The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MOTIONS
Dairy Industry
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (09:31): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) this Government is telling Australians to boycott milk produced by Australia's dairy farmers; and
(b) Australia is now the only country in the world with a Government that is telling consumers to boycott its own nation's produce; and
(2) therefore, condemns this Government for hurting Australian farmers when they are already doing it tough.
Leave not granted.
Mr FITZGIBBON: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Member for Hunter from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) this Government is telling Australians to boycott milk produced by Australia's dairy farmers; and
(b) Australia is now the only country in the world with a Government that is telling consumers to boycott its own nation's produce; and
(2) therefore, condemns this Government for hurting Australian farmers when they are already doing it tough.
I'm going to start my contribution with a quote—a quote from no less than the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in case members missed it. I quote the minister, who said:
I say to every Australian: They can also vote with their feet. They can stick it right up Coles and the big German and not go anywhere near their shops, and go and support retailers that support the dairy industry.
This is a message without precedent in Australian politics, and certainly without precedent in terms of a cabinet minister calling upon Australian consumers to boycott certain retailers—retailers who are, of course, supplied in part by Australian producers and by others in those markets. Yet have we heard an apology from the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources? No. The silence on this issue from that side is deafening.
Make no mistake about it: we will hold them to account. We will spend the next many months visiting all of their electorates, reminding their constituents that yesterday they were given an opportunity to defend their dairy farmers and their constituents, and they passed up that opportunity.
Mr Drum: The whole industry is laughing at you!
Mr FITZGIBBON: Now, I'm almost deafened by the interjections from the member for Murray. I say to the member for Murray: mate, we're coming after you. We are coming after you because your dairy farmers are asking the very obvious question: why is not our member in Canberra sticking up for us? Why is it that, when we're struggling through drought and other challenges, the member for Murray is not standing up for us?
But we won't stop with the member for Murray. All those members on the government side who lined up to vote against their dairy farmers yesterday will be getting a visit as well. My first visit will be to the member for Page, the guy who sits on the cross bench but also attends the National Party room and also attends the National Party parliamentary meetings. This is another bizarre outcome, something else I haven't seen in 23 years in this place. He goes to the crossbenchers, and he goes to the National Party room. Under that discipline, he sits on the wrong side and votes against his dairy farmers. Well, our candidate, Patrick Deegan, just can't wait for the local debates. He can't wait to make dairy the key issue.
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: There goes the Deputy Prime Minister. He has dairy farmers in his electorate too. He has dairy processing in his electorate. His electorate employs some of the 20,000 Australians who work in dairy processing. What did he do yesterday? He sat on the wrong side of the House and voted against supporting dairy farmers. He has condoned the comments of the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. He has supported the boycott of Australian dairy farmers. It's not just the member for Murray and it's not just the member for Page who will regret their actions. I will just go through a few more.
There is the member for Flynn. We have our eye on Flynn. I would have thought the member for Flynn might have joined us yesterday to support dairy farmers. No, he didn't. What about the member for Gilmore? She thinks she's all right. She thinks she's okay because she's out of this place. She knows her future in this place; there isn't one. She is going voluntarily, but that should have been exactly why she voted with us yesterday. Why was she concerned about party discipline? Why was she concerned that the Prime Minister, the bloke who sits here in question time, told her to vote against her dairy farmers? It doesn't make any sense. It was a perfect opportunity for her to stand up. But don't worry, she is being replaced by Warren Mundine, the star candidate.
Let me share with House what Warren Mundine had to say after Labor announced that we will support our dairy farmers. He talked to the South Coast Register—it was soon after I visited Milton, by the way, to talk with dairy farmers, who love Labor's policy—and he said:
I've been working with the Prime Minister's office on how we can get a proper base milk price for dairy farmers of the South Coast.
Here we go. There's a bit of a hint in this. They say one thing in Canberra and another in the electorate. Now, Warren Mundine is not here yet and won't ever be here, certainly not in this election. He might have another crack in the Senate with another party, who knows? This is what they do. They come down here, sneakily, thousands of kilometres from their electorates, and they just maintain the party line. But when they go back to their electorate, they're lions and they're supporting their dairy farmers!
By the way, I forgot this when I was talking about the member for Page: he wants to have a royal commission. He doesn't support the floor price. He wants to have a royal commission. Despite the fact that he allegedly sits as an Independent and still attends National Party's party rooms, this is the bloke who voted against a banking royal commission 26 times. But his solution for the dairy farmers, who are doing it tough today and tomorrow and have been doing it tough for years, is to have a royal commission. That, of course, is going to take a year or more at the very least. Certainly, if this government was re-elected—hopefully that's unlikely—then that royal commission would make recommendations that would never be embraced by this government, because they don't seriously support our dairy farmers.
