carefully noted and will be taken into account.
Details of Federal Parliamentarians' expenses, including their travel costs, are now published periodically on the IPEA website at www.ipea.gov.au, contributing to our Government's reforms to contribute to a more transparent system.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, the Hon. Steve Irons MP
Election of Prime Minister
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 16 October 2018 regarding Petition EN0705 which requests amendments to Australia's electoral laws or the Constitution, so that the Prime Minister can only be dismissed during an election of the House of Representatives. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
I note that neither the Australian Government, nor the Attorney-General, provides legal advice to the public. However, the following general comments may be of assistance.
The Prime Minister is not directly elected by the Australian electorate. Rather, the electors vote for members of parliament to sit in the House of Representatives and the Senate, who choose the leaders of their parties. This is consistent with the principle of representative government which is a fundamental underlying principle of the Australian Constitution.
The Australian Government is not proposing any change to the current arrangements for the appointment or dismissal of a Prime Minister.
Thank you again for bringing the concerns of the Petitioner to my attention. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, the Hon. Christian Porter MP
Taxation
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 October 2018, originally directed to the Treasurer, regarding petition number EN0707 requesting the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 be amended to recognise employees of the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) under the category of 'prescribed persons', meaning they would not be liable for the Medicare levy. The delay in response is regretted.
By way of background, the Medicare levy was introduced to help offset the Australian Government's increased spending on health following the introduction of Medicare in 1984. The levy contributes to the Government's ability to finance health outlays, in the same way as other sources of revenue such as income tax.
The Medicare levy is currently imposed at a flat rate of 2.0 per cent on a person's entire taxable income, including income from superannuation above relevant low-income thresholds. Low-income earners are not liable for the Medicare levy, consistent with the progressive nature of the personal income tax system. These arrangements ensure that the liability of people to pay the Medicare levy reflects their financial capacity to contribute to the total cost of national health care, and is not merely a payment for service.
An exemption to the Medicare levy is provided to Defence Force personnel. This exemption reflects the fact that Defence Force personnel are entitled to full free medical treatment under Defence Force arrangements.
As identified in the petition, Antarctic expeditioners are provided full medical support by the AAD while in Antarctica, on Macquarie Island and in transit on the Southern Ocean, and are thus not utilising Medicare. However, unlike Defence personnel who remain eligible for free medical treatment on their return to Australia, the expeditioners have a right to immediate access to Medicare benefits upon their return to Australia, even if the injury or illness occurred overseas.
The Government considers the current Medicare levy settings with regard to the employees of the AAD to be appropriate.
I trust this information is of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Stuart Robert MP
National Redress Scheme
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 16 October 2018 regarding petition ENO708, which requests the House consider revoking the Catholic Church's religious organisation status. The petition asks the House to consider revoking the Catholic Church's 'special rights under various discrimination acts', and asks that continued resistance to comply with Australian laws see it listed as a criminal organisation.
As the petitioner would be aware, the adequacy and enforcement of child protection laws were considered by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The Australian Government is committed to ensuring it carefully, comprehensively and appropriately responds to the substantial work of the Royal Commission. This includes working closely with all Australian governments and institutions, including religious institutions, to promote children's safety and wellbeing. However, suggestions amongst other that the Catholic Church be declared a criminal organisation represent an unhelpful contribution to the public debate on these important issues.
Thank you for bringing this setition to my attention. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, the Hon. Christian Porter MP
Human Trafficking
Dear Ms Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 October 2018 concerning petition number EN0713. Your correspondence has been referred to me as the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs as the matter falls within my portfolio responsibilities.
The Australian Government introduced the Modern Slavery Bill to the House of Representatives on 17 September 2018. The Bill will establish a Modern Slavery Reporting Requirement. This will require large businesses and other entities in Australia to publish an annual Modern Slavery Statement on their actions to address modern slavery risks in operations and supply chains.
Key elements of the Modern Slavery Bill include:
Mandatory reporting criteria
Board and director approval of all Modern Slavery Statements
A Government-run, free, publicly accessible, central Modern Slavery Statements Register
A three-year review of the legislation.
The Australian Government is leading by example with a strong Modern Slavery Act. In a world first, the Bill will also require the Australian Government to report annually on modern slavery risks in Commonwealth procurement.
The Australian Government also committed $3.6 million through the 2018-19 Federal Budget to establish a Business Engagement Unit. The Unit will ensure effective implementation of the Modern Slavery Act by undertaking awareness raising and training, providing advice and support to businesses, and promoting best practice.
To further strengthen the operation of the Modern Slavery Reporting Requirement, the Government is moving amendments to the Bill in the Senate. These amendments will:
enable the responsible Minister to request an explanation and remedial action from entities suspected of non-compliance with the legislation
enable details about a non-compliant entity to be published where it does not provide an explanation or remedy their non-compliance
require an annual report to the Parliament on implementation of the legislation, including compliance trends and best-practice, and
explicitly require the three-year review of the legislation to identify compliance trends and standards and whether penalties are required, and cover the need for, and timing of, future reviews.
These amendments respond to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the Bill by establishing a pathway to consider the need for penalties for non-compliant entities, if initial implementation shows compliance rates are inadequate. These amendments set up a monitoring and evaluation process through annual reporting to the Australian Parliament and a specified three-year review.
There is no place for modern slavery in the supply chains of goods and services in the Australian market. The Government is committed to ensuring a strong Modern Slavery Act for Australia.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, Senator the Hon. Linda Reynolds CSC
Education
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your email of 22 October 2018 regarding Petition EN0714 on the inclusion of human evolution in the Australian Curriculum.
The Australian Government is committed to the development of a high-quality curriculum for all Australian students. The nationally agreed, Foundation to Year 10 Australian Curriculum (the curriculum) sets the expectations for what all Australian students should be taught, regardless of where they live or their background. The curriculum has three dimensions: eight learning areas, seven general capabilities and three cross curriculum priorities.
Through the Science learning area, students in Year 10 explore the biological, chemical, geological and physical evidence for different theories, including the theory of evolution by natural selection. The study of the diversity of life and investigation of biological systems continues in the senior school years where cellular processes and ecosystem dynamics leading to an understanding of biological continuity and change over time is taught.
Gaining such scientific knowledge also allows students to build their science inquiry skills, ability to work collaboratively and consider wider social, cultural, economic or moral issues. Further information on the curriculum is available at www.australiancurriculum.edu.au.
The Australian Government plays a national leadership role in school education. State and territory governments and individual schools are responsible for the day-to-day delivery of education programs to support implementation of the curriculum.
I trust this information assists the deliberations of the Committee.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education, the Hon. Dan Tehan MP
Health Care
Dear Mrs Wicks
Petition on depictions of female genitalia in publications and education resources in schools
Thank you for your letter of 22 October 2018 to the Hon. Dan Tehan MP,
Minister for Education, and I about petition EN0724 regarding the request from petitioners for the Guidelines for Classification of Publications (the Guidelines) to be reviewed and for education resources in schools to include a wide range of depictions of female genitalia.
Classification of publications
Under the National Classification Scheme, 'submittable' publications must be classified. A submittable publication is defined as an unclassified publication that is: likely to be classified RC (Refused Classification); or likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult to the extent that it should not be sold as Unrestricted; or is unsuitable for a minor to see or read.
The Classification Board (the Board) classifies publications based on the classification criteria set out in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications (the Guidelines). These are available on the Australian Classification website at www.classification.gov.au/About/Pages/Legislation.aspx.
The Guidelines set out the classification categories Unrestricted, Category 1 Restricted, Category 2 Restricted and Refused Classification. The Guidelines outline the scope and limits of material in each classification category by reference to six classifiable elements: violence, sex, nudity, coarse language, adult themes and drug use.
Unrestricted publications are not likely to include material that offends a reasonable adult to the extent that it should be restricted. Unrestricted publications can contain material that is not recommended for readers aged under 15 years, and may be required to display the consumer advice 'M — not recommended for readers under 15 years.'
In relation to nudity, the Guidelines state that:
'Descriptions and depictions of, and references to, nudity should not be exploitative or offensive.
Realistic depictions of sexualised nudity should not be high in impact. Realistic depictions may contain discreet genital detail but there should be no genital emphasis. Prominent and/or frequent realistic depictions of sexualised nudity containing genitalia will not be permitted. Realistic depictions in which sexual excitement is apparent are not permitted.
Stylised depictions of nudity may contain more detail than realistic depictions if this does not increase the impact.
Descriptions of nudity may contain more detail than depictions if this does not increase the impact.'
'Cosmopolitan' and 'Cleo' magazines, which are no longer published in Australia, are examples of unrestricted publications.
Category 1 — Restricted publications are unsuitable for people aged under 18 years and are legally restricted to adults. In relation to nudity, the Guidelines state that:
'Realistic depictions of nudity may contain genital detail and emphasis.
Realistic depictions of obvious sexual excitement may be permitted.
Realistic depictions may include touching of genitals.'
Category 2 — Restricted publications are unsuitable for people aged under 18 years and are legally restricted to adults. In relation to nudity, the Guidelines state that 'realistic depictions of nudity may include actual sexual activity.'
Depictions of female genitalia in publications
There are media reports that claim that airbrushing female genitalia in adult publications has contributed to unrealistic perceptions about what is 'normal' female genitalia and that this has allegedly contributed to an increase in women seeking labiaplasty surgery. These media reports claim that airbrushing of female genitalia in adult publications occurs so that a publication is more likely to receive a lower classification category.
The Director of the Board has advised that when considering the overall composition of an image, it does not interpret 'discreet genital detail' and 'genital emphasis' as relating to the features of female genitalia (such as protruding inner labia), but instead where the viewer's attention is drawn. This is achieved through considering contextual factors such as a picture's centre of interest, subject placement, viewpoint and camera angle, lighting, framing, contrast and perspective, or the way the photographer has arranged the scene. For example, a photograph taken from a low camera angle pointed upwards from ground level, towards a standing naked woman's splayed legs that focusses the viewer's point of view on the woman's vulva, may be considered 'genital emphasis'.
Similarly, 'impact' is based on an assessment of a range of factors relating to the publication overall rather than specific features of female genitalia. The Guidelines state:
'In considering each [of the six classifiable elements]..., the Board makes classification decisions based on the impact of individual elements and their cumulative effect. Both the content and treatment of elements contribute to the impact. The Board takes into account the concepts underlying individual descriptions and depictions, and assesses factors such as emphasis, tone, frequency, context and the amount of visual or written detail in those descriptions and depictions.'
Publishers may make commercial decisions to alter particular images. The Director of the Board has met with executive staff at relevant Australian publishers to explain the way in which the Board interprets the Guidelines and to advise that there is no need to airbrush female genitalia. The Board has no involvement or influence over the content of international publications imported into Australia that may include genital airbrushing.
The Director of the Board published a media release on 18 September 2017 to state that the Guidelines, and the Board's interpretation of the Guidelines, do not encourage airbrushing of women's genitals in publications. The media release is available on the Australian Classification website at www.classification.gov.au/Public/Resources/Pages/2017-mediareleases.aspx.
Depictions of female genitalia in education resources in schools
The Department of Education and Training advised that while the Australian Curriculum provides a number of opportunities for students to gain the knowledge, understanding and skills to lead a healthy, safe and active lifestyle, it does not prescribe how to teach nor does it mandate the types of resources to be used in schools.
The delivery of school education is the constitutional responsibility of state and territory governments and non-government education authorities. This includes decisions regarding the implementation of the Australian Curriculum and the types of resources used to support the delivery of biology, sexual health, and sexuality education. In many cases, these decisions are made at the school level, which allows school leaders and teachers to use their judgement about what concepts to cover and how to best meet the needs of their students. On this basis, you might wish to consider contacting the relevant state and territory government and non- government education authorities to discuss your petition. I enclose contact details for your reference.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance in responding to the petitioners.
I have copied letter to Minister Tehan.
Yours sincerely
State and territory government education authorities — General Enquiries
New South Wales Department of Education GPO Box 33 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Phone: 1300 679 332 Email: decinfo@det.nsw.edu.au Website: www.dec.nsw.gov.au |
Western Australia Department of Education 151 Royal Street EAST PERTH WA 6004 Phone: (08) 9264 4111 Website: www.det.wa.edu.au |
Victoria Department of Education and Training GPO Box 4367 MELBOURNE VIC 3001 Phone: (03) 9637 2000 Email: edline@edumail.vic.gov.au Website: www.education.vic.gov.au |
Tasmania Department of Education GPO Box 169 HOBART TAS 7001 Phone: 1800 816 057 Email: servicecentre@education.tas.gov.au Website: www.education.tas.gov.au |
Queensland Department of Education and Training PO Box 15033 CITY EAST OLD 4002 Phone: 13 74 68 Email: correspondence.dete@deta.q1d.gov.au Website: www.education.q1d.gov.au |
Northern Territory Department of Education GPO Box 4821 DARWIN NT 0801 Phone: (08) 8999 5659 Email: infocentre.det@nt.gov.au Website: www.education.nt.gov.au |
South Australia Department for Education and Child Development GPO Box 1152 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Phone: (08) 8226 1000 Email: decdcustomers@sa.gov.au Website: www.decd.sa.gov.au |
Australian Capital Territory Education and Training Directorate GPO Box 158 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Phone: (02) 6207 5111 Email: etdcontactus@act.gov.au Website: www.det.act.gov.au |
Catholic Education Commissions — General Enquiries
New South Wales Catholic Education Commission NSW PO Box 20768 WORLD SQUARE NSW 2002 Phone: (02) 9287 1555 Email: cecnsw@cecnsw.catholic.edu.au |
Western Australia Catholic Education Commission of Western Australia PO Box 198 LEEDERVILLE WA 6903 Phone: (08) 6380 5200 Email: administration@ceo.wa.edu.au |
Victoria Catholic Education Commission of Victoria PO Box 3 EAST MELBOURNE VIC 8002 Phone: (03) 9267 0228 Email: secretary@cecv.catholic.edu.au |
Tasmania Tasmanian Catholic Education Office PO Box 102 NORTH HOBART TAS 7002 Phone: (03) 6210 8888 Email: director@catholic.tas.edu.au |
Queensland Queensland Catholic Education Commission GPO Box 2441 BRISBANE QLD 4001 Phone: (07) 3336 9306 Email: director@qcec.catholic.edu.au |
Northern Territory Northern Territory Catholic Education Office PO Box 219 BERRIMAH NT 0828 Phone: (08) 8984 1400 Email: admin.ceo@nt.catholic.edu.au |
South Australia Catholic Education South Australia PO Box 179 TORRENSVILLE PLAZA SA 5031 Phone: (08) 8301 6600 Email: director@cesa.catholic.edu.au |
Australian Capital Territory Catholic Education ACT PO Box 3317 MANUKA ACT 2603 Phone: (02) 6234 5455 Email: enquiries@cg.catholic.edu.au |
Associations of Independent Schools — General Enquiries
New South Wales Association of Independent Schools of NSW Level 12, York Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 Phone: (02) 9299 2845 Email: admin@aisnsw.edu.au |
Western Australia Association of Independent Schools of WA Inc PO Box 1817 OSBORNE PARK DC WA 6916 Phone: (08) 9441 1600 Email: reception@ais.wa.edu.au |
Victoria Independent Schools Victoria PO Box 119 NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 Phone: (03) 9825 7200 Email: enquiries@is.vic.edu.au |
Tasmania Independent Schools Tasmania PO Box 616 SANDY BAY TAS 7006 Phone: (03) 6224 0125 Email: admin@independentschools.tas.edu.au |
Queensland Independent Schools Queensland PO Box 957 SPRING HILL QLD 4004 Phone: (07) 3228 1515 Email: office@isq.old.edu.au |
Northern Territory Association of Independent Schools of the Northern Territory Inc GPO Box 2085 DARWIN NT 0801 Phone: (08) 8981 8668 Email: accounts@aisnt.asn.au |
South Australia Association of Independent Schools of South Australia 301 Unley Road MALVERN SA 5061 Phone: (08) 8179 1400 Email: office@ais.sa.edu.au |
Australian Capital Territory Association of Independent Schools of the ACT PO Box 225 DEAKIN WEST ACT 2600 Phone: (02) 6162 0834 Email: aisact@ais.act.edu.au |
from Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield
Drought
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 26 November 2018 about Petition EN0725, which relates to drought support and water infrastructure.
I note the petitioners' concern about long-term drought assistance and their suggestion of a Drought Relief Scheme. The Australian Government takes very seriously the challenges faced by farmers and rural communities experiencing drought conditions and has already announced a range of short and long-term measures to support and build resilience in these communities.
The Prime Minister, the Hon. Scott Morrison MP, recently held a Drought Summit to bring together community representatives with state and territory premiers and chief ministers to ensure better national coordination and more targeted and effective assistance to farmers and their communities now and into the future. This was an important coming together of national leaders to consolidate and refocus drought efforts and delivered a range of new initiatives, including support for on-farm water infrastructure, more investment in mental health services and a new Future Drought Fund.
The Australian Government has committed to new assistance, additional funding and improvements to existing support. Our commitment reflects what members of our government have heard from farmers and from communities around the country. This support includes:
the $5 billion Future Drought Fund, to provide ongoing and sustainable funding to enhance future drought resilience, preparedness and response across Australia;
the Farm Household Allowance, which supports farmers and their partners in financial hardship, regardless of the cause;
the Rural Financial Counselling Service, which provides free financial counselling to farmers and small related businesses in, or at risk of, financial hardship;
the Regional Investment Corporation, which administers the delivery of farm business concessional drought and investment loans and the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility;
the Drought Communities Programme, which supports communities in drought-affected areas through local infrastructure projects and other drought-relief activities;
increased investment by over $500 million from nearly $2.6 billion to over $3 billion to build the water infrastructure needed for the 21st century;
various taxation measures and concessions, including the Farm Management Deposits Scheme and accelerated depreciation measures;
funding for dog fencing and weed removal in drought-affected areas;
enhanced localised weather and climate forecasting services to help prepare for drought;
investments in water infrastructure to provide greater water security, including funding for emergency water infrastructure on farm;
greater localised support for rural mental health services and community organisations;
appointing a Coordinator-General for Drought, Major General Stephen Day, DSC, AM, to engage across all levels of government, the private sector, philanthropic organisations, communities and farmers, and to facilitate coordinated delivery of drought assistance;
appointing the Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP as Special Envoy on drought to focus talking to farmers about the human and economic impact of the drought and the effectiveness of relief efforts; and
funding the National Farmers' Federation to deliver a one-stop-shop "Farm Hub" website to ensure farmers facing hardship are able source support information easily.
The petitioners can find more information about the range of available assistance measures on my department's website at agriculture.gov.au/assistance.
State and territory governments are generally responsible for planning, allocating and managing water resources. However, the petitioners may be interested to know the Australian Government is committed to fast tracking the investigation and investment in viable water infrastructure projects to help grow the Australian economy, meet future water demand challenges and build resilience to variable water availability.
Water is an issue that I am very passionate about and a critically important resource for our farmers, the petitioners appear to share my passion. New and innovative water infrastructure in the right place will help make agriculture a more profitable, resilient and dynamic sector. It heartens me the petitioners, alongside many other Australians, are actively thinking of ways to support our farmers.
The $580 million National Water Infrastructure Development Fund (the fund) and $2 billion National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility is an initiative of the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper and is implementing the government's commitment to build the water infrastructure of the 21st century. The fund is accelerating the detailed planning and construction of water infrastructure projects that will deliver new and affordable water, enhance water security and help stimulate regional economic development including through primary industries and new and expanded agriculture. The Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities has responsibility for the fund. The petitioners may wish to visit their website at infi-astructure.gov.au/infrastructure/water-infrastancture/nwidevelopment-fund for further information. From July 2018, the Regional Investment Corporation began delivering the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility, which provides concessional loans to the states and territories to help fast track the construction of dams and priority water infrastructure projects.
Thank you for bringing the petitioners' views to my attention. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Hon. David Littleproud MP
Human Rights
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter dated 26 November 2018 concerning petition EN0727 regarding homelessness, presented to the House of Representatives.
The Commonwealth Government recognises that homelessness is an important issue that affects many Australians. Effectively addressing homelessness requires long-term and systematic effort across governments and the community.
While state and territory governments have primary responsibility for housing and homelessness, the Commonwealth Government is providing a significant investment of more than $6 billion annually in housing support and homelessness services.
This includes providing $1.5 billion per annum to states and territories through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA), which came into effect from 1 July 2018. The NHHA is part of the Government's comprehensive plan to address housing affordability and aims to improve access to secure and affordable housing across the housing spectrum.
Through the NHHA, the Commonwealth Government is improving funding for homelessness by ensuring homelessness funding previously provided through short-term agreements is ongoing and indexed. This will result in an additional $620 million being set aside for homelessness services over the next five years. States and territories will need to match this funding.
The NHHA increases the accountability of states and territories in the provision of these housing and homelessness services. Under the NHHA, states and territories are required to have in place publicly available housing and homelessness strategies and contribute to improved data collection and reporting. The homelessness strategies must address a range of priority cohorts listed in the NHHA, and outline reforms or initiatives that contribute to a reduction in the incidence of homelessness.
The NHHA priority homelessness cohorts are women and children affected by family and domestic violence, children and young people, Indigenous Australians, people experiencing repeat homelessness, people exiting institutions and care into homelessness and older people.
Decisions on funding allocations under the NHHA are the responsibility of state and territory governments, which determine the priorities and the type and location of services funded. Details on the NHHA and bilateral agreements are published on the Council on Federal Financial Relations website.
From 1 July 2018, the Commonwealth Government is also providing up to $117 million over five years to deliver 103 Reconnect services nationally. Reconnect is a community-based early intervention and prevention program for young people aged 12 to 18 years (or 12 to 21 years for newly arrived youth), who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, and their families.
Reconnect helps to prevent youth homelessness by stabilising the lives of vulnerable youth and keeping them connected with their families, communities, education, training and employment opportunities. Services include counselling, family mediation, group work and other practical support.
The Commonwealth Government continues to prioritise access to affordable, safe and suitable housing for all Australians. Thank you again for bringing the petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Families and Social Services, the Hon. Paul Fletcher MP
Superannuation
Dear Ms Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 26 November 2018 about Petition EN0729. The petition seeks changes to the Military Superannuation and Benefits (MSB) scheme to allow Australian Defence Force members who have a preserved employer benefit in the MSB scheme to roll over their employer benefit to another fund of their choice.
The benefit in the MSB scheme is comprised of a member benefit and an employer benefit. The member benefit is fully funded and invested in the member's nominated investment division (or divisions). The employer benefit includes a funded employer component (productivity contributions) and an unfunded component. The funded employer component is invested in the default investment division and the unfunded component grows in line with positive movements in the Consumer Price Index.
A MSB scheme member who leaves the permanent forces (and is not undertaking continuous full-time service in the Reserves) must preserve their employer benefit in the scheme until age 55. The employer benefit is largely unfunded and when payment falls due, the unfunded component is paid from Consolidated Revenue. The member benefit can be rolled over to another fund at any time after a member leaves the permanent forces.
The inability to roll over the employer benefit (where funds are payable from Consolidated Revenue) is consistent with the other Commonwealth defined benefit schemes. Any consideration given to allowing MSB members the ability to roll over their unfunded employer component could potentially have a flow-on effect to these schemes.
Any move to provide access to the employer benefit prior to age 55 would require the Government to fund these benefits immediately. The Australian Government Actuary provided advice on 30 June 2016 as part of their Long Term Cost Report to the scheme, that the value of the unfunded employer benefit for preserved members in the MSB scheme was $7.8 billion.
Should consideration be given to allow earlier access to the employer benefit, it could lead to detrimental changes to the overall benefit design of the scheme by potentially reducing the benefits and pensions payable for the remaining members. As the scheme is a defined benefit scheme, the benefits are actuarially based on members claiming their benefits on or after the age of 55.
From age 55, members with a preserved employer benefit can elect to receive a lifetime indexed pension. Should a member elect to purchase a lifetime indexed pension, it will revert to an eligible spouse (for the rest of their lifetime) and/or children (for the period of time they remain eligible) on the death of the member. If members were able to roll over their employer benefit to another fund, they would forgo their entitlement to a lifetime fully indexed pension. I am advised it would take a considerably larger lump sum in the private sector to purchase a comparable pension.
The Government has no plans to change the preservation arrangements for MSB scheme members at this time.
from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, the Hon. Darren Chester MP
Population Growth
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 26 November 2018 regarding petition number EN0730 for a national conversation about population and immigration.
Australia's growing population presents opportunities and challenges, particularly for infrastructure and cities. As a result, the Australian Government is already actively working to establish a nationwide conversation on population. Through consultation with the states and territories, as well as a broad range of stakeholders across the country including academics, Indigenous organisations, local government bodies, property and planning groups and regional development groups, the Government is developing an evidence based population strategy for release early 2019.
The strategy will prioritise investment in urban infrastructure to alleviate congestion in our largest cities, as well as transport links to better connect cities and regions. It will also include regional development plans to support the growth of smaller regions and a more robust population planning framework that takes account of state and territory population plans.
These elements address concerns raised in the petition and should assure the petitioners that the Government considers population planning a priority, and is heavily engaged in this area.
I trust that this information will be of assistance in your consideration of this petition.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population, the Hon. Alan Tudge MP
Law Enforcement
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 26 November 2018 regarding petition EN0731, which seeks mandatory sentencing for all child sex offenders. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention in accordance with Standing Order 209(a).
I enclose my response to the petition for the consideration of the Standing Committee and for publication as provided for in Standing Order 209(b) and (c).
I have copied this letter to the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon. Peter Dutton MP, given his policy responsibility for Commonwealth child sex offences.
Thank you again for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
En cl . Response to the petition for consideration
Response to Petition EN0731
The Government agrees with the petitioners that current sentencing practices do not sufficiently reflect the harm suffered by victims of child sexual abuse. The Government also shares the views of the petitioners on the need for mandatory minimum sentences for child sex offenders.
That is why the Government introduced the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill in September 2017. The Bill strengthens existing laws to ensure that offenders are sufficiently punished and deterred, including by introducing mandatory minimum sentences for the most serious Commonwealth child sex offences and repeat child sex offenders.
Whilst the Bill also increases the maximum penalties for certain Commonwealth child sex offences, the Government is aware that simply increasing the existing penalties will not be enough to shift sentencing practices. The mandatory minimum sentences, combined with other measures in the Bill, will ensure that courts are more likely to sentence child sex offenders to an appropriate period in prison for serious and/or subsequent offences, in line with community expectations.
The Bill contains complementary measures designed to ensure that the sentences for Commonwealth child sex offences reflect the gravity of these crimes, including through:
a presumption against bail for offenders who commit serious child sex offences and those previously convicted of child sexual abuse
a presumption in favour of actual imprisonment to reduce the imposition of wholly suspended sentences for Commonwealth child sex offenders
a presumption in favour of cumulative sentences for multiple child sex offences
an overhaul of the sentencing factors for all Commonwealth offenders, including preventing the courts from discounting sentences on the basis of good character where this is used to facilitate Commonwealth offences, and
requirements to ensure all Commonwealth child sex offenders are adequately supervised and subject to appropriate rehabilitative conditions upon release from custody.
The Bill is a sensible solution that reflects community expectations and is consistent with a number of recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in its 2017 Criminal Justice report. Indeed, the Bill represents the most significant reform to the legal framework concerning Commonwealth child sex offenders since the establishment of the Commonwealth Criminal Code in 1995.
The Bill also complements a broader package of Government reforms passed in 2017 which criminalise emerging forms of child sexual abuse and strengthen protections for the community, including:
the Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Act 2017, to stop child sex offenders from travelling overseas to commit criminal acts against children under, and
Carly's Law, which targets online predators preparing or planning to cause harm to, procure, or engage in sexual activity with, a child (Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Act 2017).
All of these reforms demonstrate the Government's commitment to protecting the community and send a strong message that these abhorrent crimes against children will not be tolerated.
I thank the petitioners for taking the time to share their views with the House of Representatives.
from the Attorney-General, the Hon. Christian Porter MP
Agriculture Industry
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter 26 November 2018 about petition EN0735, which relates to commercial standards for fresh produce.
As the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, I share the petitioners' support for reducing food loss and waste (FLW); a problem that is estimated to cost the Australian economy $20 billion each year.
The Australian Government is committed to addressing FLW. On 20 November 2017, the then Minister for the Environment and Energy, the Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP, launched the National Food Waste Strategy (the Strategy), which provides a framework for collective action towards halving Australia's food waste by 2030. As identified in the Strategy, there are substantial opportunities to rethink how food waste can be prevented and potentially lost or wasted food can be used for other purposes. Further information on the Strategy can be found at environment.gov.au.
My department, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, is particularly focussed on the sustainable and innovative use of resources to improve farm gate returns and open market approaches to limiting FLW. An example of my department's contribution to Australia's work on primary production FLW is the Rural R&D for Profit Program, which has included food waste reduction projects. More information on these projects can be found at agriculture.gov.au.
The government also supported the establishment of the Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre (FFWCRC), which opened in July 2018. The FFWCRC is a new initiative that aims to reduce food waste throughout the supply chain, transform unavoidable waste into innovative high-value co-products, and engage with industry and consumers to deliver behavioural change.
Additionally you may be interested to learn about the Harmonised Australian Retailer Produce Scheme (HARPS). HARPS, developed by Horticulture Innovation Australia, was launched in October 2016. HARPS is a retailer-led scheme that harmonises food safety certification required by the major grocery retailers — ALDI, Coles, Costco, Metcash and Woolworths. This provides greater certainty to growers and allows them to supply product of similar standard to multiple retailers without the need for multiple audits.
I note the petitioners' appeal for imports of fresh produce that is already grown in Australia to be restricted. However, Australia's prosperity is highly dependent on its position as an exporter and the willingness of the global community to engage in free trade. Australia cannot expect other countries to accept our farm produce if we are not prepared to import their agricultural and food products. Importing fresh produce from overseas also allows Australia to fill gaps in our production due to seasonal availability.
I also note the petitioners' calls for growers and suppliers to be empowered to contest the standards imposed on their produce by the supermarkets. In Australia, the government is not privy to the terms and conditions of supplier-retailer contracts, and quality standards are a commercial matter for each company. Nevertheless, it is critically important that businesses are made aware of the views of their customers on such matters and I would encourage the petitioners' to raise their concerns directly with the supermarkets.
Thank you for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Hon. David Littleproud MP
Taxation
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your representations of 26 November 2018, originally directed to the Treasurer, regarding petition EN0737 for a $1 tax system for individuals and businesses. As this matter falls within my portfolio responsibilities, your correspondence has been referred to me for response.
Australia relies heavily on individual and corporate income tax as a source of revenue. Although there is scope to remove unnecessary complexity within the tax system, there is a trade-off between simplicity and fairness. Simple taxes, such as a system with a flat $1 tax on each transaction, are easy to administer and understand but do not take into account the actual economic position of different taxpayers.
Replacing Australia's progressive tax system with a flat $1 tax on each transaction would benefit some taxpayers. Others, particularly those on low incomes, would be worse off.
Progressive tax rates reflect the principle of vertical equity: that each person should contribute to the cost of government services according to their ability to pay. A tax is progressive if the ratio of tax to income rises when moving up the income scale. That is, people with higher taxable incomes pay more tax as a proportion of their income than people on lower incomes.
The current income tax system features a number of concessions targeted at low and middle income earners. An individual taxpayer, for example, does not currently pay any income tax or the Medicare levy if their taxable income is $20,542 or lower. A flat tax rate would increase the income tax burden for all people who are below this threshold.
A flat tax that raised the same amount of revenue as the current progressive tax system would see high-income earners paying less tax and low-income earners paying more tax. Most Australians would consider this an inequitable outcome, as would the Government.
In line with the principle of vertical equity, the Government targets assistance to low income individuals and withdraws this assistance as their incomes increase. This is a core feature of Australia's tax and transfer system. The Government considers that this is the appropriate system for Australia.
The Government is committed to maintaining a progressive personal income tax system. Progressivity has been a longstanding feature of the Australian taxation system and reflects the preferences of the Australian people over a long period of time under many different governments.
I trust this information is of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Stuart Robert MP
Prime Minister
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 26 November 2018 regarding petition number EN0742 concerning a proposed merger of the federal governments of Australia and New Zealand. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
Prior to Federation, there was some possibility of the colony of New Zealand joining with the Australian colonies which became the States to form part of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Of course, New Zealand is now an independent country. There is no current proposal for New Zealand to join the Commonwealth of Australia or for the two countries to become one. Any such proposal would of course need to be considered by both New Zealand and Australia.
Thank you again for bringing the petitioner's concerns to my attention. I hope this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, the Hon. Christian Porter MP
Superannuation
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 26 November 2018 regarding petition number EN0745. The petition seeks changes to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 to restore a perceived loss of benefits payable under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) scheme.
Like all Commonwealth defined benefit schemes, DFRDB was developed as a structured benefits scheme. DFRDB has a number of key features that include:
payment of pension benefits on leaving the permanent forces after 20 years' service (irrespective of age)
a higher percentage of final salary as a pension compared to other schemes
the ability to commute or exchange part of the pension for a lump sum
the ability to receive lifetime indexed pensions with reversionary benefits to spouses and/or children or orphans.
These are benefits that are not normally available without significant additional costs to the scheme member. The DFRDB scheme compared favourably with other limited superannuation schemes of the day, and continues to recognise the unique nature of military service.
For many years, retired military members and ex-service organisations have sought to improve various elements of DFRDB and its replacement scheme, the Military Superannuation and Benefits scheme. These campaigns focus on single or discrete elements of the scheme without consideration of the overall benefit available to members upon retirement.
The lifetime reduction of the DFRDB pension is consistent with arrangements in the other civilian and military superannuation schemes where a member elects to take all or part of their benefit as a lump sum instead of a lifetime pension. All the civilian and military superannuation schemes apply factors that take into account life expectancy. The way that they do this varies according to the design of the particular scheme. None of the schemes include a recalculation of the pension if a member reaches or outlives the life expectancy incorporated in the factor used to calculate the entitlement.
Defence can confirm the existence of various application forms and fact sheets from the 1970s onwards that make clear the resulting permanent reduction of pension following a member's election to commute. The proposal raised in the petition would indeed raise concerns of inequity for the many members of the DFRDB scheme who chose not to receive the immediate benefits of a lump sum by commuting all or part of their benefit.
Whilst I acknowledge that the issues raised in the petition cause considerable concern amongst some in the ex-service community, the Government does not support the view that pension recipients have been denied eligible benefits.
The concern raised by petitioners that they were not informed of the permanent reduction to their pension as a result of the decision to commute is not supported by forms and fact sheets that Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation has identified from its records over previous decades going back to the 1970s. As such, the Government does not support the proposed legislative changes to the scheme.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you and the Committee.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, the Hon. Darren Chester MP
Mental Health
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence concerning a petition on mental health at work, reference EN0746.
The Government is committed to improving psychological health and safety for all workers across all industries. The Commonwealth is working through Safe Work Australia to ensure better outcomes across all jurisdictions.
The Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022 (the Australian Strategy) provides focus and co-ordination for health and safety initiatives and activities of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and non-government stakeholders. The Australian Strategy sets targets, action areas, priority industries and priority conditions. Both the construction industry and mental health conditions are agreed priorities under the Australian Strategy.
In 2017-2018, Safe Work Australia published a number of resources on workplace mental health including:
a national guide on Work-related psychological health and safety: A systematic approach to meeting your duties
Taking Action a best practice framework for the management of psychological claims in the Australian workers' compensation sector
two reports analysing the results of the National Return to Work Survey for psychological injury claims:
Return to work in psychological claims
Return to work: A comparison of psychological and physical injury claims
a range of videos on mental health related topics including:
Beyond the spin on work-related psychological health and safety
Building a bully-free workplace
Brodie's story.
A full list of resources is available from Safe Work Australia's website www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au.
Safe Work Australia Members are developing a plan for coordinated initiatives to promote and educate businesses and workers about workplace mental health and psychological risks.
The Commonwealth, state and territory WHS regulators are working with businesses to provide education on workplace mental health and ensure they understand what they need to do to meet their duties under WHS laws.
I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations, and the Minister for Women, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer MP
Higher Education
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 26 November 2018 regarding petition number EN0747 concerning freedom of speech at universities.
Universities are important institutions where ideas are debated and challenged. We must ensure our universities are places that protect free speech, even where what is being said may be unpopular or challenging. The Australian Government considers that university policies that underpin free speech must be backed up with actions, and has therefore announced an independent review of the effectiveness of such policies in ensuring open and free discussion of ideas on our campuses.
I am pleased to advise that the Hon. Mr Robert French AC, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, will lead the independent review. Mr French has written to a number of stakeholders relevant to the Terms of Reference of this review, including all universities, student representative groups, higher education provider peak bodies and the national higher education regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA).
While the review will consider the role of the Higher Education Standards Framework, its focus will be the effectiveness of university policies and practices to address the requirements of the Standards to promote and protect freedom of expression and intellectual inquiry on Australian campuses. For a copy of the Terms of Reference, please see my media release of 14 November 2018 at www.ministers.education.gov.au/ tehan/review-university-freedom-speech.
Mr French has indicated that he will undertake the Review requested by the Government on a cooperative and consultative basis with the university sector and respecting the legitimate institutional autonomy of Australian universities.
At this stage, Mr French is not inviting public submissions. However, if the petitioners wish to provide any comments for consideration by the review, they can email them to freedomofspeechreview@education.gov.au.
Mr French intends to provide his report to the Government in early April 2019.
Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education, the Hon. Dan Tehan MP
National Security
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 26 November 2018 enclosing Petition EN0748 which raises concerns about the implications for national security and public safety of wearing facial coverings in public spaces.
The Australian Government takes its responsibility to protect the Australian community from national security threats seriously, and recognises that all members of the community are entitled to feel safe and secure.
I note that the Petition recommends the Australian Parliament pass legislation that prohibits the wearing of any face covering in public spaces that deliberately impedes or prevents a person from being appropriately identified.
Police already have a range of powers to request the removal of facial coverings as part of their duties. For example, appropriate security and screening measures already apply in Commonwealth places, such as most major airports. Government authorities may also require people to remove their facial covering where identification is required. These powers provide appropriate protections for public safety.
While the Petition does not solely refer to religious dress, burqas and niqabs appear to fall within the meaning of 'facial covering' that would be covered by the proposed legislation.
It is not a matter for governments to dictate to people how they are allowed to dress. The wearing of the burqa, niqab or other religious dress in Australia reflects the Government's commitment to ensuring that all Australians are able to practice their religion and beliefs without intimidation and interference, as long as those practices are within the framework of Australian law. Implementing legislation that would impede the wearing of religious dress in Australia would be inconsistent with our principles and traditions of religious freedom and tolerance.
Should you require further information, the relevant adviser in my office is Mr Phil Brezzo, who can be contacted on 02 6277 7660.
Thank you for bringing this Petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon. Peter Dutton MP
Food Labelling
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 26 November 2018 regarding petition number EN0750.
This petition asks the House to review the standards for food labelling to ensure accurate representation of product origin is shown on all products so as to remove obscure naming that may cause confusion. The petition provides as examples various milks available such as cow's, goat's, and soy.
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Code) sets out requirements for food identification. The Code requires the name of the food to be a name or description that is sufficient to indicate the true nature of the food. There are similar requirements in the Code for ingredient labelling, for example most ingredients must be to be listed by a common, descriptive or generic name.
Some foods such as milk can only be sold using a specified name or representation if they meet the definition of that food, including any composition requirements, that is required by the Code. However, the Code also allows for the use of the food name with additional descriptors. For example, the descriptor 'soy' for soy milk makes it clear to the consumer that the food they are purchasing is not a dairy milk.
The Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation (the Forum) considered the labelling of dairy substitute beverages (such as soy or almond milks) in 2016 and agreed that they were adequately regulated by current permissions in the Code.
In recognition of recent stakeholder concern regarding the potentially misleading descriptions of some food products and the need to maintain the integrity of the food system, the Forum further considered this issue at its meeting on 11 October 2018. The Forum noted that food and consumer laws prohibit misleading conduct, which includes misleading descriptions of food on labels. The Forum noted recent international regulatory amendments in relation to the naming of food products, including meat and dairy alternative products.
The Forum asked the Food Regulation Standing Committee to develop an options paper on how food standards, including labelling, definitions and other elements can be used to address misleading descriptions of food. This is expected to be considered at the May 2019 Forum meeting. Progress on this activity can be followed at www.foodregulation.gov.au.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Regional Services, Minister for Sport and Minister for Local Government and Decentralisation, Senator the Hon. Bridget McKenzie
Western Sydney Airport
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 10 December 2018 to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, and Regional Development, the Hon. Michael McCormack MP, regarding the Residents Against Western Sydney Airport Association's petition (petition PN0058). The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply on his behalf.
Demand for aviation services in the Sydney region is forecast to double over the next 20 years. Even if operational restrictions were removed at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, it could not meet Sydney's long-term aviation needs. The Commonwealth-owned land at Badgerys Creek was chosen as the site to cater for the long-term aviation needs of the Sydney region. A number of studies informed this decision, including the 2012 "Joint Study on aviation capacity for the Sydney region", which assessed 80 sites across 18 locations.
The economic cost of not meeting Sydney's future aviation demand would be substantial. By 2060 the impact to the Australian economy could total $34 billion in foregone gross domestic product and NSW alone could forego $17.5 billion in gross state product. Western Sydney Airport will support almost 28,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2031 and connect businesses to national and international markets. It will deliver world-class transport systems, improve business opportunities and provide economic benefits.
The Australian Government has completed a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Western Sydney Airport in accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and the guidelines set out by the Environment Minister. The EIS included an assessment on a range of issues including air and water quality, traffic and transport, noise, health, heritage and biodiversity. Conducted over a two-year period, the EIS is the result of over 700 field studies, 19 technical reports and nearly 5000 public submissions.
The Environment Minister considered the Airport Plan, which outlines the approval for Western Sydney Airport's design and development, against the findings of the EIS and placed over 40 strict environmental conditions on Stage 1, airport development. These mandatory conditions will ensure the airport development takes account of environmental and community impacts in its design and operation.
The Government will continue to consult with the community throughout the airport's development and has established the Forum on Western Sydney Airport (FOWSA) to link the community, Government and Western Sydney Airport Corporation during the planning and construction of the airport. Further information about FOWSA can be found at www.westemsydneyairportgov.au/community-partners/forum.aspx.
Thank you again for writing and I trust this is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population, the Hon. Alan Tudge MP
Climate Change
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter concerning petition number PN0093 regarding climate change.
The Australian Government (the Government) is taking strong and responsible action on climate change and contributing to global efforts to reduce emissions. As part of the Paris Agreement, Australia has committed to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. This will see Australia's emissions per person halve and the emissions intensity of our economy reduce by two-thirds. On this basis, Australia's target is among the strongest of major economies.
Addressing the impacts of climate change is a priority for the Pacific region. The Government is working closely with Pacific island countries and regional organisations to build resilience to the impacts of climate change. We have sustained and increased funding to sectors affected by climate change such as fisheries, and for disaster preparedness.
The Government's policies to reduce emissions are working and we will meet our international commitments. We are reducing emissions through the Emissions Reduction Fund, providing incentives to Australian businesses, communities and farmers for adopting new practices and technologies that reduce emissions. The Renewable Energy Target ensures 23.5 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020 and the National Energy Productivity Plan is reducing emissions through more efficient use of energy.
The Government released its National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy in 2015. The Strategy recognises that in Australia, national and subnational governments, businesses, households and communities, all have different but important roles in managing climate risks. The Strategy sets out that the Government is responsible for the provision of national climate science information and management of climate risks to its own policies, programs and assets.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Melissa Price MP
Asylum Seekers
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 21 August 2018 enclosing petition PN0332 concerning the regional processing and resettlement arrangements in Manus,
Papua New Guinea (PNG). Your correspondence has been referred to me as the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs as the matter falls within my portfolio responsibilities.
As a party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (the Refugee Convention), Australia takes its international obligations seriously. Australia is committed to providing protection to refugees consistent with the obligations set out in the Refugee Convention and other relevant international treaties to which Australia is a party.
With the establishment of Operation Sovereign Borders on 18 September 2013, the Australian Government has focused on disrupting and deterring people smugglers, detecting and intercepting illegal maritime arrivals, and supporting regional processing and resettlement of refugees, as well as returns of those transferees not found to be owed protection. Anyone who comes to Australia illegally by boat will be subject to regional processing arrangements and will not be eligible for permanent residency in Australia.
The Australian Government's Operation Sovereign Borders policies are designed to safeguard vulnerable people from exploitation by people smugglers, prevent the loss of life at sea and restore the integrity of Australia's borders. Restoration of Australia's border integrity has enabled the Government to increase the annual refugee intake. As a result, the Humanitarian Programme has increased from 13,750 in 2016-17 to 16,250 in 2017-18 and will reach 18,750 in 2018-19.
Focusing on persecuted minorities, Australia has also welcomed 12,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict zone on top of this. The 2017-18 Humanitarian Programme represented Australia's largest offshore humanitarian intake for more than 30 years. The ongoing success of these strong border control policies has enabled the closure of 17 domestic immigration detention facilities.
The Australian Government has entered into regional resettlement arrangements with the Government of PNG. Assistance is provided through contracting specialist services, such as security, welfare and health services.
The Government of PNG is responsible for assessment of protection claims for people transferred to PNG under the regional processing arrangements. PNG is a signatory to the Refugee Convention.
Persons determined by PNG to be refugees may settle in PNG, express an interest in US resettlement, volunteer to move to Nauru to await third country resettlement, or move to a country they have the right to reside in.
Resettlement of refugees from PNG in the US commenced in September 2017 and continues in 2018. As at 18 September 2018, 129 refugees from PNG have been resettled in the US. This arrangement demonstrates the strength of Australia's relationship with the US, and our shared commitment to working together on a range of global refugee and humanitarian issues.
US authorities continue to apply their own rigorous assessment and vetting processes to decide which refugees are eligible for resettlement in the US, and where and when this will take place.
Australia remains focused on concluding the resettlement arrangement with the US. Australia's border protection policies have removed the incentive for people to join dangerous and illegal people smuggling ventures to Australia.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. David Coleman MP
Alcohol Advertising
Dear Mrs Wicks
Petition Number PN0347 — Alcohol advertising
Thank you for your letter of 18 June 2018 concerning a petition on regulating alcohol advertising.
The Australian Government believes it is important to ensure that alcohol is advertised in a responsible manner whilst recognising that alcohol advertising promotes a lawful service for adults and is a significant source of revenue for media services.
Scheduling or placement of alcohol advertisements on television
Broadcasting services are provided under a co-regulatory legal system where the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 sets an overarching framework for the delivery of broadcasting services but where specific rules relating to program standards are set by broadcasting sectors in consultation with the public and the independent industry regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). This co-regulatory system recognises the importance of ensuring that television content reflects community standards and provides a means by which the community can formally express its views to broadcasters.
Alcohol advertising on free-to-air television and subscription television must be consistent with the relevant broadcasting industry co-regulatory codes of practice. The ACMA registers codes once it is satisfied that broadcasters have undertaken adequate public consultation and the codes contain appropriate community safeguards. As the independent media regulator, the ACMA has ultimate responsibility for determining whether a code should be registered.
Under the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice, alcohol advertisements may be broadcast between 8:30 pm and 5:00 am every day and between 12:00 pm and 3:00 pm on school days. Alcohol advertisements may also be broadcast as an accompaniment to sports programs broadcast at any time on weekends and public holidays, or as an accompaniment to a live sporting event that is broadcast between 8:30 pm and 5:00 am or 12:00pm and 3:00 pm on school days in the licence area in which the event is being held, or in the majority of licence areas that broadcast the event if the event takes place overseas.
Content on subscription television is regulated by the Subscription Broadcast Television Codes of Practice, which require licensees to take into account the intellectual and emotional maturity of its intended audience when scheduling advertisements for alcoholic beverages. Copies of all broadcasting codes can be found at www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Regulating/broadcasting-codes-schemes-index-radio-content-regulation-i-acma.
Content of alcohol advertising
There are currently several voluntary and co-regulatory codes of practice that set the guidelines for the content of alcohol advertisements across all advertising platforms across Australia.
The Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code (ABAC) Scheme was established by industry to set standards for alcohol marketing in Australia and operates in conjunction with state and territory alcohol advertising legislation. The ABAC Responsible Alcohol Marketing Code (ABAC Code) is administered by the ABAC Scheme and requires alcohol advertisements to present a balanced and responsible approach to drinking alcohol and not have a strong or evident appeal to children or adolescents. The ABAC Code also requires advertisements for alcohol to not depict the consumption of alcohol with personal, business, social, sporting, sexual or other success. Signatories to the ABAC Code agree to ensure that their marketing complies with the intent of the Code.
Complaints about the content of alcohol advertisements against the ABAC Code can be directed in writing to Ad Standards for consideration by the ABAC Complaints Panel (the Panel). Ad Standards administers self-regulatory codes of practice developed by the Australian Association of National Advertising (AANA), including the AANA Code of Ethics. The AANA Code of Ethics is available at aana.com.au/content/uploads/2015/12/Code_of_Ethics_081215.pdf.
The AANA Code of Ethics applies to most advertising and contains a range of provisions relating to taste and decency and is intended to reflect community values and expectations. The AANA Code of Ethics provides the basis for members of the public to make complaints about advertising. Once Ad Standards has received a complaint, it assesses the complaint to determine whether it is eligible for consideration by the Panel.
Whilst the ABAC Code and the ABAC Scheme do not consider broader community concerns regarding alcohol advertising, the self-regulatory framework for advertising does consider these concerns in relation to health and safety. The AANA Code of Ethics states that advertising or marketing communications shall not depict material contrary to prevailing community standards on health or safety. In addition, the AANA Code for Advertising & Marketing Communications to Children contains guidelines specific to the advertising of alcohol to children, including that those who purchase alcohol are more successful or superior to those who do not.
When a complaint is upheld and it is determined that a breach of an AANA code has occurred, the advertiser is notified of the decision and provided with a draft case report. The advertiser then has the opportunity to respond to the Panel's decision and to withdraw the advertisement in question. In concluding this complaint handling process, the Panel's decision and the final case report, incorporating the advertiser's response, is then provided to the complainant and published on the Ad Standards website.
Out-of-home advertising
In relation to the placement of out-of-home (OOH) advertising, the Outdoor Media Association (OMA) is the peak national industry body that represents operators who advertise across all OOH formats. OMA has developed and administers the OMA Code of Ethics (OMA Code), a set of voluntary principles defining the OOH industry's community and environmental responsibilities, and the industry's standards for working with advertisers and regulators.
Under the OMA Code, OMA members support all decisions made by the Ad Standards, and the Ad Standards Community Panel, in regard to complaints about outdoor advertising and remove any content found in breach of the AANA Code. The OMA Code also limits the advertising of alcohol around schools and areas in which children regularly frequent. OMA provides the Concept Advisory Service that assists advertisers gauge compliance with the codes of practice developed by the AANA. Complaints regarding OOH advertising may be directed to Ad Standards at https://adstandards.com.au/lodge-complaint.
More generally, placement of alcohol advertisements at sporting venues is a matter for each State and Territory Government. In recent years, the ACT, South Australia and Western Australia have each taken steps to regulate alcohol advertising displayed on public transport, including buses and trains.
Reviews of codes of practice
Whilst recognising the above national frameworks, I note that different codes apply across broadcasting platforms. Each platform operates under a different business model to reach different target markets.
All the above codes of practice are periodically reviewed. You may be interested in contacting the relevant industry peak bodies about how to contribute to the next review process. Any discussions to achieve consistency and streamline the codes across platforms must involve the ACMA as neither the Government nor the Department have any formal role in the code review and registration process.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator the Hon. Mitch Fifield
Cost of Living
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for you correspondence of 20 August 2018 concerning - Paper bill fees - Petition PN0359.
Paper billing fees
The Government recognises the provision of information in digital form is often a legitimate and efficient way to run a business. However, the Government also acknowledges that some members of the community have a need for traditional paper bills and are unable to access their paper bills without incurring a fee.
Many businesses already provide exemptions from paper billing fees for eligible consumers, including those who cannot easily access bills online such as the elderly, disabled and those in remote areas. Consumers are often not aware of the availability of these programs.
In August 2017, Consumer Affairs Ministers agreed to consider paper billing fees and businesses and the general public were then consulted to investigate the extent of the problem and what can be done to help these consumers.
As an interim measure, a national consumer education campaign was launched in April 2018 to improve consumer awareness of existing exemption programs offered by businesses and the benefits of online billing.
On 26 October 2018, Consumer Affairs Ministers met again and agreed to encourage businesses not to charge vulnerable or disadvantaged consumers to receive paper bills by providing a strict twelve-month period to increase the subscription to their existing exemption programs. The subscription target is for a minimum of 30 per cent of consumers of a business who receive paper bills being covered by an exemption program.
Ministers also agreed to favourably consider a complete ban on paper billing fees if the subscription target is not met after the twelve-month period. This approach will mitigate consumer harm and detriment for vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers while minimising regulatory costs for businesses.
Australia Post fees
While Australia Post is a government-owned business, the Australia Post Board and management are responsible for the day-to-day running of the organisation. I understand that the fees incurred to pay a bill at Australia Post are not imposed by Australia Post but by the individual billers for payment processing costs.
I note that companies normally offer at least one free-of-charge bill payment method to their consumers, such as direct debit. I also note that some companies do not charge a fee on any of their payment methods. Consumers should be encouraged to select free-of-charge payment methods or consider using a different service provider who does not charge a fee on payment methods.
While the Commonwealth Government is committed to providing appropriate consumer protections, we also aim to minimise regulatory costs for businesses where possible. Therefore, I am inclined not to support the proposal to change the law preventing businesses from charging a fee for providing a paper bill or for charging consumers for using certain payment methods to recover their related costs.
1 encourage all Australians who are concerned about these charges to contact their service providers to ask what fee exemptions may be available.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Stuart Robert MP
Carer Visa
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 20 August 2018 concerning petition PN0360, in support of a request to permit Mr Zlatan Martincic and his family to remain in Australia. Your correspondence has been referred to me as the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs as the matter falls within my portfolio responsibilities.
I can advise that the Bosnian Club of Adelaide's petition has been provided to the relevant area and will form part of the material under consideration.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. David Coleman MP
Immigration Detention
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 20 August 2018 enclosing petition PN0361 concerning the Australian Government's regional processing and resettlement arrangements. Your correspondence has been referred to me as the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs as the matter falls within my portfolio responsibilities.
With the establishment of Operation Sovereign Borders on 18 September 2013, the Australian Government has focused on disrupting and deterring people smugglers, detecting and intercepting illegal maritime arrivals, and supporting regional processing and resettlement of refugees, as well as returns of those transferees not found to be owed protection. Anyone who comes to Australia illegally by boat will be subject to regional processing arrangements and will not be eligible for permanent residency in Australia.
The Australian Government's Operation Sovereign Borders policies are designed to safeguard vulnerable people from exploitation by people smugglers, prevent the loss of life at sea and restore the integrity of Australia's borders. Restoration of Australia's border integrity has enabled the Government to increase the annual refugee intake. As a result, the Humanitarian Programme has increased from 13,750 in 2016-17 to 16,250 in 2017-18 and will reach 18,750 in 2018-19. Focusing on persecuted minorities, Australia has also welcomed 12,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict zone on top of this.
The 2017-18 Humanitarian Programme represented Australia's largest offshore humanitarian intake for more than 30 years. The ongoing success of these strong border control policies has enabled the closure of 17 domestic immigration detention facilities.
The Australian Government has entered into regional resettlement arrangements with the Governments of Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG). Assistance is provided through contracting specialist services, such as security, welfare and health services.
The Governments of Nauru and PNG are responsible for assessment of protection claims for people transferred to those countries under the regional processing arrangements. Nauru and PNG are both signatories to the Refugee Convention.
Persons determined by Nauru to be refugees may remain in Nauru for up to 20 years, express an interest in US resettlement, or move to a country they have the right to reside in. Persons determined by PNG to be refugees may settle in PNG, express an interest in US resettlement, volunteer to move to Nauru to await third country resettlement, or move to a country they have the right to reside in.
Resettlement of refugees from Nauru and PNG in the US commenced in September 2017 and continues in 2018. This arrangement demonstrates the strength of Australia's relationship with the US, and our shared commitment to working together on a range of global refugee and humanitarian issues.
US authorities continue to apply their own rigorous assessment and vetting processes to decide which refugees are eligible for resettlement in the US, and where and when this will take place.
Australia has a long-standing programme to assist Indonesia to manage the burden caused by irregular migration, including through projects implemented by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Since 2000, Australia has funded the IOM under the Regional Cooperation Arrangement (RCA) to assist Indonesian authorities to care for refugees, asylum seekers and victims of trafficking. Individuals and family groups falling within the scope of the RCA have access to a range of services, including food, accommodation, emergency medical care and assisted voluntary return services.
Australia currently provides funding to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to undertake refugee status assessments in key transit countries throughout our region, including Indonesia and Malaysia. These arrangements offer an opportunity for people to have their protection claims assessed in these countries, rather than resorting to dangerous boat travel.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. David Coleman MP
Mining
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter concerning Petition PN0362 - Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail project and expansion of coal ports along the Great Barrier Reef coast.
The Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project was approved on 14 October 2015, in accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Two proposals to increase coal loading capacity at Abbot Point port through the construction of additional terminals have also been approved under the EPBC Act. These approvals are all subject to conditions that take into account issues raised by the community and require the approval holders to meet appropriate environmental standards. All of these proposals have also been approved by the Queensland Government under State legislation.
The Carmichael Coal Mine is situated in outback Queensland, approximately 300 kilometres west of the Great Barrier Reef The mine will not have any direct impacts on the Reef. The emissions arising from the use of coal from this and other mines are addressed by national and international measures to deal with climate change more broadly. The complex, global nature of emissions is best addressed with such measures, rather than by trying to connect climate change impacts to individual mining projects.
The Australian Government remains firmly committed to protecting the Great Barrier Reef, a World Heritage site, for future generations. We are doing this through sound policy, substantial direct investment, and world class marine park management. The Government is investing more than $500 million - the largest ever single investment - to protect the Reef, secure its viability and the 64,000 jobs that rely on it. The investment, made in this International Year of the Reef, will also go towards inspiring Australians, philanthropists and companies to co-invest in a united effort to protect the Reef, the planet's greatest living wonder.
This investment accelerates delivery of the joint $2 billion Australian and Queensland Governments' Reef 2050 Plan, the 35-year framework to improve the health and resilience of the Reef. While efforts to reduce global climate change are underway, the focus of the Reef 2050 Plan is on improving the reef's resilience to climate change by reducing local and regional pressures.
Adani had expressed interest in accessing the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) to support its North Galilee Basin Railway proposal. On 12 December 2017, the NAIF received formal notification from the Queensland Government that financial assistance should not be provided to Adani's North Galilee Basin Rail Project. As a consequence, in accordance with s13(4) of the NAIF Investment Mandate, the NAIF will not be making an investment decision to provide financial assistance to that project.
The coal industry is very important to Australia. It is Australia's second largest export earner, employing thousands of people. It also makes significant contributions to the economy through wages, jobs, investment, taxes and royalties, and underpins a strong equipment and services sector. Australia is one of the world's leading suppliers of high quality coal. Due to its higher energy content, Australian coal is relatively less harmful to the environment, compared to that from our competitors. The environmental criteria applied to Australia's coal mining industry are as high as anywhere in the world.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the issues raised in the petition.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Melissa Price MP
Milne Bay Military Museum
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for referring Petition PN0365, asking the House of Representatives to request that the Department of Defence gift the current site and buildings to the Toowoomba Regional Council, to be held in perpetuity for the citizens of the region, and for the museum to continue to be administered by the Milne Bay Military Museum Association Incorporation on the Council's behalf. As this matter falls within my area of responsibility, your correspondence has been passed to me for response.
At this time, Defence does not consider the building and land occupied by the Milne Bay Military Museum to be surplus to Commonwealth requirements. Defence needs to retain management control of the building and the underlying land in order to maintain functional access between other buildings within the Toowoomba Multi-User Depot.
Defence regularly reviews its estate for rationalisation opportunities. The Commonwealth Property Disposals Policy provides for the divestment of property that is surplus to Commonwealth requirements. Commonwealth property must generally be sold on the open market, except in circumstances where the Minister for Finance is satisfied that an off-market sale would support Commonwealth policy outcomes.
In the event that the Australian Government identifies Defence land in Toowoomba that is surplus to Commonwealth requirements, Defence would then provide the Toowoomba Regional Council and Queensland Government with an opportunity to submit an off-market sale proposal that aligns with the Commonwealth Property Disposals Policy.
While I acknowledge the efforts of the Milne Bay Military Museum Committee and volunteers to preserve Australian military heritage, Defence is not in a position at this time to support the gifting of the building and land for this purpose.
I am advised that the Milne Bay Military Museum has now relocated to a new location on 9 November 2018.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Defence, the Hon. David Fawcett MP
Live Animal Exports
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 10 September 2018 regarding petition PN0366. I appreciate the views of the signatories on the petition regarding the live export trade and I note their concerns about the treatment of exported animals. I apologise for the delay in responding.
Animal cruelty in any circumstance is abhorrent and must be condemned. I am taking necessary actions to improve animal welfare outcomes for exported livestock and strengthen regulatory oversight of live export companies to make them more accountable for their actions.
The government supported the recommendations of the independent review into live sheep exports to the Middle East in the northern summer, which was conducted by veterinarian Dr Michael McCarthy in April 2018. The review's recommendations are being implemented as a priority, including additional conditions being applied to sheep shipments to the Middle East and further work on livestock heat stress risk assessment.
Dr McCarthy's recommendations build on Australia's existing livestock export assurance systems, including the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) and Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System. An independent Technical Advisory Committee is currently reviewing the standards and is expected to complete its work by the end of the year. Proper implementation of the ASEL ensures that livestock are fit for export and that their health and welfare are managed during live export voyages. The new on-vessel independent observer program will improve monitoring and assessment of the performance of exporters.
In April 2018, I commissioned Mr Philip Moss AM to review the capability, culture and investigative powers of the department as the regulator of live exports. On 31 October 2018, I released Mr Moss's report and the government's response. In doing so, I announced my intention to appoint an external, independent Inspector General of Live Animal Exports, who will oversee the department's regulation of live export and report to the public and the Minister. I also announced the creation of a Principal Regulatory Officer within the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to improve regulatory practice, compliance and its culture as regulator.
Further to this, the department has established an Animal Welfare Branch, which will work with researchers to implement animal welfare indicators as part of the export compliance systems, in addition to other export trade related work.
Dr McCarthy's and Mr Moss's reports and the government's responses can be found on the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources' website at agriculture.gov.au/lae. You can also find an issues paper on an approach to heat stress risk assessment of livestock for export to the Middle East and information on the ASEL review via this same link.
Importantly, the department will also improve its governance system to allow concerns (including those over live animal exports) raised by staff members to be addressed transparently and promptly. I also expect witnesses of any inappropriate behaviour in the trade to call the new Whistleblower Hotline (1800 319 595—which is staffed between 09:00 to 17:00 AEDT on weekdays), where they can confidentially report their concerns. Alternatively, reports can also be made online at any time, at agriculture.gov.au/export/from-australia/whistleblower.
For the trade to continue, exporters must meet their responsibilities and be accountable to the government and the community. There must be trust in the trade. The government currently has a Bill before the Parliament to increase penalties for those who breach live animal export laws. The regulator has cancelled two live animal export licences, demonstrating that where exporters are in the wrong, action will be taken. The outcomes of investigations into compliance and mortalities on live export voyages can be found at agriculture.gov.au/export/controlled-goods/live-animals/livestock/regulatoryframework/compliance-investigations.
The Coalition Government remains absolutely committed to supporting our hard working farmers and regional communities, particularly those involved in the live sheep trade to the Middle East which contributes around $250 million to the Australian economy every year. The thousands of people who work in this industry would be unfairly affected by a full ban on the trade. The actions outlined above are essential to address concerns held by the public and the government about animal welfare.
Thank you again for your letter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Hon. David Littleproud
Refugees
Dear Ms Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 17 September 2018 regarding petition PN0370 which draws attention to the plight of religious converts.
1. With regard to the first request for Australia 'to fulfil its obligations under article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to protect the rights of all Australian residents who have converted from other religions including Islam'
The Australian Government is committed to ensuring that every Australian understands their right to freely choose their religion, and to express and practise their religion without intimidation and without interference (provided these practices are consistent with Australian laws). This importantly includes the right to not hold a religious belief.
The UDHR, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) in 1948 specifies the rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled. While UDHR is not legally binding, it is a fundamental statement of principles that forms the foundation of international human rights law.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Australia is a party, translates many of the principles of the UDHR into legally binding standards, including the freedom of religion and belief. The right to freedom of religion or belief is guaranteed under article 18 of the ICCPR. It includes the right to have or to adopt a religion or belief of a person's choice, which would include the right to leave a religion and convert to another. The Australian Government is satisfied that the protection in Australia of the right of people to practise their choice of religion is consistent with Australia's obligations under the ICCPR.
2. With regard to the second request for Australia 'to promote and protect Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) article 18 through Australia's UN engagement and foreign aid policies, to ensure no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair their freedom of religion or belief'
Australia advocates for freedom of religion or belief internationally by:
making bilateral representations in discussions with States where freedom of religion or belief is an issue of concern, including through Human Rights Dialogues where relevant;
making recommendations to States where freedom of religion or belief is an issue of concern during their UN Universal Periodic Reviews;
supporting and co-sponsoring bi-annually, UN resolutions supporting freedom of religion or belief in the Human Rights Council and the third committee of the UN General Assembly;
supporting the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief;
delivering statements regularly during interactive dialogues with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief at both the Human Rights Council and the third committee of the UN General Assembly (these can be accessed on the Department of Foreign Affairs' (DFAT) website);
exchanging information and best practices, discussing emerging issues, and facilitating responses to violations of religious freedoms as a member of the International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief; and
working closely with International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief partners to strengthen capital-level cooperation in key countries where freedom of religion or belief is a human rights concern.
A large proportion of Australia's Official Development Assistance allocation for 2018-19 achieves human rights objectives:
bilaterally – through specialised training for States to address specific human rights issues (at direct request for assistance from the State);
regionally – by strengthening civil society and national and regional human rights bodies; and
multilaterally – through the provision of core funding to the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, and contributions to UN voluntary trust funds focused on specific human rights issues.
3. With regard to the third request for Australia 'to give priority status to asylum applications from those at risk in their own countries because they have converted, and to fully recognise the complementary protection provisions and non-refoulement obligations under international human rights law'; and
4. With regard to the fourth request 'to give consideration to religious persecuted minorities, especially converts from other religions whose lives are at risk due to their religious laws or local culture, and to grant protection visas under Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian programme'.
In line with its international obligations, Australia offers protection to individuals who have a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or there is a real risk that the individual will suffer significant harm if they were removed from Australia.
To respond flexibly to emerging and protracted humanitarian situations, the Australian Government has a robust Humanitarian Programme with an onshore and an offshore component.
The onshore component is for individuals who have arrived onshore, sought asylum and are found to be a refugee in accordance with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol or engaged Australia's complementary protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm if returned to their home country.
The offshore component responds to international humanitarian situations through the permanent resettlement of people into Australia, including persecuted minorities.
People must be subject to persecution in their home country or, under the special humanitarian category, must be subject to substantial discrimination amounting to gross violation of human rights and have links in Australia. Persecuted religious minority groups resettled under the offshore programme in recent years include Ahmadis, Baha'is and Yazidis.
Australia has a proud record of resettling people in humanitarian need and has one of the world's largest resettlement programmes. The Australian Government has increased the Humanitarian Programme from 13,750 places in 2016-17 to 16,250 in 2017-18 and 18,750 places in 2018-19. Many of those resettled are persecuted minorities from the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. David Coleman MP
Middle East
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 12 September 2018 attaching a petition on Palestinian statehood.
Australia is a longstanding, strong supporter of a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. We are committed to a future where Israel and a Palestinian state exist side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders.
The Australian Government urges both the Israelis and Palestinians to return to negotiations and refrain from actions and statements that undermine the prospects for peace. We also support the Palestinian people and their aspirations to statehood through our continued provision of aid to the Palestinian Territories. In 2018-19 Australia will provide $43 million, including for humanitarian assistance in Gaza and economic development.
The Government does not recognise a 'State of Palestine'. An independent Palestinian state can only emerge from a negotiated two-state settlement. Unilateral recognition will not resolve outstanding issues or create the conditions for enduring stability. This will only be realised from a directly negotiated agreement.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Hon. Marise Payne
Live Animal Exports
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your letter of 20 September 2018 regarding petition PN0374. I appreciate the views of the signatories about the live export trade and their concerns about the hardships faced by Western Australian Farmers. I apologise for the delay in replying.
I appreciate the signatories' support of the live export trade. The importance of this industry is why the Coalition Government did not suspend the trade. The livestock export trade continues to remain open and I have been urging exporters to step up and show that the sustainable export of livestock is achievable. Australian farmers should not take the fall resulting from the actions of some exporters.
I note the signatories are aware of the regulator's cancellation of Emanuel Exports' and EMS Rural Exports' licences. This action is the result of the regulator's complete and thorough investigation into matters concerning these companies and demonstrates that when requirements are not met, the department will take appropriate action. This step was taken in the best interests of the industry and protects Australia's high standards of animal welfare and health — standards I am not willing to compromise.
I would like to address the petitions request for an investigation into the importance of live animal exports to Australia, and in particular Western Australia. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) statistics show that in the 2016-17 financial year 1.85 million sheep were exported from Australia, with the market value of $233 million. Around 88 per cent of the sheep exported, originated from Western Australian farms. I would like to direct the committee members to the ABARES website (agriculture.gov.au/abares) should they wish to learn more or check for future developments.
ABARES unpublished analysis indicates that a reduction in live exports would have two distinct market impacts of relevance to Western Australian sheep farmers. First, sheep meat prices—which are set by world markets—are likely to fall slightly as supply increases. This impact is likely to be small because processing all of Australia's 1.9 million sheep exported in 2016-17 into meat for export would add only 3 per cent to the global trade in sheep meat. Second—and much more significantly—diverting sheep from live exports to domestic processing is likely to depress saleyard sheep prices in Western Australia by up to 20 per cent as meat processors recommission underutilised processing capacity.
ABARES' assessment is that any saleyard price reduction would be limited to the cost of transporting sheep to eastern state markets. Transport costs are around $20 per head or about 20 per cent of saleyard prices. Processors cannot pass these costs forwards to consumers in competitive world sheep meat markets. This means that a significant proportion of these short term costs are likely to be passed back to sheep farmers in the form of lower prices for sheep and lambs.
For the trade to continue, there have to be significant improvements to animal welfare and exporters have to continue to work hard to meet their responsibilities. A ban on the whole industry would unfairly punish those exporters and farmers who have done no wrong. Many farming families and others in the supply chain remain devastated from the 2011 suspension and we have a responsibility to make sure that this does not occur. There are a number of companies that hold current licences and are eligible to apply for export to the Middle East or other markets. All applications for exports are considered by the regulator on their merits and in accordance with the relevant legislation.
The government remains absolutely committed to supporting our hard working farmers and it is our strong intention to hold the trade to account in a manner that places animal welfare as the highest priority.
Thank you again for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Hon. David Littleproud
Aged Care
Dear Mrs Wicks
Thank you for your correspondence of 24 October 2018 regarding petition number PN0382, requesting the House to provide a new residential aged care service within the Melbourne suburbs of Doreen or Mernda.
While the Commonwealth subsidises and regulates the provision of residential aged care, it does not itself operate residential aged care services. It is ultimately a business decision for the operators of residential aged care services, known as approved providers, as to where they establish residential aged care services.
To encourage the development of residential aged care services where they are most needed, the Liberal National Government made available nationally a record 13,500 new residential aged care places and up to $60 million in capital grant funding as part of the 2018-19 Aged Care Approvals Round (ACAR). The ACAR is a competitive application process which enables prospective and existing approved providers of aged care to apply for a range of new Government-funded aged care places and financial assistance in the form of a capital grant.
The Department of Health allocates the new aged care places after conducting a competitive assessment process based on the provisions of the Aged Care Act 1997 (the Act). Places are allocated to those applicants who can demonstrate that they can best meet the needs of older Australians in a given location.
Within Victoria, a total of 1,415 new residential aged care places were made available in the 2018-19 AGAR, representing an opportunity for aged care approved providers in the state to expand existing or establish new residential aged care services. The 2018-19 ACAR application period concluded on 10 August 2018 with results expected to be announced by April 2019.
Please note, neither I nor any other parliamentarian has a role in the assessment or allocation of places or grants through the ACAR process. The Act establishes this as an independent function of the Secretary of the Department of Health.
The allocation of new residential aged care places to establish a new residential aged care service in Doreen or Mernda will of course depend on whether or not an application has been received in either or both locations and the competitiveness of the proposals.
Should it eventuate that new residential aged care places are not allocated in Doreen or Mernda through the 2018-19 ACAR process, individuals or groups wishing to improve aged care services for these communities may consider a number of options. This includes encouraging existing providers of residential aged care to deliver services or forming an organisation with the aim of becoming an approved provider, and obtaining an allocation of residential aged care places through any future AGAR process. Information on becoming an approved provider and the current 2018-19 ACAR is available at the Department of Health website at https://agedcare.health.gov.au.
In the interim, residents of Doreen and Mernda can explore the range of aged care options, including in-home options, available in their local area by calling My Aged Care on 1800 200 422 or by visiting the My Aged Care website at: www.myagedcare.gov.au.
Thank you for raising this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, and Minister for Indigenous Health, the Hon. Ken Wyatt AM MP
PETITIONS
Statements
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:01): There are a number of elements in the petitions that I present today that are noteworthy. This includes a petition that has gathered over 30,000 signatures. I also present a record number of ministerial responses received for this parliament. I also present a petition from Alex, a year 6 student, who's requesting a reduction in planned obsolescence. It's very pleasing to see young Australians who are committed to making a difference and who are drawing to the attention of the House issues that they are passionate about. The committee continues to be interested in hearing from young Australians and is considering ways to facilitate this engagement further.
The committee is very pleased to see a continued interest from the public in petitioning. We are also grateful for the ongoing support from ministers in providing responses. Throughout this parliament the response rate has remained high, with less than 14 per cent of petitions currently awaiting a response. This important act assures petitioners that their petition has reached the office of a minister responsible for their area of grievance and that their grievance has been heard. I look forward to updating the House further on the work of the Petitions Committee.
BILLS
National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Madeleine King.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (10:04): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is difficult to fathom why this bill, which seeks to protect vulnerable consumers from the unscrupulous practices of many operators in the business of payday lending and rent-to-buy schemes, is now being introduced to this House for the third time. That's right; it is no less than the third time this bill, drafted by the government, drafted by those opposite, has been brought before this House.
The provisions of this bill have been very well ventilated in this chamber, but I think it is very important to go through the history of this reform process that should have delivered by now a fairer, more just small-amount credit and consumer lease system in this country.
There is widespread support for this reform. There used to be support from this government for this reform. It has been fully 811 days since this part-time government accepted all the recommendations of the independent Review of Small Amount Credit Contracts, carried out in 2015. After the now Treasurer and member for Kooyong started the review process some 1,291 days ago—that's 3½ years ago—the then minister responsible, the member for Higgins, accepted the time was right to place some restraints on unscrupulous payday lenders and consumer lessors preying upon vulnerable consumers. Again, that was 811 days ago.
Nearly a year later in October 2017, the next minister responsible and now Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Riverina, released an exposure draft of the legislation, pledging that the government would implement small-amount credit contract and consumer lease reforms. If I could remind the House of the solid support the now Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Small Business, the member for Riverina, had for this bill that I present today. I quote from a media release of his:
Minister for Small Business Michael McCormack said these reforms will increase financial inclusion and reduce the likelihood of vulnerable consumers defaulting on repayments and encountering difficulties meeting their basic needs.
The commitment of this government to do something to protect vulnerable consumers is widely welcomed, but, just as they began to do the right thing by consumers, powerful interests brought this government to heel. The interests had this government voting 26 times against a royal commission into the misconduct of banks. The loan sharks, consumer lease companies bludging off the government purse as they are bankrolled by the out-of-control Centrepay system—they got organised, and the coalition parliamentary friends of payday lending swung into action. The next minister responsible, the member for Deakin, started the go-slow, and this bill disappeared from the legislative agenda of this government.
So, while protecting vulnerable Australian consumers fell off the agenda of this government, what didn't fall off the agenda was leadership spills and ministerial reshuffles. These have continued enthusiastically, and now there is another assistant Treasurer in the portfolio: the member for Fadden and co-convenor of the Liberal-National parliamentary friends of payday lending loan sharks. Maybe this minister will be the last in the conga line of incompetents that will deal—or, in this case, will not deal—with payday lending reforms.
To be clear, this bill replicates exactly what this government in the draft legislation, word for word, presented to this House, to the public in October 2017. And what's the latest excuse for not bringing in this reform, for not supporting the first time this bill was presented and then the second time? The crossbench introduced this reform last year? And now the third time it comes in today. Well, the last excuse was the royal commission itself. The member for Fadden came into this place and used the royal commission as an excuse to not take any further action into this bill, into the very bill that they drafted. His words on 23 October 2018 in this place were:
We'll sit and wait for the royal commission's advice.
Well, the findings of the royal commission are in. The time for sitting and waiting is over, Assistant Treasurer. You've had this report for 18 days. You've been consulting on your draft legislation for 483 days, since October 2017. Your government supported the intent of this bill 111 days ago.
The royal commission into banks was never an adequate excuse to delay these reforms, but now even that's not an excuse. There are no excuses left. Time is up on this government. Like bad sports, though, this part-time government continues to run down the clock. The Liberal-National parliamentary friends of payday lending have spent years—literally years—running down the clock and, with only seven sitting days of this parliament left, they were going to keep stalling and they will continue to fail Australian consumers.
It is a government so bitterly divided that its conservative backbenchers rolled the cabinet on this very legislation that the government drafted and the cabinet agreed to two years ago. The power of backbenchers in this government to roll sensible reform to payday lending and consumer leases beggars belief, and this country could understandably be very disappointed.
This government has some pretty exceptional form of delay tactics. It held back the royal commission into the misconduct of banks for some 18 months but its delay on reforming payday lending and consumer leasing is in another league, and Australia will not thank this government for its delays during which another 150,000 households have signed up for payday loans in the current predatory environment. It is a shocking shame this government has been able to waft through this place, ignore the review that it commissioned in 2015, ignore its statements, ignore its cabinet ministers—the member for Riverina, the member for Higgins—and then go and pretend that the need to protect Australian consumers is unnecessary.
Those opposite don't care. They don't care about protecting Australian consumers. It's time to support this bill, like the crossbench have supported it before, like Labor has. We will continue to push to get adequate protections for vulnerable customers from payday loan sharks and dodgy operators in the consumer leasing space.
The SPEAKER (10:10): Is the motion seconded?
Mr DICK (Oxley) (10:10): I second the motion. Thank you to the shadow minister and member for Brand for her leadership on this issue, alongside every single Labor member of the opposition who has been standing up for over 800,000 Australian households which have been ripped off by the loan sharks in this country—the member for Lalor, the Shadow Treasurer, the member for Mayo, the member for Indi and the Leader of the Opposition. It has been this side of the chamber and the crossbench that have been standing up for vulnerable Australians. We know, just like the banking royal commission and just like every other important issue, it has been this side of the chamber under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, who have taken the ability to act. We saw last week, just like throughout the entire 45th Parliament, a government more interested in fighting amongst themselves, shutting down this parliament, turning it into a part-time parliament than dealing with the issues of this nation.
I want to go through a couple of quick figures which mean something to this bill today. The first is seven—the potential seven days we have left of this term of parliament to take action. The second is, as the member for Brand said, 1,291 days—this is the number of days it has been passed since the government announced a review into the out-of-control payday loan sector. The third is 24—the number of recommendations from the report into small amount credit contractors and consumer leases which the government proudly announced they supported and would take action on. But here we are with a handful of sitting days left before this government runs out of puff, knowing that 800,000 Australians are continuing to be ripped off by the loan sharks. What's worse is those opposite don't care. They are not interested in the issues facing working and average Australians.
After writing to the Prime Minister last year asking him to honour the former Prime Minister's words in writing to me, saying that this bill would be introduced, I got a weak response from the assistant minister to the Prime Minister saying it was outsourced to the part-time Assistant Treasurer. We know that the Assistant Treasurer and member for Fadden is on record saying that we will wait until the royal commission and then we will take action. Well, where is it? Where is the reform? Where is the protection for vulnerable Australians? It is not good enough. We are sick to the back teeth. I ask members of the government: go meet with the charity and community sectors, listen to the stories of people who have been ripped off day in, day out.
I'm urging the government to act on this issue. We have been waiting for years for something to be done. Sadly, I'm not going to hold my breath, because, when it comes to protecting those who need it, those opposite are found wanting, time and again. I call on the government: bring on the debate today, stand up for those people, bring the vote to this parliament and let the Australian people have a vote on this issue. Stop being worried about losing votes on the floor of the parliament and start acting for the people of Australia. We will not let this issue go. We will keep standing up for frail and vulnerable Australians. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Refugee Protection Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Wilkie.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:15): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Last week in this place humanity triumphed over cruelty and illegality when late Tuesday afternoon the so-called 'medevac' bill passed this place with the support of the opposition and six out of seven crossbenchers. It was truly an uplifting moment. It was a flash of humanity in this place and in this country, and it was parliament working as it should—people coming together, talking, coming up with compromises, voting together, representing our community and getting something done. It was a tremendous achievement, and we should celebrate it.
But we should, at the same time, remember that the fundamental problem goes unaddressed. The fundamental problem is that this country has a deeply unethical and illegal response to asylum seekers. Yes, we now have a legislated arrangement which will formalise, speed-up and make more reliable the evacuation of sick asylum seekers and refugees from our offshore processing camps, and, yes, we hopefully will now have less reliance on court action to look after sick people, but at the end of the day, this country still has boat tow backs, still has mandatory detention and still has offshore processing. In other words, this country still has a framework to respond to asylum seekers which is deeply unethical and illegal.
It's unethical because it is wrong to lock people up. It is wrong to not capitalise on our good fortune and our wealth. It's wrong to refuse to simply do what we should do, and that is that when someone comes to us claiming to be fleeing for their life, we should be giving them protection, hearing their claims and giving them permanent refuge in our big, lucky and rich country if their claims are accurate. Sure, send them back if their claims are inaccurate, but let's not forget that the vast majority of asylum seekers who have come to Australia or tried to make it to Australia have been found to be genuine refugees.
In addition to the issue of the morality of this and whether or not our country has integrity—and it doesn't, frankly, when it comes to our current response to asylum seekers—there's also the issue of our obligations under international law. We signed up to any number of international agreements, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Rome Statute, where in good faith previous governments agreed that we should treat asylum seekers humanly.
So we still have this underlying problem, and that brings me to the bill currently before the parliament, the Refugee Protection Bill 2019. This bill before us is actually the same as the Refugee Protection Bill 2018, which I tabled in June last year. In essence, this bill today provides for the establishment of the Asia-Pacific Asylum Seeker Solution, or APASS. This would be a regional framework for responding to asylum seekers, initiated by the Australian government, in partnership with Asia-Pacific countries.
In particular, the bill before us today enables the establishment of APASS centres where asylum seekers can go to be screened, registered and have their immediate humanitarian needs met. Such APASS centres would be strategically located right across the Asia-Pacific region, especially in countries of first asylum and transit countries. This would include at least one centre in Australia due to the possibility of some asylum seekers travelling directly from their source country to Australia, for example by boat from Sri Lanka.
Upon registration at an APASS centre, asylum seekers will be required to select three preferred host countries. If Australia is selected, and other specified criteria are met, then the applicant will become an Australian APASS applicant. Australia will take a specified quota of these applicants each year who will be considered for permanent visas in Australia based on their refugee status.
An APASS applicant may remain at the APASS centre where the APASS applicant was registered or he or she could be transferred to another APASS centre—whatever's appropriate. A transfer arrangement for an APASS applicant must prioritise the applicant's immediate needs, the principle of family unity, international human rights law and responsibility sharing between APASS member states as a priority.
Moreover, each APASS applicant will be assigned an APASS case officer who will be legally responsible for the processing conditions of the applicant, including access to free independent legal advice, accommodation and financial support; as well as working with authorities to ensure an applicant's visa is processed within a statutory time frame. This bill makes it clear that each step of this process has restricted time frames, appropriate oversight and review.
In other words, the bill before the House this morning provides for a sustainable, humane and legal response to the protection and processing of asylum seekers and refugees in the Asia-Pacific region. It's genuinely a regional solution, and one that's been developed in accordance with international human rights law and UNHCR guidelines.
This bill today will not result in more people arriving by boat and will not send a message to people smugglers. Rather, this regional solution and APASS centres will reduce the need for people to travel to Australia by sea because registration at an APASS centre before Australia would be preferable to engaging the service of people smugglers. There would be no cost, the process is equitable and transparent, and each step of the process has specific time frames and appropriate oversight and review. In essence, we have a regional processing solution that does away with mandatory detention, does away with offshore processing, does away with tow-backs and, ultimately, ensures that we become a leader in the region in coming up with a genuinely ethical and legal response to asylum seekers.
I call on the government and the alternative government, and my crossbench colleagues, to support this. When I tabled this last year, regrettably, no party came to support me. I am heartened that since then Senator Nick McKim, who has the shadow responsibility in the Greens, has spoken with me at some length and indicated that the Greens are now supportive of this bill in principle. But, at the end of the day, the major parties have to shift—and good on the Labor Party for driving what happened last Tuesday. But they need to get behind something bigger and better, such as this bill.
I now invite my colleague, the member for Wentworth, to use the remaining few minutes of my time.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Dr PHELPS (Wentworth) (10:22): I second the motion. Last week, the parliament passed the Migration Amendment (Urgent Medical Treatment) Bill 2018. The bill provides a medical solution to a medical problem, whereby sick asylum seekers can be transferred to Australia for medical treatment when they cannot be successfully treated on Manus Island or Nauru. The bill provides a humanitarian approach to enable proper medical treatment to people in Australia's care. It applies only to the just over 1,000 people currently on Manus Island and Nauru. As PM Malcolm Turnbull told the United States President, Donald Trump, in 2017, 'We know exactly who they are; these people have been there since 2013.'