Let me just mention a few more members. There is the member for Corangamite. Wouldn't you think that the member for Corangamite would be supporting her dairy farmers? She is a woman of great independence. She introduced the bill to phase out the live sheep trade—remember that? She is a powerful woman, really on the job and very impressive for her constituents. But guess what? She took a little pay rise as an assistant minister, a high office. Suddenly, she doesn't care about her private member's bill any more.
I hope the member for New England doesn't leave the chamber, because he is next on my list. He is the drought envoy, but he's not backing his dairy farmers. Guess what? The member for New England said an extraordinary thing yesterday. He said that I don't spend much time in my electorate. What a load of rubbish. We know who doesn't spend much time in his electorate; it's the member for New England. He now represents the people who I used to represent, and I know what they think about a floor price. These people have been asking me to reintroduce a form of regulation for the dairy industry for two decades. I know them. But what did the drought envoy do yesterday? He sat there and he voted against his local dairy farmers. That's what he did yesterday. What did he say?
Mr Joyce interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: What he's saying now is: 'There are very few of them. They don't matter.' That's what he just said. He just said, 'There are so few of them, they don't matter.' That's what the member for New England says. This is the guy the Prime Minister hand-picked to be the drought envoy. It's interesting; the media checked his travel records lately and he hasn't been doing much 'drought envoying' around the country. He hasn't been to Menindee, for example. He's doing all of his drought envoying in his own electorate because he knows he's in trouble and he knows we're coming after him. I suggest that after he voted against his own people yesterday he'll be spending some more time in his electorate.
I know I'm going to be very ably followed in this debate. My colleague will maybe mention a few more people on the other side, because the list is so long I can't possibly get through them. The key point here is: the agriculture minister has done the most extraordinary thing; he's asked Australians not to buy our local dairy farmer products. On that basis he should deeply reflect, and all those Nats over the other side who are voting against their dairy farmers should rethink or maybe think about the alternative—not being here after the next election.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (09:41): It is. I see the member for Kennedy waiting to make some contributions, so I'll keep mine short. Yesterday and today, the minister across the other side of the table accused us of base politics for sticking up for dairy farmers. It's not about politics but it is about the base. It's about their base, the base that they have deserted.
They were elected to this parliament to look after dairy farmers and the people on the land. Yesterday, they had an opportunity to stand up for them, to vote for a set of policies which would deliver some relief for dairy farmers—dairy farmers who are being crippled by drought, crushed by the retailers and deserted by the National Party. Did they vote in favour of the motion? Did they vote in favour of the policy? No, they deserted them, because they are lions in their electorate and they are absolute lambs when it comes to Canberra. They can't convince the Liberals to support decent agricultural policies.
I saw the member for Page. His electorate was named after a decent member, a decent former Prime Minister, who knew what it was to be an independent national. The member for Page thinks it's actually a good idea that we introduce a floor price, but he didn't have the courage to do it here in parliament when he had the opportunity. That's because he's a Clayton's National, not a real National, and that's why he sits over there on the crossbench.
There was the member for Gilmore. Farmers in Gilmore are destocking, and so is the Liberal Party. They've got three candidates in the field. The current member for Gilmore voted against today's proposition. The one who wants to be the new Liberal member for Gilmore is running around locally saying it's a good idea, the National Party candidate for Gilmore is saying it's a good idea, but their own member here is voting against it.
We actually have a good candidate, who comes from four generations of dairy farmers and knows how it is to struggle. If she comes here, she'll vote for the legislation which will see this policy made law. The message to the Nationals is: you can't hope one way and vote the other. You've got to back your dairy farmers.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Drought Preparation and Response) (09:43): The relevance deprivation of the member for Hunter has extended to day 2. What a stunt! It's another political stunt at the expense of farmers. You have reached a new low in your job. It should be above this. There are farmers out there doing it tough; in particular, dairy farmers.
You asked me to apologise to those supermarkets. Let me tell you right here, and let me tell Australia: I won't apologise at all. I won't say one word of apology to any supermarket. I will hold them to account. What I'm here to do is to represent agriculture. That's what you want to do, and God help agriculture if you ever get on this side of the chamber, because you don't care about agriculture because you don't understand agriculture. You are a danger to this nation. You are a danger to the agricultural sector. You are all about politics.
Ms Butler: Direct your comments through the chair—you've been here long enough to know that.
Mr LITTLEPROUD: Sorry, Mr Speaker, but I didn't want to cast that aspersion on you, because it is the member for Hunter who is an absolute disgrace in what he has been trying to bring up here over the last couple of days. Instead of standing up for the agricultural sector, he wants to play politics—when there are people in pain. In fact, I was at the Australian Dairy Conference last night, which he was absent from. He could not even be bothered to turn up. He did not even bother to go and listen to their concerns. He only wants to politicise. Yesterday he tried another cheap stunt, a cruel hoax. When these people are on the bare end of their existence, all you want to do is play games. You have belittled this parliament by using their pain for your political gain. It is a disgrace to come in and give them false hope about an instrument that you, better than anyone else, know will never succeed. In fact, the report of the ACCC—the same report that you want to quote and the same organisation you want to use—said it was not even feasible. It's an absolute disgrace!
Let me tell you what you would do by putting in this floor price. You know very well that it sets an artificial price above what consumers are prepared to pay and that you get an oversupply. Remember what happened to the wool industry? Even I'm young enough to know what happened there. Do you know how long it's taken us to fix that up? We fixed it up with the trade agreements that we put in place. That's the other thing that you're going to put at risk. The member for Hunter will be prepared to put at risk the trade agreements that we put in place, the trade agreements that he and his side of the House have decided they don't want to support. It's the tinfoil hat approach that Labor has to trade agreements that have helped agriculture grow from a $30 billion industry to a $60 billion industry and will take us to a $100 billion industry. That is about leadership, not politics. That is what people expect us to do: come into this place and lead, not play politics.
So too can I say about this harebrained scheme of putting a floor price: let me go back to when the member for Hunter was Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in 2013, when he was pushed on this. He said:
I have an open mind, but also believe the industry is best left to the markets … I'm not interested in intervening in the market, I am interested in helping the market.
But it gets worse from those opposite, who are again playing politics at the expense of dairy farmers. The Labor-led Senate Economic References Committee in 2017, led by Senator Chris Ketter, came out and said, on page 71 of its report—and this is very important; the Labor Party supported it:
… the committee does not consider that direct government intervention, either through a floor price or milk levy, is appropriate.
Why is there such a change in policy from the Labor Party? It's called political opportunism at the expense of people's agony and pain. What I would say to those opposite is: instead of coming in here and belittling this House by trying to take advantage of people's pain by making a political point, go out and sit with them. Sit at the kitchen tables like I have.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Mr LITTLEPROUD: Well, it's about time you did. It's about time you did a better job at that and at listening.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Mr LITTLEPROUD: Please come to my electorate. I need a swing to me. The reality is that this is above politics; this is way above politics. What the member for Hunter has tried to do over the last two days is bring agriculture into the mire of politics. It's a disgrace! This place is above that. I thought we were, but there's been no bipartisanship. This has just been cheap politics—cheap, tawdry politics.
And it extends even further. We saw it extended yesterday when those opposite declared they would vote against the Future Drought Fund, a $3.9 billion fund that will grow to a $5 billion fund, giving a $100 million dividend every year. What the Labor Party said yesterday is that they don't care about agriculture. What they said is: 'We'll do a rolled gold promise'—another rolled gold promise—'of giving $100 million a year.' Well, that's worth nothing because you can't be trusted. You are only here to play politics. The Labor Party has proven they can't be trusted with rolled gold promises. They're going to hand that $100 million off. They'll do it for a couple of years and then they'll go, 'Oh, we're going to take it and put it somewhere else for something more important.' You shouldn't look at your phone. You know full well you can't look me in the eye and tell me you won't do that. I'm going to legislate to make sure that that dividend goes back into the agriculture sector and continues to make the agriculture sector grow, not treat it with disdain, which is what the Labor Party has come in here and done today. They have belittled a great industry. It's an industry that is driving regional and rural Australia, yet the Labor Party has decided to play politics with it.
It's great to see the member for Watson. I'm glad the member has come. I have to acknowledge that the member for Watson is someone that has been able to reach across the political divide and solve the Murray-Darling Basin Plan instead of playing cheap political tricks with something that is so important to this nation. A drought fund that will support agriculture in regional Australia for generations to come is something that's visionary. We've spent $1.9 billion already in the here and now, keeping farmers alive, and the $5 billion, which will give a dividend every year, will make sure that we make the agriculture sector even more resilient.
I'm sorry to say that I might only have been in this parliament for 2½ years, and it may be a little unconventional for a member or a cabinet minister to call out corporate Australia. Well, bad luck. I'm going to call them out. That's my job as the Australian agriculture minister. If someone does something wrong by regional and rural Australia and by the agriculture sector, I don't care whether they're corporate or anyone else. It wouldn't hurt those opposite, every now and then, to call out their union mates, the people that support them, the unions every day. It would be great to see the Australian Labor Party call out the labour movement, but they haven't got the intestinal fortitude to do it. I'm prepared to call them out and I will call anyone out. It goes to the heart of destroying agriculture.