Operation Sovereign Borders has worked to deter boats from leaving to make the dangerous journey to Australia, but the job is only half done. It's very clear that the global refugee system is in crisis. The effectiveness of the refugee convention is dependent on international solidarity, and credible and principled accountability for the protection of those seeking asylum. Around the world, countries are turning their backs on the refugee convention and neglecting their voluntarily assumed legal responsibilities.
Under the current system, sole responsibility for providing protection and assistance to refugees lies with the government of whatever country they happen to be in. This creates incentives for asylum seekers to attempt longer and riskier journeys to reach wealthier destinations where they can maximise their social outcomes. It also incentivises those nations to put up barriers, preventing asylum seekers from accessing their territories. Countries like Australia continue to pay lip-service to their obligations, but are implementing measures aimed at deterring and blocking asylum seekers from accessing those protections. We need to remove such incentives and prevent deaths at sea.
During my campaign for the seat of Wentworth I focused on two priority areas with regard to those seeking asylum. I wanted to get all kids off Nauru and to find a solution for those on Nauru and Manus who are in desperate need of proper medical care. This was achieved with the passage of the medevac bill in the House of Representatives last Tuesday.
The other campaign promise was to build capacity in the region. This is why I'm supporting the member for Denison's bill. Australia needs to work more constructively with our neighbours to enhance refugee protection in the region. In the short term this will mean Australia working cooperatively with governments in our region to assist them in affording basic rights and protections for our refugees. By improving conditions we can take away the incentive or need for onward travel to Australia. In the longer term we can work towards some form of centralised regional processing system. It would require numerous states across our region to buy in and offer resettlement places and to afford protection to both asylum seekers awaiting processing and those found to be refugees. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Galilee Basin (Coal Prohibition) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bandt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Unprecedented bushfires in Tasmania, the slow death of the Murray-Darling river system, the flooding of northern Queensland.
We are in the middle of a climate emergency.
The recent extreme weather events are only the beginning of a disaster of unbelievable scale.
Until we are able to end the release of toxic greenhouse gases and begin to draw them out of the atmosphere, global temperatures will continue to inexorably rise. Year after year, decade after decade.
Cities will flood and burn. Extinctions will accelerate. The survival of humanity as we know it will be threatened.
This is the stark reality we face and why we must do everything we can to avert this catastrophe.
The most important action we can take is to stop burning coal and to do this we need to keep coal in the ground.
That is why today I am introducing this bill.
This bill, the Galilee Basin (Coal Prohibition) Bill 2019, will prohibit the opening up and mining of thermal coal in Queensland's Galilee Basin.
The Galilee Basin is a vast reserve of coal in Central North Queensland.
As many members would know it has been the subject of intense focus because of the proposed controversial Adani coalmine.
One of the reasons the Adani mine is the subject of such a fierce battle is that the development would open the door on one of the last remaining significant and untouched coal reserves in Australia.
It is hoped that closing the door on Adani will close the door on the future of coalmining in Australia.
But it should not be up to the millions of Australians to close the door on coalmining in the Galilee Basin.
As parliamentarians we have a duty to protect all Australians and our way of life.
And this duty requires us to keep coal in the ground, and that is why we should pass this bill.
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, released in October of last year, once again reiterates we must keep coal in the ground if we're to have any chance of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees. Scarily, this report from last year tells us we may hit this 1.5-degree threshold as soon as 2030, in less than 12 years time.
This bill will prevent the disastrous Adani Carmichael mine from going ahead as well as eight other mega coalmines planned for the Galilee Basin.
The Galilee Basin is a giant carbon bomb.
We know that if the entire Galilee Basin is developed it has the potential to add more than 700 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year.
Australia's emissions continue to grow, we currently emit around 560 million tonnes of CO2 per year ourselves; emissions from burning coal in the Galilee Basin would be greater than our annual emissions.
If the Galilee Basin were a country, it would be the seventh-highest CO2 emitter in the world, sitting just behind Germany and well above Canada and the UK.
Allowing this basin to be opened up is criminal.
This drastic addition to global emissions has the potential to single-handedly derail efforts to avoid runaway global climate change.
As a country, we haven't opened a new coal basin in 50 years, and we cannot and must not be starting now.
The provisions of this bill are simple and effective.
The bill will have the effect of ensuring Adani's Carmichael coalmine could not proceed, nor could any other coalmine proposed for the Galilee Basin.
It does this by prohibiting constitutional corporations within the meaning of section 51 (xx) of the Constitution from mining for thermal coal within the Galilee Basin.
On some of the technical provisions of the bill, clause 4 of the bill makes it clear that it has a wide application making clear that the proposed law is to have effect irrespective of any other operating law or any permit, title or instrument issued under operating law, but it includes the usual savings clause with respect to section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution.
Clause 5 makes it clear that we are talking here about thermal coal, which is coal used primarily for generation of electricity. This bill does not—as some have sought to misrepresent—apply to the use of coal, sometimes called metallurgical or coking coal, used in the production of steel. We are talking about coal for electricity, which we know we can now substitute with renewables.
Clause 5 also outlines the relevant boundaries where the prohibition applies to be the Galilee subregion in western Central Queensland, as identified by the Australian government's Bioregional Assessment Program map. That is because we not only need to stop Adani but we need to stop several of the other proposals that are hoping to piggyback on what they hope will be a successful Adani opening up of the basin. If we're going to stop Adani—if you believe in stopping Adani—then the same logic applies to other coalmines in that basin as well.
Clause 6 of the bill imposes penalties for those who would seek to flout the provisions of this new legislation, and the penalty level replicates the provisions in Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for mining in a Commonwealth reserve.
We saw last week what can happen in this parliament, right here right now, when, on an urgent matter, the opposition, Labor, works with the crossbench on a matter of national importance. We managed to change the law and make a big difference. If we can do that with respect to refugees, we can do it with respect to climate change.
And we need to do it with respect to climate change, because we have a government that comes in here waving lumps of coal around and pretending that climate change is a joke. It's going to be up to us, the rest of the parliament, to hold this government to account.
In respect of that, it is with great disappointment that we see the opposition continue to side with the government on this crucial question of what is going to happen with Adani and the Galilee Basin, because the Labor Party could stop the Adani Carmichael coalmine today, by supporting this bill to end thermal coalmining in the Galilee Basin.
Again, I reiterate: we're not talking about coal for steel; we are talking about coal for electricity, which we can and must do without. We could have the numbers in the parliament to immediately stop Adani and keep all the Galilee coal in the ground, but only if the opposition has the guts to back our bill.
We know the government won't, and that is why this parliament is standing up to the government, but we need Labor's support.
The Leader of the Opposition appears more worried about an attack from coalmining companies and the coalition than protecting the climate and Australians.
And the Labor Party, like the coalition, is hooked on the donations from coalmining and other resource companies.
The Labor, Liberal and National Parties have accepted $3.7 million in donations from the fossil fuel sector since 2013.
The government and Labor could stop Adani by voting for this bill, or by committing now to a review of Adani's Carmichael mine approvals on the basis of new information about the company's conduct and the state of the world's climate that has come about since the approvals were granted.
This is what we saw happen in the Franklin Dam campaign: an opposition stood up in an election campaign and said that they would take an action if they were elected, and, together with a people powered movement, it helped stop an environmental disaster.
We could have the same again, if we have courage from the Labor Party on the question of Adani and on the question of coal.
Governments pass laws all the time that outlaw the mining or production of hazardous materials.
This bill isn't reinventing the wheel. We didn't pay compensation when asbestos was outlawed.
We didn't pay compensation to tobacco companies when we instituted plain packaging.
And we don't need to pay compensation if coalmining in the Galilee Basin is outlawed.
Yes, of the course, we need a just transition for the people and the communities who are affected, but we can do that with will and we have done it before. We would no longer say that we should keep mining asbestos because it provides jobs; we would say that the benefits are outweighed by the detrimental costs. That's what we must start saying about coal as well.
This debate isn't happening in a vacuum. All around the world countries are moving away from coal. The coal that Australia exports is responsible for at least twice as much emissions as the coal that we burn at home.
I want to conclude by paying tribute to Greta Thunberg, a school student from Sweden, whose lone action on striking on a Friday to call for action on climate change from political leaders has led to a global movement of climate strikers around the world, including in Australia. The House will recall that despite our Prime Minister telling the kids to stay in school, they defied him in their thousands. As a result, he is now the subject of ridicule and derision among the children of Australia. On 15 March students from around the world will conduct a global strike, and they are calling on adults to join them. Students and children are sick of the inaction of the world's politicians. As Greta Thunberg recently said:
We all have a choice. We can create transformational action that will safeguard the living conditions for future generations. Or we can continue with our business as usual and fail.
That is up to you and me.
She went on to say:
I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.
It's time for everyone in this place to put out the fire. It is time for everyone to act. I commend this bill to the House. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Wilkie: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
Coal Prohibition (Quit Coal) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bandt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:37): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia exports 80 per cent of its thermal coal—80 per cent. That is coal that we use for electricity. Until we stop exporting thermal coal to Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan, we won't be able to stop climate change. Many people can know and see and feel the impacts of climate change: the unprecedented bushfires in Tasmania that have destroyed parts of forest that were there since Gondwanaland; the floods in North Queensland that are devastating people, animals and areas; and the drought in New South Wales and the heatwaves across South Australia and Victoria that have impacted millions of Australians. Climate change is here right in our faces.
It is almost like we are in a stand-off. Our changing climate has made a lot of moves, and it is well passed time that we made our move. We've had a long time to make it. Some scientists were speculating about climate change in the early 20th century. Exxon, now Exxon Mobil, one of the world's biggest polluters, employed scientists in the 1970s to research it and then started spreading misinformation on the topic throughout the 1980s and 1990s, following the tobacco industry's playbook, where they knew early on what was wrong and then sowed the seeds of doubt—so too, it turns out, have some of the biggest corporations and biggest polluters.
Fast forward to today and the world's scientists are practically screaming at the top of their lungs. But not enough is being done as a global community and particularly not enough is being done by this conservative climate-denying government. The thing that makes my blood boil the most, the thing that makes inaction even more infuriating to me, is that the government know the evidence, but they choose not to act. This is sinister politics. This is worse than wilful ignorance; it is wilful malevolence.
This bill, the Coal Prohibition (Quit Coal) Bill 2019, will do what the science demands of us. It will prohibit the mining and export of thermal coal after 2030. It's enough time for us to transition and it's enough time for us to look after the affected communities, but it is doing it within the time that, at a bare minimum, the climate and the science requires.
It would do it by introducing a permit system for the export of thermal coal—that is, coal for electricity—which would gradually wind down to zero over the next decade, providing companies, industry and workers with opportunities to transition into new industries.
It will immediately prohibit the establishment of a new coalmine or a new coal-fired power station. It will also prohibit the importation of thermal coal to Australia, with the exception of importation for research, heritage or display purposes.
The limitations on coal exports would begin on 1 July 2019.
The IPCC special report, which was released last year, says we need to reduce the burning of coal by 78 per cent in 2030 to avoid temperatures exceeding 1.5 degrees—just think about that for a moment. We need to reduce the burning of coal by about three-quarters within 12 years to avoid these dangerous thresholds. That's what the science is telling us. As the second largest thermal coal exporter in the world, we have a key responsibility in this area. The fact that we have made billions of dollars because of the coal we have exported so far heightens and sharpens this responsibility.
And while some may say that this kind of action is drastic, mostly it is perfectly sensible. It is what the science demands, and it is what we need to do. But because the Greens are the only party listening, understanding and responding to what the science is demanding of us and because the old parties have been so slow to act, the public's perception of what is necessary to preserve our way of life sometimes doesn't match the transformational and widespread action required.
But it is possible to do this. Not only is it economically and technically possible to transition to 100 per cent renewables but it is possible for Australia to open up an entirely new export industry, where we can export clean, cheap and plentiful renewable energy to our neighbours. There are some very exciting projects being explored in the north-west of Western Australia, where we may be exporting Australia's sunlight, in the form of electricity, across to our Asian neighbours via undersea cable.
Japan, the world's third largest economy by GDP, currently imports 94 per cent of its energy as coal, oil and natural gas. We send 44 per cent of our thermal coal every year to Japan. Japan buys about half of our LNG exports as well.
But Japan, along with South Korea, is asking us to help them decarbonise. Research led by the Chief Scientist shows that we have natural advantages for the export of renewable hydrogen to countries like Japan. It could be a lucrative industry that's worth billions of dollars. It could create thousands of jobs. Almost every state in Australia could drive the processes required to create renewable hydrogen. There are massive opportunities there for us. But what have we got instead from this mob that passes themselves off as a government? What have we got from the mob that pretend they know how to manage the economy, pretend to be agile and nimble and pretend to understand economic management and the national interest?
Instead of grasping these new opportunities, they've given us a Prime Minister who's bringing lumps of coal into this place and hugging them like a long-lost relative. They've lied to us hundreds, maybe thousands, of times that we're on track to meet our measly Paris targets. They are a mob that barely even mention the words 'climate change'.
But unlike the old parties, who are in the pockets of the coal industry, the Greens won't play this dangerous game with the future of civilization. We won't tolerate coal being burnt in coal-fired power stations domestically, and we won't tolerate our coal being burnt overseas as well. Even though the only thing the old parties are interested in when it comes to coal exports are the revenue it generates, the planet doesn't care where the coal gets burnt.
Take the comments, for example, from the Leader of the Opposition. In November last year, he was quoted as saying, when asked about the Adani coalmine:
The actual decision about Adani is not going to affect Australian emissions.
That's Labor saying here, 'Don't worry, we will make it someone else's problem. Don't worry, as long as the emissions aren't counted here, we really don't need to worry too much about Adani.
The reality is that even if you don't include our coal exports we're inside the top 20 biggest polluters in the world. When you add in our coal exports, Australia's pollution skyrockets to the sixth highest emitter in the world, behind China, the United States, the European Union, India and Russia.
The banning and phasing out of thermal coal is the next step. It's an unavoidable step. As a country, we cannot continue to be merchants of death. We cannot be the country that is fuelling global warming just because the Labor and Liberal parties have accepted $3.7 million in donations from the fossil fuel industry since 2013. We cannot be here in this place in 2019 knowing what we know about climate change, seeing the devastation that is occurring to our wide, brown land and then tell our children and our grandchildren that we failed to act, and that's why this legislation takes the burning of coal seriously.
In May last year, someone in New South Wales was sentenced to jail for three years for illegally dumping asbestos. Under this legislation, the directors of companies that burn coal—not the workers; it's not the workers' fault—could also face jail sentences of up to seven years, because it is time to act. It's time to act without fear or favour and to safeguard our future. This bill is part of a whole range of legislation that will cover everything from preventing public money going to coal-fired power stations to accomplishing an independent body, Renew Australia, to lead the transition to a decarbonised economy, to prohibiting coalmining in the Galilee Basin and so much more. If we could get the old parties' support, that would transform Australia. But due to the sheer amount of coal we export and the dire situation that we face if we don't stop, this bill could be as, if not more, important than all the others.
If we don't stop mining and burning coal, we will be extinguished. This is a bill whose time has come. We need to do what we have done in other industries, where we know those industries do not have a sustainable future. We need to say it is not the fault of the workers or communities in coalmining towns or towns associated with coal-fired power stations. They have worked to help us keep the lights on and to power this country for decades. But we now know something we didn't know before. It is like tobacco. It is like asbestos. We know this product, when dug up and used as intended, has the capacity to kill. Just as we have done in the past, when we've worked together with new knowledge and recognised there's a need for a transition to look after the people in the communities who are affected and to shift Australia to new industries, so must we do it again. I urge the government to come up with a climate change policy. And I urge Labor to start treating coal seriously because without doing so we will not stop dangerous climate change. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (10:47): Is the motion seconded?
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:47): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Sharkie.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:48): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
All too often we have heard the stories of farmers who, during drought times or difficult times, are forced into debt and despair. For some, their worlds come crashing down completely; the suicide rate is desperately high among farming families, many times the suicide rate of non-farming families.
Primary producers ride the swell of international commodity markets, exchange rates and weather, their fortunes so often dictated by factors well beyond their control. Many family farmers hope to make profits over a multi-year cycle by using their good years to build a financial buffer to see them through the bad. Capital rich and income poor, the ability of smaller primary producers to pay their creditors is reliant upon these profits in the longer-term cycles.
Banks have not always been accommodating to these vagaries as faced by farmers; everyone in a rural community during a downswing would have heard the stories of woe where banks have not been willing to throw farmers a lifeline so as to protect their loan book. Banks have an obligation to their shareholders and cannot be expected to prop up failing farms more than they can be expected to prop up any genuinely failing business.
I appreciate that not all institutional lenders have tightened the screws on their struggling customers, but, taken as a collective, it is fair to say that the banks and other lending institutions have not made it any easier for their rural customers. We only have to look at the findings of the recent banking royal commission for examples. Horror stories that came out of that banking royal commission proved the farmers right—that banks were giving them and other customers a raw deal.
I first introduced this bill back in 2017. I went to the National Party and I said: 'This is your constituency. This is my constituency. We need to make change.' And I heard nothing. I received no interest from government in helping to level the playing field between farmers and banks. I was a relatively new member of parliament and I had already heard the horror stories and about the lack of a fair playing field for farmers. As I said, now the royal commission report has been released, it is my hope that the government will suddenly become interested in this.
The banks have behaved badly, and this bill addresses the real problems. Albeit nearly two years later, we can act now. We could use this week to get this legislation through.
For example, primary producers are often given the barest minimum of notice of sudden and unilateral variations to their loan agreements; re-evaluations of farmers' assets given as security to a loan can be undertaken by the bank, and often they reclassify the value of the asset and they really don't give the farmers any time at all to try and seek other finance. These material adverse change clauses in their contracts and terminations of loans really are incredibly unfair, because what we need to remember here is that for small farming families—I'm talking about loans for under $5 million—their farm and their business is also their home.
Farmers are not asking for non-commercial rates to access credit or unfair advantage; financial lenders, after all, need to remain competitive. But we are talking about addressing a policy imbalance because the pendulum has gone back too far the other way.
Further, I recognise that there is a marked difference between large commercial lenders and those small, family farmers, and that is why my bill is contained—it is just properties under $5 million.
This bill takes a reasoned, measured approach to lending and to levelling the playing field between lender and lendee because we want to make sure banks are still willing to lend money to farmers—that's another heartache. We find that there's very little interest when your postcode starts with, in South Australia's case, 51. It certainly is very difficult to obtain finance.
As I said, this bill takes as measured approach. The bill seeks to:
require authorised deposit-taking institutions, also known as ADIs, which includes banks, building societies and credit unions, to provide simple, one-page summaries of the clauses that may trigger a non-monetary default by the borrower;
prohibit ADIs from unilaterally undertaking evaluation of security to a loan;
require that when valuations are undertaken, a copy of the valuation instructions and final valuation report are actually provided to the borrower, with the same approach to apply with investigative accounting or auditing of the primary production business;
require the ADI to provide six months notice before seeking to unilaterally vary conditions of the loan, except where it is a change in the money payable by way of a reference rate or is to the borrowers' benefit, and except where the borrower has substantively breached the loan agreement;
require the ADI to provide notice and request to meet with the borrower at least six months prior to the expiry of the loan;
prohibit the use of those catch-all material adverse change provisions, except where they relate to alleged fraud or criminal misconduct;
require the ADI to provide a minimum of 90 business days notice where a loan is not going to be extended or renewed;
require the ADI to inform the borrower about their rights to external dispute resolution where the borrower receives a default notice from the bank, or when the borrower is in financial hardship and is declined assistance from the bank, or when the ADI refuses to renew or extend the borrower's loans.
I might just say I actually raised this bill with the National Farmers' Federation. I was deeply disappointed they had no interest. This is about small farming families, and we need small farming families. We don't need the whole of Australia's farming industry to become large corporate agribusinesses. It's the farming families that shop local. It's the farming families that stay in our rural towns.
The contents of this bill may seem technical and dry, but they are long overdue and will result in genuine equity for smaller farmers and other primary producers. It is high time for the coalition government, which purports to represent rural constituents fairly and even-handedly, to give the bill its full and wholehearted support, particularly in the wake of the findings of the banking royal commission. And I look forward to working with any member of parliament or party that appreciates the importance of giving farming families and other small primary producers a fair and measured hand in their loan agreements with the big banks. Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:55): I second this motion as I was proud to second it when it was first introduced to the House, and I would like to add my support to the work and the words of the member for Mayo and to express the disappointment we feel with those on the other side of the House, the government, in their failure to actually speak up for those in our constituency, which is farmers and farming families who have been hugely affected. So I'm very grateful to the member for Mayo and to her staff for the enormous amount of work they have done in getting this bill before the House. And I do call on my colleagues in the National Party and the regional Liberals to please step up and bring your voice to this House to represent your constituency. It's my real pleasure to second the Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2019.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Indi. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of the sittings.
Office for Regional Australia Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms McGowan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:57): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In summary, in presenting this bill I would like to continue my call for the need for an overarching, comprehensive, long-term and non-partisan approach to dealing with regional Australia through a white and green paper process. I want to recognise that good regional policy is absolutely needed for our nation. And, third, I want to call out the government's absolute inadequate response to the Regions at the ready report.
The government is mistaken if it believes its response to Regions at the ready: investing in Australia's future, the report tabled last week, demonstrates a strong and ongoing commitment to the future of rural and regional Australia.
Last week, eight months after the committee released its report, the government responded to the report's 13 recommendations. These recommendations were the result of a year of analysis, 14 public hearings and more than 200 written submissions, and to say that I'm underwhelmed by the government's response is absolutely an understatement.
Most disappointing is the lost opportunity to progress the vision outlined in the report for the sustainable growth and development of all of Australia.
The response fails to establish a white paper process and instead offers an 'expert panel'.
As a result, colleagues, I have taken action together with the member for Mayo to present this private members' bill, the Office for Regional Australia Bill 2019.
This bill will address the deficiencies in the government's approach, developing an office for regional Australia modelled on the Productivity Commission:
to give the community greater input to policy implementation and a means to investigate negative impacts of regulation
to support the development of regional strategic plans and regional deals
and to back the RDA network in their role, with research and analysis to drive development in regional Australia. The bill puts into action the principles and recommendations established by the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation.
It's not rocket science. Why does it take the crossbench to act on a government report? We, with our limited resources, are bringing legislation to the parliament. We are not saying, 'We need another month.' We are not saying, 'We need another committee.' We are taking action. We are doing the hard work that rural and regional Australia needs. Can I say, colleagues: the people in my community, the people in Mayo and the people in Mallee are noticing who's doing the work for regional Australia in this place.
This office will hold inquiries about matters relating to policy. The Office for Regional Australia will support coordination, collaboration and innovation in relation to policy. It will develop and support our RDAs. The Office for Regional Australia will provide advice to the minister about matters relating to regional deals and regional planning. The Office for Regional Australia will promote public understanding of matters relevant to policy that impact on regional Australia.
The bill requires that the minister table a statement embodying the government's policy for regional Australia, and this may be developed through a formal white paper process. The bill also provides for the development of a parliamentary joint committee on regional development and decentralisation to provide parliamentary oversight of the work of the office. Just let me take a minute on this one, colleagues. When I was first elected to this House, in 2013, I put my hand up to be on the regional development committee. It didn't meet. Nothing happened. I went to see the minister, the National Party minister for regional development. He said: 'No, Cathy, you've got it wrong. It does transport.' I said, 'Well, how does the parliament get input into regional development?' He said, 'Oh, it's an ad hoc committee that meets occasionally.' The House of Representatives does not have a committee on regional development and decentralisation. Can you imagine that? To all the colleagues out there in rural and regional Australia: if you're wondering why the government is doing such a bad job, it's because there's no committee here and no process here to develop it. It was in the report, and we're saying it absolutely needs to be established as a matter of urgency.
The second example I want to give of my real frustration with the system is child care. Last week I tabled in this House a petition from my community about rural child care. Just give me the indulgence of a few minutes to explain my absolute frustration with the lack of government understanding of how rural and regional Australia is different to the cities—how one size doesn't fit all—and how the market conditions in rural and regional Australia are different to those in the cities. The government came up with a way—very useful in some parts—to reform childcare payments. It needed to be done, but it had a one-size-fits-all process. The government took what we had in rural and regional Australia, which was a really good program of mobile childcare services, basically got rid of it and said everybody must be transitioned into centres. The industry, and the Aboriginal community that relied on these mobile childcare services, got organised and came to see us. They said, 'Can we have something different?' So we tried to work with the government of the day—no action. We tried to get an impact statement done. We said to the minister in questions in writing: 'Have you done an impact statement on what this means for rural and regional Australia?' The response was: 'No, we didn't do that, because there's going to be no impact.' Can you believe that we've changed the way child care is funded but we don't have an impact statement? Long story short: exactly as we expected, in my community over Christmas the funding for the childcare centres was stopped. I'm really grateful to the Minister for Education, Dan Tehan, the member for Wannon, for coming to the rescue, but it should never have happened.
Why do we need an office for regional Australia? We need an office for regional Australia because the regions are different to the cities. We have a really good model, in the Productivity Commission, for doing inquiries, and we could do so much good work.
I want to bring to the attention of the House another bit of legislation that will be before the House this week. It is about the government setting up a drought fund. It's great to have infrastructure money in the system to build dams—and I know my colleague the member for Kennedy really wants more dams—but the whole thing about regional Australia, why we absolutely need infrastructure, is that we've got people living there, and those people need to be supported because so many of them work in a voluntary capacity. While it's great to build a dam, if you don't put money into committees, into resilience programs, into RDAs—into planning—that money just gets washed away. Invest in the people. That is what we're saying this office should do.
I will finish with my call to action to whichever party wins at the next election, whichever party that gets to sit on these really important benches here: this report needs to be acted on. I ask my colleagues in the Labor Party: will Labor commit to acting on the recommendations in Regions at the ready? Will Labor commit to an office of regional Australia? And where are the National Party in developing and promoting comprehensive regional policies? The comment was that they're already doing a good job. Well, there are not many people in rural and regional Australia who think that the current way of operating—ad hoc competitive grants—is actually working.
Not many of us think it's working, and I call on the National Party to actually step up and give us a policy, give us a strategy. Show us how, if you're investing $100 million in drought, it's actually linked to a strategy. Show us that you are going to have transparency, that you're going to engage with your communities and that you're going to bring the people with you—that you don't just do a slush fund that the cattle industry can access; that you are going to actually look at communities and businesses and develop a way for the whole nation to work together.
In finishing my comments I want to say that this is a plea from the heart. This will be my last private member's bill to this parliament, because I'm stepping down—though I'm going to continue to do my work. I'm absolutely delighted that in Indi we have a fantastic candidate who's going to run. Helen Haines, welcome to the House today as you learn your way around. I know you'll pick up the need for a strong independent voice for rural and regional Australia. I know you'll call out the National Party. I know you'll call out the regional Liberals. I know you're going to continue this work. You're such an articulate, clever, intelligent and wonderful representative for north-east Victoria, and I wish you luck. It's no accident that my last private member's bill is about an office for regional Australia. This is the issue that I've championed through all my six years. I have to say how fundamentally underwhelmed I am that the best the government can do is say, 'Oh, we're going to set up another committee and we'll report on 31 March.' Oh, come on! What's 31 March? It's the day almost before the budget comes out. It is just a pathetic response.
I want to finish with a comment from Amanda Walsh, who wrote an article for The Conversation in June 2018. She described the Regions at the readyreport as a 'far-reaching and highly practical work program for regional development'. I urge the government to recognise that we need to have a strategy, that we need to have a plan, and that, for the nation's good, we need to put rural and regional Australia at the forefront of our national policy. I commend this bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Sharkie: It is my great pleasure to second this motion, and I congratulate the member for Indi on her work over the last six years with respect to rural communities across Australia. I reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
Reserve Bank Amendment (Australian Reconstruction and Development Board) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Katter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:09): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I represent my homeland, where my family have lived for around 120 years. My son is living there now. We got hit with the TB eradication program. The area had about two million head of cattle. We lost 650,000 head of cattle in the TB eradication campaign, which was a decision of this place. The 1974 floods led to massive losses throughout the area—the biggest floods in the human history of settlement. In 1975 the fires that followed on from the floods made the international press and were tragic in the extreme—again, massive losses of cattle. Cyclone Ted wiped out some 127,000 head of cattle, although I saw figures the other day that 185,000 head of cattle were lost in Cyclone Ted. I myself was a very small owner of cattle, but I lost half my herd, which was a big blow to me, a young man in my 20s, early 30s. Then came wool deregulation, which was a shattering blow to the area, removing some 1,500 jobs. About 500 grazier families were wiped out in the wool deregulation. Then came the live cattle ban, which was absolutely disastrous for the area that I represent. Cattle prices dropped clean in half, and probably another 70 or 80 cattlemen went to the wall.
We've had the 2018 drought year, which has left the cattle in an appallingly weakened condition. Now we've hit the flooding and the rains and we have losses which people are conjecturing are between half-a-million and over a million head of cattle. That would be half of our entire herd and five per cent of the nation's beef industry that would vanish. Ron Camm, the most important person in the sugar industry for most of his life said, 'If you've got a five per cent undersupply, the price goes through the roof. If you've got an oversupply of five per cent, the price goes down, through the floor.' So we could be looking here at an extremely big rise in the price of beef.
When you look at providing government assistance, you have to say, 'Is the industry viable?' When I was the Queensland state minister designated by cabinet to have first responsibility for the state bank I had to ask myself, 'Is the sugar industry viable,' because the chairman of the state bank said, 'Thirty per cent of the industry has to go. It has to go. The industry's not viable.' Our cost structures were cheaper than southern Brazil, the benchmark for the world in the sugar industry. Our cost structures were lower, therefore it was viable and therefore we should not allow 30 per cent of the industry to vanish, or the jobs. As the honourable member for Indi said earlier, everyone thinks about the farmers, but for every farmer you've got maybe 10 employees and you've got maybe 20 follow-on businesses. We forget about all the other people in these situations. Anyway, we had a difference of opinion with the head of the bank, and he vanished two weeks later. The papers rather nastily said that I was looking after my rich cane-farmer mates that sacked him. I'll leave that for history to decide.
But we brought 25 per cent of that industry through. It didn't cost the taxpayers any money. It didn't cost the taxpayers one cent. We borrowed the money at 2.8 per cent. We bought the bad debt off the bank—at that stage, maybe 30 per cent of the industry was bad debt—at a discount of about 75 per cent. We then took over the loan and had the security of the mortgage for the public of Queensland. If they went broke, well, we'd still have to sell them up; we were a bank, same as any other bank. But it was our belief that they were viable and they would not go broke. A year and half later, the price of sugar doubled. We put up commercial interest rates, and I'm a bit embarrassed to tell you that we made about $250 million profit out of that situation. The banks were able to offload their bad debt; they were happy.
We were able to bring the sugar industry, which is about a quarter of the economy of Queensland and arguably a bigger employer than even the coal industry, through completely intact. Five per cent didn't come through, nor should they. The government is not in the business of propping up lazy people, stupid people, people who won't accept change. There has to be some people going broke for long-term viability in any industry.
We have a situation in which maybe five per cent of the Australian beef industry has been seriously wrecked and may be in jeopardy. It has been proposed by the Richmond Shire Council—and a lot of people dispute this—and I agree that there should be grants of $100 per ox lost. So if there are 700,000 ox gone then that would cost the people of Australia $70 million, which is a very small sum of money when the alternative would be to lose the tax revenue of $250 million per year for the next three years. I think that $70 million would be a very small price to pay.
The Queensland parliamentary inquiry into debt had some 40 meetings throughout Queensland. I attended four of those meetings. I was told by the chair of that committee, who happens to be my son, that every single person who came before that committee said, 'We don't want any more debt.' So if the government is thinking about giving cheap loans out, well, don't, because those people don't want more debt; they can't cope with more debt. They've still got to pay the bank their seven per, which is about average for bank charges and the other on-costs the banks put on. They've already got this huge debt they're carrying now. There have been six or seven extremely dry years. They can't carry any more debt and, arguably, they won't carry any more debt. Also, if you were to do that, the people you would help most would be the banks. The banks have bad debt at the present moment. If you gave that money out and imposed more debt upon the farmer then the banks would no longer have bad debt; the banks would have good debt, so the banks will write you a nice letter of thanks for what you've done for them. You won't have helped the farmers. You won't have helped the industry, you won't have helped the people of Australia but you will have helped the banks so I don't think that's a particularly good idea.
We have an obsession in this place with free markets. Go and tell those arguments of the free marketeers to China. Go and tell them to Europe. Go and tell them to Donald Trump. Go and tell them to Brazil. Go and tell them to any of the huge economies on earth. Brazil introduced ethanol—its biggest export industry is sugar—and now has a cost subsidy from petrol, ethanol, across the sugar industry. Is that a free market economy? Not likely. Is this industry viable? Yes. This industry has the VIP countries. Everyone talks about China. We are obsessed with China. The VIP countries are almost as big as China; 750 million people live in Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. As their economies grow and their people become more prosperous then they will buy beef. Our exports to Japan of beef were negligible for 17 years after the war and then 17 years after that they were the biggest beef importing country on earth. That's what is going to happen in the VIP countries. It's also going to happen in China so this is an industry that has a very bright future and one of the few industries we have where we are the cheapest producers in the world. What happens in crisis? (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms McGowan: I am very happy to second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
Export Control Amendment (Banning Cotton Exports to Ensure Water Security) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Sharkie.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (11:20): I move:
That this bill now be read a second time.
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is our greatest river system in Australia and it is in crisis. The river and its communities remember the social, economic and environmental devastation brought by the millennium drought. We fear the next time the drought stalks the lower basin, the river will not be healthy enough to survive and our beautiful lakes, river and Coorong will be left to die.
Now it's the Menindee Lakes. Up to one million fish are dead, and the community there is angry and suffering, wondering how this happened to them. Grasp the magnitude of it for a moment, if you will: one million dead fish, many of them 70- and 80-year-old cod.
Let no-one pretend that we could not see the slow death of the Murray-Darling coming for us. Climate change is upon us and making our continent drier. Upstream river towns are on water restrictions. We are drawing too much water from the river system, and we need to set new, more realistic and sustainable targets. I represent the downstream hostages of the upstream water theft and corruption. If we do not act now, our river will die. Then there will be no water for anyone, not even the big irrigators with all their paid-up political connections.
South Australia wants the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to endure, but the plan shouldn't be chipped away, with no regard to science, purely for political expediency. South Australia and my electorate have the most vulnerable part of the river. We have so much to lose. Our nation has so much to lose.
The South Australian Liberal Party, who I once believed was a champion for rural and regional South Australia, is silent over this—silent over the actions of their eastern state colleagues. There has been no serious or state government response to the recent report of the South Australian Murray Darling Royal Commission. That is criminal. We need action.
But, without action, we have this bill, the Export Control Amendment (Banning Cotton Exports to Ensure Water Security) Bill 2019. This bill suggests one possible drastic step that we may need to consider; namely, banning the export of cotton—that thirsty Australian mega-crop, cotton. The role of cotton production in the Murray-Darling Basin cannot be ignored. We are effectively exporting the driest continent's most previous resource—water. Although radical, this bill seeks to open a conversation about the future of water usage in the basin.
The overwhelming majority of Australian cotton is grown in the Murray-Darling Basin and approximately 90 per cent of cotton grown in Australia is exported, mainly to China and India, for value-adding. It is not value-added here.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 21.4 per cent of the Murray-Darling Basin irrigation water was used in cotton production in 2005-06. In 2008-09 the ABS reported that cotton accounted for the highest proportion of irrigated water used in the Murray-Darling Basin, 23 per cent—exceeding that used for general crops, which was 20 per cent, and for pasture and grazing, which was 15 per cent. In 2010-11, the ABS further reported that:
The largest volume of irrigation water was applied to cotton, which used 1,882 gigalitres, or 28 per cent of the national irrigation total for that year.
In the Murray-Darling Basin, cotton accounted for the largest area of irrigated land, with 332,000 hectares, or 28 per cent of the total irrigated land in the Murray-Darling Basin.
Cotton is certainly king in that part of the basin. It further reported:
Cotton used the largest volume of irrigation water in the Murray-Darling Basin, with 1,789 gigalitres being applied, which represented nearly 40 per cent of all the irrigated water use in 2010-11. For 2011-12, the ABS reported that 1,996 gigalitres applied to cotton production in the Murray-Darling Basin and was nearly one-third, 32 per cent, of all water usage in the basin that year. As you can see, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Mitchell, this is a growing problem. Interestingly, the most recent ABS report, for 2016-17, does not provide figures for agricultural water use in the Murray-Darling Basin, although it has figures for national volumes. In 2016-17, cotton used 2,566 gigalitres of water, 28.2 per cent of the allocation.
Given that there is hardly any cotton grown outside the Murray-Darling Basin, the percentage of water used for cotton production in the basin is likely to be considerably higher. Cotton is the single-largest piece of the challenge in managing the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin. And although the royal commission report does not single out cotton, in the absence of Commonwealth, state and territory government commitments to fully implement the commission's recommendations that is precisely what must be done in Australia's national interests and for the health of our rivers if they do not implement the recommendations. As I said, we are desperate. We want action, and the first action must be for the findings of Bret Walker SC's royal commission to be implemented.
I might go to the work of Maryanne Slattery from the Australia Institute. In January this year she presented her findings in the report, A fish kill QandA: the questions, answers and dead fish in the Menindee Lakes. She said:
Q: Where to from here?
A: There should be an urgent public assessment of:
1. Whether the level of extraction in the Northern Basin is sustainable, particularly with respect to floodplain harvesting.
2. How to manage Menindee lakes in a future with less inflows in the small to medium flow range?
3. If the past practice of managing lakes to minimise evaporation still relevant if the lakes will dry more often and require more water to refill?
Finally, transparency and accountability is required if there is any chance for governments and water agencies to restore confidence in the implementation of the Basin Plan: …
Her findings were:
1. All decisions of the Basin Officials Committee should be made public;
2. The annual reviews of the River Murray Operations by the Independent River Operations Review Group should be made public;
3. The annual reports of the River Murray Operations by the River Murray Operations should be made public;
4. The size and location of all private storages in the Northern Basin should be made public, along with actual storage levels; and
5. A genuinely independent assessment and quantification of the causes of the reduction on low and medium flows in the Barwon-Darling should be completed as soon as possible and made publicly available.
The secrecy around the whole Murray-Darling Basin Plan is terrifying, it really is.
Centre Alliance's firm view is that significant changes need to be made so that the environmental health of the river system with respect to water and food security must be our national priority. It is regrettable that we should have to consider such a measure in the absence of real commitments to implement the royal commission's recommendations and put the health of the Murray-Darling first and foremost. This is something that must be considered in Australia's national interest.
My mother is a wise woman. When I was a child, she would say to me, 'There is enough for every man's need, but not for every man's greed.' And there is no truer example of this than the overallocation of the Murray-Darling and the wilful neglect and turning away by various state and federal governments. I commend this bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Wilkie: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
Queensland: Floods
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (11:29): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Townsville has experienced the worst floods in recorded history;
(b) Townsville received a year's rainfall in nine days, with 1,134 millimetres recorded up to 9 am on Monday 4 February 2019, reaching over 1.65 metres;
(c) the Ross River Dam reached a record breaking 244 per cent capacity; and
(d) more than 22,000 homes and 110 roads in Townsville were affected by this extreme weather event;
(2) acknowledges the:
(a) professional and skilled work undertaken by the Townsville Local Disaster Management Group;
(b) dedicated and collaborative work undertaken by the Australian Defence Force (ADF), Emergency Services and State Emergency Services (SES) in rescuing stranded residents in dangerous circumstances;
(c) commitment and hard work of the ADF in the massive recovery clean-up process; and
(d) amazing work of the SES, Ergon Energy, Townsville City Council workers, businesses and the thousands of community volunteers for their efforts to assist the many people whose homes were inundated; and
(3) calls on the Government to end the confusion related to the disaster recovery payment and assist the thousands of distressed Townsville residents during this difficult time.
This has been a very difficult time for the people of Townsville. Just imagine a wall of water about the same height as me coming towards you and your home. What Townsville has experienced is truly unbelievable. We've gone from a dam that was well down to a dam with record-breaking 244 per cent capacity. People's livelihoods, their belongings and their homes have all been destroyed.
Last week, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and I visited the Townsville RSL. I was shocked to see the extensive damage to one of the largest RSL clubs in Australia. Around half a metre of water had rushed through the lower level of the building. The carpets and many of the club's awards, historical memorabilia and artefacts had been destroyed by the water and/or mould.
Before coming to Canberra for the past week of sittings, and over the weekend, I visited many residents, assisting in the clean-up and helping people to access disaster relief funding and make their insurance claims. It was heartbreaking to visit residents whose household goods and belongings had been piled up on the footpath because their houses were covered in water, mud, mould or sewage. On top of that, I heard one consistent message: people had been denied the federal government disaster recovery payment. This shocked and angered me, because I could see the devastation of people's homes. I could smell the mud and the mould and the sewage. I walked across muddy floorboards. I asked myself the question: how is it that Townsville residents are being denied assistance when they need it most?
The more people and homes I visited, the more complaints I heard, and they were from people who lived in the red zone. Their homes and possessions had been destroyed but they were denied federal government assistance. I am talking about people like Cherrie Vitali. Cherrie lives on Queens Road in Hermit Park. The water came up and into her home. There was mud everywhere. I saw her damaged washing machine and other whitegoods on the footpath. If the LNP government doesn't believe me then there is plenty of evidence to show that this is a fact. Cherrie was so angry that she used one of her flood-damaged tables to express her outrage at being denied the LNP government disaster relief money that is rightfully hers.
Cherrie is just one of many. I visited Elaine in Railway Estate. She lives in an old, two-storey Queenslander. Her pool was full of mud and sewage. Her entire bottom floor was covered with water. Her irreplaceable family antique furniture had been ruined. Elaine has also been denied the disaster recovery money, because this LNP government has put restrictions on the principal place of residence. Because Elaine's bedroom and kitchen were on the top level, the damaged ground level was not recognised as part of the house and Elaine was not able to claim the federal government assistance.
I also visited an Aboriginal family in Roberts Street, Hermit Park, and this was very distressing. The family of two parents and four children, who had relatives visiting from Normanton, were renting a Queensland Housing flat. One of their visitors was blind. The water had come up past their windows and they'd had no power for six days. The mud smelled and the mould was growing. They had lost everything. The Salvation Army had delivered beds, and the family were waiting to be relocated. They had a very small esky with some ice and soft drinks but very little food. They were denied assistance because they reported that the water came through their window. Unfortunately, they did not understand what 'inundated' meant.
What sort of nonsensical and nonsense response was that? Why were they not entitled? It shouldn't matter how the water came in—through your front door or back door, through the roof or through the window. The fact remains that the water came into their home and they lost everything. Surely, if water comes in through a window, it has come in through the doorway first in a flood situation. In this case, clearly, it is not so for the LNP government.
There was then Theresa and Tony at Kirwan, who have three times been denied any federal assistance due to the water not being deemed as 'rising water'. There is Tarnie of Cranbrook, who was also told she was not eligible. That was even though she had water coming through her windows, her carpets were flooded and she had lost her furnishings. She was told that she was ineligible because she was not in one of the marked flooded areas. Well, here's a thought: water doesn't always follow flood maps. There was Brett in Stuart, who has described having a waterfall through his house; but he was not eligible. He has no idea why he was ineligible.
During a time of natural disaster, people are stressed and they need help immediately. Just to help this LNP government understand that, there are people in my community who have no home, no food and no electricity—they have nothing. This disaster relief funding is not there for the government to be stingy; it is there to help people in distress immediately. These restrictions are not the fault of Centrelink staff. These restrictions are purely the fault of the federal government. Labor understands that when you experience a natural disaster and you lose your home and belongings then you need immediate assistance. That is why, under Labor in 2011, after Cyclone Yasi, we made it easy for Townsville residents to be able to access the help that they needed immediately. Labor's disaster relief funding was simple to access. If you were locked in or could not access your home for 24 hours, you received vital assistance. If you had no power for more than 48 hours, you received vital assistance. It was just that simple.
This LNP government set out the following restrictions for the people of Townsville: you had to be seriously injured; you or an immediate family member had to have died; there needed to be major damage to at least 25 per cent of the interior of your principal place of residence; your principal place of residence had to be breached, exposing at least 25 per cent of the interior of your residence to the elements; or your principal place of residence had been declared structurally unsound. That is a very stingy set of criteria.
After a massive backlash, the LNP government decided to make some changes, but the criteria were still completely unreasonable for flood affected victims. Townsville residents still have to prove that floodwater has covered the interior floor of their principal place of residence—and this is a problem when you live in a two-storey building—even if their principal place of residence has been declared structurally unsound, which is why Elaine in Railway Estate is still excluded because of the government's strict eligibility requirements. How does someone not eligible when she lives in the worst affected area, her pool was destroyed and her entire bottom floor and all her belongings in it were destroyed?
This LNP Prime Minister was making updates to the eligibility via Twitter, leaving Townsville residents frustrated and confused. The Department of Human Services' staff were also confused. I am angry on behalf of my community. So far, 17,466 people have signed a petition against this government's ridiculous restrictions, which hurt Townsville's residents during our time of need. There is then the LNP's out-of-touch requirements regarding proof of eligibility. Under Labor in 2011, residents were just required to show their Medicare card and their driver's licence. Under the LNP government, you must provide evidence of damage, including photos. This is very difficult for some people who had no power, no access to power recharge their batteries to take the photos on their mobile phones or no access to cameras.
If you are a Townsville resident, you cannot walk into one of the Centrelink offices to ask for assistance with processing. That's because we only have a line to Melbourne to ask for assistance. This is an absolute joke and an absolute slap in the face to the Townsville Centrelink staff, who do a remarkable job every day. But those staff have been forced to make decisions for residents that are not at all helpful to the people in my community.
I am asking the LNP government to, please, not kick us when we are down. Townsville survived 1.65 metres of water. We don't need the LNP's ludicrous restrictions. What we do need is an LNP government to take immediate action to remove the restrictions and employ more Centrelink staff. Labor has committed to 200 more Centrelink staff for Townsville, and now is the time for the LNP government to match Labor's climate and get the resources and staff on the ground to help the people of Townsville who have been affected by these devastating floods.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is there a seconder?
Ms Lamb: I second the motion moved by the member for Herbert and reserve my right to speak.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (11:40): I come in here not to make any political statement, but, unfortunately, what we have just heard from the member for Herbert is a disgrace using politically the disaster that occurred up in North Queensland that people are still recuperating from as a political attack. She should hang her head in shame. She should be on her knees and asking forgiveness for all of those people who have been through this natural disaster. To come into his place and use that for cheap political point-scoring is absolutely disgusting. You should be ashamed of that, Cathy—very, very ashamed.
I will make this call to all of those people that she's just named as being knocked back by Centrelink. I'm getting calls like that about the state government administration, about Centrelink administration. I tell you what I've done as the local member for areas affected, such as Idalia, Oonoonba, Annandale and Giru. I have gone and contacted those people and I have helped them actually get the payment they deserve. To all of those people who were named bid the member for Herbert, who obviously is not doing her job helping these people: if you live in Dawson or if you live in Herbert, contact my office: 0749440662. If water has come into your home, you are eligible and we will get you the payment that you deserve. Forget about the member for Herbert; she just wants cheap political point-scoring. We will get you the payment that you deserve and we will help you with your insurance queries. I've got to say the LNP candidate for Herbert, Phillip Thompson, would also be interested in talking to people in the Herbert electorate.
This is a shocking event that we went through up there. I walked through the home of Samantha Doyle, a young mother, with the Prime Minister. There was, I would guess, about a metre of water—maybe a bit less than that—that had gone through her home. It had left mud and muck everywhere. It looked like it was sewage contaminated water that had gone through the home. She was uninsured. You saw the human heartache there that impacted upon that young family. What you have to think is that the key facts of this is that the council has advised that the flood levels here were greater than a one-in-500-years flood event, not just a one-in-100-years event. In some parts, rainfall recorded at a 1 in 2,000-years level. The height of the Ross River Dam surpassed anything that we have ever seen, up to almost 250 per cent. And you have to say that dam did a pretty good job, given it got up to that level.
There's been a lot of focus on Townsville. I want to mention the communities in my electorate. Giru was flooded. They are often forgotten but not forgotten by me. I went down there and talked to residents there. I'm going to be helping some, particularly the community kindergarten. I also understand the police are still searching for a man missing at Groper Creek after the boat he was travelling in crashed near a jetty close to Hinkson Esplanade. My thoughts are with the family and friends of that man. I guess that we're all starting to worry about his safety and wellbeing at this late stage.
Thoughts are with the smaller communities both north and south of Townsville and also out west, where the disaster is still unfolding. The facts are that the government has provided $1.9 million in community recovery payments. That's payments that have been made. Sixteen thousand applications for assistance have been made. Most of those have been approved. Again, my office is keen to help those who are finding it difficult. That's what local members are there for. As of this morning, insurance companies have received 13,560 claims, with losses estimated at $165 million. They have already paid out more than $16 million in support and emergency accommodation. That's good, but I have heard from some people that they are getting a raw deal from their insurers with the wording of the policies and not covering tiles and things like that. Again, my office is here to help. This nation is watching, this place is watching and I am carefully watching what these insurance companies do. We will be acting for flood victims against insurers.
The one bright light out of this terrible event is the community support. The North Queensland Cowboys, for instance, went out and lent a hand, along with a lot of other boaties at that time. We had John Asiata and Antonio Winterstein, who used their boats, along with a flotilla of other boats from the community, to go out and rescue people from their houses, which had just started to become inundated. The Salvation Army's emergency services section served hundreds of meals across three evacuation centres to residents that had to evacuate their homes from more than 20 suburbs. We had the Red Cross out there on the ground helping people.
We had volunteers from the Seventh-day Adventist Development and Relief Agency filling a thousand sandbags for local residents. The Catholic Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Townsville, Tim Harris, who's own home was inundated, went out of his way to help others. He made some comments recently praising the efforts of the community, working together, including the Army, the police, the council and even the local paper. He described the story he heard of an 80-year-old man who had grown 'these beautiful flowers that he'd nurtured'. When rescuers came to evacuate him from the home, the man was reluctant to leave the flowers. What the old fellow said, the bishop relates, was, 'Cut that flower for me; it's too beautiful to leave.' I met up with people at Calvary Christian Church—Reverend James MacPherson and Renee Vucetic, who were providing a collection centre of goods for families affected by floods to come and collect the stuff they needed, like linen and towels and some things like that, and they also provided free meals to the people in the community that needed it. So our Christian churches really stood up and did a great community effort.
Commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel Judd Finger and 92 Army personnel from the amphibious 2 RAR rescued more than 400 people from flooded homes in Idalia. Lance Corporal Sean Price, who worked with Senior Constable Ben Pearson from the Queensland Police Service, rescued hundreds of people, only to return home to find that his own home had been flooded. Thirty-one Team Rubicon members—ex-Army or Defence Force personnel—flew up from places like Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and the Gold Coast to bolster the numbers of their Townsville branch helping people. Ingham helicopter pilot Josh Liddle spent two weeks in Hobart fighting bushfires and then returned home to help Townsville residents with flood relief. Alicia Populin and her family took 16 families into their two-storey home. More than 60 people were accommodated, as well as their cats, dogs and guinea pigs. The community support for their neighbours was tremendous.
Tow truck driver Steve Gurney pulled 15 cars to safety, all without charge. Tracie Davis Nieass opened her beauty salon for evacuees to get dry and warm in, and she also manned an impromptu evacuation and support centre at Annandale. Ryan Lacaze, who rides his jet ski to raise money for children's charities, put his machine to another good use, rescuing people who were caught in the rising water. Zane Biffanti and his neighbour Scott responded to pleas for help on social media with their kayak. Bushland Beach resident Ashley D'Silva and her friends rescued more than a dozen pets from Idalia and Fairfield. Teenager Trayeden Fulmer started a Facebook page to rally volunteers. He ran a crew as a 16-year-old, or a teenager, rather, of about 60 volunteers, including one of his teachers from Kirwan State High School. Dozens of doctors volunteered. We had residents from Innisfail help, like Inderjit Singh, who rallied volunteers from the UNITED SIKHS. Some even flew in from Melbourne to assist in Townsville. Businesses like the Pavilion Cafe, the Warfighter Cafe, Adani, PVW, The Coffee Club, Domino's and Fasta Pasta all helped.
To recognise these people for the great community work that they and so many others did, I've launched a flood hero website, www.floodhero.com.au, where people can go on and nominate someone who was a flood hero. My office will be in contact with the people who nominate. We want to officially recognise these people who've done so much for their community.
Can I end by saying that one of the most inspirational moments was when Gunner Willem Borwn noticed a sodden Australian flag floating by when he was doing rescue efforts. He knew it belonged to the pole at the front of Jannine and Norm Napier's house, and he raised that flag back up to its rightful place. Norm said: 'It lifted our spirits for sure. It made everyone smile, just to see it flying again.' That's a poignant moment right there. It's not politics, like what was in this House earlier; it's about the Aussie spirit. It is about the North Queensland spirit. It's always going to shine through. That's why I particularly want to commend all of those people who did something heroic. Even just helping a mate is heroic, and you should be recognised as a flood hero. I'm calling on people to go to the website, www.floodhero.com.au, and nominate someone they want. I will ensure that those people are officially recognised as the flood heroes that they are. Again, I commend all those people who assisted in some way, shape or form—looking out for their neighbour, helping their mate.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (11:50): As Australians we are fortunate, I believe, to live in the best country in the world. As many Australians know, when natural disaster strikes the consequences and impacts on peoples lives, homes, families and communities can be cruel. We only need to look back at recent times—our nation has seen more than its fair share of floods and fires that have had devastating impacts right across our country.
I thank the member for Herbert for raising this important motion, and note that her community and the member for Dawson's community have been particularly hard-hit over the past couple of weeks, with Townsville experiencing the region's worst floods in recorded history. Included in the thousands and thousands of homes that have been affected was the member for Herbert's home. Her mother's home was also flooded.
These floods exceeded expectations set by experts on what they said would occur in a once in 100-year flood event. The water levels were higher, the rain was more intense and the impacts were far greater than anyone had expected. Regrettably, the floods have claimed three lives. Very sadly, the first of two men, both in their early 20s, was discovered in a stormwater drain near the Aitkenvale Library on Tuesday 5 February. Another life was also taken as receding floodwaters left people exposed to disease, through a soil born bacteria that was stirred up by heavily contaminated floodwaters. I know every member of this House sends their condolences to those individuals and their loved ones.
This is still very much an active situation, with authorities warning residents to be careful when cleaning flood affected buildings. They've advised people not to walk through dirty water, to clean wounds after being in the water and to wear protective clothing with boots and gloves to minimise the chances of further lives being lost.
Thousands of people have been unable to return to their homes, with the State Emergency Service receiving almost 1,200 calls for help in the 40 hours at the peak of the situation. Townsville received a year's rainfall in nine days—a year's rainfall in nine days—with 1,134mm recorded up to 9.00 am on Monday 4 February 2019, reaching over 1.65 metres. This included a staggering 1.8 metres of rain falling in the suburb of Upper Bluewater in just seven days—amounts of rainfall that we simply cannot fathom.
However, it is the stories of people and families on the ground—as we heard from the member of Dawson and the member for Herbert—who lost everything that reveal the true damage inflicted. There are stories like that of Dr Michael Clements, who established his medical practice in Townsville. Prior to this, when he checked the area's flood history—he hired surveyors and spoke to the council—they all said there was little to worry about. However, after floodwater came through the Fairfield Central shopping centre and Dr Clements and other shop owners attempted to lodge insurance claims, most found their policies did not cover floods. I know this is something that all members of this House will be carefully following. Dr Clements said:
We as a family heavily invested in Townsville and … we thought Idalia was an ideal suburb and environment. We certainly did look at the flood history. We talked to our conveyancers and solicitors and planners. They said you’re well above the level, so flood is not a predictable and regular occurrence.
There are many, many more stories like this.
In the clean-up of this event, I call on insurance companies to be compassionate when dealing with and assisting claims. If there is an opportunity to help people who are in dire need, it should be done. On that note, I wish to echo the words of the member for Herbert and other previous speakers and acknowledge the professional, dangerous and skilled work undertaken by the Townsville Local Disaster Management Group, the ADF, the SES, Ergon Energy, and, of course, the Townsville City Council, which did a magnificent job, led by mayor Jenny Hill, who has been on the frontline of the disaster every single day, helping residents and businesses get back on their feet.
I also want to congratulate, and acknowledge the work of, the Palaszczuk state government, who were quick to act to ensure the region was as prepared as possible for this major flooding event. They've also been leading the way in a massive recovery effort, including $10.48 million in emergency hardship assistance which has benefited almost 60,000 people, and more than 300 community recovery workers on the ground in Townsville, Cloncurry, Julia Creek, Hughenden and Winton.
When times are tough, Queenslanders get behind each other. We roll up our sleeves and get the work done. It's true Queenslanders are a remarkable bunch of people, but it is perhaps in the toughest times that the true Queensland spirit shines. My thoughts are with all of those rebuilding their lives. I know this parliament, and every member of this parliament, will continue to help those people get back on their feet.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Assistant Minister for Children and Families) (11:55): Across our lives, we have seen remarkable weather events, whether they be fires, floods, cyclones or droughts. Each time we experience one, we can hardly believe it—or the raw power Mother Nature can deliver. Recently, in the north of Queensland, we have seen such an event. This was a devastating event, with many areas from Townsville to Cloncurry smashing previous records of seven-day rain totals. Many areas received well over one metre of rain in a week—houses ruined, property lost, lives lost, livestock lost, and flooding in previously high and dry areas.
Like in any natural disaster, the shock of the event and the devastating damage take an instant toll on those involved. While the fallout in Townsville has been severe, the devastation in rural areas in the north-west was the focal point for the fallout from this tropical low. Hundreds of graziers in the north-west had the euphoria of drought-breaking rains when a tropical low came to dump bulk moisture on the drought-ravaged lands of the Flinders and upper Diamantina catchments. Entering a seventh year of drought, nothing could have been sweeter than a couple of days of good soaking rain. Euphoria soon turned to fear as flooding began, with the tropical low simply refusing to move and continuing to dump heavy rain. Many experienced weather-watchers say they've never seen a weather pattern like this.
Any cattleman will tell you that cattle can handle floods. In a bad flood, you might loss a few head, but most will float downstream and turn up when the water drops and neighbours start the post-flood muster. This event was much more than just a flood, though. This was a week-long onslaught of rain, with heavy cloud cover and wind—strong, continuous, buffeting winds. It was nothing like the normally hot, dry conditions of the tropical interior. Tropical cattle breeds are very well suited to tropical conditions, but a week of standing in water with the wind blowing and no tree cover is a recipe for disaster. Estimates suggest hundreds of thousands of head of cattle now lie dead in paddocks across the region. This is obviously devastating for families who not only love their animals but rely on them for their livelihoods. Families across the north are now left wondering whether all manner of household bills will be able to be covered and whether they can stay in business at all.
On the matter of household costs, I took part in a recent meeting between independent schools and the Isolated Children's Parents' Association regarding very big concerns about school fees. In rural and remote areas, the option of boarding school is often taken as the only feasible manner for kids to get a decent education, due to the tyranny of distance. When things get tough, like they are now for so many in the north, costs become difficult to cover, and school fees often become a bridge too far for country families. It would be awful to see these families have to remove their children from school because of this catastrophic flood. The flow-on effects would be long felt in these rural and remote communities if these children's life options narrowed. I congratulate the ICPA on their constant support for rural kids and their education, and I trust this meeting will lead to something positive in the coming weeks.
Government always plays a role in recovery. It has swung into action quickly, delivering physical support through mobilising the military, and it has already delivered more than $42 million in recovery funding. It is vital there are not undue hold-ups in delivering recovery funding. Processes have improved to help communities get back on their feet more quickly. Over 40,000 calls for assistance have been answered, with financial support and coordinated efforts delivering support across the north.
Regardless of the government's understanding and support, recovery always comes down to local communities. To see our Prime Minister visit Cloncurry last week donning a cap from a local trucking company owned by the Pratt family, it was obvious the community is fragile. But the community is resilient. I am sure that, while there are difficult times ahead for beef producers across the state and while the communities on the northern line have a great deal of recovery to do, they will do it. They will recover and be stronger than ever, and I look forward to seeing them do it.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
STATEMENTS
National Security
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (12:00): by leave—Australia's democratic process is our greatest asset, our most critical piece of national infrastructure. Public confidence in the integrity of our democratic processes is an essential element of Australian sovereignty and governance. While we will vigorously argue over many issues in this place, we are all united in our parliament in our commitment to democratic principles.
Members will be aware that the Australian Cyber Security Centre recently identified a malicious intrusion into the Australian Parliament House computer network. During the course of this work, we also became aware that the networks of some political parties—Liberal, Labor and the Nationals—have also been affected. Our security agencies have detected this activity and acted decisively to confront it. They are securing these systems and protecting users. I do not propose to go into the detail of these operational matters, but our cyberexperts believe that a sophisticated state actor is responsible for this malicious activity.
Let me be clear, though: there is no evidence of any electoral interference. We have put in place a number of measures to ensure the integrity of our electoral system. I have instructed the Australian Cyber Security Centre to be ready to provide any political party or electoral body in Australia with immediate support, including making their technical experts available. They have already briefed the electoral commissions and those responsible for cybersecurity for all states and territories. They have also worked with global antivirus companies to ensure Australia's friends and allies have the capacity to detect this malicious activity.
We have acted decisively to protect our national interests. The methods used by malicious actors are constantly evolving, and this incident just reinforces yet again the importance of cybersecurity as a fundamental part of everyone's business. The Australian government will continue to take a proactive and coordinated approach to protecting Australia's sovereignty, economy and national security. That is why the government has invested in cybersecurity, including strengthening the Australian Cyber Security Centre by bringing all of the Australian government's cybersecurity capability together in one place. Our political system and our democracy remain strong and vibrant and are protected. We stand united in the protection of our values and our sovereignty. The government has chosen to be transparent about these matters. This, in itself, is an expression of faith by our government in our democratic system and our determination to defend it.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (12:03): by leave—I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the opportunity for the House to address such an important matter. The integrity of our democracy and trust in our political institutions are fundamental to our national security. I agree with the Prime Minister that, whatever the rhetorical, political or, indeed, substantial differences between government and opposition on any given day may be, whatever disagreements and disputes may consume the parliament even in the coming hours, when it comes to national security, we all have a joint obligation; we're in this together. Keeping Australians safe isn't a political slogan; it's the highest priority of every political party and every member of this place. So, obviously, the attempt at hacking the Parliament House network is a source of grave concern to us all.
Australia is not exempt or immune from the kind of malicious activity that we've seen elsewhere. Over the past few years, we've witnessed a range of attempted infiltrations and manipulations in the democratic processes of Germany, Japan, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Canada. We cannot be complacent and, as this most recent activity reported by the Prime Minister indicates, we are not exempt or immune.
Now, as the Prime Minister has indicated, government institutions, such as our electoral commissions, are largely well protected, but our party political structures perhaps are more vulnerable. We've seen overseas that it's progressive parties which are more likely to be targeted by ultra-right-wing organisations. Political parties are small organisations with only a few full-time staff, yet they collect, store and use large amounts of information about voters and communities. These institutions can be a soft target, and our national approach to cybersecurity needs to pay more attention to non-government organisations. Our agencies shouldn't be just providing advice to political parties but actively assisting in their defence. I have to say today to people listening in parliament that my words are not just about political parties but also about Australia's small and medium businesses, our educational institutions and individuals.
Everything that depends on internet technology, even if it is not actively connected to the global internet at all times, is part of cyberspace. Cyberspace is a fully functioning reality. It's an ecosystem. The virtual world of cyberspace has created an ecosystem—new domains of human experience and millions in communities within it that mimic the real world. It's an ecosystem that has generated prosperity, opportunity and profound benefits to millions. It is an ecosystem, though, that has also spawned multiple threats to individuals, businesses of all sizes, critical infrastructure, national security and our democratic systems. It is an ecosystem that is growing rapidly each and every day.
In 2015, it was estimated that 25 billion devices were connected to the internet. That is eight times the number of people considered to be online. In 2020, the number of devices connected to the internet is estimated to increase to 50 billion devices. So the economy is no longer merely enabled by cyber; cyber is part of the economy, and we're all connected in that economy. Cybersecurity affects every Australian in every way, nearly every day. So we need every Australian equipped to preserve and protect our institutions, our freedoms and our values. It means improving awareness of cyber-risks and strategies to guard against them. It means that we need to train up more Australians in our universities, TAFEs, research centres and workplaces to fill national skill shortages in cybersecurity.
In closing, I have to say that I have great trust in our security agencies and their professionalism to do all that they can to protect our nation against cyberthreats. But we constantly need to ask ourselves if our settings are right. The Commonwealth National Cyber Security Adviser is dual hatted in his policy role, reporting to the Secretary of Home Affairs but also, as operational head of the Australian Cyber Security Centre, reporting to the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate. Some are concerned that this dual-hatting creates fragmentation and stovepiping. We need a cohesive national approach through the Cyber Security Centre as a single entity responsible for managing the cybermission in totality and reporting up through a single chain. We perhaps need to consider whether the Cyber Security Centre should be the single point of contact and accountability for all cyber-related communication, reporting, incident response, crisis communication, management, threat intelligence capability operations and policy. This centre should remain based in the Defence portfolio and continue to report to the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate.
The threats we face in this field are always evolving and changing, so we must continue to adapt and update our methods and defences because what we are defending—the integrity, transparency and health of our democracy—matters to every decision that we make in this place and to every Australian we serve.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Reporting Date
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (12:09): 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 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on its inquiry into the Franchising Code of Conduct and Oil Code of Conduct be extended to 14 March 2019.
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
Reporting Date
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (12:10): The following message from the Senate has been received: The Senate informs the House of Representatives of the following resolution agreed by the Senate today:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the oversight of the implementation of redress-related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse be extended to 2 April 2019.
The Senate requests concurrence of the House in the variation to the resolution of appointment of the committee.
Ordered that the message be considered immediately.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (12:11): I move:
That the resolution of the Senate be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Kenya and Ethiopia, 3 to 9 June 2018
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (12:12): I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Kenya and Ethiopia, 3 to 9 June 2018. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mr BROAD: I was very pleased to present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Kenya and Ethiopia, 3 to 9 June 2018. My fellow delegates and I welcomed the opportunity to visit Kenya and Ethiopia. As one of the few delegation visits to Africa in recent years, it provided an opportunity to reflect on the existing relationship with each country and to discuss opportunities to strengthen these relationships into the future. The delegation sought to explore issues of common interest in relation to humanitarian aid, mining, agricultural production, governance, education, trade and investment.
A significant part of the delegation visit was to Kakuma refugee camp in north-west Kenya. Located in northern Kenya, it's one of the country's most impoverished and marginalised areas. At the time of the delegation's visit, Kakuma was home to 186,000 registered refugees and asylum seekers, who had arrived from a range of countries. More than 100,000 of those people were from South Sudan. Kakuma was divided into two camps. The delegation had the opportunity to visit both camps. I wish to extend the delegation's appreciation to representatives of the UNHCR and World Food Programme for their hospitality and facilitation of our visit.
I point out that most of those in those camps would return to their country of origin after about seven years in the camps, and we saw evidence of Australia's involvement in the World Food Programme, which was bringing people back from the brink of starvation to being healthy and then able to ultimately return to their country. It made me proud as an Australian to think that we contribute to these programs. We should sing from the hilltops more about the good work that we do with Australian taxpayers' money in things like the World Food Programme, and we should, frankly, commit a bit more funds to that.
In addition to humanitarian issues, the delegate was focused in Kenya on areas of common interests, including agricultural production. Kenya exports huge amounts of cut flowers into Australia. Our visit went to a farm that was being leased by an Australian Nuffield scholar, Stuart Barden, and his wife, Annie. They offered the opportunity to discuss innovative agriculture techniques that are common practice in Australian agriculture that are now able to be rolled out in Kenya and are increasing their food reliability as a result.
Discussions with parliamentary counterparts, including the speaker of the National Assembly, the majority leader, the vice chairperson and many of the Defence and Foreign Relations Committee, ranged across many topics, including governance and efforts to address corruption. We also had the opportunity to meet with a diverse group of Australians working in Kenya and to gain the perspectives of Kenya's Australia Awards alumni. There is a lot of value in giving people from Kenya and other parts of the world the opportunity to do short courses in Australia. It builds those people-to-people relationships, and it also builds capacity in those countries.
In Ethiopia, the delegation undertook a range of meetings with state ministers, the foreign affairs committee and the Ethiopian Investment Commission. Some of the themes arising from these meetings were agriculture, resources, mining and security, as well as investment and other opportunities. I encourage Ethiopian Airlines, which run a very modern fleet, to look at direct air links between Ethiopia and Perth, which would, of course, give the opportunity for more chilled meat cuts to go there and to allow more domestic abattoir works in Australia to take those products there, as well as open up the opportunity for adventure tourism into Africa and into Ethiopia.
The delegation was particularly privileged to visit Dr Catherine Hamlin, an Australian. Perhaps you could describe her as the Mother Teresa of Ethiopia, and she comes from Australia. Together with her late husband, Reginald, she established the Hamlin Fistula Hospital in Addis Ababa in 1974. A range of important issues affecting Ethiopian women were also canvassed during a productive lunch meeting with a group of prominent Ethiopian women. It was inspiring, I have to say. If I could say this on behalf of every member of the delegation, it was terribly inspiring to see the work that Catherine Hamlin has done and to be so proud that this is an Australian changing lives in other parts of the world.
The final aspect of our program was the Lalibela World Heritage site, a 13th century complex of 11 medieval cave churches that remain a place of pilgrimage and devotion today.
On behalf of the delegation, I wish to extend the delegates' appreciation and thanks to all of those who contributed to the visit's program. The delegation greatly appreciated the efforts that went into producing such a productive visit and the hospitality that was extended to the delegation in each country. I thank Australia's diplomatic staff in each country, including High Commissioner Alison Chartres in Kenya and Ambassador Mark Sawers in Ethiopia. I just want to thank the UNHCR and the World Food Program.
Finally, I thank my fellow delegates, the members for Cowper, Gellibrand and Moreton. When we were held up because of weather and we had to wait for the river to go rushing past, myself and the member for Moreton wandered across to some tribespeople. He handed them his business card, which they looked at with some amusement because they didn't have a mobile phone and they had been herding their goats and their sheep up and down these lands for thousands and thousands of years. We attempted to make communication. When we left, they handed him back the business card. The member for Moreton concluded that they must be National voters!
It is clear that Australia, Kenya and Ethiopia share many common values and interests and that opportunities exist to build and strengthen our relationship with these countries.
I commend the report to the House.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (12:19): by leave—I will join with the member for Mallee in thanking those who made this delegation possible, particularly the committee secretariat, who travelled with us on this delegation, and also particularly the High Commission staff in Kenya, led by Alison Chartres. We know they have endured a difficult time recently with the recent terrorist attacks in Kenya that occurred very near to the Australian High Commission in Nairobi. We want to express our thoughts and goodwill, on behalf of all delegation members, to these outstanding Australian foreign service professionals.
With regard to the committee report, it's fair to say that Africa doesn't get the attention it deserves in the Australian foreign policy debate. The delegation was a rare opportunity to reflect on Australia's existing relationships with the countries visited and to discuss opportunities to strengthen these relationships in the future. As part of this delegation we met people from all walks of life: fellow parliamentarians and government ministers, women's group leaders in Ethiopia, Australians working on the land in Kenya, and NGO representatives. For me, the most significant part of the trip was the visit to the UNHCR's Kakuma Refugee Camp in the north of Kenya next to the border with South Sudan. Kakuma is nearly 30 years old, and at the time of our visit around 180,000 refugees were seeking temporary refuge at the camp. Many residents of Melbourne's west, in my electorate of Gellibrand, have called it home on their journey towards humanitarian resettlement in Australia. Most spend around a decade at this camp before starting their life anew in Australia.
I've spoken many times in the chamber on the need to increase the Australian government's commitment to aid in this region. I note in this regard that the current Prime Minister also spent a significant proportion of his first speech in this place outlining the case for increased Australian aid to Africa. At Kakuma I saw firsthand how Australian aid plays a crucial role in helping both the UNHCR and the World Food Program to support refugees living in this camp while they wait for a durable solution that lets them restart their lives. It's literally a life-saving investment. Along with other MPs in the delegation, I was privileged to participate in the WFP food delivery program onsite. UNHCR does amazing work at Kakuma and is perpetually underresourced, so I'm proud that a Shorten Labor government will commit an extra $500 million to UNHCR to provide support to more refugees, to improve regional processing and resettlement and to speed up legitimate settlement pathways.
This delegation also highlighted the need to increase the number of refugee resettlement places offered by Australia. It was affecting to consider the many years that refugees in camps are forced to wait before being given the opportunity to start their lives again in a third country. I'm pleased that a Shorten Labor government will resettle an extra 5,000 refugees a year via community sponsorship, on top of our existing commitment to increasing our humanitarian intake to 27,000 a year. Community sponsorship allows non-government actors—businesses, religious organisations, community groups and individuals—to directly meet the costs of resettling refugees in Australia via either direct financial contributions or the provision of in kind goods and services.
The extent of untapped community desire to directly assist refugees living in these camps was highlighted by the work in the Kakuma camp of Aussie NGO Barefoot to Boots. Barefoot to Boots was founded by an Australian professional footballer, Awer Mabil, and his brother, Awer Bul, former residents of Kakuma, in 2014 as a way of giving back and helping other refugees on the same journey they had travelled. Alongside Australian businessman Ian Smith, Barefoot to Boots has donated over 2,000 kilograms of football boots and uniforms to refugees living in these camps, as well as other vital supplies such as hospital beds, mattresses and monitors, an operating table and an ultrasound machine. I had the privilege of meeting Awer Mabil at Kakuma and I can report that he's not just a gun footballer, not just an outstanding humanitarian, but a really good bloke as well, an Australian that we can all be proud of.
I took the opportunity during the visit to make a delivery of football kit (boots, keeping gloves, balls and jerseys) donated by groups in my electorate—the Altona Soccer Club, the Sunshine Heights Soccer Club and Their Beautiful Game—to Barefoot to Boots in Kakuma. I thank them for their kind donations. Unfortunately, as the member for Mallee mentioned, torrential rain trapped the delegation in a flood that blocked the main road into the camp for three hours. That prevented me from getting on the pitch to test out the kit that had been donated by the football clubs in my electorate in Melbourne's west—but that is life in a refugee camp.
The visit to Kenya also showed the untapped investment and trade opportunities in the East Africa Community: Kenya, Tanzania, South Sudan, Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda. The EAC is home to 150 million people and has been growing at an average of 11 per cent per annum since 2003. The EAC is ambitious. It established a free trade zone in 2005 and a common market in 2010 and aims to become a monetary union by 2023. Kenya, as the region's largest economy, will play a leading role in the EAC's future. Australia is home to over 35,000 people born in the EAC, providing us an opportunity to utilise the skills and knowledge of these diaspora communities to increase our economic engagement with the region. Despite this, my impression on this trip was that we are underweight in our trade representation in this growing region with enormous potential. There's room for improvement on this front.
It was a privilege to be part of this parliamentary delegation to Kenya and Ethiopia. It brought into focus the opportunities in this region and the potential for future engagement with Australia.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Report
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (12:24): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, I present the committee's report entitled Austrade's role in attracting investment in Australia.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.
Mr O'Dowd: by leave—The economic and social benefits to Australia from foreign direct investment cannot be understated. Tax revenue, jobs and social capital all stem from investment into Australia. The Australian Trade and Investment Commission, known as Austrade, is the Commonwealth agency entrusted with facilitating this beneficial investment. The Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth undertook this inquiry to investigate how Austrade's activities could help existing and emerging industries, and how it could improve.
During this inquiry, it became clear that Austrade does an important job, and that all levels of government and industry benefit from its work. Austrade is currently undergoing a change program, targeting business improvements and improved collaboration. The committee acknowledges and welcomes this changed agenda, however, evidence in the inquiry highlighted that certain aspects of Austrade's work could be improved, and this is where the committee's recommendations are targeted.
The report makes four recommendations, focusing on intergovernmental cooperation; online promotion and marketing of local government priority projects; data capture and publishing; and setting of clear performance targets and measurement. Local government submissions highlighted a desire to work more closely with Austrade, and so the committee recommends that Austrade expands its existing partnering processes, also targeting access afforded by Regional Development Australia initiatives.
The committee recommends that Austrade investigate the creation of a vital marketplace for investment promotion by the state, territory and local governments. We also recommend that Austrade prioritise delivering existing digital and data strategies with appropriate resourcing. And, finally, we recommend that Australia sets a clear date on which to complete current business improvement processes, with performance measurements to match.
The international market is forever changing. Austrade needs to keep up with those changes, and the committee believes that our recommendations will help. I would like to close by thanking all those who made submissions or appeared at the hearings for their contributions. I'd also like to thank the members of the committee and, particularly, my deputy chair, Mr Ross Hart, the member for Bass, who, unfortunately, cannot be in the House today for family reasons. I wish him very well with those.
Finally, I'd like to thank the committee secretariat for their support in conducting the inquiry. I commend the report to the House.
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
Report
Mr HILL (Bruce) (12:28): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the following reports: Report 475: Defence First Principles Review, naval construction and mental health in the AFP: inquiries based on Auditor-General’s reports 31, 34 and 39 (2017-18); and Report 476: Australian government funding: inquiry based on Auditor-General’s reports 18 and 50 (2017-18).
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr HILL: by leave—I will try to keep my remarks brief, but these two reports actually cover five separate Auditor-General's reports, and I do need to make a few remarks on each of them.
Firstly, chapter 2 of report 475, based on audit report 34, relates to the Department of Defence's implementation of the First Principles Review. This review was designed to ensure that Defence is fit for purpose and able to respond promptly to future challenges. It's an enormously important bipartisan endeavour to transform the operations of Defence in Australia.
The Australian National Audit Office assessed the effectiveness of Defence's implementation of the First Principles Review, finding that it had implemented a substantial number of the most important recommendations. However, a number do remain a work in progress and have yet to be implemented. The committee noted a number of issues, including the importance to maintain momentum in such a long-term endeavour. It particularly recommended creating a strong strategic centre for defence, and that Defence should ensure deficiencies arising from the review are measurable and quantified by implementing an evaluation framework. Ministerial engagement can continue to be improved. It was apparent ministers have not kept up their end of the expectations regarding formalised regular engagement. Further action is required to address workforce related issues and to demonstrate the intended outcomes regarding behaviour. Very importantly, the reform of the systems program officers is expected to continue and take until around 2023 to complete. The committee has made a number of recommendations, including that Defence work to improve its forecasting of financial expenditure.
Secondly, chapter 3 was based on audit report No. 39, which discusses Defence's mobilisation of naval shipbuilding construction programs in Australia. The audit report concluded—this sounds reassuring—that Defence is currently meeting scheduled milestones. However, it noted that Defence should determine the affordability of naval shipbuilding programs to provide funding advice to government. Just to unpick that and try and put it into English—the reports do tend to have a bureaucrat element of them, such is the nature of the audit committee—this is really giving a tick to the first 200 metres of a marathon. This is an $89 billion so-called shipbuilding endeavour which is going to last for many years—indeed decades. While it is reassuring there's been a tick given to the first couple of hundred metres, there are a number of warning signs, including language from the Auditor-General, about the high-to-extreme risk. So whilst we do welcome these initial phases, we also understand that there's a long way to go.
The recommendation around funding advice to government is because the Abbott government in the 2016 white paper on Defence outlined a range of fairly ambitious capability upgrades but then, surprisingly, released, only a year later, a shipbuilding program in 2017 that all of a sudden said we're going to do this stuff domestically. The simple point is it's going to cost more to make all this stuff domestically. There are good policy reasons to do so; that's not disputed. However, the Department of Defence has still not gone back to government in any transparent way and said 'here is the updated cost of this from the white paper'. Now, of course, if this is wrong, we are talking about $89 billion of acquisition, a fiscal time bomb for governments in years to come.
In the past, Defence has commonly underestimated sustainment costs. However, we note Defence's claims in this case to be confident that sustainment costs as currently forecast will be met within budget. We did hear evidence of the government rushing decision making, which risks an increase in sustainment costs, because they proceeded with one acquisition through to the next stage of tendering against the error and Capability Life Cycle manual. The Auditor-General's concern is this risk is effectively the government being screwed on price by the market.
We also noted that Defence is well overdue in releasing a workforce plan that is expected to address workforce size, skill levels and location of workers. We heard evidence that, whilst Defence are establishing their naval shipbuilding college to address some of the workforce needs, the first phase is now reported to cost $62 million, which was unexplained as an increase from the initial proposal for $25 million. The committee's recommendations include that Defence provide a copy of its workforce plan to the committee, and review its requirements around the quality of sustainment costing.
Chapter 4 is based on audit report No. 31, outlining the effectiveness of Australian Federal Police in managing employee mental health. This followed an Auditor-General's performance audit, which assessed the AFP's management and coordination of activities explicitly supporting mental health. That audit report made six recommendations, and the AFP agreed to all recommendations, stating that they recognise the need for enhanced mental health support. The extreme stress that the AFP is operating under and the serious risks which so many serving Federal Police officers go through in their work were apparent through the inquiry. The committee was at pains to commend the AFP for its work undertaken to improve its management of employee mental health, and acknowledged they had begun improvements prior to the ANAO audit. We also noted the AFP presented well. They were open about where they hadn't done well enough and about what they were doing. It could serve as a model for many other departments.
The committee is concerned about the significance of the ANAO's findings in relation to the AFP's governance and risk management arrangements, monitoring and evaluation, and support services for employees. It was recognised through the inquiry that the AFP knows that 66 per cent of AFP employees will experience a potentially traumatic event at some stage during their career. Shockingly, four AFP officers have killed themselves in their own workplace in the last two years. The committee noted that the AFP's Phoenix review, looking at psychological support and mental health, identified staff concerns about a reduction in resources for psychological support services, including a reduction in FTE and resources for psychological support services from 23 FTE to now nine in the past decade. This is not an academic matter; it has direct consequences, as we heard through the inquiry.
At the public hearing, the AFP stated that it was 'seeing discussions around budget reduction and staffing number reduction having an impact on members' morale'. This morale then flows through to mental health. The committee noted evidence provided by the AFP Commissioner in Senate estimates that staffing and resourcing at the AFP has fallen in recent years, including a prediction that the AFP will lose 567 personnel as a result of the 2018-19 budget. In response to the ANAO audit findings and recommendations, the AFP Commissioner explained:
As an organisation, we acknowledge that the AFP needs to change in order to meet the growing demand and complexity of the environment in which the AFP operates. Even within current staffing levels, the AFP is working under immense pressure and ongoing activity at current operational tempo will increase health risks for its staff.
The Phoenix review reported that feedback from staff at all levels indicated that the responsibility and demands placed on the psychological services were simply too high given their limited resources. This is clearly a serious issue that requires more attention by the government. The first step, of course, is to stop the funding cuts to stem the fall in morale and the impact on mental health.
The committee's recommendations included that the AFP continue to implement all the previous reviews' recommendations—it's clear what needs to be done but the resources are needed—and improve governance arrangements for employee mental health across the organisation.
In the second report that I'm presenting, chapter 2 of Report 476, based on Auditor-General's report No. 18, outlines the Department of Education and Training's administration and monitoring of Australian government schools funding—needs based funding, if you like. The committee noted the audit report's conclusion that the arrangements established by the Department of Education and Training have not delivered the level of accountability envisaged under the Australian Education Act 2013. There was clear evidence presented to the committee as part of its inquiry at the public hearing and in the related submissions that there was not sufficient assurance that the education department even monitors the compliance of Australian government school funding in accordance with the legislative framework. That's polite language. If anyone is interested at looking at the hearing transcripts they'll see a total stuff-up. At the first hearing, the evidence from the department of education was so appalling that we scheduled a second one to try again and go over exactly the same ground. It was clearly a train wreck.
At the moment, to reduce it, the government clearly failed to obey federal laws in relation to monitoring needs based funding. There was also a concerning pattern, as evidenced across the department, where lots of data is collected but no analysis is actually done on it. Quite appallingly, in a number of instances, the government's response to this was, 'Well, we're reducing regulatory burden,' which apparently means compliance with legislation then becomes optional.
The committee's recommendations included that the act be amended to include a specific legislative requirement for the education department to actually monitor compliance. You'd think that wouldn't be necessary, but, given the evidence we heard and the lack of interest from ministers, it's become necessary. I note that this is a government controlled committee, so these recommendations were adopted unanimously and provide assurance that school funding is delivered in accordance with the act.
Finally, chapter 3 of Report 476, based on Auditor-General's report No. 50, outlines the Department of Health's implementation and administration of primary healthcare grants under the Indigenous Australians' Health Program, the IAHP. The audit report found that Health was limited by the currency of data to effectively monitor and manage primary healthcare grants. We noted throughout the inquiry, of course, the importance of Aboriginal controlled health organisations for the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The committee also noted that Health acknowledged the finding in the audit report about how the quality of the IAHP primary healthcare value-for-money assessments is in need of improvement. Their advice to the committee is that they're currently working to address this.
The committee's recommendations included that Health continue to prioritise the implementation of the planned funding models for the IAHP, which is four years behind schedule, and develop a revised national key performance indicator framework.
The committee thanks officials from all of the agencies involved for assisting the committee in its inquiries. I'd like to extend my thanks to all committee members for their assistance and deliberations. I move:
That the House take note of each report.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr HILL (Bruce) (12:40): I move:
That the orders of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Mr HILL: I present executive minutes on reports Nos 470 and 473 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
Public Works Committee
Report
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (12:40): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report entitled Report 1/2019: referral made October 2018.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Dr McVEIGH: by leave—This is the first report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for 2019, which is in regard to a referral in October 2018 in which the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities proposed the replacement of the wharf crane and mooring systems on Christmas Island in Australia's Indian Ocean Territories.