To those opposite: this is another disgraceful act. When we could be debating the drought future bill, we are wasting our time on another political stunt. If that is the level of contribution that you bring to this House—is that all you can bring to this? If that is the level of contribution you bring to this House—and that is what you propose to bring if you sit on that side of the chamber—then the sad thing is not only that have you belittled this place but that you will destroy regional and rural Australia. Regional and rural Australia deserve better. They deserve to get out of this political mire that you are trying to put us in. I can assure you I'll do everything can I to protect them, whether it's against you or any corporate. I will never apologise to any corporate that hurts regional or rural Australia.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (09:52): I was going to move a motion, but, with the time limited, I'm not going to do that; I'm going to speak to the member for Hunter's motion. The reintroduction of a minimum price scheme is the only way this can ever be fixed up. Seventy years ago, the founder of my party, the Country Party, got into politics by introducing a minimum price scheme. The history books read that, when a couple of blokes at the big meeting disagreed with them, he took them out the back and gave them a flogging. From then on he was called 'Black Jack' McEwen. There are a few blokes over here on this side that probably deserve the same treatment. Let me be very formal. Jeff Kennett deregulated the market and took away the arbitrated price into the Melbourne market, which destroyed the industry in Victoria. It did not destroy the industry in New South Wales and Queensland. They were subsequently deregulated. This is what arbitration does for you: on the day before we lost arbitration, we were on 59c, and on the day after we lost arbitration, we were on 41c. So how can you answer that arbitration is wrong? When the price was introduced 60 years ago, the price went up nearly 400 per cent.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr KATTER: In the wool industry when Doug Anthony, in a most controversial manner, introduced the wool scheme, the price went up within two years by 300 per cent. For those larks in this place, there's a bludgerigar here that was yelling out 'wool'. That was the last example you should ever have used, because when the wool scheme was introduced by that great man Doug Anthony, the price went up 300 per cent. When the bludgerigars on this side deregulated the wool industry, which was precipitated by you blokes, the price for wool dropped to one-third and the income to Australia dropped from $5.9 billion a year to $2.4 billion. I will repeat that: when it was deregulated—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr KATTER: The member for—I don't know his name; the bloke here with glasses. I have no idea of his name, and I ain't going to remember it because you won't be here after the election! He's saying that that was a bad thing, right? So it was a bad thing that Doug Anthony introduced it and took the price up 300 per cent and then, let me be very specific, within three years of the deregulation it fell from—I will repeat it slowly—$5.9 billion down to $2.4 billion? Sixty-four per cent of the sheep herd is gone as a result of the deregulation in this place.
In the egg industry, the price to the consumers went up and the price to the farmers went down. In the sugar industry, under deregulation, the price to the farmers went down and the price to the consumers went up. How much evidence do you want? If the honourable spokesman opposite has had a fall off his horse on the road to Damascus—I'm still in a state of shock because of his reputation for being one of the great free marketeers in this place. I'm still in shock. But if it could happen to Saint Paul, I suppose it could happen to a lesser like in this place. Now, what happened? Who got the money? In the egg industry, if the price went down to the farmers and the price went up to the consumers, the boys in the middle got $320 million. In the sugar industry, the boys in the middle got $311 million. And in the milk industry, with this great champion over here with his glasses on—he clearly doesn't use them very often because he hasn't read anything—the price went down to the farmers from 59c to 41c and it went up for the consumers from 115c to 156c. Piggy in the middle, and I use the word 'piggy' with forethought, got $1.1 thousand million of extra profit. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion moved by the member for Hunter be agreed to.
The House divided. [10:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Dairy Industry
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:07): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) it was the National Party which deregulated the dairy industry taking the farmers income from 59c a litre down to 41c a litre;
(b) at the announcement of deregulation there were over 230 dairy farmers on the Atherton Tablelands, now there are 51;
(c) neither the ALP or LNP will introduce arbitration for farmers;
(d) for supply and demand in the free market to work there must be an unlimited number of sellers and buyers; and
(e) dairy farmers in North Queensland have only one processor to sell to and in the whole of Australia effectively only two buyers of milk - the supermarket duopoly; and
(2) therefore, condemns both sides of politics in creating misery and heartache where dairy farmers are the victims of the free market 'fundamentalists' in this House.
Leave not granted.
Mr KATTER: Mr Speaker, I am not sure of the process, but I want to move it anyway—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr KATTER: by moving for a suspension of standing orders to bring forward the motion.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr Pyne: On a point of order, so that I can explain this to the member for Kennedy. While I obviously don't want to be at all disrespectful to the member for Kennedy, we just had a debate about the dairy industry, from 9.30 to 10.10 this morning, and the government has other priorities, including passing the Future Drought Fund Bill today so that farmers can get drought support. So I'm not giving leave to move the motion, because it will just delay the house for another hour or when actually we need to pass the drought fund bill today, and I thought you wanted to do that.
Mr KATTER: I think the 10 minutes I'm going to take up here are not going to stop the drought bill from going through. I take the member's point, but—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kennedy, now leave has not been granted, would need to move to suspend standing orders.
Mr KATTER: I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Kennedy from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1)notes that:
(a)it was the National Party which deregulated the dairy industry taking the farmers income from 59c a litre down to 41c a litre;
(b)at the announcement of deregulation there were over 230 dairy farmers on the Atherton Tablelands, now there are 51;
(c)neither the ALP or LNP will introduce arbitration for farmers;
(d)for supply and demand in the free market to work there must be an unlimited number of sellers and buyers; and
(e)dairy farmers in North Queensland have only one processor to sell to and in the whole of Australia effectively only two buyers of milk—the supermarket duopoly; and
(2)therefore, condemns both sides of politics in creating misery and heartache where dairy farmers are the victims of the free market 'fundamentalists' in this House.
This may sound like I'm taking up the time of the House unduly, and I take the honourable Leader of the House's comments, so I'm going to be uncharacteristically brief. But it is very, very simple. The president of our party is one of the biggest dairy farmers in Queensland. It is very simple. The reason we have to go in the direction that we are going in is that, on the day before deregulation, we were on 59c. That's not very complicated. The day after deregulation, we were on 41c. I carry the letter that was sent to all the farmers in North Queensland and I would be very surprised if it didn't go to all the farmers in Queensland and all the farmers in New South Wales. It did not go to Victoria, because Victoria had already been deregulated into the Melbourne market and all they had was the export market. I note the honourable member, one of my esteemed colleagues behind me here. Victoria wanted deregulation at that stage because they they'd already been deregulated and they felt that, if they could get across the border, they could get the 59c that the New South Welshmen were enjoying instead of the 40c they were getting in a deregulated market. That was the only reason Victoria went for it. They'd already been deregulated.
So, anyway, the deregulation proceeded and we lost a third of our income. In our area we had over 230 farms. We now have 51 farms. 'You can't blame the penguins in Antarctica.' That's a quote from the Nuremberg trials. You can't blame penguins in Antarctica; you've got to blame people on this side of the house and on that side of the House. They made the decision. So I'm not going to condemn for the purposes of politics the ALP for proposing to reinstitute arbitration. If every worker in Australia enjoys the protection of an awards system, well, thanks to the Country Party, every farmer in this nation enjoyed an awards system.
The great architects of our Country Party, Jack McEwan and Doug Anthony—Doug Anthony introduced the wool scheme. A person here—I don't mean to denigrate the man, but I was around at the time and he wasn't, I suppose. But we saw the price of wool go up 300 per cent when he introduced that scheme. When the scheme was removed, over the next three years it dropped to one-third of what it was. Oh, what a coincidence! When we introduce arbitration the Country Party way into the system, the price goes up. When we take it away, the price goes down, and I would strongly recommend to the minister to read that section of my book. He might hate me and he might even hate the book, but read the section where it gives the actual figures in the egg industry, in the milk industry and in the sugar industry.
You don't have to be Albert Einstein. I want to sue the University of Queensland for my economics course, because they told me you need an infinite number of buyers and sellers for the free market to work. Well, with Coles and Woolworths holding 93 per cent—and I'm not blaming Coles and Woolworths; they're out there to make money, that's their objective. You can't blame a bird-dog for chasing birds! But this place is here to set the rules. In this country, if you remove arbitration workers will be working for nothing. But it's infinitely worse for farmers, because there are only two people to sell food to in this country and they get 90 per cent of the market. When I went to university, it was called an 'oligopoly' and there was no free market operating.
I don't want to go on any longer. I framed that resolution before the ALP took their fall off the horse from Damascus, because it was the ALP which deregulated the wool industry. They can take full blame for the wool industry—and part of the blame for the others too, because it was ALP state governments that were in there. All I can do is to thank them; they've taken their fall from the horse to Damascus. I thank them and I move that accordingly. I support any party or group of people in this place who will give us back our right to arbitration and our right to protect ourselves against a situation where there is no free market, where there are two people to sell food to in Australia and two people to buy food from.
I don't wish to take up any more time in the House, because I think the government is entitled to help the people up north, who I represent.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Wilkie: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Drought Preparation and Response) (10:17): I acknowledge the member for Kennedy and his passion and belief, not only in the dairy industry but also in agriculture. In fact, I was up in Malanda the other day with the member for Leichhardt, and met with a number of dairy producers up there. I was listening not only to their concerns but also to what they see as opportunities.