Christmas Island depends on reliable port facilities for the delivery of essential supplies and for the export of phosphates, a key resource in the island's economy. The existing wharf crane and mooring systems are aged, have a number of safety concerns and are incurring escalating and ongoing repair costs.
This project will replace the existing wharf crane and upgrade the mooring systems at Flying Fish Cove, reconfigure the mooring systems at Smith Point, and remove port infrastructure at Nui Nui which is no longer required. The estimated cost of these works is $26.2 million, excluding GST.
The committee found no issues of concern with this project during the course of its inquiry, and recommends that the proposed works should proceed. I'm sure the member for Lingiari would be pleased with that conclusion and recommendation. I commend the report to the House.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (12:42): by leave—This work on the port facilities at Nui Nui on Christmas Island is long overdue and will be very greatly appreciated by the Christmas Island community. I congratulate the committee on its report.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr CRAIG KELLY ( Hughes ) ( 12:44 ): I am pleased to rise this afternoon and speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018. Whistleblowing plays a crucial role in uncovering corporate and tax misconduct. It is a key means of combating poor compliance cultures by ensuring that companies, officers and staff know that misconduct will be reported. The opaque and complex nature of corporate crime makes it difficult for law enforcement to detect abusive practices. In many cases, corporate crime is only detected because individuals come forward, in many cases at significant personal and financial risk.
The importance of protecting whistleblowers has been recognised for many years. However, while protections allegedly form part of the Corporations Act 2001, since 2004 they have been sparingly used and are increasingly perceived as inadequate, having regard to advances in the public sector and overseas. Currently, there are no specific protections for tax whistleblowers, and the range of secrecy and privacy provisions relied upon are incapable of guaranteeing absolute protection.
That is why, in the 2016-17 budget, the coalition government announced greater protections for those who disclose information about tax misconduct to the Australian Taxation Office. This will further strengthen the integrity of Australia's tax system. Active protection of whistleblowers to encourage them to make disclosures is essential, and the government is determined to ensure that it has the right legislative settings in place to achieve this, while at the same time ensuring disclosures can be fully investigated and that procedural fairness is provided to those who may be subject of a disclosure. That is why the government, led by the former Minister for Revenue and Financial Services Kelly O'Dwyer, committed to creating more transparency and accountability in business, by strengthening the current framework to ensure both corporate and tax whistleblowers can be confident of protection and greater incentives to make a disclosure. This legislation delivers on the government's 2016 budget commitments to protect individuals who blow the whistle on tax avoidance behaviour, tax evasion and other misconduct. It delivers on the government's commitment in Australia's first Open Government National Action Plan, released in 2016.
To have an open, transparent and fair tax regime is very important to making sure that we are attracting capital and that that capital is being invested where it can be put to the most productive uses. When we look at our overall tax scheme, we must be concerned about the 30 per cent rate of corporate tax that is payable in Australia and how that is internationally competitive with other jurisdictions. We are up against tax regimes in Hong Kong and Singapore, where tax rates are 15 and 17 per cent. In the UK, they are reducing their tax rate down to less than 20 per cent, and in the US we are seeing one of the biggest reductions in the US rate of corporate tax. We have to consider how much longer Australia can maintain that 30 per cent rate of corporate tax.
There have often been great concerns that, if we did reduce that rate of tax, it would somehow cut into government revenue. But our history tells us the exact opposite. If we look at our history from when Paul Keating reduced the corporate rate of tax to when Peter Costello and John Howard reduced the tax, surprisingly, and this applied every single time, the actual tax revenue that flowed into the Treasury was greater—not only in real dollar terms and nominal dollar terms but also as a percentage of GDP at the lower rate of tax. There is no guarantee that that will happen in the future, but we need to be very careful in monitoring the international situation to ensure that Australia's corporate rate of tax remains internationally competitive.
Apart from the corporate rate of tax in Australia, there is also the application of franking credits, a system that was introduced by Labor and backed by Labor governments past, because they understood that this was an important method to get capital creation into the Australian economy, to make sure that there was encouragement for savings and investment and that new businesses and new business opportunities could be taken up in Australia. That was the principle behind the franking credits. But what we see is a proposal—which is unfair, which is discriminatory and which is regressive—to change the application of franking credits in the Australian taxation system. What this ultimately does is separate a clear ideological fault line between those who sit on that side of the House and those who sit on this side. On this side, we fundamentally believe that, at first instance, the profits of a business belong to the shareholders. It is the shareholders who have put up the capital and taken the risk. The profits of the business belong to the shareholders and, if that profit is then distributed to those shareholders, it is taxed at their marginal rate of taxation. That is what we believe, and we believe that should apply the same for a sole trader, whether profits are earned in a partnership or whether the profits are earned by a business using a corporate structure. The 30 per cent tax rate is effectively a withholding tack. It is a tax for foreign investors. For Australian shareholders and Australian investors, it has been the policy of both sides of this chamber that that belongs to the individual.
The Labor Party don't believe the profits belong to the individual but to the business. We have a progressive marginal individual taxation rate in this nation. Those who earn between $0 and $18,200 pay no tax. We decided that is fair. Low-income earners who earn below $18,000 pay no individual rate of tax. From $18,200 to $37,000, for every extra dollar they earn, they pay 19c tax. Above $37,000 and up to $80,000, they pay 32½c tax in every additional dollar. From $80,000 to $180,000, it is 37c for every extra dollar earned, and above $180,000 it is 45c in the dollar. Of course, the Medicare levy is on top of that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! The member for Fenner with a point of order?
Dr Leigh: Fascinated as I am by the member for Hughes's recitation of the tax scales, I wonder if you might direct him to be relevant to the bill before the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been listening to the member for Hughes, and he has wandered off a bit. It is about enhancing whistleblower protections. The member for Hughes may continue.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Firstly, on the point of order, if I may: this bill is about tax. It involves the corporate rate of tax in Australia. It involves the Corporations Act. It is a very-wide-ranging bill and, when it comes to whistleblower protection, whether the taxation system is fair, whether it is discriminatory or whether it is regressive plays a great part in the legislation requirements of whistleblower protection. So I was getting back to the provisions of the bill and also of our taxation system.
To have whistleblower protection and to have a fair and adequate tax system, it must be fair and transparent to all. That is a fundamental point of not only this piece of legislation but the entire principles of our tax system. If we're going to have a tax system where one class of Australians is discriminated against and pays different rates of tax on their income that they earn, this is unfair! This is discriminatory. This is regressive. And it is entirely contrary to the principles of this legislation. So, it doesn't surprise me that the shadow Treasurer jumped up to the despatch box and tried to shut down debate on this because—I apologise. I withdraw. He's not the shadow Treasurer. He got demoted. My apologies to the member for Fenner. No wonder he wants to get to the dispatch box and try to shut down debate on this issue. I believe in heart of heart that the member for Fenner knows that the proposed changes are unfair, he knows that they are discriminatory and, most of all, being a good Labor man, he knows that they are regressive. And yet he would prefer to have the debate entirely shut down. I would hope that a few members like the member for Fenner and others on the other side of the chamber gain their voices and speak up. Speak up for the low-income earners of this mission. You want to speak up for whistleblowers? That's fine. Also speak up for the low-income earners of this nation. If you're elected to government, you want to put in a policy that will reduce their incomes by up to 25 per cent. You are coming after people on incomes of less than $25,000—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! The member for Hughes is straying again. The bill is the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018. I ask that he come back to the bill.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I thank the Deputy Speaker. I will come back to the provisions of the bill.
The Open Government National Action Plan was developed collaboratively by the government and civil society. The plan consists of a package of 15 commitments that aim to advance transparency, accountability, public participation and technological innovation in Australia. I will say that again: transparency, accountability, public participation and technological innovation. We need to encourage people to put their savings into Australian companies, to create jobs in this country and to create those technological innovations that will lift our productivity and lift real wages.
Yet there are those in this House that want to see a taxation system that encourages investment in overseas shares. They want to change the playing field and move the goalposts. Investment has happened in Australian businesses and Australian shares listed on the ASX, but they are now to be put at a disadvantage so that there will be encouragement in investment in money overseas. That is not only unfair, that is not only discriminatory, that is not only regressive; that is also anti-Australian. On this side of the House we will call that out every single day of the week.
Stronger whistleblower protection is the first commitment of the plan. It is designed to support the plan's objective of enhancing Australia's reputation for responsible, transparent and accountable business practices. How can we have accountable business practices where one class of Australians has to pay a 30 per cent marginal rate of tax on the first dollar that they earn? The government's commitment is to ensure that Australia has appropriate protections in place for people who report corruption, fraud, tax evasion or avoidance and misconduct within the corporate sector. This will be achieved by introducing whistleblower protections for people who disclose information about tax misconduct to Australian Taxation Office, and it will strengthen and harmonise corporate whistleblower protections for those in the public sector.
Specifically, the commitment will strengthen whistleblower protections and will advance the Open Government Partnership values of public accountability and transparency by encouraging, protecting and compensating whistleblowers whose information reveals artificial tax structures and misconduct. We don't want to see artificial tax structures in this country. We want to see that no Australian is discriminated against in the rate of tax that they should have to pay. It's a marginal rate of tax. Everyone should be under the same rules— (Time expired)
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (12:58): Whistleblowers play an important role in enforcing our corporate laws. When investigative journalist Bastian Obermayer received millions of leaked files from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, he set in place events which would shake the foundations of many tax structures around the word. The release of the so-called 'Panama Papers' showed that shell countries were perpetrating tax fraud and dodging global sanctions. It led to the resignation of the Icelandic prime minister and other prominent officials. Within Australia, the Australian tax office began investigations into 800 people identified in what became known as the Panama Papers.
Indeed, the very notion that whistleblowers may be protected and even rewarded provides an incentive for firms to do the right thing. A recent economic study by Eli Amir, Adi Lazar and Shai Levi looked at Israel's tax whistleblowing scheme and found that it significantly increased the amount of tax paid, particularly in industries that were especially prone to tax evasion. Once firms knew that there was an incentive for employees to report tax dodging, the amount of tax collected increased significantly.
Whistleblowers play a role which has been argued by some to be more important than auditors in detecting corporate fraud. Analysing hundreds of cases of US corporate fraud, a study by Alex Dyck, Adair Morse and Luigi Zingales found that the Securities and Exchange Commission caught just seven per cent of those cases. Auditors detected 10 per cent, the media uncovered 13 per cent and employees exposed 17 per cent. On that metric, employees were exposing more than twice as many corporate fraud cases as the Securities and Exchange Commission itself. So it is critical that those who blow the whistle shouldn't be punished, and it's vital that we ensure that there is not inappropriate blowback against whistleblowers. One study found that four-fifths of employees who disclosed corporate fraud were fired, quit under duress or had significantly altered responsibilities. Given this, as Alex Dyck and his co-authors note, 'The surprising part is not that most employees do not talk; it's that some talk at all.'
This bill is a modest step towards protecting whistleblowers. It ensures, in limited circumstances, that disclosures to the media and parliamentarians are protected. But it only protects corporate and financial sector whistleblowers who go to the media after first going to the regulator and where there is a risk to human life or safety, or a threat to the financial system. This bill doesn't protect external disclosures to tax whistleblowers. That's why, as the member for Hotham has said, Labor will recommend a Senate inquiry to investigate the limitations of this bill. As Professor AJ Brown, a leading expert in whistleblower protections, has said, this bill is 'a limited step' and 'more a sideways than a forward step on key issues'.
It has been, by contrast, Labor that have led the debate around ensuring appropriate protection and rewards for whistleblowers. We've said that, if elected, we'll set up a whistleblower reward scheme, establish a whistleblower protection authority, overhaul our whistleblowing laws with a single whistleblowing act and fund a special prosecutor to bring corporate criminals to justice. The issue of whistleblowers has been highlighted in the banking royal commission, in which a number of the key disclosures were only possible because whistleblowers and bank victims came forward and because Labor listened and from 2016 began to call for a royal commission into the banks, which was voted against 26 times by this government.
Blowing the whistle on crime and misconduct is incredibly difficult. Those who do so face reprisals, and many choose not to come forward because they are concerned that they might suffer as a result. So Labor have said that, in the case of whistleblowers, we believe it's appropriate for them to receive a part of the penalty. We announced this policy in the case of tax cases two years ago, and it was announced in the case of corporate fraud cases by the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Attorney-General and the shadow minister for financial services on 3 February. We've said that the relevant investigatory or law enforcement authority will have the discretion to determine the level of the reward within a legislated range, and it will be funded by additional penalties collected by the government.
It has been, however, described by the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations, Kelly O'Dwyer, as a 'whacky' proposal. Well, let's look at how 'whacky' it is to reward whistleblowers. I's so 'whacky' that it's been done since Roman times in the form of qui tam lawsuits. It's so 'whacky' that it was done by Britain for a number of years. It is so 'whacky' that it has been an established part of the US system under the False Claims Act, known as the Lincoln Law, for decades. Americans who reveal fraud against their government can collect between 15 and 30 per cent of the money recovered, and since being revamped in 1986, the False Claims Act has recovered more than $40 billion from people who rip-off the US federal government. There's a similar US whistleblower program for tax cases, which has paid out millions of dollars to informants who reveal tax evasion.
Those opposite are very fond of saying we should go down the American path when it comes to low regulation or cutting corporate taxes or having an inadequate public healthcare system. But when it comes to learning from the United States' False Claims Act, they think it's utterly 'whacky'. Well, Labor takes a different view. Labor believes that amending the law to provide greater protection for whistleblowers is appropriate. In the case of those who blow the whistle and lead to more corporate tax paid, the reward would range up to $250,000. Based on the research by Alex Dyck and co-authors, we expect that would uncover tax fraud that would otherwise have remained hidden. Based on the research by Eli Amir and co-authors, we expect it would otherwise lead to firms behaving better than they would have done. We know that whistleblowers can play a valuable role in cracking down on the role of tax havens. Tax avoidance by millionaires and multinationals using tax havens like Panama is a clear and present danger to the global tax base. If we didn't have a whistleblower within Mossack Fonseca then some of their clients would still be bilking the Australian tax payer.
The fact is we need crack down on this egregious form of corporate fraud. Through appropriate whistleblower laws, we can do that. This bill is a very modest step relative to what experts like AJ Brown have advocated. This bill may well improve the regime around whistleblowers but certainly doesn't provide the comprehensive protections that Labor has called for. It doesn't provide the rewards that Labor has called for. It doesn't ensure that we properly crack down on corporate malfeasance.
What was extraordinary during the debate was hearing the member for Hughes say there ought to be more focus on this. To know how much focus there is on this, you need to look at the speaking list. It shows that for every coalition speaker, there are three Labor speakers willing to speak out on whistleblowing. We are willing to come in here, make a strong case for action on whistleblowers; the member for Hughes can't even get through 15 minutes talking about whistleblowers. He has to go off, wandering around like Brown's Cows, talking about the tax scales. We on this side of the House are focused on the issue of whistleblowers. We will put in place, under a Shorten Labor government if we're fortunate enough to win the election, tough and comprehensive laws for whistleblowers, which will ensure they do their job of protecting Australians from corporate rip-offs, from tax rip-offs, from the sharks and the shonks which used to be the target of the Liberal Party, but these days make up its base.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:08): I'd like to thank the member for Fenner, who criticised the member for Hughes for not being able to make it through 15 minutes but managed to fail to do that himself—not that I would encourage him to speak longer for the sake of speaking longer! When we look at this Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018, I think it is important that we start from the first basis. The first basis of whistleblowing legislation is the removal of corruption in a systemic sense from institutions whether they be government, corporate or, indeed, charitable and political institutions. The reason that it is important for this parliament, indeed, for our society, to make sure that corruption does not become a way of life in any of these institutions should be apparent to all of us. But it is the normalisation of abhorrent behaviour which is what we seek to avoid and what every society must seek to avoid. Once it takes hold, like a cancer, it becomes very, very difficult to separate it and to remove it from the corporal body of our society. As such, what we do here in this regard is very important.
I am reminded of John F Kennedy, who was the first modern president to hold televised press conferences. He promised during his election campaign that he would make these press conferences regular, and he held about five a year. It was considered to be something of a remarkable thing that the President of the United States would make himself available five times a year to be questioned by reporters. Of course, in a Westminster system, this is something that would be seen as remarkable if it didn't happen weekly. Nonetheless, he was once asked, 'Would you prefer to live in the Soviet system'—where Nikita Khrushchev was at that point the Supreme Leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Communist Party—'where you have complete and absolute control over what the media says and does?' John F Kennedy was taken aback initially by the question—because obviously, I don't think there is a politician anywhere in the world who wouldn't like to be able to tell the media what they should and shouldn't be allowed to say and, indeed, get them to apologise when they don't say it properly—but he thought carefully about it and realised that, in actual fact, the inherent advantages in a free press, in freedom of speech, and, indeed, in allowing people to call out corruption no matter where it is taking place and no matter what their station in life is, were critical to a free society. He said something that I think was quite remarkable when you think about it from the viewpoint of the 1960s, which was that the advantage of a free system is not its efficiency but is, indeed, its dynamism, its ability to adapt and meet people's needs. Marx, when he was writing Das Kapital said that the benefit of capitalism is its ability to adapt and change—so the problems that I foresee today will not be problems that capitalism has tomorrow—and how true that has proven to be.
In Kennedy's answer is, I think, the key to why whistleblower legislation is so important. It's not that we must have a just and fair society. It is not that we must have a free society that respects order and preserves what is best about our society. We must be seen to have those things as well. For a free society to advance and to thrive every participant in it must believe critically that that society gives them the opportunity that they may not have in any other system to participate in the opportunities and benefits that that society provides and that is capable of being provided by that society. It is not good enough, in other words, for people to believe that the system is rigged against them.
I sometimes think when I stand in this place that it is most unfortunate that we have over and over again the perception of political leaders telling younger Australians that they have no hope and that they have no future because the system is horribly rigged against them. This legislation, more than anything else, will ensure that that perception, that claim, never becomes a reality. Above and beyond all else, it ensures that people who take the critical step of blowing the whistle on what they see as aberrant behaviour are doing something that none of us can ever do from Canberra. They are behaving as individuals in their place and at their time with knowledge that cannot be contained by a single person to point to the aberrant behaviour that otherwise may go unnoticed, unreported and certainly uncorrected. That is why whistleblower legislation is so important.
I note that the minister at the table, Mr Irons, is the former chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, one of the best committees to be a member of in this parliament—and not just because Senator John Williams is a member but also because it does great work.
Mr Khalil: And because he buys you lunch!
Mr FALINSKI: Senator John Williams has been known to eat lunch and, indeed, have it bought for him. The important thing about what the corporations committee did early in 2017—one of the first inquiries when I came to this place—was to have an inquiry into whistleblower legislation. It was interesting inquiry because I had not really considered it in-depth until that point in time or considered the benefits and costs of not having whistleblower legislation. Certainly, there are the benefits I have highlighted. There is more to be highlighted in this piece of legislation in front of us, as to protecting people.
There was a particular professor—Professor AJ Brown, who is from a Queensland university—who was very knowledgeable and, more importantly, very wise on this issue. I thought he posed some important questions to us. One was whether we should have an omnibus or a single point of protection for people who wish to make a whistleblower claim. In discussing that, I actually ended up disagreeing with him, and this legislation points to why. In a legislative approach, having competing legislation actually ensures that we can test different provisions and we can determine whether those provisions are being used or abused.
For example, in the United States, Abraham Lincoln—one of my favourite political leaders and certainly one of the wisest who I've read about—introduced a piece of whistleblower legislation that talked about how if you called out a piece of corruption then you, as the whistleblower, were entitled to a percentage of the damage that that was doing. The result of this in the United States—being the United States—has been that people and, in particular, law firms have industrialised this and created economies of scale. What you have are private companies being constantly bombarded with claims of corruption by whistleblowers because what they're really after is the 10 or 20 per cent pay-off from the quantum of the alleged corruption.
This has made the whistleblower legislation in the United States very contentious, because people claim that whistleblowers are not coming to the table with clean hands. They claim that whistleblowers are not, despite claims to the adverse, coming to the table with pure motives and that some are motivated by financial pay-off. Some law firms have used such provisions to ensure that people get paid out rather than taking it to court. It is important that this legislation, and Australian legislation, does not go down that avenue does not go down that avenue. What it would do is not create an avenue where corruption and aberrant behaviour was being called out increasingly, but it may in fact create an industrial-scale assault on institutions—government, political and charitable—where you will find that there are people who are not doing what is right.
One of the other points that Professor AJ Brown made, which has stayed with me and I see as encapsulated in this legislation, is that when you see—in another institution—high-profile whistleblowers standing up on merit against corruption and against aberrant behaviour it sends a shock through the cultural institutions across a society. One would have to think—and there have been many fine speeches in this chamber—about some of the corruption and some of the aberrant behaviour in our charitable organisations and, indeed, in some of our churches. There has been a royal commission into that. Many of those crimes—because they were crimes—took place in a time and a place in Australia where it was not seen as appropriate, or not seen as the done thing, to dob on your mate or to call out corruption.
We, as a parliament, must always make it clear that calling out corruption, no matter at what level, and calling out aberrant behaviour, no matter at what level, is part of our Australian culture. When you do it, it protects the institutions on which so many Australians rely and trust. I'm told that, when you look at modern opinion polls, trust in institutions in our contemporary society is much lower than it was at other times in our society. I've always found this to be a matter of irony, because I think that our institutions now are more transparent than they used to be and are certainly less capable of being corrupted than they used to be. When I say irony, as the Speaker would prefer I think of a sense of 'ironical', because what we have is a situation in which these sorts of bills and this sort of legislation ensure that, wherever you are, you can undertake and be clear that where there is aberrant behaviour you can report it and you will be protected in making that report. But it is also important that we must never—we don't do this, but I know some of those opposite are advocating for it—reward a person for making a report. The minute you do that, you introduce a new motive into the system which, of course, creates doubt as to what was motivating that person to make a report.
In the Commonwealth, we've had numerous cases with CommInsure where people made claims and had those claims upheld. One, famously, was for a person who went to a conference overnight, was booked into a hotel room and, during an act of great excitement, managed to bang her head on a lamp. At the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, they found that CommInsure was liable for that person's damages, hurt and injury, because the person was, essentially, there for work. I think most people would say that doesn't pass the pub test. I would say that wanting a bunch of drunk people testing you is quizzical. I don't quite understand why we have the pub test in Australia; I thought you'd want sober people to be judging what you're doing, but, apparently not. Anyway, some people would claim it doesn't meet the pub test: people going on a work function, behaving irresponsibly and then somehow making their employer responsible for their behaviour.
In New South Wales, we have very similar whistleblower legislation to this at the state government level. What we have found is that that legislation has been misused. Effectively, where it's been misused is by employees, who, when a manager calls them in and informs them that they will be performance managed because they are not undertaking their role as required by their employment contract, normally—or not normally, but there have been many instances—instead claim whistleblower protection. Therefore, the performance management must then go on hold while this is investigated for 12 to 24 months. It is important that whatever legislation we put in place achieves the purpose that it was put there for, and is not misused by those who would seek to use it for other reasons.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:23): I am speaking in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018. Labor understands the importance of having strong whistleblower protections and laws in our country. That has been highlighted perfectly in the wake of the evidence that's come from the banking and finance royal commission in Australia and the litany of cases in which there's been wrongdoing, rip-offs of customers, scandals and underhanded activities that have been uncovered by people who have been brave enough to blow the whistle on what was going on in that particular industry.
At the outset, I wish to pay tribute to two individuals who did this at the Commonwealth Bank. Of course, there is Jeff Morris, who uncovered what was going on in the wealth management arm of the Commonwealth Bank. Despite his efforts on numerous occasions to contact ASIC and get ASIC to take a look at what was going on in wealth management in the Commonwealth Bank, it took him having to walk into the ASIC offices and demand that they take action before they did. Jeff deserves much praise and credit for uncovering what was going on in the Commonwealth Bank and, indeed, it led to further inquiries into other banks to uncover some of the underhanded behaviour that was occurring in wealth management in Australia. Without his bravery and without his conviction we may not have got to a royal commission and we may not have got to uncover some of the wrongdoing that's been occurring and many of those victims may not have been given the opportunity for compensation where that wrongdoing occurred. The other person is Ben Koh, who was working in a medical capacity for Comminsure and blew the whistle on what was going on in terms of outdated definitions that were being used by this particular insurance company to deny claims to people—and we've seen many cases of that being highlighted in the media recently.
I pay tribute to those two individuals who blew the whistle in Australia on what was going on in banking and finance. But, unfortunately, because of doing so, they have suffered not only in their employment but also with the psychological and health effects that come from doing something like that and the trauma associated with it. It shouldn't be the case. That's why Labor supports strong whistleblower protections in this country. We have a very proud record of providing those protections through legislative action in government. In government we introduced the landmark Public Interest Disclosure Act for public sector whistleblowers. We've already committed to introducing tax whistleblower protections, and we'll push for a stronger and more comprehensive scheme of whistleblower protections in the private sector than is being proposed by the government through this legislation.
The banking and finance royal commission highlighted the appalling and, even arguably, criminal misconduct in the banking sector. It was only because of the actions of brave people like Jeff Morris and Ben Koh that we uncovered those behaviours. The Liberals did everything that they could to protect the banks from that royal commission and to keep some of that misconduct hidden—and for that they stand condemned by not only those on this side of the parliament but also by many Australians who will not forget that this government voted 26 times against a banking royal commission because they didn't want to uncover what was going on in this industry. Despite the fact that people like Jeff Morris had been talking about this for years and had given evidence to Senate and other committee inquiries in this place, the government denied that banking royal commission and only really agreed to it once the four big bank CEOs wrote to the government and said, 'It's okay; you can have the royal commission now. We're sick and tired of all of the controversy around our industry.'
The Prime Minister and the Treasurer's response to the banking royal commission recommendations has, in many respects, been a slap in the face to those whistleblowers who stuck their necks out to uncover what was going on in the industry and those bank victims who wanted to see a swift, strong response from the government to clean up the sector. We all know that they have been tardy in their response and they haven't accepted all of the recommendations.
Mr Irons interjecting—
Mr THISTLETHWAITE: That's why you've been tardy, because you haven't even given one. They've been slow to adopt the recommendations. Labor has committed in principle to the recommendations. We've said that we will act swiftly. That's why we said that the parliament should sit for an additional two weeks to get on with legislating some of these recommendations, because they are urgent and those bank victims deserve the attention of this parliament—not going away for six weeks because the government are afraid of the parliament sitting because of what will happen when it sits. These bank victims deserve the attention of this parliament. We need to ensure that we get on with delivering the legislative responses necessary to clean up this sector and that we act on the advice of people like the whistleblowers that are the subject of these bills.
The fine print shows that, in many instances, the Liberals are taking no action at all or are taking entirely different actions to what's been recommended by Commissioner Hayne. The government's response is full of weasel words and has in many respects abandoned those brave whistleblowers who stood up against this wrongdoing in their workplaces. It's no surprise that the Prime Minister and the Liberals have once again sided with the banks over everyday Australians on these issues. It was Labor that called for the banking royal commission. It was Labor that fought for the banking royal commission. Labor will work day and night to protect Australian businesses and consumers from misconduct and back the whistleblowers who help to expose the shocking behaviours that we have seen in this sector. In this respect, Labor have been consulting over the past two years—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Disability Services
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:30): Almost two years ago, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, called for a royal commission into violence and abuse against people with disabilities. The countless harrowing accounts of people with disability being abused and assaulted cannot be ignored. People with disability experience much higher rates of violence than the rest of the community and, in many cases, this violence occurs in places where they are meant to be receiving care and support. Children with disability are at least three times more likely to experience abuse than other kids. These facts cannot be ignored and a royal commission is needed so that people with disability, their families and carers can tell their stories to the highest level of judicial inquiry in our land and get the justice that they deserve. We know a majority in this House and the other place support this royal commission and we need the Prime Minister to stop wasting time and stalling and call a royal commission today.
In the time I have left I would like to acknowledge the great work being done by so many advocates for people with disability in the Northern Territory, not only the National Disability Service, but also Territory Care and Support Services, who have recently opened a new office in my electorate—
Small Business
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:31): Last Saturday in wonderful Port Lincoln, on a beautiful day, we held a small business fair attended by about 50 local business people and also by Senator Anne Ruston and local member Peter Treloar. Businesses there were generally happy with what the government has been doing, particularly around reductions in the corporate tax rates and the extension of the accelerated or instant tax write-off to $25,000. What caused consternation on the day was when I informed them of the article that was in last week's Australian that told us that Labor Senator Doug Cameron has foreshadowed a move to overturn a regulation in the Senate to head off the union-backed move to allow casual workers who have been paid special holiday loadings to also claim annual leave entitlements going back six years—double dipping. So Senator Cameron is going to move a disallowance motion on this on 2 April. Now, that will be considered within 15 sitting days so, that's a little way away quite probably but it is a very clear indication of what those on the other side will do if they come to government. They intend to go after small business for $8 billion—that is, $8 billion of holiday pay that workers have already been paid for. And I tell you what, if you want to go out and hold your own small business forum, have a listen to what they have got to say.
Canberra Electorate: Drones
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:33): A commercial drone operated by Evoenergy was shot down over a rural property. Actually, it was across the weekend; it was that recent. The wariness and distrust of drones by rural property owners is shared by Bonython residents in my electorate in response to Project Wings drone delivery trial. But at least none of Wings' drones were shot down. Instead, two of them fell from the sky for no reason but they weren't actually shot down. A local community group, Bonython Against Drones, presented a petition of 1,024 signatures to the Australian Capital Territory. Remember, there are 1,685 households in the area. And this result was replicated in larger surveys from the Canberra Times, the RiotACT and Canberra ABC Radio.
In December, the Canberra Times published a poll canvassing a broader range of people than just the residents. The result was 68 per cent against drones, 17 per cent for and 15 per cent unsure. The RiotACT's online poll on the delivery drone services showed 66 per cent of respondents said 'keep them out of my backyard'. ABC Radio's poll on 13 February with 793 participants showed 65 per cent were against the drone delivery trial or the service in general. It is clear there is a disturbing lack of regulation on this issue, and we need more investigation.
International Women's Day
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (13:34): March 8 is a significant date in the calendar of women. It is International Women's Day. It's a reminder to be part of the growing awareness of women around the world.
For me, today, this date has more relevance than ever. Following all the stories about women refugees in Jordan, Syria, Pakistan and Bangladesh, in particular, I can only say thank you to our Australian government for all their initiatives in making the lives of women better, both internationally and domestically. I am proud that we, as a nation, are the founder of and largest donor to the United Nations Women's Peace and Humanitarian Fund. During my travels I have been constantly reminded by conference statements, bronze statues and development aims that 'Women are People'. The life-size statues in Ottawa were challenging, to say the least.
As a consequence, in honour of my granddaughters, Sophie Mae and Eve Nellie, who are here today, and every granddaughter around the world, I say: be strong in being a woman. Don't ever let your compassion for others and your caring and sharing, that your parents Romee and Barry are instilling in your characters, be seen as a weakness! It is not; it's a reflection of your integrity and your love of others: it's a hidden strength.
May everyone's granddaughter grow in the knowledge of who they are! I hope each one can say, 'I am woman, I am good and I am proud!'
Lyons Electorate: Energy
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (13:36): When it comes to energy policy, the businesses of Tasmania are voting with their wallets and they're voting renewable. And I'm pleased to say that they're keeping their money in the great electorate of Lyons.
Today, I'm proud to stand here to announce that Haywards Steel, a manufacturing company in the north of my electorate, has been chosen by Goldwind Australia to manufacture components for the Cattle Hill Wind Farm, under construction in the Central Highlands of my electorate. Haywards will manufacture 20 per cent of the tower components required for Cattle Hill's 48 turbines. Haywards joins other Tasmanian companies, such as Hazell Bros, which is undertaking the full civil and electrical works for the projects, and Gradco, which is undertaking more than $10 million of road upgrades to existing roads within the Central Highlands. Haywards has also been engaged by Hazell Bros for a $4 million contract to assist with the production of tower foundations for Cattle Hill's 48 turbines.
Cattle Hill is expected to be fully operational late this year. Construction was delayed during the recent bushfires, with Cattle Hill staff deployed in the fire-fighting effort. I thank them for all they did. I will be visiting the site in the next few weeks with John Titchen, managing director of Goldwind Australia, and I look forward to seeing these towers go up. Once they are completed they will add even more capacity to Tasmania's proud renewable energy sector.
Deakin Electorate: Sport Facilities
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (13:37): For six years I've worked very hard to make sure that we're doing everything we can to upgrade our local community and sporting infrastructure. We've been very successful in what we've achieved, but there's more to come.
Just a couple of weeks ago I was very pleased to join with the Mayor of Maroondah City Council, Rob Steane, to announce a full redevelopment of the Cheong Park pavilion. Cheong Park is home to the South Croydon Football Club and the South Croydon Cricket Club. We were there for their annual Pink Stumps day, a huge fundraiser that the cricket club holds each year, to announce combined funding of $1.5 million to make sure that Cheong Park finally gets the redevelopment it deserves. There is $1 million from Maroondah City Council, and half a million dollars from the federal government that will ensure there is a second storey to the pavilion. It will also ensure that, finally, the facilities are upgraded to include women's change rooms and other appropriate facilities, to make sure that both the football and cricket clubs can go forward with a very strong women's competition.
Credit here should go to everybody at the football and cricket clubs, in particular, Cathy White from South Croydon Football Club and Daniel Barsenbach from South Croydon Cricket Club. They and their committees have lobbied hard for this over many years, and I'm just pleased that, along with Maroondah City Council, we've been able to answer their call and give them the development that they deserve.
Wills Electorate: Moreland Toy Library
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (13:39): Toy libraries are a great resource for parents of young kids. They're cost effective, compared to buying toys, and they let parents target age-specific development needs. That's why I'm so pleased that Labor has recently announcement that, if elected, a Shorten Labor government will invest $6.1 million in our youngest citizens by providing greater support for community based playgroups and toy libraries. The program will see grants available of up to $15,000 to individual organisations and an investment of $50,000 provided to Playgroup Australia and Toy Libraries Australia to expand and improve their resources.
There are some great play groups and toy libraries in my electorate of Wills. One is Moreland Toy Library, which I was recently able to present with $6,000 grant from the Stronger Communities Program to purchase toys for their new centre in Pascoe Vale, which is in my local area. The Moreland Toy Library was established in the 1980s by a small group of families and has been growing ever since. It was previously run out of Brunswick West but now has opened up a second centre in Pascoe Vale, reaching many more constituents. Since they have opened up that second centre, 60 local families have joined up and are now part of this toy library. I'm a strong supporter of their work, and that's actually why my kids and I recently made a personal donation that they had outgrown to the Moreland Toy Library. I think it was a really important lesson for the kids about sharing, giving to others and making sure they engage with their local community. I commend all of the volunteers working at the Moreland Toy Library. Well done.
Glancy, Mr Samuel
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (13:40): It's a great opportunity today to give a shout-out to an outstanding young 11-year-old, Samuel Glancy, for the work he's been doing over the past couple of years to raise supplies for local schoolkids in need. His Kids4Kids supply drive has helped hundreds of students, particularly those without the basic tools of learning, since 2017. Samuel has clearly said he wants to see no child go without school supplies in Queensland, and his Kids4Kids fundraiser is just one of his 16 different various fundraising projects that he likes to run to help charities for local schoolchildren and also for struggling families and teachers.
This year Samuel arranged for donation boxes to be placed at various stores and locations around Logan, including my office in Beenleigh, where the community could donate both second-hand and new stationery items. Over 19,000 items were collected this year, and they were all collated at Calvary Christian College at Springwood. Then a group of volunteers went through and sorted them into packs for the various students.
I want to thank Samuel so much for the work he has done, I want to thank the community for their support. I think it's always a privilege in this job to see the wonderful work that members of our community do to support others in need, and I wish Samuel all the best in his studies for the coming year.
Immigration Detention
Dr PHELPS (Wentworth) (13:42): It was heartening over the weekend that the response in my electorate to the passage of last week's emergency medical transfers bill was overwhelmingly positive. The people of Wentworth are compassionate, engaged and principled. They can see through the deliberate misinformation campaign currently being waged by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Attorney-General. In this spirit, I note the following from a White House transcript of the phone call between former member for Wentworth and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and United States President Donald Trump on 28 January 2017. The topic of the discussion was the transfer deal struck between Mr Turnbull and the US President Barack Obama for the transfer of refugees from Australia's offshore processing centres to the United States. Mr Turnbull said:
We know exactly who they are. They have been on Nauru or Manus for over three years and the only reason we cannot let them into Australia is because of our commitment to not allow people to come by boat. Otherwise we would have let them in.
… … …
It is not because they are bad people.
Now we read in today's Daily Telegraph a claim that half of those refugees held in offshore processing centres on Manus Island and Nauru still do not have their identities confirmed and one in six checks so far have a red flag. Both of these things cannot be true. It really does appear that the current government cannot help itself when trying to score political points at the expense of refugees and people seeking asylum.
I'm proud to continue the fine tradition of moderate, small-L liberalism in the seat of Wentworth. I told the people of Wentworth that I would work to help get kids off Nauru and for the humane treatment of people seeking asylum. (Time expired)
Bonner Electorate: Volunteers
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:44): It's now the third year of my Bonner Volunteer Awards. Nominations are now open for 2019's most outstanding volunteers and volunteer groups. Nominations are open until Friday, 1 March, so I would like to ask my constituents, if they know a volunteer who goes above and beyond, to nominate them in the youth, adult, senior, or group categories. I will be presenting the winners their awards at a special ceremony on Wednesday, 13 March.
I always like to take the opportunity to highlight and celebrate our volunteers. I have met so many in my time as the member for Bonner. They are always so humble and say that they're just doing what they love. But it's so much more than that. Our Rotary Clubs, charities, Meals on Wheels, Men's Sheds, Scout groups, sports clubs and so many more rely on the hard work of Australia's eight million volunteers. That's why I'm encouraging my constituents to nominate individuals and groups that demonstrate outstanding volunteer qualities, make a significant and lasting contribution to the community, set a good example for fellow volunteers and inspire others to volunteer.
On a side note, I'm pleased to say that I recently secured $98,000 for the 2018 nominee, Carindale Cougars Junior AFL Club. under the government's Move It AUS Community Sport Infrastructure grant program. The funding will go towards installing field lighting and upgrading their playing grounds at Belmont State School. I can't think of a more deserving group. (Time expired)
Household and Personal Debt
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:45): It is now 1,291 days since this government announced a review of predatory payday lending practices. That's 3½ years—plenty of time, you would think, to get the legislation and get the reforms into this place, where there is absolute support for the recommendations that were made by that review, to get a vote on them. This reform could happen right now. The legislation is ready to go. It was moved again this morning by the member for Brand. It is a private member's bill.
The number of people being exploited in the electorate of Lalor is alarming, but not surprising when you consider we have four payday lending shopfronts within 500 metres of the Werribee train station, conveniently located so that these lenders can catch vulnerable people in their net. Denis Nelthorpe from WEstjustice, our community legal centre, blew the whistle on just how predatory this industry is, when, from a legal advice clinic, he found that 23 per cent of in-patients at our mental health unit had a payday loan, and 25 per cent of those people had more than one loan.
The answer is in the government's hands. We're running out of days. This part-time government needs to bring this bill up in scale and get it voted on. They can do this today and protect vulnerable people in my electorate, and electorates around this country.
South-East Queensland City Deal
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:47): The Morrison government's announcement of a city deal for South-East Queensland is a fantastic result for my electorate of Fisher. I'm grateful to the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population for this new commitment to our region. This city deal has the potential to transform South-East Queensland, bringing new jobs and tourists to our region. Rightly, every community will be putting forward its wish list and advocating for their own projects. However, I want to assure the people of Fisher that I will work hard to ensure that the coast is at the heart of this deal. I will fight to put projects which benefit the Sunshine Coast at the top of the priority list and to shape a city deal which delivers for our community. The Morrison government is already taking action on the Bruce Highway, and the North Coast rail duplication, with $3.4 billion in federal investment.
I want people in Fisher to get in touch and tell me about the other ambitious projects they believe will take our region forward through the next 10 to 20 years. I encourage my constituents to phone or email me, or contact me through my website, with their ideas today. This city deal is a fantastic opportunity and, with my constituents' help, I'm determined to make the most of it
Shipping
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:48): At a time when the Morrison government boasts about being tough on border protection, it ignores the serious threat to Australian borders of dismantling Australian coastal shipping operations and having foreign ships with foreign crews working in Australian waters around the Australian coastline. Last month, two more Australian crewed vessels, Mariloula and Lowlands Brilliance, working the Australian coastline for BHP and BlueScope, were replaced with foreign flagged ships, very likely using exploited labour. This was only possible because the Morrison government granted these foreign ships a licence to operate in Australian waters. Not only did the Morrison government turn its back on Australian workers and their families; in doing so, it weakened Australia's coastline security.
Australians working the national coastline strengthen Australian border security and environmental protection efforts. This is a government that runs a fear campaign about border security and refugees while simultaneously weakening our borders just so that big business can make more profit. I call on the Morrison government to stop putting company profits ahead of Australian workers and Australia's national security.
Robertson Electorate: Coast Opera Australia
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (13:49): I want to acknowledge the arrival of Coast Opera Australia to the Central Coast and the fantastic work done by their artistic director and CEO, Angela Brewer, in promoting opera and the arts in our local community. Coast Opera Australia is the first professional opera company to operate on the coast, and I was delighted to attend its season launch earlier this month. In the short time the opera company has been on the coast, Angela and her team have been able to bring world-class operatic talent to our region as well as provide opportunities for aspiring performers from our regional to showcase their abilities. Some of the fantastic artists Coast Opera have already brought locally include award-winning baritone Jose Carbo, emerging artist Vivienne McLaren, who last year won the Lee Casey Memorial Award from the Bouddi Foundation for the Arts, and Australian mezzo-soprano Sally-Anne Russell.
Angela's 20-year professional opera career saw her perform around the world, and, as of last year, she established Coast Opera Australia as a way to keep local professional artists on the coast. Angela's story reflects so many in my electorate of Robertson, where business owners are either starting or moving businesses into our region so they can provide more opportunities to local people and allow talent to stay on the coast. This has allowed local people to live and work closer to home instead of having to leave for Sydney and elsewhere to seek those opportunities. So I do want to commend Angela and the team at Coast Opera for their fantastic work bringing opera and the arts to our region. (Time expired)
Shipping
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (13:51): Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending the naming ceremony of Toll's new Australian flagged and Australian crewed vessel, Tasmanian Achiever II. It's Australia's biggest cargo ship, and, together with the new Victorian Reliance II, will increase the freight task on Bass Strait by 40 per cent at a cost to the company of $300 million—a wonderful investment. It is one of 12 ships, Australian crewed and Australian flagged, left in Australia. What do we see on these ships? We see local jobs for people in my electorate.
I was joined yesterday by the Prime Minister, and I felt a level of hypocrisy. Why is that? That's because this government is responsible for the sacking of hundreds of seafaring jobs in this country. Eighty workers on the Mariloula and the Lowlands Brilliancewere recently sacked by BHP—thank you to the Prime Minister! I met Jimmy last year. He had been at sea for 15 years, with 10 of those on the Mariloula. He is now unemployed, replaced by foreign crews.
I call on the government and I call on the Prime Minister to support what I have been saying, and that is to protect the Bass Strait from their destructive agenda and to join with Labor to investigate a strategic fleet of Australian flagged and crewed ships to protect our national interests. If he does not do so, it is bad for business. It is bad for the exporters from Tasmania. It is bad for local jobs in my electorate and across this country. There are seafaring families that rely on these jobs.
Anti-Semitism
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:52): Everybody has a responsibility to stand up against racism and anti-Semitism. Sadly, the year has begun with terrible anti-Semitic attacks in Melbourne, and it's important that we stand up and speak out about them in this place. For instance, at the end of January, there was a direct road rage attack on a rabbi. It's disgraceful behaviour that we should not stand for or walk past.
The 2018 Executive Council of Australian Jewry report gives me plenty of reasons to stand up today and highlight the troubling rise of anti-Semitism across Australia. The report detailed an unprecedented 59 per cent increase in anti-Semitic incidents from the previous year. Jewish Australians are facing more harassment, more vandalism and more threats by phone and email, and it should not be left uncommented. The report notes an incident in Sydney where anti-Semitic abuse was hurled at children playing in a courtyard—despicable. One group was responsible for over a third of all incidents, placing posters, stickers, graffiti and murals in public places.
I am privileged to represent a community that has one of the largest Jewish populations in Australia. They enrich the life of this country every single day. Every Australian has a right to live in this country free from harassment. Every Australian should be free to live out their life without this sort of despicable, disgusting behaviour.
Broadband
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (13:54): I recently received an email from Paul McLean, a retired software engineer who lost the NBN lottery. He explained it like this:
I ended up with a broken internet—
The connection was hopeless—
… and only had two options to fix it… move house or pay a whopping $13,122 to the NBN's TCP—
Technical Choice Program—
to get it fixed. Moving house would have cost me more, so I reluctantly paid up.
Paul says:
A lot of the problem with showing how unfair the NBN actually is, is that most people in the general population don't really get it. I successfully explained it to my 86 year old mum like this…
Imagine if the Australian electricity supply was taken over by the government and, for budget reasons, they fiddled with the structure so that residences now were randomly allocated different amounts of volts. Some would still get 240 volts, so all of their appliances would continue functioning perfectly. Some residences would get 200 volts, so most of their things would still work, but their huge TV might struggle and would definitely fail if they tried to turn anything else on the same time. Another group of residences would get only 150 volts, and so almost all of their stuff wouldn't work at all, except for lights and a few small appliances. The final group would have a wildly fluctuating voltage supply, so they would never be sure if their appliances would function from day to day.
How can it be fair? The Australian population has to accept— (Time expired)
O'Connor Electorate: Radiation Therapy
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:56): I'll start today by welcoming Anne Byrne and Ellen Sims, who have come all the way from my home town of Katanning, Western Australia to visit me here in parliament today. Katanning is part of the Great Southern, and I rise today to update the House on the progress of efforts to bring a world-class radiotherapy service to the Great Southern. The federal government granted GenesisCare $6.6 million in 2017 to build a linear accelerator machine to treat those suffering from radiation-responsive cancers close to home rather than having to travel 400 kilometres to Perth or Bunbury for treatment. I'm pleased to provide the House with an update of the progress.
Mary Williams and her team of tireless Albany Radiation Machine Project volunteers took advantage of last week's visit to Albany by Premier Mark McGowan and opposition leader Mike Nahan. Mary presented hard copy petitions to Premier McGowan and Dr Nahan as well as health minister Roger Cook. Unfortunately, it looks like this machine won't be installed by July 2019, the deadline GenesisCare proposed in their grant application which secured them the $6.6 million funding. WA health minister Roger Cook has updated me that his government has commissioned a feasibility study into the co-location at the Albany Health Campus, which will commence this month and take four months to complete. I've approached the federal health minister, Greg Hunt, to guarantee that this $6.6 million federal grant will stand beyond the July 2019 deadline and I'm hopeful that he will accept the extension. GenesisCare maintains that the Albany Health Campus is the ideal location for this machine due to the synergies with existing gold-standard diagnostic, surgical and chemotherapy services, and I'll continue to fight— (Time expired)
Murray-Darling Basin
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (13:57): Like a lot of Australians, when I'm on holidays over Christmas I try to switch off from the news, but there was no escaping the appalling enormity of the environmental disaster unfolding in the Menindee Lakes. The footage and images of the river choked with dying for shocked us all. As one observer described it, it was mainland Australia's version of a coral bleaching of the reef. I wrote to the government asking for answers for an inquiry, but they weren't interested. Fortunately, the Australian Academy of Science has stepped up. Ten eminent professors volunteered to serve on an expert panel. They spoke to local authorities, traditional owners, irrigators and the whole community around Menindee and then they submitted their report for international peer review. That's how we should do things: listen to the people on the ground, get the smart people in the room, recheck the evidence and get a consensus around a solution.
This is a very significant report with detailed recommendations that the parliament should now consider. The drought played a role in the fish kills, but that's not the whole story. Simply put, there isn't enough high-quality water in the Murray-Darling, and the ongoing mismanagement is hurting the river, hurting farmers and hurting the environment. We can't say that we don't know; we do. We can't say that we weren't warned; we have been. Barkindji elder William 'Badger' Bates said to me this morning: 'We don't want the water for ourselves; we want it for everyone. It's our duty to protect it.' So I seek leave to table the Australian Academy of Science's report into the causes of the mass fish kills in the Menindee area over the summer of 2018-19.
Leave granted.
Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:59): The scandal involving the unlawful leaks to the media of the Registered Organisation Commission raids of the AWU office involving Liberal ministers gets murkier by the day. We learnt today in Senate estimates, via the AFP, that evidence was actually destroyed by the office of the then Minister for Workplace Relations. Let's look back to what the minister actually said at the time: 'These raids had to occur to stop the destroying of evidence.' We now know that it was actually the minister's office that was actually engaged—
The SPEAKER: It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): by leave—I table a revised shadow ministry list which reflects Senator Jacinta Collins moving to the National Catholic Education Commission.
The document read as follows—
SHADOW MINISTRY
Title |
Shadow Minister |
Leader of the Opposition |
Hon. Bill Shorten MP |
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders |
Hon. Bill Shorten MP |
Shadow Minister for Young Australians and Youth Affairs Shadow Assistant Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders |
Terri Butler MP Senator Patrick Dodson |
Shadow Cabinet Secretary and Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate |
Senator the Hon. Jacinta Collins |
Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader (Tasmania) |
Senator Helen Polley |
Deputy Leader of the Opposition |
Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP |
Shadow Minister for Education and Training |
Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP |
Shadow Minister for Women |
Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP |
Shadow Minister for Preventing Family Violence |
Hon. Linda Burney MP |
Shadow Minister for Skills, TAFE and Apprenticeships |
Senator the Hon. Doug Cameron |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools |
Andrew Giles MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Universities |
Senator Louise Pratt |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Equality |
Senator Louise Pratt |
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate |
Senator the Hon. Penny Wong |
Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs |
Senator the Hon. Penny Wong |
Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific |
Senator Claire Moore |
Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate |
Senator the Hon. Don Farrell |
Shadow Special Minister of State |
Senator the Hon. Don Farrell |
Shadow Minister for Sport |
Senator the Hon. Don Farrell |
Shadow Treasurer |
Hon. Chris Bowen MP |
Shadow Minister for Small Business |
Hon. Chris Bowen MP |
Shadow Assistant Treasurer |
Hon. Dr Andrew Leigh MP |
Shadow Minister for Competition and Productivity |
Hon. Dr Andrew Leigh MP |
Shadow Minister for Charities and Not-for-profits |
Hon. Dr Andrew Leigh MP |
Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy |
Hon. Ed Husic MP |
Shadow Minister for Financial Services |
Clare O’Neil MP |
Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs |
Madeleine King MP |
Shadow Minister Assisting for Small Business |
Madeleine King MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury |
Hon. Matt Thistlethwaite MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Small Business |
Julie Owens MP |
Shadow Minister for Environment and Water |
Hon. Tony Burke MP |
Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Australia |
Hon. Tony Burke MP |
Shadow Minister for the Arts |
Hon. Tony Burke MP |
Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives |
Hon. Tony Burke MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Australia |
Julie Owens MP |
Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services |
Hon. Linda Burney MP |
Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness |
Senator the Hon. Doug Cameron |
Shadow Minister for Human Services |
Ed Husic MP |
Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers |
Senator Carol Brown |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Families and Communities |
Senator Jenny McAllister |
Shadow Minister for Infrastructure , Transport, Cities and Regional Development |
Hon. Anthony Albanese MP |
Shadow Minister for Tourism |
Hon. Anthony Albanese MP |
Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government |
Stephen Jones MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure |
Pat Conroy MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories |
Hon. Warren Snowdon MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety |
Senator Glenn Sterle |
Shadow Attorney -General |
Hon. Mark Dreyfus QC MP |
Shadow Minister for National Security |
Hon. Mark Dreyfus QC MP |
Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives |
Hon. Mark Dreyfus QC MP |
Shadow Minister for Justice |
Clare O'Neil MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for an Australian Head of State |
Hon. Matt Thistlethwaite MP |
Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations |
Hon. Brendan O'Connor MP |
Shadow Minister for Employment Services, Workforce Participation and Future of Work |
Terri Butler MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Workplace Relations |
Lisa Chesters MP |
Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy |
Hon. Mark Butler MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy |
Pat Conroy MP |
Shadow Minister for Defence |
Hon. Richard Marles MP |
Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs |
Hon. Amanda Rishworth MP |
Shadow Minister for Defence Personnel |
Hon. Amanda Rishworth MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC |
Hon. Warren Snowdon MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Cyber Security and Defence |
Gai Brodtmann MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence Industry and Support |
Hon. Mike Kelly AM MP |
Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research |
Senator the Hon. Kim Carr |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Science |
Hon. Nick Champion MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation and Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate |
Senator Deborah O'Neill |
Shadow Minister for Health and Medicare |
Hon. Catherine King MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare |
Tony Zappia MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health |
Hon. Warren Snowdon MP |
Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry |
Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP |
Shadow Minister for Rural and Regional Australia |
Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Australia |
Lisa Chesters MP |
Shadow Minister for Resources and Northern Australia |
Hon. Jason Clare MP |
Shadow Minister for Trade and Investment |
Hon. Jason Clare MP |
Shadow Minister for Trade in Services |
Hon. Dr Andrew Leigh MP |
Shadow Minister Assisting for Resources |
Madeleine King MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Northern Australia |
Hon. Warren Snowdon MP |
Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection |
Hon. Shayne Neumann MP |
Shadow Minister for Finance |
Dr Jim Chalmers MP |
Shadow Minister for Communications |
Hon. Michelle Rowland MP |
Shadow Minister for Regional Communications |
Stephen Jones MP |
Shadow Minister for Ageing and Mental Health (2) |
Hon. Julie Collins MP |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Ageing |
Senator Helen Polley |
Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health |
Senator Deborah O'Neill |
Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Development (1) |
Hon. Amanda Rishworth MP |
Each box represents a portfolio except for (1) which is in the Education portfolio and (2) which is in the Health portfolio. Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type .
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Disability Services
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister claim that his government never opposed a disability royal commission, when every government senator voted against one just four days ago? Will the Prime Minister reverse his government's position and commit to establishing a royal commission into violent abuse and neglect of people with a disability before the next election?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:00): I thank the member for his question, and I welcome those in the gallery who I know have a keen interest in the issue of disabilities, and are indeed living with disability, and their families. The government takes the abuse and neglect of people with disabilities very seriously. At no point as Prime Minister have I ever said that I oppose a royal commission. What I said very clearly in the House last week was that we would consider this matter very carefully. That matter will come before the House later today, and I fully expect the motion to be passed, as I made very clear over the weekend.
On what we will be doing, though, when it comes to dealing with this issue, I'm not seeking to make any partisan points about this.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: I am not, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who, sadly, is, I think, trying to make a partisan issue out of this. Until last Thursday, the last time the Leader of the Opposition raised a question regarding his proposal for a royal commission into these matters was in May 2017. So, all of a sudden, the Leader of the Opposition recalls a proposal for which he has no terms of reference and no specific details as to how it would be conducted.
As I remarked in response to the message from the Senate today, the government will take this matter on and the government will do what we always do: we will consult with stakeholders. We will consult with the states and territories, because these are matters that have, until this time—prior to the formation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme—been handled by state and territory governments. Something like that will require the concurrence of state and territory governments so that we can ensure that all of the issues over the past decade will be able to be addressed in that type of an inquiry.
The government will have numerous ways that we can pursue this, and we will do the work to ensure that, when we take this issue forward, it will be done in a well thought through manner and without any partisan rancour. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to stop seeking to make this a partisan issue and ensure that we have bipartisanship on the issue of people with disabilities. We provided that when we supported the National Disability Insurance Scheme and we will continue to provide that. I acknowledge Julia Gillard as the former Prime Minister who ensured that that groundbreaking reform was introduced. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to not play politics with disabilities and to put away the way that he has been seeking to address this issue in this House.
Economy
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:03): My question as to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House what action the government is taking to make Australia stronger? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:03): I thank the member for Robertson for your question. Whether it is in the Central Coast of New South Wales or all across Australia, our government is working to make Australia stronger. We have been making Australia stronger, and we have put in place the plans, which I have spoken of in recent weeks, to ensure that we continue to make Australia stronger.
It is true that 1.2 million jobs have been created under the policy settings of our government. It is true that unemployment has fallen to five per cent under the policy settings of the government. It is true that we've been able to maintain Australia's AAA credit rating under extreme pressure with the economic circumstances around the globe. It is true that we will hand down the first surplus budget that a government of this country has done in 12 years, on 2 April. It is also true that we have legislated for lower taxes for 10 million Australians and 3.3 million small and family businesses—$144 billion worth of personal tax relief, which the Labor Party, if elected, will halve. They will halve the income tax relief that we are offering to Australians and, indeed, have legislated to do. The services have been guaranteed: record health funding, record hospital funding, record levels of bulkbilling, record levels of putting pharmaceuticals on the PBS—all supported by a strong economy.
When it comes to national security, we have also been on the job—4,150 visas of serious criminals cancelled by this government, and we sent them packing. Under the previous government, they did less in six years than we did in just last year, when it comes to dealing with serious criminals. The previous government under the Labor Party and their successive failures of immigration ministers allowed bikies to remain in the country unchallenged and other serious criminals who they refused to act upon. Fourteen terrorist attacks have been thwarted by the excellent work of our security agencies that we have restored their funding to. Defence spending has been a priority, taking us back to two per cent of the size of the economy, ahead of our promise.
Now, we've also kept our borders secure. This's what we have done. When we came to government, we had the plan to stop the boats and we have indeed stopped them. We have closed 19 detention centres, when the Labor Party opened 17. And we have maintained the integrity of our border protection regime. But there is one enemy of that border protection regime in this parliament, and it's the Labor Party. They are the ones who came into this parliament last week and deliberately and wilfully sought to thwart our border protection regime. It was a problem that our government fixed. There is no need for a further solution, because it's working. The Labor Party showed their manifest weakness in undermining it.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister's time has concluded. The member for Barton.
Disability Services
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. Every government senator voted against a disability royal commission just four days ago. Why won't the Prime Minister just tell the truth and admit that he opposed this royal commission but has been forced to backflip because he lost control of the parliament? Isn't it clear this Prime Minister will say and do anything to desperately cling to power?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:07): Mr Speaker, I was going to thank the member for her question, but I had specifically made a request of the opposition that they would not seek to engage in partisan politics on support for people with disabilities.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr MORRISON: But we've seen that this is beyond a Labor Party obsessed with the politics of the Canberra bubble and seeking only to try and score political points off people with disability. Now, I'm not going to do that. We're going to continue to take action to put in place the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We're going to continue to fund it. We're going to continue to work through all the issues, and there are many in implementing what is a very significant scheme. We're going to continue to ensure that the commissions that are in place to be able to receive complaints and act on those complaints will continue to operate. I'll be working with stakeholders and state and territory governments to take further action in this area.
I am disappointed that, when the Labor Party raised this issue for the first time in almost two years, they come in here and seek to play partisan politics over people with disabilities. I would simply ask them to refrain from that, and the government will simply get on with the job.
National Security
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (14:08): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Could the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the impact on regional Australia of weakening Australia's border protection system?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of The Nationals) (14:09): I thank the member for Cowper for his question and his service to the people of Cowper. When Kevin Rudd took over as Prime Minister in 2007, there were just four adult males in detention centres—only four. After six years of dysfunction and chaos on our borders—and there are those opposite who are still sitting on the frontbench who had responsibility for immigration: the member for Gorton, the member for Watson and the member for McMahon; they all had a go—they could not stem the tide.
Fifty thousand people arrived on our shores. Labor talked about the 'Mediscare' in the campaign in 2016. At that time they did not talk about the fact they put more beds in detention centres than they ever did or ever had the possibility of doing in our public hospitals. There were 800 boats. Sadly, as we heard from Senator Reynolds in a very compelling, heartbreaking speech in the other place last week, Australian Defence Force personnel, those wonderful and brave people, had to reach in and collect dead bodies out of the sea—women and children. They were just some of the 1,200 people who drowned at sea. That's just the number we know of. Goodness knows how many died at sea trying to get here who we don't know of.
The Liberals and Nationals have closed 19 detention centres since coming to government. This has led to savings of more than $500 million. Labor opened 17 detention centres to deal with its policy failures—and they were policy failures—and, if given the opportunity to govern again, led by the member for Maribyrnong, it will happen again. $16 billion was wasted under those opposite with their weakened border policy. What could that money have been invested in? It could have been invested in the Pacific Highway, in the member for Cowper's electorate. It could have been invested in the Princes Highway or the Bruce Highway. It could also have been invested in building a better regional Australia and building a better regional north coast through such things as we are investing in—the Building Better Regions Fund, the stronger communities fund and all of those great funds that help such things as the Kempsey Swimming Club, the Macksville junior cricket club and all the other things that we've funded.
The people of Cowper know that the only person they can trust to keep delivering the investment and the certainty that Cowper needs, wants, deserves and expects is Pat Conaghan. Pat Conaghan is the only one that the people of Cowper can trust. (Time expired)
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. Children with a disability are waiting months to receive an NDIS plan and the support that they need, with the government's own figures showing an average wait time of 15 weeks. Adults are also waiting on specialist accommodation to be included in their plans so they can live independently. When will the government join with Labor to get rid of the NDIS staffing cap so people with a disability can get the support they need in a reasonable time frame?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:12): I thank the member for her question and her keen interest in these issues. I will ask the Minister for Families and Social Services to respond.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Families and Social Services) (14:12): I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond to this question from the member for Lindsay. Of course, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is the most significant change in social policy that we have seen for decades and the rollout has reached the point where more than 250,000 Australians are now receiving support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, including, very importantly, 78,000 Australians receiving support for the first time. Inevitably, with a scheme of this scale, there will be instances where the level of service is not what it should be, and we continue to work towards improving that. But, at the same time, we are seeing systematic reform across the scope of the work of the National Disability Insurance Agency—improvements to the participant pathways, for example. From 1 October last year, a new general participant pathway rolled out with a face-to-face meeting for every participant coming into the scheme, and so did specialist participant pathways, such as the psychosocial disability participant pathway or the early childhood early intervention pathway.
The member asked about specialist disability accommodation. This is a very important priority, particularly for those who have particularly high needs who need specially designed accommodation which might, for example, need ceiling hoists, widened doors, specially designed bathrooms and many other facilities. That's why, just over a week ago, we announced a range of significant changes to the guidelines for specialist disability accommodation. This has already produced responses from specialist providers—Summer Housing and Youngcare, for example—who've indicated that they see these changes as very positive and likely to increase the flow of specialist disability accommodation coming forward, new accommodation designed to meet the needs of young people with a disability, giving them the opportunity to live in accommodation which meets their needs, frees them from living in institutional settings and allows them to achieve control, dignity and autonomy, which is a critical objective of the scheme.
Banking and Financial Services
Dr PHELPS (Wentworth) (14:15): My question is to the Treasurer. The mortgage-broking model originated as a disrupter to the market power of the major banks, which were gouging clients. With the government's proposed changes to the mortgage-broking industry resulting from the Hayne royal commission into banking, how can the government ensure that the oligopoly of the big banks does not benefit financially whilst average families and small business once again are forced to pay the price of limited competition?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:16): I thank the member for Wentworth. She said she was a Liberal; now she's talking like a Liberal, because the reality is that only this side of the House supports mortgage brokers. Those opposite don't.
The reality is: there are 16,000 mortgage brokers. They employ around 27,000 people. The coalition is standing with mortgage brokers against those opposite, who want to disrupt their business model. The reality is: if the mortgage brokers lose their business, the only beneficiaries will be the big banks. We've been waiting and waiting, for over two weeks, for the Labor Party to provide an answer to the royal commission. We've been waiting over two weeks—over two weeks. The member for Hotham said that she would provide a response within a week. We're still waiting—and from the member for McMahon. The reality is that the Liberal and National parties will stand with the mortgage brokers, 75 per cent of whom are small businesses and sole traders writing more than half of the mortgage loans. We will not abolish mortgage brokers like those opposite, who, if they implement every single one of the Hayne recommendations, as they've promised to, will see the big banks benefit at the expense of the small businesses, namely the mortgage brokers.
Economy
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (14:17): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the importance of a strong economy and housing market for hardworking Australian families, including in my electorate of Dunkley? What are the risks of alternative approaches?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:18): I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. He knows that on this side of the House we have overseen and delivered a strong Australian economy, an economy where we've created more than 1.2 million new jobs; that female workforce participation is near record highs; that over the last financial year more young people got a job than at any time on record; that our unemployment rate has come down to five per cent, the lowest level in seven years; and that we've maintained a AAA credit rating from the three leading agencies. This is enabling us to deliver the essential services that people need and deserve without increasing taxes.
Those opposite have a plan for $200 billion of new taxes, including a big new housing tax. Today the Prime Minister, the assistant minister to the Treasurer and I sat down with the Real Estate Institute of Australia, Master Builders Australia, the Property Council of Australia and other experts, and everyone shared their concerns about Labor's big new housing tax, which the master builders association said could cost 32,000 jobs and see 42,000 fewer dwellings being built.
The people who negatively gear—and there are 1.3 million of them, including 7,000 in the electorate of Dunkley, 8½ thousand in the member for Hotham's electorate, 16,000 in the member for Fenner's electorate, over 7,000 in the member for McMahon's electorate and over 10,000 in the member for Sydney's electorate—will see their homes and their investments worth less under the Labor Party's policy. Under Labor's policy everybody who owns a home will see it worth less, and under Labor's policy everyone who rents a house will end up paying more. In fact, there are over two million renters in Australia who are aged between 20 and 34, and the Labor Party's policy will see their rents go up.
The Labor Party used to believe in negative gearing. In fact, the now silent member for Lilley actually said, when he was the Treasurer, that it would be economically disastrous to do anything to negative gearing. That's what the member for Lilley said. Now he's part of an opposition that actually wants to smash housing prices and increase rents. The member for McMahon likes to look up to former Treasurer Paul Keating, but Paul Keating doesn't approve of Labor policies these days. This is what he said about the Labor Party: they've 'lost the ability to speak aspirationally and to fashion policies to meet those aspirations'. Only this side of the House stands up for the aspirations of homeowners and renters.
Mr Husic: You're all tip and no iceberg!
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley is warned.
Disability Services
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:21): My question is to the Prime Minister. Which government minister directed government senators to vote against a disability royal commission in the Senate last Thursday? Given the Prime Minister desperately wants people to believe he never opposed this royal commission, why did he allow one of his ministers to direct government senators to vote against it?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:22): The shadow minister makes a whole range of assumptions in her question which I'm not going to speculate upon. I'm so used to the member for Sydney coming to the dispatch box and making a whole bunch of assertions. What our ministers are doing is getting on with establishing the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That's what they're doing. And what I have done as Prime Minister is I had a number of immediate priorities. We had to finish one royal commission, which I initiated as Treasurer—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: It was the government that initiated the royal commission into the banking and finance industry, and it is the government that I lead that is acting on all 76 recommendations.
The other priority was to establish the royal commission into the aged-care sector, which we have done and which is now underway. They were my priorities. That's what we've got on with. I will continue to address the issues facing Australians with disabilities. That's what I'll continue to focus on, and that's what the government will do. I'll tell you one thing we won't do: we won't engage in this rank partisanship we're seeing from the opposition. They're simply trying to use people with disabilities for their own political purposes.
Economy
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (14:23): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government's strong economic record benefits all Australians saving for their retirement, including those in my electorate of O'Connor? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative proposals?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:23): The member for O'Connor is proud to be part of a government that has created more than 1.2 million new jobs, a government that's brought down the unemployment rate to the lowest level in seven years, and a government that, on 2 April, will deliver the first budget surplus in over a decade. That's what you get from disciplined, strong economic management. We can deliver the essential services—record funding on hospitals, record funding on schools, record funding on infrastructure and defence spending—without increasing taxes like those opposite are promising to do. Of their $200 billion of new taxes, one of the most punishing, one of the most unfair, is their dreaded retiree tax—a $55 billion slug on older Australians; Australians who have done nothing wrong except plan and prepare for their own retirement. That is over one million Australians. Individuals will be on average $2,200 a year worse off under Labor, and, of the 200,000 self-managed super funds, they will be on average $12,000 a year worse off under the Labor Party.
Now, don't believe the Labor Party when they say this doesn't affect pensioners, because Labor's retiree tax will hit pensioners. If you were a pensioner before 28 March last year and you establish a self-managed super fund after that date, the Labor Party hit you with a higher tax. If you were in a self-managed super fund before 28 March last year and you become a pensioner after that date, the Labor Party could slug you with their retiree tax as well.
And the Labor Party's policy disproportionately affects women. Over half of those people affected by the retiree tax are women, and over two-thirds are over the age of 60. Around half are single or widowed. That's the Labor Party's policy.
The Labor Party's cash grab goes against everything that they stood for previously. Simon Crean said of the existing system:
… it improves the current taxation situation faced by low income investors, especially retired Australians.
Now, the Labor Party and the member for McMahon arrogantly dismiss the concerns and fears of over one million Australians by saying, 'If you don't like our tax, then don't vote for us'. I've got news for him: come the election, they won't be voting for you.
Disability Services
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please confirm that every government senator, including his ministers in the Senate, voted against a disability royal commission last Thursday and please advise which minister made the recommendation for the government senators to vote against the disability royal commission last Thursday in the Senate?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:27): I thank the member for his question on the royal commission. In May 2017, the last time the Leader of the Opposition was raising these issues with the government, he raised it with the former Prime Minister, and he on that occasion undertook to take that matter to COAG. I note that, when he took it to COAG, the outcome of that COAG process was that, through both the Council of Australian Governments and the COAG Disability Reform Council at that time, states and territories did not indicate any support for such a royal commission. That was the last time that the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter with the government in this House. The government took that matter to COAG and to the states and territories, and at that time they did not support that.
Now, I note that in recent days the Victorian Premier has indicated that he would be supportive of it—
Mr Watts interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gellibrand!
Mr MORRISON: but I note that, in Queensland—
Mr Watts interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gellibrand is warned.
Mr MORRISON: the Queensland disability services minister simply said, 'Well, that's a decision for them.'
I do thank Senator Steele-John because he has written to me. He believes that there should be a royal commission in this area. He has actually written to me, and he has outlined the terms of reference, something that has evaded the Leader of the Opposition for now more than two years.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Shorten: On direct relevance, Mr Speaker: my question was very specific. We just asked the Prime Minister to confirm if his government members in the Senate voted against the royal commission last Thursday, and it was a simple inquiry: which minister came up with that idea to vote against it?
The SPEAKER: I'll call the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has given some context to the answer, but I do point out that the question was very tightly confined to two issues and two points.
Mr MORRISON: I was asked about the royal commission, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: No, I'm—
Mr MORRISON: I was asked about the government's position on the royal commission. That's what I was asked about, and I'm explaining to the House the action the government has taken on this matter.
The SPEAKER: And I'm going to point out to the Prime Minister—
Mr MORRISON: I thank Senator Steele-John for—
The SPEAKER: Prime Minister, if you could just pause for a second—I made that point with the context, but I also pointed out to the Prime Minister that the question was very tightly constrained. He's on the policy topic of the royal commission. He's entitled to give context and to compare and contrast, but, as I've made clear to all ministers now that this has come up, it is not compulsory to go for the entire three minutes.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The government will respond to the matter in the House this afternoon.
National Security
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (14:29): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the benefits of strong and consistent border protection policies? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that could put our borders and Australian families at risk?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:30): I thank the honourable member for his question. It's obviously a very serious issue, given the law that Labor passed does weaken our borders in this country. There's a lot that our sailors, our border protection staff, have been doing for a long period of time to clean up Labor's mess from when they were last in government. Twelve hundred people drowning at sea is not something that should be discussed lightly. The reality is, as was pointed out by the Deputy Prime Minister earlier, that four people were in detention when Mr Howard left office in 2007. Because of policy changes, 1,200 people drowned at sea—women and children included—and we had 8,000 children going into detention. Yet the Labor Party is now going to the Australian people, promising to repeat it all again. That's the reality of what Labor promised last week.
Worse than that, they go further. They go further because they have weakened the provisions within the Migration Act that would normally provide the minister for immigration with the ability to deny entry into our country to people of bad character. Under the Migration Act, section 501 has 12 subsections. The Labor Party has discounted 11 of those and included only one, which means we could stop somebody hopping on a plane in Singapore today who had been accused of molesting a child, offload that person from that plane and deny them access to our borders. But we can't do that with people coming from Manus and Nauru, under Labor law. The reality is, as we've seen—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: They say, 'It's not true.' It is true! If you had taken the advice of the security agencies, you'd know it was true. The trouble is: you acted against the advice of the security agencies, and you are now paying the price.
I can say to the House that, under Labor's law, we have no power to prevent the transfer of a man charged with the rape of a minor. We have no power under Labor's law to prevent the transfer of a man charged with an indecent act in relation to a child under 16 years of age. Under Labor's law, we have no power to prevent those people and others coming to our country. If they don't understand the laws they've introduced, no wonder the mistakes of the past will be recommitted. It's obvious that this man who wants to be Prime Minister is weaker than Gillard and Rudd put together. He couldn't stare down the Left of his party, which is exactly a repeat of what happened with Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. If the Leader of the Opposition was ever to have control of this public policy, it would be a humanitarian disaster yet again. (Time expired)
Disability Services
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (14:33): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that: on Tuesday his government knew there would be a vote on a disability royal commission; on Wednesday he had the exact words to the motion; and on Thursday he directed senators to vote against it and then held the longest question time in history to avoid a vote? Why was the Prime Minister so desperate to block a disability royal commission if he never really opposed one?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:33): That was a fairly wide-ranging question. Let me deal specifically with the matters on Thursday—I thought you set them out very clearly on Thursday, Mr Speaker, as Speaker of the House. I was absolutely aware on Thursday, during question time, that that matter was not coming back to the House; it was not coming back to the House on Thursday. There was no opportunity for that matter to be considered on Thursday, so the suggestion by the Labor Party, once again seeking to play partisan politics with people with disabilities, is to assert something that is simply not true. Had that matter been coming back to this House on Thursday, it would have passed through this House, as, indeed, it will pass this afternoon.
But, while we're on the topic of what people do in the Senate, what I know is what the Labor Party senators members did in the Senate last December when they voted for the original Labor bill on border protection—the original one, Mr Speaker—without getting any advice from security agencies. They may have ignored it when it came to this chamber, Mr Speaker, but there was reckless disregard for the nation's security and border protection when this Leader of the Opposition was happy to trash our borders in the Senate. And they would have voted for the bill in its original form in this House in December. You cannot trust Labor on our borders.
National Security
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (14:35): My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General update the House on how weaker border security will impact our justice system?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General) (14:35): I thank the member for his question, because he knows, as anyone who reads the legislation knows, that the Labor legislation radically reduces the minister's power to exclude people from Australia on character grounds. That is unequivocally true. Listen to what a senior Labor frontbencher is quoted as having said:
The children in our party who believe in fairytales have to be stopped. National security is just too important to be allowed to be run by children. We have got to ensure the minister retains the unequivocal discretion to override the doctors.
That unequivocal discretion is now gone—terminated, ended, removed—from Australian law. We only needed to see the Opposition leader's performance in a doorstop today, where he looked into the camera and said that there was no change, nothing to see here, only a codification of the law, and then in the very next sentence celebrated the major change by saying that, instead of listening to the minister and the minister being in charge, 'We will have to listen to the doctors.' Now, the fact is that having the doctors ultimately in charge rather than the minister is a very significant change.
That is not a codification of the existing law. That is a very, very significant change. And if there's no change, why was it that last week those members opposite were clapping themselves and waving to the cheers in the gallery? Were we celebrating no change? Were we celebrating a mere codification of the law? What were we celebrating. Whether or not you think that the significant change is a reason for celebration is an interesting question, but clearly there was a significant change. The change is this: now, two doctors control the process. They don't need to be on location and they don't need to see the patient; they merely need to agree that the patient come to Australia for further analysis. They conduct a narrow clinical inquiry. They do not consider security matters.
The facts are these: in practice, what that means is that if someone were trying to enter Australia on a working holiday visa and we had credible intelligence based information, for instance, that they'd been going on social media and liking numerous photos and videos that depicted violence, shootings, bombings or dead bodies, the minister would have the unequivocal discretion to refuse that person entry to Australia. If, in precisely those same circumstances, someone in a Labor medical transfer had the same information drawn to the attention of the minister, the minister now no longer has the discretion to exclude that person from Australia. That is a major change.
If you want to know how badly drafted these laws were—notwithstanding that there are lawyers on the other side of parliament—a 16-year-old applicant for an orphaned relative visa who wants to come to live with relatives in Australia has a higher— (Time expired)
Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (14:38): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that two of his ministers refused to provide witness statements to the Australian Federal Police investigation?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:39): This is a matter before the courts. I don't intend to provide any comment other than to just remind the House, as the Minister for Human Services has, about what this matter is actually all about, and that's why the Leader of the Opposition won't explain to the Australian people why union fund moneys went to GetUp!.
National Security
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the government's strong border security—
Mr Conroy: How's it going, No. 9?
The SPEAKER: The member for Boothby will resume her seat. The member for Shortland will leave under 94(a), and the member for Boothby will begin her question again.
The member for Shortland then left the chamber.
Ms FLINT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the government's strong border security and border protection policies have been so successful? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would jeopardise these successful border security and border protection policies?
Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (14:40): We know that the Labor Party's handling of this issue, with 50,000 people arriving, with 8,000 children forcibly placed in detention and with 1,200 people drowning at sea, was the greatest postwar failure in Australian public policy history. This was an appalling—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr COLEMAN: Tell me what was worse than 1,200 people drowning at sea. Tell me what was worse than that. Tell me what was worse than putting 8,000 kids in detention, because that's what you opposite did. This was an absolute disgrace, a failure and a humanitarian catastrophe. That's what happened, Mr Speaker.
We know that we fixed it. We know that we got the borders under control. We know that we increased our humanitarian program by some 35 per cent, because we were able to manage it effectively. And now those opposite come along and say that they want to undo it all—they want to end offshore processing. Extraordinarily, not only do they want to end offshore processing but, through their notorious amendment 14, and this is very important, they want to apply a lower standard for entry to Australia for people coming from Manus and Nauru than for any other person who comes to Australia on a visa.
One of the principles of multicultural Australia, one of the principles of our country, is that everyone plays by the same rules. Regardless of your background, regardless of where you come from, we play by the same rules, and that is why our multicultural society is so successful. So why should it be the case that people who come to Australia on a permanent visa from India have to pass the character test but people who come from Manus and Nauru don't? Why should it be the case that people who come from China have to pass the character test but people who come from Manus and Nauru don't? I ask that because that's what the opposition's law does. Why should it be the case that people who come from the United Kingdom have to pass the character test but people who come from Manus and Nauru don't?
It's open to the opposition to address this. It's a very simple question: why? Those opposite chose to impose a standard. They explicitly chose to impose a standard which is much lower than what applies to anyone from any other country in the world. Why is that fair? Why did those opposite do it, and please explain to everyone in Australia why a lower standard is appropriate. Why is that fair?
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons is warned.
Small Business
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week, the government voted against Labor's 'access to justice for small business' reforms in the Senate. But today, the government is briefing the media that it intends to backflip, because Nationals members of the House are willing to cross the floor and vote for Labor's reforms. Isn't it clear that this Prime Minister will say and do anything to desperately cling to power?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:44): It's true that this Prime Minister will do everything in my power to support small and family businesses, and here's our track record: we cut the tax rate to 25 per cent; increased the instant asset write-off to $25,000; and introduced legislation, as we're doing just this week under the securitisation fund, to ensure that small businesses can get access to the capital and finance that they need. On top of that, we are making sure that small businesses get paid on time, reducing the payment times to 20 days, down from 30, and getting state and territory governments as well as large businesses to back it. This government has done more for small and family businesses than any other government, and I look at a Labor Party that time after time after time sought to prevent us from delivering tax cuts for small businesses. When it comes to small and family businesses, they have a lot of friends in this parliament and they only sit on this side on the chamber.
Building and Construction Industry
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (14:45): My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations and the Minister for Women. Will the minister update the House on how the government is acting to safeguard the security of workers and small businesses in the vital building and construction industry? How does this compare with alternative approaches to the rule of law in the industry?
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Women and Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations) (14:45): I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. Like every member on this side of the chamber, he is passionate about small and medium-sized family businesses because he understands the significance and importance to our economy of small and family-sized businesses. Now, of course, this is especially true in the construction and building industry. Close to one in 10 workers in this country rely on the building and construction industry for their jobs and for their income, and around 98 per cent of all of those businesses who are in the construction and building industry are, in fact, small and family businesses. It is absolutely imperative that those businesses are able to go about their work safe in the knowledge that they will be free from thuggery, from intimidation and from lawlessness. That is precisely why the government has introduced the strong building code. That is precisely why we have re-established the Australian and Building Construction Commission.
But, sadly, there are some who believes that the rules do not apply to them—that they are, in fact, above the rules. This, of course, includes the CFMMEU. The CFMMEU has been fined more than $16 million. They have been described by a Federal Court judge as one of the most recidivist organisations in Australian history, and they have currently around 77 officials currently before the courts for more than 850 suspected contraventions of the law. Now, of course, the best friend of the CFMMEU is the Leader of the Opposition, and the member for Fairfax probably well knows that the CFMMEU and their militancy, particularly in Queensland, has got to the most egregious point. We have learned that Queensland health and safety officials now refuse to attend 17 sites controlled by the CFMMEU, because they are concerned about their safety because of organisational violence. These are the safety inspectors there, looking after the safety of small businesses and the people that work for them, who do not feel safe going onto work sites in Queensland. If the safety inspectors do not feel safe, what hope is there for those small businesses and for the people that work for them?
The awful record of lawlessness and lawbreaking would be writ large if the Leader of the Opposition got his way and he abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We would see this writ large nationally, and we on this side would not make lawbreakers lawmakers.
Prime Minister
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (14:49): My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week, the Prime Minister thumbed his nose at the Nationals and shelved the government's 11th energy policy since 2016 because he has lost control of the parliament. This week, the Prime Minister is again refusing to put his so-called 'big stick' legislation to a vote in the House. Isn't it clear that this Prime Minister will say and do anything to desperately cling to power?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:49): We on this side of the House stand for lower power prices. We have delivered that. Through the good work of the member for Hume and this government, from 1 January this year, residential customers on standing offers saw falls in New South Wales of $200, in Victoria of $313, in South Australia of $270 and in South-East Queensland of $175. The question for the member for Port Adelaide and the Labor Party is: why are you on the side of the big energy companies against the consumers of Australia? That's the question for them. Why do they have a problem with legislation that is going to stamp out fraudulent behaviour? Why do they have a problem with legislation that targets dishonest conduct? Why do they have a problem with legislation that targets the behaviour of companies that are acting in bad faith? There are a series of penalties—and they're graduated—in this bill. The reality is: this legislation is tackling problems in the wholesale market, in the retail market and in the contract market.
As the member for Hume has pointed out numerous times, those on the other side have voted with the big energy companies time after time and we on this side of the House are putting in place the policies that are lowering power prices, investing in storage and ensuring that gas is available on the east coast of Australia. On our watch, record amounts of renewables have come into the system and there have been reductions in standing offers. We on this side of the House are lowering power prices. When those on the other side of the House were last in government they doubled power prices. The Australian people can trust only the Liberal and National government to deliver lower power prices.
Senior Australians
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (14:51): My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government is supporting retirement incomes for pensioners and elderly Australians and helping those who want to stay in the workforce keep more of their income? Is the minister aware of any alternative ideas that would not protect the incomes of pensioners and retirees in this way?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Families and Social Services) (14:52): I thank the member for Hinkler, who is a very strong champion of older Australians. In fact, there are 28,000 age pensioners in Hinkler. He stands up for them. He's determined to support them. On this side of the House we are supporting retirees. That's why we passed legislation just last week. The pension work bonus, the amount you can earn each fortnight before it reduces your pension, increased from $250 to $300 a fortnight—promised, delivered, done. There is the pension loans scheme, giving people the option to borrow against their home and to draw down a fortnightly amount paid through Centrelink. There are more options. We are supporting people in retirement, supporting retirees. This side of the House supports retirees.
I'm asked if there are any other approaches. It turns out that there is a very strong contrast, because the other side of the House, for some reason, is determined to drag down retirees rather than support retirees, as we on this side of the House are doing. If you have worked hard to accumulate a little bit of wealth to support yourself in retirement, Labor wants to hit you hard. In fact, 900,000 Australians will be affected by Labor's retiree tax. They'll lose $2,200 a year on average. That's not the only way that Labor will hit hard those who are working to provide for themselves in retirement. Labor is also attacking negative gearing. That is an attack particularly on middle-income Australians who use negative gearing to help them buy an investment property to prepare for their retirement years and to provide for themselves in retirement. Indeed, more than 40 per cent of people who claim deductions for rental properties are aged 45 to 59. They are squarely in Labor's sights.
There will be a very clear contrast at the next election. One side of the parliament, mysteriously, does not want to encourage middle-income Australians to work hard and accumulate some assets to help provide for themselves in retirement. If you own shares, Labor's franking credit changes are coming after you. If you own property, Labor's negative gearing changes are coming after you. If you've worked hard to build assets and provide for yourself in retirement, Labor wants to hit you. On this side we know that, if you do that, you're reducing the burden on the taxpayer of the age pension, and we want to thank you.
Morrison Government
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:54): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that because he cannot control the parliament, cannot control the National Party and cannot control his own government that today he will (1) backflip on a disability royal commission, (2) backflip on Labor's small business access to justice laws and (3) backflip on tougher penalties for corporate penalties. He's already shelved his eleventh signature energy policy. Isn't it clear this Prime Minister will say and do anything to cling to power?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:55): What I can confirm is that the leader of the Labor Party can't get his head out of the Canberra bubble.