I think that the reassuring piece of where we sit at the moment is that while there are challenges within the dairy industry there are also opportunities. I saw that from producers firsthand. That's why we, as a government, have instituted a review through the ACCC. I had that review back in April; I asked the industry to give me direction with respect to a code of conduct, to make sure that there was fairness in the marketplace. The ACCC clearly found that there was an imbalance, and this government is working towards rectifying that imbalance. We're putting in place a mandatory code of conduct. The consultation process will be completed in the next couple of weeks, and the code will commence in 2020. It's commencing in 2020 because we have to align with contracts and production cycles.
The industry supports it fully and is supportive of where we're going with respect to that. But it's also important, as the member for Kennedy has quite rightly pointed out, around the imbalance with supermarkets in the purchase not only of milk but of agricultural products, that we, as a government, give our producers, whether dairy or any other commodity, the opportunity to spread their risk and to sell their commodity, not only domestically but internationally. That's what we've done with the trade agreements that we put in place, particularly with Japan, China and Korea. And now there is the TPP-11 and also—very soon, hopefully—Indonesia. Those give us the opportunities to spread the risk for our producers and to get a better commodity price that they may not receive domestically.
We have to understand that we're a nation of 25 million people and that we produce enough food for 75 million people. So it's important that we do engage the world and embrace the world through trade. That's what this government has done, obviously, to make sure that we get better returns at the farm gate and support regional communities, and that's the journey that we'll continue on as a government. We'll make sure that we, as a government, enter into a marketplace only when there is an imbalance. That's what a good government does. It doesn't interfere in a marketplace. It'll only interfere when there's an imbalance, and that's what we're doing with the mandatory code of conduct. That's what we'll continue to do. Anything else would risk the trade agreements that we have in place not only for dairy but also for other commodities. That has benefited agriculture, taking it from a $34 billion industry some eight years ago to, now, a $60 billion industry and to one that we intend to take to $100 billion by 2030.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (10:20): I will also be very brief. Like the minister, I want to congratulate the member for Kennedy for his passion and the way he so energetically represents his constituents. He is, of course, a former member of the National Party, and it is a great shame that current members of the National Party aren't following him on some of these very, very important issues. I didn't hear what the member for Kennedy said about the wool industry; I was having a conversation with the member for Mallee about very important agriculture issues. But, certainly, the minister made a reference to the disaster that occurred in the wool industry. Of course, that was a National Party disaster, beginning with 'Black Jack' McEwen. It was Labor—
Mr Katter interjecting—
If you want to interject, I might hear you, member for Kennedy. It was the National Party that destroyed the wool industry with the reserve price scheme. And I have read Charles Massy's excellent book on the reserve price scheme and the way the government just kept buying wool in the face of falling—
Mr Katter: I'll give you a copy.
Mr FITZGIBBON: I thank the member for Kennedy; I'd be very happy to do some more reading on it. It was left to a Labor government—the Hawke government—and an agriculture minister by the name of John Kerin to clean up their mess. It's important that I tell the House that we will be—
Mr Katter: That's just the complete opposite to what happened.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Member for Kennedy, you've had good run!
Mr FITZGIBBON: It is a statement of fact that the reserve price scheme was implemented by 'Black Jack' McEwen and exercised through the Wool Corporation and the Wool Council. They kept buying wool, buying wool and buying wool while the price continued to fall, and it was left to the Labor Party to clean up the mess.
But I just want to indicate to the House that, while there are obviously some things said by the member for Kennedy that we agree with, there are a number of things that we can't agree with. We will be supporting the suspension to allow his resolution to be put to the House, but, if it gets to a vote on the motion itself, then the opposition will be seeking to amend it.
Mr JOYCE (New England) (10:22): This is an issue that is about consumer law. It's not solved by a floor price, and I will tell you why. Any floor price that is introduced for milk will obviously be assessed by our major trading partners as a government subsidy and, as such, will bring a form of possible default in the record returns that we've had in so many areas of our agricultural industries. Through this term of government, we've had record lamb prices, record mutton prices and record cattle prices. In many areas of the horticultural sector we've had record prices. Wool is at a very, very, very good price. What the Labor Party is doing today is putting all that at risk. So we should say that.
Obviously, at first blush, it is a palatable idea, but the issue that we now have is that you need to actually explain how it is that, after we put in a floor price for milk, we're not going to have, and justifiably so, every other industry coming in to ask for a floor price—a floor price for lamb, a floor price for mutton, a floor price for wool, a floor price for carrots, a floor price for plums. Everything will have a floor price. We will have lobbyists lined up outside the door and, after we're finished with a floor price for them, we'll have a floor price for small businesses in other sectors. Why not? We'll have given them the precursor to it.
They definitely have a huge problem and we definitely have to deal with it. I definitely support access to justice—absolutely. It's something we've been supporting for ages, and we got it. So much for the ineffectual National Party in the last fortnight! We've also—
Mr Katter interjecting—
Mr JOYCE: Member for Kennedy, I am empathetic to the core with you, but please listen. We must have something that gives protection to all small businesses. I entirely agree that you need multiple buyers and multiple sellers to have a market—
Mr Katter interjecting—
Mr JOYCE: but we have to have a Corporations Act that has the capacity to deal with it.
Mr Katter interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The member for Kennedy will be quiet or he will be able to go for a walk himself.
Mr JOYCE: One of the greatest ways to get the attention of the big organisation is to vest your powers. By gosh, they listen to them. But we in this parliament can't seem to get even the most minor section of the industry covered by a divestiture power, which is the power industry, which of course is another great asset. It is a huge cost for dairy; it's probably the biggest one they've got. If we can't affect the power prices and we can't convince—I'll be more bipartisan here—a greater emphasis on water infrastructure, which they need for irrigation, you're not going to solve this issue by merely a floor price. Why? Because once the big organisations—Coles and Woolies—knows there's a floor price, how will that encourage them to say: 'Great, we'll offer them any price and the government will make up the difference. That's what happened in the wool game. Let's do that again. It worked out well.' While we had the floor price on wool, we had so much wool in store that one of the honest suggestions was to burn it to try and get rid of it.
I'll just also go through the deregulation required back in, I think, 1999. The regulation for deregulation was to go through the states and then it would be funded in a support package by the federal government. You may ask where I got that from. I got it from Dairy Australia. So it is ridiculous that we are somehow going to reinvent the wheel. It most likely won't even be supported by the dairy industry. In fact, we have not had a serious report back—and I reflect to the member for Murray: they had a meeting with the Australian Dairy Industry Council, and they don't want this. So we're in the odd position where we're supporting something that even the industry doesn't want. Just believe that they know more about this issue, if you're not following it, than some voices we may hear in this debate.
What I would say to the Labor Party is that, if you go out and say you support a divestiture power, I'll be backing you. I'll be backing you, because, by gosh, Coles and Woolworths will listen to that—and, in saying that, I reckon I'll have every lobbyist in Australia knocking on my door. So let us be more sophisticated and listen to the real ways we can fix this and put to the side the gloss of something that will not only hurt milk but will hurt every agricultural industry.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:27): I won't take too much of the time of this House. I actually just want to acknowledge many of the comments of the member for New England. I have a number of dairies in my community, although the number of those farming families is shrinking day by day. Yesterday I had the great privilege to meet a young lady called Casey Treloar. Casey comes from a dairy family down on the South Coast, and her family is leaving the industry.
I agree with the member for New England: what we need is not something radical; what we need is something that exists in many countries—the USA, the UK—and which former senator Nick Xenophon was very supportive of, and that's divesture laws. We need that when we are a nation where, as the member for Kennedy said, there are just a couple of processors in the dairy industry and a couple of buyers. I would urge every member of this House to read Malcolm Knox's book. It is called Supermarket Monsters: The Price of Coles and Woolworths' Dominance.
Let me tell you: we are crippling family farmers because we are not acting with divesture laws. That's where we need to go in the next parliament. We need to make sure that we have competition and protection when the duopolies are squeezing from the very top. The ones that hurt are the farmers down the bottom. I do not want to get to a time in Australia when my children and grandchildren cannot drink Australian milk. It's the same for apples. It's the same for every horticulture industry. It's the same right across the board. We are killing family farmers because we are not acting in this place. I would urge whoever is in government in the next parliament to make sure we put front and centre divestiture laws for the protection and peace of mind for a number of industries in the farming sector.
Mr DRUM (Murray—Nationals Whip) (10:29): I understand that the government has important legislation it needs to get through, but I cannot let this debate go on without commenting. Right at the moment, the dairy industry, certainly in the Goulburn Valley, is doing it very, very tough. Primarily this is all about input costs—the cost of water, the cost of hay and the cost of electricity. What we need to do is we need to have a general conversation or inquiry into the profitability of dairy. But this is a cruel hoax against an industry that is on its knees. This is a cruel hoax that is being played out for purely political reasons by the Labor Party. I understand the member for Kennedy has ideological reasons and he fully agrees with what he is saying. However, there is no practical way that this can actually work, and the ACCC's report recently handed down effectively says that. It says that you can't have this opportunity if you only produced fresh milk. If Australia only produced fresh milk, which, I think, is produced by five per cent or six per cent of all dairy farmers and if we only sold that fresh milk in Australia, you could institute a floor price, provided the government was prepared to pick up the free fall whenever the cost of sales didn't meet the cost of production.