Aged Care
Dividend Imputation
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on how our government is supporting ageing Australians and providing the essential services on which they rely, without increasing taxes? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would hurt the livelihoods of retirees who have worked hard to support themselves?
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (14:56): I thank the member for Brisbane for his ongoing interest in senior Australians. When we consider senior Australians, they are our grandparents and our parents who are now accessing services for a raft of matters to do with their retirement, their ageing years and aged care. Let me also say that they were once members of some of those opposite's unions. They lived and grew up in a period when they were not able to have the mechanisation that we currently have today in all of their technology. There are a range of things that we are putting in place, such as better aged care, better access to services, better ageing and better quality.
Mr Bowen: You said a royal commission would be elder abuse. Where's your apology?
Mr WYATT: Let me say this, for those who are interjecting: elder abuse within aged care is being addressed through the royal commission. We are dealing with it on a raft of matters. The initiatives that we have put into place are forward estimated over the $5 billion that go to a range of programs. Recently, in MYEFO, we provided an additional $552 million to make aged care enjoyable and better. Recently, we announced $662 million to provide the level of support and attention that is needed.
Mr Bowen: Did you apologise?
Mr WYATT: Member for McMahon, it's a pity that when your government was in power it didn't address all of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, because, had you done it, we would not be facing some of the challenges we've had to fix.
Those opposite collectively want to punish senior Australians who have worked hard for their incomes, who have saved for their retirement and who have saved for the living expectation of standards that they want to enjoy with their families and their children, and yet you want to tax them. You want to tax 900,000 Australians who have enjoyed a pathway to life. Leader of the Opposition, it would be great if you had the same respect for senior Australians, because they have built this nation and the work that they are doing and the support that we provide on a range of issues are significant.
There is the list of medications that my colleague, the Minister for Health, has listed for senior Australians and the workforce opportunities that we are creating. Our economy is developing at a rate that is extremely strong and allows us to provide the range of services that we need to provide for senior Australians. The royal commission was called because of the structural changes and reforms that are needed. They go to a raft of issues across a number of fronts.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr WYATT: If people think that's humorous, then I find that appalling. Our senior Australians and those in aged care deserve better than what we have seen in the last 20 years.
Murray-Darling Basin
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. There is an ecological disaster in the Darling River at Menindee Lakes. Why is it that the environmental minister has not visited and is completely missing in action?
Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for the Environment) (15:00): It is indeed very disappointing, at a time when many communities along the Murray-Darling Basin are in a very distressed state, that you should come in this place and politicise this. How very disappointing! We know that the recent fish deaths in the Murray-Darling Basin are a terrible reminder of the devastating effects of drought on our environment. It is distressing for all of those communities along there.
It does highlight the importance of water for the environment during these dry times. Like all other users during dry times, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, who I am responsible for, receives lower water allocations, and the scale of environmental water is, necessarily, reduced. Federal and state governments are working together—and I'm sure the opposition are well aware of that—to monitor conditions across the Murray-Darling Basin, with environmental flows being provided to benefit native fish in catchments where environmental water is available.
In the Murray-Darling Basin, significant rainfall and flows are needed to alleviate the poor water quality. There is currently no capacity for the environmental flows to improve those conditions. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, who I'm responsible for, is monitoring the situation closely and, clearly, I have been in very, very close contact with her. People will know that back in 2018 the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder worked closely with the New South Wales government, and we know that a critical refuge watering action is currently under way in the lower Murrumbidgee River to protect habitats, mitigate poor water quality and reduce the risk of further fish kills.
We on this side are not politicising this issue, and I'm very surprised that the opposition representative—in his past life he's been criticised—would allow this matter to be raised today.
We are a team on this side. We have the water minister; he is responsible for water, and I'm sure the opposition minister for water understands that.
Opposition members: More, more!
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! There will be more ejections under 94(a) if members on my left don't cease interjecting.
Queensland: Floods
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (15:03): Prime Minister, won't your micro-irrigation schemes, templating at Hughenden, mitigate giant floods now killing two million kangaroos, miring birdlife in mud, pushing dunnarts towards extinction and eroding away billions of tonnes of the world's richest topsoils? With one-tenth of the cattle industry, it's job people and follow on are unable to survive any increased debt. Must not government buy the bank mortgages, surely now worth 25 per cent less? With debt 25 per cent less and interest reduced from seven per cent to government rates of 2.5 per cent, surely this restores the area's tax revenues of $300 million by, most essentially, facilitating restocking?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:03): I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. The short answer to the first part of the question is yes, the project that we have initiated at Hughenden will indeed have those impacts, and that's why we're pleased to be proceeding with that project in Hughenden. I also want to thank the member for Kennedy for joining me on Friday last week in Julia Creek. On the previous day I was with Robbie, up in Cloncurry. I want to thank the mayors of the various shires across north-western Queensland: Greg Campbell, Belinda Murphy, John Wharton, Jane McNamara and Gavin Basket, and all of the other mayors right across the district, for the incredible leadership that they're putting in place to support what is a truly national disaster in what is unfolding in north-western Queensland.
Tonight, I'm assembling a cabinet task force to consider a series of recommendations and proposals that we'll be working through over the course of this week which come off the back of my learning while I was up there last week—and from the Deputy Prime Minister, who was there on the weekend, and the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Reynolds, who has also been there. You are right: this is going to require a station-by-station solution to rebuild and reconstruct the Queensland cattle industry in North Queensland. I cannot imagine—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: I note the interjection from the member for McMahon. If you want to be childish about these things, go right ahead! I cannot imagine an Australia that does not have the North Queensland cattle industry doing what they do, and we will stand with them through all the types of policies that the member for Kennedy has suggested. We are looking at the full range of issues, whether it's addressing the issue of mortgage debt, the restocking that is required and the rebuilding of that part of Australia. They have our full support, they know they have our full support and I'll have more to say about this as the week progresses.
But I want to thank the member for Kennedy for working with the government on this issue, and all of the North Queensland members as part of the government. This is an absolute tragedy that is unfolding for these people. They need to know that they have the support of this chamber and not the jeers that we've seen. We will continue to focus on this issue, because these are the issues that matter—
A government member interjecting—Dead cattle on the ground!
Mr MORRISON: Dead cattle on the ground in North Queensland! They're the things that I'm focused on. That's what I'm turning my attention to, because that's what the people of North Queensland need. And they have my full attention.
Industry, Technology and Science
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (15:06): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister update the House about how the government is able to create jobs and opportunities through investment in industry, science and technology? How would this investment be jeopardised by different approaches to budget management, including recklessly unravelling Australia's border protection regime?
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (15:06): I thank the member for Forrest for her question. I know how committed she is to building a strong economy and to growing jobs. Of course, everyone on this side of the House is absolutely committed to making sure that we are growing jobs in industry, science and technology.
Under Labor's watch, $16 billion was blown out because of their weak border protection policy. They have demonstrated that this could happen again. Now, that is $16 billion that could have been used as an investment in science, for new scientific discoveries, for new investment in industry and for new jobs. But that money was blown by those opposite. It's only through the strong economic management of the Liberal-National government that we have been in a position to invest $1.5 billion more than Labor did in our science agencies—agencies like the CSIRO, ANSTO and the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Mr Speaker, just imagine the impact of Labor's reckless spending again, especially when it comes to the management of our borders. I can imagine the impact that that will have on the science community—what it will do to opportunity in science, what it will do to opportunities for new Australians to get jobs and what it will do to scientific discoveries. It will put us backwards.
It's discoveries such as those which came from the $520 million investment by this government in the Australian Synchrotron that are going to help with the discovery of breast cancer. Breast cancer is the most common cancer that affects women, and there are currently over 800,000 mammograms being performed in Australia this year. As many women know, the experience of getting a mammogram can be very uncomfortable and, in some cases, the technology that we have now means that some cancers are missed. But because of the investment this government has been able to make in the Australian Synchrotron there has been some groundbreaking research done which will lead to better image quality, a more accurate diagnosis and a smaller radiation dose. And, importantly, there will be no discomfort for patients as the breast compression process won't be necessary.
It is because of our strong economic management and our ability to prioritise our spending and to spend properly that we are able to invest in this technology to save lives. That is the commitment of this government to Australia.
Mr Morrison: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 26 of 2018-19
The SPEAKER (15:10): I present the Auditor-General's Audit No. 26 of 2018-19 entitled Australian Government funding of public hospital services—Risk management, data monitoring and reporting arrangements: Department of Health; Independent Hospital Pricing Authority; National Health Funding Body.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:10): 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.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (15:10): Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I wish to make a valedictory speech to the parliament. It is impossible in one short speech to summarise the amazing ride that I have been on, from a 26-year-old girl preselected to try and win the seat of Adelaide off the government, to standing here saying goodbye to the parliament.
I first stood in this chamber almost 15 years ago and admitted to being young and idealistic. I said that I hoped that when I left this place I would be old and idealistic. Well, what I wasn't to know was that during my period in the parliament I would witness more leadership change, more instability, more division and more chaos than at any other time in this parliament's history. I continue to witness too many focus on the sport of politics rather than the purpose of it. So I guess you could say that my idealism has been challenged at times! But, despite this, I absolutely remain passionate about this role, this place and the power that we have here to improve people's lives—the idealist survived, just!
Facing the prospect of leaving has made we reflect more than ever on just what a privilege it is to stand here, what an honour it is to be selected and what a responsibility it is to serve Australia well. The time allowed to me today could easily be filled with a love letter to the people of Adelaide. I can never adequately repay the faith that they have put in me nor adequately express my gratitude. Having the honour of representing the people of Adelaide is without doubt one of the greatest privileges of my life, and my first and most heartfelt thanks must go to them.
Being a local member is massively underrated by some of us who sit here and, I would argue, by most of those who cover politics. Whilst it isn't as visible as grandstanding in the parliament or running party attack lines on Sky News, to me, I have always viewed representing the people of Adelaide as both the most significant and most rewarding part of my job. Being a local MP is important work, and I think it is especially so for Labor MPs, as we are the ones who so often represent those who have fallen between the cracks. We get the chance daily to quite literally change people's lives—by fixing their Centrelink issue and helping to lift them out of poverty; by working to connect them with DV services and helping them to escape violence; and by resolving their problems with the NDIS and helping to ease their suffering. So thank you, Adelaide, for trusting me with your issues and concerns and for paying me the greatest compliment imaginable in continuing to re-elect me to serve you in this parliament. I know that the member for Hindmarsh will work diligently to represent you and I absolutely wish him every success in that.
There is a general view that people get more conservative as they age. That has certainly not been the case for me when it comes to my feminist beliefs. One thing that has truly mortified me is the suggestion that my decision to leave this place shows that it is somehow incompatible to be a woman, and particularly a mother, and have a successful career in politics. That is simply not true. There is no job that's more rewarding, more interesting and more stimulating than serving our community as a member of parliament. So I would urge any woman with an interest to do it, because you will never regret it, just as I do not regret a single day that I've spent here.
The truth behind my decision is that I felt that I could leave because we on our side have been so successful in electing talented women. When I was first elected as the youngest woman to ever sit in this House, I was often compared to a previous young member for Adelaide, Andrew Jones. He went out in controversy, suffering a 14 per cent swing against him after just one term. Now, rightly or wrongly, I felt an overwhelming pressure—that it was up to me to prove that you could be young, you could be a young woman, and you could succeed here, and I hoped that by doing so I might make it easier for those who followed. Following the next election, I became a minister, and I had it regularly pointed out to me that I had broken Paul Keating's record for being the youngest ever Australian minister. Again, personally I felt this enormously heavy burden to show that you could be both young and a woman, and effective in your role.
What changed for me was not that I thought I couldn't be a woman, a mother and do my job but actually that the pressure lifted. One day, I looked around me and I saw this great and inspiring army of passionate, talented, hardworking women that we have in our caucus and I knew that I could go. There is no shortage of remarkable Labor women who will fly the flag, achieve amazing things and prove to all that a woman's place is in the parliament—and there are more on their way.
I see in the gallery my smart, talented friend Marielle Smith. Five years ago, Julia Gillard said of Marielle, 'For journalists in the room, please write that name down; you're going to need it. I'm absolutely confident she will be one of the stars in the future.' Well, Marielle is a candidate for the Senate at this year's election, like Anika Wells in Lilley and so many other smart, talented, ambitious women putting their hands up as Labor candidates right around the country.
To those opposite I would say: this doesn't just happen organically. No boys club has ever voluntarily dismantled itself. Over 15 years, I've witnessed the cultural transformation within my side of politics when it comes to women. Two factors have driven that change—most importantly, of course, adopting real structural change to attract and support more women. It's meant that our culture, our caucus and our support has dramatically increased as our female representation has. The other factor is having male leaders who believe in and are committed to gender equality. It means that, after the struggle for so many years, real change has now taken place and is taking place really quickly, and it is amazing to watch.
After the strong leadership that we enjoy from our leader and deputy leader, and after learning the lesson the hard way at the ballot box, I actually credit the increase in women's representation in Labor with helping to create the stability that our side had enjoyed over the last five years. I argue that a party that better resembles Australia itself is always going to be steadier than one dominated by macho men with scores to settle and egos driven by self-promotion. Increasing gender equality in the parliament isn't just the right thing to do; it's the smart thing to do.
Some say that the only thing harder than getting into this parliament is leaving it. There's always more to do. There are more issues. There's more reform. There's more progress. The job of improving Australia is never going to be complete. I've accepted this, though, because I have such faith in the Labor team around me to keep fighting the good fight, although I do remain burdened by one unfinished act. I feel deeply that the job of early childhood education reform was meant to be my purpose here, and it is unfinished business. I'm really proud of my work in establishing and entrenching the national quality framework, despite the challenges of getting all states and territories, from all different political persuasions, to agree and commit. I'm proud that universal access to kindergarten for four-year-olds is now established and recognised as critically important. I was proud to lead the debate on the need to extend this to every Australian three-year-old, and I was so delighted by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Kingston's announcement that Labor will do just that.
But there remains much to do. I have publicly argued that our early childhood system is fundamentally broken. It should be universal, quality and as simple to navigate as our school system. It's shameful that the government has taken the backward step of linking children's support and early education to their parents' activities rather than as a fundamental universal right. It was deeply disappointing that many of those charged with being the key advocates for children sought to compromise with the government rather than staunchly oppose the decreasing of many children's access. It is unjustifiable that we have seen an increase in services focused on boosting profits ahead of best meeting children's needs.
I absolutely know that the member for Kingston will do a fabulous job of progressing these causes. I would say to the whole parliament, though: children are not currently at the centre of our decision-making and policy debates. If we are to pursue the best outcomes for this nation's future, this must change. We must recognise the power of the first 1,000 days to determine a child's future. We should recognise that we have no greater responsibility here than to protect and promote our youth. The lack of attention to the recent spate of Indigenous youth suicides is a clear demonstration that we are not achieving this end.
In fact, at the risk of having the member for Lilley roll his eyes behind me, I might take this opportunity to have one last go at a losing battle I have now been arguing for 10 years now. If this parliament is to truly get best results in social policy, you must find a new budget rule that counts second-round effects when they are clearly immediate and measurable. Without this our efforts in employment, Indigenous advancement and education will all be held back.
I spoke in my first speech of my passion for the Murray River and the fight to save it. It's fair to ask just how much progress we've made since then, given the latest damning report of the South Australian royal commission. I will make one final plea: as is the case with climate change, this parliament must be guided by science. We must put politics and special interest aside. We must overcome the corruption and mismanagement and let science dictate the path to a permanent and healthy river system. Our job here is represent our communities, but on some issues our job absolutely has to be to lead our communities too.
I'm not going to detail a list of accomplishments here; it feels ridiculous to do so. I do want to say that some of the things I'm most proud of are those that have not received any fanfare. Some of those things are important: making the hard decisions to redirect funding towards infrastructure and support for some of the most vulnerable Indigenous children in budget based funded services; pushing through to ensure after over 20 years only the best providers were serving jobseekers with a disability; having a chance to build on the amazing work of the member for Sydney in finalising and launching the first ever National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children; and insisting on increased resources and promotion for women's sport. These are all things I'm proud of.
That is enough about me; now I'm going to move to the thank yous and talk about some of you. The saying goes that the worst day in government is better than best day in opposition. Sadly, I suspect, for many people on both sides of the chamber this hasn't always been true in the last 10 years. It wasn't for me. Disunity and division are no fun to work in at all. Of course the best days of government cannot be topped, but my favourite term in this parliament was immediately following the 2013 election defeat, funnily enough. This is in no small part due to the Leader of the Opposition restoring unity and allowing shadow ministers the space and the trust to delve deep into policy development, to be big and bold when it came to the best options for Australia's future and to make the case and win our arguments. I thank Bill for this. I thank him even more for the understanding, flexibility and support he has personally given me. I can't wait to watch him become a great Labor Prime Minister. I also want to thank Prime Minister Julia Gillard for both her support and the inspiration she continues to provide.
I want to note that getting the chance to work with and to learn the art of policy development from the member for Jagajaga has been one of the greatest privileges I've enjoyed here. I wish her every success with her future. I want to particularly thank the member for Watson and the deputy leader, the member for Sydney, for their friendship over so many years. More than anyone, it is you who have showed me that true friendships can exist and survive in this building. I note the member for Corio and Port Adelaide and thank you them for the good times sitting through question time.
To the Chief Opposition Whip, Chris Hayes: I don't know how to say this other than to say that you're pretty much a god in my eyes! It's not just rule changes that help parents juggle work and family in this place, it's attitudes and it's understanding. Chris, you have been an amazing support, and I thank you and your staff wholeheartedly.
I've previously spoken at great length, saying nice things about Senator Don Farrell when I spoke in response to what turned out to be his premature valedictory speech so I won't repeat all of those on the Hansard today, except to say that I have never forgotten that I would not be here without him and I'm so grateful for his support. Thank you, Don. Thank you also, of course, to my South Australian colleagues, particularly the members for Kingston and Wakefield. I should note that my neighbour here, the member for Macarthur, thought he'd finished being a paediatrician when he got elected to this parliament, and then he meet me and my children! I thank him for that.
I'm also indebted to those colleagues, past and present, who fought so long and hard to get a childcare centre here. I wouldn't have been able to do this job for so long without it. I want to thank Melita, Caitlin and the remarkable team of educators, who work for Communities@Work at that centre, for the fantastic job that they do providing quality care to our children.
I wouldn't have been able to serve my community without the most remarkable team of staff imaginable. I wanted staff members, but, actually, I got some lifelong friends. We're organising a catch-up of Team Ellis past and present, where I intend to spend a great amount of time outlining to each and every one of them how much I love them and why. But, in the meantime, I thank and acknowledge my current staff—Tara, Michael, Mikaela and Joe—who I know are watching from Adelaide today. You are amazing and I thank you.
I also need to specifically mention a few whom I can never adequately repay. To Amy Ware: you were the first person I hired upon my election and you have been on this whole crazy ride with me. Not only are you exceptional at your job but you are just a joy to be around. Thank you for everything, and I'm so glad you'll be with me right till the end. To my government chief of staff, Shannon Rees: I asked for a chief of staff and, in you, I got a first-class one, but I also gained a sister for life. I saw firsthand some of the unfair and sexist treatment that female staff can receive in this building in some of the ridiculous things that you had to endure, but I still marvel at your strength, your grace and your professionalism in dealing with it all. As two youngish women in this building, we overcame some absurd obstacles together. Your amazing work meant that we also got to do some great things, not least of which was delivering the greatest increase in funding to Australian sport in the nation's history—as we told each other regularly.
To Tim Watts, my chief of staff in opposition: you are one of the smartest, kindest and hardest-working people not just that I imagine I will ever meet but that I suspect exists on the planet. You're an asset both to our party and to all of those who are lucky enough to call you a friend, and I'm so grateful that I can. And to Suzanne Kellett: I cannot even begin to thank you for all that you do to go above and beyond. I remember clearly the day I'd been called into a division just after collecting my boys from child care when I received a text from you asking if Charlie had some spare pants because he'd had a nappy explosion' and that you'd cleaned him up but he was never going to be able to wear those pants again. I remember, I just thought to myself, 'My God, that is not what anybody meant when the job description says 'and other duties as described by the member!. You have gone above and beyond anything I would ever dream of asking or expecting from you, and I don't know how I'll ever repay you for the support that you've offered me. Thank you for doing your job and keeping our office running, and thank you for not just tolerating but for loving my children. We would be lost without their beloved 'Zoozann'.
There is also a team of superstars that I've been blessed to work with who are off changing the world in their own name: Jamila Rizvi, Joanne Cleary, Chris Steel, Vicky Darling, Marielle, Vicky, Claire, Wilko, Skye and so many others. Thank you to you all.
Now we're getting to the bit that I thought would actually make my cry. I don't know what's going to happen here! I want to say thank you to my family. To my dear mum, Ros, and my protective big brother, Matt: I know that you have felt every criticism and every attack that's been directed at me over the last 15 years more than I ever have. You've lived this journey with me, and I thank you for your love and support. I should particularly note that Mum and my step father, Barry, who's currently in hospital and can't be with us today, basically moved to Canberra for a year when Sam was born so that they could help me juggle parliament and motherhood, and I am so very grateful for that.
To my mother and father-in-law, Lloyd and Carolyn Penberthy: without your help and support our family simply wouldn't work. With me in Canberra and Dave working breakfast radio, Soph and Jim would have been on their own from 5 am each morning and without a lift to school if Lloyd and Carolyn hadn't have taken them in overnight, done the school runs and stepped in to save us each and every sitting week. I can't thank them enough for that and for all that they do to support us and our family. Lloyd, it's also really nice to have at least one Penberthy man whose political persuasions I can be confident of and support!
To my amazing stepchildren, Sophie and James: I know that my work has caused you disruption, and you have never once complained about it. I thank you for your flexibility and tolerance. I tell you often about what a great big brother and big sister you are to the boys. I probably don't tell you enough that you're the best stepchildren anyone could ever hope for, and I love you both to bits.
To my husband, David Penberthy—I used your full name, Dave, because, although it's been mentioned in Hansard several times before, this will be the first time it's in a positive sense and I want to make sure it comes up in searches! Dave, some may suspect that you haven't done too many favours for the Labor Party, but I'm about to outline one that you have done and that I've never told you. There has been no time that I have been more confident in my work, more focussed or grounded than once I'd found you. Your love and support made me a better MP as well as a better person, so you've helped us. Thank you. We've never known life together without me doing this job, but one of the things that I am most excited about is our next chapter together. If you can put up with me being around a bit more often then I cannot wait for the extra adventures we'll have together and the flexibility to explore the world more often together. I love you.
Now, to my beautiful Sam and my adorable Charlie: I am a fretful mother. I worry about absolutely everything when it comes to the health and happiness of my children. Recently, I've been worried that you two might grow up and read about my decision to leave parliament and feel bad that I decided to leave a job that I love for you, so I need to make one thing very clear: I'm leaving a job that I love for me. I'm leaving because what you've given me is something that I love more than this excellent job, because there is nothing in the world that I want more than to be present and active in guiding you and supporting you and being with you as you grow into the amazing men that I know you'll be. There's nothing more rewarding, more entertaining, more important to me than being there for you two crazy, clever, kind and funny little people. So, as our song goes, Sam, you and Charlie are the sunshine of my life. I've set myself a really big challenge—to have a bigger positive impact on the lives of my children by being with them more than I could being here fighting for a better, fairer and more forward-looking nation. I don't know if that's a challenge that I can meet, but it's one that I look forward to working hard to achieve each and every day.
So, with all of that, that's it from me. I'll finish by simply saying thank you and goodbye.
RESOLUTIONS OF THE SENATE
Disability Services
Consideration of Senate Message
The SPEAKER (15:38): I have received a message from the Senate transmitting a resolution relating to a proposed royal commission to inquire into violence, abuse and neglect of people with a disability, and requesting the concurrence of the House in the resolution. I do not propose to read the message to the House. Copies have been placed on the table. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:39): I move:
That the message be considered immediately.
Question agreed to.
Mr MORRISON: I move:
That the resolution of Senate be agreed to.
I take the issue of abuse and neglect of people with disability very seriously and so does the government I lead. We take it seriously because abuse and neglect of our most vulnerable is abhorrent. As we've seen in other areas, institutions we expect to provide care and support have often failed in providing that care. In the past, all too often we thought abuse or neglect in institutions were isolated occurrences; instead, we discovered it was systemic failure, as we noted last year in relation to the National Apology.
So we must be vigilant in ensuring the standards of care for people with disabilities are at their absolute highest. That is why our government are undertaking substantial reform to improve the treatment of people with disability. We have established a royal commission into abuse and neglect in aged-care facilities, including young people with disabilities in aged-care facilities. We were able to establish this quickly as the Commonwealth has responsibility for the funding and legislation of aged care. As well, there have been a number of inquiries looking into abuse and neglect of people with disability at both federal and state levels. These inquiries have identified many issues relevant to the disability sector and have been incorporated into the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework.
As members know, the focus of the government has been on rolling out the National Disability Insurance Scheme as well as establishing a new national quality and safeguard system to support people with disability. As part of that, the government has established new, significant and comprehensive safeguards to prevent abuse and neglect of people with disability under the NDIS. The Commonwealth provided $209 million to establish the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to regulate the delivery of services under the NDIS and to protect the rights of people with a disability. The NDIS Commission has a number of critical functions, including registering providers, handling complaints and reportable incidents, enforcing a code of conduct for NDIS providers and workers, and national policy settings for consistent worker screening. It also has strong investigation and regulatory powers and can take tough, appropriate action including deregistration, banning orders and civil penalties. The NDIS Commission has extensive powers over both registered and unregistered providers. The NDIS and the associated quality and safeguarding arrangements are still in the process of being rolled out across Australia The NDIS Commission commenced operations in New South Wales and South Australia on 1 July 2018 and will commence in the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria on 1 July 2019 and in Western Australia on 1 July 2020. This means the Commonwealth currently has very limited jurisdiction in regulation of disability services.
On Friday, I received correspondence from Senator Steele-John, which contained a draft terms of reference for the proposed royal commission into disability services. I thank him for doing so and I appreciate the very concrete and very detailed suggestions that he has been able to provide to us on this issue. They, of course, will be of assistance as we consider now this motion and move forward on this matter. I note his terms of reference seek to look into the experiences—rightly, I should stress—of people directly or indirectly affected in institutional, residential and other contexts.
As the Attorney-General noted on the weekend, a royal commission looking into past issues, backwards, into disability care is essentially then a royal commission that would look into state facilities and, at the very least, require consultation and agreement with the states and likely letters patent from the states. We understand this to be true. This should not be a royal commission that only looks at the narrow area of responsibility that has only become part of the Commonwealth's responsibility in recent times. The issues that are relevant here go back over some period of time, certainly back a decade. They principally involve the conduct of state and territory governments in the delivery of disability services, and they should, obviously, be considered in any royal commission held into this area.
I do note though, as I did in question time today, that the establishment of a royal commission was previously discussed through the Council of Australian Governments and the COAG Disability Reform Council and, at that time, states and territories did not indicate support for a royal commission. So these are hurdles that would have to be addressed. I want to keep all Australians safe and to use whatever powers we have to do so. But this work often requires us to work in partnership with the states and territories, and that's what we will have to address ourselves to going forward. Violence, abuse and neglect of people with disability outside service settings, such as at home or in the community, is mostly covered under state and territory law, so working with the states and territories in this area, looking at matters in the past as well as looking forward, will be absolutely essential. I will be seeking further advice from all states and territories to discuss this important matter of establishing a royal commission, as well as consulting directly and extensively with stakeholders about what the precise terms of reference might be and what other royal commissions, in particular the aged-care royal commission, might be able to offer as a way to address these issues.
These are the options before the government. As the House knows, calling a royal commission is a matter for the executive government. The Senate has put forward a motion and it won't be opposed by the government. It will be supported by the government. But it will be the government that then will take that matter into consideration and work through all the necessary issues to be able to do something positively in this area and to act on these issues. That's exactly what we'll do. We have no interest in making any partisanship of this issue. One of the reasons I decided to establish the royal commission into aged care is that I believed the royal commission into aged care would provide a fact base, a new platform, to support a further decade of bipartisanship on action on aged care, because I was concerned that that bipartisanship was waning. I sincerely hope that that is not the case in relation to disability care and to be able to go forward with this issue. That is the good faith in which I will engage with the issue and seek to lead the issue forward.
I will report back to the House when we have further advice on these matters and make announcements as and when the government is in a position to do so. With that, I move:
That the resolution of the Senate be agreed to.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:46): I congratulate the Prime Minister on what he said then in terms of supporting a royal commission. First of all I'd like to acknowledge the presence of so many disability advocates in the gallery. You are most welcome. Many of you have waited seven or 10 years—indeed, some of you all your life—for this discussion, so I understand that today is a good day for you and I acknowledge that but for you we wouldn't be having this discussion here today. I acknowledge our guest from the Senate, too. I congratulate you on your advocacy as well, Senator Steele-John.
The problem of disability and the way we let people suffer abuse, neglect and violence is not a new problem. When I was Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services I thought I'd seen disadvantage in Australia's workplaces, but nothing prepared me for what I encountered with the second-class existence that people with disabilities and their carers among us in this country were all too often having. There is no doubt in my mind that there have been plenty of reports into how we prevent the abuse and neglect of people with disability, but I was persuaded by the report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee that was released in November 2015. Its first recommendation—so we've now known this for over three years—was:
The committee recommends that a Royal Commission into violence, abuse and neglect of people with disability be called, with terms of reference to be determined in consultation with people with disability, their families and supporters, and disability organisations.
The abuse and mistreatment of people with disability is Australia's hidden shame. We have been on notice about the issues for a very long time. I am pleased that by May 2017 Labor had joined the call, which others had been calling for, for a royal commission and I'm pleased now that the parliament's voting this way. The reason I'm pleased is that we need to address the core reason that people with disability suffer disproportionate abuse, neglect and violence. It's because, as a nation, despite progress we might have made on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and other things, we still devalue people with disability. We must recognise that one of the fault lines in this country about the way we treat people with disability is not that we're ungenerous to family members, not that we're ungenerous generally to people doing it hard, but that for some Australians the thought of people with disability is deeply uncomfortable because they're unfamiliar. They devalue people with disability; they don't understand the lives that people with disability have. I believe that this royal commission must address that problem. I believe that, with the way we talk about royal commission and people with disability, it can't be talking about people with disability; it must be talking to people with disability.
I think we have to recognise that all too often, for perhaps the best of reasons, this country has dehumanised people with disability. We take away their legal capacity to make decisions. We use the prism of protection. We infantilise people with disability. We use benign language and a benign approach quite often, and we seek to control them. But the problem with that approach—if we don't treat people with disability as true equals and if we let their impairment define their whole persona and their whole identity—is that once we start engaging in that attitude of control then we create the ability for malicious control to occur, where people can exert untoward and inappropriate control over people's lives. Once we have a debate where we don't acknowledge the legal capacity of people with disability or their legal identity, then we make decisions about their life. We make decisions where they live. We make decisions who they live with. We make decision about what they can eat, about what they can see and about control of their bodies. None of this is easy or comfortable.
What I also understood, from the time when I was Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services, is that in amongst Australia, the lucky country, every night there are literally tens of thousands—indeed, hundreds of thousands—of parents of adults living with a disability. These parents are in their 70s, 80s and 90s, and they wonder who on earth will protect them, look after them, respect them and love them when they no longer can—this midnight anxiety. The National Disability Insurance Scheme was an endeavour to provide greater control to redefine people with disabilities from charity to consumers and to give families economic power in the relationship they have with the system. But we know that abuse going on. If we can't tell you exactly where and when, unfortunately, we can be absolutely certain that it is going on right now. It can be done in the best of interests or it can just be straight-out malice and violence.
Therefore, we need to have this royal commission. It needs to be broad. It needs to go to education, it needs to go to health and it needs to go to rehabilitation. We need to look at the situation of Indigenous people living with disability in our country. It needs to go to the ability to access services in remote, provincial and regional Australia. Not only does it need to go to the way that institutions interact with people with disability but it needs to also just go to the way people with disability are treated in our community generally.
This is a very politically contested time in Australia's politics, as we end the 45th Parliament. There was debate last week about what was the right thing to do and what was the wrong thing to do. I'm unequivocal that what we're doing today is the right thing to do. Of course, only the executive can implement a royal commission. We understand that. What I would just say to the government is that this is a good step forward. But what we also need to do is provide a time line. Yes, the states and territories need to provide their cooperation. But it wouldn't be the first time that a state or territory said no to a Commonwealth government and the Commonwealth steamed ahead. I accept that if there needs to be some discussion, that's good. But I really think we're capable of allocating a budget or working out how much it costs. We have allocated, if we form a government, $26 million. But if the government has a different view about a higher quantum, we obviously are not going to quibble with that.
What we also have made clear is that people with disability need to be at the centre of the drawing up of the terms of reference. We get that. That's one reason why—whilst Labor did put out principles, and we did two years ago—we want to hear the voices of the voiceless in this debate. This afternoon's resolution is a good resolution. I'm really pleased. I have a particular passion and interest in terms of disability and for what people with disability have taught me. In some ways, this is us giving back. This proposition has been on the books for too long. I am very pleased that we are doing it, but I do so on the basis that we recognise that this isn't just about examining a particular institution; we need people to go through their historical experiences. People who have never been heard deserve that chance to tell their story.
Fundamentally, I and Labor are voting for this royal commission because it's the right thing to do and because the evidence says it's the right thing to do. It has been our stated policy for the best part of two years to do this. But, even beyond all of that, we must redefine Australia's relationship with Australians who live with disability. We've got to revalue and re-evaluate our relationship. We've got to recognise that, whilst we are a nation that devalues people with disability, we will never get to the root cause of violence and the prevention of violence, abuse and neglect. But this is a very good moment and I'm very pleased to support it.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (15:55): I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their words and for their support of this motion. Five years ago, on 24 November 2014, a Four Corners investigation revealed widespread and shocking violence, abuse and neglect experienced by disabled people in the spaces where they live, where they work, where they learn and where they receive services, often by the very people charged with their support. And these were not isolated incidents but just the tip of the iceberg of abuse, enforced silence and institutional cover-up. These revelations were a shock to the Australian community, though, sadly, not to the many disabled people themselves, for whom this had been a long-lived daily reality. What many members of the community of people with disabilities have told me, though, is that they felt that in the parliament the reaction followed a well-worn script of regret. Ministers, service providers and others expressed shock, empathy and a desire to get to the bottom of issues, but there was one sentiment that was notably absent, and that was a commitment to action.
My colleague Rachel Siewert immediately moved to establish and subsequently chaired a Senate inquiry that uncovered the horrific depth and breadth of the abuses that were being experienced daily around the country as well as the culture of cover-up that accompanied that. Heard at the hearings were stories of crimes of the most horrific nature: of beatings, sexual abuse, starvation, unauthorised restrictions, forced sterilisations and even neglect resulting in death. In Western Australia there was a case of a woman who was raped over 100 times in an institution. In 2015, realising that it had only been able to scratch the surface, the Senate inquiry handed down a comprehensive report which included 29 recommendations, the first of which was a call for the government to immediately establish a royal commission. At the time, that's what the Greens called for, and the responses were, sadly, to do nothing. I think it's now been recognised that, so long as we continue to do nothing under the guise of NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, which only covers a small proportion of people who have disabilities in our country, we will only just scrape the surface.
In March 2017, Four Corners yet again exposed what is happening to the disabled people behind the closed doors of Australia's disability institutions, particularly detailing the ways in which disability support workers were moved around within service organisations rather than being reported to the police, not unlike the practices of the Catholic Church, which were revealed in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. We raised it again in the Senate, and it gives me great pleasure to know that, unlike previous times, this time it is falling on welcome ears in this place.
In December 2017—and this can be an undeniable catalyst to this point that we are reaching today—in one of his first acts as a senator, Senator Jordon Steele-John called on the Senate to voice its support again, and this time the others began to listen. I want to commend Senator Steele-John for his tireless advocacy on this issue—particularly the moving speech that he gave last year, naming just some of those disabled people who have died at the hands of this broken system. Jordon shepherded the motion through the Senate, and I want to pay tribute and commend him. But I also want to note that it shouldn't be the responsibility of the only disabled person in this place to fight for this.
I want to thank the Prime Minister for standing up today and now agreeing on the need to call a royal commission. But what we need now is action. People have been waiting for a very, very long time. I outlined the history not to make political points but to say that people are feeling frustrated and angry and today a slight bit happy, but it comes against a backdrop of hearing promises after promises and not seeing action. What we need immediately is a time line, a time line for the implementation of this royal commission, and we need to see it immediately.
Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard did a great thing when she called the royal commission. She did it in the face of opposition, and she did it in an instance where it had impacts on what was happening in state governments and state government institutions, but she went ahead and did it anyway. When there were the shocking exposes about what is happening within aged care, the Prime Minister called the royal commission immediately. We can do that this time as well. Yes, there may be issues to be worked through with the states and there may be technical issues to be worked out, but it is a moral imperative that we have a time line and action right now. The suffering of people with disabilities in this country demands it.
I want to thank the members of the wide and varied community of people with disabilities for everything they have done to bring this to national attention. I want to thank people for coming here today. Even in coming here today, we were reminded of how, in many, many ways, this suffering is experienced on a daily basis. I was talking to people who wanted to make a last-minute trip to come here because this important vote was coming up, only to find that the chairs that they need weren't able to be fitted on the plane to get them here in time. This is something where, when we hear it, we are shocked to think that someone couldn't freely move from one place to another for such an important political event, but this is the tip of the iceberg and something that is happening on a daily basis.
What also became apparent from talking to members of the disability community is that, despite their breadth and despite how varied their lives are—as varied as everyone in this country—one of the common feelings that shines through is that feeling of being ignored, that feeling of being overlooked and that feeling of being talked about but not talked to. And I want to say to everyone who has made the trip here today, everyone who has fought for years, and everyone who has suffered abuse and may have suffered it in silence: no longer will you be able to be looked over in the streets or in your parliament. Whether it's in care homes or in your own homes, you are now at the start of being treated with the respect that you deserve. This parliament now has your back.
I say to the community of people with disabilities in Australia: yes, you have every right to feel frustrated with us and the lack of action and you have every right to call us to account, but today you should also be a little bit proud because you are setting the national agenda. This is happening because of you—because you have refused to back down, you have refused to allow abuse to take place in silence and you have refused to take no for an answer, and today belongs to you. I am very proud to have played some small part in helping make this happen. I am very proud to be part of a party that has such wonderful people in it like Senator Siewert and Senator Steele-John, who have fought for years and years and years. And I want to say to everyone who is listening and everyone who has come here: the Greens are with you in this fight, this parliament is with you in this fight, and we will not relent until justice is done.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (16:03): We need a royal commission not to hear the voices of people in this chamber but to hear the voices of the people who are sitting in the galleries and the many thousands like them. We need a royal commission to hear the voices of people with disabilities, and their families, carers and advocates. To the people here in the chamber today, I say: welcome to you all.
On Saturday just gone, the Leader of the Opposition and I met with people with a disability and their families, who told us yet again why a royal commission is needed. There was Paula and Peter Curotte, who told us how their son Alexander was smothered under a blanket and as a result has hypoxic brain injury and can no longer walk. We met Mark Modra, who told us that the abuse suffered by his son, Luke, still haunts him years and years later. We met Debra Frith, who told us how her son was locked in a cupboard at school, and, just recently, tied up with rope, and was being denied an education. We met Danny, a remarkable young man, who told us what it was like to be bullied at school, to have things thrown at you and to be called terrible names—and, most heartbreaking of all, for nothing to be done about it.
We need a royal commission to hear these stories. It is essential to healing the past and making much-needed improvements for the future. It is a national shame. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, a royal commission is the 'king of all inquiries', and nothing less will do. A royal commission is necessary because it will provide people with disability, like you, and their families and carers with an opportunity to tell your stories at the highest level, and seek justice. A royal commission becomes part of the national healing process. A royal commission will improve services and supports in the future, including fixing some of the problems with the rollout of the NDIS. It must be a dedicated royal commission. It must be broad ranging, covering education, health, mental health and justice, and it must be able to inquire into historic abuse as well as make recommendations for improvements for the future—and the terms of reference will be worked out with you.
We know that people with disability experience much higher rates of violence than the rest of the community. It is 80 to 90 per cent for women with disability, and it is more than three times more likely for children with disability. But people with disability are often treated as unreliable witnesses, and, too often, perpetrators have been allowed to continue to work with vulnerable people. A royal commission will expose this, and a royal commission can stop this. In 2017, 163 community groups, including St Vincent de Paul, Anglicare and Amnesty International, called on the Liberals to establish this royal commission. I won't go through the history; I think it has been well documented.
In these last few minutes of my contribution, I want to recognise shadow minister Carol Brown, from the other place, who has done remarkable work on this issue over many years. Thank you so much, Carol. I know the community thanks you as well.
I say to people with disability: we believe you, we need to hear your stories, and thank you for making the journey today. Not only do we need to hear your stories; the country needs to hear your stories. You have been brave, you have been powerful and you have led the way for establishing this royal commission. This royal commission must be broad ranging, it must look into historical abuse and it must cover not just institutions but also homes and other places you are, and that's what we are committed to. We are committed to a proper, full, standalone royal commission because this issue, and you, deserve nothing less.
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (16:08): I say to the advocates here with us today: this is a very, very significant day. You and I know how long we've all been talking about the importance of this royal commission. But today is not enough—it's not enough. We actually need the terms of reference finalised. We need the royal commission announced. We need to get it started. Today is a good start, but it is not enough.
I think, as all of us who have lived through the experience of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse know, a royal commission is a place where the truth can be told but also where justice can be found. People with disability who have been abused need to find that place where they can tell their stories, where they will be believed and, also, where justice can be found. That is so important for people with disability.
It is also the case that a royal commission will be the guiding light for the future. We want to see a royal commission that will outline how people with disability can live, work and be educated in places that will be safe. Not closed places: not closed places of housing, not closed schools and not closed institutions where what goes on can't be seen. That's why we need a royal commission; to make clear to those who set up the places where people are going to be cared for in the future—the places that people with disability themselves control—that these are open places and that they are places where people can get the support and care that they need and get it in a way that people with disability themselves determine.
We know how important it is that people with disability determine these terms of reference, because without that they won't have the control and the faith in this royal commission that they seek. That is what the government needs to take the most seriously. People with disability themselves must guide this royal commission. That is what we commit to today. That is what we want to see and that is what we will lend our support to. I would say to the government that, of course, we appreciate very much the commitment that has been given today, but, please, hasten with people with disability. Get this royal commission established; it needs to be done for the sake of justice.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Road Safety
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of The Nationals) (16:12): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement relating to road safety.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): Is leave granted?
Mr Albanese: Leave is granted.
Mr McCORMACK: I thank the member for Grayndler, and I note his passion on this issue as well.
Introduction
One hundred and nineteen. That is the number of road deaths in the first month of this year. One hundred and nineteen too many.
Crashes on our roads have a terrible and lasting impact on individuals and their families, as well as on emergency personnel and first responders.
Every one of us here today, each level of government—federal, state, territory and local—and each member of the Australian public plays a role in ensuring the safety of people on our roads.
I've said before, I don't like talking about road deaths in terms of statistics, because it can desensitise us to the personal impact: someone with talents, someone with ambitions and someone with loved ones—who loved and was loved. And who now is gone. Remembered, still loved, but lost. Their hopes and dreams and lives over.
Statistics do, however, provide us with a stark reminder of the scale and importance of the issue and the need to do better. Much better.
Since record keeping began in 1925, there's been an estimated 191,555 deaths on Australia's roads.
That is a shocking number. Imagine the same number of families, sitting down to Christmas lunch since the passing of a loved one, with an empty chair around the table for no good reason. 191,555: the lives and contribution to our communities that has been lost is unthinkable.
As the Australasian College of Road Safety emphasises to me, at least 37,000 people a year require hospitalisation because of serious injuries—more than 100 people a day—with 4,400 permanently disabled.
Regional and remote Australia continues to be overrepresented, with around 64 per cent of the deaths on our roads.
This must change.
Independent Inquiry into Road Safety
In 2017, the government initiated an inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020.
This strategy set out the vision that "no person should be killed or seriously injured on Australia's roads" and set the goal for a reduction of at least 30 per cent by 2020 (relative to a 2008-10 baseline).
With around only a 15 per cent reduction at the time, this inquiry was an appropriate call to action by the member for Gippsland and then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.
Last November I wrote to all members and senators informing them that this inquiry had been handed down.
I would like to again acknowledge and thank the inquiry team, Associate Professor Jeremy Woolley, Dr John Crozier, Mr Lauchlan McIntosh AM, and Mr Rob McInerney—and all the stakeholders who contributed—for the tireless work on the inquiry report and for the ongoing passion they bring to addressing road safety.
As has been put to me by stakeholders I have met, a vision for zero might sound ambitious, but in aviation, mining and construction this is no longer a goal but an expectation. And these stakeholders are in no doubt that it is not just the goal that is important, it is implementing what has to be done to get there.
Government's response to the i nquiry
The panel's report has 12 recommendations to improve road safety leadership, governance, resourcing and accountability. It sets out a framework for the development of the next National Road Safety Strategy and proposes actions that can be taken now to make an immediate difference.
As the cabinet minister with responsibility for road safety, I take this responsibility very seriously and am very pleased to advise the House important work is already under way.
One of the first actions I have taken is to initiate a road safety governance review, with the support of all governments.
The governance review is an essential step—a step recommended by the independent panel—for all governments to consider improvements to road safety roles and responsibilities and the way road safety agencies are structured and resourced.
This governance review is about doing the groundwork, so resources are directed to where they make the most difference. It is about finding ways of improving coordination across and within the federal, state, territory and local systems of government, looking for gaps in effort, and developing a performance measurement system which drives improvement.
The governance review will help identify how to implement many of the inquiry recommendations. And it will help the Australian government answer questions about how to make road safety a genuine part of "business as usual" within its institutions—such as what a federal office of road safety should look like, whether to increase the scope of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and how to better coordinate across the portfolios of transport, health, attorneys-general and others.
Leadership at all levels of government
Through our partnerships with all levels of government, the Australian government is pushing hard to improve our roads, making sure vehicles continue to become safer, encouraging people to make better decisions when they are on our road network and improving the way we collect, disseminate and utilise data to support better decision-making.
I took the inquiry report to my state and territory ministerial counterparts at the first opportunity. This is critical as it is only through a commitment from all levels of government that real progress will be made.
At this Council of Australian Governments' Transport and Infrastructure Council meeting in November last year it was agreed a working group will develop an implementation plan for the inquiry recommendations. This implementation plan is to be considered by the council at its next meeting in the middle of this year.
Better data and information
Governments know good information leads to better policy and management decisions. That includes monitoring what is happening on our roads as well as recording both road deaths and road trauma.
This last point is particularly vital because to date we have lacked reliable, nationally consistent, non-fatal injury data collected by jurisdictions linking crash, hospital and injury. This point was also highlighted through the inquiry.
The government is working with state and territory governments to improve the way crash data is collected and reported.
In 2019-20 we will have—for the first time—a national baseline to measure progress against the agreed target of a 30 per cent decrease in serious injury on our roads.
Also, as recommended by the inquiry, the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics has made available a data visualisation tool showing which communities have achieved zero road fatalities.
A key output of the governance review will be to identify the key performance indicators that will measure and report how harm can be eliminated, to frame the development of the next National Road Safety Strategy.
Safe r oads
The independent panel recommended greater investment in road safety improvements to our roads and made practical suggestions about ensuring spending is targeted toward the highest risk roads and corridors.
The member for Grayndler and I may find opportunities to argue on the margins, but what we do agree on is the importance of transport infrastructure investment and the need for road safety to be a focus. I appreciate his efforts in that regard.
Late last year we met to discuss, amongst other things, the South Coast section of the Princes Highway and agreed on a bipartisan approach to improve that stretch of dangerous road. I very much appreciate the bipartisanship and the reaching across the aisle that took place.
Likewise, the government continues to fund programs such as Black Spot, Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity, Roads to Recovery and Bridges Renewal, to ensure they are addressing road safety priority areas.
But the government expects road safety to be embedded in all our road transport investments. Much of our 10-year, record $75 billion infrastructure plan is delivered in partnership with the states and territories and we'll be doing more to ensure road safety remains a core objective of the next National Partnership Agreement due to commence from 1 July this year. We'll also be working with Infrastructure Australia to ensure road safety is a key factor in its business case assessments.
Our goal through this plan is to get people home sooner and safer. We are also seeing the dividend from this approach. Further to our commitment to improve and invest in the Bruce Highway upgrades since 2013-14, there has been a 31 per cent reduction in crashes and a 32 per cent reduction in fatalities.
In fact, analysis undertaken by the government's Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics has shown that previous investment by the government in more than 70 major projects has reduced by 1,800 the number of accidents due to safer driving conditions through upgrades road surfaces, targeted lane widening, additional overtaking lanes and improved signage and intersections.
The government will be doing much more to better identify the outcomes from our road investments and also to identify what factors are having the most success in reducing road safety incidents.
The government is looking at how it can work with other levels of government to support greater road safety and maintenance works on regional roads, and a Roads to Recovery Statement of Expectations has already been released to give this effect.
This government will continue to examine its road safety programs to ensure they are targeting the right projects and will work with jurisdictions to ensure this is informed by the most up-to-date data.
Safe Vehicles
As we work to make our roads safer, we also need to ensure the vehicles that travel on them are safer for their occupants and for other road users.
Targeted changes in the Australian Design Rules have already resulted in a significant reduction in injuries and fatalities—basic things such as the introduction of seatbelts, child restraints and electronic stability control in light vehicles have all made a big difference in reducing road deaths and injuries in Australia.
The changes to the Australian Design Rules under the 2015-2017 National Road Safety Action Plan for pole-side impact, electronic stability control for heavy vehicles and anti-lock brake systems for motorcycles alone will save more than 850 lives with net benefits of over $2.2 billion to the community over 15 years as a result of those changes.
Manufacturers are also making big advancements in vehicle safety, and people are choosing to buy safer cars.
The Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) has reported that of the top 100 selling vehicles available at March 2018, 37 models, representing 31 per cent of the market, offered autonomous emergency braking as standard. This represents a tenfold increase from 2015.
Safer cars can and will continue to be a key factor in the safety of drivers and their passengers.
Last year the government announced a further $6.6 million for ANCAP for another five years to assist it to continue to play its important role in testing and assessing new cars, supporting people to make informed decisions about the safety of the cars they buy and general advocacy about safety on Australian roads.
Safe People
Governments are also encouraging people to make better decisions about their behaviour on our roads.
There has been progress over the years—our roads, vehicles and road users are becoming safer. Today, we take seat belts, airbags, lower speed limits, behavioural programs targeting drink driving and so much more for granted. Complacency however, remains a huge challenge. Recent reports show human error contributes to more than 90 per cent of all road accidents. So the search for effective new ways to deal with human error must be accelerated.
Australia is now the world leader in drug driving enforcement and deterrence, and with around 400,000 tests annually, it is the largest roadside drug screening and testing program in the world.
We will continue to try to do more. A National Drug Driving Working Group—with police, government, road authorities and key policy makers—is developing a national best practice model of roadside drug testing.
Drug driving requires a strong response from governments if it is to save lives on Australian roads.
Of great and increasing concern is driver distraction, particularly the use of mobile telephones while driving.
A national survey of community attitudes to road safety conducted in 2017 found 64 per cent of people used a phone while driving—one in five admitted they used their phone for activities such as browsing the internet, texting, taking photographs and other applications. That's a staggering number of road users who are driving distracted each and every day, and it must stop.
If you take your eyes off the road for as little as two seconds to look at your phone, at 50km/h, which is the general speed limit in a built-up area, your vehicle travels 27.78m. That's a lot of time to miss a small child running onto the road after a ball or a pet, a lot of time not to see a pensioner on a walker take a step too far between parked cars, and a lot of time to miss people using a pedestrian crossing.
As part of the National Road Safety Action Plan 2018-2020, the Queensland government's been leading a national project to develop a national approach to reduce driver distraction. I commend them for it.
In addition, the National Transport Commission's been progressing some important work on the Australian road rules as they relate to driver distraction.
I commend the New South Wales government as well, for increasing the penalty for illegally using mobile phones to five demerit points. The penalty was increased from four to five demerit points on 17 September 2018. During double-demerit periods, drivers who break the rules will be penalised ten demerit points. That's most of your licence.
I intend to do more with my state and territory counterparts on education campaigns, better understanding behavioural influences to inform enforcement and deterrence and what technological responses might be available.
In support of this, I've recently written to leading telecommunications and information technology companies seeking their advice and cooperation on what more can be done.
Improved transport systems and automated vehicles.
The government is working with industry and state and territory governments through the COAG Transport and Infrastructure Council to develop a fit-for-purpose regulatory system to ensure we are ready to adopt automated vehicles safely and legally on our roads. The National Policy Framework for Land Transport Technology has been developed, to foster an integrated policy approach by governments across Australia to the development and adoption of emerging transport technology.
Last year, I announced $9.7 million for the establishment of an Office of Future Transport Technologies. This office will work across government, industry and other key entities to ensure Australians can access the benefits of future transport technologies while ensuring they are kept safe as the technologies are developed and deployed. The new office enhances the government's strategic leadership role in developing and implementing future transport technologies in Australia successfully and responsibly.
Partnership with states, territories and local government.
State and territory governments are on the frontline of road safety in delivering the safest possible system—safe roads, safe vehicles, safe people, and safe speeds.
They fund, plan, design and operate the road network, manage vehicle registration, ensure vehicles on the road are roadworthy and maintain our driver licensing systems and regulate and enforce road user behaviour.
At the same time, local governments fund, plan, design and operate the road networks in their local areas. We recognise this is a mammoth task. As the Australian Local Government Association has reported, local roads managed by local governments account for 75 per cent of the total road length in Australia, or 662,000 kilometres.
So maintaining cooperation and partnership across all levels of government is essential, including through the COAG Transport and Infrastructure Council.
And in recognition of the need for coordination across all aspects of the road safety policy challenge, I've written to the chair of the COAG Health Council, the Hon. Roger Cook MLA, to action a decision of transport ministers to refer the inquiry report for consideration.
The government's work together with state and territory governments, police industry associations and community groups underscores the joint commitment to all Australians being able to use our roads safely.
I intend to pursue more regular meetings of relevant ministers, including road safety, law enforcement, health and education together with road safety stakeholders to ensure our goals are achieved.
International partnerships
I've spoken about drug driving as an area where Australia is a world leader.
As a nation with a strong record of achievement in improving road safety, Australia has the capacity and the responsibility to assist other nations in reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on their roads.
Australia will also need to learn from others around the world. Our international partnerships will be critical in carrying us forward to the vision zero targets.
Involvement of members and senators
I also commend the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety Group, co-chaired by the member for Wide Bay, Llew O'Brien, and Senator Alex Gallacher. This group of committed parliamentarians from all sides of politics is using its influence and network to bring greater awareness of road safety and the need for continued improvements to our approach.
And with the support of the House, I propose a standing committee on road safety be pursued in the next term of parliament, to build on the good work of the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety. This committee will be able to consider reports on progress with meeting reduction targets and implementing road safety initiatives.
In conclusion, road safety is complex, with no simple or easy solutions. My priority, as the minister responsible for road safety, is to lift the Commonwealth's leadership and ensure all governments continue to invest in a safe road safety transport system. I was pleased to stand with the member for Grayndler, the shadow minister for transport and infrastructure, when the inquiry report was delivered by the independent panel. I'm pleased to be with him today to commit to taking forward the inquiry's recommendations, not only because this issue is too important for politicking but because it provides the necessary consistency in policy and time to measure performance and build the evidence to know where to focus and where to make a real difference.
I welcome more discussion about the actions of all levels of government, the private sector and community can make towards a future in which deaths and serious injuries are no longer regarded as the inevitable and acceptable cost of road travel. Road safety is of deep concern to each and every one of us. For me, it is personal. As a former regional journalist, I have covered far too many road accidents and incidents, leaving far too many awful and painful memories of the impact on families as well as emergency services personnel.
No matter where you live, the government wants to help you get home sooner and safer. However, still more than 100 Australians are hospitalised daily and a further 100 die each month due to road cashes. Even though regional Australians make up around only a quarter of the population, they account for more than half of the deaths across the nation. I encourage everyone here to consider what they are doing to make our roads safer, how we work with our electorates, the conversations we have and the actions we can make to get a real and lasting difference. Together we can get to our goal of zero fatalities and injuries each year. I present a copy of my ministerial statement.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:31): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of the opposition to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement regarding the inquiry into the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-20. I begin by acknowledging his personal commitment to improving road safety. He's genuine, not just because he's the transport minister, but it is a long-term commitment, as he said, arising out of his own experience. Of course, it is a fact that there would barely be an Australian who hasn't been touched by trauma on our roads either directly or indirectly, which is why it requires a concerted effort by this parliament and, indeed, all parliaments, local government and the community to do what we can in our own way to make a difference.
The inquiry was called in 2017. Unfortunately, the targets that were established in the National Road Safety Strategy for the decade 2011-20 when I was the minister—and this was the internationally recognised decade of road safety—weren't met. The target for reductions was 30 per cent. Instead, we're on track to receive a 15 per cent reduction. While a 30 per cent reduction was an ambitious target, we should, as the minister said, always aim high. We should, though, review our progress and make changes where necessary. Of course the objective should be zero, but we need to acknowledge the fact that, for a range of reasons, somehow, after year upon year of decline in fatalities on our roads, we had a spike up just over the last few years. There's a range of reasons, many of which were outlined by the minister of why that's the case. The use of mobile phones, no doubt, is having an impact on our roads. I think there's been, to some extent, some complacency. State governments ran effective awareness campaigns and perhaps that has dropped off. There was a view that, somehow, if we just kept doing what we were doing, it would continue to decline. But we need to respond, and that's why I congratulate the government on initiating this inquiry in 2017 and the minister for making sure that not only was that inquiry received from the independent panel but we ensured that this whole parliament engaged as one. That's what we should be doing, because public safety isn't just about defence and our borders; it's about the safety of the travelling public each and every day.
Road safety is, indeed, complex and difficult. Achieving improvements requires investment, perseverance and collaboration. Above all, it requires consistency and bipartisanship across the different levels of government, but we also need to engage the community in this process. Working together doesn't necessarily preclude disagreement. We will disagree on some issues about infrastructure priorities. But we shouldn't think for one second that what that means is that we have differences as to our objectives, because I believe that we do not. It does mean, though, that we should be prepared to discuss things based upon our consideration of the facts, but we should work together with goodwill and a sense of purpose. I'm certainly confident that the Deputy Prime Minister and myself can do that in this place.
The inquiry is a useful contribution to the road safety debate, particularly in the areas of improving data collection and the harmonising of governance between state jurisdictions. One of the things that we did in government was to move to single national transport regulators. We moved from 23 to three. We had a process, as well, of single licensing for heavy vehicles. In the long run, I'd say that state and territory governments need to acknowledge that their parochialism is just that and that it doesn't actually have, in today's world, as much relevance as it might have had in the less mobile world of the early 20th century. We should have single, national licences. We should have common laws so that people understand what the laws are in the different states. We should have common signage. We should do what we can to move to a national system. That's not an infringement on state rights; it is just common sense that will make a positive difference. Again, I would call upon the state and territory ministers to put aside some of the parochialism that I have no doubt that the minister, when he has chaired the ministerial council, has had to deal with, just as I did.
We welcome the report and the 12 recommendations to improve road safety, leadership, governance, resourcing and accountability. We also welcome the fact that in response to the report, the government has commenced a road safety governance review to improve coordination between the various jurisdictions that have an influence on road safety regulation. It's pleasing to hear of progress and continued improvements in data collection on traffic accidents and that we now have a national baseline to measure progress.
The report also outlines progress in the Australian Design Rules, in areas like electronic stability control for heavy vehicles and anti-lock braking systems for motorcycles, which are expected to save 850 lives and deliver net economic benefits that are worth more than $2.2 billion over the next 15 years. Today's vehicles are so much safer than those of decades ago. The behaviour is also so different today. When my son was much younger, it used to always amaze me that when I got in the car and he was in the back with his friends, I'd say, 'Have you got your seatbelts on?' and before I could get the first two words out, they automatically had them on.
That cultural change from when I was his age and people would often drive-around without their seatbelts on, even when seatbelts were in cars, just as a matter of fact, is a major breakthrough, just as airbags and other measures have made such a difference. I'm all for a competitive motor vehicle industry where manufacturers compete to deliver the best and most popular products, but in the 21st century safety has to come before the factors that used to be there in terms of what colour a car was, how much sound made—all those considerations. Safety has to be first. And one of the things is that people are much more conscious now about those issues.
Of course, one of the things that has happened as a direct result is that many of the accidents that would have caused fatalities now just cause serious injury, because people survive. As the Deputy Prime Minister noted in his contribution, 37,000 people are hospitalised each year due to road trauma. That has a terrible impact on the individuals, their families and their friends, but it also is a loss to the national economy. This is an economic issue as well. This is waste of human life and potential, and we need to do much, much better.
There are three things that you can do: infrastructure and better roads, better design and regulations, and personal behaviour. Every report I've seen on road safety—and I've read a lot of them over the years—comes down to those three factors. When it comes to better roads, there have been substantial improvements. I'm very proud of the increased investment that we put into the Pacific Highway and Bruce Highway and the completion of the Hume Highway. I will never forget having a meeting in my office with Wayne Sachs, the chief ambulance officer from Gympie. When I asked for the figures for my department, Cooroy to Curra was by far the most dangerous part of the Bruce Highway. Mr Sachs, an ambo of many years standing, sat in my office and just pleaded for support for the upgrade of the Cooroy to Curra section. He had been to so many fatal accidents. I was very pleased to go to the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, of course, and the then Treasurer, Wayne Swan, who were both very familiar, coming from Nambour, with that section of the highway. We got it done in terms of it beginning and some being completed on our watch. Other parts were completed and were very important. I'm very proud, when I drive up the Pacific Highway, to see the difference that it made.
As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, because we have discussed it, my name Anthony comes from my young cousin, who was killed on the Pacific Highway, just before I was born, at Halfway Creek. Certainly safer roads make an enormous difference. I've always felt a responsibility to leave a legacy when it comes to those issues.
At the end of last year, the Deputy Prime Minister and I had a chat and I think it's the way that parliament should work. We spoke about the Princes Highway. I'd been down the South coast and met with the editors of the newspapers who'd run a campaign—Fix It Now—on Princes Highway. The South Coast Register, the Milton Ulladulla Times, the Shoalhaven & Nowra News, and the Kiama Independent had run an effective campaign advancing the interests of their communities and serving the public interests. One of the things that arose out of that was something that doesn't happen that often. In no context, with no urging from the parliament, we put out a joint statement. There should be more of that across the parliament, in my view. And we've committed to bipartisanship on that issue to see what we can do. Historically, the truth is it's not part of the national highway. Therefore, historically, governments of both persuasions at the national level haven't invested large amounts in the Princes Highway. That's the truth. But there's a clear case for us to do so, and to do so in a bipartisan way.
In recent times there has been an area of disagreement, which is the area of heavy vehicles and safe rates. The safe rates issue was pursued by me as a minister, and it arose out of a bipartisan report of the parliament from an inquiry chaired by the late Paul Neville, the former member for Hinkler—someone who had the respect of everyone in this parliament. He was a very genuine guy and a very committed representative of his electorate. The fact is that when the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was abolished and not replaced by anything—the system was left to the market—it left a gap in road safety. Whilst the market can achieve many things as a signal, one thing that characterises the free market is that it has no conscience. If a truck driver is placed under pressure to drive too long or to bid for work against a competitor and undercut them to get the work, it leads to bad practice, in terms of speeding or the use of drugs in order to stay awake, and it has an impact on our roads. I would like the issue of heavy vehicle safety and safe rates to be progressed in the future and I hope that it can be. I raise this issue in the spirit that it's intended, which I'm sure the Deputy Prime Minister knows. We need to address that issue, because I don't think at the moment we're doing enough in that area.
As the minister said, one thing about regional highways is that regional Australians are overwhelmingly overrepresented when it comes to victims of road trauma. That's why, whoever is in government, we can't have a circumstance whereby we look at the political pendulum to determine road funding. We need to look at where the investment is needed. The Black Spot Program is very effective. The Heavy Vehicle Safety Initiative is very effective. We need to make sure that the people who are delivering the programs actually get the investment done when the investment has been allocated, rather than having underinvestment and underspend in those areas.
We need always to take the opportunity to look to the future, and I congratulate the government on establishing the Office of Future Transport Technologies. It's very important that we look at the impacts that electric vehicles and driverless cars are going to have on road safety. There are a range of other issues that we need to address when it comes to road safety as well. I'm very concerned about the increased number of fatalities and incidents involving cyclists on our roads. There has also been a significant increase in the number of pedestrians who are either killed or injured on our roads. I wonder whether part of that is the impact of mobiles—people just walking out when they're distracted—but certainly it is a very worrying trend indeed.
When it comes to moving forward, I was very pleased that at the ALP national conference, held in Adelaide last December, we committed to the establishment of a national office of road safety. I acknowledge that the minister is looking at that as well and raised it as part of his statement. I think it is very important that there be a dedicated unit within the department to look at best practice research, data collection and what the next 10-year National Road Safety Strategy, to commence in 2021, should look like. Looking at the relationship between the different levels of government, law enforcement, motoring organisations, experts and research bodies—bringing in all the relevant stakeholders—is also very important. For all of us in a country like Australia, with our vast distances and a relatively small population for the size of our continent, roads are going to continue to be important into the future. With road safety, I want to see a return to a decline in road fatalities. I note that, in the last year, there was a reversed upward trend. I pledge, on behalf of Labor, to work with the government and have a bipartisan approach on these issues.
BILLS
Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment.
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Land Scheduling) Bill 2018
First Reading
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 6 (lines 1 to 3), omit paragraph 99G(1) (b), substitute:
(b) on the last day on which a member of the fund held the product during a year of income of the fund, the account balance with the fund for the member that relates to the product is less than $6,000.
(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 13 (line 9), at the end of subsection 68AAB(4), add:
; or (e) a member to whom the dangerous occupation exception applies (see section 68AAF).
(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 14 (line 24), at the end of subsection 68AAC(4), add:
; or (e) a member to whom the dangerous occupation exception applies (see section 68AAF).
(4) Schedule 2, item 1, page 15 (after line 19), after section 68AAE, insert:
68AAF Dangerous occupation exception
(1) The dangerous occupation exception applies to a member of a regulated superannuation fund to, or in respect of, whom a benefit is provided by the fund under a choice product or MySuper product held by the member by taking out or maintaining insurance if, at the time the member begins to hold the product:
(a) the member is employed in a dangerous occupation (prescribed under subsection (4)); and
(b) it is reasonable to expect that some or all of the contributions paid into the product will be paid in respect of that employment; and
(c) an election made by the trustee, or trustees, of the fund under subsection (2) in relation to the product is in force.
(2) The trustee, or trustees, of a regulated superannuation fund may, by notice in writing given to APRA, elect that the dangerous occupation exception is to be available to members of the fund who hold a choice product or MySuper product offered by the fund that is specified in the election.
(3) An election under subsection (2) in relation to a choice product or MySuper product is in force during the period:
(a) beginning on the day on which the election is given to APRA; and
(b) ending on the day on which the trustee, or the trustees, of the fund give APRA notice in writing that the election is withdrawn.
(4) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe an occupation as a dangerous occupation if the Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds, based on evidence of the risks involved in undertaking the occupation, that the occupation is inherently dangerous.
(5) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2) (b) of the Legislation Act 2003, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to a legislative instrument made under subsection (4) of this section.
(5) Schedule 3, item 32, page 42 (after line 32), after subsection 24NA(2), insert:
(2A) The Commissioner must use the Commissioner's best endeavours to pay the superannuation amount in accordance with subsection (2) within 28 days after the day the Commissioner is paid that amount as described in subsection (1).
Note: The Commissioner still needs to be satisfied as described in paragraph (1) (b) before this subsection will apply.
(6) Schedule 3, item 38, page 46 (line 8), omit "item 8", substitute "item 30".
Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:54): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (16:54): I'm really pleased to make some comments on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018. It's very important that we use this opportunity to set the record straight, because what the government has done on this bill is a complete disgrace. It just shows the incredible chaos and dysfunction and disingenuousness which we are seeing govern this country at the moment, and it has to be recorded for the benefit of this parliament. I want to note, before I get into the detail of this, the sneaky way in which this was done, because the government moved amendments to gut the central purpose of this bill on Thursday afternoon, after members of this House and all of the press gallery had gone home—I think, hoping that no-one would notice. Of course, Labor noticed. These sorts of sneaky tricks that the government play may not always make the front page of the newspaper, but we do need to hold them to account.
The amendments to this bill that the government are moving take out what they said was the most critical part of this bill. They have done something that is completely at odds with the interests of ordinary Australians. I know that to be the case because those on the other side stood in this parliament, day after day after day, told us how crucial the schedule of the bill was, but they then voted to remove it in the other place on Thursday afternoon.
This bill has a really important intention. The intention of the bill is to protect people who are not well served today by our superannuation system—young people, for example, who tend to accumulate lots of different superannuation accounts as they go from job to job, and people on low incomes who might be taking a long break from work—they might be unemployed for a long period of time—and yet all the while they've got insurance charges being taken out of their accounts. A lot of those people don't need insurance. I know that they don't need insurance.
But we had the member for Higgins and the member for Kooyong standing up, day after day, harassing Labor for some reason—Labor, who supported this bill—for not being able to get it through the Senate, instead of supporting Labor's amendments to this bill. They would have made sure that people who do need insurance—those who are working 40 storeys up on a building site, for example—were able to continue to be insured, and the young, vulnerable people, who the government said they were so worried about, could have been protected. That was the proposal that Labor put forward. But, instead, what the government did in the Senate on Thursday night was voted to remove the section completely. They actually voted with the Greens. I get terrified when those on other side start to partner with the Greens because, when they do it, it's always for the reason of politics. That's all this is.
What we have here is a government that is so scared of compromise—which is actually what we do here as a parliament—that it would prefer to take the central purpose of the bill away than agree to a position that was quite close to its own, actually, and that was the Labor Party's position. They have behaved like shrill, ridiculous hypocrites. I have had to sit there reading the newspaper, day after day, when for some reason the government was saying it's our fault that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) hasn't passed the parliament—a bill that we supported! Here we have the government gutting their own legislation in order to not to have a loss in the Senate. I just want to read to you, just to give you a sense of the tone of the ridiculously shrill commentary coming from the other side, what the Treasurer said on 10 January 2019:
… we have legislation before the Parliament which is very important to getting the members' best interests advanced, in particularly this idea around allowing younger members to opt-in to insurance policies in their super.
That would give 5 million members the opportunity to choose and would save them up to $2 billion a year as well.
… … …
And for the life of me, I can't understand why the Labor Party seems to be blocking these important reforms endorsed by the Productivity Commission.
Indeed! But this Treasurer, having said that in January, instructed his senators on Thursday to remove this section of the bill entirely. I think it is pathetic. I think the minister should be in here explaining why, having argued that this was so critically important—having beaten his chest all summer and put things on the front pages of newspapers—he then said, 'We don't actually care about this. We're going to let those young people continue to pay charges for insurance that we know that they don't need.' I think it's pitiful, it is pathetic, and, if we needed an example to prove that these people have stopped governing for our country, that they exist for politics alone, then this is it.
Question agreed to.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 73, page 19 (line 7), omit "10", substitute "15".
(2) Schedule 1, item 117, page 57 (lines 22 to 24), omit subparagraph 1317G(4) (c) (ii), substitute:
(ii) if the amount worked out under subparagraph (i) is greater than an amount equal to 2.5 million penalty units—2.5 million penalty units.
(3) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (table item dealing with subsection 184(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(4) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (table item dealing with subsection 184(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(5) Schedule 1, item 140, page 66 (table item dealing with subsection 184(3), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(6) Schedule 1, item 140, page 71 (table item dealing with subsection 344(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(7) Schedule 1, item 140, page 73 (table item dealing with subsection 596AB(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(8) Schedule 1, item 140, page 73 (table item dealing with subsection 601FD(4), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(9) Schedule 1, item 140, page 73 (table item dealing with subsection 601FE(4), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(10) Schedule 1, item 140, page 75 (table item dealing with subsection 601UAA(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(11) Schedule 1, item 140, page 75 (table item dealing with subsection 601UAB(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(12) Schedule 1, item 140, page 77 (table item dealing with subsection 727(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(13) Schedule 1, item 140, page 77 (table item dealing with subsection 728(3), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(14) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 952D(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(15) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 952D(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(16) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 952F(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(17) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 952F(3), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(18) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 952F(4), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(19) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 952L(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(20) Schedule 1, item 140, page 85 (table item dealing with subsection 993B(3), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(21) Schedule 1, item 140, page 86 (table item dealing with subsection 1021D(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(22) Schedule 1, item 140, page 86 (table item dealing with subsection 1021D(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(23) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with section 1041A, column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(24) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with subsection 1041B(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(25) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with subsection 1041C(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(26) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with section 1041D, column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(27) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with subsection 1041E(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(28) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with subsection 1041F(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(29) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with section 1041G, column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(30) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with subsection 1043A(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(31) Schedule 1, item 140, page 88 (table item dealing with subsection 1043A(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".
(32) Schedule 2, item 8, page 100 (lines 24 to 26), omit subparagraph 12GBCA(2) (c) (ii), substitute:
(ii) if the amount worked out under subparagraph (i) is greater than an amount equal to 2.5 million penalty units—2.5 million penalty units.
(33) Schedule 3, item 7, page 131 (lines 27 to 29), omit subparagraph 167B(2) (c) (ii), substitute:
(ii) if the amount worked out under subparagraph (i) is greater than an amount equal to 2.5 million penalty units—2.5 million penalty units.
(34) Schedule 4, item 4, page 169 (lines 24 to 26), omit subparagraph 75D(2) (c) (ii), substitute:
(ii) if the amount worked out under subparagraph (i) is greater than an amount equal to 2.5 million penalty units—2.5 million penalty units.
(35) Schedule 5, item 2, page 187 (lines 10 to 13), omit the item, substitute:
2 Schedule 3 (table item dealing with subsection 596AB(1))
Repeal the item, substitute:
Subsections 596AB(1), (1A), (1B) and (1C) |
15 years imprisonment |
Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:01): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (17:01): God forbid we have one of the relevant ministers come into the chamber! Both bills have been quite radically altered in the Senate, and we haven't had someone from the government come in and talk about the reasons why that's happened. But I'm here, and I'm able to provide a little bit of the subtext and the narrative around what's happened here.
I'm very glad to speak on the changes that have come back from the Senate, because these are actually Labor's reforms. Over the weekend, the Treasurer had what might be kindly described as an onset of pathological revisionism. In fact, I woke up on Friday morning and I started to read all these articles about these brilliant changes to corporate penalties that occurred in the parliament, and nowhere did it mention in the article and nowhere did the Treasurer say, 'Thank you, Labor, for moving these strengthened penalties,' which is exactly what happened.
Far from spearheading the reforms that are contained in the amendments in the bill, the government actually voted against them. Again, I heard the Treasurer on the radio and read the Treasurer in print on the weekend talking about what a tough guy he is on the reforms that we're passing today. He didn't mention that he actually voted against almost exactly these amendments in this House, and we'll be interested to see what he does when we have that discussion later.
These are really important reforms. They take some of the most significant offences in the Corporations Act, and Labor has moved motions to increase the maximum penalty that someone can serve jail time for from five years to 15 years. This is really important in the context of what's happening with the royal commission, and, indeed, one of the offences that we have attached that higher jail term to is fees for no service, which of course was one of the most significant potential crimes that was uncovered in the royal commission. We've also pushed for much more significant financial penalties for companies that do the wrong thing, who will now in some instances have a maximum penalty of half a billion dollars.
We think these reforms are really appropriate because what I hear everywhere around this country when I talk to people about the royal commission is a deep sense of frustration about the lack of accountability for all of the things that have been done wrong to them, in particular by the big banks. We should not live in a country where if you steal from a bank you end up in jail, but if the banker steals from you they end up getting a promotion at the end of the year and a big fat bonus. It's just not the way that we run things here in our country.
We're really proud that we put these reforms forward. We're a bit frustrated that the government voted against similar reforms in the House of Representatives and then had some sort of great awakening over in the Senate and decided to support our reforms, but I don't think it would be beyond them to note that these actually came from Labor.
I'm frustrated, obviously, about what has happened but I'm not surprised, because this is completely consistent with the approach to corporate crime and financial wrongdoing that we see on the other side of the House. That is the crowd that voted against a royal commission 26 times. The government did everything in their power to protect the big bankers when they had done so much wrong by the Australian people. In fact, while on this side of the House Labor was calling for a royal commission and talking to victims of financial misconduct, the government were over there trying to give the banks a $17 billion tax cut. To find an example in public policy today that shows you the deep differences in values by those who sit opposite one another in this parliament, that's it.
I'm disappointed in the government's unwillingness to recognise that these are Labor reforms—a complete rewriting of history—but I'm glad that they finally saw sense. It may have had a little bit to do with the numbers in the Senate, knowing, as they did, that they were not going to win a vote to try to keep these ridiculously low penalties for bankers and other crooks who do the wrong thing. So I'm proud of these reforms and proud to support the amendments in the House.
Question agreed to.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) 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 2, page 2 (table items 3 and 4), omit the table items.
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
6. Schedule 5 The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.
(3) Schedules 2 and 3, page 13 (line 1) to page 15 (line 6), omit the Schedules.
(4) Page 17 (after line 2), at the end of the bill, add:
Schedule 5—Small business access to justice
Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman Act 2015
1 At the end of section 7
Add:
; and (h) conduct within the meaning of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
2 At the end of section 15
Add:
; (c) to give assistance under Division 3A of Part 4 in advising on and preparing a person’s case for a no adverse costs order under subsection 82(4) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
3 After subparagraph 23(h)(ii)
Insert:
(iia) assistance being given under section 74B (assistance in relation to a no adverse costs order in proceedings to recover the amount of any loss or damage as a result of contraventions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010);
4 At the end of section 65
Add:
; (g) conduct, within the meaning of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, that:
(i) may be in contravention of a provision of Part IV of that Act; and
(ii) affects, or may affect, a small business or family enterprise.
5 After Division 3 of Part 4
Insert:
Division 3A—Assistance where there may be a contravention of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010
74A Application of this Division
This Division applies if the relevant action in relation to which a person requests the Ombudsman to give assistance is conduct, within the meaning of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, that:
(a) may be in contravention of a provision of Part IV of that Act; and
(b) affects, or may affect, a small business or family enterprise.
74B Ombudsman may give assistance in relation to costs order
(1) The Ombudsman may assist the person by doing either or both of the following:
(a) advising the person on the arguments that might be made, and the evidence that might be adduced, to satisfy a court that an order under subsection 82(4) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 should be made (a no adverse costs order in proceedings to recover the amount of any loss or damage as a result of contraventions of that Act);
(b) preparing arguments that might be made in satisfying a court that an order under that subsection should be made.
(2) Nothing in this section limits the functions, duties and powers of the Ombudsman under this Part in relation to the relevant action.
6 At the end of Division 2 of Part 5
Add:
91A Disclosure for the purposes of a no adverse costs order under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010
(1) This section applies if the relevant action in relation to which a person (the applicant) requests the Ombudsman to give assistance is conduct, within the meaning of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, that:
(a) may be in contravention of a provision of Part IV of that Act; and
(b) affects, or may affect, a small business or family enterprise.
(2) A person assisting small business/family enterprise may disclose to the applicant any document or information obtained by the person assisting small business/family enterprise in the course of performing functions or duties, or exercising powers, in relation to assistance given to the applicant under section 74B.
Note: Section 74B allows the Ombudsman to give assistance in relation to a no adverse costs order in proceedings to recover the amount of any loss or damage as a result of contraventions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. This assistance may include advising the applicant on the arguments that might be made, and the evidence that might be adduced, in pursuing a no adverse costs order, and preparing arguments.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010
7 At the end of section 82
Add:
No adverse costs orders
(3) A person who brings an action under subsection (1) in relation to a contravention of a provision of Part IV may at any time during proceedings on the matter seek an order under subsection (4) from the court hearing, or that will hear, the matter.
(4) The court may order that the applicant is not liable for the costs of any respondent to the proceedings, regardless of the outcome or likely outcome of the proceedings.
(5) The court may only make an order under subsection (4) if the court is satisfied that:
(a) the action raises a reasonable issue for trial; and
(b) the action raises an issue that is not only significant for the applicant, but may also be significant for other persons or groups of persons; and
(c) the disparity between the financial position of the applicant and the financial position of the respondent or respondents is such that the possibility of a costs order that does not favour the applicant might deter the applicant from pursuing the action.
(6) The court may satisfy itself of the matters in subsection (5) by having regard only to the documents filed with the court in the proceedings.
(7) A person who appeals a decision of the court under subsection (4) is liable for any costs in relation to the appeal.
8 Application
The amendment of section 82 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 made by this Schedule applies in relation to actions under subsection 82(1) of that Act brought on or after 1 July 2019.
Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:06): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (17:06): This is a great day for small business, because Labor's access to justice amendment has passed the Senate and looks as though it may now pass the House. This is a great opportunity for the 45th Parliament to come together and address the market power imbalance between large business and small business.
For a bit of history, in 2017 the Senate passed Labor's private senator's bill to provide access to justice for small business. There was no crossbench opposition. It was a bill that united Centre Alliance, the Greens and Senators Bernardi, Leyonhjelm and Hinch. Even Senator Gichuhi supported the bill prior to her joining the Liberal Party. Yet, when it came to this place, the Liberals refused to debate it.
Last Thursday, the Senate passed the measure again, despite government opposition. Just to be clear about the government's position, the Journal of the Senate records: 'All government senators by leave recorded their votes for the noes.' So the government was against access to justice for small business last Thursday in the Senate. When they had the choice as to whether they would support millionaires, multinationals and monopolists, they chose the three Ms over Australia's small business. But over the weekend we began to hear what the National Party might do—never mind the crossbench, who in this place have been strong champions of small business. Over the weekend, we heard from the member for New England, the member for Mallee, the member for Wide Bay and the member for Hinkler about their support for Labor's access to justice for small business policy and their recognition of the value of backing the little guy.
Labor's small business access to justice policy allows a small business to request a no adverse cost order when bringing on a court action for a breach of competition law. If the judge decides the case is in the public interest, the small business won't risk paying the big business's costs if they lose. As the Harper competition review concluded, 'there are significant barriers to small business taking private action to enforce competition laws.' Many commentators have noted that small business isn't scared so much of their own legal costs, but of being bankrupted by the legal costs of the other side.
I'm pleased to see in the House the member for New England, who, when quizzed about the coalition's opposition to access to justice for small business in in the other place, said:
… the whole raison d'etre of the Nationals is to support small business.
Anything we can do to assist small business get a more just market we would support—I would support.
There is a lot of contradiction between 'I' and 'we', but it is pleasing that it looks as though the government will backflip, with the Treasurer having said today, 'We will let it through on the voices.' This is a reform supported by the family and small business ombudsman, a former Liberal chief minister of the ACT. She said, 'Access to justice is an issue regularly raised with us by small business. This amendment would be an important step towards levelling the playing field.' COSBOA says, 'Access to justice is a huge issue.'
This is the work of the Labor team. I mentioned before Senator Gallagher's private senators' bill in the other place. Small business access to justice was originally developed by the shadow minister for communications, Michelle Rowland, in 2016. I pay tribute to her for her work on this policy. We took it to the 2016 election, we introduced it as a private senators' bill in 2017 and we will take it, if it doesn't pass today, to the 2019 election. I should say too that today's reform not have occurred without Nick Green, one of the smartest and most persuasive staffers in the building, who is engaged with the crossbench in this place and in the other place. Labor's support for small business goes well beyond access to justice. We will make unfair contract terms illegal, we will allow peak consumer bodies to make super complaints, we will double the competition regulator's litigation budget and we will create an independent second commissioner of appeals at the tax office.
At the next election, small business will face the same tax rate regardless of who wins. But under a Shorten Labor government, they will also get the Australian Investment Guarantee. Labor will produce a better national broadband network, a critical issue for Australia's small business. And, thanks to Labor, under a Shorten government, or perhaps today, there will be access to justice for small business, a terrific Labor reform due hopefully to pass the House.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (17:12): It's great to see so many messages coming back from the Senate as the government's legislative agenda continues to move forward steadfastly. I will make particular note of the reforms we have made in Protecting Your Super under the banner of Protecting Your Super, which has passed the House and the Senate. It will move to executive council next week. From that point, three million Australians' super accounts with over $6 billion currently inactive, not being used, tucked away in super funds across the country, most of them having insurance fees paid out of them, will be taken through to the ATO, and the ATO within a month will reunite it with active accounts.
This is all about standing up for Australians. Three million Australians have benefited because of the work we have done. In a week-and-a-half's time, once executive council has signed off, for those under 25 or accounts under $6,000, will have accounts capped at three per cent. For all those in superannuation funds, exit fees other than buy-sell spreads will be banned. This is one of the major reforms of superannuation in the last decade in terms of protecting vulnerable younger Australians, especially in preparing for their retirement. There is more work to be done.
The government made it very clear in the Senate when we excised the insurance and super component from the bill that we were not walking away from insurance and super. We were not walking away from that component of the bill. Any number of actuarial studies, including those by Michael Rice, have shown that, if insurance was managed appropriately and properly and on an opt-in basis, people would be saving hundreds of thousands of dollars for their retirement. We are not walking away from that component.
Furthermore, in messages from the Senate we have seen other areas of the government's legislative agenda being returned—in this case, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018. This government will continue to produce and progress its agenda strongly in the House and in the Senate. If these four messages from the Senate say anything, they speak to the government getting on with the job of protecting Australians, of legislating in the best interests of Australians and of governing strongly.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (17:15): I'm glad the Assistant Treasurer is here to tell us about the agenda. Perhaps he might turn his mind to the 18 days he has had the royal commission report, so he can think about how to legislate to protect Australian consumers from payday loan sharks. I'm also glad the member for Swan is here. I'm a bit sad he didn't speak about small business. It's an excellent opportunity to speak about small businesses in his electorate. I know there's the Labor candidate for Swan, Hannah Beazley, who built and maintained her very own small retail business. She would not miss an opportunity like this to talk about small businesses in Australia and the positive policies that Labor has put forward and that the coalition government is adopting to support them.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018 is an excellent win for Australian small and medium businesses. Although we know that the coalition has fought tooth and nail against this reform for many years, they have now capitulated because of the agrarian socialists of the National Party threatening to cross the floor. What a backflip! But, really, it is a very welcome one; I don't deny that.
Labor's small business access to justice policy will help small businesses to bring cases of anticompetitive behaviour to court. Currently, small businesses are much less likely to take up private litigation against big companies with deep pockets and with many good connections in the legal business. These businesses have a lot of money to spend, and small business does not. The risk of small businesses being bankrupted by legal fees is a significant disincentive to taking action against anticompetitive conduct. Labor's access to justice policy, which the government has now adopted—and I thank them for it—will level the playing field by allowing a small business to request a no-adverse costs order early in a court case. If the judge decides the case is in public interest, the small business won't have to risk paying the other side's cost if they do not win in the end.
Labor has been pushing for this change for many years. It was announced before the last election, in 2016. The member for Greenway announced it. She's very close to the policy, and it's great to have her in the chamber today to see this legislation go through the parliament. Labor introduced through senator Katy Gallagher a private senator's bill in 2017. The coalition senators voted against it then. They failed to support the same legislation we have here today 730-odd days ago and, as the member for Fenner has pointed out, they failed to support small business last week in the Senate.
But, while I'm on good ideas for small business, we know access to justice is just one measure of a wealth of policies that the Labor Party is putting forward for small businesses in this country. Since the government is enthusiastic this week about bipartisanship, perhaps they might want to consider some other Labor policies to help small businesses—a second ATO commissioner, perhaps, for appeals, so small businesses have a fair appeals process when dealing with the tax office. Every small business is unique and there is no one size fits all to tax disputes. One small business matter will differ from another. Therefore, a separate appeals area in the tax office ensures small business disputes are given the care and attention they deserve. That's why Labor is committed to establishing a second ATO commissioner, and that's an idea for free for you over there.
How about tackling unfair contracts? Currently, if a particular term in a standard-form contract signed by a small business is found to be unfair by a court or tribunal, that clause will be void and the small business will no longer be required to comply with it. There is no prohibition, however, of unfair terms being included in a contract, and this is the problem. There are no penalties or deterrents for inserting unfair contract terms into those contracts, and seeking to have a term voided is cumbersome and costly, particularly for small business. That's why we would work to legislate against unfair contract terms. We will have penalties of $10 million, which should send a great message to big businesses that try to pressure small businesses into unfair contract terms in their dealings.
Another area we could look at—we are committed to helping small business in this regard, and it's another one for you on the other side in government—is the NBN. Every time I speak to small businesses—I know the member for Greenway, as the shadow minister for communications, is the same—they lament the awful rollout of the NBN and how it adversely affects their businesses. Small business is very reliant on digital platforms. The least we can do, and what Labor will do, is make sure there is an NBN service guarantee so that small businesses can be guaranteed a service, which they're not now under this government's ridiculous rollout of the NBN. So I'm glad this legislation will pass. To those opposite: you've come to the game too late, but congratulations on getting there.
Mr JOYCE (New England) (17:20): I believe one of the core tenets of the National Party has always been that a person in this nation can start from the bottom and transcend through the economic and social stratification of life to their highest level, limited only by their innate abilities. The reason for that is that it gives people the highest level of freedom in life—to be their own boss. Some people—and it's quite understandable, of course; this is probably the generality—will not be their own boss; they will work for major organisations or for government. But the kernel of what this nation is about is that people have that right, and it must be fundamental to what this nation is about that they cannot have that right interfered with by big government, big business or big unions.
The amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018 giving access to justice means that it is not the big chequebook that wins the argument; it is the just outcome that wins the argument. As such, the National Party—and, I must admit, I personally—have been fighting for so long to make sure it comes about. We did it with section 46(1AA) of the Trade Practices Act, the Birdsville amendment. We did it with our support and battle for the effects test, which the Labor Party—I have to remind them—fought against. That amendment was that an action be judged by its effect, not purely by the letter of the law. We did it with the National Party's support for divestiture powers. We get the absurd position from the Labor Party that they don't support divestiture powers. That is absolutely an article that says to a big company: 'If you don't listen to us'—like AGL did not listen to us when we were trying to make sure that people got fairer power prices—'we can, though we wish not to, break you into two.' By gosh, they listened to that! They listened to it so much that they had Photios, a senior operative of the Liberal Party, running around with Ms McNamara to make absolutely certain that it didn't get up. They did it by making sure it offended both the big unions, such as the Shop, Distributive And Allied Workers Association, and Coles and Woolworths, because one doesn't want their capacity to take union fees out of employees' wages questioned, and big business doesn't want its market power ever questioned. With small business there are a multitude, of course, in country towns in proportion to big businesses, because big businesses have centralised. So we are very aware of the high street of regional towns.
We are also very aware of the issues with farmers, and I might briefly tell you about one. One farmer, a big organisation, went into the specialty of providing one line of vegetable. It became so specialised that the large retailer came and said, 'This is the price we're going to pay you for it now.' It was completely unreasonable. They'd completely restructured their business, and the big retailer knew they had nowhere to go; they knew they had them over a barrel. At other places people have said: 'We want to explain our problems to you, but please don't tell anybody. We have been specifically warned that if you come onto our place they will not buy our produce.' These things are an offence to the Australian principle of being your own boss, of not being a serf in somebody else's kingdom.
I remember talking to a gentleman from IGA—no doubt it was the same one you were talking to—with regard to structuring this, and it made sense. I'd had it all the way through. I was never going to telegraph my punches but I was always going to vote for the side that supported this. It was vitally important. I do put it down to the pressure of the National Party that this is going to go through, without a shadow of the doubt; otherwise we'd be having the debate now. I believe this has to be part of a tranche of issues we need to address. This is one. Divestiture powers are the next. You cannot say you support every issue of the banking royal commission in principle but don't support the ultimate mechanism for making them respect the government, which is divestiture powers.
If we can get these things right, whether you're National Party, or Labor Party, or Independent, or Greens or Liberal Party, then we will still maintain that most precious gift that this great democracy gives us: the right of any individual, no matter what their education, no matter where they come from and no matter what town, to transcend the economic and social stratification of life to their highest level, limited only by their innate abilities.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (17:25): I was considering making these points in a suspension of standing orders immediately after this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018, but I think it will suit the convenience of the House for me to make these comments now. I thought I'd take the opportunity after the Assistant Treasurer dealt with a number of the bills that have been passed in succession right now.
No-one should be in any doubt as to what's happening in the House this afternoon. After being defeated on the floor of the House of Representatives at the beginning of last week, the government has now decided that wherever there is a bill and wherever there is a vote where they know they will not command a majority in the House, they will miraculously change their position and vote for it. Today, we're having the royal commission vote, the access to justice vote and the penalties vote. Of course, the vote that we won't have at all is the 'big stick' legislation. But in each of these votes we're having today, no-one should see it as anything other than a strategy, because at no point has the government said what changed over the weekend. At no point has the government said what changed between their opposition last week on these issues and their sudden, miraculous and fulsome support for them today.
An incident having occurred in the chamber—
An honourable member: You're out of power!
Ms Rowland: Where's the big stick?
Mr BURKE: And even the lights going out won't cause them to bring the big stick legislation back on. Even that—I presume we're still going? We're still running?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): Yes. It's still broadcasting, so keep going.
Mr BURKE: Fantastic! Even that! And let's not forget the way the government argued each of these issues. Not only have they not said there is a policy reason as to why they have changed their mind but the arguments the government have come up with today are to say, 'But this was always our position.' This was something they always believed.
There is a novel that was written some years ago, where it said, 'This is now our view, therefore this has always been our view.' I never thought we would end up with that being the position of the government of Australia. And yet this government today, on issue after issue after issue, is misrepresenting not ancient history, not what happened in the Howard government and not what happened earlier in the term, but what happened last week! What happened four days ago!
We've learned something about the Prime Minister here. We already knew from the leadership challenge last year that if he says he supports you, you're gone. But now we find out that if he says he is opposed to something then you're in with a chance! If he says that he is passionately opposed to a bill, or to a motion or to something that he's willing to have the longest question time in history in order to avoid—any of those issues—you're in with a chance, because if he says it's something he wants to prevent, all you need to tell him is, 'Oh, you'll be defeated on the floor of the House of Representatives,' and all of a sudden he'll say: 'Oh, I've never been opposed to this. I've never had a view that was any different.'
That is what we're finding today in three votes in a row: the three votes we're having and the one they dare not have. We had the royal commission vote, the access to justice vote we're having now, the penalties vote we had not long ago, and the big stick legislation—
The SPEAKER: I just ask the Manager of Opposition Business to pause; please freeze the clock. I can assure the Manager of Opposition Business that I can see him on the television. I can probably hear him better than I can see him! But all the other aspects are working well, so until we get some further information, if people are happy, just keep going.
Mr BURKE: I'm happy in a manner, Mr Speaker, but I will continue.
The SPEAKER: Don't think I've done this to you!
Mr BURKE: With each of the issues, we now see that the government is so willing to change stated beliefs, is so willing to change convictions that it held so strongly, that it would have the longest question time in the history of Federation. It is willing to get rid of legislation about which it spent months and months saying to Labor, 'Unless you support this, you support higher electricity prices,' and then all of a sudden they won't bring it to a vote. And in every case now we see a Prime Minister who is willing, for the purpose of strategy, to change what he has told people he believes to avoid a defeat on the floor. The next election can't come soon enough.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ): It's a bit hard to see out there at the moment.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (17:30): I can put a torch on if you like! I would bring in some candles, but we might be offending the gods of CO2 if we generate too much hot air in parliament! I rise to speak on this very significant piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 5) Bill 2018, which I support. There is a problem with the cost of taking action in the courts. There is an unfair playing field. Just the very nature of legal costs will prohibit many people in commerce from bringing an action when there's anticompetitive behaviour. Whether it's the abuse of market power, unconscionable conduct, unfair contract terms, the arbitrary changing of contract terms in the middle of contracts, summarily, with one party to the contract having undue power—all of these need to be challenged in the court, but, time and time again, we hear that the costs or risks of taking legal action are prohibitive. So, getting the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman to give fair and reasonable advice or suggest remedies and to ask for an exception so there are no adverse cost orders is a really great initiative. But the effects test and other things in the small business space need the courts to bring them to effect, and this will make it much more likely that small or even medium-sized businesses, who are taking on the giants in industry and commerce that have much deeper pockets, will have a more level playing field.
The member for Watson just gave us a diatribe about everything on the coalition. I know they are using this to wedge us, but I'm very happy to be wedged. I'm here saying this is a good idea, but I suspect there is not a genuine concern from the member for Watson, because he's more interested in bringing the reputation of our fine Prime Minister into disrepute.
This bills is the start of many things we need to do with the Competition and Consumer Act. General divestment powers exist in Canada, the UK and America. They've existed for decades in some of these jurisdictions and almost a century in others, and commerce has flourished in all those jurisdictions. It's not the end of earth if we have divestment powers. As the member for New England mentioned, it is a longstanding National Party policy to bring in these divestment orders, but, unfortunately, the logistics mean that this is where we're starting.
Many of you have a legal background. You understand that there would be costs running into millions of dollars if you were to bring the sort of case that needs to be brought to establish some of the things that have been established about the effects test, reducing competition and restricting trade and unfair trade practices and acts. But the missing ingredient is making it available to those that are most aggrieved. Most of them are very successful small businesses—horticulture and agriculture businesses, dairy suppliers and all sorts of people in the small and family business space—who develop longstanding relationships, get bigger and more successful, expand and then have unfair practices occurring in their contracting or undue pressure to lower their prices below the cost of production. We could keep going all night about misbehaviour in the marketplace. When the market is broken, governments are meant to step up and fix it, and this is an initial salvo. We in the National Party will keep fighting for further improvements, particularly general divestment powers.
Question agreed to.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) 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 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item.
(2) Schedule 2, items 1 and 2, page 36 (lines 5 to 18), to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 2, items 7 to 21, page 37 (line 9) to page 38 (line 26), to be opposed.
(4) Schedule 2, items 23 to 27, page 39 (line 26) to page 40 (line 14), to be opposed.
(5) Schedule 2, items 52 to 58, page 45 (line 15) to page 46 (line 21), to be opposed.
(6) Schedule 2, items 60 and 61, page 46 (lines 25 to 28), to be opposed.
(7) Schedule 2, item 64, page 47 (lines 9 and 10), to be opposed.
(8) Schedule 2, item 69, page 47 (lines 27 and 28), to be opposed.
(9) Schedule 2, item 78, page 49 (line 9), omit "offices", substitute "places".
(10) Schedule 2, item 79, page 49 (lines 25 to 27), omit subparagraph 340(1) (b) (ii), substitute:
(ii) a pre‑poll voting office or office of a DRO at which applications for pre‑poll votes may be made, or pre‑poll ordinary voting is available, for the election; and
(11) Schedule 2, item 79, page 49 (line 31), after "a pre‑poll voting office", insert "or office of a DRO".
(12) Schedule 2, item 79, page 50 (lines 1 and 2), omit "the pre‑poll voting office", substitute "the office".
(13) Schedule 2, item 80, page 50, (lines 16 to 18), omit subparagraph 340(1A) (b) (ii), substitute:
(ii) a pre‑poll voting office or office of a DRO at which applications for pre‑poll votes may be made, or pre‑poll ordinary voting is available, for the election; and
(14) Schedule 2, item 80, page 50 (line 22), after "a pre‑poll voting office", insert "or office of a DRO".
(15) Schedule 2, item 80, page 50 (lines 24 and 25), omit "the pre‑poll voting office", substitute "the office".
(16) Schedule 2, item 81, page 50 (line 27), omit "or pre‑poll voting office", substitute ", pre‑poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(17) Schedule 2, item 82, page 50 (line 30), omit "or pre‑poll voting office", substitute ", pre‑poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(18) Schedule 2, item 84, page 51 (line 2), omit "or pre‑poll voting office", substitute ", pre‑poll voting office or office of a DRO".
(19) Schedule 2, item 86, page 51 (line 7), omit "or pre‑poll voting office", substitute ", pre‑poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(20) Schedule 2, item 87, page 51 (line 10), omit "or pre‑poll voting office", substitute ", pre‑poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(21) Schedule 2, items 88 to 91, page 51 (line 12) to page 53, to be opposed.
(22) Schedule 2, items 95 to 104, page 55 (line 8) to page 56 (line 30), to be opposed.
(23) Schedule 2, items 130 and 131, page 62 (lines 11 to 23), to be opposed.
(24) Schedule 2, items 137 to 153, page 63 (line 18) to page 65 (line 14), to be opposed.
(25) Schedule 2, item 164, page 67 (line 2), omit "offices", substitute "places".
(26) Schedule 2, item 165, page 67 (lines 16 to 18), omit subparagraph 131(1) (b) (ii), substitute:
(ii) a pre‑poll voting office or office of a DRO at which applications for pre‑poll votes may be made, or pre‑poll ordinary voting is available, for the referendum; and
(27) Schedule 2, item 165, page 67 (line 24), after "a pre‑poll voting office", insert "or office of a DRO".
(28) Schedule 2, item 165, page 67 (lines 26 and 27), omit "the pre‑poll voting office", substitute "the office".
(29) Schedule 2, item 166, page 68 (lines 6 to 8), omit subparagraph 131(1A) (b) (ii), substitute:
(ii) a pre‑poll voting office or office of a DRO at which applications for pre‑poll votes may be made, or pre‑poll ordinary voting is available, for the referendum; and
(30) Schedule 2, item 166, page 68 (line 14), after "a pre‑poll voting office", insert "or office of a DRO".
(31) Schedule 2, item 166, page 68 (lines 16 and 17), omit "the pre‑poll voting office", substitute "the office".
(32) Schedule 2, item 167, page 68 (line 19), omit "or pre‑poll voting office", substitute ", pre‑poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(33) Schedule 2, item 168, page 68 (line 22), omit "or pre‑poll voting office", substitute ", pre‑poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(34) Schedule 2, item 170, page 68 (line 26), omit "or pre‑poll voting office", substitute ", pre‑poll voting office or office of a DRO".
(35) Schedule 2, item 172, page 69 (line 8), omit "or pre‑poll voting office", substitute ", pre‑poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(36) Schedule 2, item 173, page 69 (line 11), omit "or pre‑poll voting office", substitute ", pre‑poll voting office or office of the DRO".
(37) Schedule 2, item 174, page 69 (lines 13 to 17), to be opposed.
(38) Schedule 3, page 70 (line 1) to page 72 (line 20), to be opposed.
Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:36): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
Amdt - EU114 - Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017
(Government)
(1) Page 81 (before line 2), before clause 97, insert:
96A Post ‑introduction declarations for exempted introductions
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person first introduces an industrial chemical during a registration year; and
(b) the introduction is an exempted introduction; and
(c) the person does not make the declaration mentioned in subsection (2) within 4 months after the start of the last month of that registration year.
(2) The declaration must:
(a) be in the approved form; and
(b) contain the information prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph for the type of exempted introduction.
(3) The rules may prescribe circumstances in which subsection (1) does not apply.
Fault ‑based offence
(4) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 300 penalty units.
Strict liability offence
(5) A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 60 penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(6) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 300 penalty units.
Amdt - EU117 - Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017
(Government)
(1) Clause 11, page 17 (line 2), after "Parts 1, 4, 7, 9 and 10", insert "and Division 4 of Part 6".
(2) Clause 26, page 26 (line 29), at the end of subclause (3), add:
; (e) the volume of the industrial chemical that is introduced in a period.
(3) Clause 27, page 27 (line 29), at the end of subclause (3), add:
; (f) the volume of the industrial chemical that is introduced in a period.
(4) Clause 41, page 35 (lines 17 and 18), omit "to remove the person as a holder of the certificate", substitute "to be removed as a holder of the certificate".
(5) Clause 86, page 72 (line 28), omit "has conducted an evaluation", substitute "has completed an evaluation".
(6) Clause 95, page 78 (line 29), omit "has conducted an evaluation", substitute "has completed an evaluation".
(7) Clause 102, page 87 (line 7), after "must", insert ", or must not,".
(8) Clause 102, page 87 (lines 16 and 17), omit subclause (3), substitute:
(3) Without limiting paragraph (1) (b), the rules may:
(a) prescribe different requirements for different categories of introduction; and
(b) prescribe a requirement that a person must obtain the approval of the Executive Director before having regard to particular information in determining the category of introduction.
(9) Page 97 (after line 26), after clause 113, insert:
113A Executive Director may request further information
(1) The Executive Director may, by written notice given to an applicant, request further information to be provided for the purposes of considering the application.
(2) The information must be given within the period specified in the notice, which must not be less than 20 working days after the day the notice is given.
(3) If the requested information is not provided within the period mentioned in subsection (2), the Executive Director may take the application to be withdrawn.
(10) Clause 117, page 101 (line 1), omit paragraph (2) (a), substitute:
(a) a Commonwealth entity (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013);
(11) Clause 163, page 130 (line 10), after "conditions", insert "or restrictions".
(12) Clause 163, page 130 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) Without limiting paragraph (1) (b), the conditions or restrictions that may be imposed include that the introduction or export of the industrial chemical must be approved by the Executive Director.
(1B) A person may apply to the Executive Director for the approval.
(13) Clause 166, page 134 (at the end of the table), add:
20 |
A decision under the rules that is specified in the rules to be a decision that is reviewable under this section |
The provision specified in the rules as the provision under which the decision is made |
(14) Clause 167, page 136 (after line 4), after paragraph (1) (d), insert:
(da) subject to subsection (1B), not contain any information prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph; and
(15) Clause 167, page 136 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) To avoid doubt:
(a) the rules may provide for applications to be made under the rules; and
(b) this section applies in relation to such applications.
(1B) The rules may provide that the restriction in paragraph (1) (da) does not apply in relation to particular information, if the inclusion of the information in the application is approved by the Executive Director.
(16) Clause 167, page 136 (line 13), after "this Act", insert "or the rules".
(17) Clause 169, page 140 (after table item 10), insert:
10A |
Information is requested from an applicant under section 113A |
The day notice of the request is given |
The earlier of: (a) the day a complete response is given to the request; or (b) the last day of the period specified in the notice in accordance with subsection 113A(2) |
(18) Clause 169, page 140 (at the end of the table), add:
12 |
A circumstance prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this item |
The day prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this item |
The day prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this item |
Amdt - MP102 - Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017
(Government)
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:
2. Sections 3 to 180 |
1 July 2020. |
1 July 2020 |
(2) Clause 9, page 14 (line 22), omit "1 September 2018", substitute "1 September 2020".
(3) Clause 103, page 88 (lines 9 and 10), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(4) Clause 168, page 137 (line 7), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:37): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (17:38): These amendments relate to the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and associated bills, which came to this place over a year ago and have been sitting before the Senate for that time. At the time that package of bills was brought into the chamber, Labor flagged three areas of concern with respect to the original legislation. First was the matter of the continued assessment of chemicals that are currently in use but that have never been assessed. It's the process referred to as the IMAP framework, and IMAP stands for inventory multi-tiered assessment and prioritisation. That's a program that has seen some 7½ thousand unassessed chemicals now assessed as part of a process where we're working through all of the 30,000-odd chemicals that are still unassessed. The original legislation provided no certainty that that process would continue. After discussion with the government, the government has agreed to continue that process and has provided a letter to the opposition to confirm that it is a commitment of the government to do so. Labor accepts that commitment and so the legislation wasn't formally amended because of it.
Secondly, the original legislation, in Labor's view, had loopholes within it that would have allowed cosmetic testing on animals to continue. This is something that we have been opposed to from the beginning. Indeed, Labor had the own legislation in 2016 that would have banned the cosmetic testing of animals into the future. Whilst the government legislation made some progress, the loopholes were of concern to us. As a result, there has been continuing negotiations with several of the animal rights groups, including Be Cruelty-Free and Humane Society International. The government has now agreed to using government rules to ensure that the process used in Australia is much more closely aligned to the animal processes that are currently in operation in many European countries. Again, Labor has accepted that the use of government rules which are, in effect, disallowable by the parliament is a way that those matters can be addressed and Labor has accepted that change to the proposition.
Thirdly, there was a concern that Labor raised with what are referred to as exempt chemicals or low-risk chemicals not being reported to the national regulator. Again, this was of concern, because we believe that all chemicals should be, at some point in time reported, to the national regulator so there is a record of what chemicals are used, in what quantities and by whom so that, if, in future years there is a problem, we can backtrack and identify where those chemicals were used and what effects they had. Again, as a result of Labor's concerns, the government has agreed to make changes to the legislation with respect to that, and the amendments that we're now voting on are, indeed, a change to the legislation which will mean those exempt chemicals will be reported to the regulator in future.
Overall, I believe that this is now better legislation. It is legislation that fits in and aligns much more closely with the public expectations, both with respect to cosmetic testing on animals, which I know the public broadly opposes and which in today's world is both cruel and unnecessary; and, secondly, with respect to public expectations of safety, whereby it's important that there are records kept of chemicals and to what extent they have been used so that in the future, if there is an adverse reaction, we're able to trace not only who might be affected by them but where they were used. With those comments, we will be supporting the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.
Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:42): I thank the member for Makin for his support of this particular legislation. It was a commitment made by the coalition back in 2016 election. I know that the member for La Trobe has worked closely with the minister in getting the stakeholders, particularly the Humane Society involved. I have had conversations with Hannah from the Humane Society on this issue and we finally got it to rest last week. There was input from a lot of people and I know the member for Makin has been a supporter. And I would like to congratulate the member for La Trobe, who worked tirelessly to the bill and also the coalition, which brought the bill, and all stakeholders.
Question agreed to.
Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Amdt - MP104 - Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
(Government)
(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 5 (line 20), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 4), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 8), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(4) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 12), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(5) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 16), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(6) Schedule 2, item 3, page 6 (lines 18 and 19), omit "1September 2017", substitute "1September 2019".
(7) Schedule 2, item 3, page 6 (line 21), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(8) Schedule 2, item 3, page 6 (line 23), omit "1 September 2017", substitute "1 September 2019".
(9) Schedule 2, item 5, page 7 (line 8), omit "1July 2018", substitute "1July 2020".
(10) Schedule 2, item 5, page 7 (line 10), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(11) Schedule 2, item 6, page 8 (line 3), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(12) Schedule 2, item 6, page 8 (line 5), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(13) Schedule 2, item 6, page 8 (line 8), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(14) Schedule 2, item 6, page 8 (line 19), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(15) Schedule 2, item 7, page 8 (line 24), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(16) Schedule 2, item 8, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "on and after 1 July 2018, in relation to the registration year beginning on 1 September 2017", substitute "on and after 1 July 2020, in relation to the registration year beginning on 1 September 2019".
(17) Schedule 2, item 9, page 9 (lines 8 to 10), omit "1 July 2018, the person was registered under the old law in relation to the registration year beginning on 1 September 2018", substitute 1 July 2020, the person was registered under the old law in relation to the registration year beginning on 1 September 2020".
(18) Schedule 2, item 9, page 9 (lines 13 to 15), omit "1 July 2018, to be registered under the new law for the registration year beginning on 1 September 2018", substitute "1 July 2020, to be registered under the new law for the registration year beginning on 1 September 2020".
(19) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (line 29), omit "1 September 2018", substitute "1 September 2020".
(20) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (line 30), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(21) Schedule 2, item 10, page 10 (line 3), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(22) Schedule 2, item 11, page 11 (line 6), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(23) Schedule 2, item 11, page 11 (line 9), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(24) Schedule 2, item 11, page 11 (line 12), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(25) Schedule 2, item 13, page 12 (line 5), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(26) Schedule 2, item 13, page 12 (line 8), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(27) Schedule 2, item 17, page 12 (line 29), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(28) Schedule 2, item 17, page 13 (lines 1 and 2), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(29) Schedule 2, item 17, page 13 (line 5), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(30) Schedule 2, item 18, page 13 (line 28), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(31) Schedule 2, item 18, page 13 (line 31), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(32) Schedule 2, item 19, page 14 (line 5), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(33) Schedule 2, item 19, page 14 (line 8), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(34) Schedule 2, item 19, page 14 (line 11), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(35) Schedule 2, item 21, page 15 (line 9), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(36) Schedule 2, item 21, page 15 (line 12), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(37) Schedule 2, item 26, page 16 (line 11), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(38) Schedule 2, item 26, page 16 (line 14), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(39) Schedule 2, item 26, page 16 (line 17), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(40) Schedule 2, item 28, page 17 (line 13), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(41) Schedule 2, item 28, page 17 (line 16), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(42) Schedule 2, item 33, page 18 (line 16), omit "1 September 2017", substitute "1 September 2019".
(43) Schedule 2, item 33, page 18 (line 25), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 July 2021".
(44) Schedule 2, item 33, page 18 (line 29), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(45) Schedule 2, item 34, page 19 (line 7), omit "1 September 2017", substitute "1 September 2019".
(46) Schedule 2, item 34, page 19 (line 15), omit "1 July 2019", substitute "1 July 2021".
(47) Schedule 2, item 34, page 19 (line 18), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(48) Schedule 2, item 35, page 20 (lines 3 and 4), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(49) Schedule 2, item 35, page 20 (line 8), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(50) Schedule 2, item 37, page 21 (line 16), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(51) Schedule 2, item 37, page 21 (line 19), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(52) Schedule 2, item 39, page 23 (line 5), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(53) Schedule 2, item 39, page 23 (line 10), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(54) Schedule 2, item 40, page 23 (line 19), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(55) Schedule 2, item 40, page 23 (line 23), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(56) Schedule 2, item 41, page 24 (line 18), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(57) Schedule 2, item 41, page 24 (line 21), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(58) Schedule 2, item 42, page 24 (line 30), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(59) Schedule 2, item 42, page 25 (line 1), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(60) Schedule 2, item 43, page 25 (line 25), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(61) Schedule 2, item 48, page 29 (line 8), omit "1July 2018", substitute "1July 2020".
(62) Schedule 2, item 48, page 29 (line 10), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(63) Schedule 2, item 48, page 29 (line 15), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "1 July 2020".
(64) Schedule 2, item 50, page 30 (line 15), omit "1 July 2020", substitute "1 July 2022".
(65) Schedule 2, item 50, page 30 (line 19), omit "1 July 2020", substitute "1 July 2022".
Amdt - EU130 - Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
(Government)
(1) Schedule 2, item 4, page 7 (lines 1 to 5), omit paragraph (1) (b), substitute:
(b) until that decision is made, a permit granted under subsection 30A(3) of the old law is taken to be an authorisation for the introduction of the industrial chemical for the purposes of paragraph 24(1) (b) of the new law so long as the introduction is in accordance with any conditions that are specified in the permit under subsection 30A(10) of the old law.
(2) Schedule 2, item 11, page 11 (line 23), omit "(other than paragraph (2) (e))".
(3) Schedule 2, item 18, page 13 (lines 22 to 27), omit paragraph (1) (a), substitute:
(a) the application is for a commercial evaluation permit relating to an industrial chemical under subsection 21B(1) of the old law; and
(4) Schedule 2, item 21, page 15 (lines 3 to 8), omit paragraph (1) (a), substitute:
(a) the application is for a low volume permit in respect of an industrial chemical under subsection 21R(1) of the old law; and
(5) Schedule 2, item 28, page 17 (lines 7 to 12), omit paragraph (1) (a), substitute:
(a) the application is for a controlled use permit in respect of an industrial chemical under subsection 22B(1) of the old law; and
Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:44): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.
Ordered that the amendment be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendment—
(1) Clause 7, page 3 (line 27), after "registration year", insert "or a financial year".
Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:45): I move:
That the requested amendment be made.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (17:45): This is part of the package of bills that I was alluding to earlier on. I won't delay the House any further; I refer the House to my previous remarks.
Question agreed to.
Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.
Ordered that the amendment be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendment—
(1) Clause 7, page 3 (line 24), after "registration year", insert "or a financial year".
Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:46): I move:
That the requested amendment be made.
Question agreed to.
Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.
Ordered that the amendment be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendment—
(1) Clause 7, page 3 (line 24), after "registration year", insert "or a financial year".
Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:47): I move:
That the requested amendment be made.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Economics Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ) (17:47): Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating Mr Ted O'Brien to be a member of the Standing Committee on Economics.
Mr IRONS (Swan—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (17:47): by leave—I move:
That Mr Ted O'Brien be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Economics.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (17:48): I rise to resume my remarks on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018. As I was saying previously, a Shorten Labor government will protect and reward the brave Australians who blow the whistle on crime and corruption, including in the banking and financial services sector. We've pledged that if Labor is elected we will set up a whistleblower reward scheme, establish a whistleblower protection authority, overhaul our whistleblowing laws with a single whistleblowing act, and fund a special prosecutor to bring corporate criminals to justice.
Right now, blowing the whistle on a crime and misconduct is incredibly difficult, with whistleblowers often facing reprisals and some never able to work again. I've spoken to some people who are in this situation, and the effect that blowing the whistle can have not only on their lives but on their family, their friends, their social networks and their psychology is often devastating. That's why we must be doing more to provide that support for people who are in these vulnerable situations and who do very, very brave things by coming forward with information that in some cases leads to charges against the individuals they're making accusation against. It shouldn't be the case that people risk their jobs for doing so, and Labor doesn't want to see good people punished for doing the right thing. Ultimately, that's at the heart of what we're discussing here today: people doing the right thing and uncovering activities that in some respects are illegal but in many cases have involved people acting underhandedly for profits and financial gain for themselves at the expense of other, vulnerable Australians.
To combat this, Labor will establish a whistleblower rewards scheme to make it easier for good people to come forward and report instances of crime and misconduct. The scheme will allow whistleblowers to receive a percentage of the penalties arising out of wrongdoing that they reveal. Once a crook is hit with a financial penalty as a result of whistleblowing, the whistleblower rewards scheme would allow a proportion of the penalty to be given as a reward to the whistleblower. The relevant investigative or law enforcement agency will have the discretion to determine the level of the reward within a legislated range. The whistleblower rewards scheme would be funded by the penalties collected by the government, so there wouldn't be any expense to the taxpayer directly from the establishment of this scheme. It would come from the activities and from the penalties associated with the wrongdoing that are blown by the person blowing the whistle in that particular case.
Labor will also strengthen protections for whistleblowers through the establishment of a whistleblower protection authority, a one-stop-shop to support and protect whistleblowers. The authority will have dedicated staff to advise whistleblowers on their rights, assist them through the disclosure process and help them access compensation if they face reprisals. Labor believes that all whistleblowers should be treated the same regardless of the type of workplace they're in, but right now our whistleblower laws are opaque and inconsistent, particularly across various industries, and that can't be the case if we are going to be fair dinkum about supporting whistleblowers in our laws.
A Shorten Labor government will create a single Australian whistleblowing act, consolidating all mainstream whistleblowing legislation into one location so that whistleblowers can readily understand how they are protected. This will be a major shake-up of Australia's whistleblowing regime. We will undertake detailed design work to make sure that the new laws, the proposed rewards scheme and the whistleblower protection authority are powerful and effective.
Labor is committed to cracking down on misconduct and corruption in the banking and financial services sector, and these announcements build on our commitment for a banking royal commission implementation taskforce and to deliver an extra $25 million over the next two years for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to tackle corporate crime. As part of this funding, Labor will appoint a special prosecutor to crack down on corporate criminals. So our commitment is to ensuring that this underhanded conduct, this seedy conduct, this rip-off of victims, particularly in the banking and financial services sector, that has gone on for the last decade, that has seen delayed action by this government, has seen the parliament tardy in its response while victims went and had, in many respects, their life savings taken away from them without government action, will end. We want to make sure that the recommendations of the royal commission are responded to in a timely manner and that we legislate as quickly as possible to put those protections in place. We wish to make sure that what occurred in banking and finance over the last decade never occurs again in Australia and that, where it does, our regulators are well funded and have the expertise and personal to uncover and then to prosecute people who have done the wrong thing.
Finally, the third string to the bow, if you like, is that we want to ensure that whistleblowers—people who bravely risk their jobs, their livelihoods, by coming forward and detailing to regulators, politicians and the media what's been going on in particular industries that is illegal and underhanded so that it doesn't occur again—get the necessary protection they deserve.
So the choice is clear. While Labor fought for a banking royal commission and will crack down on white-collar crime, the Prime Minister and all members of his government, including the National Party—who often try to sneak out of these things when they go back to their electorate and say, 'No, we didn't vote against a royal commission; we supported the royal commission in the parliament,' when we all know that that's not true—voted 26 times against a royal commission. Labor will deliver a fair go for those brave Australians that blow the whistle on these tips of crimes and misdemeanours and ensure that they have the support and the necessary backing to speak up and to do what is right.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (17:55): Whistleblowing plays a critical role in uncovering corporate and tax misconduct. It is a key means of combating poor compliance cultures by ensuring that companies, officers and staff know that misconduct will be reported. The opaque and complex nature of corporate crime makes it difficult for law enforcement to detect abusive practices. In many cases, corporate crime is only detected because individuals come forward, sometimes at significant personal and financial risk.
Some of our biggest corporate scandals have only seen the light of day because of whistleblowers having the courage to stand up to their bosses. It is easy to underestimate the true bravery that this takes. Imagine having to turn your back on a company that has offered you employment and workmates who you may consider friends. Imagine having to put your salary at risk, the uncertainty and the ostracism. The easiest thing in the world would be to turn the other way. Yet whistleblowers come forward regularly, in the face of these challenges, to open up scandals to the light of public scrutiny and judicial processes. Blowing the whistle may be the right thing to do, but no-one could ever say it is the easy thing to do. This is why we need these amendments. The importance of protecting corporate whistleblowers has been recognised for many years. However, while legislative protections have formed part of the Corporations Act 2001 since 2004, they have been sparingly used and are increasingly perceived as inadequate having regard to advances in the public sector and overseas.
This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018, is particularly pertinent seeing what we now know has been going on in Australia's financial sector over the last few years. Whistleblowers have been pointing out the misdemeanours conducted by banks for years, but it was only the Hayne royal commission which demonstrated the depth of the systemic problems within the system. We will never know how many potential whistleblowers there would have been in this industry if these reforms had been passed years ago, but there is always the possibility that details we have seen through the royal commission may have come to light sooner through the efforts of many brave informants. Had this happened, we may be many months ahead of where we are today. This is why supporting whistleblowers is so important for their welfare and for the strength of our organisations, corporations and even our financial system.
Despite the great pride we have in our whistleblowers, it surprised me to learn that currently there are no specific protections for tax whistleblowers. The range of secrecy and privacy provisions relied upon are incapable of guaranteeing absolute protection, which is not good enough. That is why, in the 2016-17 budget, the government announced greater protections for those who disclose information about tax misconduct to the Australian Taxation Office. This will further strengthen the integrity of Australia's tax system.
Active protection of whistleblowers to encourage them to make disclosures is essential, and the government is determined to ensure it has the right legislative settings in place to achieve this, while at the same time ensuring disclosures can be fully investigated and that procedural fairness is provided to those who may be the subject of a disclosure. That is why the government, led by the former Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O'Dwyer, committed to creating more transparency and accountability in business by strengthening the current framework to ensure both corporate and tax whistleblowers can be confident of protection and have greater incentives to make disclosures.
This legislation delivers on the government's 2016-17 budget commitment to protect individuals who blow the whistle on tax avoidance behaviour, tax evasion and other tax misconduct. It also delivers on the government's commitment in Australia's first open government national action plan, which was released in December 2016. The Open Government National Action Plan 2016-18 was developed collaboratively by government and civil society. The plan consists of the packaging of 15 commitments that aim to advance transparency, accountability, public participation and technological innovation in Australia. Stronger whistleblower protections are the first commitment of the plan, and it is designed to support the plan's objective of enhancing Australia's strong reputation for responsible, transparent and accountable business practice.
The government's commitment is to ensure that Australia has appropriate protections in place for people who report corruption, fraud, tax evasion or avoidance and misconduct within the corporate sector. This will be achieved by introducing whistleblower protection for people who disclose information about tax misconduct to the Australian Taxation Office and the strengthening and harmonising of corporate whistleblower protections with those available in this public sector. The legislation delivers on the government's commitment, and it creates a single, comprehensive whistleblower protection regime covering the corporate, financial, insurance, superannuation and credit sectors. It also establishes a new tax whistleblower protection regime to encourage and protect tax misconduct disclosures.
This will not be the first time this government has increased the protections for whistleblowers. On 21 November 2016, the parliament passed amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, the RO Act, with significantly strengthened whistleblower protections for people who report corruption or misconduct in unions and employer organisations. This builds on work done in 2013, when the parliament put in place protections for public sector employees through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, which sought to promote the integrity and accountability of the Commonwealth public sector. This whistleblower act will align with these two whistleblower acts to ensure that there is a broad and consistent spectrum of protections for whistleblowers, no matter what sector they work in.
Whistleblower protections have formed part of the Corporations Act since 2004. However, they have increasingly been perceived as inadequate, having regard to advances in the public sector and the 2016 amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. The reforms of the whistleblower bill strengthen and harmonise whistleblower protections with those available in the public and registered organisations sector. Some key areas of the bill that align with protection in the public and registered organisations sectors are outlined below.
The whistleblower bill provides protections for current and former employees and officers, as well as anonymous disclosures, bringing into alignment the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. The whistleblower bill repeals and substitutes the good faith test with an objective test requiring that a discloser has reasonable grounds to suspect the relevant disclosable conduct. This reform aligns Public Interest Disclosure Act and Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.
As with the Public Interest Disclosure Act, qualifying disclosures entitle whistleblowers to protection from exposure of their identities and immunity from civil, criminal and administrative liabilities from making the disclosure. Protections are available for whistleblowers who make 'emergency' or 'public interest' disclosures, where certain preconditions are satisfied. This closely follows the Public Interest Disclosure Act, with adjustments for the corporate context.
The whistleblower bill provides protections for those who suffer threats or actual reprisals consistent with the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009; that is, protections are available where a threat or reprisal is taken against a person because the offender believes or suspects that the person or any other person made, may have made, proposes to make or could make a protected disclosure. All regimes allow a whistleblower to seek a range of civil remedies through a court, including an apology, injunction, reinstatement order and compensation for loss or damage and costs. The reforms of the whistleblower bill also provide a definition of 'detriment' that closely follows the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. A whistleblower may claim compensation or other remedies on the basis that they have suffered detriment because a company breached a duty to them. This is to align with the protections in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.
These reforms are essential to ensuring all Australians who need to blow the whistle on corrupt behaviour can do so without fear of reprisals and be confident that the perpetrators of the crimes they bring to light will be brought to justice. Without whistleblowers within organisations calling out the crimes of those groups, a huge number of crimes would go unreported. But paramount amongst our considerations must be the welfare of the person who puts themselves at risk by uncovering these crimes. They put themselves, their families and their livelihoods on the line, and, if we take their information without protecting them, we are not worthy of their courageous actions. I congratulate the government on bringing forward this bill, acknowledging the support it has received from other parties, particularly Rex Patrick in the Senate, and I look forward to this coming into law and helping whistleblowers across the country.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (18:06): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018. The banking royal commission shone a spotlight on significant and appalling corporate misconduct and crime. Some of the conduct would never have been discovered if it had not been for some very brave whistleblowers. Whistleblowers have often had to endure personal loss because they have spoken up for public good, and I acknowledge them. It is never an easy job to do. It was because of those people that Labor called for a banking royal commission—a banking royal commission that, unfortunately, the Prime Minister voted against 26 times.
The bill I speak on today includes significant amendments to the original bill that was introduced in 2017. In my view, the most important amendment the Morrison government has made to this bill is to allow whistleblowers to make a claim for compensation when a corporate entity breaches a duty it owes to the whistleblower to prevent a third person engaging in detrimental conduct towards them. That amendment expands the scope of protection and compensation towards whistleblowers. Sadly, whistleblowers are often left with substantial and ongoing detriment after stepping up to call out bad behaviour. Some never recover from the reprisals meted out to them. Some, unfortunately, can never work again. Another amendment in this bill will ensure that a court can make a compensation order that takes into account the period a person is likely to be without employment if they lose their job for whistleblowing. This bill only goes some way to protecting whistleblowers. In that respect, Labor welcomes the inclusion of a post-implementation review of the amended whistleblower laws that will occur five years after the amendments commence.
Labor's approach is always to make sure that our systems are fair. When people in big organisations break the law, whether they are the CEO or in any other position, they should be held accountable. It is often difficult for these crimes to be detected without someone on the inside speaking up about the behaviour. Whistleblowers are vital to making sure that big organisations are held to account, and whistleblowers must be protected. Labor believes that whistleblowers should be protected but they should also be rewarded. Labor would establish an Australian whistleblower act which would strengthen, expand and, for the first time, consolidate the public and private sector whistleblower regimes under a single set of laws overseen by a new whistleblower authority.
Labor would establish a reward scheme for whistleblowers. Relevant agencies would have discretion to determine the reward within a legislated range of percentages of the penalty imposed against the wrongdoer. There would be a range of factors that would be taken into account, including the degree to which the whistleblower's information led to the imposition of the penalty on the wrong doer, the timeliness in which the disclosure was made, the context of the disclosure and any reprisals and any involvement by the whistleblower in the conduct for which the penalty was imposed. The scheme would be funded out of penalties collected by the government and would only be prospective—that is, it would only apply to disclosures made after the commencement of the scheme.
Labor would establish a whistleblower protection authority to help whistleblowers understand their rights and the disclosure process and to assist them with reprisals and compensation claims. Labor already announced, in the 2017 budget reply speech, a tax-whistleblower protection and reward scheme, among other tax integrity measures. Under that already announced scheme, an individual who highlights tax avoidant behaviour, tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and other tax issues can collect a share of the penalty collected, capped at $250,000, or one per cent of the penalty figure, whichever is the higher. This share would be taxable as ordinary income. The Australian tax office would develop detailed criteria for a test regarding the contribution of an individual leading to court action. Essentially, the test would be whether court action was undertaken due to the information identified by an individual.
Labor has also announced that a Shorten Labor government would deliver a corporate crime task force. Labor would commit $25 million to equip the Commonwealth public prosecutor to respond to recommendations for criminal prosecution which stem from the financial services royal commission. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has significantly cut funding for the Commonwealth public prosecutor. Over the six years up to 2016-17, staff levels have been reduced by 23 per cent. Funding of their critical work, prosecuting crimes, is forecast to fall by a staggering $11 million over the forward estimates. The big banks have deep pockets, sadly. They spent millions defending themselves before the royal commission. The Commonwealth public prosecutor needs to be well resourced to make sure corporate criminals can be brought to justice. If the Commonwealth public prosecutor can't do its job, then the banking royal commission would have been a complete waste of time. There is no point uncovering wrongdoing if no-one is held accountable.
We know that there has been an awful lot of wrongdoing in the financial sector. The royal commission confirmed many of our worst fears. Again, I'm reminded that the Prime Minister and those opposite voted 26 times over 600 days to not have a banking royal commission. They fought tooth and nail to stop the royal commission from occurring. Thankfully, under the leadership of the opposition leader, we did eventually get a banking royal commission, and a light was shone on the extraordinary crime and corruption occurring in the financial sector. I thank again those brave whistleblowers and the bank victims who came forward to tell their stories—and there were so many we didn't hear from—but I also commend the shadow minister for financial services for her work in this area, particularly her work making sure that some of those victims who didn't get in front of the royal commission do get a chance to tell their stories, to be heard, to be understood.
The royal commission did not have time to hear the very many victims who have been harmed by the financial sector. The commission received more than 10,000 submissions. However, the shadow minister for financial services travelled the country meeting with victims, letting them tell their stories and, importantly, learning from them. We actually held a roundtable in my electorate of Moreton so that the local victims of banking misconduct could come together to tell their stories. They certainly appreciated the opportunity.
It is important, going forward, that we understand what has gone on and how we can improve the system. Labor's policies—to set up a reward scheme, establish a whistleblower protection authority and fund a special prosecutor—are underpinned by the lessons we have learned from those victims who came forward to tell their stories. Again, I thank them for their bravery and for being so candid. It is not always easy telling personal stories, particularly when they are accompanied by such raw emotion, but without their stories we would not know of the appalling misconduct that has been occurring. We would not know that the financial sector was engaging in such widespread misconduct.
Adele Ferguson, one of the first journalists to tell the stories of financial services victims, has described the conduct discovered by the royal commission as amounting to 'institutional theft'. But for 600 days—remember that: 600 days—those opposite, under their various prime ministers, fought to stop a light being shone on the appalling behaviour in the banking sector. For 600 days the Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer and then when he was Prime Minister, refused to allow these victims to have a voice. For 600 days those opposite put the banks before their hardworking customers and those who had been hard done by; 26 times the Prime Minister voted against having a banking royal commission. So we know where this government's priorities lie: they are only interested in helping out the top end of town.
Labor fought for a banking royal commission. Labor will crack down on white-collar crime. Labor will protect and reward the brave Australians who blow the whistle on crime and corruption, including in the banking and financial sectors. Labor will deliver a fair go for all Australians.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (18:14): I couldn't begin without reflecting briefly on the contribution from the member for Moreton. Although he's leaving the chamber, I wish he wouldn't. He stands there and accuses this government of having done nothing in relation to the behaviour and the cultural attitudes of the big banks in Australia over the last 600 days. I reject that assertion and I remind him there were six long years during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years where zero was done, absolutely zilch—niente, if I was speaking in my mother and father's native tongue. Those who come into this place and seek to play the spin, quite frankly, need to remember there was a period that proceeded the good work this government is doing. It's too cute by half to come in here and suggest that everything was coming up roses until we were elected in 2013 and of course the assertion from them that nothing occurred over that period is wrong in its origination but also wrong when you consider the six years that preceded it—enough of that.
I'm here to talk about whistleblowers and enhancing protections for them. Ultimately, this comes down to integrity. We need to ensure the strongest possible protections for individuals who are across information because of the nature of their work, the nature of their participation in an industry, and in some cases the nature of their profession. The ability to provide that information in the context and in a safe environment is critical. Without that information, authorities, law enforcement organisations, individuals with regulatory responsibility are often blind to behaviour which in very many cases is either corrupt, criminal or unconscionable. So I'm here this evening supporting this bill, to speak to strengthening whistleblower protections. In particular, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, you know that this bill speaks directly to specific protections for tax whistleblowers and obviously it's a key plank in ensuring we strengthen the integrity of our Australian taxation system.
We've been working hard as a government to ensure that tax, where appropriate, is paid. That is not always an easy task. There are platoons of lawyers engaged often to facilitate arrangements that are lawful and that is one thing. But when individuals, companies, partnerships operate in a way that's unlawful then we need to act on the behaviour. I have to say, our government has a great track record when it comes to international corporates in particular, with some $6 billion of additional revenue arriving on an annual basis at Treasury because of changes in the law we have made. This is another tranche of the changes, one that says to whistleblowers: if you are aware of information that will assist us in ensuring that the law of the land as it relates to taxation is applied then you will be appropriately protected and that should be the case. This is not to look at these provisions in detail but to say that, as a government ,we understand the importance of how serious this behaviour can be. We understand the depth and the desire for protection and we are committed to it.
But this bill goes further. It's not just in relation to behaviour around individuals, companies, partnerships, et cetera and their tax liabilities. It also relates to protections for whistleblowers within the public sector. Wrongdoing in a public sector context could involve can a contravention of law—corruption, maladministration, abuse of public trust, deception in respect of scientific work, a flat-out waste of public money, unreasonable danger to health or safety, danger in the environment, abuse of one's position or grounds for disciplinary action.
We're committed to ensuring that public officials who make public interest disclosures are supported and protected from adverse consequences, and ensuring that public interest disclosures by public officials are properly investigated and dealt with—and that they are reported in the first place. This is about ensuring that whistleblowers are provided with the requisite level of protection, not just in a private context in relation to tax receipts and other things but also in the public context as it relates to the very important work of government from within government.
But perhaps the part of this bill that has interested me the most is the need to ensure whistleblowers are protected in the context of registered organisations. In November 2016, parliament passed amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act which significantly strengthened whistleblower protections for people who report corruption or misconduct in unions and employer organisations. The amendments provide a protection to persons who disclose information about certain contraventions of the law, including current and former officers, employees, members, contractors, et cetera. Importantly, anonymous disclosures are allowed. To qualify for protections, the disclosure has to be made to the Registered Organisations Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman or the Fair Work Commission if the discloser suspects, on reasonable grounds, that it differs to disclosable conduct, defined broadly as an act or omission that contravenes or may contravene a provision of the Registered Organisations Act, the Fair Work Act or the Competition and Consumer Act, or constitutes or may constitute an offence under Commonwealth law.
The disclosure can be made via solicitors. Disclosure to other external parties do not qualify for these protections. The court can award compensation and impose injunctions. The courts can also make compensation orders, when detriment ensues from the failure by a manager to prevent a reprisal. This is because employers are objectively liable for reprisals and actual or constructive knowledge of an actual or potential disclosure is sufficient to create the liability.
The amendments also guarantee that if a whistleblower seeks compensation they will not be subject to adverse legal cost orders if their compensation claim does not succeed, unless their claims are vexatious or deemed to be an abuse of process. This amendment also provides more specific guidance on the use of protected disclosures and investigations conducted by the Registered Organisations Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman or the Fair Work Commission.
In essence, people who are brave enough to call out any behaviour which is unconscionable, criminal, corrupt or falls shy of the requisite standard require the protection of this place and of all arms of government, because if that protection isn't offered or if it's not deemed satisfactory or it doesn't operate satisfactorily, these people will be disincentivised from coming forward. Of course, in dark places bad behaviour can not only continue but propagate. What this law does is say to individuals working in the public and private sectors and working for employer or employee organisations: if you are across any of this information, if it sits uncomfortably with you, not only should you take action; we will protect you when you do. It's only when you shine that bright light on this behaviour that we see it end.
I'll come back to the contribution from the member for Moreton. It was right for him to raise the behaviour we saw so well illustrated through the banking royal commission as an example of behaviour that occurs within corporate organisations that falls well shy of the requisite standard. I've said this publicly, and I'm happy to say it in this place: I'm someone who has apologised to my electorate for the delay in coming to the call for that royal commission.
There are brave individuals in the other place; Senator Williams, in particular, is the first person I saw call on this. At the time I thought we had a well-regulated banking sector, which had coasted us through the global financial crisis, and I was using that as evidence of how resilient the Australian banking system was and how well regulated it was. But it turns out I was wrong. I'm very pleased that we now have the very swift recommendations of Commissioner Hayne to work through. I'm very hopeful that, irrespective of those recommendations and the actions that will come from them from this place, the senior management teams within the banking sector in Australia understand the need to change the culture within those organisations; to refocus their attention on serving their customers, ensuring their customers are treated appropriately and fairly, and ensuring that their behaviour meets the requisite standard. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (18:26): The banking royal commission has unveiled myriad banking and financial sector scandals that will change the face of banking in Australia forever. It was financial whistleblowers who exposed the corrupt practices at banks and financial institutions, including insurers, that led to the realisation of the need for a royal commission in the first place—a royal commission that this government declared was a 'populist whinge' for more than 600 days, a royal commission that this Prime Minister voted against 26 times. No wonder then that to date whistleblowers have been hesitant to come forward and dob in misconduct. It was only in February when the industrial relations minister named Labor's plan to reward whistleblowers as 'wacky'. No wonder whistleblowers are wary of retribution—the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations won't even give them the time of day.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018 implements to some degree some of the recommendations of the September 2017 report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into whistleblower protections, which I took part in. It's quite a tome. The report we formed outlines protections for the public and not-for-profit sectors. This report was intended to better protect whistleblowers. In the bill before us today the Liberal government has only addressed a fraction of the committee's recommendations, and it hasn't responded to the committee's report itself. It is disappointing, yet not at all surprising, that this Liberal government yet again had to be dragged kicking and screaming to strengthen this bill. Their protection racket for big business must stop.
The current whistleblower protection regimes concerning corporate and financial services whistleblowers, are currently found scattered across the Corporations Act, the Banking Act, the Insurance Act, the Life Insurance Act, and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act. These regimes are inconsistent with each other. On top of that, there are currently no whistleblower protections under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act or the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act. The new protection regime in this bill will cover the disclosures in those aforementioned acts.
Under this new form of protection, disclosures must be made in a particular way—that is, they are to be reported to eligible recipients, such as supervisors, auditors, ASIC or APRA. This bill significantly broadens the conduct about which disclosures can be made, with the regime covering misconduct or an improper state of affairs or circumstances in relation to an entity or body corporate, as well as conduct that is a danger to the public or financial system and any breaches of Commonwealth law and breaches of any specified acts connected to the financial services industry in particular. This bill also allows for anonymous disclosures, which is much better than the current legislative regime, which requires individuals to divulge their identities, effectively deterring many.
This legislation removes the requirement that a whistleblower make a disclosure in good faith, as this requirement has also been found to create uncertainty and a risk for whistleblowers. Instead, these protections and remedies are based on the objective reasonableness of the whistleblower's grounds to suspect the misconduct or other disclosable matters.
The legislation also expressly allows for disclosures to lawyers for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and strengthens restrictions on revealing a whistleblower's identify. In addition, the legislation addresses key differences across the pre-existing regimes. It provides for emergency disclosure to a Commonwealth, state or territory parliamentarian, or a professional journalist, where the whistleblower has made a disclosure to the appropriate regulator and, after a reasonable time has passed, reasonably believes there is a threat to public safety or the stability of the financial system. Further, it provides for broad remedies for whistleblowers, including an extension of compensation for victimising conduct or, in appropriate circumstances, exemplary damages.
Critically important is the new requirement for public companies, large proprietary companies and registrable superannuation entities to have whistleblower policies in place. This has been a huge gap in our existing system. The lack of any policies in many large businesses has meant it has been unclear for people working within them to know where to go. Disclosures made to other agencies are not covered by protections under this bill and will be permitted only should there be no action by eligible recipients in an appropriate amount of time and public safety or the stability of the financial system are at risk.
This legislation, though, has been criticised, rightly, by a variety of experts, including the government's own whistleblower expert panellist, Professor AJ Brown, who called this bill 'more a sideways than a forward step on key issues'. Labor, on the other hand, has a strong record when it comes to whistleblower protections. In government, Labor introduced the landmark Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 for public sector whistleblowers. Labor have also committed to introducing tax whistleblower protections, and we will continue to push for a stronger and more comprehensive scheme of whistleblower protections in the private sector than is before us today in this bill. We on the Labor side want to ensure that whistleblowers come forward, and aren't afraid to do so, because we know how important it is for the culture of cover-up to be conquered once and for all.
This commitment is driven, as I said before, by the landmark consensus recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services through its inquiry into whistleblower protections. That was a consensus report driven by not only members of the government and members of the opposition but members of the Greens and those from Centre Alliance. The committee worked well in arriving at the report's consensus recommendations—things that we believe the government could, and should, have implemented through this legislation. Unfortunately, the recommendations in that report have been largely ignored.
A Shorten Labor government will implement a whistleblower reward scheme to enable whistleblowers to receive, from conduct they expose, a percentage of the penalty that is awarded by the court. The reward would be funded through the penalties collected by government and the amount would be determined by the relevant investigative and law-enforcement agencies. A Labor government will also implement an Australian whistleblowing act, which will strengthen, expand and consolidate public and private sector whistleblowing regimes under a single set of laws. Not only does this make the law clearer; it makes it easier for members of the public to understand what their rights and protections are under Commonwealth whistleblower protection law. In addition, a whistleblower protection authority will be established to ensure individuals can easily access information and assistance on their rights and the disclosure process.
Effective whistleblowing provides an essential service in fostering integrity and accountability whilst also deterring and exposing misconduct, fraud and corruption. A recent analysis of whistleblower protections across G20 countries found Australia's laws lacking across the private sector. Whistleblower protections remain largely hypothetical, with little real-world effect in either the public or private sectors. Unfortunately, under the legislation that is before us, there are minimal protections for those who expose serious misconduct and who are likely to be subject to reprisals. That is why we propose a whistleblower protection authority, which would be a body with a demonstrated track record in identifying and investigating corruption and bringing those responsible to account. Labor will establish a protection authority, overhaul current laws into one act and fund prosecutors to make sure those involved in criminal wrongdoing are brought to justice.
While Labor support this bill, the bill also makes clear that this government has no real commitment to whistleblower protections or to ensuring that there is an appropriate clamp-down on corporate misconduct in this country. It is but another fig leaf of this government for its inaction when it comes to corporate wrongdoing. It avoided holding a royal commission, it defunded ASIC and it refused to give additional funding to the Commonwealth DPP. It has not gone the whole hog when it comes the whistleblower protections.
The government has continually refused to do what is necessary to protect Australians from corporate misconduct. It continues to throw up piecemeal pieces of legislation. As I've said time and time again in this House, we called for the introduction of a banking executive accounting ability regime, and then they gave us one—except it was one that didn't actually protect consumers. Now, the royal commission has finally found that that's required, and the government tells us that it agrees to it. Again, there is no legislation forthcoming from this government.
These are all things the government could and should have been doing a long time ago. The report recommendations here are from September 2017. The legislation that we're debating today was held up in the Senate for so long by this government last year and we're only now debating them, which not only has caused us not to have proper whistleblowing protections in our law at a Commonwealth level but has also meant that businesses that have to comply with this law haven't known what they have had to comply with. They have had to look at moving start dates to make sure that they can have their policies properly drafted to comply with this law, which is a new requirement of this law, once it does eventually become law. This government doesn't make things easy for the Australian people, but it could at least get on with ensuring that they are protected from misconduct.
We support this legislation. It is absolutely necessary and vital that we have better whistleblowing protections in this country. Once again, the government has failed to do everything that is required. It has failed to deliver on proper, expansive whistleblower protections that will not only protect whistleblowers but encourage people to blow the whistle where misconduct is found. Because it is only through that conduct, over many years, that we eventually saw the exposure of the banks and the exposure of the misconduct by insurance companies that finally, eventually, led to a royal commission, which was the royal commission that this government refused to hold for over 600 days.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (18:36): Whilst there is much in the member for Burt's contribution that I would agree with, I note had the pleasure of serving with him on that committee and into that inquiry. One important things from that inquiry were some of the stories of those who had sought to blow the whistle on a variety of misdeeds and misbehaviours and the way they were treated. Whistleblowing, in its simplest form, is about disclosing misconduct in the workplace. We have seen, in any number of areas over the past few years, sadly, those things occur.
I think it's critically important, as a consequence, that we have strong whistleblowing protections, because we need those people to be confident that, as they come forward to report that misconduct, they have the protections in place necessary. This is a good step in that direction. It's a good step because we need to ensure that the people who are inside these organisations have the confidence to come forward and report corporate misconduct or—in particular, in the case of this—tax and corporate misconduct. These protections are key to combating what are, in many instances, poor cultures of compliance and to ensuring that companies, their officers and staff know that that conduct will be reported.
Last week in this place in relation to the banking industry, which I had a career in before coming into this place, I made the observation that part of the problem that I see in banking today is that it's filled with managers these days, not bankers, and not with people who build relationships with people. I think we would see many of these cultural issues disappear or be moderated if the banks actually spent time focusing on working and building relationships with their clients rather than chasing profits at the expense of those very clients.
Whistleblowing is important because, oftentimes, in these big corporate organisations, the conduct that is falling short of community expectations or is outright corporate malfeasance is often opaque and complex by the very nature of the organisations involved. Because it's generally behind the four walls of the corporate organisation and not in the public realm, it makes it difficult for our law enforcement organisations to detect it in the first place. We've seen with the banking royal commission the inability of ASIC and/or APRA in a number of instances to deal with these issues or to deal with them in a timely manner. In many cases, corporate crime is only detected once whistleblowers come forward—and, as we saw and heard in the testimony in our committee, sometimes at significant personal and financial risk.
The importance of protecting corporate whistleblowers has been recognised for many years. There are already some legislative protections in the Corporations Act; however, they have been used sparingly and are increasingly perceived as inadequate, having regard to advances in the public sector and overseas. Interestingly, currently there are no specific provisions for tax whistleblowers, and a range of secrecy and privacy provisions are relied upon and are incapable of guaranteeing that absolute protection. This is why in the 2016-17 budget the government announced greater protections for those who disclose information about tax misconduct to the Australian Tax Office.
This bill will further strengthen the integrity of our tax system by creating active protection for whistleblowers to encourage them to make disclosures that are essential. The government is determined to ensure that it has the legislative settings in place to achieve this. In my office, over my time, in this place, I have spoken to a number of people who have raised concerns with me about the tax practices of certain organisations, and I have referred them to the relevant ATO helplines and reporting lines to ensure that they convey those concerns, and I would hope that the ATO has taken the relevant action and acted on those.
The legislation before us today is an important step in the right direction to ensure that our whistleblowers are protected. We see across this legislation the emphasis on the disclosure of wrongdoing and who it is reported to and investigated by within government. This emphasise is designed to make sure that the problems are identified and rectified quickly. Where an official does not wish to make a disclosure to their own agency, the disclosure can be made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Officials can make disclosures to people outside government, other than a foreign public official, where certain criteria are met. It's important, though, that the disclosure must first be reported internally to the government, except in cases of disclosure in an emergency, or to a legal practitioner to obtain legal advice. That is a very important provision. I think it's extremely important that people who are going to go down this road ensure that they are themselves covered.
Qualifying disclosures entitle public sector whistleblowers to protection from exposure of their identities and immunity from civil, criminal and administrative liabilities for making the disclosure. The act also gives protections to public officials from victimisation and discrimination as a result of making a public interest disclosure. A whistleblower can seek a range of civil remedies through a court, including an apology, injunction, reinstatement order and compensation for loss or damage and for costs.
This is in addition to other accountability measures we've already put in place through this House, such as the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. We sought to ensure that the senior executives of our banking and financial services institutions are held to account for their actions. Sadly, as I've touched on before, the royal commission has shown the reason why legislation like the Banking Executive Accountability Regime was necessary.
I think I've said before in this place that I'd prefer that many of these pieces of legislation that are tied to people's ethics and conduct in our society weren't necessary, and that people acted in an ethical manner and conducted themselves in an ethical manner. There were days when you'd shake someone's hand or sign a contract to do a deal, and that's the deal that was done and honoured. Sadly, we've seen over the last number of years the conduct of organisations not meet those community expectations. I think far too often we stand in this place and pass legislation to deal with that ethical failure of those in the broader community. I think it's incumbent, as a consequence, on our corporate sector, the public sector, and, importantly, the private sector to ensure that standards of community expectation and standards of conduct meet the highest level possible.
At the end of the day, they are dealing with everyday Australians. In the case of financial services sector, they are dealing with people's finances. In the case of businesses that trade in other areas, like our major food and grocery organisations, they are dealing with everyday Australians—farmers and other manufacturers of food products that they sell on their shelves. We hear many stories of farmers and people who supply to large grocery chains. We hear the stories of how they are treated by the large corporates in that space.
Again it shows that these whistleblowing provisions—in whatever form they take, whether in the public or private sector—are necessary to ensure that conduct that doesn't meet legal requirements or falls short of community expectations is reported. I want to see in our community people treated fairly and equitably. It disappoints me that we have to stand in this place and pass laws such as this because our corporate offices—predominantly listed corporates—can't seem to do that and are more interested in chasing profits as a consequence.
I commend this bill to the House because I think it is a good step in the right direction to ensure that the whistleblowers in our community who have the information in front of them also have the courage to stand up and make the issues that they see on a daily basis or have come across known to the public. I trust that through that process we will see over time that the culture in our organisations that are doing the wrong thing is changed and is cleaned up. In doing that, I trust that all Australians will benefit through having and being able to restore that level of trust. I heard a contribution earlier today that talked about the level of trusts in our institutions and our corporate entities. We have seen these stories over the past little while and in the inquiry from people who were prepared to be whistleblowers. It's not unfair to reflect on why there is a loss of trust in some of our most well-regarded names when you see some of the things that have been brought to the fore by the whistleblowers who have had the courage to stand up and be counted.
I think it is critically important, through legislation in this place, we ensure those whistleblowers continue to be protected or be given, in this case, more protection to give them the opportunity to shine the light on the dark places where it needs to be shone, where things are not being done in accordance with the laws of this country but, more importantly, in accordance with community expectations and a level of ethics and conduct where everyone in our society can benefit. So I commend this bill to the House.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (18:50): I welcome the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017 and the protections that this bill will provide to individuals in the financial and corporate sectors who seek to report wrongdoing. Whistleblower laws are there to protect those individuals who would, without measures like this bill, likely find themselves facing legal action for speaking out, drawing attention to misconduct in the workplace like that uncovered by Jeff Morris in 2008 while employed in the financial planning arm of the Commonwealth Bank. Because Mr Morris was brave enough to speak out, over $50 million in compensation has been paid out to victims of poor financial advice. But as a consequence, Mr Morris lost his job, his family and his health. He is a courageous man who paid a huge price.
While Australia does have a patchwork of protections spread across three separate acts, this bill will strengthen the existing whistleblower frameworks through two broad measures. First, it will consolidate and broaden the existing protection and remedies for corporate and financial sector whistleblowers. Second, it will create a whistleblower protection regime to ensure disclosure of information regarding breaches of tax laws or misconduct relating to an entity's tax affairs.
Before I turn to the substantive provisions in this bill, I want to acknowledge the work of former Senator Nick Xenophon and my Centre Alliance colleague, Senator Rex Patrick, for their work on this bill, which led to a significant improvement in the integrity of our private sector. Both have worked tirelessly to ensure individuals are not penalised for speaking out against misconduct when they see it—first, through former Senator Xenophon's support for the 2013 Public Interest Disclosure Act, a bill to encourage those in the Australian public sector who report suspected wrongdoing and then, second, through amendments to the 2016 fair work registered organisations amendment Act offering similar protection to whistleblowers. It was during the negotiations between government and former Senator Xenophon that the 2016 act that the government finally undertook to take a serious look at protections in the private sector.
This bill was also the culmination of a number of parliamentary inquiries involving the work of parliamentarians from both sides of the chamber and individuals such as Professor AJ Brown, who have generously shared their knowledge and expertise in this field, and I note Professor Brown is in the gallery today. Indeed, it was an earlier report prepared by Professor Brown and his colleagues at Transparency International that showed protections for private sector workers in Australia were actually on par with nations such as Russia and Saudi Arabia. Clearly these reforms are long overdue.
Many of the measures contained in this bill were previously identified in the unanimous and bipartisan 2017 report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, which undertook a comprehensive analysis of whistleblower protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors. This bill addresses 32 of 35 recommendations from that 2017 report and, may I say, it's quite rare for a bill to address that many recommendations so it's pleasing to see. But the recommendations not addressed include a single private sector act, the introduction of a reward scheme for whistleblowers and the establishment of an independent whistleblower protection authority. I understand that work will continue in these areas, and Centre Alliance will monitor the government's progress closely. Notwithstanding these omissions and the need for further reform, this bill does broaden the protections open to whistleblowers and it is an important step forward. The revelations from the royal commission into misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry highlight the importance of a robust whistleblower framework that encourages individuals to report wrongdoing without fear of reprisal.
In the final report, Commissioner Hayne drew attention to the culture of greed, and how this led to behaviour that fell well short of community standards. Commissioner Hayne said:
Rewarding misconduct is wrong. Yet incentive, bonus and commission schemes throughout the financial services industry have measured sales and profit, but not compliance with the law and proper standards. Incentives have been offered, and rewards have been paid, regardless of whether the sale was made, or profit derived, in accordance with law. Rewards have been paid regardless of whether the person rewarded should have done what they did.
Commissioner Hayne went on to note:
Misconduct will be deterred only if entities believe that misconduct will be detected, denounced and justly punished.
The royal commission has exposed the flaws in our financial sector, but the real work lies ahead. What is required now is cultural change.
The bill will address that cultural change by requiring all public and large companies to develop whistleblower policies that clearly set out what protections are available to whistleblowers, how and to whom a disclosure can be made and what steps the company will take to support and protect whistleblowers. It is effective and responsible whistleblowing that will foster integrity and accountability which, in turn, will deter and expose misconduct, fraud and corruption.
Part 1 of the bill seeks to achieve that aim by bringing the corporations and financial sector whistleblower regimes into alignment, and it broadens the category of people who are eligible for protection. Currently, the Corporations Act 2001 protects a current officer, employee or contractor of a company who makes a disclosure in good faith—meaning without a personal grievance about a breach of Corporations Law. That test has now been changed, and instead it will become a question of reasonableness rather than inquiry to the motives behind that disclosure.
Specifically, the whistleblower must have reasonable grounds to suspect misconduct or an improper state of affairs. Existing protections include some immunity from civil or criminal liability; or contractual remedies for making the disclosure, prohibitions or victimisation; and the right to seek compensation for damage from victimisation. There are also currently some restraints prohibiting the disclosure of a whistleblower's identity or the information disclosed. Similar protections exist within the financial sector whistleblower provisions for a disclosure concerning misconduct or impropriety in APRA related entities. The bill will ensure that these two similar sectors are now able to adopt a uniform approach to whistleblower protection by aligning the two legislative frameworks. The bill also extends the same protection to entities regulated by the National Consumer Credit Protection Act and the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act, which do not currently include any whistleblower protections. A clear and consistent approach to the protections provided to whistleblowers, as outlined in this bill, can give individuals the confidence they need to call out this type of behaviour that Commissioner Hayne has described.
Importantly, the bill will also amend the emergency disclosure provisions. Previously, a whistleblower was required to wait a reasonable time before making an emergency disclosure. This bill discards the opaque time limit placed on emergency disclosures. However, some limits remain. A disclosure must have been made previously to a regulator and the regulator then notified again prior to making the emergency disclosure. I note that the requirement to wait 90 days will remain for a disclosure that is to be made on the grounds of public interest. For example, should a person wish to disclose information to a journalist in the belief that it is in the public interest to do so, they must first notify the regulator or other designated recipient. If no further action has been taken after 90 days and the matter remains one of public interest, then the disclosure can be made to the journalist.
Whistleblowers will also have the opportunity to pursue compensation in the event that they have suffered a detriment as a result of their actions as a whistleblower. The ability to seek compensation is an acknowledgement that the service provided by whistleblowers often comes at great personal cost. To be clear, the protections set out in the bill do not extend to those individuals who would seek to use a whistleblower regime to further their own agenda or to settle personal grievances. The bill expressly prohibits protection for disclosures relating to individual personnel, employment or workplace grievances. Those disputes may well be legitimately impacting on the individual, but the focus of this legislative framework is the detection of misconduct, not misunderstandings or miscommunications.
The second aspect of the bill is also an important step forward. Part 2 of the bill amends the taxation amendment act to protect individuals who report noncompliance with tax laws or misconduct in relation to an entity's tax affairs. There is currently no explicit protection offered with respect to taxation matters. The amendments in relation to taxation matters will be broadly similar to those that relate to the corporate and financial sector. The impact of so-called white-collar crime should not be underestimated. In 2016 estimates prepared by the Attorney-General's Department consultation paper into prosecuting corporate crime, it was revealed that these crimes are costing Australia more than $8.5 billion a year. I'll just repeat that: $8.5 billion a year to our nation. To put that into context, this equates to 40 per cent of the total cost of crime in Australia.
But we know that the cost of corporate crime extends well beyond the hip pocket. As the New South Wales Law Reform Commission notes:
Given the pervasive presence of corporations in a wide range of activities in our society, and the impact of their actions on a much wider group of people than are affected by individual action, the potential for both economic and physical harm caused by a corporation is great.
The royal commission has proven just how widespread that harm can be. But this bill provides an opportunity for banks to earn back the public trust by implementing meaningful whistleblower policies so that no other employee has to suffer the same David versus Goliath battle that Jeff Morris had to endure. Instead, organisations can use whistleblowers as part of a comprehensive risk management policy and stop small problems before they impact on consumers.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of Minister O'Dwyer, the member for Higgins, for this significant reform and note that it was the minister's willingness to engage in open and frank negotiations over a long period of time with Centre Alliance that enabled this bill and the benefits that it will provide to the public to come to fruition. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (19:02): Today I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018 because this is something that this House should care a great deal about. I will say up-front that the Labor opposition will be supporting this bill, even though we don't believe it goes far enough and its approach is somewhat piecemeal in an area which needs a major and significant overhaul after so many years of relative neglect.
I think most people on this side of the House know that I doorknock a lot. In fact, I've doorknocked at over 76,000 houses with a group of about four people over the last 15 years, and over that time the feedback that I get from people—what people tell me—has changed as their attention has moved. Someday I'll have to write a bit of an essay on how it's moved over that 15 years, but what I've really noticed in the last year to an extraordinary extent is the number of people that raise with me their concern that something's wrong—that decisions that government make, whether it's state, federal or local, don't always make sense. They don't know who those decisions are for or who benefits from them because they don't seem to be in the interests of the community. I get people talking about appalling treatment by banks and their sense of powerlessness when they're dealing with large organisations, the tax office or other large institutions and government bodies.
It's quite a tidal wave of a similar view that has swept across my community in the last year, and that's in spite of the fact that not many of those people would know that we've actually slipped down the corruption index as a nation—that when you rank Australia relative to the rest of the developed world we are slipping down. So the data seems to reflect exactly what people are telling me: that something is wrong. At least there's a willingness of people to believe that now, and to believe it easily. You can see it in social media. Someone suggests something and this wave of belief sweeps through the community, without the community really considering whether or not it's true. I think that reflects a growing sense of unease and mistrust on the part of the community in government, in major institutions and in the corporate sector.
We know that for people who do speak out there are some appalling consequences, but we also know that most people who would like to speak out actually don't. We know that. We know that people sometimes sit for years before they finally work up the courage to do it, and we all know of people who quietly call us and anonymously tell us things, because they're not prepared to put their name to things.
This sense of a loss of trust that our community is feeling actually weakens our capacity as a nation to make decisions, so we should take it very, very seriously. If people lose trust in major institutions, in federal, local and state governments, if they lose trust in the decisions that those organisations make, it weakens the nation's capacity and the community's capacity to make decisions in its own interest, because people walk away, they back off, they become suspicious and they don't engage in the way that they need to.
The government, as I think many people know—I doubt that Deputy Speaker Hastie agrees with me—has a bit of a reputation for a lack of transparency, and, in many cases, for quite aggressive attempts to silence voices. I can refer, for example, to the two-year jail term for doctors who spoke out about the medical conditions of people on Manus and Nauru. I can talk about seemingly lesser things, but extremely important things, like gag clauses for organisations that receive grants. These were abolished by a Labor government and reintroduced by a Liberal-National coalition. Rightly or wrongly, there are perceptions that there are two standards of behaviour: one for ministers of the government and one for those who work for them. Again, rightly or wrongly, there is a perception of this lack of transparency and of a cracking down on people who are outspoken and critical of the government.
In circumstances like this, it's incredibly important that governments act to re-establish trust. There are three major issues that need to be addressed. The first is the federal anticorruption commission. I know the government has put up a proposal. We on this side don't believe it goes anywhere near far enough. We've been calling for a federal anticorruption commission for well over a year. Secondly, we need substantial whistleblower protection. This bill begins that process, but doesn't go far enough. Thirdly, we need higher penalties for corporate crime. Those three things are absolutely essential at this point, and it's good to see even this piecemeal attempt to improve one of them, which is whistleblower protection.
I want to talk briefly about the history of this. This bill implements, to some degree, some of the recommendations of the September 2017 report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into whistleblowing protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors. The establishment of the inquiry was actually part of a deal done between the government and Nick Xenophon and Senator Hinch to pass the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill in November 2016. Way back then, the government established this joint committee to look into this issue. That was 2017. In the last sitting week of 2017, shortly after that, the government introduced the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017, designed to strengthen protections for corporate whistleblowers and introduce protections for tax whistleblowers. That was way back in the last week of 2017. We're well over a year later and we're now beginning debate on this important bill. That alone says a great deal about this government's priorities and the importance that it places on this bill, which it really only agreed to deal with because of the deal it did with the crossbenchers. And here we are a year later and the bill is here.
The bill does make some key improvements. It broadens the conduct about which disclosures can be made. It allows for anonymous disclosures. It removes the requirement that a whistleblower makes a disclosure in good faith. It allows for disclosures to lawyers for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. It strengthens restrictions of obtaining the whistleblower's identity. So it does make a number of improvements. The bill has been improved further by negotiations and amendments by Centre Alliance. I would like to thank the crossbench in the House and the Senate for working so hard to improve this bill, because it is an incredibly important area.
But the bill has been criticised. Professor A J Brown, a leading expert in Australia on whistleblower protections and a member of the government's own expert panel, reportedly called this bill a 'limited step' and 'a more sideways than a forward step on key issues'. The bill has been criticised in relation to the compensation arrangements and for only protecting disclosures to the media and parliamentarians in very limited circumstances. So there's quite a bit of criticism. But, again, while it might be a side-step, it is a step—a step a year later and a step under pressure, but a step nevertheless.
Labor, on the other hand, has announced policies that go much, much further than this. But, for a government that fought the royal commission into banks for so long, that argued against the royal commission into child sexual abuse, that held off against a royal commission into aged care, that voted against a royal commission into disabilities just last week, that is heavy-handed towards people that speak out, that lacks transparency and that has to be led kicking and screaming to all those areas, this is a step forward, and it is well improved by the amendments made by Centre Alliance—and, once again, I would thank those.
Labor's policy in this area goes much further than this. It sets up quite a new system. It sets up a whistleblower reward scheme; it establishes a whistleblower protection authority; it overhauls our whistleblowing laws with a single whistleblowing act; and funds a special prosecutor to bring corporate criminals to justice. That is a significant change to the way this nation handles whistleblowing and the protection that it provides. The banking royal commission, as we know, highlighted the appalling and even criminal conduct in the banking sector, and it was only possible because brave whistleblowers and bank victims came forward and Labor listened. The Liberal government did everything they could to protect the banks from that.
Right now, blowing the whistle on crime and misconduct is incredibly difficult, and whistleblowers often face reprisals and some are never able to work again. There are serious consequences to livelihood, mental health and reputation for whistleblowers. For many Australians who see wrongdoing and want to stop it whistleblowing is simply not worth the risk. That shouldn't be the case. So Labor will establish a whistleblower reward scheme to make it easier for good people to come forward and report instances of crime and misconduct. The scheme will allow whistleblowers to receive a percentage of the penalties arising out of wrongdoing that they reveal. Once a crook is hit with a financial penalty as a result of whistleblowing, the whistleblower reward scheme will allow a proportion of the penalty to be given as reward to the whistleblower. The relevant investigative or law enforcement agency will have discretion to determine the level of reward within a legislative range.
Labor will also strengthen protections for whistleblowers through the establishment of a whistleblower protection authority—literally, a one-stop shop to support and protect whistleblowers. The authority will have dedicated staff to advise whistleblowers on their rights, assist them through the disclosure process and help them access compensation if they face reprisals. A person sitting within a major corporation, expert in their field, may not know the process and the protections that they are entitled to if they are a whistleblower. This will provide an expert staff to help them through that process.
Labor believes that all whistleblowers should be treated the same regardless of the type of workplace they're in, but right now our whistleblower laws are opaque and inconsistent and depend entirely on where you work. A Shorten Labor government will also create a single Australian whistleblower act, consolidating all of the mainstream whistleblowing legislation into one location so that whistleblowers can readily understand how they are protected. This will be a major shake-up of Australia's whistleblowing regime. We will undertake detailed design work to make sure that the new laws, the proposed reward scheme and the whistleblower protection authority are powerful and effective.
Labor is commit committed to cracking down on misconduct and corruption in the banking and financial services sector. These announcements build on our commitment to a banking royal commission implementation taskforce and to deliver an extra $25 million over the next two years for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to tackle corporate crime. As part of this funding, Labor will also appoint a special prosecutor to crack down on corporate criminals.
The difference in approach to this between the government and the opposition are clear. The government has been dragged by the Centre Alliance through a deal to support another bill and into looking at this area. Over a year later, they finally brought the bill to this House. It is a piecemeal approach; it is a sidewards step. As I said, we will support it; but the difference between this government's approach and Labor's approach is clear. Labor will establish a coherent, transparent, easy-to-understand and navigable process for whistleblowers that will assist people who have identified corporate crime or government crime to come forward and serve their community in the way that we need them to. Once again, we will support this bill, but there's much, much more to be done. I would seriously urge the government to look at Labor's proposal and consider it very seriously.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (19:17): I rise to enter the debate to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018. I follow on from the member for Parramatta, who has had a long interest in small business matters and particularly in the areas of consumer and regulatory protections. I want to continue on a couple of points that she made. One of the horror stories that we've heard as a result of the banking royal commission has been the fact that whistleblowers in in country haven't been empowered—or haven't felt the ability—to know where to go for information. As we've heard from the shadow minister, we will be supporting this bill tonight. But I do want to enter the debate and also reflect on this side of the chamber and how we would offer greater protections. Whilst we have heard that this is a step in the right direction, the Labor opposition believe there is much, much more we can do in this space.
The bill, as we know, implements to some degree some of the recommendations of the September 2017 report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into whistleblower protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors. As we know, the establishment of this inquiry and this bill was part of a deal done between the government and then Senator Nick Xenophon and Senator Hinch to pass the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2016. The difficulty we have with this is that, in some sense, this wasn't the pure intention of what the government was doing. It was a hybrid in terms of how it ended up in this space.
I will go through the improvements, as we see then, before I offer some constructive advice to the government. The key improvements are that the new regime significantly broadens the conduct about which disclosures can be made; the new regime covers misconduct, an improper state of affairs or circumstances in relation to the entity or related body corporate; and disclosable conduct is also specified to include conduct that represents a danger to the public or financial system, disclosures about a breach of any Commonwealth law subject to a term of imprisonment of over one year and breaches of other specified acts.
By contrast, the current protections in the Corporations Act only cover disclosures about breaches of the corporations legislation. It allows for anonymous disclosures, and I guess one of the difficulties that we've seen that the existing regime requires that a whistleblower provides their name when making a disclosure in order to qualify for protection, which is contrary of the issue of being a whistleblower in the first place.
This removes the requirement that a whistleblower makes a disclosure in good faith. This requirement has been found to create un certainty and, more importantly, a risk for whistleblowers. This change means that protections and remedies are based on the objective reasonableness of the whistleblower's grounds to suspect that information disclosed indicates misconduct or other disclosable matters. It expressly allows for disclosures to lawyers for the purposes of obtaining legal advice and strengthens restrictions of the revealing of a whistleblower's identity.
One of the things I have seen as a member of parliament is the horrific stories in my own community of those people who have been ripped off and taken advantage of by the banking sector system in Australia. Late last year I was privileged to sit with a number of victims of banks in Australia in my own electorate and held my own roundtable of victims. I'll be honest: I wasn't quite sure what was going to come out of that roundtable. I knew there had been problems in the industry. I'd heard from people at mobile offices and street corner meetings about their experiences, but opening up to the ability to listen to people firsthand was a difficult experience but a very worthwhile experience for me as a member of parliament.
We know that the Morrison government fought against a banking royal commission every step of the way and that they agreed reluctantly not because the government thought it was the right policy decision; they believed they were going to lose a vote on the floor of parliament with the member for Dawson wishing to cross the floor, and there was the subsequent announcement of the royal commission.
Many members of parliament on this side held similar roundtables, so I'm not on my own there. One of the consistent themes and disclosures that occurred at those—and I know the member for Paterson and the member for Newcastle held similar roundtables to hear firsthand. One of the tragedies I heard from a number of people was that they felt they had nowhere to go to tell their story. In fact, they felt no-one would believe them. They felt that the power imbalance was so great that there was no point in telling their story. They thought, 'Well, that's just the system that we have. That broke my heart, but I resolved from listening to those stories that we needed a greater mechanism and, clearly, a greater pathway for people to be able to tell their story but also to bell the cat when it comes to improper practices, when people felt the deck was stacked against them.
I guess tonight in this parliament we're dealing with only a very small facet of that. As I said, the Labor Party will be supporting this bill tonight, but we fundamentally believe there are greater protections that should be in place and a greater, more open procedure when it comes to these issues. That's why I was delighted that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for financial services and the shadow minister for justice, Clare O'Neil, have put forward a bold proposal of positive ideas to deal with the issue of banking whistleblowers.
In the time remaining, I will highlight a couple of those issues because I do want to associate myself with this policy. After meeting with victims, after listening to their stories, there is nothing more important that I think this term of parliament can deal with than ensuring that those people—and in many cases we know, not just in my community but right across Australia, people put themselves on the line at great personal cost to their own careers, to their family circumstances and, in some cases, their own financial circumstances. So I am pleased that, if privileged to be elected, a future Shorten Labor government will establish: an Australian whistleblower act to strengthen, expand and, for the first time, consolidate the public and private sector whistleblower regimes under a single set of laws overseen by a new and independent whistleblower protection authority; a whistleblower reward scheme, which has had some debate, but is something that I strongly support to enable whistleblowers to receive a percentage of a penalty awarded by a court arising out of conduct that they blew the whistle on; and a whistleblower protection authority to help whistleblowers understand their rights and disclosure processes. The other thing I heard very clearly from people was that people didn't understand how they could access the current regime. I think that those three highlights of our whistleblower policy in particular will give that certainty that many, many people are demanding. I will spend a couple of minutes in my time remaining tonight to highlight the fact that Labor will provide $3.2 million over the forward estimates to immediately set up the whistleblower protection authority within the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and it would house five full-time positions dedicated to assisting whistleblowers through the disclosure process.
There's been some commentary surrounding the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018 tonight. We heard from the member for Parramatta regarding the comments of Professor AJ Brown, a leading expert in Australia on whistleblower protections and a member of the government's own expert panel. He's called this bill a 'limited step' and, as we heard, more of a sideways than forward step on key issues. So in my books, it makes it difficult when we're trying to create a path way forward that we're skirting around those issues. As we said before, this is a step in the right direction but we really believe that there is more to be done.
Professor Brown, as we know, is a powerful voice on the government's own expert panel. He's a leading authority on whistleblower laws and he spearheaded a landmark research project on whistleblowing entitled: Whistling While They Work 2. The project surveyed of 702 organisations and its preliminary research found almost one in four organisations had no particular system for recording and tracking wrongdoing concerns and 'did not currently have any strategy, program or process for supporting and protecting staff who raise concerns'. The survey also found that only 40 per cent of organisations provided potential whistleblowers with access to a management-designated support person inside the organisation to ensure the people who needed to disclose information had a pathway to do that. So in my opinion, this spells out clearly that Australia needs to get on and create a holistic approach to dealing with whistleblowers. One of the issues we've got this with this legislation tonight is that it is a patchwork approach to dealing with this issue rather than a holistic approach.
I wanted to speak on this bill tonight because of the people that I have met and the stories that I have heard. I know the heartache that they have endured. I know the difficulties that they have expressed to me as their representative about having to provide the information, not in an open and transparent way, but in a very difficult or somewhat clunky way. I will never forget their stories. I certainly hope that tonight's bill that we're debating, if it is passed as law, will begin some ways to providing that initial pathway, providing some improvements to those people who deserve an open and transparent process to ensure that the misconduct of the past, the horrific circumstances that we've seen in the banking and financial industry in Australia will never, ever happen again.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ) (19:29): It being close to 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Aged Care
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (19:29): We heard an extraordinary comment from the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care in parliament today when he talked about how senior Australians and those in aged care deserve better than what we've seen in the last 20 years. I wanted to take this opportunity to point out to the minister that the Liberal-National government has been in government for 14½ of that last 20 years, so he's right—they have absolutely let them down.
This Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government will be remembered for five years of inaction, cutting funding and not driving long-term reform when it comes to aged care. In fact, they did such a terrible job of it they've had to call a royal commission. Indeed, they have done nothing to deal with the home care waitlist. It was, of course, federal Labor that did aged-care reforms, bipartisan aged-care reforms, last time we were in government. The former minister did a lot of work on those reforms to get that bipartisanship, but, sadly, we've not seen similar energy and effort from those on the other side.
Now, of course, as we come into the lead-up to the election, we've got those on the other side pretending they care about older Australians. As I have said publicly, older Australians are not going to be fooled—they're not going to be fooled at all. Indeed, in recent weeks we've heard about some of the impacts that the cuts have had. There was a document from the government's own department which called some of the people in residential aged care 'losers'—a term that you wouldn't expect to see when it comes to older Australians in a government departmental brief, I wouldn't have thought. They were referring to the $1.2 billion cut in the Aged Care Funding Instrument in the 2016-17 budget that, of course, was the responsibility of the then Treasurer now Prime Minister. That came on top of a half a billion dollar cut—$500 million—in the 2015 MYEFO, on top of more than $100 million in the dementia supplement in residential aged care that was cut. That's almost $2 billion in direct cuts, but, of course, they have an effect where they add up cumulatively over years. People in the industry, in the sector, are talking about around $3 billion of cuts just in the last five years from this government when it comes to aged care.
As I said, after all of this, and, of course, that terrible Four Corners program that showed some of the terrible treatment of older Australians in aged care, we finally got a royal commission. We've been really clear on our side that we support this royal commission. Then we had the government respond to some of the revelations to date in the royal commission, particularly in relation to chemical and physical restraints, where we had the government say that they intend to act in the coming weeks. Well, we've got three days left between here and the budget sittings, and then, of course, sometime after that the election will no doubt be formally called, so I don't see when the government is actually going to respond and deal with this really serious issue of chemical and physical restraints. It's had a report on its desk for 18 months saying that it needed to do something about this. Of course, the government has a whole series of reports sitting on its desk. At my last count, there were more than a dozen, with many, many recommendations that have still not been acted on. Indeed, one of those reports is the Tune report, which is the legislated five-year review into Labor's living longer, living better reforms, which is still only partially addressed.
Then, of course, we come to the issue that I get almost every day from around the country, and that's people calling into my office about home care packages. As people would know, there's now a national priority queue, which of course was part of Labor's reforms. What we've seen under this government, under its watch, is that waitlist blow out to 127,000 older Australians waiting in that queue. What's really concerning is that 69,000 of those older Australians actually have no home care package at all. These are older Australians at home, who have been assessed for a home care package and who have been approved for a home care package, but have not yet been allocated a home care package. Sadly, what we've seen is the wait time for those packages blow out terribly under this government.
Now, the government has responded due to pressure from the public, from the sector and, I'd like to think, from some of us on this side of the House to actually respond to and fund some more home care packages, but it's too little too late. The public are not going to be fooled by the government rushing at the last minute to do something about an issue it has known about for 18 months. This list has now been compiled for some time— (Time expired)
Bonner Electorate: Roads
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (19:34): I am thrilled by the government's two recent road-funding announcements for my electorate of Bonner. The intersections at Newnham Road and Wecker Road in Mount Gravatt, and Chelsea Road and Rickertt Road at Ransome are an absolute nightmare for many of my constituents. That's why I'm proud to have secured a combined $18 million funding commitment from the government to fix these black spots and get people home sooner and more safely so that, instead of sitting in traffic, constituents can be at home, spending quality time with their families.
The intersection at Newnham Road and Wecker Road in Mount Gravatt has been a blight to the Southside community of Bonner for many years now, and I've spoken about it at length here in parliament before. In just four years, from 2014 to 2017, there were seven serious car crashes and nine serious casualties reported at the local intersection. Just last year, the RACQ named it the fifth worst intersection in the state of Queensland. After seeing this, I was mortified and, having spoken to many locals about this issue, I took it upon myself to do something about it. I started a community petition calling for a fix to this local accident hotspot, and, unsurprisingly, the petition quickly gained the support of the community, with almost 2,000 people signing their names in support of a solution. I made a promise to my community that I wasn't going to stop until the issue was solved, and I made sure of it.
I want to thank the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison; and the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population, Alan Tudge, for listening to me and my constituents and for working with me to announce the $12 million to upgrade the Newnham Road and Wecker Road intersection. This upgrade will mean a much safer commute for the hundreds of people who go through there every day and less time spent on the roads and away from loved ones. It also means peace of mind for the hundreds of parents and students from Mount Gravatt East State School who have to navigate this dangerous intersection every day.
The second road-funding announcement that we made for Bonner is the Chelsea Road and Rickertt Road intersection at Ransome. This is another notorious hazard that locals asked me to fix. Again, I want to thank my colleagues for working with me to deliver $6 million to make this accident hotspot safer.
Following the announcement, I spoke to Ransome residents Kelly and Brad Davies, who told me the upgrade will improve their lives and their neighbours' lives immensely. It will also make it safer for their young daughter to cross the road when she goes to and from school in peak-hour traffic each day.
I want to make it clear to Bayside residents that the issues at Lindum crossing have not been forgotten. I'm keeping the pressure on the state government to come to the table, and I will keep raising it in Canberra until it is fixed, so that you can all get home more safely. This is one of my biggest priorities, going into the election. I'm pleased to be fighting for Bonner to ensure this funding is going where it is needed most in my community, and I'm proud to have delivered for my constituents.
Shortland Electorate: Community Services
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (19:38): The community sector is at the heart of how Australia delivers social services. Community organisations deliver important practical services to the poorest and most vulnerable in our community. But these services are under attack by this government, and they have been since the horror budget of 2014. Funding has been cut to the tune of $1 billion, according to ACOSS. Grant processes have become chaotic: delays are common; certainty has disappeared. Some organisations have missed out on growth funding that would allow them to meet increasing demand. Some have received only short-term transitional funding. Others have lost funding altogether. These are organisations that are well established and have been providing services to our community for decades.
I want to talk today about organisations in my electorate whose futures are under a cloud because of the cuts by this cruel and heartless government. The first is Swansea Community Cottage. Swansea Community Cottage has been helping people in Lake Macquarie and Newcastle with emergency financial relief for 30 years. Last year the cottage was advised by the Department of Social Services that its bid for funding for the next five years had not been successful. Perplexed and desperate, the cottage asked the department to reconsider, and it was successful in gaining funding for one more year—just one more year. But that funding is only transitional. It offers no security for the future. There are no services on the eastern side of Lake Macquarie that do what Swansea cottage does. If it is lost, people in need of emergency financial relief will have to travel up to an hour for help, further stretching their strained budgets and their capacity to cope.
Swansea Community Cottage help people who are in financial crisis from right across Lake Macquarie and Newcastle. People are referred to them by Centrelink, neighbourhood groups, schools, doctors, community groups and charities. My office refers people to them. The cottage helps 500 people a year—300 women and 200 men. Most people visit the cottage four times. One in five identifies as Indigenous. One in six have a disability. One in 25 are under 19. They are low-income earners, single parents, people with a disability, Indigenous people, young people and vulnerable people. Importantly, people can just drop in to the cottage and don't need to make an appointment. They can get clothing, bedding and household items through the Freecycle program and food from SecondBite and OzHarvest. The cottage also refers people to housing services, playgroups, vacation care, out-of-school care and support groups such as AA. It helps with TAFE, Centrelink and Work for the Dole. All this helps improve people's financial resilience, health and wellbeing. It helps families function and reduces social isolation. Many Indigenous families seek help when there is a death in their extended family, to travel long distances to attend a funeral or host large numbers of family. This is critical to their social structure. This service is so vital in so many ways.
A second group in my electorate with a question mark over its future is the Charlestown Caring Group. This group has been caring for mostly older members of our community for 50 years. For just over 30, they have received federal government funding under the Commonwealth Home Support Program to help older Australians live well at home, with services such as shopping and transport to medical appointments, activities and bus trips. They help 120 older Australians every year under the Commonwealth Home Support Program. And, although they aren't funded for it, they help another 15 NDIS clients and 40 'private clients', whose services such as house cleaning and lawn mowing are not subsidised.
The Charlestown Caring Group have not lost their ongoing funding—let me be clear about that—but they have missed out on the growth funding they were hoping for to allow them to meet increasing demand, a demand that will increase as our region, like many in Australia, gets older. Growth funding has gone to other groups in the area but not to Charlestown Caring Group. The group are concerned because they are a small organisation and one of a few small providers left, as many have been forced to fold or merge. They want equality and fairness in growth funding and the chance to ensure their organisation, which fundraises $6,000 a year, and relies on 58 volunteers to support its handful of paid staff, continues to provide the caring services our community has come to rely on.
This government does not take the community sector seriously. There have been four ministers in five years and cuts of $1 billion. We have also seen the centralisation of grants to large, national organisations that do provide good services but don't provide the location based services that are so vital. A few years ago we had an extreme low-pressure system devastate my region, and small community centres provided relief, such as the Swansea Community Cottage. The community sector and groups like Swansea Community Cottage and Charlestown Caring Group deserve so much better. The people of Shortland deserve so much better from this out-of-touch federal government.
Fisher Electorate: Education, Employment and Retirement
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (19:43): I sought election to this parliament because I want to help to make my community the place to be for education, employment and retirement. That is my vision for Fisher, and it is my mission on behalf of the people who elected me. In 2019 I will be fighting for the people in Fisher on four campaigns that will help deliver that vision in the years to come—building the roads and rail infrastructure our community needs; protecting thousands of local seniors from Labor's unfair retiree tax; growing a stronger local economy that delivers the jobs of the future on the Sunshine Coast; and securing our prosperity by avoiding Labor's disastrous property tax grab.
Since 2016, the coalition government has committed to billions of dollars in upgrades to the Bruce Highway and the North Coast Rail locally. The first phase of the necessary roadworks is already at the halfway stage. The second phase, extra lanes between Caboolture and Steve Irwin Way, will commence in 2020. Likewise, we have 70 per cent of the rail funds we need and planning is underway. However, our community cannot go forward with endless construction works. We need the extra lanes, the extra track, the flood-proofing and the improved interchanges that the government has committed to fund built as soon as possible.
Finally, Sunshine Coast residents know that we will also need action on local state government roads. It won't solve our problems simply to fix the national infrastructure in Fisher; we also need to deal with the heavy congestion on key routes throughout our community. In 2019, I will fight to fast-track our road and rail upgrades and turn my attention to our local roads to work on congestion-busting solutions for Caloundra Road, Kawana Way, Nicklin Way and Brisbane Road.
Without a strong economy we cannot deliver these upgrades. My constituents understand that without a strong economy we cannot properly fund the 39 schools, the thousands of childcare places, the University of the Sunshine Coast and Medicare, the best universal healthcare system in the world. Without a strong economy we cannot encourage the new industries, like defence and high-tech manufacturing, which are going to deliver the meaningful jobs that our young people want, and we cannot support our small and family businesses to employ more locals. Without a strong economy we cannot deliver the medicines, the aged-care places and the hospital on which our seniors rely.
I'll be fighting in 2019 to maintain the government's unmatched economic management and ensure that it pays dividends for Fisher across the sectors of education, employment and retirement. Almost half of the people of my electorate are already retired or they're looking seriously to their future after employment. Retirees in Fisher are devastated by the prospect of the Labor Party's unfair retiree tax. More than 7,200 retirees in Fisher are proud of what they've achieved. They've worked hard to save for their retirement and to ensure that they are not a burden on the taxpayer. Thousands more are facing the prospect of retirement in the years to come and have made the same community-spirited commitment. Now they fear having that independence, with up to a third of their income, torn away by the Leader of the Opposition in his insatiable thirst for other people's money. How can it be fair for a self-funded retiree earning less than $37,000 per annum to lose their franking dividend credits, while others—even in this place—keep theirs? In 2019, I will fight to keep Fisher the place to be for self-funded retirees, and I will fight to stop Labor's unfair retiree tax.
Finally, 82,000 families on the Sunshine Coast own their own home and 37,000 of us rent, while the construction industry contributes a vital $3.5 billion to the local economy. The people of Fisher know that Labor's property tax would be an attack on all of us. How can it be fair for Labor's new property taxes to reduce the value of our homes, increase our rents and decimate the construction industry jobs on which this community relies? The Sunshine Coast will be the epicentre of Labor's property tax and its catastrophic impact, and I'm determined to fight it each and every day. (Time expired)
Human Rights
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (19:48): Government officials connected with authoritarian governments have gotten away with their abuses of power without sanction. These abusers use their ill-gotten gains and status to travel abroad and bask in the affluence of the West, purchasing and investing in assets overseas, sending their children to expensive private schools and hiding their ill-gotten gains in offshore bank accounts for the benefit of themselves, their families and their cronies.
In the late 1980s, the US Senate passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which pressured the then Soviet Union on the issue of human rights. Jackson-Vanik was emblematic of our Western willingness to use foreign policy to free the great Andrei Sakharov or Anatoly Sharansky. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the apparent end of communism, Russia and China were admitted to the World Trade Organization. Francis Fukuyama, in his End of History and the Last Man, said that this would 'inevitably lead to democratisation'. With China and Russia's admittance to the World Trade Organization, we lost most of our human rights leverage over these authoritarian states. Last year, Beijing contemptuously and unilaterally cancelled our already ineffectual human rights dialogue with them.
The International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2018, which I introduced to the House the week before parliament rose last year, attempts to rebalance and reinvigorate democratic pushback, to give us, again, some instrument that will enable democracies to respond to authoritarian outrages without going to war. The Russian Federation general in the 53rd anti-aircraft brigade who shot down MH17 and the official in Khartoum who sent the Janjaweed militia to murder the Muslim people of Western Sahara won't like this legislation. At Labor's national conference in Adelaide I named Beijing's viceroy in Xinjiang, or East Turkestan, Chen Quanguo, who set up concentration camps for millions of Uygurs in East Turkestan. He won't like this legislation.
Legislation has already passed in other democratic countries, like the United States, the UK and Canada. The aims of the Magnitsky legislation in Australia are threefold. Firstly, it aims to prevent prescribed foreign persons engaged in gross violations of human rights and corruption from visiting Australia and spending or investing their money here. It enables the Governor-General, on the advice of the minister, to target individuals with immigration, financial and trade sanctions. Secondly, by imposing sanctions on these individuals they are exposed to the world and the people in their countries as pariahs in the international community. Thirdly, it is hoped that such sanctions and exposure will deter individuals in these authoritarian regimes from engaging in further gross human rights violations or corruption. As we know, sunlight can be one of the best disinfectants of political or corporate malfeasance.
As I recently told the Sydney Institute, it's now time that Australia joined this growing international movement and adopted a global Magnitsky law. The more countries that adopt such laws, the more jurisdictions that can be made potentially out of bounds to individuals such as those involved in the shooting down of planes over Ukraine; the expelling or killing of tens of thousands of Rohingya; or the starving, incarcerating, torturing and executing of the poor citizens of North Korea. Vladimir Putin hates these laws. Observers were astounded that Putin gave these laws such salience at the Helsinki summit with President Trump. If authoritarians are so antagonistic to such an approach, surely that is crucial proof that these laws are potentially very effective.
This legislation received a great deal of publicity all over Australia. It has support across all of the political parties, including the crossbenches. I plead with the Prime Minister: give us some time in the little time that remains of this parliament to pass such important legislation; to join the sister democracies of the United States, the UK and Canada; and to match our fierce rhetoric about MH17 with action. Let's show those arrogant, insolent dictators like Vladimir Putin that they can't kill our countrymen, our citizens, and get away with it. The global Magnitsky legislation should be passed by this House because if we take ourselves seriously we cannot let 38 Australians be murdered by the Russian Federation, as was proved by the internationally respected investigation into this shoot down. The global Magnitsky legislation should be passed by this House before parliament rises.
Robertson Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (19:53): I rise to pay tribute to some outstanding citizens in my electorate of Robertson who were recently awarded and honoured as part of the Australia Day 2019 community awards. I know that none of these recipients do their work for praise, recognition or awards, but I would like to acknowledge some of the individuals who have helped to make the Central Coast one of the best regions in the best country in the world. The 2019 Australia Day awardees are a mix of individuals from across the arts, sports, media and volunteer communities in my electorate.
I would like to begin with the 2019 Central Coast Council Citizen of the Year, Yvonne Crestani, who has been recognised for her work with radiologists, cancer patients and their families. For more than 10 years her tireless work has helped to raise over $200,000 in funds for our local community, which has helped to provide educational opportunities for medical experts on the Central Coast. From what started out as small garden parties to raise funds in honour of her late husband, Chris, who was a respected chief radiation therapist at St Vincent's Hospital, who sadly succumbed to cancer in 2006, these functions have grown into beautiful twilight soirees held at the Gosford Regional Gallery, which I've been honoured to be able to attend. Yvonne's continued commitment to expanding her scholarships to train all cancer health workers, including additional nurses, is truly inspirational. We thank Yvonne for making a difference in the lives of those people who are undergoing cancer treatment.
Another Australia Day award recipient I wish to pay tribute to is Brad Cardis, who received the 2019 award for Arts, Culture and Entertainment. Brad and his wife, Bianca, have been determined promoters of the Central Coast region, giving opportunities to local small businesses, upcoming musical talent and artists at community events and fairs throughout the year. Anyone who's visited the Central Coast in recent years would know about or would have been to the Avoca Beach markets, which are run every fourth Sunday of the month. These multi-award-winning markets have become the place to go for local businesses who want to sell their produce and the incredible artists who share their talents through live performances on the main stage. Other events that Brad and Bianca run include Central Coast Comicon, Day on the Farm at Eastcoast Beverages and the Central Coast Christmas Fair at Mount Penang Gardens. I congratulate Brad on his well-deserved honour and look forward to being at the Avoca Beach markets this coming Sunday.
I would also like to recognise Debbi Lalor for the work that gained her the Business Connecting Communities Award; Phil Walker, as the winner of the Community Service and Activity Award; Sharon Baxter and Robert Powell, as joint winners of the Community Volunteer of the Year Award; Lyndall Parris for her Environmental Award; Isabelle Kelly, as Sportsperson of the Year; and Deen Rad, who received the Youth of the Year Award.
There are a number of residents from my electorate of Robertson who were on the Australia Day Honours List for their service to the local community. Dave Thompson of Umina Beach was awarded an AM for his outstanding service to surf lifesaving at local, national and international levels. Dave has been a proud member of the Ocean Beach Surf Life Saving Club since 1977 and was instrumental in the organisation of the lifesaving world championships in Geelong and Lorne in 2001. In addition to all of his board and executive positions, Dave's an ambassador for Life Saving Chaplaincy Australia, where he's able to provide guidance and support to members, families and supporters of the lifesaving community.
Also recognised for his service to surf lifesaving was Bill Cook of St Huberts Island. Bill received an OAM for his membership of Umina Beach Surf Lifesaving Club since 1993, where he's combined service on the club's executive with volunteer work with the Ettalong Pelican Masters Swimming Club and the Rotary Club of Woy Woy.
Another AM recipient on this year's honours list was Dr Andrew Browning of Copacabana, who was acknowledged for his service to the international community through the provision of obstetric care to women in Africa. Dr Browning is a trained obstetrician and gynaecologist who has worked in Ethiopia, Tanzania and Rwanda, to name a few. Andrew has been involved in the care of over 10,000 people in seven African nations, with many of his patients from war-torn communities and in dire need of medical treatment.
Finally, Ken Austin of Green Point was awarded an OAM for his service to the community; in particular, his work as an executive member of the Rotary Club of Gosford North. He's been a member of the Rotary club for 36 years and was a founding member of the Nepal Dental Project in 1992, which was an initiative of Rotary Australia.
To all those on the Central Coast who received Australia Day awards and honours in 2019: I congratulate you on your richly deserved recognition for the work that you do not only in our local community but in many communities across Australia and abroad.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 19:58
NOTICES
The following notice was given:
Ms Sharkie: To move—That the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights—Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019, made under regulation 11.068 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 on 12 February 2019 and presented to the House on 14 February 2019, be disallowed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Wicks) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Australian Greens
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (10:30): Following meticulous research by the Parliamentary Library, I published a series of advertisements throughout Victoria on the record of the Greens political party in voting against every piece of national security legislation since 9/11. Not criticism and not amendments; every piece of legislation and every bill since 9/11. They have voted and spoken against every bill. Recently, Bob Brown, the former leader of the Green political party, was in Sydney talking about splitting that political party in New South Wales because of its undying extremism, even in terms of the Greens political party.
But I rise to speak on another, sadder matter with regard to the attitude of that political party, which was raised in a column by Janet Albrechtsen. I don't always agree with her, but she made some very valuable points following a conversation with my friend, Mr Vic Alhadeff, who heads the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, being good Australian citizens, have outreach Shabbat dinners. Shabbat is the Friday night meal that Jewish families traditionally have. As outreach, the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies has had a wonderful program of Shabbat dinners for Liberal Party leaders, the LGBTI community, the Young Labor union, the Chinese community and the Indian community. The only group who will not accept invitations is the Greens political party. It's really disgraceful.
As Mr Alhadeff says, the purpose of these dinners is simple yet important:
… engaging as Australians … and using the opportunity to explore our commonalities, beliefs and shared values.
Mr Alhadeff said it was not to command agreement or to proselytise; just to speak to one another as respectful human beings. Many Jewish Australians might be drawn to genuinely green policies about the environment, but the extremist attitude of the Greens precludes engagement. It's not tolerance; it's prejudice.
The bigotry of the Greens has no place in Australia. The Young Greens refused to attend a conference of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students attended by all other young political parties. To boycott under the cloak of the Palestinian problem reduces all students to one political issue 12,000 kilometres away. How unjust is that? Ms Albrechtsen wrote:
If the Liberal Party of Australia refused point blank to engage with credible Muslim groups, we would banish its members as bigots.
If the ALP continually rebuffed efforts to engage with Christian groups, we would out its members as bigots.
This attitude is simply unacceptable. I call on the Greens political leadership to— (Time expired)
National Servicemen
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper) (10:33): Yesterday, I had the honour of attending the memorial day service to the National Servicemen of Australia hosted by the Nambucca Valley sub branch of the Australian National Servicemen's Association. The event was held at the Nambucca Heads cenotaph and memorial wall. It was an excellent service, run, as you would expect, with military precision. The national servicemen from throughout the region, their families and members of the public gathered to commemorate the commitment and sacrifice of those young Australians.
I would like to commend the organising committee members, John Eather, Richard Greentree, Neville Stewart, Don McKenzie and George Wilson, for their commitment to the organisation and for making sure that the service of our nashos is not forgotten. At the service, Gerry Hunter, a former national serviceman from Coffs Harbour, delivered an informative speech on the history of national service and the periods of national service from 1951 to 1959 and 1964 to 1972. In attendance were the Coffs Coast Pipes and Drums. They did a great job, as always. I would like to thank drum-major Denis Heap and the band.
After the service, there was a wonderful luncheon at Nambucca Heads RSL, and at that luncheon I had the honour of presenting Don McKenzie with the award of National Serviceman of the Year. I was absolutely delighted to be presented with a plaque in appreciation of my support of the association over my time as member for Cowper. I wish to put on the public record my appreciation for their kind and thoughtful gesture.
I must say that my dealings with ex-services community members from across the electorate have been the highlight of my time as a local federal member. I would also like to inform the Chamber that service to the community by members of the Nambucca Valley Sub-Branch of the ANSA continue, despite national service ending in 1972. Members of the sub-branch donated around $26,000 to the community over the last year. These funds were raised through their twice-monthly sausage sizzle, held at Woolworths supermarket in Nambucca Heads. I congratulate the Nambucca Valley sub-branch on what was a great day, and I congratulate Don McKenzie on being awarded National Serviceman of the Year. Thank you.
Music Festivals
Petitions: Mining
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (10:35): I rise firstly today to echo my community's concerns about the implementation of the New South Wales Liberal-National government's rushed new guidelines for music festivals. This of course will mean increased costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and presents a real threat to the long-term viability of some festivals. In my region, on the New South Wales North Coast, we have a number of nationally and internationally recognised festivals, like the Byron Bluesfest, Splendour in the Grass and of course the Falls Festival as well as many, many more.
The director of Byron Bay's iconic Bluesfest, Peter Noble, says he will be forced to move the event out of New South Wales, stating that these new guidelines from the New South Wales Liberal-National government would put the festival out of business. This is a very serious issue that will have a major impact.
The Byron Bay Bluesfest is in its 30th year and has been inducted into the New South Wales Tourism Awards Hall of Fame—a remarkable achievement. The fact is the Bluesfest provides, firstly, an important music and cultural event, and it also provides a massive economic boost to our region. It employs thousands of people, and the flow-on benefits in terms of tourism in our region mean millions of dollars.
Peter Noble has recently written to the New South Wales government and raised his concerns directly, but the Berejiklian government just isn't listening—they're so out of touch. It's only New South Wales Labor that will save live music and festivals in New South Wales.
I've also recently met with representatives from the Stop Adani Byron Shire Group and the Stop Adani Tweed Shire Group. I regularly met with these groups in the past, and they continue to raise their concerns, and indeed the concerns of many in the community, about the potential impact of the Adani mine. At this recent meeting, the group presented me with their latest petition, which contains 3,904 signatures against the mine. These were collected by the local Stop Adani Group and are addressed to the current Prime Minister, the member for Cook, and also the previous Prime Minister, the former member for Wentworth.
Over the past three years, I've publicly raised in many forums my personal opinion, which is I'm opposed to the Adani coalmine going ahead, and share the community's concerns about the potential environmental harm that could follow on to the Great Barrier Reef and other areas. As I've also made clear to the local Stop Adani group, there are various views throughout the community and the country about the Adani mine. It's also important to acknowledge that. So, I've made a commitment to the group that, as their local federal MP, I'd raise their concerns in parliament and present their petitions. So, I now present their petitions to the Chamber. Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to present them.
Leave granted.
The petition s read as follows:
The petition was unavailable at the time of publishing
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The document will be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for its consideration and will be subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with standing orders.
Canning Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (10:39): As this Chamber is aware, one of my priorities for the last three years has been the upgrade and expansion of road and rail in the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale. Serpentine Jarrahdale is one of the fastest-growing local governments in the country. The shire's population has more than doubled since 2006 from 12,000 to 26,000. It's expected to reach over 32,000 people this year. In the suburb of Byford, more than 4,000 new homes were built between 2006 and 2016. We have high-density housing where dairy farms once stood and we have high-frequency traffic on country roads. I know these problems firsthand. I've made these problems known in this house, and this government has acted.
Last year, the Morrison government invested $241 million to bring the Armadale train line to Byford, and we committed $253 million to extend the Tonkin Highway south, right into the heart of Serpentine Jarrahdale. The Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale recently sought confirmation that this funding for the Tonkin Highway was committed. I'm not sure why. Presumably, though, they can't understand why WA Labor, the state government, has not started building this much-needed road. So I wrote to the Treasurer to seek his assurance. His response was clear: the Morrison government has $253 million for the Tonkin Highway locked in, ready and waiting for the WA government to get to work. They just need to lift their finger and get on with the job.
But our region's struggle with inadequate roads doesn't stop there. One major concern is the state of Thomas Road. Thomas Road is a single-lane road in the north of SJ. It's one of the main roads into Byford and it's struggling to cope with our growing population. Thomas Road is made worse by a series of dangerous intersections, in particular a T-intersection at Nicholson Road. This has been listed by the RAC as one of the 10 most dangerous intersections in Western Australia. It was the scene of 57 crashes in the five years to December 2016, almost one crash per month. The community of SJ wants action and a petition has been started by local businessman Elton Swartz. He's collected over 1,000 signatures in just a few weeks. He spent a couple of days at McDonald's collecting signatures at the drive-through. I thank him for his initiative and passion to see that intersection fixed.
Thomas Road does need to be upgraded, with the Nicholson Road intersection a matter of priority. I'm working with the federal government, the Morrison government, to secure funding to make this happen. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for listening to me in his capacity as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, and I look forward to hosting the Assistant Minister for Roads and Transport in a few weeks time. The assistant minister is coming to see the situation on Thomas Road personally and understand the danger it presents to our community. I'm committed to finding a solution with him.
Isaacs Electorate: Kingston Toy Library
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (10:41): The Kingston Toy Library is a fantastic local service in my community of Isaacs. Located in Lewis Street, Mordialloc, it provides an essential service to local mums and dads, lending out toys to local children. I was very excited to recently join the Kingston Toy Library president, Emma Bryant, and secretary, Emily Corda, at the library to announce that a federal Labor government will invest $50,000 in the toy library to renovate it and allow it to buy more toys for our community. This announcement was followed just a few weeks later by Labor's broader policy to invest $6.1 million in play groups and toy libraries around Australia to ensure they have the space and resources they need to provide services to local communities.
It's essential that education starts at a young age. Giving toy libraries the ability to serve a larger and wider community means that every child is able to access a wide range of toys to enjoy and aid their development. My dream is an Australia that values all of its children, one that ensures that public institutions, like toy libraries and, later, public schools, have every resource they need to ensure that every child has every opportunity to become what they want to be. Education is at the heart of Labor politics and at the heart of my personal political beliefs. Every aspect of Australian life—our economy, our culture and our workforce—is affected by the ability of every child to have a quality education.
I thank Emma and Emily for their hospitality during my visit, and I thank the Kingston Toy Library coordinator, Catherine, who welcomed me on my first visit late last year. Local parents understand the value of education and the value of traditional libraries, toy libraries and play groups. I understand their value too. I'm so pleased that a Labor government will deliver for toy libraries all across Australia and in the great community of Isaacs. A good start in life matters. To the parents of Isaacs I say, 'I'm on your side.'
Roberts, Ms Rhoda
McGillivray, Mr Max
Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Speaker) (10:44): I'd like to acknowledge a member of my community today, Rhoda Roberts, who was recently described in The Sydney Morning Herald as 'one of the pre-eminent Australian arts figures of her generation'. When you look at her achievements, you can understand why. She appeared many years ago in the television series Blue Heelers and a number of Indigenous theatrical pieces, including Radiance at the Belvoir St Theatre, that became a box office hit.
Rhoda founded the Indigenous Arts Festival, The Dreaming, in 1997, which gave emphasis to the cultures, the languages and the art of New South Wales Aboriginal life, helping to foster, reclaim and encourage a way of life so it wouldn't be lost. In fact, Rhoda, is credited by some with coining the phrase 'Welcome to Country' and has established protocol manuals and welcomes by local custodians for the arts industry. In 2012, Rhoda joined the Sydney Opera House as head of Indigenous Programming and in 2016 was awarded an Order of Australia, recognising her love for the arts. This was the same year that Rhoda coordinated the lighting of the sails of the Sydney Opera House with Indigenous artworks. Her many other achievements include the Boomerang Festival at Bluesfest, Artistic Director of the Festival of the Dreaming staged in the lead-up to the 2000 Olympic Games, the Rugby World Cup 2003, the Athens Olympic Games handover ceremony, and many other events too numerous to list.
She's a proud Widjabul woman of the clan of the same name—one of the 26 groups of the Bundjalung nation, which is part of my community. She lives with her partner, Steven, and has daughters, Emily and Sarah, and son, Jack. Congratulations, Rhoda, on your achievements.
I would like to congratulate young Max McGillivray of Evans Head. He's a surfer with a load of talent, which he proved recently when he won the Taj's Small Fries surfing competition in Yallingup, Western Australia, during the school holidays. This competition was established by the famous surfer, Taj Burrow, to nurture future surfing talent and is in its 14th year. Not only did Max score first place in the under-10 competition and third in the under-12 competition; he also landed a Billabong team membership, handed to him personally by Taj. To top it off, Max was also awarded the outstanding surfer award for the entire event. His proud parents, Mick and Katrina, his little sister, Mia, and his coach, Peter Duncan, have all been instrumental in getting him to this point in his career. We wish Max all the very best.
Mining
Mr DICK (Oxley) (10:46): Throughout the past 10 years, the instability in our politics and indeed in our economy has made for challenging times. Fluctuating employment and growing uncertainty over the future have dominated the headlines. However, these trends could have been much worse if it were not for the Australian mining and resources sector. For more than 100 years, the mining and resources sector has been the backbone of the Australian economy and workforce, powering our nation into the 21st century and, with it, one of the best standards of living anywhere in the world. Whilst there have been many scaremongering calls to see the end of mining coming from some corners, I, for one, remain buoyed and optimistic about the role mining and resources has played in the story of Australia, particularly in Queensland, to date and, indeed, its prosperous future ahead.
In 2018, Australian resource exports set a new record of $248 billion, which also included a record $66 billion in exports of coal, making it Australia's most valuable single export. Australia has also recently become the world's single largest gas exporter ahead of Qatar, with earnings expected to increase by more than 60 per cent from $31 billion in 2017-18 to $50 billion in 2018-19.
Because the demand for critical commodities of the future is booming, Australia's mining is well placed to take advantage. We are in the top five holders of 14 out of the 35 of these critical commodities which will power the economies of the future. We have produced 10 of the 16 commodities needed for the manufacturing of solar panels. We hold the largest reserves of lithium, and we mine every commodity required to build smartphones and the battery and storage technology of the future. These numbers prove the worth that mining and resources is to the Australian economy and its people, for without it we would not be able to build the roads and bridges we drive on, we would not be able to make the important investments in health and education, and we would not be able to employ the 1.1 million Australians who have a job in the mining, equipment, technological and services sector.
Just last week, I was very proud to see Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, at Minerals Week, outlining our future vision for mining and minerals. An alternative federal government, a Shorten Labor government, will back jobs in Australian mining and resources. It's an industry which provides jobs for millions of Australians, and it's important that we provide the foundation and structure so that millions more Australians can work and prosper in the industry. That's why an elected Shorten Labor government will deliver a $2 million program to pay for 100 scholarships to enrol in mining engineering at Australian universities. We must continue to incentivise and invest in the future talent of Australian mining. We must reinforce that there is a pathway in mining and resources for our high school students and TAFE and university graduates.
In my most recent trip to the Pilbara, I've seen firsthand the difference jobs in mining and resources can make to a person. If we are elected and have the privilege of forming government, Labor will invest over $1 billion into a National Hydrogen Plan, which was announced by the Premier of Queensland and the Leader of the Opposition. I want to particularly acknowledge Zac Beers, our candidate in Flynn, who made this a reality, alongside hardworking AWU branch officials: Steve Baker, and the AWU Acting Central Queensland District Secretary, Tony Beers— (Time expired)
Petrie Electorate: Bracken Ridge
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (10:50): I want to talk about Bracken Ridge, in the Brisbane City Council area, where I grew up. I grew up at 11 Toolang Street Bracken Ridge, a home that my father and mother built, and then at 19 Talgai Street Bracken Ridge. It is a great suburb. I spent much of my childhood training in judo down at the Bracken Ridge Scout Hall and running around McPherson Park playing with my mates—my good mate Ivan, who lived over the road; Derek, who lived next door; Jason McGregor, who lived around the corner; and Jason Watts, an old school friend of mine. We had a great time investigating the local creeks and so forth in Bracken Ridge. It's a great place for families. It sits on the outskirts of the Brisbane City Council. The rates are a little bit cheaper than other parts of my electorate, which is good in Brisbane. It has great sporting facilities including netball courts, the old Bracken Ridge Swimming Club, the new Emily Seebohm Aquatic Centre, football fields, pony clubs—there's a whole lot happening there. You can also get a great steak down at the Bracken Ridge Tavern. It has good meeting rooms. Bracken Ridge is just a fantastic place to grow up.
I am very proud to represent Bracken Ridge. I was pleased that the Prime Minister could come up the other week and bring some additional grant funding. As more people move into the Brisbane City Council and into Bracken Ridge, they need to be able to move around. I was happy to announce, with the Prime Minister, $7.5 million for local roads including the Hoyland Street upgrade, the intersection of Barbour Road and Norris Road and also upgrading Norris Road between Telegraph Road and Bracken Ridge Road. We also announced an additional $50 million for the Gympie Arterial Road, which the state government will implement, as well as, a few weeks ago, $100 million for the Linkfield Road over past, which is really important. The local roads in Bracken Ridge will be put out to tender. Brisbane City Council will match that funding and it will be built fairly quickly.
This comes on top of a whole lot of infrastructure that the federal government has invested in in Bracken Ridge, including almost $1 million for the Gateway Motorway; new CCTV and solar panels for the Ridge Hills United Football Club; the Telegraph Road upgrade, a joint venture with BCC, between Mustang Street and Norris Road; $150,000 for Bracken Ridge Little Athletics and Bracken Ridge Cricket Club, with the McPherson Park lighting upgrade; $10,000 for the reroofing of the Bracken Ridge Baptist Church; and a new mower and upgrades for the cricket club. We also got a cane toad sniffer dog for Moreton Island, which is a great little environmental project. I know that people from Bracken Ridge love to travel over to Moreton Island. The Bracken Ridge and Bald Hills Scout groups will get solar panels on their roofs. The Bracken Ridge Swimming Club is currently getting new toilet facilities. Sandbag will get new computers. And, of course, a national unemployment rate of five percent is good for Bracken Ridge people. I love to represent you and I will keep working hard. (Time expired)
Adelaide Electorate: Road Safety
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (10:53): I regret that I can't also talk about cane toad sniffer dogs—something I haven't been able to do in my 15 years here! Instead I rise today, as I have on more than one occasion, to argue in this place and make clear my deep concern about the safety of our children. I have been calling on the South Australian government to prioritise the lives of Adelaide High School students and do something to address the serious road safety issues at that school. Now, once again, I stand here to highlight more road safety issues at our schools—this time for Nailsworth Primary School students. I have been contacted by several concerned parents of Nailsworth Primary School.
I and my newly elected state colleague Andrea Michaels, South Australia's new member for Enfield, and our Senate candidate Emily Gore, recently met with the Nailsworth Primary School community at the pedestrian crossing they are concerned about. The school and the crossing are a two-minute walk from my electorate office, and both are located on Main North Road. For those who are unfamiliar with Adelaide, Main North Road is a major north-south arterial route and, consequently, it is extremely busy. The road has a 60-kilometre speed limit. On one side is Prospect and on the other side is Nailsworth. There is no 25-kay school-crossing speed zone, due to the fact that the school is actually situated on the side road around the corner from the pedestrian crossing. However, families living in Prospect need to cross our Main North Road to get to Nailsworth Primary School. It is a road that I drive across almost every day. So, when parents contacted me expressing concerns about cars regularly not stopping at red lights, driving right on through, at high speed of traffic, so close to large groups of children, I knew exactly what they were talking about.
Between 2014 and the beginning of 2019, SA Police records show that 1,496 motorists exceeded the speed limit in a school zone, and, of those, 776 were fined a total of $357,000. These figures were presented in the Advertiser recently.
I've been writing to all levels of government to fund safer infrastructure on the roads near our schools. The students of Nailsworth primary and their safety and security must be paramount. We know—and it is placed on the record—that it is only a matter of time before there will be a tragedy at that site unless the state government puts in place greater safety mechanisms. Students are at risk. A young person would be more likely than an adult to make an error of judgement crossing this road or to not see a speeding car flying through the red light. I encourage Nailsworth Primary School students to keep pursuing this fight, and I will stand and fight with them. (Time expired)
Canning Electorate: Peel Health Campus
Member for Holt
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (10:56): I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the many constituents who got behind our push for an upgrade to the Peel Health Campus, as the Peel Health Campus is more than 20 years old and was built when the population of Mandurah was about half of what it currently is now, so an upgrade is long overdue. Funding for a new emergency department would alleviate a lot of the current pressure on that part of the hospital.
So last year, in May, Zak Kirkup, the state member for Dorsville, held a rally opposite the hospital and had about 400 people turn up. That was the beginning of a year-long campaign which culminated two weeks ago when the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, came to Canning to announce $25 million for the upgrade of the Peel Health Campus. It will upgrade the emergency department and the radiological department and also provide a residential facility on the grounds of the Peel Health Campus to treat people with eating disorders. This is very welcome news.
I just want to thank the many hundreds of people who got behind us, who put up signs in their front yards, who signed our petition, who wrote letters to the editor of the local newspapers and who wrote to me via email or called me or just offered a word of encouragement during that year-long campaign. It was really gratifying to see 250 people turn up to the rally that we held on the day. It was hot; it was the middle of the day in the Western Australian summer; they didn't know there was going to be an announcement. But they turned up. And that just shows how much grassroots support we've had.
The WA AMA president had a crack at me straight afterwards, saying it was a drop in the ocean, which I thought was rather short-sighted. He's actually a surgeon at the Peel Health Campus. He lives in Claremont, which is in Curtin, which is about an hour away, so he's a drive-in drive-out surgeon. Nonetheless, he decided to have a go at me publicly. And not once, despite his intimate knowledge of the Peel Health Campus, did he actually say anything during the campaign. Yet, when state Labor, last year, committed only $5 million to the hospital and eight beds in two years in the emergency department, he remained silent and offered no criticism. When we got five times that amount, $25 million, for the hospital, he didn't say a word. In fact, he came out and criticised me. It just shows that he is, I think, a proxy for WA state Labor. He has been happy throwing spears at me on radio and in my local paper, but he has remained absolutely silent on state Labor's inadequate funding for the hospital.
Finally, I just want to publicly thank the member for Holt, the deputy chair of the PJCIS, for all his support over the last two years. I couldn't have a better man backing me in. He's a patriot. Thank you.
National Security
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (10:59): I'd say the same for the chair of the PJCIS, the member for Canning. Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking and being called upon to speak at short notice without having a speech prepared, I did actually want to talk about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. First off, I want to acknowledge the great work that the chair of the committee, the member Canning, Andrew Hastie, has done during one of the more tumultuous periods of time that we've had in our nation's parliament.
There was a picture of Andrew and I on the floor of the parliament last week that I proudly hoisted onto my Instagram and Facebook. It was a picture of the chair and I having a discussion about national security matters. Particularly given the public discourse about the lack of bipartisanship that exists in this place—and it's not hard to see that—I hope that if you go to either my website or hopefully the chair's, the member for Canning's, Instagram and Facebook sites, you can see the amount of high regard that we have for each other. We work consistently together for the national interest.
Sitting in here is Dr Anna Dacre, who has laboured tirelessly—and I use the word tirelessly—as the secretary of this committee to deliver a world-class product for the term of this 45th Parliament and beforehand. If people but only knew what happened in that committee over the nearly five years I've been on it as deputy chair since 2013—that's nearly 6 years, I think, goodness gracious me!—they would be much more confident about how resilient our parliament is, how committed each side of politics is to national security, and that it is doing what is required in the national interest. If only we could release the minutes of the meetings we've had—but we can't because we'd breach the Intelligence Services Act. Particularly for people who are listening to this, we have worked together strongly in my six years as deputy chair. I must say, when I was chair of the committee for three years, when Senator Brandis was the opposition spokesperson as Attorney-General, we worked very collaboratively.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is probably one of the best committees in the world for dealing with security legislation. We've been asked to do an enormous amount of work. As I said, it's thanks to the committee secretariat, led by the incredibly capable Dr Anna Dacre—who sadly is going to be leaving us, although the chair and I have tried to make sure she doesn't! We should be very proud of the work that's been done. There is a lot of loose media commentary saying, 'It goes to the committee and it's not looked at.' It's examined. People will look back on this period of time when we brought laws into the parliament to make our nation safer and they will reflect well on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Thank you to all of the people, including the chair, who served on that. We worked together to make our nation safe.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Tuberculosis
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (11:02): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 24 March is World Tuberculosis Day, a day to commemorate the precious lives lost due to tuberculosis, a disease that is preventable and curable;
(b) tuberculosis is contagious and airborne—it is the world’s leading infectious disease killer, killing more people than HIV/AIDS;
(c) in 2017 alone, 1.6 million people died from tuberculosis worldwide and 10 million people became sick with the disease; and
(d) there is a funding gap of US$1.3 billion annually in tuberculosis research and development and it is critical to develop quicker diagnostic tools, better drugs, and a new tuberculosis vaccine in order to end the tuberculosis epidemic;
(2) recognises that the:
(a) funding that Australia is providing jointly with the World Bank to support testing and treatment in Papua New Guinea is already leading to an initiative to achieve universal testing for tuberculosis in Daru; and
(b) provision of $75 million over five years for Product Development Partnerships in the Indo-Pacific health security initiative accelerates access to new therapeutics and diagnostics for drug resistant tuberculosis and malaria, building on the successes of Australia’s previous investments; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) develop an action plan to monitor the progress made towards the targets and commitment made at the United Nations High-Level Meeting on TB; and
(b) make an increased financial commitment to the Global Fund at its Replenishment Conference in October 2019.
In speaking to this motion, it is a tragic fact that, although tuberculosis is a preventable and curable disease, 10 million people on this planet develop it every year, of whom about 1.6 million die. TB is a disease that most people thought was a thing of the past and is isolated to small pockets in some more impoverished countries. I for one had also assumed the disease was no longer an issue, but nothing could be further from the truth. My mother was in inflicted with TB in the early sixties and spent a year in the Cairns base hospital. Let me assure you: it had a profound impact on my family.
The reality is TB is the largest infectious disease killer in the world, and what's more worrying are the increasing number of drug-resistant tuberculosis cases worldwide, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Drug-resistant TB is more expensive to treat and the survival rate is only half. Multidrug-resistant TB is difficult to diagnose and treat due to the use of old diagnostics and toxic, arduous treatment regimes. Experts have estimated that as many as 75 million additional people will die by 2050 due to the continued development of multidrug-resistant and extensive multidrug-resistant strains of TB. These are very sobering facts.
Last year was a big year for the worldwide TB community. A United Nations high-level meeting on tuberculosis was held on 26 September in the General Assembly of the United Nations, providing the highest-level political platform ever convened to address the TB epidemic. It's fantastic to see the Australian government, led by Foreign Minister Senator Marise Payne, along with several other countries, pledge its support in ending the TB epidemic.
Twelve of the world's 30 highest TB-burdened countries are located in our region, accounting for nearly half of the cases of drug-resistant TB and TB deaths worldwide. The incidence rate of TB in several of our neighbouring countries is very high, particularly in Indonesia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea and a number of our Pacific island nations.
TB has no respect for national borders. The stark reality is that, with modern travel, TB can be transmitted anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours. Take Papua New Guinea, for example. The distance between our outer Torres Strait Islands and the coastal villages in the western province of Papua New Guinea, which is the boundary of the northern part of my electorate, is less than four kilometres. The known average for TB up there is 432 TB cases per 100,000 people. Sadly, however, this figure is much, much higher, because the majority of TB victims living in Papua New Guinea are dying undiagnosed.
Although TB is on the decline in Australia, there are, sadly, still around 1,400 TB cases every year. The incidence rate of Australian-born cases is lower, at one case per 100,000 people, but relatively higher in Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, with 5.9 cases per 100,000 people. There is an alarming increase in this disease being identified in the Torres Strait, with the majority of patients being treated on Thursday Island and in the Cairns Hospital. Although rates of TB in Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities are small, they are still six or seven times higher than in non-Indigenous Australian-born people. With respect to states and territories, the highest TB incidence rate is in the Northern Territory, with 25 cases per 100,000 people. In Queensland we have 6.2 cases per 100,000 people.
There has never been a communicable disease that hasn't been cured without a vaccine, and this is where our focus should be. I'd like to acknowledge James Cook University in Cairns. Through the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, it has established a research group, led by Professor Louis Schofield, that focuses exclusively on the development of a TB vaccine.
No-one should die of TB. It's a disease that has been ignored for too long. It's a disease that can be cured, and it needs to be cured. Australia needs to continue to stand up and be counted, and lead the charge in the fight against TB. We're not talking about a disease in a faraway land; TB is already on our doorstep. I'd like everybody here today to take a few seconds to think about this: humans generally blink every three seconds. Every three seconds, someone in the world contracts TB. There is one death from TB every three minutes, all of which can be cured and avoided.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (11:08): I second the motion. I commend the member for Leichhardt on this motion, which draws attention to the terrible disease of tuberculosis. As we all know, because he does a good job, he's the co-chair, with Senator Singh, of the Australian TB Caucus. It is a group of some 20 parliamentarians, including my good friend the member for Macarthur, who is himself a health professional and very passionate about us doing more to combat this deadly disease.
Before going to Timor-Leste, I had assumed that TB was one of these diseases that had been eradicated and was no longer a problem. However, my travels in Timor-Leste and further in our region showed that this was not the case. As set out in the member for Leichhardt's motion, TB is the world's leading infectious disease killer. In 2017, 1.6 million people died from TB and 10 million people became sick. That's a shocking statistic for a disease that is both curable and preventable.
I support this motion because it recognises Australia's contribution to the fight against TB, particularly in our region, particularly in Papua New Guinea and in Timor-Leste. We must do more. The motion calls on the Australian government to monitor progress on meeting UN targets to reduce and eventually eradicate TB, and to increase our financial support of the Global Fund at its replenishment conference in October this year.
I have a particular interest in TB in relation to my electorate of Solomon, in the Northern Territory. Regrettably, we still have confirmed cases of TB in the Territory, but, thanks to the good work of the NT government Centre for Disease Control, the CDC, they are trending downwards from the annual numbers that were in the 30s and 40s in the 1990s to numbers in the 20s more recently. The incidence of TB in the NT Aboriginal population is decreasing, but the rates in people born overseas are increasing.
This is why we need to support efforts to tackle TB globally and particularly in our region. In Papua New Guinea, there were an estimated 33,000 cases of TB in 2015. Timor-Leste has the highest prevalence of TB of any country in our region.
The Menzies School of Health Research in Darwin, in my electorate, is leading a consortium with institutions in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Malaysia with the Burnet Institute, of Melbourne, to address the challenges of drug-resistant TB and malaria, which pose major threats to health security in the Indo-Pacific region. This two-year Australian government program called the Tropical Disease Research Regional Collaboration Initiative: Responding to Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis and Malaria in the Asia-Pacific—it's quite a name—aims to strengthen health systems and research capacity, including high-quality operational research, to prevent and contain malaria and TB. This commendable program has a very human focus.
Dr Josh Francis, a paediatrician from Royal Darwin Hospital and the Menzies school, does a lot of work in Timor-Leste. Josh told me of one recent tragic case. He examined a very sick child with seizures, weight loss and fever. Her CT scan showed that she had TB in her brain, one of the more devastating complications of TB infection in children but still treatable if it is picked up early enough. He went to her bedside to see her and her family, but, as he started to examine this young girl, she suddenly stopped breathing. Along with a team of Timorese doctors and nurses, he tried to resuscitate her, but, sadly, she passed away that morning.
This should not have happened. This child had been in contact with TB well before she got sick. If that had been known, she could have had preventive treatment, six months of a medicine called Isoniazid, which could have—
Dr Freelander interjecting—
Mr GOSLING: Thanks for the pronunciation assistance! The member for Macarthur will clarify the pronunciation of that drug. But the point is that it could have prevented any of this from happening. These sorts of cases happen all too often, sometimes diagnosed, sometimes not.
Of course, there are good stories too, cases that are picked up and treated well, and then those afflicted go on to survive and thrive. There's a lot more we can do, and I thank again the member for Leichhardt for putting this forward.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (11:13): To echo the words of the member for Leichhardt: it is a tragedy that, despite tuberculosis, TB, being a preventable and curable disease, 10 million people on this planet contract it every year, and of those about 1.6 million die. I thank the member for Leichhardt for bringing this issue to the parliament again. The member for Leichhardt shares my interest and passion for Papua New Guinea and our Pacific neighbours, but he also shares another determination: the eradication of TB. It is important that we recognise this disease for what it is: insidious.
That is why 24 March, World Tuberculosis Day, raises awareness about an illness that affects many of our nearby neighbours. Designated by the World Health Organization, this event marks the anniversary of the 1882 discovery by German Nobel laureate Dr Robert Koch of the bacterium that causes tuberculosis. This important annual event is an initiative which acknowledges that a very preventable and treatable disease still claims the lives of more than 1½ million people every year.
Tuberculosis has been all but eradicated in developed countries; however, it remains a major global health problem in most developing countries. Twelve of the world's 30 highest TB-burden countries are located in our region. These countries account for nearly half of all cases of drug-resistant TB and TB deaths worldwide. Our closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, experiences one of the highest rates of this highly contagious and airborne disease in the Pacific: 432 cases per 100,000 people. Australia does not escape the impact, with more than 1,000 cases reported each year.
TB has no respect for country borders, and the presence of TB in our region, particularly in PNG, is a significant health threat to Australian residents. In 2015, Papua New Guinea was struck with an estimated 33,000 cases of tuberculosis. To put that into perspective, that is equivalent to the population of the city of Gladstone, Queensland. Treatment of this disease is not without challenges, especially for those who live in remote regions like Papua New Guinea. The standard short-course TB therapy is six months in length. This involves 28 pills each week. However, for patients with drug-resistant TB, treatment is considerably longer: 20 pills a day, plus injections for three years.
Currently, more than one-third of the world's population is infected, five to 10 per cent of whom become sick or infectious at some time during their life. The case for early prevention and targeted strategies is very strong, as infectious sufferers on average will infect between 10 and 15 others each year, contributing to the pandemic nature of this disease. We do know that a person may be infected with TB bacilli in the dormant stage for many years, ultimately having active symptoms when the immune system is weakened. Even with the aid of modern medicines and technology, not all cases can be successfully treated. This very concerning position means that there are strains of TB which are resistant to all of the major anti-TB drugs we currently have at our disposal. The prevalence of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis continues to increase worldwide. The World Health Organization's End TB Strategy was endorsed by all member states at the 2014 World Health Assembly, and aims to end the tuberculosis epidemic by 2035, with full elimination by 2050.
In 2018, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, announced that four product development partnerships would receive $75 million in new medical research funding from 2018 to 2022, two of which will focus on TB. This funding will be used to accelerate the development and adoption of better diagnostic tools and testing protocols for TB, and research new TB drugs and treatment regimes, including drug-resistant TB.
I segue to YWAM medical ships, which have joined the fight by helping to improve access to diagnosis and treatment in PNG's rural areas. They have continued to provide health services to villages and health workers in very remote parts of PNG. And the Australian government is continuing to work towards combatting the challenge of tuberculosis in the region and the need for discovery, development and rapid uptake of new tools, interventions and strategies to achieve this goal.
I acknowledge the work being undertaken by organisations like Burnet Institute and the Global Fund in partnership with the PNG government and the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. We need to work together and pool our research. To continue the fight against tuberculosis, I call for a heightened commitment as a country to increase our efforts to fight this crippling disease. I commend this motion to the House.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (11:18): I'd like to commend the previous speakers, the member for Ryan and the member for Solomon, but most of all and in particular the member for Leichhardt, who has been a champion of the cause of eradication of tuberculosis for a number of years, and is doing all he can to promote this cause in the parliament and outside the parliament.
Tuberculosis is caused by an organism called Mycobacterium tuberculosis. There are other mycobacteria. One of the better known mycobacteria similar to the tuberculosis mycobacteria is Mycobacterium leprae, the cause of leprosy, which has all but been eradicated through most of the world. In the case of tuberculosis, when I was a medical student we assumed that tuberculosis was all but eradicated. In fact, I have a textbook here written by Selman Waksman, a name that you're probably not familiar with. Selman Waksman got the Nobel Prize for the development and discovery of streptomycin, one of the primary antibiotics used to treat tuberculosis. In this book he quotes someone as saying:
If I had tuberculosis … this idea, formerly terrifying, no longer makes anyone tremble ... antibiotics have appeared, sanatoria have disappeared; as far as the public is concerned the problem is solved; the disease has been conquered.
That was in 1964. Unfortunately, that has not proven to be the case. Whilst we know that tuberculosis is now more common in the developing world, it was formerly a disease in the developed world and its recurrence in the developed world, like Australia, is a major concern.
Many famous people died from tuberculosis, including Jane Austen, Emily Bronte, George Orwell, Andrew Jackson, the seventh American president, Vivien Leigh, Frederic Chopin, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder and first President of Pakistan, Franz Kafka, Eleanor Roosevelt, John Keats and DH Lawrence. Even King Tutankhamen was said to have died from tuberculosis.
We're now seeing the emergence of a multidrug-resistant tuberculosis bacteria. If I can take a step backwards, the treatment of tuberculosis—or consumption or the white plague, as it was previously known—included screening high-risk people, early detection and treatment, and vaccination. There is a vaccination called the BCG vaccine which is partially but by no means completely successful. Treatment regimens these days require multiple antibiotics, often up to a dozen tablets a day for six months. In multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, treatment may take up to three years. Imagine trying to manage tracing contacts and maintaining contact with medical personnel over a three-year period in a place like Myanmar, the highlands of New Guinea, Laos, Cambodia or Thailand. It is extraordinarily difficult. So treatment regimens these days in developing countries are very difficult. It's very hard to get compliance and it's very hard to do carrier tracing and follow-up of patients.
Our research focus now needs to be not only on better treatments and funding proper follow-up and tracing programs in developing countries but primarily on developing a vaccine that will be successful and easily transportable and usable in developing countries. Australia has been very good at providing funding for research, but we need to step up because this is not just a problem in the developing world; this is a problem in the developed world. We are now seeing an increased number of people with tuberculosis coming to Australia requiring treatment, not only in northern Australia but sometimes in other parts of Australia as well, with our migration and transport systems. So it's a problem for the whole world.
I support the member for Leichhardt and his call for the Australian government to increase its funding for the global fund and institutions like the Kirby Institute to try to improve our chances of having a vaccine developed in the next few years so that we can finally eradicate this terrible, dreadful disease which has been a scourge in times past. We don't want to see it come again.
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (11:23): I rise to add my voice in support for the member for Leichhardt's motion, and I'm pleased to have the opportunity once again to speak on the important topic of the fight against tuberculosis. As has been noted, 24 March will be World Tuberculosis Day, commemorating the anniversary of German Nobel laureate Dr Robert Koch's 1882 discovery of the bacterium that causes TB. World TB Day is an important opportunity to increase awareness of the plight of those suffering from TB and those at high risk. It's an opportunity to remember those who have passed, to educate others about TB and to focus on further action.
I often describe Australia as a sanctuary in many ways, and it does mean that sometimes we can have the luxury of taking some things for granted. We need more Australians to be aware, as the member for Leichhardt so eloquently said in his speech, that tuberculosis is still a major problem around the world and especially right on our doorstep. It's a major challenge in many neighbouring friendly countries which are just a short flight away from our homes in Brisbane and the rest of Queensland.
Steady progress has been made recently in the fight against TB. There are measurable declines in the number of new infections and deaths, yet TB remains a stubbornly persistent and deadly challenge. Tuberculosis is now the leading infectious disease killer in the world. It kills more people than HIV and malaria combined, and partially that's a consequence of the fact that more significant progress has been made in the prevention and treatment of malaria and HIV which stands in stark contrast to the situation with TB.
In 2017, 1.6 million people died from TB worldwide with a further 10 million becoming sick with the disease. While those global numbers are trending down—and I estimate that's about five to 10 per cent lower than the numbers we were talking about here just two years ago—these are still very significant numbers of people who are sick with TB. We need to remember that half of those cases do come from nearby countries in our Asia-Pacific region—countries like PNG on our doorstep are the hot spot in this fight against this terrible disease. We also need to be aware that drug-resistant TB, specifically, is a growing threat to public health around the world.
There's estimated to be a $1.3 billion shortfall in funding for the research and development we need to see in the fight against TB. So, I continue to participate with many of my colleagues here in the Global TB Caucus and work with the groups at the forefront for the fight against TB from research to on-the-ground delivery. I've had the opportunity to see for myself the difference that targeted Australian assistance is making for the benefit of humanity in our region, and other recent events should reinforce the importance of Australia continuing to focus on playing a strong role in building the resilience and the future of our friends and neighbours in the near Pacific.
I want to congratulate the member of Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, for his longstanding leadership in this area and for encouraging me and many others here today to get involved as well as the other speakers for their generous comments; and also the member for Ryan for her longstanding advocacy for our Pacific neighbours.
I was obviously very pleased with this government's previous commitment back in 2016 of $220 million towards the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. That was a 10 per cent increase in funding on previous rounds and, when the next round is due later this year at the replenishment conference in October, I do hope—in fact I call for—for Australia to make an increased financial commitment to the Global Fund. It's helping to bring in new medicines and diagnostic tests to market, and this research and development are vital so that new simple and affordable treatment tools for TB and multidrug-resistant TB can be developed. If support dries up, our goals of the End TB Strategy will not be met.
More Australians deserve to know, as the member for Macarthur eloquently and generously said before, that Australia's funding here does form one of the cornerstones in the global fight to eradicate TB. On top of the support that Australia provides in a bilateral way to our close neighbours and friends in countries like PNG and Kiribati, we're providing funding jointly with the World Bank, for instance, to support testing and treatment and an initiative to achieve universal testing in Daru in PNG, and $75 million for product development partnerships in the Indo-Pacific Health Security Initiative. It was very good to see the foreign minister in Brisbane a bit over a year ago announce the package of measures and initiatives that comprise that initiative. We must continue to build on this legacy into the future.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:28): I, too, would like to join with my colleagues to commend and congratulate the member for Leichhardt for his constant advocacy on this issue for many, many years. He is keeping it at the forefront of our conversations and keeping a focus on it amongst colleagues here. That is vitally important, particularly given the statistics we've heard during the course of today's discussion. I also want to thank him and commend him for his leadership on this issue. There are others on the other side of the chamber, and on this side, who have also shown leadership on this, but the member for Leichhardt has actually been at the forefront of this and the lead champion. I congratulate and thank him.
I want to also thank the member for Leichhardt for bringing this motion forward because it highlights the work that is being done and what we still need to do to both prevent the spread of TB and cure people from this insidious preventable disease. Because TB is largely non-existent in Australia, many people do not know or remember what the symptoms of TB actually are—and the speech from the member for Macarthur was very useful in reminding us of those symptoms.
This disease has a long history. It was recognised in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance periods, during the 17th and 18th centuries and beyond. With medical science advancing over time, we did have TB on the run for a while. But then the drug-resistant variety of the virus emerged, causing the World Health Organization to declare a global health emergency in 1993. While TB is largely wiped out in Australia, in Asia more than 8,000 cases are diagnosed across the continent and archipelago every day. That's not every week, that's not every month; it's 8,000 cases every day.
TB is known as the disease of the poor, spreading through overcrowded neighbourhoods and poorly ventilated homes and workplaces. Importantly, for Australia, it is our closest neighbours to the north who are detecting the largest growth in new cases of TB. The World Health Organization has reported a 32 per cent increase in Papua New Guinea, a 17 per cent increase in both Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, a 13 per cent increase in Nepal, a 12 per cent increase in Timor-Leste and a seven per cent increase in Indonesia.
When diagnosed, the treatment regime is intensive, requiring a person to commit to a full six-month daily treatment program. As the member for Macarthur has mentioned, that can last up to three years. For most of us living here in Australia, where we have universal Medicare, completing a health program like this sounds like an easy thing to do. But imagine not having access to world-leading health care or having to make a choice between earning a living and seeking medical treatment. This is the choice that many people in our region affected with TB have to make each and every day. The poverty of many people means that they either do not seek treatment in the first place or discontinue treatment halfway through, usually after starting to feel better. The risk to people who discontinue treatment is the possibility of contracting a more serious drug-resistant strain of TB. The WHO's statistics show that someone who does not seek treatment or discontinues it halfway through will go on to infect 10 to 15 more people over the course of a year.
The prevalence of this insidious disease means we must help our neighbours and we must act now. We must take action now. That's particularly the case in terms of vaccinations but most importantly in terms of transportation of those vaccinations. There are a number of NGOs that are coming up with fabulous, flexible solutions to allow those vaccinations to be transported in non-refrigerated vehicles in little eskies. For anyone who is interested in this disease and supporting this cause, I encourage them to get behind the fundraising for these little eskies that deliver fresh vaccinations to really remote regions.
Last year I met with representatives from Results, who spoke about the need for Australia to be represented at the inaugural UN high-level meeting on TB, held in New York last year. I wrote to the Prime Minister, and he confirmed Australia would be represented. The outcome of that meeting saw a pledge to reach 40 million people with treatment by 2022, a goal to secure $13 billion in annual new funding, and a commitment by the US government to increase impact and support countries to reach everyone.
Next month, on 24 March, we will mark World TB Day. This is a day dedicated to raising public awareness and, also, highlighting what actions need to be taken. With a renewed global commitment to act on TB, the theme of this year's World TB Day is 'It's Time'. It definitely is time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Schools
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (11:33): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that our public schools are at the heart of our education system;
(2) notes that:
(a) public schools teach two in three of all school students, and the overwhelming majority of Australia’s neediest children, including:
(i) 82 per cent of the poorest children;
(ii) 84 per cent of Indigenous children; and
(iii) 74 per cent of children with disabilities;
(b) under the current Government, almost nine in ten (88 per cent) of public schools will never get to their fair funding level because the Government has capped federal funding for public schools at just 20 per cent of the Schools Recommendation Scheme;
(c) after spending a year trying to deny there were cuts, the fact the Government has restored funding to Catholic and independent schools was finally an admission that it is cutting billions of dollars from schools;
(d) Labor has announced a plan to restore funding to public schools; and
(e) Labor’s plan will transform public schools across Australia and give all children the opportunity to reach their full potential, no matter where they live, or what amount their parents earn; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) immediately adopt Labor’s plan to restore funding to public schools to ensure every public school reaches its fair funding level; and
(b) work with school systems to get every school to its fair funding level.
The role of government is to govern for all Australians. Those opposite have failed in their over five years as a government to do exactly that, no more obvious than in schools and education. They have walked away from needs based, sector-blind funding. By their own admission recently, in improving the funding going to Catholic schools, they've abandoned needs based and evidence based funding because they have not made a reasonable commitment. They have not made a commitment to properly fund our state schools across this great nation.
Today I'm standing to call out the member for Wannon, the most recent Minister for Education. Of course, as with everything else with three prime ministers, we've had three Ministers for Education since I joined this place in 2013. But at the moment the Minister for Education is Dan Tehan, the member for Wannon—shamefully, a Victorian—a Victorian who doesn't understand the ramifications of his decision-making to ensure that they are not putting in the $14 billion that's required to bring state education over the next 10 years into line with what the original Gonski plan was. And we all know the importance of state education. We know that state education, that state schools, educate 82 per cent of Australia's poorest children, 84 per cent of Indigenous children and 74 per cent of children with a disability. That's how important the state education system is and how bereft of conscience this minister is that he has not been on his feet about education in recent times.
I also want to quote the member for Wannon from December last year at a conference about what's beyond year 12. He said, 'I extend an invitation to every Australian to work together to deliver a world-class education system.' Well I extend an invitation to the Minister for Education to work with all Australians, including those families, those teachers, those principles and those education support officers who work in our state education systems across this country. It is time for him to stand up.
And it's not just in schools where he is so lacking. Similarly, we find ourselves lacking in the area of early education, where this minister has not yet committed to 15 hours universal access for four-year-olds across this country beyond 2019. That is over 5,000 children in the electorate of Lalor whose families don't know what happens beyond 2019. Our local government, who provides most of our kindergartens, doesn't know if that funding is secured and that funding is guaranteed. This minister is absolutely asleep at the wheel. He needs to come out today and make that commitment. There are two commitments this country needs. It needs a commitment to 15 hours universal access to four-year-olds' kindergarten across this country and it needs a commitment to put back into our state schools across this country the $14 billion.
In Lalor, as I said, there are 5,000 four-year-olds, a lot of whom are from low socioeconomic families and from families where English is not their first language who could do with that year of kindergarten before they start school. In Lalor state schools, that's $31 million over three years. I know, as a former principal and teacher, what that $31 million would mean for the 56 schools in my electorate—56 schools! Those teachers, those children and those families deserve access to funds that we know will make a difference. That is in contrast to the minister, who either doesn't have the ticker to get in and fight for this in cabinet or doesn't have the clout to deliver it in cabinet. He needs to find both this week to deliver.
I want to mention too the fabulous announcement this morning from the member for Sydney around the support for the best and brightest to go into teaching. It was my first choice of career. It was my first choice. I wanted to be a teacher and I was a teacher and a principle for 27 years. Every day of teaching was a great profession. I got up every morning to go and assist young people set themselves up for their future. This minister needs to take that into consideration.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): I'd like someone to second the motion.
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (11:39): I second the motion. It's a pleasure that I rise to speak on the motion proposed by the member for Lalor. Education has proved to be the best leveller to improve social disadvantage. It allows people to get better jobs and to give them a sense of worth. It provides the basis on which they can become productive members of our society. Public education equips our young people with the skills and knowledge required to tackle the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities they face in life.
In our education system, public schools are the heart, and they must be a priority to be properly funded. They need to be resourced and supported. Public schools teach two in three of all school students, and they are the overwhelming majority of Australia's neediest children. Public schools educate 82 per cent of our poorest children, 84 per cent of our Indigenous children and 74 per cent of children with a disability. They cannot be the schools of last resort. They must be properly funded.
Labor understands that the role of the public school extends beyond the classroom. This is why I'm proud to say that under a Labor government every public school across Australia will be better off. Nationally, public schools will receive $3.3 billion over the first three years of a Labor government, should we be elected. This will allow those schools to employ more teachers and teachers' assistants, ensuring that there's more one-on-one attention for students across the board; support the professional development of teachers; and bring in additional support services, like counsellors and social workers. Our side is driven by the principle that every child deserves a great education regardless of geography, income or impediment. It was Labor who legislated the Building the Education Revolution program, which gave primary schools $16.2 billion to build new libraries and classrooms.
In the electorate of Werriwa, where there are 41 public schools, the public schools will receive just over $25 million worth of additional funding under a Labor government. I've spoken in this House previously about the difference that extra funding makes to public schools in my area. Extra funding allows schools like James Busby High School to run programs on an individual basis or in small groups to improve literacy and numeracy so that, when students go back into their age-appropriate lessons, they can better understand the concepts being taught and participate in the lessons better. Pleasingly, this also leads to higher attendance, better self-esteem and ultimately, of course, more options and better academic outcomes and therefore job prospects for these students when they leave school.
Other schools in my electorate have employed speech pathologists and other support services. These necessary supports have better outcomes if they can be provided in the school setting, as children can access them on site, during class time. For some families, it means that the children actually have the access, because they can't afford either the fees or the time to take them in any other circumstances.
Werriwa public schools are incredibly close to my heart and have played a constant part in my family's life. All of my family have attended the public schools in my electorate, and now one of my sons teaches in the local public high school.
Australia's capacity to ensure a high quality of life for our children depends on the ability of its citizens to compete in an increasingly complex workforce. Education provides the physical, social and intellectual skills that enable our children to navigate this workforce. The majority of children, especially those who are the most disadvantaged, will be publicly educated. Therefore, limiting investment in public education, as the coalition has done, means limiting the opportunities for these students to fulfil their economic and social potential.
Werriwa public schools truly represent the community spirit in my electorate. Whether it's in a cake stall run by the local P&C or the Bunnings sausage sizzle, when funding is low, the school community bands together in an attempt to provide what the government has not. This is a true testament to the character of public schools within Werriwa and, I suggest, the rest of Australia. The resilience, determination and altruism of Werriwa's school community are something which continually stops me in my tracks and of which I'm very proud. However, the fact is that these schools and their communities should not have to divert their time away from educating our young people, because there is a refusal to fund schools properly.
Public schools are the heart of our education system. After years of continual underfunding, Labor is the party that will inject the necessary funds and address the deficits to ensure that all of our children, especially in our public schools, receive the funding and opportunities they deserve.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:44): The lack of support for, if not deliberate undermining of, public education in this country has been a travesty under the last six years of these Liberal Abbott, Morrison and Turnbull governments—an absolute travesty. It is unacceptable in a nation that purports to be the fair go—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ):
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Member for Newcastle, one moment. Is the member for Petrie—
Mr Howarth: Yes; my point of order is just on the correct title for the member for Warringah; it's an abuse of that, to mention the member for Warringah's last name up-front and then go on to a whole lot of them—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I take the point. I didn't hear. But the member for Newcastle has the call and will refer to members by their titles.
Ms CLAYDON: It is unacceptable in a nation that purports to be of the fair go that we have a government—a Liberal government under the leadership of Prime Minister Morrison—that is prepared to rip $14.5 billion out of public education. And they have the gall to suggest there will be no impact—'Nothing to see here'! Two out of three Australian children are educated in public schools, including the vast majority of kids who need the most help, and they include 82 per cent of the poorest children, 84 per cent of First Nations children and 74 per cent of children with disability.
Indeed, the Closing the gap report was brought down in this parliament just last week, and we saw, yet again, the continuous failure of government to reach the purported targets that it had set to improve Indigenous education. This government is much more prepared to sit back and suggest that this is a problem for state governments and a failure of the way that COAG and federation work. It did not once stand up and take responsibility itself. It did not once link the very real issues faced by First Nations kids to the fact that it rips out $14.4 billion worth of funding from public education. It thinks that this is disconnected somehow. What a hide! Not for one moment has this government considered the implications—and the betrayal of young Australians—of the course of action it pursues.
Indeed, under this Morrison government, almost nine in 10 public schools will never reach their fair funding level because the government has capped the federal funding for public schools at just 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard. This same broken model that this government is pushing out there does, however, give private schools 80 per cent of their fair funding level. I'm sorry, but—when two out of every three Australian kids are educated in the public education system—who thinks that allowing private schools to get 80 per cent of their fair share of funding is okay, while public education is capped at 20 per cent of their fair share? Seriously—who in their right mind would stand in this parliament to argue for such a broken model?
Labor understands that proper, needs based investment in public education is the best means of helping our kids achieve their potential—and that's regardless of their postcode, where they're living or their parents' bank balance. That's why, if we ever have the privilege of being elected, Labor will restore funding to public schools to ensure that every public school reaches its fair funding level. We will also restore the $14.5 billion cut by the Liberal government. In my electorate of Newcastle, that would mean almost $20 million for Newcastle schools from 2020. Twenty million dollars can make a profound difference to the education of our young people. That is, on average, each school in my electorate would receive $450,000 extra over the next three years. That means more teachers, more individual attention for kids and more support for every single child, making sure that they get the best start in life and that they get to reach their full potential.
For years, this government has tried to insist that it believes in needs based funding and that it would adhere to the principles of Labor's groundbreaking education reforms, but nothing could be further from the truth. As long as this government prioritises the privileged at the expense of those facing challenges, too many Australian kids won't get the support and attention they need to reach their potential. (Time expired)
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (11:49): I'm really pleased to rise to speak about local public schools, as well as Catholic schools, independent schools and special schools, in my electorate. In the federal electorate of Petrie, I have almost 50 schools, and I visit all of them regularly. I get along to a lot of them. I'm really pleased that the federal coalition government has been increasing school funding for public schools every year since I was elected 5½ years ago. Every year, they are going up—and they will continue to go up, over the next two years, every single year. So schools in the southern end of my electorate, such as Aspley State School down in the Brisbane City Council area, will receive more funding from the federal government next year than they do this year. The Aspley Special School do a wonderful job in my electorate teaching students with disability. I have been to their awards night several times. They will receive more funding as well. So will Bracken Ridge State High School, Bracken Ridge State School and Norris Road State School. The Sandgate District State High School, which is just outside my electorate in Lilley, also does a great job educating children in Bracken Ridge—and the Bald Hills State School.
To put this into perspective: back in 2016, when we were in government, federal funding for state schools was $16.1 billion nationally. In 2017 federal funding for state schools was $17.5 billion. So that is actually $1.4 billion more. In 2018 it was $18.7 billion. This year, federal funding for state schools is $19.9 billion. Next year, in 2020, it will be $21.5 billion. Because the economy has been growing, because the unemployment rate is at five per cent, the federal Liberal-National government will continue to invest more into education. All of my sons have gone through Shorncliffe State School, a great local school in Lilley just outside my electorate. My youngest son, Samuel, finished year 6 there last year. I was very proud for him to be the library captain at Shorncliffe State School and I was very pleased with all my three sons receiving seven years of education at Shorncliffe State School. I want to thank all the teachers, the principal and everyone involved there. They all certainly did very well.
Griffin State School, a new state school in a very fast-growing suburb in my electorate, had 250 students a few years ago—and I was there for the opening of the school. Now they are up to some 850 students. There are lots of people going to Griffin State School. In 2019, they will receive $2,537 from the federal government for every student that attends Griffin State School. Next year they will receive $2,682 for every student that attends Griffith State School. In 2021 they will receive $2,830 for every student that attends Griffin State School. I am very pleased that the federal government is funding state schools as well, and I encourage the state government to continue to fund state schools to the same level.
I am pleased that the federal Minister for Education, the Hon. Dan Tehan, recently signed an agreement with the Queensland education minister Grace Grace. Just two months ago they signed an agreement. Why did Grace Grace sign the agreement? Because every school in my electorate is receiving more money from the federal government. So I guess that is the message I want to get out to parents in my electorate: they are all receiving more money.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr HOWARTH: The member opposite interjects, 'Tell us about the private schools.' I'll tell you about the private schools. I went to St Flannan's at Zillmere, a small Catholic primary school—once again, just outside my electorate. Every Catholic school also receives more funding. At the federal level, 20 per cent is funded by state government and 80 per cent for state schools. It is reversed. I'm very pleased that both sides will continue to invest in education. (Time expired)
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (11:54): Labor believes that every child, in every school, should get the education they deserve, wherever they live. I acknowledge the member for Lalor for bringing on this important private member's motion about public education. Public education matters, particularly in regional areas. This is important in my electorate of Dobell, on the Central Coast of New South Wales, where almost three-quarters of primary school students and two-thirds of secondary school students attend public schools. That is why a Labor government will deliver an extra $14 billion for public schools over the next decade, with $3.3 billion extra flowing in the first three years alone. The extra $14 billion for public schools is the equivalent of more than 13,000 extra teachers, or 23,000 extra teacher aides. This will give all children the opportunity to reach their full potential wherever they live.
In my electorate of Dobell, it will mean $20.73 million in additional funding for our public schools in just three years. Under Labor, six public schools in Dobell will each receive over a $1 million boost in funding in the three years from 2020. The Wadalba Community School, a K-12 school, will have its funding boosted by $1.83 million under Labor's Fair Go for Schools. The Wadalba Community School is a 20-year-old school, so it's a relatively new school, but its P&C must still work really hard to raise funds for improvements to the school's library. The library's resources need updating. Many kids use the school library across all ages, so it's essential that learning activities keep pace with the latest technology and teaching. It's not reasonable to expect senior students to study in the same place as kindergarten kids. That's why the Wadalba P&C believes additional funding could be used to create better senior learning environments and a dedicated senior study area.
In our primary schools, additional funding is desperately needed to upgrade playgrounds to keep kids active outdoors. Quality equipment and activities are also essential to combat bullying. New South Wales Labor's promise to deliver air conditioning to all classrooms will address one of the biggest concerns from local students. And since we're talking about schoolkids, I would like to read to you an email that Hannah sent me when she started year 7, in the first week of this year:
I have just started high school and I am struggling with the concept that the High School does not have adequate cooling for students.
Once the rooms reach such high temperatures I struggle to be able to concentrate and focus on what is required from me during school. I have goals that I am hoping to achieve but will struggle with the learning whilst ever the classrooms are not cooled.
As the summer is getting hotter, fans are providing inadequate cooling for students and staff. The heat is causing students to become lethargic, lowering student motivation.
By installing adequate cooling in schools, this will assist by improving students' concentration and ability to focus and learn.
On a personal note, it's hard for me to concentrate as well due to the heat, and I'm sure it effects everyone else as well.
Hannah is an outstanding advocate for her peers. I know that, if New South Wales Labor is elected, cooling in all public schools in New South Wales will make a really big difference to students' learning.
Our science labs need new equipment. Investments in software and 3D printers are just one example of how funding is not keeping pace with students' learning needs. Why should students in a large high school have to wait for weeks to access the school's one 3D printer? We have classrooms that need to be refurbished and remodelled for new teaching techniques. Of course, more than anything, many of the public schools in my electorate need more teachers and teachers' aides. In particular, if we are genuine about student wellbeing and improving retention and completion rates, school communities in my electorate need more school counsellors and dedicated teachers who don't have a full classroom load, so they can commit more time to individual students' needs.
Labor's commitment is about giving all kids a fair go, whatever their circumstances and wherever they live. Public schools teach two in three of all students and the overwhelming majority of children with greatest needs, including 74 per cent of students with disabilities. A Labor government will restore funding to public schools and ensure that every child in every school will be better off under Labor. Labor will also introduce two years of preschool in the years before schooling, giving our children access to 15 years of quality education. Under Labor, every child can get the best possible start in life. This is particularly important in regional and remote areas. Young children starting out need to have the best start, the most support, and that is only possible under Labor. What we have seen under the Liberal and National government is attacks on public schools and cuts in funding. And who misses out? It's young kids, particularly in regional communities. We need to support students across Australia.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:59): I am very proud to say that I went to state public schools: firstly, to Peakhurst Primary School and then Peakhurst High School. I'm proud that my children have also attended state public schools, and I get very upset when I hear members of the Labor Party come into this chamber and tell blatant lies about cuts to funding. The only other possibility is that they simply do not understand mathematics. Let's look at the numbers—
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Order!
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Yes: they don't like it when they get called out—
Ms Kearney interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Batman!
Mr CRAIG KELLY: No, you don't like it, because you are telling lies.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lalor will sit down. The chair's being ignored. There'll be no interjections, and I'll hear the member for Hughes in silence.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Let's have a look at the latest numbers or what the numbers are because the numbers tell the truth. You may not, but the numbers tell the truth. Labor's last budget—how much did they spend on public school education, Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou? Well, the answer is $13.7 billion in the 2013-14 budget. And what do you think the coalition has spent in the latest budget—the 2018-19 budget? If you listen to members of the Labor Party and the untruths that they tell members of the public, you'd think there'd have been all these cuts. You'd think we'd cut it from $13.7 billion.
An honourable member: What is it now?
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Good question; I'll take that interjection: it is $19.3 billion. We have increased funding 41 per cent. This year the government is spending 41 per cent more on education than when the mob in the Labor Party was in office with the Greens. And yet we have members in this parliament that walk around their suburbs and say, 'There are cuts: the government's cut funding to education.' They are telling bald-faced lies. It's a 41 per cent increase, and I would hope that, if we're going to have an election campaign about education, we can at least have some honesty in this debate.
The facts are: the coalition government has increased funding to 41 per cent more than Labor. You know what? We've also done that while bringing the budget back to surplus. Any government can come in here and spend money and run up big budget deficits as the previous Labor government did. So, even that $13.7 billion—40 per cent less than the coalition is spending—was with a huge budget deficit. So, we've got the budget back to surplus and we're spending 40 per cent more on funding for public schools, and yet we have these mistruths, untruths and lies being told time and time again. Well, I tell you what: if you want to keep this game up, every single member of this coalition is going to stand up and call you out for a pack of liars every time you stand up and say funding's been cut. The numbers tell the truth. 40 per cent more under this coalition government, and there's more to come if we get re-elected.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (12:03): The member couldn't even go five minutes without talking about public education—can I just point that out. I commend the member for Lalor for this bill which draws attention to the importance of funding for our schools, which is incredibly important as the member for Hughes just outlined. Quite ironically, he said, The numbers tell the truth.'
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hughes has had his turn.
Mr GOSLING: If the government are committed, the coalition government—they've had quite a few ministers for education. If the latest one wants to come out and say they'll commit to putting the funding back that was previously in the system when we were in government, then great; otherwise, you haven't really got a leg to stand on because sure there's been an increase in funding to education because there are more kids. If you want to commit to the funding that we're putting in public education, just say that publicly, but what we are doing is putting an extra $14 million into schools in the NT alone.
Labor believes that Australian schools should be the best in the world and funded to ensure every Australian child gets the best start they can in life. I'm proud that the future Labor government will deliver the biggest investment in public schools in our history. To ensure that our kids get the education that they need, there will be $14 billion for public schools over the next decade, with $3.3 billion extra flowing in the first three years of school alone. Now, as I said, for the Northern Territory that's $14 million extra.
To give you an idea of what that means for our schools: for Darwin High School that's an extra $1.17 million per year; for Casuarina Senior College that's $930,000 extra per year; and for Palmerston Senior College, with Rosebery Middle School as well, because they work in partnership, that's $1.34 million extra per year. On the weekend, when I was doorknocking down in Palmerston around Bakewell, I was speaking to one of the members of the Bakewell Primary School board. I was very proud to be able to her that $580,000 extra per year will be going to her school. She said, 'That's fantastic news,' because there's a whole range of things that they need in their school, like more assistant teachers. That funding is very much needed to support their kids, particularly kids that need a bit more one-on-one time to help them in their early years.
Labor understands the importance of early childhood education. We know that 90 per cent of a child's brain development occurs in those first years of life, so an investment in early education, primary school and secondary school is something that our country needs. It's something that our competitors are investing in. Unfortunately, as we've heard from Mr Shouty over there, the Liberals see education as a cost. The current Prime Minister has failed to extend preschool funding for four-year-olds beyond the next school year, whereas Labor is not only committing to preschool for four-year-olds into the future; we're also extending that to three-year-old preschool, because, again, we understand the importance of those early years.
Childhood education in those early years is absolutely vital. This is the first time that three-year-old preschool has been announced as a commitment, like it has been by the future Shorten Labor government, in Australian education history. Fifteen hours of subsidised early childhood education for three-year-olds will make sure that our kids, Aussie kids, territory kids, will get the best possible start to lifelong education. It's incredibly important. I commend the member for the bill.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (12:08): I think the facts speak for themselves. In Labor's last year in office, Labor put $13.7 billion of funding into schools. We put $19.3 billion into funding in 2018-19. That is, as my friend the member for Hughes said, a 41 per cent increase in school funding between Labor's last year in office and the current year. If you look at when these school funding reforms started, in 2016 we put $16.1 billion, in 2017 it became $17.5 billion, in 2018 it became $18.7 billion, in 2019 it's scheduled to go to $19.9 billion and in 2020 it's scheduled to go to $21.5 billion. There is a fabrication on the other side that somehow our side has cut education funding, when the truth is that no Commonwealth government in the history of the Federation has spent more money on education for government schools, Catholic schools and independent schools than our government.
There were interjections earlier in the debate about 80 per cent of funding going to non-government schools. I have to say that, under the Whitlam government, the Hawke-Keating government and the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd catastrophe, the Commonwealth has always been responsible for the lion's share of funding of non-government schools. It's the state governments which are responsible for—what are they called?—state government schools. That's their own responsibility.
We are entering into larger funding arrangements for state government schools as we are continuing to fund non-government schools, because we believe in parental choice. We believe that it doesn't matter where a parent decides to send their child to school, because it's parents who know what's best for their kids, it's parents who know what's best for their families and it's parents who should choose where they send their children. If they're going to send their child to a government school, it should be a great education. If they're going to send their child to a Catholic or an independent school, it should also be a great education. That's the purpose of our government's funding arrangements.
I'm lucky in Berowra that I have 51 fantastic schools, from the tiny Middle Dural Public School, with only 23 students, to Cherrybrook Technology High School, with 2,500 students—the largest public high school in the state. I have Oakhill College, the largest Catholic school in the state, with 1,600 students, and many fantastic schools in between. I have among my number both Cherrybrook Technology High School and Cheltenham Girls High School, which have had some of the best results of any comprehensive high school in the HSC in New South Wales. I have selective schools in my electorate or just outside of my electorate, such as Normanhurst Boys High School and Hornsby Girls High School. I've got primary schools in every suburb and town of Berowra. I am very proud of them.
I'm particularly proud of what our government is doing to help these schools. Across all 51 schools over the next decade our government is investing one billion bucks extra. It is a one billion buck bonanza because we have been able to manage our economy properly. You cannot deliver increased funding if you cannot maintain and manage a strong economy. That's what we have done. We've basically seen a $30 billion increase in school funding over the period. We're able to do that because we're bringing the budget back to surplus. Do you remember a surplus? It's not something we have heard uttered in this place for about a decade.
The Labor Party just want to continue to get us into debt and to continue to spend away. They also in this space want to mislead parents about what's really happening in their schools on the ground. The parents in my constituency know that, whatever choice they make, they will get a well-funded quality education that meets the needs of their family and their children. That is the most important thing.
I think we've had a rather arid debate. The member for Lalor's motion is exactly a continuation of this arid debate about school funding. We have been talking about funding for a decade when the real debate needs to be about quality and standards. We keep being beaten in tests by Kazakhstan and Slovenia. They are not countries that we regularly compare Australia with. We continue to be beaten by them because we are not focusing on the key things that make a difference in our education—teacher quality, curriculum and encouraging students to aim for excellence, to challenge themselves and to be unafraid to fail. They are the things that will be the building blocks of a stronger and more prosperous Australia in the future, not whether you can carve up a pie in a different way. That is the fundamental problem with what Labor want to do. They've no plan to grow funding and to grow the economy. They've only got a plan to carve up what's already there—take something from somebody who has already got something and give it to someone else. That is the Labor way; it is not our way. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
India
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (12:13): I move:
That this House:
(1) strongly endorses An India Economic Strategy To 2035, the independent report by Mr Peter Varghese AO, and its goals of:
(a) lifting India into Australia's top three export markets by 2035;
(b) making India the third largest destination in Asia for Australian outward investment; and
(c) bringing India into the inner circle of Australia's strategic partnerships, and with people to people ties as close as any in Asia;
(2) recognises the unprecedented opportunity for Australia to cement India as a priority economic partner; and
(3) acknowledges the importance of building a broad and deep bilateral relationship based on:
(a) a sustainable long term economic strategy;
(b) our shared strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific, including the importance of the rules based international order; and
(c) the strength of the Indian community in Australia, the fastest growing diaspora in our nation.
I congratulate the government on commissioning and implementing the Australia-India economic strategy. The Australia-India economic relationship has plenty of potential. The challenge is to take a relationship that has been made stronger by Prime Minister Modi's very outward looking engagement and our government's enthusiasm for India to the next level.
India is our 10th-largest trading partner overall, with $22 billion in two-way trade. Our major exports to India are coal, vegetables, gold, copper and education. Our major imports are refined petroleum, medicines, pearls and gems, and railway vehicles. Australia is India's ninth-largest source of imports and its 22nd-largest destination for exports. With global economic uncertainty, Australia needs to diversify the market for our goods and services. Greater access to the Indian market is an obvious benefit to Australia. Australia is well placed to meet the demands of India's large young population with its rapidly growing and industrialising economy and its aspirational consumptive middle class, which will require more education, food production, resources, energy, environmental management, health care and tourism.
India's the fastest growing economy in the world, with a GDP of over seven per cent, and Australia needs to become a key economic partner for India. Recognising this, our government commissioned the India economic strategy, developed by the former Secretary of DFAT and former High Commissioner to India Peter Varghese. The report acts as a blue print to unlock business opportunities that will help our nations grow together. Australia has also encouraged the government of India to produce a similar report from the Indian perspective. The mere fact that we have commissioned a report on our economic relationship with one country demonstrates how seriously we take the India relationship and how much he want that relationship to succeed.
The strategy rests on three pillars—economic relations, geopolitical convergence and people-to-people links. The Varghese report indicates the extraordinary opportunity presented by the rise of India. According to Varghese:
By 2025, one-fifth of the world's working age population will be Indian. By 2030 there will be over 850 million internet users in India. By 2035 India's five largest cities will have economies of comparable size to middle income countries today.
The Modi government's economic reforms have helped open up the economy. In his speech at Davos last year, Prime Minister Modi said that India was 'replacing red tape with red carpet'. India's growth is now faster than China's. India's GDP grew by 8.2 per cent in the June quarter, while China's grew 6.7 per cent in the same period—and China is a much larger economy.
While the economic growth figures are very impressive, India has a complicated business environment. While steps have been taken to streamline business and open the economy, India is still grappling with the challenge of lifting millions of people out of poverty and dealing with corruption. Australia and India share an ocean and a similar strategic outlook as rule-of-law based English-speaking democracies and supporters of the rules based international order. As partners in the Indo-Pacific, both countries have a mutual interest in the region's stability. Australia's foreign and defence white papers identified India as one of four key regional democracies with which Australia should seek to build greater engagement, emphasising our shared interests in maritime security, regional stability and countering violent extremism. On that note, it's important to pause to condemn the murder of 44 Indians by terrorists in Pulwama last Thursday.
The Australia-India defence relationship has significantly expanded in recent years through the annual foreign and defence secretaries' dialogue and through the participation of Indian forces in Australian-led multilateral air and sea exercises.
Strengthening people-to-people ties, though, is perhaps the most important strategic opportunity. India has the second largest population in the world, with more than 1.3 billion people. India's our largest source of skilled migrants and our second largest source of international students. The people-to-people links will be burnished by putting the Indian diaspora at the centre of our strategy. In Australia, nearly 700,000 people, or 2.8 per cent of our population, claim Indian ancestry. The Indian community is the fourth largest migrant community in Australia and the Indian-born population is expected to overtake the Chinese-born population by 2031, reaching 1.4 million. The Indian diaspora are setting up businesses and joining our workforce. The diaspora can help promote Australia as an innovative, safe and prosperous society. They can also help Australians navigate the complex Indian environment.
In November, the government endorsed the Varghese report and supported its 20 priority recommendations, with a focus on targeting 10 Indian states and 10 sectors while providing practical support for Australian businesses entering or expanding operations in India. Over the next 12 months, the government has committed to a range of options. The adoption and implementation of the Varghese report will take a relationship with enormous potential— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Mr Craig Kelly: I second the motion.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (12:18): The report by Mr Peter Varghese AO, An India economic strategy to 2035, is indeed something that Australia should be very mindful of as we consider not only our place in the region but the place of our people in the world. Certainly it is vital to acknowledge the importance of building broad and deep bilateral relationships based on long-term economic strategy, our strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific and the strength of our diaspora here in Australia. To do otherwise is really not an option.
In considering the importance of this report, I went back nearly four years to some remarks I made at the Australia India Business Council. I talked about the Australia-India relationship being spoken about as being 'on the cusp of something great'. I said:
I feel that we have been on this cusp for a very long time. Too long.
… … …
It soon became clear to me that there was something missing in the Australia-India relationship. At its core, it is an economic relationship and there is recognition of our important historical and cultural links. But, beyond that, there is something that has been holding us back from going beyond this cusp.
I think it's been a matter of our one-on-one relationship needing much more than niceties and introductions. It needs to be something deeper.
One thing I also looked at in this context was whether there was something lacking in the collaboration space. I noted some observations made by an Indian innovative company:
"The future will belong to those countries and companies that can unleash the power of cross-border collaborations, invest in innovation and embrace entrepreneurship as an economic model of growth".
I said:
India and Australia have so much in common in that innovation space. By collaboration, we can do so much more as two economies in making these ideas happen and exporting them to one another. I don't have a sense that we have been doing this in a methodical or policy-driven way. This needs to change.
Much is said about the strength of the Australia-India relationship being the growth of people-to-people links. This is certainly true, because, as the report notes:
India is currently our largest source of skilled migrants, our second largest source of international students and a substantial proportion of those who come to Australia under temporary visas to fill skilled positions that Australians cannot.
It also notes that the diaspora will have an enormous role to play in the partnership of the future.
Mr Varghese also summarises in his report something very notable in terms of that innovation concept that I alluded to:
As we leave the mining boom behind, we can do better in targeting and supporting the highly qualified professionals and high calibre students who will help drive future economic growth in Australia and integration with India.
There are good examples, globally, on how to engage the diaspora more effectively.
He also notes, amongst other things, the need to improve Indian literacy of Australia's corporate sector. I think it's worth saying that that needs to work the other way as well. I'm proud, in the electorate of Greenway, to have 11.6 per cent of all ancestry being Indian, compared to 2.1 per cent in New South Wales and two per cent across Australia. That's the third-largest in Greenway, behind those choosing Australian and English as their heritage.
The Varghese report was embraced by the shadow Treasurer, the shadow minister for foreign affairs and the shadow minister for trade and investment, because it ties in very closely with Labor's policy on future Asia developing deeper ties with India. As those shadow ministers noted, over the next two decades, India will become the world's third-largest economy with a population of almost 1.7 billion people. As they noted, we want to sell more of what we make in Australia to India to create more local jobs.
In order to capitalise on this opportunity, we must improve the way we engage with India to better understand how its economy operates and what it needs. To that end, I note the sentiments of the mover of this motion. But I do note with some disappointment that it took quite a while for the government to accept these recommendations. Now that that's been done, I think the recognition is there across the economy and across the parliament of the need to progress reform in this relationship.
Lastly, I want to note and express my deepest sympathy for the over 40 Indian paramilitary police who were killed late last week in a bomb attack by militants on their convoy in Kashmir. I note it has been reported as the deadliest militant attack on Indian forces in Kashmir since the insurgency against Indian rule began in 1989. I'm sure all in this parliament, certainly myself in representing a large Indian diaspora, stand in solidarity with the people of India in countering terrorism in all its forms.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:23): Firstly, I'd like to congratulate the member for Berowra on moving this motion. I note his very strong ties to and involvement with the Indian community in his electorate, and I congratulate him on that.
The Indian economic miracle that we have witnessed over the last decade has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. The world is so much better when a democratic India is strong. If we look at what is behind that strength, we have to look at the way that they have increased energy and electricity generation to their people. Between 2006 and July 2018, India has added 156,969 megawatts of coal-fired electricity generation capacity. To put that in some context, that is the equivalent of 100 Hazelwood power stations. So, between 2006 and July last year, India has added 100 equivalent coal-fired power stations. On top of that, it has an additional 39,368 megawatts of coal-fired capacity currently under construction. Again to put that in some context, Australia's total coal-fired generation capacity is around 23,000 megawatts.
So what India has under construction today, on top of the equivalent of 100 Hazelwoods that it has built over the last decade, is almost 75 per cent more than Australia's total coal-fired generation. And it doesn't stop there. Additional to that, it has a further 15,750 megawatts of coal-fired power announced, another 24,466 pre-permitted and another 23,115 permitted. If you add all those up, you can see the way that India has required more coal.
So it comes as no surprise that it was announced in The Times of India only last week that the Modi government has opened 52 new coalmines since it came to power in May 2014. We have had one Indian company here trying to open one coalmine for over a decade, held up in red tape. In the meantime, over in India they have opened 52 new coalmines. These 52 new coalmines represent an 86 per cent growth over the number of mines added in the previous five-year period, between 2009 and 2014. These new mines have added 164 million tonnes to India's annual coal production capacity, marking a 113 per cent increase over the capacity added in the previous five-year period.
You would think that, with these 52 new coalmines that India has added, it may not need to invest in new coal production facilities here in Australia. But the thing is that the coalmines that India is adding are mainly lignite and brown coal, which burn much more dirtily, with greater emissions, than does the black coal that would be available from the Adani Carmichael mine in Queensland. So the activists who are stopping that mine going ahead in Queensland are not going to stop India progressing. They're not going to stop India lifting millions of people out of poverty. All they are doing is going to result in more dirty brown coal being burnt with higher emissions than the black coal from Australian mines.
That also brings me to an article we saw in the paper only today saying that the CFMEU will demand of Labor candidates in Queensland to pledge support for the coalmining industry, including Adani's Carmichael mine. But here's the thing: it says 'Labor candidates in Queensland'. What about the Labor candidates around the rest of the nation? The concern that every Queenslander should have is that Labor will tell one thing to the state of Queensland, and they will say another thing in the states of Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania. Double-faced, I think that's called—or speaking with a forked tongue. If they're going to make this pledge, make it nationwide. (Time expired)
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (12:28): We Western Australians find ourselves an extra hour behind our east coast neighbours for half the year, but we also find ourselves in around the same time zone as some of the most dynamic regions and areas of the world—China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and many of our neighbours to the north. Among the unique advantages presented by our global orientation is that we share our Indian Ocean beaches with perhaps the most dynamic and one of the most populous nations in our region and indeed the world: India. India is the world's third largest economy. It boasts the largest democracy in the world, with Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians all represented, a societal framework that serves as an example of democracy to be both emulated and supported. Both of these factors make a strong Australia-India partnership attractive in a changing global environment.
But Australia's traditional international networking strategy—commodity trade—won't gain us any credit with India. India is actually largely self-sufficient in natural resources and energy, needing little assistance from Australia in that regard. But Australia needn't despair. We have another more valuable export—education. In 2017 over 113,000 million Indians sought tertiary education but were unable to access it. This is because India is short in around 20 million university and vocational education lecturers, teachers and trainers. That's nearly the entire population of Australia. With 40 per cent of Indians living comfortably above the poverty line, accounting for only 600 million people in a population of over one billion, a good tertiary education in India is arguably just as valuable as coal or iron ore. Indian students travel in their thousands to study in Australia each year. In 2016-17 alone, nearly 34,500 student visas were granted to Indian students, accounting for over 10 per cent of student visas granted. The 2016 census data reveals that the Indian population in Australia has grown to over 450,000, which is up from just under 300,000 in the 2011 census. Of Australia's 25 million people, today's Indians comprise just under two per cent of the total population. In WA alone, our Indian population is sitting at just under 50,000. With a population of 2.5 million, it means that our Indian population is around two per cent and should be taken much more seriously.
Labor announced its Future Asia Policy late last year, which includes a government-wide program to ensure that we are fully engaging with and leveraging the benefits of Asian diasporas in Australia. Labor's shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, noted at the launch of this policy that Asian countries were growing even hungrier for Australian education, and the challenge for the future would be capitalising on this massive demand. Outside of political and government-led initiatives, towards closer ties with India, we have the Australia India Institute, an organisation which has been holding the Australia India Leadership Dialogue over the last 10 years. In January last year, Labor's shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, and shadow foreign affairs minister, Senator Penny Wong, attended one of these leadership dialogues. Indeed, both the member for Gellibrand and I attended the Youth Leadership Dialogue in Delhi this time last year. The 2019 conference will be kicking off later this week, in Sydney.
My takeaway from my trip was that Australia could be doing so much more to improve and strengthen our relationship with India by understanding our common interests. This idea was reflected by the Perth USAsia Centre, who, alongside our foreign minister and our Defence Force chief, attended India's flagship global security conference, the Raisina Dialogue—an annual dialogue that has been held over the past four years. They reflected there the importance of cooperation between our two nations, particularly in defence.
Western Australia has a long history of capturing economic opportunities in North-East Asia, namely with Japan, Korea and China. Now we must further diversify the economy, which is something we can take advantage of through the opportunities coming out of the north-west of Asia—opportunities like education. The Indian government has a well-founded fear that their young people will leave their home country, only to upskill but never return, meaning that the benefits of education are lost. By pursuing a better relationship with India, we need to come to a mutual understanding about how we can benefit them by exporting education from Australia and responding to India's demand for education, but it does involve helping them in the development of this and building a stronger relationship.
While the federal government is yet to conclude a free trade agreement with India, as it said it would do so two years ago, we shouldn't be deterred. This motion asks us to endorse an India economic strategy by 2035, and we should. As the report so eloquently notes:
Making the most of India’s demographic advantages will require labour market reforms, measures to improve education and skills and significantly improving women’s participation in the economy.
There is a long way ahead. There is no market over the next 20 years which offers more growth opportunities for Australian businesses than India. Australia and Perth in particular are uniquely positioned to forge a deeper relationship with our north-west neighbours in other ways.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (12:34): I thank the member for Berowra for moving this motion. I would also like to thank Peter Varghese for the two years that he spent putting this very comprehensive report together. In October last year, Labor announced that we would support the priority recommendations contained in the report and, if we're elected at the next election, we'll implement those forthwith. But it must be said that Labor announced our response to this report one month before the government, and there's still mystery that surrounds why the government tried to bury this report. It was released at 8.42 pm via Twitter, despite much fanfare when it was commissioned by the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, two years earlier. The Minister for Trade put out a press release at 4.00 pm the next day after the announcement was made on Twitter, and it was actually the Indian government and Indian government representatives that made this report public prior to anyone from the Australian government. Nonetheless, the report's been released and it is quite a detailed bit of work that Labor appreciates Mr Varghese undertaking and it will be important for Australia's future relationships within the Indo-Pacific region.
The report really sums up Australia's relationship with India in the early paragraphs where Mr Varghese says that in the past India has been in the 'too-hard basket' for Australia. I thought that really summoned up the government-to-government, people-to-people and business relationships between Australia and India in the past. Australia does need an ambitious India agenda, and this report aims to lift that relationship with India: to lift India to the top three export markets for Australia; to make India the third-largest destination for outward investment; and to bring Australia and India closer strategically.
We have a great opportunity in India into the future. By 2025, one-fifth of the world's population will be Indian. By 2030, there will be 850 million internet users in India. Unlike the Asian population, which is tending to age into the future, the Indian population is a very young one and India will overtake China as the world's most populous nation by 2035. India, of course, has a different growth model to much of Asia that Australia has relied upon in the past through our export markets, and India's growth model is very much not based on exports but on consumption and services. The recommendations that Mr Varghese has made really do try and capitalise on that opportunity for Australia into the future around consumption and service delivery, particularly in the education space.
Australia has an increasing expertise in delivering education services. It's reflected in the fact that education is the No.2 export earner for our country. But Mr Varghese also points to the opportunities that exist for greater collaboration between Australian universities and Indian universities, between Australian research and development institutions and those in India—that's something that Labor will prioritise, if we are elected.
In infrastructure, there exist boundless opportunities for collaboration, particularly around the financing and planning of infrastructure projects in India, but also Mr Varghese recommends a boosted role for the Australia-India Council. He's talking about greater business collaboration; greater direct air services between our nations; in agriculture, using the expertise of the Bureau of Meteorology to help India with forecasting, particularly around monsoons which can be devastating for crops and agriculture in that country; of course, the scale-up of the Australia-India Strategic Research Fund; and advocacy to bring India into APEC.
These opportunities all sit well with Labor's Future Asia policy, which was announced last year, through which we'll hold annual Australia Week in India trade missions; boost Australia and Indo-Pacific capability, particularly on boards; commence a diaspora program—as we all know there are 700,000 in the Indian diaspora living in Australia—as well as focusing on a greater uptake of Indo-Pacific languages in our schools and universities. One of those areas that we will concentrate on, if we're elected, is Hindi. There are many opportunities for us to grow the relationship with India, and I commend this report to the Chamber. (Time expired)
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (12:39): Scholar Robin Jeffrey once wrote:
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, Australia's path to Asia is a jungle track paved with reports.
More than a dozen major reports over the past 50 years have called for a greater engagement with Asia. Peter Varghese's An India Economic Strategy to 2035 is the latest, but I must say it is an outstanding one. Each report has edged us closer, true, but the path to transforming this jungle track into a highway lies in changing the way that we think about ourselves as Australians, not the way that we think about Asia.
During the last two decades, our nation has been transformed by immigration. According to the 2016 census, over a quarter of Australians are born overseas and nearly 50 per cent have a parent born overseas. Although four million Australians, or somewhere between 14 and 17 per cent of our population, identify as Asian or as having Asian heritage, our national identity has not evolved to reflect that demographic change. We are no longer an Anglo outpost of empire in the Indo-Pacific fixated on keeping Asians out, but our national symbols and our institutions continue to reflect an outdated representation of Australia. A truly representative national identity would equally recognise the talents and experiences of members of the Asian-Australian diaspora communities and open our eyes to new ways of engaging with Asia.
No relationship illustrates our national identity challenge more clearly than the one with India. Australia is now home to almost 700,000 Australians who claim Indian ancestry, almost 500,000 of whom were born on the subcontinent. The Varghese report sees people-to-people links enabled by these diaspora communities as one of the three pillars for our engagement with India. Indeed, the Varghese report correctly called people-to-people links 'the most significant asset of all in Australia-India relations'. The Varghese report explains the soft value of people-to-people links as going:
… into the nooks and crannies of a relationship where governments cannot. They can shape perceptions in a way governments cannot.
In this realisation, we have come an extraordinarily long way since two men from northern India became the first people to be denied entry into Australia for failing the Immigration Restriction Act's infamous dictation test, yet the knowledge, expertise and connections of our Indian-Australian diaspora remain underutilised. They are not sufficiently represented in our institutions, on our boards, in our C-suites, in our industry bodies, in our business associations, in state and federal politics, in policymaking and in our higher education sector. There are no Indian-Australians in this chamber.
Although Hindi is the third-most spoken language in the world, after English and Mandarin, and the most common Indian language spoken at home in Australia, it is taught in only two schools in Victoria. In 2017, only 252 secondary school students studied Hindi in Victoria, significantly fewer than the 20,000 students who studied French, 18,000 students who studied Italian and 11,000 students who studied German. Given our limited language capabilities and subpar diaspora engagement, it's not surprising that on almost every measure our relationship with India is underdeveloped. India is the second-most populous country in the world, and soon to be the world's third-largest economy, but only 0.4 per cent of Australian foreign direct investment goes to India, a fraction compared to the 21.6 per cent to the United States and 10.8 per cent to New Zealand. Direct Indian investment into Australia only represents 0.1 per cent of total Australian stocks. Australia's two-way trade with India is only 3.5 per cent of total trade.
Labor's FutureAsia policy attempts to address these shortcomings in our relationship with Asia. FutureAsia will designate Hindi as a priority Asian language and seek to increase the number of schools that teach it. FutureAsia will establish an Asian-Australian diaspora program to harness the knowledge and connections of our Indian diaspora to help grow our economic relationship with India. Diaspora programs have been successful overseas, particularly the diaspora programs operated by the United States Department of State, and have been shown to drive economic investment and growth. The Indian diaspora in the Silicon Valley are recognised globally for their contribution to the growth of the IT industry both in the United States and in India. Home to a good proportion of Australia's Indian diaspora, such a program has the potential to transform the economy of Melbourne's west in the area that I represent.
To fully benefit from the opportunities that the demographic changes reflected in the modern Australia now afford us, we have to update our mindset and embrace a new national identity that fully encompasses the modern, diverse migrant nation that Australia has become.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): There being no further speakers on this motion, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
International Mother Language Day
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (12:44): I move:
That this House:
(1)acknowledges:
(a)that 21 February is International Mother Language Day (IMLD);
(b)the work of the Ekushe Academy Australia and the Mother Language Conservation Movement in creating awareness of the importance of mother languages in Australia;
(c)that 2019 is the Year of Indigenous Languages; and
(d)that about 200 different languages are spoken throughout Australia; and
(2)calls on the Australian Government to:
(a)observe IMLD on 21 February;
(b)promote the preservation and protection of all languages used by people around the world, especially in Australia;
(c)build on Australia's multilingual strengths including support for second language education in Australian education institutions; and
(d)actively work to support communities in their efforts to preserve their mother language.
21 February is International Mother Language Day. It gives me the opportunity to celebrate the richness of language in my community and to talk about two of Labor's policies to grow our language skills. Language allows us to transmit meaning. For each culture, language holds significant history, traditions and identity, and meanings that are quite often specific to that language. It is also a doorway to other cultures, knowledge exchange and trade. We are a very lucky country to have so many languages spoken in our communities. It is in the interest of the families, human understanding and our economy to grow that capacity.
International Mother Language Day was established in 2000. The date of 21 February corresponds with the day in 1952 when students were protesting for the recognition of Bangla as one of the national languages of East Pakistan, now known as Bangladesh. During the demonstration, four young students were shot dead. So it is a day of special significance to Bangla speaking people in Australia, and I have worked with them for many years to raise the profile of this day. I would like to make special mention of Nirmal Paul, who is the founder and chairperson of Mother Languages Conservation International, and Dr Swapan Paul, who is the president of the Ekushe Academy Australia. Both of these organisations have a mission to raise awareness of the importance of mother language in the Australian community—and they do a remarkable job.
And there is a lot to be aware of. In my community, just in the community of Parramatta, there are 110 languages spoken at home. All of the languages spoken add to the vibrancy of our community, and I am proud of the diversity and richness in which we live. Labor has two particular policies aimed at fostering that richness. On Saturday we announced a plan to get more Australian children learning languages. A Shorten Labor government, if elected, will invest an extra $8 million in community language schools so that more Australian children get the chance to learn other languages.
The parents and grandparents in Parramatta who were born overseas probably know all about community language schools, but there are many who don't. They have been operating in Australia for more than 150 years. There are 700 of them, teaching over 100,000 students in over 80 languages, with literally thousands of volunteer teachers and very committed parents. That includes Akan Education Learning Program, in Granville; Our Lady of Lebanon Arabic School, in Harris Park; the Bangla Language School, in Rosehill; the Shua Community Language School, in Granville; the Afghan Community Language School and the Afghan Cultural School, in Parramatta, which both teach Dari; the South Asian Australian Association, in Parramatta, which teaches Hindi; and just outside my electorate the Wentworthville Tamil Study Centre, which teaches Tamil. The $25,000 grants that will be available through the program will make a real difference and will allow these committed groups of parents and teachers to extend their services to three-and four-year-olds. So children will be exposed to these languages and learn the skills of language at an even younger age, which is incredibly important for our future prosperity as a nation and for the strength of the communities among us.
But we also need to improve efforts in schools. A Shorten Labor government will also make Asian languages and literacy a national priority and invest $32 million to strengthen Asian language and literacy education in schools. The number of students studying Asian languages has actually been stagnating in recent years. It is a surprise, because you would expect it to be different. As a nation, we have been stagnating. We are in one of the fastest growing regions in the world, with a natural capacity for language in our community, and we are not grabbing the opportunity with both hands. We should be. If elected, Labor will increase the number of Asian language teachers, we will improve Asian language curriculum materials from preschool to year 12 and we will set ambitious targets and goals for Asian languages. A Shorten Labor government will get more Australians studying Asian languages to ensure the next generation is prepared for the jobs and economic opportunities of the Asian century.
As we celebrate International Mother Language Day on 21 February, let's celebrate the richness and diversity that language brings to our community but let's also acknowledge the imperative to grow and develop this strength so that our children and grandchildren can better understand their cultural background and talk to their grandparents in their first language but also so that our strength in languages links us to the world as only a common language can. We are indeed a lucky country. If elected, Labor will invest in the richness of our multilingual population. Happy 21 February, happy International Mother Language Day to all my community, particularly those who speak Bangla.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the motion seconded?
Dr Aly: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (12:49): Thank you to my neighbour and colleague the member for Parramatta for raising this motion on an event that is very important to our part of Australia and particularly close to my community of Bennelong: International Mother Language Day. I'm immensely proud that I represent one of the most diverse electorates in Australia. Bennelong is a patchwork of international identities, experiences and backgrounds. We have the largest Chinese community of any electorate in the country and substantial populations of Italians, Armenians, Koreans and Indians, to name only a few. They are deeply involved in the Australian way of life and also bring the culture of their ancestral nations to Bennelong. The result is that we have a bright, energetic, dynamic melting pot like nothing else. Rarely a week goes by when there isn't a celebration or event from one of our vibrant communities.
Our mixture of backgrounds means that we're also home to a range of languages. In fact, 22 per cent of Bennelong speaks either Mandarin or Cantonese; 9,000 speak Korean; roughly 3,000 speak Italian; and about the same number speak Arabic. An astonishing 51 per cent of homes in Bennelong speak a language other than English. We are unquestionably one of the most linguistically diverse electorates in the country.
It is fitting that, in the lead-up to International Mother Language Day, we take time to recognise the importance of linguistic diversity and the wonderful benefits it yields. A salient fact of our history is that we have depended on connection to the outside world for our growth and prosperity. Our economy would be vastly smaller and less influential than it is currently if it were not for the waves of immigration and economic reform that opened our economy to the world. But for all our international trade and prosperity we must have fluent, able speakers ready to facilitate business. Our history is replete with examples of immigrants using their language skills and connections to their countries of origin to create international business and trade. If we did not have such an incredible multilingual population, I cannot imagine that we would have prospered in the way that we have.
On an individual level, multilingual ability has immense advantages. A wealth of scientific literature suggests that people who know more than one language have stronger reasoning skills and greater neuroplasticity, which means they are better at processing new information and dealing with abstract thinking tasks. This is even more true of early education in languages. Scientific evidence suggests that acquiring ability in a second language early in life makes it far easier to learn more languages as you grow older. It's also worth noting that there are substantial benefits to your careers. Economists have determined that fluent ability in a second language adds an average benefit to your lifetime earnings of between five and 13.2 per cent. It goes without saying that the private benefits of speaking a second language are tremendous.
But facility with language cannot be achieved without good teachers. There are a great many schools in our electorate which have filled this role, and it's important that we acknowledge their dedication and contribution. Eastwood has played host to the Australian Chinese Community Association Chinese Language School for over 40 years. They have taught both Mandarin and Cantonese to thousands of students and kept alive the traditions of Chinese languages for generations.
In Meadowbank you can find the Italian Bilingual School, which has operated for more than 15 years, led capably by Silvia Onorati and her team. The school has gone from strength to strength in teaching Italian to our community.
Finally, I must acknowledge the Ryde Persian School, which has surpassed its 30th year as a marvellous not-for-profit school run only by volunteers. Mrs Forouza Soltani and her team teach Farsi to kindergarten students and adults and everyone in between.
I think it's admirable that not only do we have so many language schools but they have each served the community for so long. I've often remarked that our diversity is our strength, and we needn't look further than Bennelong to see the truth of this. I wish everyone a happy International Mother Language Day.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (12:54): Mesaa el Kheir wa Ahlan wasahlan lil cul. That means, 'Good afternoon, and welcome to everyone' in my second language, which was actually my parents' first language. As one of the few bilingual members of parliament, it gives me great pleasure to stand here and speak on this motion put forward by the member for Parramatta. As we know, Thursday, 21 February is International Mother Language Day. It has been observed since February 2000 to promote linguistic and cultural diversity, and multilingualism.
Language is inextricably linked to identity and culture, but it also has implications for communication, social cohesion, integration, education and development, and, of course, for international relations. With globalisation, sadly, we've seen that linguistic diversity in this world is under threat. Every two weeks, a language disappears, taking with it an entire cultural and intellectual heritage. Linguistic diversity is increasingly threatened as more and more languages disappear. Globally, 40 per cent of the population does not have access to an education in a language they speak or understand and at least 43 per cent of the estimated 6,000 languages spoken in the world today are endangered—they're in danger of being completely wiped out.
Only a few hundred languages have genuinely been given a place in education systems and the public domain, and fewer than a hundred are used in the digital world—compare that to 6,000 languages spoken worldwide. So, when we have a world with over 6,000 languages spoken, many of them indigenous languages, that means an increasingly narrow and rapidly declining cultural and linguistic diversity. When languages disappear, so does culture, so does heritage, so does history, and so does identity, but also opportunities and rights. And it's not just about culture and heritage; the brain benefits of bilingualism, but also multilingualism, are well documented. tYoung adults proficient in two languages performed better on attention tests and had better concentration than those who spoke only one language.
The social benefits of language retention are also well-documented. We know, for example that, as people age, they tend to refer to their L1, or their first language, because they no longer need or have opportunities to use their second language. Bilingualism also offers benefits for social mobility, for inclusion and for opportunity. And this year's International Mother Language Day is framed by the International Year of Indigenous Languages, because indigenous languages matter: they matter for development, they matter for peace-building and they matter for reconciliation.
In Australia, of the estimated original 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, only around 120 are still spoken. And, of these, around 90 per cent are endangered and under threat. Historically, political persecution, a lack of preservation and globalisation are primarily to blame for the dwindling of language diversity. And, for much of the 20th century, governments across the world have imposed languages on indigenous people, often through coercion. A half a century after China annexed Tibet, for example, dozens of distinct dialects with unique alphabets are now on the verge of extinction.
Apart from forced suppression, languages disappear because of attrition and globalisation. When people who speak a rare language die, often that language dies with them. But this doesn't have to be the case. With political will and a dedicated effort, we can stop languages from dying. We can have cultural and linguistic retention, and ensure that Indigenous languages in Australia are passed on from generation to generation.
Linguistic and cultural retention should not be seen as a barrier to social integration as it once was. For example, when I was growing up, we were often told, 'Speak English.' As a result, I did not grow up bilingual. In fact, I learned my mother tongue after I was 18 and moved back to Egypt. But, by being exposed to it through my growing years from my parents, it wasn't as hard to learn as it would have been had I not been exposed to it.
So, today, I commend this motion. I wish everyone a happy International Mother Language Day on Thursday, and I remind us all that we all have a responsibility to retain our cultural and linguistic diversity, and to promote Indigenous languages.
Mr JOYCE (New England) (12:59): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr JOYCE: Well, 'Yaama' is the welcome in Gamilaraay, and 'Iludiwiga' is the welcome in Bundjalung. I want to express my support for this motion and say how important it is that we also acknowledge the mother tongue of so much of my area, which is Aboriginal—though they call themselves Gamilaraay in one part, Anaiwan in the Walcha part and Bundjalung in the north. I have always been an absolute supporter of making sure we had the re-establishment of language in the country where I grew up.
I live in a town called 'Danglemah'; I know that was Aboriginal—and they prefer to be called 'Aboriginal' in my area, not 'Indigenous'—and I've got no idea what it means, and neither does anybody else. We know it's Aboriginal; we just don't know what it means, because the language has been lost. Likewise, I went to a primary school at a place called 'Woolbrook'; no-one knows what that means; we know it's Aboriginal but we don't know what it means. 'Weabonga'—I grew up in the hills, being a hillbilly—was Aboriginal, but no-one knows what 'Weabonga' means. Up the road was another school I went to, the Woolbrook public school, but it was never called 'Woolbrook'; it was called 'Maluerindi' and we changed it to an anglicised form, which is bad, because it wasn't 'discovered' by Europeans; it had long since been occupied by Aboriginal people. And they're still there—the families who are there have been there for tens of thousands of years. They don't harp on it, but they very much acknowledge what it is.
I also want to acknowledge some of the people in my area, such as Lenny Waters, who was born at Toomelah; he always promotes the Gamilaraay language at his welcome to country. I think there is nothing better than hearing a welcome to country in language, because you actually get the ethos of their more spiritual beliefs as to how things work. For instance, 'Gunagulla' means 'big sky', and it's vitally important; I used to drive past Gunagulla all the time, and never knew what it meant, but Lenny Waters told me: it means 'big sky'. Likewise, Mark Sutherland has been a great proponent of promoting language.
In essence, in talking about mother tongues, we must, through this motion, acknowledge the mother tongue of our own country, the country we live in, and all its diversity and all its nuances across the Indigenous and Aboriginal nations in Australia. I would like—this is a personal request—to see the acknowledgement of country that we perform in our parliament every day given in the language of the area. There seems to be something oxymoronic in doing the acknowledgement of country, to acknowledge the nation's Aboriginal founders, in our language. It just doesn't rock up! So I think that would be a really nice sentiment of reconciliation.
I also acknowledge Dr Anne Aly and what she just said. It is a fact that there is no better way to stimulate neuroplasticity, your brain's plasticity, than by the learning of another language. The worst is watching midday TV. After that, it's simple equations—two plus two; four plus four. Dreaming is a bit above that. And the best way to exercise your brain—which is just another organ—is to endeavour to learn another language. In Australia, we are not naturally a single-language country. In the noting of languages that are lost, you won't get a better example than Australia. And, for giving people a sense of ownership, a sense of identity and a sense of connection—especially for the Aboriginal people of my electorate, the Anaiwan, the Gamilaraay, the Goomeri and the Bundjalung—it is their attachment to their language. There are still people who genuinely speak it, and speak it as they learnt it, but they are quickly disappearing. They, like all of us, are dying.
So I acknowledge that, in this great nation, we should acknowledge the 60,000 years we've been around, not the 230 or so, and we do that best by acknowledging the mother tongue of this nation—that is, our multiple Aboriginal languages.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): I thank the member. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
BILLS
Aged Care Amendment (Staffing Ratio Disclosure) Bill 2018
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr PHELPS (Wentworth) (13:04): A royal commission into aged-care services must not put the brakes on making urgent reforms in the sector, including greater transparency around staffing ratios. My son Carl is in aged-care worker and doctors in our general practice provide GP services to aged-care facilities, so I have some insight into the difficulties faced by people trying to provide care for elderly residents, many of whom have significant age related disabilities, including various degrees of dementia, and are on multiple medications. We need to act quickly to address our community's very real concerns about understaffing and the low, sometimes nonexistent, number of registered nurses in our aged-care facilities as well as poor training and retention rates for aged-care workers.
The Aged Care Amendment (Staffing Ratio Disclosure) Bill 2018 will force residential aged-care facilities to provide their staff-to-resident ratios every three months for publication. This will at least give people a more informed choice about which facility they choose for themselves or for their family members. At present there is no regulation around minimum acceptable levels of staff in residential aged-care facilities, just that providers must maintain an adequate number of appropriately skilled staff to ensure that the care needs of care recipients are met.
In my electorate of Wentworth, all eight aged-care facilities visited by the New South Wales Nurses' and Midwives Association in 2018 failed to provide an acceptable level of nurse care per resident. This audit of just eight facilities revealed an average ratio of one registered nurse to 74 residents on night shift, which is not what families expect or residents deserve. These are vulnerable people needing around-the-clock care. This is just a snapshot of what is happening in aged-care facilities across the country. This data highlights how widespread the staffing issues are in aged care, even in the most affluent suburbs. The poorest ratio uncovered was just one registered nurse to 116 residents. Examples of missed care as a result of understaffing include missed medications, increased falls, limited time to complete hygiene care and the inability to mobilise residents as often as needed. Unless we have ratios, it will be a matter of profit over person.
Last year, the six biggest for-profit aged-care providers received over the $2.17 billion in taxpayer subsidies, which accounted for around 70 per cent of their revenue. Currently there is no requirement for providers to report how government money is spent or a guarantee that it be tied to care. This is a sector whose providers profit over $1 billion a year and receive healthy government subsidies, large resident deposits and fortnightly part-pension payments yet it still has no guaranteed staffing or reporting requirements. Even when argued on pragmatic and detached economic grounds, reducing the information gap between the residents and their families and providers will lead to a more efficient, competitive market upon which competing residential aged-care services can more easily attract people through the greater quality of their service.
The Australian Medical Association has continually called for a regulated, registered nurse-to-resident ratio which adapts to the individual care needs of residents and ensures that nurses are available 24 hours a day. According to the AMA, there's been a decline in the proportion of full-time equivalent registered nurses and enrolled nurses in the residential care workforce and an increase in the proportion of personal care attendants. This trend goes against the increasing chronic, complex medical care needs of residents. AMA president Dr Tony Bartone notes that there are not enough registered nurses with aged-care experience to provide the clinical governance, oversight and leadership required in these facilities, leading to poor clinical care, inadequate communication and a lack of knowledge about individual residents. Personal care attendants cannot duplicate the work of registered nurses. Even then, personal care needs must be considered as a quality of life issue for elderly people with high dependency needs. I'm told that personal care attendants may have only 20 minutes per day to attend to all the resident's personal care needs, including showering, toilet, hair and dental hygiene.
With an ageing population and an aged-care reform moving to ensure older people can stay in their home for as long as appropriate, it's likely that the clinical attention required by those in residential facilities will become more intense. The government must, as a matter of urgency, ensure that the health and aged-care systems and their workforces are prepared for this. I wholeheartedly support the member for Mayo's legislation as an important first step in addressing community concerns about staffing ratios in our nursing homes.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (13:09): I'm fortunate to represent a community in which many Australian seniors call home. Not only am I lucky enough to be invited to things like trivia days, trivia nights, morning teas and ceremonies that are held at my local retirement villages, nursing homes and aged care facilities; but I also get the opportunity to speak with and hear from those great people who built our nation. Let me tell you, Deputy Speaker, they can often spin quite a yarn when they talk about their lives! These are people who have worked hard their whole life, and they have the wisdom and life experience to show for it. And it's why we, as those who follow them, have a duty to support Australia's seniors and ensure they have access to adequate aged care.
I'm supportive of a number of the elements of the member for Mayo's private member's bill, the Aged Care Amendment (Staffing Ratio Disclosure) Bill 2018. I'll always be supportive of any measure that goes towards improving transparency for older Australians, their families and their carers—those people seeking aged care services. This could be with regard to transparency around staffing numbers. It could be with regard to the number of complaints a facility receives. It could be with regard to information on accreditation failures or the measures that service providers have put in place to deal with accreditation issues. I hope that transparency for customers is a key focus of the royal commission into aged care. Labor has been calling for this royal commission for some time, but the government decided instead to play politics, likening it to committing elder abuse. It's a positive to see that the government is now finally listening to Labor and the people of Australia and has changed its mind.
It's no secret that Australia has an ageing population; it's no secret at all. The number of people aged over 85 is rapidly increasing compared to our younger age groups, and it's predicted to double by 2032. This means we will need to see a tripling of the aged care workforce in the next 30 years to be able to provide a high standard of living and care for this growing proportion of older Australians. This will only happen, though, when the government looks forward and cooperates with the aged care providers, the unions and, of course, the training organisations to ensure that we have an adequately skilled, an adequately funded and an adequately equipped aged care workforce to care for that rapidly ageing population.
But the government's track record doesn't bode well for the long-term future. We have endured three Prime Ministers in the last few years and together those three Prime Ministers have presided over shameful cuts to this sector. They have ignored important reports, they have failed to drive reforms and they have allowed the blowout of home care package waitlists to occur. This is a government that is too busy fighting each other for the top job to look after Australia's seniors. Currently sitting on the government's desk are more than a dozen reviews, with recommendations on aged care that still have not been implemented.
I haven't been quiet on this—and I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, I'm not going to be quiet on this—and, in fact, neither have the good people in my community. From the health professionals and doctors to the daughters and sons of our seniors, they haven't been quiet on this either. So, together with Labor, we have been putting pressure on the government for some time now, and it seems that they are starting to realise that this isn't just an issue for older Australians; it's also a bit of a political problem for them and it could cost them their jobs. So it's good to see that they're starting to act, although, we can question the motivation.
After five years and billions of dollars in cuts, including a $1.2 billion cut by the Prime Minister when he was Treasurer, it comes as a great relief now to see some action being taken. With the government calling on a royal commission into aged care, it appears that they're now scrambling to respond to the many issues that they have allowed to pile up and pile up—issues that should have been dealt with months and months and years ago. There is significant work to be done. There's an election coming up in a few months, and I suspect there will be an answer to those delays. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 13 : 14 to 16 : 00
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (16:00): I recently hosted an NDIS forum in my electorate, and I would urge every member in this place to do the same. I brought my community together, and together we heard from the NDIA. I'd like to pay special mention to Cheryl Rollison from the NDIA, an incredibly professional woman who worked with my office to pull this together. What we found though was that there is enormous frustration over the rollout of NDIS plans, in particular that participants are not able to see their draft plan, which I find quite ridiculous. Those plans can have wrong birthdates or wrong names on them, and that can lead to weeks of delay and exclusion. We're also seeing that those plans do not have what is requested or needed. I spoke last week about a young gentleman in my electorate with spastic quadriplegia who was invited to get a gym membership—and he needs some help to open his front door.
I've asked the minister his position on this. He said that people have the ability to appeal and to go through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Families don't want to do this. I would urge this government: just allow participants to view their draft plan. It is not difficult. It will save the government an enormous amount of money, with people getting the right plan from the beginning. I urge this government to please listen to me: listen to our community. (Time expired)
North Sydney Electorate: Energy
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (16:02): Community organisations in my electorate are embracing the future and the potential of solar energy. This is both because of the benefits for our climate and the savings in energy costs that can be achieved from solar panels. This was brought home to me recently when I visited the Willoughby Park Bowling Club. Apart from an opportunity to embarrass myself with non-existent building skills, I was able to discuss with the club their own solar panel project. With a grant from the federal government, the club has installed solar panels, which have reduced its energy bills by around a third. It was a similar story when I visited the 1st Sailors Bay Sea Scouts, which is inspiring younger residents with a solar panel project which received 12½ thousand dollars from the government's Solar Communities Program.
They join many community groups I've worked with to support solar projects in my electorate. For example, I'm really pleased that through the most recent round of the Stronger Communities Program we've been able to provide grants to both the Wollstonecraft bowling club and St Mark's Anglican Church in Northbridge for solar projects. They join organisations like the Ensemble Theatre, the KU Castlecrag Preschool, the Willoughby Community Preschool, the Hunters Hill Preschool, the 1st North Sydney Scout Group and the Hunters Hill Club, which have all received federal support for similar projects. We know that Australians have been enthusiastic adopters of the potential of solar in their own homes. I am grateful that, with the government's support, this is being extended to so many community organisations across my electorate.
Smashed Project
Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:03): Whilst the rate of underage drinking in Australia continues to slowly decline, there is still a great deal of work to be done to break the culture of underage drinking and to reduce alcohol-fuelled violence amongst young people. One such initiative is the Smashed Project, delivered by Gibber Australia and supported by Collingwood Learning. This is a live performance delivered to years 8 and 9 by professional actors, along with follow-up interactive workshops to engage young people in a safe and motivational learning environment, enabling them to explore the dangers and consequences of underage drinking and binge drinking. Diageo Australia's sponsorship of the program makes the performances completely free for all schools. Diageo has been the proud sponsor of the Smashed Project since its inception in 2004. There was of course no reference whatsoever to Diageo or its brand in the program.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's latest statistics say 82 per cent of 12- to 17-year-olds don't drink any alcohol, a stark improvement from 54 per cent in 2004. This change in behaviour and attitudes towards underage drinking can be attributed to programs like the Smashed Project, which in its first year in Australia reached over 20,000 students at more than 100 schools nationwide. School performance tell the story of three teenagers whose lives are forever changed by choices they make around alcohol. The performance is then directly followed up by workshops. This gives teen audience a forum to have an open conversation about the dangers of under-age drinking. My congratulations to Gibber Australia and Collingwood Learning on this initiative, and I look forward to seeing more positive results as the program reaches more students, particularly in my home state of Queensland.
La Trobe Electorate: Multicultural Education Resource Centre
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (16:05): It's with great pleasure that Minister Alan Tudge and I visited the Buddhist Vihara in Berwick, otherwise known as the Sri Lankan temple, where we made a $500,000 grant announcement for the Multicultural Education Resource Centre. First of all, can I say it was absolutely amazing to be greeted by all the young girls dancing and being so proud of Sri Lankan culture. This is what this grant is really about—a multicultural education resource centre where people can learn and continue learning Sinhala, their language, and something that is very important to the Sri Lankan people.
This temple is a great focus and is of great importance to the Sri Lankan community, and something I was very proud to get involved with six months ago when I visited. They told me of the great need, especially on Sunday mornings, where they teach Sinhala to the young people but also the use of the centre for seniors during the week. It was a very exciting day, and this was only delivered because of our strong economy and managing the budget. (Time expired)
Canberra Electorate: Broadband
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:06): Elliot's NBN saga part 1: on 10 September 2018, Elliot placed an order with an ISP to get his apartment connected to the NBN. After three weeks of NBN Co's confusion over whether NBN infrastructure was already installed in the apartment building, Elliot's request for connection was advanced no further.
On 2 October 2018, Elliot placed several calls to NBN Co who asked him for information he was unable to provide. They wanted the development number. The body corporate didn't have a record of this, and at this stage other apartments in the same building were already connected to the NBN.
On 17 October 2018, Elliot contacted me frustrated about his experience with NBN Co. I spoke about the issues, the delays and the confusion that he had experienced in parliament many times. At least it sparked some action. A senior staff member called with an update, and I quote:
Some remediation is required from the developer.
On 19 October 2018, the developer made all the necessary changes, installed the vent and labelled the NBN terminal with a warning to not suffocate the NTD and sent the images to NBN Co. The tenants and landlord also sent the photos to NBN Co—that is, photos from three separate accounts. Now, NBN Co has asked to be advised of any outstanding work, and there's been no response—no resolution from NBN C. (Time expired)
Goldstein Electorate: TaskForce Community Agency
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (16:08): I'm pleased to announce that TaskForce Community Agency in Bentleigh has receive a $50,000 grant as part of the government's Fostering Integration Grants Program. TaskForce Community Agency helps create positive outcomes for people living on the margins of our community. They provide specialist support to young people and migrants so they can live healthy lives, connect with educational training, identify employment opportunities and reach their full potential.
The grant is part of the government's commitment to working closely with local community organisations to provide services that foster community and create a stronger Australia. Young migrants, particularly women, often face barriers to employment and community participation. This funding boosts and will help deliver individualised care and support at a local level. It fits as part of the package of great work done by TaskForce, particularly in supporting people who have challenges through drug and alcohol abuse.
The staff, the board and the executive team at the TaskForce should be commended for their commitment to a strong supportive local community. So, thanks to Ray Blessing, Rosetta Isma, Natalie Siegel, David Paton, Kate Forer, Anna Murru, Danny Alcock, Mike Davis, Gayle Stapelton, Shelley Cross, Steve Helfenbaum and Katrina Bell. We thank you for the incredible work you do to make sure that our communities are strong and rich as can be achieved with the will of the TaskForce.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr HILL (Bruce) (16:09): I speak on behalf of Anna, a Melbourne uni masters student, from Endeavour Hills. She's an intelligent and independent woman with another bizarre NDIS experience. She was born with spina bifida and has recently transferred to the NDIS. Her foot was amputated when she was 18 months old. In October, in her planning meeting, she made clear in her plan that she needs a prosthetic foot. That's a whole foot. Unfortunately, the planner ignored or simply didn't understand this and approved a partial foot prosthetic. Now, maybe the planner believed, like DHS, that feet somehow grow back. What was approved would give Anna a few toes but no foot.
She called the call centre, who said that you can tell the planner what you want but it's up to them what you get. Then in her plan she also got a completely inadequate budget for repairs, which is forcing her to choose between repairing her foot or her leg orthotic, which she needs on the other leg to drive. She also asked for a water leg, which is used at pools and beaches, because that's her only form of exercise. The NDIS said: 'No. You can have a support worker for two hours, twice a week, to get you in and out of the pool.' That doesn't exactly support her independence. The NDIS told Anna: 'It's too early for a plan review. You can't have one.' My office raised this and got a weird reply: 'We're very sorry for Anna's experience, which has been less than ideal. She should ask for a plan review, but she could start implementing her current plan.' Well, it still doesn't give her a foot! She found her experience, in her words, demeaning and exasperating. The Liberals must get trained permanent staff and fix their mess. Casual labour hire staff are not going to cut it.
O'Connor Electorate: Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (16:11): I rise today to detail three very welcome announcements in the recent round 2 of the Community Sports Infrastructure Grants Program. This funding forms the second part of a $60 million community sport infrastructure program. Last Friday, I had the pleasure of personally joining the Lower Great Southern Hockey Association President, Simon Whitfort, his committee and players, along with the City of Albany Mayor, Dennis Wellington, and CEO, Andrew Sharpe. They were thrilled at the announcement of $183,000 for the resurfacing of the pitch, which has reached the end of its useful life. This half a million dollar project is supported by the City of Albany, and over $100,000 has been raised by the club itself.
The Shire of West Arthur received $45,000 for the upgrade of the Darkan oval facilities. Shire CEO, Nicole Wasmann, said the re-invigorated West Arthur-Wagin football club will be training once a week and playing two home games this season, under the guidance of their coach, ex-Fremantle Docker and local farmer, Paul Duffield. The Esperance Cycling Club received $50,000 to upgrade their velodrome. I look forward to catching up with treasurer Carmel Creed and taking a look at their project when next in Esperance.
Sport is part of our national identity. This is never more true than in our regional communities where it brings people of all ages together through a mutual love of a game. Sport has not only health benefits for the individual but wider social and economic benefits for our regional communities. That there were 2,400 applications throughout Australia for this grants program indicates the massive demand that exists for infrastructure to cater for grassroots participation in a huge range of sporting pursuits. I thank the Minister for Sport and this government for making the funds available. (Time expired)
Townsville: Floods
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (16:13): I stand in this place today to fight for a fair share for the people of Townsville. The LNP government is refusing to give some people in Townsville their fair share. More than 22,000 homes have been flooded and, instead of trying to help the people of Townsville during our worst-ever natural disaster, the LNP have instead placed harsh and stringent restrictions on people trying to access disaster recovery funding. Townsville is being denied its fair share when we need it the most by this out-of-touch and selfish LNP government. There are people like Kevin of Rosslea. Kevin lives in a high-set Queenslander house. Water came through his bottom floor. His hot water system was completely damaged. He has lost his fridge, freezer and numerous other belongings on the bottom floor. Kevin has also gone nine days without power. He thought the worst was behind him but instead the LNP government is refusing to give Kevin the disaster relief assistance money that he desperately needs and that he is most certainly eligible to receive.
Kevin has been told to give more information due to the underneath of his house not being enclosed. The LNP government are ignoring thousands of people like Kevin and are refusing to give Townsville our fair share. I call on the LNP government to lift the harsh and stringent restrictions and deliver immediate assistance to Townsville residents and stop holding us hostage. If water has been in your property and you have lost your belongings, you should receive this money for support.
NF McDonnell & Sons
Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:14): On Friday I had the great privilege of attending a celebration at NF McDonnell & Sons to mark 75 years of exceptional sawmilling in Mount Gambier. The business was founded by Newman McDonnell and his two sons, Don and Les, following the softwood forest at Mount Burr being devastated by fire in 1943. Through this tragic event, Newman, Don and Les took a team of workers from their home in Cobden, in Victoria, to begin milling the burnt timber of the Southern Trading Company, for which they had contracts through Woods and Forests. They arrived in 1944, and their bush mill was one of many established in the coming decade. The move was successful and later, as the business grew, other mills were established in Millicent and Kalangadoo and later on the Hundred Line Road near the border, east of Tarpeena.
During these many years, the company's been involved in log hauling, harvesting, road transport, farming and sawmilling and today is one of the major players in the softwood-milling industry in the south-east of South Australia and indeed across our nation. Since 1944, the NF McDonnell & Sons business has grown significantly to be a large employer, and today there are about 110 employees at its Suttontown mill. I congratulate NF McDonnell & Sons—or, as I like to refer to them, 'NF McDonnell & Sons & Daughters & Grandchildren & Great-Grandchildren'.
Canberra: Fuel
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:16): Canberra's 59 service stations charge petrol prices that are on average 7.4 per cent above the national average. Like many Canberrans, I've grown sick and tired of the excuses given for these high prices. I commend the Barr government for its announcement that it will put in place a select committee inquiry, commission a detailed analysis by the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission and immediately act to reduce misleading petrol signage at petrol stations, where petrol stations attempt to lure people in with headline prices that customers can't receive. As Andrew Barr has pointed out: 'Canberra families are paying hundreds of dollars more than the equivalent New South Wales family each and every year.'
The ACCC have given a number of reasons why they think petrol prices are higher in Canberra: lower volumes, higher transport costs, the higher market share of Coles and less competitive pressure. But we don't think that they go far enough to explain the petrol price problem in Canberra.
Under a Shorten Labor government, we'll deliver the ACCC a market studies power. We'll ensure that the penalties for breaching our competition law are raised. We'll ramp up the litigation budget of the competition watchdog, and we'll get it to go after tacit collusion of the sort identified by David Byrne and Nicolas de Roos in their study of the Perth petrol market. Only Labor will deliver a better deal for customers across Australia.
Banking and Financial Services
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:17): Last week I spoke with a group of 50 mortgage brokers who live on the Sunshine Coast at a meeting at the Mooloolaba Surf Club organised by John McNamara of SMS Finance. The mortgage brokers that I met are hardworking small-business men and women who are passionate about getting the best outcomes for their clients. They raised their concerns regarding the impacts on mortgage holders that would result from the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission. They drew attention to possible incentives for inappropriately high levels of churn and the damaging impact on competition that these reforms could produce.
In responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, we must ensure that large financial institutions whose unacceptable corporate behaviour has hurt so many ordinary Australians are forced to change their approach and put their customers' interests first. However, in doing so, we must ensure that we do not damage those same customers' interests by eliminating small and family-owned businesses in the financial sector and reducing the competition that will be so vital to reform.
I'm grateful to John McNamara and to the many committed mortgage brokers I met for their feedback on how to strike that important balance. I'll be passing on their ideas to the Treasurer in the days to come. They were certainly very, very passionate and animated in their concerns, and I will no doubt be speaking to the Treasurer about them in due course.
Murray-Darling Basin
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:19): Saving the Murray-Darling Basin is an issue that is close to most of the hearts of South Australians and indeed the nation. In my electorate, as in many electorates around in this country, residents are constantly raising concerns about the future of the Murray-Darling. It's an issue I've been passionate about ever since I have been elected. Our state, more than any other state, is acutely aware of how important a healthy river is to the environment, to our flora and fauna and also to the agricultural industry. It is a false dichotomy to place agricultural needs against environmental needs: a dead river is good for nobody. We have watched in horror as this government has undermined, mishandled and jeopardised the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. For years I've been calling out the mismanagement by this government. It started with the member for New England, who did not seem to care or actually want to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The government now faces overwhelming evidence of failure—the devastating fish deaths, the findings of the Productivity Commission and the damning findings of the South Australian Water Commission. The government needs to start acting. It needs to start listening to these warning signs and act to save this vital water source. Enough is enough. We all need all governments, state and federal, to act to restore the river to health. There is no more time to waste.
Bonner Electorate
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (16:21): Having grown up in Bonner and lived in the area for more than three decades, I am proud of the local community and blessed to be raising my own children in a place I care so deeply about. As the federal member, I am committed to working with locals to ensure Bonner is well represented. The coalition government's strong economy means we are able to deliver record funding for local schools and health services and continue to grow jobs in the area. The strong economy means we are able to invest in local road projects to get you home sooner and safer, we are able to back local small businesses with tax cuts and cut red tape, and we are able to keep our community and borders safe. Instead of raising taxes for hardworking families like Labor, a strong economy enables the coalition to focus on delivering lower electricity bills, cheaper medicines and affordable childcare to relieve cost-of-living pressures. With my consistent and active representation, I know that the community of Bonner can and will continue to flourish. I want to see our local area and people thriving and achieving their dreams, not struggling to pay bills and worrying about their future. I am proud to represent our vibrant multicultural community in Bonner and I will keep fighting for my local families down here in Canberra.
Disability Services
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (16:22): I want to acknowledge the very historic motion that has just taken place in the Australian parliament. We have finally passed a motion to support a royal commission into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability. It is a historic occasion. The motion was passed in the Senate last week. The government was not able to support it at that time, but I welcome the news today that the coalition government has finally come on board to support this royal commission.
As somebody who has worked as a disability support worker at different times in my life, I can attest to the need for such a royal commission. Members of parliament have heard the horrific stories of people with disability who have endured violence, abuse and neglect. Whether it be in the workplace, at home, in supported accommodation or in recreational and public places it is intolerable. It is a shame in terms of our national history. It is time that we confront this reality. A royal commission will help shine light. If designed properly, in partnership with people with disability, it will put an end to this shocking abuse.
Forde Electorate: Ormeau Shearers Rugby League Club
Palliative Care
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (16:25): Last Friday, federal and state Labor shadow health ministers Catherine King and Walt Secord announced that, if elected, Labor will build a palliative care hospice on the Central Coast. This is good news for our community. I would like to acknowledge Oana McBride, the Lions Club of Wyoming East Gosford Centennial and the Elsie's Retreat Committee, who, alongside Anne Charlton, the Labor candidate for Robertson, have been fighting for improved palliative care services on the coast for many years.
The Central Coast is one of the biggest regions in Australia that does not have a standalone palliative care unit. Everyone deserves dignity at the end of life. If elected, federal Labor will invest $20 million to establish a 20-bed standalone palliative care unit at Woy Woy Public Hospital, answering the long-standing calls of our community. A Daley New South Wales Labor government would fund staff and provide the site on the Woy Woy Public Hospital campus. The new unit will house a dedicated multidisciplinary specialist palliative care team to meet patients' end-of-life needs. Construction of the facility is expected to commence in 2020 and will also support local jobs and suppliers.
Our community has been fighting for Elsie's Retreat for many years. In fact, over 10,000 people have shown their support by signing the petition, but the federal and state Liberal governments have failed to hear. Labor is committed to improving palliative care services across the country. Everyone deserves the best care at the end of life, wherever they live.
Banking and Financial Services
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (16:27): I want to now voice my support for mortgage brokers and, to all of those outstanding men and women who offer outstanding service to Australians, offer our wholehearted support on this side of the House. There's no doubt that, in the wake of the recommendations from the banking royal commission, there are many in the Australian mortgage-broking industry who have been concerned about what path will be taken in relation to the recommendations. I want to commend the Treasurer and the Prime Minister for making very clear that any response to the banking royal commission as it relates to mortgage brokers will ensure that this very vital and necessary service provided to hundreds of thousands—indeed, millions—of Australians will continue.
We know there are more than 16,000 mortgage brokers, employing nearly 30,000 people, who service first home buyers and, indeed, all of us and who do an outstanding job. These are people who offer enhanced competition by ensuring that smaller lenders are given the opportunity to interact with customers. In my case, I've had the same mortgage broker for 20 years and have always received outstanding service from these people. The tagline that the mortgage-broking industry has gone with is, 'Don't put brokers out of work just to support banks.' I want to wholeheartedly support them today in the chamber and am very confident that everybody on this side of the House will do so as well.
Shipping
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:28): They used to call BHP 'the big Australian' but not anymore because recently they sacked over 80 workers who worked on the Mariloula and Lowlands Brilliance. They've sacked them. What they did was this. They took the Australian flag off the back of those ships and replaced it with the flag of another country so they could sack the Australian workers who were working on those two ships and replace them with workers from another country, paying them as little as $2 an hour. It is nothing short of a disgrace. 'The big Australian' is Australian no more.
I've met with the workers and their families—they've been here in Canberra this week, and they were here last week—and they want nothing more than the support of federal parliamentarians and the support of this government. As I spoke to them, I looked up at Parliament House and I could see the blue ensign, the Australian flag, flying proudly above the Australian parliament—the same flag that the Prime Minister likes to wrap himself in and tell Australians he's a proud patriot.
It's time the Prime Minister put that flag and that sort of effort on the back of Australian ships. The only effort he has put into the Australian maritime industry is dedicating $6.5 million to the re-enactment of a voyage that never happened! Well, we want the Prime Minister to put that sort of energy and that sort of vigour into protecting the voyages that should be happening around Australian coastlines and looking after Australian workers.
The Land Showgirl Competition 2019
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (16:30): This coming February weekend, 11 fantastic young women will participate in the Zone 2 Showgirl final, hosted by the Nowra Show Society and organised by one of their former showgirls and state finalists, Jessica Apperley. Running since 1962, the showgirl competition aims to discover a young woman to act as an ambassador for rural New South Wales and it plays a significant role in the overall development of rural youth within our country areas. To Nowra Showgirl Chloe Bishop, Kiama Showgirl Sarah Young, Berry Showgirl Alexandra Atkins, Milton Showgirl Emily-Jane Joyce, Hawkesbury Showgirl Evonne Lester, Blacktown Showgirl Desiree Auto, St Ives Showgirl Maddison Hawkins, Camden Showgirl Nicole Sandrone, Dapto Showgirl Rachel Elder, Albion Park Showgirl Madelyn Hayes and Robertson Showgirl Georgia Sherborne: you have all already shown your love and commitment to the towns and villages of regional New South Wales, and I commend you for stepping up to be a regional ambassador.
The opportunity to represent regional communities is one that is taken seriously by these strong young women, and, as finalists, they're expected to demonstrate knowledge of their local community and the challenges and opportunities facing these communities, as well as their own involvement. Each showgirl will participate in the judging process on Saturday, before the announcement at the presentation dinner, and two finalists will be presented at the Royal Easter Show.
To all of those participating in the zone final: I wish you the best of luck. Thank you for your commitment to regional Australia.
Khoshaba, Father Emmanuel
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (16:32): I rise today to offer my sincerest condolences to Melbourne's Chaldean Catholic Christian community on the passing of their much loved Father Emmanuel Khoshaba. Father Khoshaba was a pioneer. He will be remembered for the love and commitment he dedicated to the Chaldean Catholic Christian community in my electorate of Calwell. Father Khoshaba lived to serve his community. He tended to their spiritual needs, but, more importantly, he also helped them in their settlement processes—because that community is a refugee community, having fled war in Iraq and Syria.
Father Khoshaba founded the parish Our Lady Guardian of Plants in the electorate of Calwell, where he served as its first priest from its beginning in 1982. He was instrumental in the building of our magnificent new cathedral of Our Lady Guardian of Plants in Campbellfield, which opened in 2005 and was visited by the Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, and Lady Cosgrove for Sunday mass in November 2016. This was a highlight for the church community and, in particular, for Father Khoshaba.
I offer my deepest condolences to His Grace Archbishop Amel Nona and the clergy of St Thomas Chaldean & Assyrian Catholic Diocese, the clergy and faithful of Our Lady Guardian of Plants Chaldean Catholic Parish and St George Chaldean Centre in Campbellfield, along with the entire community. Father Khoshaba was a pioneer. He was a man who led his community. He was a man who cared for them and who led them into the settlement process in Australia.
Health Care: Heart Disease
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:33): Heart disease affects more than 65,000 people throughout Australia, and I can't tell you how excited I am, and a number of my constituents are, I must say, with last week's announcement by the government that $26 million will be put towards treatment of and research on childhood heart disease. Twenty million dollars of this fund will go to medical research, and the other $6 million will go to benefit HeartKids.
HeartKids is a community-based organisation that I do have a bit of knowledge about. I think we all know someone in our communities who has had a kid who has been born with congenital heart disease—certainly in my community I know a number of them, and my wife's cousin had a son 22 years ago. He is 22 years old now and still going well. I was speaking to her only very recently. She said, 'If he'd been born 15 years earlier, he probably would not have survived, but he's still here now.' She and her family have drawn great strength from HeartKids, put back greatly into HeartKids and helped other families through these very difficult times. They are very excited now that HeartKids has some ongoing funding, particularly with that strong investment in medical research so that the doctors can keep finding new and better ways to deal with this issue when the child is young and increase their survival rates and keep them around for much, much longer for all of us to enjoy.
5up5down
Ms KEARNEY (Batman) (16:35): In this age of Facebook, Instagram, and other social media, it seems we are more disconnected than ever. Loneliness and social isolation are an emerging health issue, with some surprising consequences. Feeling lonely can pose a bigger risk for premature death than smoking or obesity, and has a greater impact on wellbeing than stress or anxiety. Loneliness doesn't discriminate. One in eight young people report a very high intensity of loneliness. I'd like to acknowledge the member for Scullin, who led calls for a national response to loneliness. I am lucky enough to have a group of residents in my electorate of Cooper who are also working to tackle loneliness with an idea called 5up5down. 5up5down is a call-out to people to connect with their neighbours. Invite five people from up the road or up the stairs and five people from down the road or down the stairs. Get together, get to know each other and have fun, but, more importantly, connect and be there for one another.
We've heard about the power of a simple idea. Ian Kiernan, the founder of Clean Up Australia, decided that something needed to be done about rubbish collecting in Sydney's harbours. His idea has mobilised 40 million volunteers globally and left a lasting impact on how Australians care for our environment. 5up5down will do the same for loneliness and social isolation. As Hugh Mackay would say, the better world you dream of starts in your street. I'd encourage everyone to host a 5up5down event. Extend the hand of friendship. Let's connect the world one person at a time.
Ryan Electorate: Bardon Latrobe Football Club
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (16:36): The coalition government recognises that grassroots sporting clubs help to drive increased participation and promote the social health and community benefits of physical activity and sport. No truer can this be than for the many local sporting organisations in the Ryan electorate. Bardon Latrobe Football Club, located at Bowman Park, has centuries worth of history. In recent years, the club has seen an increase in growth and participation, but, to cater for this, they require some upgrades to their facilities. This, as we know, places a significant financial burden on small community clubs, which are often stretched at the best of times.
The Bardon Latrobe Football Club is now the successful recipient of $500,000 worth of funding as part of the coalition government's Community Sport Infrastructure grants program. Phil Cowlishaw, the club's president, was delighted when I phoned him with this fantastic news. He said these funds will be used to build new unisex change room facilities. The club was also successful in securing $15,000 through the Stronger Communities Program to upgrade their kitchen and canteen facilities. Congratulations again to Bardon Latrobe Football Club. I'm pleased and proud to have been able to support you and your dedicated team of volunteers, and look forward to your continued growth.
Schools
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (16:38): As someone who has seen phenomenal residential growth in the electorate I represent, and the influx of new families, particularly around Colebee and Marsden Park, families who often think about child care and early childhood development—the type of people I thought about when we announced some of our historic, as a Labor Party I would say, policies designed to help families with child care.
I thought about how much our policies would be of enormous benefit to them, especially things like the preschool and kindy program, the biggest ever investment in childhood education in Australia, which will commit permanent funding to the national preschool and kindy program for all four-year-olds. We'll extend the program to cover all three-year-olds from 2021. This is huge. We'll also invest over $6 million in our youngest citizens, providing greater support for community based playgroups and toy libraries.
Again, a lot of families in our area who often wonder about the quality of childcare will see this as a massive benefit. In Chifley alone, over 5,000 three- and four-year-olds will benefit from our plans. While families are always left second guessing about what the coalition budgets will do to childcare—in fact, the changes will affect 26 per cent of families in the electorate—they know that Labor is serious about this issue and is serious about investing in early childhood education.
Hinkler Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (16:39): I rise to give a shout-out to the Hervey Bay & District Tennis Association, which has been very fortunate recently to receive almost $150,000 from the Community Sport Infrastructure grant. The tennis association will use that money to extend and upgrade their amenities to allow for better disability access in those facilities to allow even more people to be down enjoying the great game of tennis. There is another advantage for them in that the tennis club is located right next door to the touch football and hockey fields. I know that might sound interesting to some and not others, but in Hervey Bay each year they have the Queensland junior touch championships. This brings in some 5,000 individuals to Hervey Bay. It is a massive boost to their tourism industry. The tennis association, of course, utilises their facilities for the purposes of that touch football game.
Bundaberg & District Table Tennis Association are also going great guns with a $22,000 grant to relocate and reinstall the flooring—would you believe—from the Commonwealth Games for their table tennis association. The association will now be able to utilise those things from the Commonwealth Games for their own purposes and install some ventilation at the centre, which I think will be absolutely gratefully accepted. Bundaberg Golf Club also received $102,000 for safety netting to some existing practice areas that will attract more players to the club and they can run a school program. I don't know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but all I have are hooks and cuts. I certainly look forward to see just how well they go at the local golf club.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (16:41): Once again I'm forced in this place to talk about the government's mishandling of the NDIS. My office has been inundated with calls and visits from people desperate to get help and treatment and the services that they need. Every time we get onto the NDIA, we get, 'They have a shortage of staff; they can't do the job.' I have one example: 17-year-old Thomas. Because of the severity of his condition, Thomas's parents require reasonable modifications to their home to ensure safety, but instead of cooperation they've been met with obstruction and bureaucracy for the past two years. Countless reports of Thomas's condition all provided the same analysis: the NDIA should provide modifications to the home to keep their son safe. The cost of commissioning these reports now is costing more than the actual fit-out to the home. Instead of listening to Thomas's parents, the NDIA has been pushing for long-term behavioural therapy. While that's necessary, it doesn't actually address the immediate issues that he has and that his family have at the home.
As a result of the stress, Thomas's parents have had to effectively nail shut the doors of the house to prevent him injuring himself. The physical and emotional toll of the situation on the Quinlan family should not be compounded because this divided and chaotic government cannot properly manage the NDIS. The minister and his hapless Parliamentary secretary have all but slammed the door on people with disabilities. It's about time this government stood up for people—the most vulnerable people, people with disabilities—and stop giving handouts to those who are earning millions of dollars.
Robertson Electorate: Small Business
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (16:43): I've heard from many local businesses who are benefiting from our small business policies, allowing them to create more jobs for local people so they can spend less time commuting and more time with their families. In particular, our many food and beverage businesses on the Central Coast that offer unique and healthy options for local residents are really thriving as a result of our strong economy. We have many great local success stories, including Six String Brewery, Mr Goaty Gelato and Distillery Botanica, all of whom are prospering with the help of our small business tax cuts and instant asset write-offs.
We can also boast about some of our amazing producers of fine food, from very small operators like Fudge Monkey at Woy Woy to larger producers such as Eastcoast Food and Beverages, a third-generation family business based as Kulnura. Food to Nourish at West Gosford is another fantastic success story, producing organic, gluten-free and dairy-free products. Danielle and Natasja started in their home kitchen six years ago. They now have a warehouse at West Gosford employing 10 people from our region.
By backing these businesses, increasing the instant asset write-off from $20,000 to $25,000 and lowering company taxes, we're ensuring that our tax plan encourages local businesses to grow, hire and pay their staff more. I want our Central Coast region to thrive and grow and offer even more choice and greater opportunities. That's why I'm proud of the many local businesses that boost our local economy and create more opportunities for people on the coast.
Federal Election
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:44): In this election, Australians have a choice. At community barbecues, coffee shops and street stalls right across Moreton, I've heard locals deliver their verdict on this rabble of a government. They're over the shambles. They're over the circus. They're over the chaos. I say honestly to all of Moreton, 'Labor has listened and learned, and we're ready to govern.'
The other thing Moreton residents tell me is that they're over these coalition cuts. They're sick of the fact our local hospital, the QEII and the PA, have had to endure over $16 million in cuts from the Morrison government. They're sick of the fact that local schools are being asked to do more for our kids while copping a $15 million cut from the Morrison government. Some people are doing very well, but not most people. Bills and the cost of living is going up, but not wages. Labor will fix this.
I've committed to delivering a better and fairer deal for working- and middle- class Australians and their families. Labor can fix this by not giving tax cuts and handouts to the top end of the town and the big banks. Labor can fix this by not standing idle while your penalty rates and wages are either slashed or allowed to stagnate. Labor can fix this by ensuring the services you rely on—schools, universities, TAFEs, hospitals and the like and the infrastructure we need for our jobs—are big priorities for Labor. Australians have a choice, and I'm asking the people of Moreton in this election to choose Labor.
Economy
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:45): Coal has been demonised by our Labor candidate in Flynn. Labor want to shut down a $66 billion coal industry. Recently, Bill Shorten was in Gladstone with his union-bred, union-fed and union-led candidate Zac Beers. Instructions from Bill were, 'Don't take any photographs of with me with coal in the background'—that's true.
Bill Shorten says one thing in Central Queensland and another thing in Sydney. He's really very tricky. If Labor has their way, there'll be no coal, no jobs and no cheap power. They'll stop the production of coal, close mines and stop Adani. They'll not invest in new coal power stations. Gladstone has another 10 years maximum without any upgrades to the current NRG plant and more jobs will be lost. They'll prevent thousands of new jobs and destroy local economies.
The CFMEU can see this happening and have come out in TheAustralian today and criticised the Labor government for taking this action. Bill Shorten, yes, The Australian newspaper has come out with your friends—your No. 1 supporter, the CFMEU—saying they want you to support the coal industry. They have no plans to keep the Australian economy strong. They have no plans to keep Central Queensland's agricultural colleges open in Emerald and Longreach. They want to shut them. Under a Labor government, constituents of Flynn will pay more and our economy will suffer. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Australian Natural Disasters
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:47): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that parts of Australia have been affected by fire, floods and storms during the recent summer period;
(2) recognises the support the Government has given in response to these disasters;
(3) also recognises the outstanding work of emergency services, the Australian Defence Force and volunteers in supporting victims of these natural calamities; and
(4) offers support to the victims of the fires, floods and storms and will do all we can to support our fellow Australians in their time of need.
For many communities across Australia this has been a challenging summer. Time that should be reserved for family has been interrupted by fires, floods and storms. Our government is working with the states and local government to offer support and assistance.
My electorate was not spared. On 15 December severe storms hit, centring on Cherrybrook and West Pennant Hills. Trees and powerlines came down and homes were crushed and many across the electorate were without power and internet for days or, in some cases, weeks. Then, five days later on 20 December, another storm hit. Berowra, Cowan, Berowra Heights and surrounding areas were smashed by hail the size of golf balls. As the storm hit I was at Cowan visiting the Hornsby/Ku-Ring-Gai Fire Control Centre. My car was damaged and it would take until the middle of the year before it was repaired, but I know that, compared to many, I got off lightly.
As the clean-up began the next day, I visited the SES command post at Warrina Street Oval and spoke to the SES, RFS and New South Wales Fire and Rescue officers. I was also talking to residents and inspecting homes. I made the case for disaster assistance funding to the federal minister for emergency management, which was granted. I visited the command centre on Boxing Day and again on 28 December to thank the volunteers who'd come from all over New South Wales to help.
On 24 and 25 of January, I organised with Minister Reynolds to visit the electorate and speak to people about their experiences. On 6 February I attended the Berowra insurance forum and heard insurance companies and builders talking in person to constituents about their claims and repairs.
The Berowra hailstorm was severe. Within minutes, roofs, cars, awnings, skylights and solar panels were destroyed. It's estimated that emergency services workers gave 23,000 hours to Berowra over nine days, including Christmas Day. Volunteers came from as far as Lightning Ridge and Broken Hill.
I want to share the words of one of my constituents, Maureen Maddison:
I was moved to tears as I drove to the local shops on Christmas Eve. The entire length of Barnett's Road into Berowra Waters Road and Turner Road was lined on both sides with volunteer bush fire brigade and SES vehicles from all over Sydney and even further afield. These amazing volunteers were giving up their Christmas Eve to ensure that all of our houses were protected by tarps before Christmas.
When the unexpected happens, we discover what our communities are made of. The stories from those days are of neighbours looking after each other. I heard about Denis Greene siliconing his neighbour's broken tiles before looking after his own, and Maureen Good cooking her 86-year-old neighbour Christmas lunch after his kitchen was destroyed. I have been told about Michael Solomon, a roofer, working tirelessly in the heat. He encountered a python in one roof and was stung by a nest of wasps while repairing another, but still went out of his way to take an older lady to an insurance information session.
Using Berowra's community Facebook page, the SES called for spontaneous community volunteers to help with the sandbagging efforts. Over 200 Berowra people volunteered, freeing up SES resources to get back up on roofs. This is now known as the Berowra model of volunteering. Those stories show Berowra's spirit, and it's that spirit that makes me so proud to represent that community here in parliament. I want to acknowledge those SES and RFS leaders who headed up the operation in Berowra: Reinould Beijerinck, Rolf Poole, Tony Hine, Craig Woon, Chris Mawn, James Logan, Murray Oakley, Andrew McCullough and Adam Jones. These are a few of the hundreds of people in Berowra who deserve our thanks.
We're now two months on from the storm, and Berowra and Berowra Heights are a sea of tarpaulins. People under unstable roofs or in temporary accommodation continue to wait for answers about how long repairs will take. It seems there are simply not enough tradespeople to manage the repair effort at present. It will be a long time before life gets back to normal for many. Students are now studying in homes that have become building sites. Businesses are struggling with nowhere to operate from. Families are unable to enter asbestos-affected homes to retrieve basic goods. Some people will be out of their homes for over a year. There are no easy solutions. We need to remember that a disaster doesn't end when the TV crews go or the crisis is over.
The reports of insurance companies are varied. Some are doing great work. For others, the experience has been disappointing. I call on insurance agencies to provide such excellent service that they become as well known for their dedication as the emergency services that responded over Christmas. It's your turn to ease the pain that people in Berowra are suffering.
In Berowra, we have faced some challenging blows. But many say it doesn't compare to what people in places like Townsville are experiencing right now. One phrase I have heard dozens of times is, 'I've been lucky; some have had it much worse.' This summer will be remembered by many as a very hard one. It will be life-defining for some families. It will be remembered as a summer of hardship and loss, but also as a time of incredible community spirit.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (16:53): I second the motion. I am very proud to stand in this place and say that I come from one of the most resilient communities in our nation, Townsville. Townsville is my home. I was born, raised, educated and married in Townsville. In my living memory, I cannot recall a weather event that compares to what we recently experienced. This extreme weather event has made history as the worst natural disaster that Townsville has experienced, with 22,000 homes affected by devastating floodwaters. As I speak in this place today, there are residents and business owners in my community who are still cleaning up and trying to come to terms with their financial and sentimental losses. Some people have lost everything: their homes, their belongings.
Townsville is currently going through a housing crisis, with many displaced residents desperately trying to find somewhere to live. The Real Estate Institute of Queensland has reported that roughly 1,500 people in Townsville are at present fighting for an estimated 200 to 400 available properties. The department of housing has received 285 requests for emergency housing assistance as of Tuesday, 12 February. To make matters worse, the competition for property is driving rental prices up, making it simply unaffordable for many residents. I have read reports that a three-bedroom house that was previously rented for $350 per week is now being rented for $700 per week.
I want to say in this place that this is not the time for anyone to take advantage of this disaster. It is abundantly clear that my community is going through an extremely tough time right now, and we need assistance. My office has been inundated by calls and emails from people who have been directly impacted by the floods. Unfortunately, under the watch of this LNP government, many of these people have been denied financial assistance, which is simply very stressful for them at this time. The LNP government claims to have made changes to the criteria for the disaster relief funding, but many residents are not aware of this, and I am sure the department staff are stressed. No-one from the government has come to ask me about what is happening on the ground. In fact, I am yet to receive any communication at all from this LNP government about anything to do with this unprecedented weather event in my electorate of Herbert.
Now is not the time for us to be stingy or play politics. The people in my community just want to know the simple facts about the disaster relief payments. Changes via Twitter are not helpful when people are already very stressed, and in many cases they are receiving conflicting and confusing information regarding the payments.
To receive a year's rainfall in nine days is unimaginable. We measured the rain not in points or inches but in metres. However, through these unprecedented and dangerous conditions, the ADF, emergency services, SES and council workers were at the ready. To those police officers, ambulance workers, firefighters, Defence personnel, SES volunteers, council workers and Ergon workers, who were out at all hours of the day and night assisting residents to safety, I say a huge thank you.
To all of the thousands of volunteers who have been out helping those who are affected by the floods, I say: a big thank you to you too. To those businesses and organisations who have donated food, material items and financial assistance during this time: I thank you for your generosity. To the Townsville Local Disaster Management Group and the advisory group, the local Bureau of Meteorology and local media: thank you for working 24 hours a day to ensure that residents were kept well informed.
I want to especially acknowledge and thank the Townsville mayor, Councillor Jenny Hill, for her leadership in this very difficult time. Her commitment to our city is simply outstanding.
Lastly but not least, I want to thank the people of Townsville. This has been an extraordinarily difficult and stressful time for our community, but we have shown real community spirit and resilience. We will overcome the challenges that lie ahead, and we will be a stronger city at the end of this journey. But we must also take care of ourselves, our family and friends and also notice when there are people who don't seem to have anybody around to support them, to lend a listening ear.
However, let me be very clear: we do need to have very clear and concise criteria so that the people of my community can understand exactly what they need to get their disaster relief money paid to them.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:57): 'I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains, of ragged mountain ranges, of droughts and flooding rains.' Dorothea Mackellar wrote those words over 100 years ago, and very little has changed. Our history has been one of extreme weather and disasters. Her poem continued:
Core of my heart, my country!
Her pitiless blue sky,
When sick at heart, around us,
We see the cattle die …
… … …
Land of the rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine,
She pays us back threefold …
There's no doubt that the events over summer were quite catastrophic. I'm sure everyone in this parliament sends our best wishes to those in Townsville who are currently undergoing undue hardship and will continue to suffer hardship for many, many months, if not years, as they try to recover from that disaster.
But I am concerned that our response to these natural disasters must be based in science and facts so we can plan for them in the future. My grave concern goes to a year 10 history book called Pearson History New South Wales, which says on page 115: 'Climate change is noticeable in Australia, with more extreme frequent weather events such as the 2002-06 drought or the 2010-11 Queensland floods.' That is simply an inaccurate statement that is in a school history book. What chance do we have of forming the best policies in this nation to deal with fire, floods and drought if we have children being misled by incorrect information in our history books?
Let's look at what the peer-reviewed science says. Everyone likes to say they believe in the science. Well, here's some peer-reviewed science on cyclones from a peer-reviewed study published in Nature in January 2014. It says Australian tropical cyclone activity is lower than at any time over the past 550 to 1,500 years. That's what the peer-reviewed science says. In fact, if we look at the bureau's records, we find in the 1983-84 to the 1985-1986 cyclone seasons that, in those three years alone, we had 27 severe cyclones strike Australia. In the 2015-16 cyclone season there was not one single cyclone. You cannot look at that graph and then say that cyclone activity in Australia hasn't actually declined. But we will have major cyclones hit us again. We need to be prepared and we need to put our resources to it.
When it comes to that claim in the textbook about the floods in Queensland in 2010-11 being evidence of more extreme weather, that is simply contrary to the history of Queensland. One only has to look at the Brisbane floods. We find the largest flood in Brisbane was actually the 1841 flood. That is followed by the 1993 flood and then the 1974 flood. So to try to make out that the 2010-11 flood is some evidence of greater extreme weather is just simply contrary to the evidence in our history.
When it comes to droughts, many of us understand the severe droughts we're going through at the moment and the severe droughts we have had in the past. This has been standard throughout our nation's history. We should be prepared and we should be planning for continued droughts. When it comes to fires, what does the peer-reviewed evidence say? It finds that the global area burned has declined by 25 per cent over the last year. It says:
… many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence … the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades …
That is the evidence. That is the science. We need to understand that we live in that same country that Dorothea Mackellar wrote about over a hundred years ago. That is why we need to prepare and help people recover from their resources instead of wasting money pretending that we can change the weather. We'll be far better off, rather than wasting billions of dollars thinking we can change the weather, putting that money into disaster relief to help people who are really suffering.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (17:03): If there were ever a lesson in what is wrong with this chaotic and dysfunctional government, it's the fact that today's motion is about natural disasters and recognising those people who have served and helped and not once through the offensive and audacious speech that we just had from the climate-change-denying kook on that side of the chamber did he acknowledge the volunteers. I'm glad he brought up the 2010-11 floods. As someone who lived through that and represented that community, I can tell you that when I go back to the people of Oxley and Darra and go around and say, 'The members in this parliament say that it's just a natural occurrence and you should suck it up'—
Government members interjecting—
Mr DICK: That's exactly what he just said. As someone who cleaned people's houses and saw people's lives torn apart, for this member of parliament to come into this place today and say, 'Too bad; suck it up'—
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr DICK: Today, I don't come in here to practice that Trump rubbish that we're hearing time and time again from those opposite. It's little wonder the people of his own electorate want to knock him off and that Kent Johns want to come in here and the member had to be saved with a shonky deal. I'll tell you something: I'll use my time to recognise the volunteers, the SES, the ADF and all of those people who went door to door and house to house to help people put their lives back together.
Mr Craig Kelly: They were making sure they had the resources that they needed.
Mr DICK: And the member for Hughes is still on the climate change denying ramp—not interested in putting people's lives back together in north Queensland, not interested in the 5,000 homes that have been destroyed in Townsville, not interested in finding a way to flood-proof and make these communities resilient; only dripping with Trumpism and the trickle-down rubbish that we hear from members of the government.
I want to congratulate the member for Berowra for putting this motion on the Notice Paper today. He is a person of great character who knows what these disasters mean for communities—just like the member for Macquarie, whose own house burnt down, whose own life was ripped apart as a result of that.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hughes has had his go.
Mr DICK: I'm not going to stand in this parliament and read from Year 10 text books about the climate change nonsense that is so-called apparently threatening our way of life. I want this parliament to come together to work as one, as a government and as a nation, and put priorities in place for those disasters that are befalling our nation, whether it be the bushfires in Tasmania or the floods in North Queensland, and that those communities know that this parliament is working as one, firstly, to put their lives back together. The extreme trauma—I have spoken to some of the SES volunteers, around 175 of them, who came from interstate, from New Zealand, to help the Tasmanian communities, where we saw people from across Australia fly into Townsville to help those people, whether it be the SES, state government officials, the Townsville City Council led by Mayor Jenny Hill. Today I want to thank them for their swift and decisive actions to help those who have felt the impacts of these natural disasters, and our hearts go out to all of those families whose lives have been destroyed. There has been the tragic loss of three lives in north Queensland. Time and time again we are seeing the ravages of our natural environment destroying people's lives.
As a parliament, we saw the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister come together to pledge the full resources of this government—that's what this parliament should be doing. There is the wonderful contribution from the business community from right across Australia of millions and millions of dollars. In my own community the weekend before last, the magnificent Vietnamese community were at Inala Plaza collecting money for those people affected by the flood disaster.
Today, I say thank you to the member for Berowra for tabling this motion in the Chamber. Every single member of this parliament should be rising to their feet to congratulate and thank those wonderful volunteers and supporters that are still working today, as we speak. I congratulate and salute them all.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (17:08): I'd also like to thank the member for Berowra for tabling this motion. I think it's important that we do take note of what's happening to many people across Australia. It hasn't been a great summer; it's been a devastating one for the people in Townsville with those horrendous floods through northern Queensland, and the bushfires in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania.
Of course, we had the anniversary of those destructive life-taking bushfires in Victoria 10 years ago. If it wasn't enough seeing Victoria, Tasmania and parts of northern New South Wales ablaze, people are doing it tough and, as a nation, we're seeing once again the brutality that Mother Nature can throw at us from time to time. So, it's important that we do everything we possibly can—everything in policy terms—to make sure that our nation is more resilient, including this motion to recognise the outstanding work of the emergency services, the Australian Defence Force, the volunteers.
I would like to acknowledge, from my own electorate, NT senior fire management officer Lee Gleeson, who has been deployed to Victoria to help fight the devastating wildfires in Victoria. As I mentioned, 10 years ago wildfires led to a lot of loss of life in that state. It affected a lot of my family and friends. But it is a part of being Australian that we do everything we can to help our fellow Australians in their time of need. Territorians were in their time of need during Cyclone Marcus, which didn't get a lot of coverage in the national media. In fact, it took Prime Minister Turnbull about five days to give us a buzz to see how we were going. The northern capital of Australia was hit by a cyclone and there was a lot of damage and a lot of people without power. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, when he visited us within days of when the cyclone hit, said it was a miracle that no-one was killed—and he was absolutely correct. It was great to be with him thanking the members of the 1st Brigade and the US Marines who assisted us in Darwin when we were hit by mother nature in the form of Cyclone Marcus. We would have been under the pump for a lot longer had it not been for neighbours looking after neighbours—emergency services, the Defence Force and the community pulling together to support each other to make Darwin and Palmerston safe again.
Last week I received a briefing at the Joint Operations Centre out at Bungendore. As we speak, ADF members are out in support of communities that are doing it tough. We had the ADF and emergency services, but we also had community groups like Darwin's Sikh community and the CDU Bangladeshi Students Association making meals for Territorians who were without power after Cyclone Marcus. It was amazing to see the community come together. Losing power is one thing but losing your home in a fire or losing livestock, which is essentially your living, is very difficult indeed. I want to thank everyone who is helping our fellow Australians who are under the pump right now.
Cyclone Marcus was probably the worst disaster to hit Darwin since Cyclone Tracy. I think we saw how complacent you can become about the awesome brutality of mother nature. We are still in the cyclone season right now, so I would encourage everyone to be prepared. I again thank everyone who is helping.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (17:13): Before speaking on this motion I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my colleagues the member for Herbert, Cathy O'Toole, who has done a fantastic job in Townsville, and also the member for Braddon, Justin Keay, in Tasmania.
People say to me that you never forget the roar of fire as it rolls down towards you and you never forget the stench of mud as you try and clean it up. Our nation has experienced several heartbreaking natural disasters in the past 12 months. This summer alone we have seen bushfires, floods, storms and snow—on occasion, all at the same time—across our wide brown land.
My electorate of Paterson, which includes the magnificent Port Stephens area, has not been immune. In August last year, communities across the Port Stephens area experienced several stressful days when up to five bushfires were burning at the same time within a few kilometres of each other. After five days, flames had torn through over 2,000 hectares of bushland on the Tilligerry Peninsula, and a further 38 hectares of bushland had been destroyed within the Tomaree National Park in Shoal Bay. This was an unexpected disaster captured perfectly by the words heard uttered by firefighters on the ground: 'What the hell is going on? It's winter.' Just months later in November, a fire ripped through Campvale, Medowie and Salt Ash, burning almost 2,000 hectares in just four days. Winds of up to 100 kilometres per hour worsened the situation, and, as five crews responded to this fire, another bushfire broke out 50 kilometres away in my own home town of Kurri Kurri at the backdoor of the hospital. This fire burnt through more than 60 hectares of land and, at one stage, it was so severe that non-essential staff were evacuated from Kurri Kurri Hospital as the blaze moved towards Pelaw Main.
In December, my electorate was handed yet another bushfire disaster when residents of Salamander Bay woke up to flames at their backdoor—literally. Sixteen hectares of the Mambo Wetlands were wiped out, causing a significant impact on vital koala habitat in the area. As I holidayed in the bay over the Christmas period, I was really quite saddened to hear several volunteers tell me the story of the screams of koalas as their habitat was burning around them. We lost many breeding pairs of koala, which is such a devastation as well. Every single one of these disasters involved close calls, but the tireless work of our rescue services prevented these events from being far worse than what they could have been. Organisations like the State Emergency Service, the Rural Fire Service, the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Red Cross all played a vital part in the prevention of these fires getting worse and lives being lost.
I just want to take a moment to thank all the businesses at Paul's Corner in Salt Ash, which provided refuge to people when Nelson Bay Road was cut by fire. People couldn't go back home to the bay so they congregated at Paul's Corner. I would also like to thank Hunter Valley Buses and Port Stephens Coaches. When the kids who were at school couldn't get home to the bay and their parents couldn't come and collect them—they all went to Irrawang High School—the Red Cross gave them something to eat. My own staff member Arley Black went along and helped to entertain them for a while, and then the bus companies drove the children home for the parents to be able to get pick them up at an accessible collection point. This is the way people in my community banded together. Thankyou to all of those people who provided that community effort and went to support those in need.
I commend the member for Berowra for bringing forward this private member's business. It is important that we do pause to really reflect and take stock. I would like to express my utter disappointment, though, that the word 'drought' has not been included in the list of natural disasters. Like so many regions across the country, the drought has taken a huge toll on my electorate. It's dire in the Hunter. It's like we have never seen it before. In May of last year, the Maitland Saleyards, which are a major part of our local economy, were putting through cattle at $350 less per head than years before.
I would just like to acknowledge the Maitland Show. Normally, every year, the Maitland Show is our drought breaker. Well, this year, it has been and gone. It was a terrific event, but there was no rain. It's a sad indictment. I wish it would come. Over the last year, I have spoken a lot about this in my area, but we need the leadership that a Shorten government can provide to see this country through these kinds of disasters.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (17:18): I rise to speak on the motion put forward by the Liberal member for Berowra. I am speaking after the Labor member for Herbert, the Labor member for Oxley, the Labor member for Solomon and the Labor member for Paterson. The last couple of members had to speak one after the other, because, apart from one climate change denier, the member for Berowra couldn't even get a single Liberal or National Party person to back him up. It's shameful.
Like most Australians, we understand that there are lots of natural disasters, and this has been a particularly brutal summer. In New South Wales, we have had more than 330 fires blazing across the state, with 20 homes destroyed and others damaged. In Tasmania, fires ravaged the World Heritage listed forests. Trees that were more than 1,000 years old were destroyed.
In Queensland, we have seen record-breaking rainfall, which caused extreme flooding that will create havoc for many years. The Bureau of Meteorology described the Far North Queensland rainfall event as 'exceptional'. In and around Townsville, the accumulated total rainfall over consecutive days was the city's highest on record since records began way back in 1888. Some areas have received more than 2,000 millimetres of rain over a 12-day period—2,000 millimetres is two metres of rain. Three people lost their lives in the Queensland floods, and more people are obviously suffering from bacterial infections from contaminated floodwaters. Stock losses are likely to reach more than half a million, and this is heartbreaking for a cattle industry already worn down by years of drought. The Insurance Council of Australia estimates that property damage in North Queensland will reach more than half a billion dollars.
You may wonder what's going on with our weather. The BOM last week made a statement in response to the heavy rainfall and flooding in tropical Queensland and they explained in their climate statement that they are likely 'to underestimate the probability of such rainfall in the future. This is because the climate system is changing and global warming increases the likelihood of heavy rainfall events in most locations.' The BOM's earlier report, The state of the climate 2018, reveals that Australia's climate has warmed by just over one per cent since 1910. The south-east of Australia has seen a decline of April to October rainfall of around 11 per cent since the late 1990s. Rainfall has increased across parts of Northern Australia since the 1970s, and there has been a long-term increase in extreme fire weather and in the duration of the fire season across large parts of Australia. The report also discusses why we're seeing these changes. It says:
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and methane, make it harder for the Earth to radiate this heat, so increase the temperature of the Earth's surface, ocean and atmosphere.
The Morrison government's own report says we're going to see more of these extreme weather events because of global warming, yet they have no real policy to address climate change and no-one prepared to even speak about it. Australians need a government who will give them the immediate assistance they need to recover when a disaster occurs but also one that has the foresight to implement policies that will reduce climate change and prevent future devastation from natural disasters.
In 2014, the Productivity Commission presented the coalition government with a report into natural disaster funding. The then Minister for Justice said on 1 May 2015 that a full response would be provided after consultation with the states. No coalition government response has yet been provided five years and many natural disasters later. This government has done nothing to prepare Australia for an increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters in the coming years. What it has done is scrap the only Commonwealth government oversight for national disaster relief and recovery arrangements. The government wound up the Australian Government Reconstruction Inspectorate in 2015, despite that agency identifying over $120 million in ineligible projects from Queensland alone. That was after the Queensland Reconstruction Authority had already identified $2.7 billion in ineligible claims. The Australian National Audit Office estimates that for every dollar spent in approved insurance, between $10 and $20 is saved in not paying out ineligible claims—money that could potentially be used to prepare for national disasters.
Why is this so? The Liberal Party doesn't understand Queensland. Look at the prime ministers they've had. You have the member for Cook, who comes from Bronte; the member for Warringah, who actually comes from Bronte; and then the former member for Wentworth, for a bit of variety, came from Point Piper. You could throw a blanket over those three suburbs! They don't fundamentally understand Queensland. Kevin Rudd and Bill Shorten, who's married to a Queenslander, understand the problems that beset our estate. We need a government that takes national disaster seriously, that will act to reduce climate change to lessen the extreme weather events and that is prepared for the disasters that we will face in the future. What do we need? We need a Labor government, not one that ignores Queensland.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (17:23): It's not many people in this place who start their day with their home intact, their belongings safe and their garden blooming but finish the day with only the clothes that they have on their back and a tangled mass of metal, brick and ashes. But I'm not the only one. More importantly, that's what has happened to many families this summer from Tasmania to Queensland. The floods have caused similar anguish for many others. Anyone who has been through it knows you would not wish it on anybody else.
What we see under the Liberals every time a natural disaster happens is confusion and frustration about the immediate government assistance that people are eligible for. I'm speaking today on this motion moved by the member for Berowra, who shares the Hawkesbury River and the Hawkesbury wilderness with me as a boundary. We need to remember that the same thing keeps happening time and time again under this Liberal government. I want to take you back to the 2013 bushfires in the Blue Mountains, which destroyed 200 homes and damaged 286 others.
In the wake of homes being destroyed, while other homes were still burning and even more were under threat, while people couldn't return to their street to see if they even had a house still standing, to see if their pets were alive, while water wasn't running, while the electricity was off, while mobile phones were out of battery and food was rotting in fridges, while people were sleeping in temporary shelters or at friends' homes, while there were warnings that the worst was yet to come, while all this was happening, this Liberal government led by Prime Minister Tony Abbott made a decision to restrict the disaster relief payment to people whose homes had burnt down or to those who were seriously injured. They were the only two groups able to access $1,000 per adult and $400 per child; no-one else. If you couldn't get back to your house for a couple of days because police wouldn't allow you to travel through kilometres of devastated homes, it was too bad; you missed out. If you were able to go home but you were stuck there with no electricity or water, you weren't eligible for a cent.
The rules changed from the policy that the Labor government had which meant that victims of the 2013 Tasmanian fires and Tropical Cyclone Oswald were helped by this modest payment if they were cut off from their homes or power and water, but not for victims in the Blue Mountains. The policy changed while the fires were burning. It was a mean, offensive decision to take while our community was still under threat, while people were still stunned at what was going on around them.
I want to thank the member for Sydney and Senator Doug Cameron who loudly spoke out in this house about what was going on. I also want to pay tribute to the people who have been through an awful summer in Tasmania because my Blue Mountains community went through five or six days of serious fire in 2013, but those communities went through it for three or four weeks. And, listening to the ABC, I heard the most moving description of it from a local resident and business owner who said the experience had left her in an exhausted daze of raw emotion. She said:
It's really difficult to go through 17 days of high anxiety, high adrenaline and back and forth evacuations, but you can't see the physical damage that the fires have done.
My community gets how tough that must have been.
The Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury know that recovery from natural disasters takes time. Five years on from the 2013 fires, the smell of smoke and the sound of helicopters still triggers anxious feelings for many people. While my house burned to the ground and took 4½ years to rebuild, I could go months without having to visit the street or the site but the few neighbours whose homes survived had to drive through what looked like a war zone multiple times in a day. Those things take their toll.
The people affected this summer will also take hope from the extraordinary efforts of so many volunteers, neighbours and community groups who rise to these occasions, and they will take hope from the work by the rural and the regular fire services, the police, the ambos and Defence Force personnel. No matter what steps we take to prepare for disaster and to mitigate disaster—whether it's fire, flood, storm, cyclone or drought—the very least a government can do is to make decent emergency payments. A Labor Shorten government will do that and much more.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order for the next sitting.
Disaster Relief Funding to Tasmania
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (17:28): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the devastating impact that the recent bushfires have wreaked across Tasmania, particularly in the Central Highlands, Derwent Valley and the Huonville regions, and that sadly these fires have:
(a) burnt more than 194,000 hectares of land, including many unique natural areas such as the Tasmania Wilderness World Heritage Area; and
(b) resulted in:
(i) the loss of eight homes while causing damage to others and to infrastructure;
(ii) significant damage to the iconic Tahune Airwalk at Geeveston; and
(iii) significant economic loss to affected regions from the loss of trade, wages and tourism;
(2) acknowledges and commends the:
(a) work and dedication of the men and women of the Tasmanian Fire Service (TFS) who have demonstrated remarkable courage and strength while working relentlessly to contain and extinguish the fires;
(b) women and men who travelled from interstate and New Zealand to offer assistance and to support the work of the TFS;
(c) contribution of Tasmania’s volunteer firefighters who demonstrated unflinching dedication for days and weeks, often at significant personal cost in terms of lost family time, wages and consumption of annual leave; and
(d) resilience and strength of the Tasmanian people and their willingness to rally in support of firefighters and fire affected communities, including volunteers and others who operated and staffed evacuation centres at Bothwell and Huonville; and
(3) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) continue to provide disaster relief funding to Tasmania as per established Commonwealth-state processes, and ensure there is no unnecessary delay in the distribution of federally funded relief to affected parties; and
(b) liaise with the Tasmanian Government on an appropriate Commonwealth funding contribution to rehabilitate fire affected World Heritage and other wilderness, which does not qualify for assistance under existing disaster relief agreements.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Gosling: I second the motion.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: Although the circumstances motivating me to rise and move this motion are deeply saddening, I'm proud to be able to do so—proud to represent the people of Tasmania, proud to stand here as a representative of Lyons, an electorate which includes many people in communities whose lives have once again been disrupted by natural disaster, and proud to show my sincerest gratitude to all the men and women who dedicated their time to battling bushfires that ravaged our state this summer. They are men and women like those in the Tasmanian Fire Service, their interstate and overseas peers who provided assistance and, of course, Tasmanians who opened their doors and homes to strangers and volunteered in affected communities and evacuation centres and who, of course, rallied around to support firefighters, communities and people in need with donations and moral support.
As all in this chamber are aware, the bushfires that wreaked havoc upon Tasmania resulted in more than 200,000 hectares of land being burned in a few short weeks. That is three per cent of my state's surface, almost half of it in Tasmania's precious Wilderness World Heritage Area. It was so bad that the smoke could be seen from space. Three years ago, fire destroyed other World Heritage in Tasmania, including in my electorate, blazing its way through 100,000 hectares and destroying irreplaceable alpine vegetation. Six years ago, fire destroyed much of the township of Dunalley, in the south of my electorate.
Tasmania is well known for its natural environment. It is one of the reasons that we have record numbers of people visiting our state. It is the reason why so many people move to Tasmania. Across Tasmania, stunning landscapes and unique and diverse flora and fauna have remained largely unchanged for millennia. As Tasmanians, we are proud of our natural environment, our remote island surrounded by wild seas. Mainlanders who watched David Attenborough's documentary on our island did so with a sense of envy and longing.
But now, in a short few weeks, so much has been lost. As a percentage of Tasmania's entire wilderness, what went up in smoke is not great, but that does not reduce its significance. The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, a network of parks and reserves and one of the last expanses of temperate wilderness in the world, suffered enormous damage. Significantly, this is an elevated temperate area, untouched by fire for thousands of years. The flora never evolved to deal with the flames. It will never regenerate in the same way that lowland woodlands will.
The Tahune AirWalk, in the south of the state, in the electorate of my colleague Julie Collins, was one of Tasmania's premier and iconic tourist destinations. Visitors could walk amongst the tall canopy of forest and watch the wild waters of the Huon and Picton rivers come together. Damaged by fire and now surrounded by burnt forest, it's closed for the foreseeable future, ending an experience for tourists, ending jobs for locals and dramatically impacting business for the town of Geeveston.
Two weeks ago, we welcomed cooler, wetter weather, and then we watched in disbelief as snow fell on the Central Plateau, often just metres from where fire continued to burn. The past weeks have been all about battling the blazes, but now we turn to the recovery, which will cost millions. The impact on regional communities will be particularly hard felt. These fires came during peak tourist season. Accommodation providers, cafes and restaurants, hotels and pubs, coach companies, wilderness guides and more—all were closed; all had staff and volunteers out on the front line; all bear the economic scars.
We've learned that Tasmania's $10 million leatherwood honey industry has been hit for six. The unique rainforest leatherwood takes decades to mature and flowers annually. Many trees have been lost and will take years to regrow, if ever, because the soil is likely no longer to support their vegetation.
In Lonnavale, the Ta Ann veneer mill was damaged to the extent that it may not be able to resume operations for months. The Southwood timber-processing site was also damaged. Thousands of hectares of working forest have been lost, including many trees ready for harvest. The impact of the loss has not yet been calculated, nor has how the state intends to respond to ensure that timber communities maintain production.
As bad as the devastation was, it could have been so much worse. Thankfully, our state suffered no fatalities or serious injuries, a testament to the training and skills of our firefighters. Firefighters and volunteers worked countless hours in heat and thick smoke, placing themselves in danger to contain the bushfires. At one point, the TFS reported that 755 fire personnel, including 159 who had travelled from interstate and New Zealand, were fighting fires across our state. Another day saw 520 crews fighting fires, while 14 emergency warnings were in place. In late January, it was estimated that more than 70,000 hours had been spent fighting fires in Tasmania.
I want to commend the many volunteer firefighters who form the backbone of Tasmania's regional firefighting capability. Without them, our state would be in cinders today. There are too many to mention by name, but they hail from 80 brigades in my electorate alone and many more in the electorates of Braddon, Bass, Franklin and Clark. Their importance, their dedication, their courage and their endurance can never be overstated. They were the difference between victory and defeat.
Many volunteers took time off paid work to help their communities. It has always been the case that volunteer firefighters use their own annual leave. There are others, like shearers and business owners, who were unable to work, and they also lost significant income—but they have no access to any leave at all. I think this has to change. Fighting fires is no longer an occasional event. We've had breakouts in Tasmania every summer in recent years, some of them very serious. I know that many volunteers want to keep alive the volunteering spirit. But I also know, from speaking to many, that they are feeling the economic, let alone the emotional, strain of the continuous call-outs. We need to take another look at how we, as a community, can better support the men and women who we call upon to support us.
I am open to suggestions. For example, do we offer up to two weeks leave for emergency services duty, similar to how we treat armed services reservists—perhaps funded jointly by the Commonwealth and state—or do we offer something like an emergency duty payment? I do not profess to have the answer here, but it is time to ask the question. We all benefit from the sacrifice that these men and women make, and I do not think it much to ask that we shoulder some of their burden.
Beyond the line of fire, we saw the Tasmanian community come together in a way that elevates the soul. Residents like Sandra in Bothwell opened their doors to strangers. Hoteliers offered rooms for free. Farmers offered paddocks for displaced livestock. Catteries offered free board for pets. Thousands of Tasmanians donated food and water—and beer; so much beer!
Kaylee Hattinger will hate being singled out, but she deserves it. Kaylee owns and runs the Great Lake Hotel in Miena, which was the eye of the storm of the fire that blazed through the Central Highlands. Roads in and out of the Central Highlands were closed to all but essential traffic throughout much of the weeks of battle, so Kaylee saw her trade drop off a cliff. Still, she opened up her hotel to firefighters, allowing it to become the hub of the Central Highlands firefighting effort. Volunteers were provided with a place to rest and plenty of food, by Kaylee and her staff, to ensure that they had the energy to go out and do their jobs. During the height of the 50,000-hectare Great Pine Tier bushfire, Kaylee and her staff fed more than 120 firefighters, and made upwards of 120 packed lunches and 120 hot dinners every day for more than two weeks. Dinner at the Great Lake Hotel would be served from 4.30 pm and often not end until after midnight. She even took out time for a small birthday party for Andrew Nisbet, known as 'Sugar', a Central Highlands volunteer who spent his 50th birthday fighting fires. Visiting Miena a couple of weeks ago, I saw firsthand what a mighty effort had gone into saving the township: a massive firebreak, excavated overnight; a line of controlled burning that kept the blaze from getting too close.
There are so many other volunteers I was hoping to mention today, and other issues. I'm sure my colleagues in Tasmania who are speaking on this motion will follow me with their own stories. I would like to thank, with my deepest respect, the Tasmania Fire Service and all the volunteers across our state who made such a magnificent effort in tackling that terrible fire.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ): I thank the member for Lyons and I call for a seconder for the motion.
Ms Collins: I second the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Franklin.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (17:39): People would be aware that I spoke in this place previously about the Tasmanian bushfires on behalf of my colleagues, and I want to thank the member for Lyons and the member for Braddon for speaking on this motion today, and particularly the member for Lyons for drafting this motion. It is very difficult to convey in just a few minutes our thanks and gratitude, not just to the firefighters and the local communities, to all of the residents who've been supporting each other, but also to the nation, for the spotlight on, and the assistance that firefighters across the country have provided to, our home state of Tasmania.
I had the privilege of joining the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and our state leader, Rebecca White, down in Huonville a few weeks ago, along with Senator Catryna Bilyk, to talk to local residents about these fires and what the impact has been on them, particularly in the Huon Valley. It was an honour to thank in person some of our volunteer fire brigade and some of our full-time firies in Tasmania, and also the other first responders—the SES, the police and the local councils, who were doing a lot of the heavy lifting and organisation on the ground in terms of the evacuation centres—and the workers from local non-government organisations. The Salvos, who were down at the Huon Valley evacuation centre, were making three meals a day for three weeks for the evacuees. At one stage, there were up to 600 evacuees at the Huon Valley PCYC; that has dropped back to about 150 in the last few days.
But people should be under no illusions: the fires in Tasmania do still continue. They're no threat to properties at this point in time, which is only due to the wonderful efforts of our firies in Tasmania, both career and volunteers, and of those who came over to Tasmania to assist. On the day I was there, I met firies from Queensland, firies from New South Wales and firies from Victoria. It was wonderful to see people from all over the country coming to help our island state, as we have done in the past when other states have been in similar situations.
I also want to put on record my great thanks to the local mayor. I mentioned previously that Mayor Bec Enders, the Huon Valley mayor, was only elected in October. She and her husband were evacuated from their property at Franklin, and she was at the evacuation centre with the other evacuees day in, day out, during that really difficult time. We sat with residents and talked to them about what was happening for them. We met one lady who had been evacuated three times. She was evacuated from the West Coast, the Zeehan fire, then went to Miena and got evacuated from there, and was then down in the Huon Valley in that evacuation centre. It was quite remarkable to talk to some of these people. They were very generous in sharing their stories about their experiences.
As I said previously, the really hard thing is to hear people say: 'I didn't know what every morning would bring. I didn't know what had happened to my property.' In the Huon Valley, in my area, we did lose four properties and also had some damage to some timber mills. Two in particular were Ta Ann, in Southwood, and Neville Smith's timber mill. Many of the workers at those facilities were casual labour hire, and have already been stood down in some of those areas. This has impacted the Huon Valley quite a lot.
As the member for Lyons indicated, the Tahune AirWalk has also been closed. They were able to save the visitor centre. On the walk structure in the tall timber forest: we're not sure yet whether that structure is still sound. Of course, a lot of the forest itself has burned; that will take a long time to regrow. That attraction took 80,000 to 100,000 visitors a year down into the Huon Valley, to the area of Geeveston. Without that drawcard, there are a lot of local businesses, particularly tourism operators and small businesses, who will be really concerned about what that means for their futures in the coming weeks and months until we get some clarity on when the Tahune AirWalk will be able to be reopened. We've got a lot of people on the ground trying to tell us that as soon as possible. With the timber mill and the Tahune, it is impacting a lot of locals' jobs and a lot of small businesses, and people are really starting to feel that. I know the federal government has offered some assistance. I don't think the assistance for businesses has actually started to flow yet. We're hopeful that that will happen in the coming days and weeks.
I want to say to the rest of the country, as I said the other day: Tasmania still needs you. We need you to come and visit our state. We need you to come and visit some of the fire-affected areas still. We need you to spend some money in our state and keep some of these terrific businesses going until we can rehabilitate some of these areas. A World Heritage area, as the member for Lyons mentioned, has also been burnt, but we still have a lot of national parks open. Tasmania still has a lot of forest for people to come and see. We still have a lot of attractions, and people should come on down.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (17:44): I'd like to thank the member for Lyons for bringing forward this motion and, also, the member for Franklin for sharing her experiences and sharing the devastation that hit her electorate in southern Tasmania. Unfortunately, bushfires have always been a part of our landscape in Tasmania, particularly over the warmer months. Even today, parts of mainland Australia and Tasmania continue to burn. In my state, the Tasmanian Fire Service still has alerts for 27 bushfires. At the height of the Tasmanian bushfire emergency there were 60 active fires across the state.
Like all members in this chamber, I want to acknowledge and say thank you to all the emergency service workers, paid and volunteer, who fought very hard and continue to do so through these bushfires. I also want to say a big thank you to the army of volunteers in the community who are looking after those who have been impacted, whether it be with food or drink or just somewhere to stay. On behalf of the state of Tasmania I say thank you. I also thank all the interstate and overseas firefighters who came to our beautiful state.
In my electorate of Braddon, which covers the north-west and west coast of Tasmania, we had multiple fire fronts throughout late January. Fires were burning on the west coast near Zeehan, in remote areas at Pieman Heads and at Brittons Swamp at Circular Head. The fires near Zeehan required an enormous firefighting effort. Roads were closed and people were evacuated.
As well as destroying thousands of hectares of forest and protected areas, the west coast fires have had a major effect on local businesses. The community of Strahan is the gateway to the Franklin-Gordon Wild Rivers National Park. It's the most beautiful place on this planet. In January and February you expect all the visitors coming to Tasmania to at least get over there, but, sadly, with the road closures, local businesses have suffered. I'm, sadly, aware of one operator who lost $5,000 in bookings in just that very short period of time. I'm also aware that, in many cases, businesses were reduced to winter staffing levels, as people simply could not get there or had the perception that all of Tasmania was on fire and cancelled their bookings. It is not the case now. I encourage everyone to come and visit, particularly the west coast of Tasmania and the far north-west. You will not be disappointed.
The west coast fires are still active, but now burn deeply underground. Firefighters are physically digging the fire out of the ground to extinguish it. While some property has been destroyed, as the member for Franklin has stated, the fact that not a single life was lost is a great credit to all involved. However, large amounts of productive forests, farmland and high-value conservation areas have been destroyed. One phenomenon we have seen is alpine forests destroyed. Sadly, these forests do not regenerate like eucalypt forests do.
Clearly we need to learn from these fire events. Following the devastating 2016 bushfires in the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area on the far north-west coast I recall concerns raised by local firefighters about their inability to properly fight fires due to environmental restrictions. The depth to which machinery could dig to construct firebreaks was limited. It resulted in the fire causing more damage to a protected area than it would have otherwise. A familiar story has been raised this time by the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, the TFGA. The TFGA has raised concerns that in the early stages of these current fires in some cases firefighters could not use bulldozers to put in containment lines in World Heritage areas or privately owned conservation areas. They've called for a review of strategies used in conservation areas and a greater focus on fuel reduction burns.
I'm sure that after these fires the relevant agencies will come together to review what worked well and what could be improved. I join with the TFGA and local firefighters from my electorate to call upon the state and the federal governments to seriously take on board what are valid concerns. I don't think there is any argument that there will be more of these extreme weather events and, unfortunately, very sadly, more bushfires. What we must do is have the mechanisms in place to allow our firefighters to deal with these emergencies to minimise the risk to life and damage to property and to provide greater protection of our most beautiful natural environment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Economy
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that over the year, the economy grew 3.4 per cent, which is the fastest rate of growth since the 2012 September quarter during the height of the mining investment boom, and the 27th year of consecutive economic growth;
(2) recognises that strong employment outcomes have been accompanied by an elevated rate of labour force participation, particularly for women, and that wages can be expected to rise if economic growth remains strong; and
(3) calls on the Government to remain resolute in its effective economic management to ensure funding for the essential services we need.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (17:49): This motion speaks to how completely out of touch the LNP government really are. They try to brag that things are going well—that the economy is going well and that jobs are on the increase—but what is actually happening is the numbers are being skewed. The only things to rise under this out-of-touch LNP government besides the degrees in climate and the tempers of everyday Australians are the unemployment figures. Does this LNP government even know how regional Queenslanders are struggling under their government? Does the LNP Prime Minister know the detrimental impact he caused when he was Treasurer by making massive cuts to various sectors across regional Queensland?
Those opposite try to skew numbers. They have put a new face on their leader, thinking that everyday Australians will forget what those opposite have done. But we won't forget, when the architect for the job losses and cuts is now the Prime Minister. The LNP's economic plan is very good for Sydney and Melbourne but not for regional, rural, and remote Queensland. The LNP's planned tax cuts for banks and big business weren't for Townsville; they were for their banking mates. The majority of Townsville businesses are not big businesses. While the Sydney and Melbourne economies are growing, Townsville's local economy has been demolished under consecutive LNP governments.
The government does like to recite numbers, so allow me to recite a few for you—factual numbers. They are: 5.6 per cent—that was Townsville's unemployment rate when Labor left office; 9.7 per cent—that is Townsville's current unemployment rate, and unemployment in Townsville has almost doubled under the LNP; 3,000—that is how many manufacturing jobs have been lost in Townsville since the LNP was elected; 149—that is the number of Australian tax office jobs that have been lost under the LNP government; 50—that is the number of defence jobs cut; 19—that is the number of CSIRO jobs cut in Townsville under the LNP; 46 per cent—that is how many trainees and apprentices we have lost in Townsville, which equates to 1,557 people, all because consecutive LNP governments have cut $3 billion from the TAFE sector; 2,487—that is how many families in Herbert will be worse off under the LNP changes to child care; $2,000—that is how much extra an average family will have to pay under the LNP's early learning charges; seven per cent—that is the percentage of north Queenslanders, who, due to the LNP government's Medicare freeze and the high cost of accessing medical services, have stopped accessing care when needed in the last year; $142—that is the median out-of-pocket cost for a north Queenslander; 26 per cent or 6,475 people or 55 people a day—that is the number of people over the last six months who presented to the Townsville hospital with minor ailments like coughs, because they can't afford to see their GP because of the LNP's Medicare freeze; 12 doctors and 25 nurses—that is how many jobs will be lost at the Townsville hospital because of the LNP government's $9 million cut; $36 million—that is the amount this government is cutting to Central Queensland University; 14—that's the number of jobs lost because James Cook University was forced to cut their arts degree because of the LNP's $34 million cut to JCU; 442—that is how many fewer construction businesses there are in Townsville than when Labor left office, a drop of 15.7 per cent; 153—that is the number of retail businesses that have closed in Townsville under the LNP, a fall of 17 per cent; seven—that is the number of jobs lost on Palm Island because of this government's cut to the National Partnership on Remote Housing; zero—that is how much the LNP have delivered for energy infrastructure for Townsville.
These are the numbers the LNP government needs to be working on, because it is the government that has caused these disturbing numbers. Townsville is not getting its fair share under this LNP government. Here are a few more numbers: $100 million—that is Labor's commitment to deliver long-term water security for Townsville, which has been matched and water security will be delivered, and the government came to the table 552 days after Labor; $200 million—that is Labor's commitment to deliver energy infrastructure; $23.5 million—that is Labor's commitment to Townsville schools; $1.7 billion—that is Labor's commitment to early learning. One last number that I will leave you with is the 18th of the fifth—the last day an election can be held in regional Queensland, where we can vote out of a government that forgets us and vote for a Labor government that will remember us.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (17:49): The coalition government has delivered a strong growing economy, which is delivering dividends for the whole nation. We have been able to give tax relief to hardworking Australians so they're rewarded for their hard work. We have been backing small business so they can create jobs. The government set the atmosphere for the economy to thrive, and we've certainly done that. We are fixing the budget. We're bringing it back into surplus this calendar year. All the time we've been reducing taxes and growing the economy—we've been growing the pie that delivers the tax revenue—the tax rates have been lower for individuals and companies.
We've been putting more money into keeping Australians safe. We've been protecting our borders and ramping up the financial support for Federal Police, for ASIO, for the security agencies and for our Defence forces. Our economy is growing at a better rate than most of the G7 countries—2.8 per cent GDP growth. That's an amazing record.
We have in our time in government developed free trade agreements with China, Korea, Japan and Chile. We've recently added wine agreements with the UK, giving the turmoil that they're going through, so our wine can still keep going there. In the last year alone, we've created over 100,000 jobs for young people. That's part of a broader jobs growth since 2013 of 1.2 million. That is an amazing growth record.
Health spending and school spending have both increased. The number of people relying on income support amongst working-age people is at the lowest level in at least 20 years—14.3 per cent of those of working age are requiring income support. That means the best form of welfare is to get people into a job. Not only is it financially better, but it's better for your mood, your psyche, your family, your relationship and your personal pride, and it is a great role model for your children.
We've also, as I mentioned, given tax relief for hardworking families. We have reduced tax for 3.3 million people and we have also reduced taxes for small business. Small businesses employ seven million people, Mr Deputy Speaker—knowing your background, I know you appreciate the value of small business. Whilst we've been reducing the spending and reducing the deficit so we can be in surplus this year, we have $75 billion worth of infrastructure being rolled out.
We've been supporting people in droughts. With the recent flood disaster in north-west Queensland, we've been supporting them. And what is at risk? The other side—the Labor Party, the Greens, and the Independents—want to go on a tax-a-thon. They want to get rid of the tax cuts we've given small business and families. They want to increase taxes by putting in a budget repair levy again of $7 billion. They want to tax your houses, which will reduce in value if they get rid of negative gearing. Even the threat of them coming in, with the population flirting with the idea of having a Labor government, has sent investment in property into quite a serious correction.
New taxes and negative gearing are also going to affect people's superannuation funds. Not only the new four taxes on superannuation that they have outlined, whether it's a contributions tax rate or limiting the catch-up for women who have been out of the super contribution scheme; it's going to affect many people with an existing self-funded superannuation fund. The retiree tax defies common sense, fairness and just about anything you can consider economically cannot justify what they are proposing. I have more pensioners and self-funded retirees than just about any other electorate, and they want to double-tax their investments. It's a bit like proposing that a PAYG earner receives their pay and then has to pay tax on it again. We have no double taxation like the Labor Party. They want to tax people who have taken the responsibility of looking after themselves, and it's manifestly unfair and bad for the economy.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (17:59): I'm going to be honest with you, Deputy Speaker McVeigh, when I saw the motion on the Notice Paper I thought it must have been a joke.
Mr Josh Wilson: It's not April first yet!
Mr GOSLING: No, not 1 April yet! I actually got one of my staff to make sure that my eyes weren't playing tricks on me. I did actually check, Member for Fremantle, that it wasn't April Fools' Day. Again, I have to be honest, I think those opposite are pretty delusional moving a motion that pats themselves on the back for what they've done over the last few years instead of, from my point of view—that of the Northern Territory—listening to the challenges we face in the Northern Territory.
They spent their time pandering to the bankers—with a B—on the east coast. Instead of having a real plan to grow the Northern Territory, their central economic platform was to give a handout to the big four of $17 billion. That could do a lot of good in the Northern Territory and around Australia if there were a federal government with different priorities. But in this protection racket for the banks, where they voted 26 times against a banking royal commission whilst trying to give the banks a $17 billion hand out and cosy up to the big four banks, they were ripping millions of dollars out of the territory at the same time. It is shameful.
Just for the record, they ripped $41 million of funds that were supposed to be going into public schools in the Northern Territory. That was ripped. They ripped $15 million out of Charles Darwin University, CDU, our university in the northern capital of Australia that also provides education services by outreach into other areas of the Northern Territory. And they ripped $16 million out of hospitals in the Northern Territory, with some of the poorest health outcomes in our country. This is what they call 'good economic management': try to give money to the banks at the top end of town and rip money out of the Territory, with communities with the lowest socioeconomic factors, the worst health outcomes and the worst education outcomes in the country due to all of those challenges we face. They weren't prioritised. The banks were prioritised. This is their genius economic plan.
But then, when they did come to Darwin, when they came to the northern capital of Australia pledging funds, it took over 500 days for the promise of the city deal to be realised. Not because the Prime Minister—the third Prime Minister in this term—wanted to, but because the Japanese Prime Minister came to Darwin to see off the first gas shipment in the INPEX project. They thought, 'Well, we better go up there and announce something.' But have we seen one dollar of those city deal funds, with $100 million that's supposed to help Charles Darwin University establish in the city like has happened in other jurisdictions? No, not one dollar. And we've barely seen any of the $20 billion pledged for defence expenditure. That was promised at the last election, so that's coming up, what, 2½ years? Very little spent on defence infrastructure. The funds haven't even been given to us for the city deal.
What else is on the list of the government's economic brilliance? Giving working people less money in their pay packet. Cutting penalty rates to 700,000 hardworking Australians. That's not helpful. Mind you, they wanted to give $17 billion to the banks, hoping that that would trickle down. That's not good for the economy. Those opposite have cut $300 million from dental health funding and frozen the Medicare rebate, forcing Australians to pay more to see the doctor. Young people struggle to enter the housing market. Instead of taking real action there, those opposite essentially just flipped the bird to young Australians and told them to go and get rich parents! You can see a pattern here. (Time expired)
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (18:04): To pick up where the last speaker left off, you can see a pattern here. You can see a pattern in Labor speakers on this motion. They have no choice but to go by the farce of their speaking lines: that there has been some sort of cut. Isn't it hilarious, after so many years in opposition, that they continue to pick out fictitious numbers and try to talk about a cut. You know, this was mentioned in my electorate only three weeks ago with respect to health. So I looked at the statistics. Since the coalition has been in power, funding to health has actually doubled. Doubled!
Do you know why Labor carry on like this? They run the 'gonna' principle.
Mr Gosling interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ): Order!
Mr TED O'BRIEN: The member for Solomon should learn this gonna principle because it's his party's principle: 'We were gonna do more. We were gonna do this. We were gonna give more to health. We were gonna do more for education.' Despite the fact that today there is record spending in health, there is record spending on education and there is an unprecedented recapitalisation of our defence forces, they're gonna do more, Deputy Speaker! Their entire argument is the gonna principle.
But there's a difference, you see. The difference between our side and their side is that we know how to manage money. Those opposite do not. If I have to pay tribute to those who are speaking from Labor on this motion today, it is that they've had the courage to at least try to put up an argument. Many of their colleagues are hiding in their suites because they don't want to talk on a motion about economic management. It is clearly the weak spot—or one of two weak spots; we also know about national security and protecting our borders. This motion is about the economy. We know that, when it comes to managing money, Labor are weak—that's their track record; it's sad because the losers are the Australian people—whereas the Liberal-National coalition's track record is strong. It is strength versus weakness.
We know that we have enjoyed 27 years of consecutive economic growth. We know that the unemployment rate is at five per cent. We know that the Australian GDP is growing at a rate faster than the OECD average, faster than all of the G7 bar the United States. Now, there's a reason that we celebrate good economic outcomes, and the Prime Minister articulates this well—that is, the economy isn't the end game. Having a good strong economy is not the end game; it is the means.
A strong economy is the means by which we can recapitalise the Australian Defence Force—$200 billion. A strong economy is the means by which we can ensure that we have record numbers of jobs created under this government. The economy is the means by which we can have families putting food on the table and we can have families educating their children. A strong economy is the means by which our people prosper. A strong economy is the means by which the everyday Australian household can pay the bills and can have a fulfilled life. That is why the economy is so fundamentally important.
And yet we see Labor government after Labor government ruin the economy, and when they do they also ruin the end game. They compromise the ability of people to feed their families and to find their jobs. They compromise the ability for us to afford health care and for us to afford the necessary services. That is why everything comes back to the economy.
It is why the Liberal-National government will always stand firm on the economy. When we do, we unashamedly take the high moral ground because we know that the most vulnerable people in this country can be best served only when the government is able to serve them. And only when you have money in the bank, only when you're making a surplus—which we will be delivering next year—are you best able to deliver on that. Meanwhile, we will continue to hear the gonna arguments from the Labor Party—what they're gonna do, what they would do. We all know it's false. Look at their track record.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (18:09): There's nothing more delicious than a pregnant pause before one speaks, to make sure that everybody is paying full attention, and there's no-one, of course, whom we want to pay more attention than those in the opposition. Why? It's because, unfortunately, we have a perpetual problem where they won't recognise or understand basic truths about what this government is seeking to achieve, what it is delivering for the Australian people and how we are putting Australia in the best competitive position to fruitfully deliver for the people that we are elected to represent and serve.
Yes, all right; we know the economy continues to grow strongly and that that bucks against the trend of so many other advanced and developed countries around the world. We can't be complacent about that. Yes, we have some of the fastest economic growth in the OECD and across the world and, of course, we're in the 27th year of uninterrupted economic growth. Why? It's because we understand the foundations of where an economy comes from—primary industries and extractive industries that build up the capital base that supports manufacturing and value-adds to our goods and then helps to build the service based economy to export to the world. We are part of the global supply chain. We are competitive and we should be enormously proud of it.
We should be enormously proud that we're now at a full employment rate, as we used to say in the old economic terms, where if you want to get a job in Australia you should be able to get a job in Australia. There are opportunities, whether it's part-time or full-time work. A record number of women have been able to secure employment—record-breaking full-time employment but also flexible workplace arrangement where people get the support they need to manage the different challenges they face in their stage of life.
I always have this real struggle with people who say, 'It's not real employment unless it's full-time employment.' Well, talk to those who are seeking to retire and graduating their way out of the workforce but still want to participate. Speak to the mums and the dads who might take on maternal or paternal leave who want to be able to work part time to support their families while also being engaged in the workforce because they don't want to lose their skills or opportunities. Speak to the people who are consultants who work as part of small businesses that want to transact across the world. Full-time work is a wonderful thing if you seek it, and it's the basis on which many people can build a successful life, but do not dismiss part-time work either because it may very well be what people want and seek to balance out work-life pressures. We always talk rhetorically about work-life balance, but when people actually deliver it apparently it's a bad thing.
And, of course, we want the government to continue to work constructively with all parts of the economy to be able to deliver the economy that the Australian people need. But nothing will deliver that more than tax reform. This is one of my pet subjects. I yearn for it when I wake up in the morning and I think about it the last thing at night. I know I get a wry smile for that! I'm saying it because it's tragic but true! Tax reform is absolutely essential for this country's future prosperity and opportunity. We have to radically reform the tax system. I have said this many times—from my first speech to today. Tax reform is the basis on which we can make sure that we can deliver the economy that Australians need to drive the economic opportunity that we seek. If we rebase the tax system, we'll see multinationals no longer able to avoid tax and contributing their fair share of tax. We have done what we can to close the loopholes, but we can go further. A rebasing of the tax system will create the opportunity where people can invest in job creation, not tax avoidance. The people who might lose their jobs are those accountants and lawyers who spend all their time fiddling around with taxes and taking advantage for themselves and for other people to minimise their tax. Sorry, but I want that wealth to go to productive sectors. I really, really do, because I see the potential and the opportunity that sits at the heart of it.
I know the opposition is mocking me for my passion on this, but it is unrelenting and it will not relent. It is the great political challenge of my parliamentary career for so long as it goes on. That's why I won't back down. It will deliver jobs that Australians need. It will drive economic growth when people pay the tax that this country needs to support the social and human services that people want as the dividend from the economy. An economy is not the end; it is the beginning of the proud, more successful and more united nation that we can be, one where the economy delivers for people so they can stand on their own two feet and make their maximum contribution to their own lives in the world.
Debate adjourned.
Loneliness
Mr GILES (Scullin) (18:14): I move:
That this House:
(1) pays tribute to the work done on loneliness in the United Kingdom in memory of Mrs Jo Cox;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) the Jo Cox Loneliness Commission’s inquiry into loneliness has succeeded due to bipartisan support, including the appointment of a responsible minister;
(b) there is a similar problem in Australia, but it is less well understood than it should be, particularly having regard to its impacts on younger Australians and the influence of social media; and
(c) the problem of loneliness is under recognised, despite its acknowledged and significant negative impacts on individuals and society;
(3) notes the work of Australian academics and civil society in this area; and
(4) calls for a national response in Australia, to better understand the scope of the challenge and to inform and support an evidence based policy response.
This parliament has been too slow to recognise loneliness as what it is: a national crisis requiring a national response. That so many Australians of all backgrounds and in all circumstances feel lonely is something we should care about. That we now know that this loneliness affects them and us as a society so significantly means the time has arrived for action. Governments in other countries have been quicker to appreciate this challenge, notably the UK. This motion directly acknowledges the role of the Jo Cox Commission on loneliness in leading a national conversation, which has been particularly influential in driving community awareness and now a national strategy led by a minister in the May government.
Community organisations and civil society in Australia have been active too. The Australian loneliness report, released last November by the Australian Psychological Society and Swinburne University, makes clear that the prevalence and consequences loneliness here are consistent with troubling findings elsewhere. It's challenging reading, revealing that one in four Australians experience loneliness and that those of us who are lonely are more likely to have worse physical and mental health indicators and to experience depression than the population at large. The former US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy refers to loneliness as a growing health epidemic. He's right. Loneliness kills. It's associated with a reduction in lifespan equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes a day and greater than that of obesity. Its public health consequences go further than this, being associated with greater risks of heart disease, depression, anxiety and dementia.
This isn't all. We must also recognise the social and economic costs of loneliness, the constraints it imposes on the lives of too many Australians as an insidious scourge too often suffered in silence. In the US and the UK, efforts have been made to quantify the wider costs associated with loneliness. The figures for the health impacts are startling, with the AARP and Stanford University estimating the additional cost to Medicare as US$6.7 billion. Across the Atlantic, research conducted for the Jo Cox Commission suggests that loneliness is costing UK employers £2.5 billion per year. High loneliness amongst workers is also associated with poorer performance, while social interaction at work has been linked to higher productivity.
Since I first spoke in the parliament on loneliness, I have had the privilege of meeting with many academics and civil society organisations, many associated with the Australian Coalition to End Loneliness, who have been paving the way towards an Australia determined to beat loneliness and who recognised long before I did that there is much more we need to know if we are to put in place effective policy responses. I pay particular tribute to Dr Michelle Lim, to the Red Cross and to Relationships Australia for their work and their leadership. I note the strong recent statements of the AMA, a powerful intervention. We should heed it. I have also met with and listened to many Australians experiencing loneliness. Their stories demand a response, for us to give voice in this place to their concerns and to start the work of answering them. At a time when faith in politics is waning, that there has been a call to action is heartening—a reminder that Australians can still see their concerns being addressed through our work here.
I'm pleased that this motion is being debated and that it proceeds in a bipartisan manner. I thank the member for Berowra for seconding it and look forward to his contribution. This should be a bipartisan concern. Loneliness does not discriminate. It affects all of us and diminishes us all. We can, should and must work together to raise awareness, end stigma and develop a better understanding of precisely who loneliness effects in Australia, how and why so that we can then put in place effective responses, together with civil society and concerned neighbours and friends.
This is not to say that this debate does not have a political dimension. Of course it does. I note with pride that Labor's national platform now recognises the crisis that is loneliness. I am concerned that political choices can exacerbate loneliness in terms of how many are affected and how it affects them. The work of Professor Philip Alston, UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, points at the implications of inequality and austerity in the UK, the context in which loneliness rates have soared. I suspect too that political choices will bear on how we reduce those rates. This is an important political debate, but one that rests on us agreeing that it's a debate worth having. Today's motion does that, I think. It presents a foundation on which we can build. I look forward to this debate and to a time when how we respond to loneliness in Australian politics is equivalent to its impact on the lives of Australians.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I call for a seconder for the motion.
Mr Leeser: I second the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Berowra.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (18:19): I was honoured when the member for Scullin asked me to second this motion that he has moved today, and I suspect that part of the reason he asked me to second this motion was the work that I've been doing in suicide prevention. In particular, in my maiden speech, I noted that one of things that I wanted to do in this place was to try and pierce the loneliness and the blackness that many people who are contemplating taking their own lives feel. And I have been interested, as he has, in the developments in Britain on this subject.
While the member for Scullin and I agree that loneliness is a major issue of concern in our society today, as we come from different political traditions we perhaps have different ways that we might address it. I always baulk when UN human rights rapporteurs are mentioned on anything; it's not something that I want to touch in any way, shape or form. But that's not to take away from the importance of the issue that's raised, generally.
We live in a world where, technologically, we are much more connected today than we were at any time in our past. I can see my son, who's 10 months old, every day on FaceTime. That's a wonderful thing that previous generations of parliamentarians, who were separated from their own children by virtue of the work that we do here, would not have had. And, while we can have thousands and thousands of friends and followers on Facebook and social media, and while we can have the freedom to travel that they didn't in previous generations, those deep relationships or friendships which formed the bedrock of our societies for generations have frayed.
Perhaps the difference in our political traditions may well indicate a different response to the issue of loneliness. Sometimes, those opposite would prefer for government to intervene and correct some failures in the market here, whereas I think those on our side are more likely to look to our prepolitical institutions—things like churches and Scouting groups and service clubs and sports clubs and the like—to bolster the fight against loneliness. In fairness, many of those organisations which had their heyday in the middle of last century have struggled, as we have become a more atomised society, to reach out to the most marginalised in our community, and their memberships have struggled and they've declined over time.
In 2007, a national survey of mental health and wellbeing was conducted. People were found to be twice as likely to have a mental health issue that went for more than 12 months if they didn't have family members or friends to rely on or confide in. In fact, having no contact with friends, you are more than twice as likely to have a mental health disorder of that type.
Too many of us are living lonely and isolated lives. Many of us think of the shocking stories that we hear from time to time about elderly women whose bodies are found. I think of the story of Natalie Wood, who'd lost contact with the outside world; eight years after she had died, she was found in her apartment. Eight years! That's an extraordinary thing. Why? Because she was a disconnected person—completely lonely. She fell in her home and died not long after. Her family, having had an argument with her, assumed that she was just unhappy with them and didn't want to contact her, so they never reached out. The neighbours assumed the home had been abandoned, so they never knocked. This is a symptom of the society that we live in today.
What some of the research that Michelle Lim and others have done reminds us is that loneliness is not just a problem for older isolated people; it's actually a problem that affects younger people—younger people moving to cities and doing work where they can be surrounded by people all day but have no genuine deep human connections. One of the things that I think generally helps build human connections is to try and find activities that, instead of doing face-to-face, we can do side-by-side. It is the shared nature of being in an activity and the shared interests—often, the shared struggle of trying to build something or create something—that help build the bonds of friendship. And I think we need to find more ways to empower community organisations to do just that sort of thing.
I note that the May government in Britain has created a minister for loneliness. I think we need to see how that particular proposal works out before we decide that that solution is the right solution for this country, but I have been interested to see that they will be receiving reports on the status of loneliness and the development of policy at a government level to work out what one can do to better combat these issues. Again, I commend the member for Scullin. This is a really important issue that he has raised, and I'm pleased to second and support this motion in the House today.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (18:24): I rise to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Scullin. I thank him for doing so, and the member for Berowra for supporting it in such a helpful way.
I'm proud to support this motion. In doing so, I also pay tribute to the work of the late British MP, the magnificent Mrs Jo Cox. Before her murder by a right-wing extremist, Jo worked tirelessly for her constituents in the north of England and was particularly concerned about the high incidence in her community of loneliness and isolation. The Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness was set up to tackle this problem.
I have been personally inspired by Jo's work and her legacy. I took her example and implemented my own grassroots campaign in my electorate of Moreton to practically combat the growing epidemic of social isolation and loneliness. My campaign, on a practical level, was called 'Say G'day in May', and I rolled it out last year. I spent six days walking the length and breadth of my electorate and walked over 60 kilometres in total, from Eight Mile Plains to Sunnybank, Tarragindi to Salisbury, Moorooka to Acacia Ridge, Yeronga to Moorooka, Tennyson to Oxley, and Kuraby to Sunnybank, on different days.
The aim of my 'Say G'day in May' campaign was to encourage people in my electorate to engage with their local community groups. I asked locals to come and walk with me and talk with me, meet with me at one of the stops along the way to have a coffee or come to a local community group. And they did, to dance—they showed me how to dance—to paint, to chat and to do all these different activities that they do; to build things in men's sheds, and all sorts of things. I connected people with local walking groups and other community groups—whatever piqued their interest and suited their time of life.
After the six days of walking and talking, I then pulled it all together to hold a community showcase event, asking every community group in my electorate to come along and have a stall to display their wares. It was an overwhelming success. New connections were made, and new members joined these community groups. The community groups loved the opportunity to connect with individuals and with the other groups; there was cross-pollination.
I'm continually asked whether there will be another 'Say G'day in May' this year. Unfortunately, I think there's something else happening in May this year, so I might have to do something else—maybe a 'Say Hi in July', if I'm re-elected! I believe that tackling social isolation and loneliness is best done from the ground up. Some great work has been done to try to understand just how much social isolation and loneliness impacts on the lives of Australians. The member of Scullin touched on that in his speech, as did the member for Berowra.
As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Red Cross group, I've worked closely with the Red Cross for many years now. They're doing some great work in the loneliness space. The Red Cross, in partnership with Swinburne University, has presented research findings revealing that the impact of loneliness is on par with other major health risks. They report that 60 per cent of Australians report feeling lonely often. Lacking social connections carries a similar risk to smoking 15 cigarettes a day, and even exceeds the risks of inactivity and obesity. The Red Cross have launched their campaign to encourage sporting clubs to get involved. More than 4,000 people across Australia have signed up to their hashtag #beatloneliness campaign to help fight this problem affecting more than half of the Australian population.
Relationships Australia have also done work in this area. They released their findings in September, finding that: one in 10 Australians lack social support; one in six experience emotional loneliness—that is, they don't have a sufficient number of meaningful relationships in their lives to sustain and nurture them, particularly through difficult times; poverty, unemployment and poor relationships are significantly associated with loneliness; and, not surprisingly, lonely people make greater use of our health system. None of these findings are surprising.
Relationships Australia are using their Neighbour Day this year to highlight the problem. The 2019 theme for Neighbour Day is, 'Loneliness—what neighbours can do to create connections'. Relationships Australia believes:
… it is critical that we reinvigorate our communities, get people to connect with their neighbours and, in doing so, drive a dent in loneliness.
I encourage everyone to support these great grassroots initiatives by the Red Cross and Relationships Australia. They are leading the way in combatting social isolation and loneliness—so that great combination of some of the comments made in the member for Berowra's speech and the member for Scullin's speech; research but also the grassroots and the great things that make a civil society.
If the good people of Moreton support me at the ballot box in May, I will do my bit. I'll roll out my local campaign again—it won't be 'Say G'day in May', but maybe 'Say Hi in July' or something else. I'll again be encouraging everyone on the Southside and all the wonderful local community groups to come and get involved in that walking process to make those connections. Often, the very first step is the hardest for a lonely person to take. If someone can take them through the door of their club, they can then start a whole lifetime of connections. This is all about promoting community engagement, and it benefits everyone. Again, I thank the member for Scullin and the member for Berowra for their contributions on this motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Gee ): The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (18:29): I move:
To move—That this House:
recognises the Australian Parliament’s ongoing commitment to the global promotion of democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law;
notes with concern the existence of a policy of extrajudicial killing in the Philippines, an issue which has escalated with a nationwide drug campaign based merely on suspicion, providing police and vigilante groups with a ‘licence to kill’;
notes that Philippine Senator Leila De Lima, the former Secretary of Justice, has been a notable critic of President Rodrigo Duterte’s policy of extrajudicial killing;
notes the deteriorating plight of Senator De Lima, who since 24 February 2017 has been arbitrarily detained without trial, charged with drug related offences on the strength of untested statements of convicted drug lords, police officers and prison officials;
further notes that the conditions and circumstances of her arbitrary detention have restricted her:
freedom of movement; and
capacity to carry out her duties as an incumbent Senator of the Republic of the Philippines, including the very fundamental and critical right of a legislator to attend parliamentary hearings and cast her vote on legislative measures;
also notes that President Duterte is on record having made a number of attacks against Senator De Lima, publicly vowing to destroy her;
further notes that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the United Nations Human Rights Council, handed down a ruling in November 2018 confirming the injustice of Senator De Lima’s arrest and has recommend a number of measures be adopted by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, most notably, her immediate release; and
calls on the Australian Government to use all diplomatic measures to urge the Philippine Government to:
immediately:
release Senator De Lima from incarceration; and
remove all undue personal and work restrictions that have been placed on her;
ensure the conduct of a fair and transparent trial, consistent with the rule of law; and
permit Senator De Lima to fully discharge her office as a duly elected Senator.
Knowing that the international community, especially Members of the Australian Parliament, continue to monitor the Philippines situation, including my case, and call out the exercises of the regime, is what keeps me going and fighting.
I've decided to use the words of Senator De Lima herself when she wrote to me, highlighting the situation she faces because she's been an active voice against the excesses of the Philippines president and a voice for the need for attracting the attention of the international community to the situation in the Philippines.
I move the motion in the chamber today as we approach two years since Senator De Lima was first detained on the 24 February, 2019. Senator De Lima has been a notable critic of President Duterte's murderous war on drugs, publicly speaking out against his policy of extrajudicial executions. Extrajudicial killings have been the principal human rights concern in the Philippines, an issue which has escalated in the nationwide drug campaign. Summary and lethal justice based merely on suspicion has claimed the claimed the lives of thousands of people with some sources claiming the number could be as high as 20,000 over the last two years.
A key aspect of President Duterte's policy of extrajudicial killings is reliance on a watchlist of suspected people. These lists in effect provide the police and somehow various vigilante groups with a licence to kill. The lack of due process in police operations and the fact that these deaths are not being properly or transparently investigated is of great concern.
My trip late last year to the Philippines, where I engaged with students at De La Salle University in Manila and with various institutions in defending human rights, was particularly confronting. Despite the extreme measures employed under President Duterte's war on drugs, the fact is that all indicators show that drugs in the Philippines have actually increased.
Interestingly, there appears to be little effort in targeting those at the top end of organised crime syndicates and, notwithstanding President Duterte's close relationship with the Chinese leadership, nothing seems to have curtailed the supply of drugs or precursor chemicals into the Philippines.
Apart from the grave issues surrounding the policy of extrajudicial killings, President Duterte has also launched a crackdown on civil society, threatening to abolish the Human Rights Commission, banning news organisations that are critical of him, attacking UN envoys and, more recently, withdrawing from the International Criminal Court.
Only last week another outspoken critic of President Duterte's war on drugs Maria Ressa, a veteran journalist and CEO of the Philippines news organisation Rappler, has now also become a victim of the crackdown. Putting the issue in perspective, an emotional Ressa outside a Manila court last week said:
It's about two things: abuse of power and the weaponisation of the law. What we are seeing is death by a thousand cuts to our democracy.
In comparison to Ressa's case, the treatment of Senator De Lima is far worse. Senator De Lima, a prominent Filipino lawyer and staunch human rights defender, has been incarcerated for two years, based on trumped up and no doubt politically motivated charges. The recent UN Working Group against Arbitrary Detention carried out a thorough investigation of her situation. The working group concluded that:
Ms De Lima's deprivation of liberty resulted from her personal convictions and public statements regarding extrajudicial killings in the Philippine … the authorities have displayed an attitude towards where which can only be characterised as targeted and discriminatory.
Here in Australia, the Philippine community has made enormous contributions to the fabric of our nation. As such, we don't see events in the Philippines as impacting on people in some faraway place but rather as affecting those that we regard as extended family. Therefore I reiterate my call for fairness and decency to be afforded to the people of the Philippines and urge the government of the Philippines to release Senator De Lima from her incarceration and allow her to properly continue her work as a senator. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ): Do I have a seconder for the motion?
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (18:34): I'm seconding the motion, and I'll speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ): Thank you, Member for Goldstein—another pregnant pause, have we?
Mr TIM WILSON: It's a great privilege to rise in support of this motion and discuss these important issues raised by the member for Fowler. In fact, he and I occasionally work together, particularly on human rights challenges around the world, particularly in relation to Vietnam. It's an issue that both of us are very concerned about, as is making sure that we have a global community where people are free to stand up, exercise their voice and exercise their freedom, because freedom is not something that is gifted by a government; it is a God-given right. It is people's freedom to be able to choose how to live their lives. I don't care how they do it so long as they adhere to that old Lockean principle of doing no harm to others.
Obviously, in my former role as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, I had the great privilege of working on lots of different human rights issues, whether it was in Vietnam and speaking in the Australian embassy to bloggers holed up—against the will and wishes of the Vietnamese government—to stand up for their free speech and being able to criticise their government and for their freedom of religion or it was in Europe, speaking at an EU conference talking about the challenge around data privacy, encryption and national security laws. That was just after the Bataclan theatre attack, so it was topical and relevant. It might have been in Thailand with one arm of the United Nations, talking about the freedom of LGBTI people to live their lives freely across the world, or in the United States, particularly talking about the challenge around religion and freedom. I was very privileged to be able to represent our great nation at the launch of the Free & Equal campaign at the United Nations in New York.
This issue sits amongst a patchwork of many global human rights challenges, because one thing is that the task of advancing the cause of human rights never ends. There is always a threat to people's freedom somewhere on earth—always. That's because human beings are fallible and flawed and also because there are always people who want to use centralised power to crush people or individuals. They want to impose their will because it's easier than persuasion, reason and leadership.
When we look at challenges in our own region, particularly in countries like the Philippines, it raises an eye and a brow for many people in here because we are disturbed by the deteriorating circumstances that exist in the Philippines, particularly around the extent of arbitrary detention and limitations on freedom of movement of political officials. Also, of course, there has now been a long history of efforts by the government and the President to be able to impose their will, in some cases in horrific circumstances.
That's the basis on which I rise to support the motion and the resolution. I'm very conscious of the political sensitivities that emerge between our two countries. Of course, we try to get along with our neighbours and the countries in the region, but, if we're to be credible voices in the international community, we shouldn't be afraid of standing up either. We can't do so in isolation; we need to work with other countries in the region and partners in the region to deliver a comprehensive approach of persuasion, to work with the Philippines government to make sure that it understands its obligations not just to the international community but, more critically, to serve the best interests of the citizens of its nation.
The best way to do that is that, yes, you need to have strong laws and you need to enforce them—people should respect the rule of law; it's one of the foundations of having a proper country with a human rights framework—but a country is not built from technocrats or bureaucrats or political officials down. Mr Deputy Speaker, while I respect your great and illustrious office, we here do not run this country; it is the 25 million Australians who run this country. We merely serve them and represent them to fulfil and deliver a rule of law to enable them to live their lives. In every other country there is no difference because the contract that sits between citizens and their government is that the government is there to serve them, not to direct them or impose on them. We are not mere puppets or vehicles to achieve some centralised force or impose order on others.
We know that there are great challenges around the world. There are perpetual threats to human rights everywhere. We have to be very mindful of working with our neighbours and very constructive partners, but we also can't turn a blind eye to the reality when we see senators detained on non-bailable charges. These are serious issues. We as legislators here have to defend the right of legislators elsewhere for their freedom and to stand up for the type of country they want.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (18:41): I seek leave to make an additional contribution.
Leave granted.
Mr HAYES: I thank the member for Goldstein for his contribution. The case of Senator de Lima is a clear example of what happens when a government seeks to circumvent the rule of law. In emphasising that, the evidence against Senator de Lima consists of untested statements by convicted drug lords, police officers and prison officials. Therefore, I believe it's important that we put Senator de Lima's situation into context.
As Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, Senator de Lima investigated extrajudicial killings carried out by the Davao death squad in Davao City under the leadership of then Mayor Duterte. As secretary of justice, Senator de Lima was responsible for putting a former president and three senators behind bars and subjecting several other congressmen to criminal charges associated with corruption. Senator de Lima also authorised the raid of Bilibid prison in an effort to target a drug network that existed within that facility.
In 2016 Senator de Lima filed a motion in her parliament to conduct investigations into the extrajudicial killings that were taking place under the newly-elected President Duterte's drug policy. This was the tipping point that led to her removal as chair of the Senate committee and subjected her to trumped up charges of trading in illegal drugs, although they were subsequently changed to charges of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading—the latter causing her incarceration. Clearly, if the police are given impunity for killing people on the basis of mere suspicion to appease the president's policy, I'm sure for those in authority making a false statement would be far less onerous and, therefore, easily forthcoming.
This is what happens when you set aside the rule of law. As the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention reasoned, 'there is no explanation for this other than her exercise of the right to express such views and convictions as a human rights defender'. While it's important for leaders to show commitment where there are threats to the wellbeing of the community, such as a drug epidemic, nevertheless, actions should be proportionate, be evidence based, incorporate appropriate oversight and, most importantly, be compliant with the rule of law.
Surely an attack on human rights is an attack on our collective humanity. We must never remain silent when human rights are being attacked. Silence only encourages those who seek to undermine the human rights principles, structure and democratic institutions that underpin our societies and allow for the creation of strong and inclusive communities.
It's for this reason that we as parliamentarians and concerned members of the international community cannot afford to remain silent in the face of blatant attacks on systems of justice and really, for that matter, the rule of law itself. I reiterate my call on the Australian government to use all its diplomatic measures to urge the Philippines government to immediately release Senator De Lima and ensure that any subsequent trials that she has to face are conducted in a fair and transparent manner, consistent with the rule of law and subject to appropriate international oversight.
I believe for those of us of goodwill it is important that we work together with our neighbouring nations to ensure respect for the rule of law. What we must appreciate is that, when the rule of law is being sidelined, we are going to see the curtailment of human rights as an inevitable result. As Desmond Tutu once said, if you are neutral in situations of injustice you have chosen the side of the oppressor.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (18:46): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
Federat ion Chamber adjourned at 18:46
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(Question No. 1141)
Ms Sharkie asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 15 October 2018:
(1) How many species have been delisted from the threatened species list under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, with results broken down by reason for delisting, including taxonomic change, conservation action and new evidence showing ineligibility for listing.(2) What species have been downlisted on the threatened species list, with results broken down by reason for downlisting, including conservation action and new evidence showing ineligibility for listing.(3) What number and proportion of species on the threatened species list have not been reassessed for population size and trend since first listed.(4) What number and proportion of species have been uplisted on the threatened species list since 2000.(5) Can she advise the date by which all birds and mammals with 2020 recovery targets in the Threatened Species Strategy action plan have will have up to date recovery plans or advices in place, and what number will have recovery plans versus conservation advices.
Ms Price: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) The number of species delisted from the threatened species list under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 since it commenced on 16 July 2000 by reason for delisting are:
Reason for delisting |
Number of species |
Taxonomic change |
40 |
Conservation action |
1 |
New evidence |
117 |
Total |
167 |
Note:
The Department does not maintain data on reasons for delisting in its database. The reasons for delisting have been determined from the advice provided to the Minister by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. The main reason has been selected in cases where more than one reason applied.
Species that have been delisted and relisted immediately afterwards under a different name or in a different threat category are not included.
The statistics above may not match the data available in the publicly available report (http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publiclistchanges.pl?proc=delisted) because the report does not display species considered part of another already listed species following a taxonomic revision.
(2) The species that have been downlisted on the threatened species list due to new evidence are:
Barbarea australis (Native Wintercress)
Caladenia dienema (Windswept Spider-orchid)
Epacris barbata (Bearded Heath)
Eucalyptus beardiana (Beard's Mallee)
Hipposideros semoni (Semon's Leaf-nosed Bat)
Hypocalymma longifolium (Long-leaved Myrtle)
Phascogale calura (Red-tailed Phascogale)
Philotheca freyciana (Freycinet Waxflower)
Pterostylis ziegeleri (Grassland Greenhood)
Rhinolophus robertsi (Large-eared Horseshoe Bat)
Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus (Bare-rumped Sheath-tailed Bat)
Sagina diemensis (Tasmanian Pearlwort)
Sminthopsis douglasi (Julia Creek Dunnart)
Stenanthemum pimeleoides (Spreading Stenanthemum)
Thelymitra jonesii (Sky-blue Sun-orchid)
Species that have been downlisted from Extinct to a lower category due to rediscovery are:
Acanthocladium dockeri (Spiny Everlasting, Spiny Daisy)
Caladenia pumila (Dwarf Spider-orchid)
Eremophila vernicosa Chinnock ms. (Resinous Poverty Bush)
Euphrasia arguta
Frankenia conferta (Silky Frankenia)
Frankenia parvula (Short-leaved Frankenia)
Gyrostemon reticulatus (Net-veined Gyrostemon)
Haloragis platycarpa (Broad-fruited Haloragis)
Lepidium peregrinum (Wandering Pepper-cress)
Oberonia attenuata (Mossman Fairy Orchid)
Philotheca falcata (Sickle-leaved Waxflower)
Pimelea spinescens pubiflora (Wimmera Rice-flower)
Prasophyllum robustum (Robust Leek-orchid)
Prostanthera albohirta
Prostanthera clotteniana
Prostanthera marifolia (Seaforth Mintbush)
Pterostylis valida (Robust Greenhood)
Ptilotus pyramidatus (Pyramid Mulla-mulla)
While conservation action does improve the outlook for listed threatened species, it has not been the primary reason for downlisting a species under the EPBC Act.
Note:
The Department does not maintain data on reasons for downlisting in its database. The reasons for downlisting have been determined from the advice provided to the Minister by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. The main reason has been selected in cases where more than one reason applied.
(3) As at 12 December 2018, approximately 1722 species have not been reassessed since they were first listed. As a proportion of the current total number of listed species (1866) this is 92 per cent. This figure includes 466 taxa which were listed since the commencement of the Act.
Note:
Data on species that have been reassessed and there was no change of listed threatened category is only available for July 2006 onwards.
Four species have been reassessed twice.
(4) As at 12 December 2018, 94 species have been uplisted in the list of 1866 threatened species.
(5) Fifteen of the Threatened Species Strategy 20 mammal species currently have an up to date conservation advice or recovery plan in place guiding recovery effort. Updated conservation advices or recovery plans are in preparation for 4 species, which are due for finalisation in the first quarter of 2019. One of the mammal species is not listed as a threatened species under the EPBC Act and is not eligible to have a recovery plan or conservation advice.
Seventeen of the 20 Threatened Species Strategy bird species currently have an up to date conservation advice or recovery plan in place guiding recovery effort. Updated conservation advices or recovery plans are in preparation for 3 species, which are due for finalisation in the first quarter of 2019.
Of the 40 species, 10 will have a conservation advice, 11 will have a recovery plan, while 18 will have both a conservation advice and a recovery plan guiding recovery effort.
Diesel Fuel Rebate
(Question No. 1213)
Ms Sharkie asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 03 December 2018 ‑
(1) How many companies with annual aggregate turnover greater than $10 million accessed the diesel fuel rebate in 2017-18, and what was the total sum of these rebates.(2) Has the Government considered capping access to the diesel fuel rebate on the basis of annual aggregate turnover; if so, what were the conclusions of those considerations; if not, why not.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
1. The ATO publishes data in its annual Taxation Statistics publication on fuel tax credits by industry, which can be found at the following link: Taxation Statistics - Fuel tax data claims. The data (for the 2016-17 financial year) will be updated when the next edition of Taxation Statistics is released.
2. No, the Australian Government has not considered capping access to diesel fuel tax credits on the basis of annual aggregate turnover.
Exemptions (and later rebates) from diesel excise have been available in various forms since the 1950s. These schemes were designed to maintain competitiveness in key export industries.
Under the current system, fuel tax credits provide a rebate for fuel used in off-road vehicles for business purposes, for fuel used in machinery, plant and equipment, and for fuel used in heavy vehicles, regardless of the size or industry of the business.
This is because fuel tax credits limit interference of fuel tax on business decisions. Rebating tax paid indirectly on these business inputs encourages efficient production and investment decisions.
Australian National Contact Point
(Question No. 1214)
Ms Sharkie asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 04 December 2018 –
(1) Why does the Australian National Contact Point (AusNCP) not have a dedicated budget.(2) Does AusNCP operate as an independent body; if so, how; if not, why not.(3) How does AusNCP promote a 'whole of government' approach to business and human rights.(4) Has the Government considered redesigning AusNCP as a cross-departmental body; if so, what did those considerations conclude; if not, why not.(5) Are serious cases of maladministration by AusNCP subject to review; if so, how many have there been since its creation; if not, why not.(6) Why is it not compulsory for AusNCP to consider all complaints and issue a determination on whether there has been a breach of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises in cases where mediation has been refused or has failed.(7) Has the Government considered drafting legislation that requires Australian mining companies to report, on a project-by-project and country-by-country basis, the payments made to the governments of the countries where they operate, consistent with Canadian and United Kingdom requirements.(8) What is the Government's position on the development of an international legally binding treaty on business and human rights to address corporate abuse and globally mainstream corporate social responsibility.
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
1. In November 2018 Treasury announced its response to the 2017 Independent Review of the Australian National Contact Point (AusNCP). This included the announcement of a departmental budget allocation, for continuation of professional services and three staff within Treasury. A final budget will be determined once arrangements for an independent examiner (also announced in the response) have been settled.
2. The OECD does not require National Contact Points (NCPs) to be independent from government. Globally a variety of government, independent and multi-stakeholder structures are used to fulfil the role and responsibilities of an NCP.
Since its inception, the AusNCP has had a government only structure, with responsibilities and decisions led by a senior executive in the Treasury department and an Oversight Committee comprising government representatives from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Industry, Innovation and Science; the Attorney General; Employment and Home Affairs as well as the Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade) and the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC).
As part of its response to the 2017 Independent Review of the AusNCP Treasury will introduce an independent examiner to handle and make decisions on greivances raised with the AusNCP. An advisory body comprising both government and external members will also replace the previous, government only Oversight Committee. Treasury is currently undertaking consultation with relevant stakeholders to inform implementation of the new Independent Examiner and advisory body roles.
3. The Treasury recognises that responsibility for responsible business conduct, including human rights related matters, is shared between a number of government agencies. The current AusNCP Oversight Committee and future Advisory Body provide an ongoing forum and network for cross agency discussion of responsible business conduct. The Treasury also maintains ongoing engagement with other government agencies to support relevant initiatives including Australia's engagement in the UN Human Rights Council led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the implementation of modern slavery legislation led by the Department of Home Affairs.
4. Treasury considered many options for the structure of the AusNCP in connection with the development of a response to the 2017 Independent Review. The current and future structures of the AusNCP both include a role for representatives from relevant government departments to provide advice and input to the functioning of the AusNCP.
5. The AusNCP's handling of complaint cases may be subject to a procedural review by a senior Treasury official (previously the AusNCP Oversight Committee) or the OECD Investment Committee. As the role of the AusNCP is not legislated its operations are not subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The AusNCP's handling of the case submitted by the Human Rights Law Centre and Rights and Accountability in Development against G4S Australia Pty Ltd was subject to a review under the AusNCP's procedures and also by the OECD Investment Committee. No other cases have been subject to a review.
6. The AusNCP considers all complaints made to it under its published procedures for handling complaints and consistent with the procedural guidance contained within the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (the OECD Guidelines). The main purpose of the complaint process is to facilitate the coming together of the parties to discuss the matter and where possible agree a resolution. The OECD Guidelines do not require NCPs to make determinations on whether a breach has occurred but an NCP may do so in cases where it considers it appropriate.
7. Australia is a supporter of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which is a voluntary international standard designed to promote the open and accountable management of oil, gas and mineral resources through the disclosure of taxes and other payments made by extractive companies. Australia has established an EITI Multi-Stakeholder Group which comprises representatives from Commonwealth and state governments, civil society and industry. Whilst participation is voluntary, there has been extensive engagement by all participants. No legislative changes have been announced by the Government.
8. As articulated in the Foreign Policy White Paper, Australia is committed to a strong multilateral human rights system. We do not support a proliferation of human rights instruments. The Government considers Australia's support of international instruments on a case-by-case basis, and only when there is a clearly articulated need or gap in the existing architecture.
Australia is of the view that the UN Guiding Principles – rather than a treaty – are the appropriate mechanism for addressing business and human rights. The Guiding Principles have only been in existence for a relatively short time, and Australia's priority is to support local and international efforts to implement them.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009
(Question No. 1232)
Ms Sharkie asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, in writing, on 06 December 2018:
(1) When does the Government expect to table proposed amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009.(2) Does the Government remain committed to (a) requiring full publication of environment plans at the time they are submitted to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, and (b) formalising a public comment period on environment plans for all offshore exploration activities.(3) Will the Government ensure that environment plans for all exploration activities are published and available to the public for the purpose of the public comment period
Mr Taylor: The Minister for Resources and Northern Australia has provided the following response to the honourable member's question:
(1) In October 2018, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science released proposed draft amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 for public comment. The public comment period ended on 16 November 2018. The department is currently considering the comments received and finalising the regulatory amendments for consideration by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia.
The amendments are expected to be finalised and provided to the Federal Executive Council for approval in early 2019, before they are tabled in both houses of Parliament.
(2) The Government is currently finalising regulatory amendments which will require all environment plans to be published both on submission to and on acceptance by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA). The proposed regulatory amendments will also introduce a mandatory public comment period for all environment plans relating to exploratory drilling and seismic activities.
(3) As part of the regulatory amendments, it is proposed that a full copy of the environment plan will be published on the NOPSEMA website for the purpose of the public comment period.