Yesterday, the member for Hunter actually said he wanted to set a floor price that was going to be over the price of production. Is that over the price of production right now, where input costs are high? Or is that over the cost of production from years gone by? There is no way you can set a floor price over and above. I asked the member for Hunter, 'How much are you prepared to pay to make sure you prop up this floor price?' 'We will not pay anything,' he said, 'We're not going to put any money into this.' You can't have a floor price for all those struggling farmers out there if you're not prepared to stump it up when the price of milk slips below the floor price that you create.
This is just all politics. It is cruel. It is a cruel hoax on the people who are doing it incredibly tough, people who are exiting this industry after 20 and 30 years. They're exiting because the input costs right now are too expensive for them to make money. But for you to be playing down this part is disgraceful. I'm sorry to the member for Kennedy, but what we really need is a conversation about the profitability of dairy, where we take everything into account and look at all the different commodities we actually make out of milk, because fresh milk is only five per cent or six per cent of the total milk that is produced.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:32): In the contribution made by the member for New England, he says it can't be done because it will threaten our other free trade agreements. I must remind the member, who I have great respect for, that the average support levels for farmers throughout the world is 41 per cent. They are not my figures; they are the OECD's figures in the last landmark report. Every farmer on earth gets 41 per cent of his income from the government, with two exceptions—Australia and New Zealand. Australia is 5.6 per cent. So how can these other countries argue that they should act against us when they're sitting on 40 per cent? I'm talking about the support levels in Europe and the United States, which were 39 per cent last time I looked. How can we continue to compete when they're getting 41 per cent off their government and we're getting 5.6 per cent off our government? We can't. Your argument won't work.
It was introduced when Jack McEwen came in, which was about 1935 or whatever it was, and that milk scheme was there from 1935 to 1990. I don't know how many years that is but it is a lot of years. It worked for 60 years. And the wool scheme was raised. I repeat quietly, please listen: when the scheme was introduced, the price went up 300 per cent. It's a matter of public record. When Keating undermined the scheme and then abolished it, over the next three years, it dropped down to one third. No-one cut off our trade to any country on account of this. I mean, all the free trade agreements were in place when these things occurred. We had these sorts of free trade agreements then.
I don't want to take up the time of the House because I know how busy the government is doing a lot of good things. Every agricultural industry, including cattle, was dominated by the beef agreement with the United States and Japan because the vast bulk of our exports went to those two countries and we had government-to-government agreement on the price. So even the beef industry was regulated.
The Country Party believed that if we went into the free market, we'd be eaten alive. It that was true then for the wisest men this place may have ever seen, in the form of Doug Anthony and Jack McEwen, who fought for 60 years, and the ALP. Chifley introduced the wheat scheme. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by the member for Kennedy be agreed to.
The House divided. [10:39]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
PRIVILEGE
The SPEAKER (10:46): Last Wednesday, the Manager of Opposition Business raised as a matter of privilege whether certain actions of the member for Goldstein in his capacity as Chair of the House Economics Committee constitute an improper influence with the free exercise by the committee of its authority or functions such as to amount to a contempt of the House. The specific actions the Manager of Opposition Business referred to in this regard are, firstly, the apparent organising of a public hearing of the committee at a certain place and time at the behest of a person with a vested interested in the committee's inquiry; and, secondly, the authorisation, as the chair of the committee, of a website through which people could lodge a submission to the inquiry and register to attend a public hearing of the inquiry by agreeing to be registered for a petition against the opposition's policy. The Manager of Opposition Business presented several documents of supporting information, including media articles, Hansard transcripts of committee proceedings, web page printouts and printed excerpts from audio files. I have had the opportunity to review the matter raised by the Manager of Opposition Business and the detailed supporting information that he provided.
The task for me under the standing orders is to determine two issues. The first is whether the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity. The Manager of Opposition Business noted that some of the circumstances to which he has referred had only come to light very recently. So, therefore, I do accept that it has been raised at the earliest practical opportunity. The second is whether there is a prima facie case of contempt. There is a significant hurdle in section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 as to whether a matter constitutes a contempt. To constitute a contempt, conduct needs to amount, or be intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by a committee of its authority or functions.
In considering these matters, as I and other Speakers have stated previously, it's important to recognise that the penal power of the House is significant and, as a consequence, should be exercised with restraint. I appreciate the concerns that may have been raised by the actions of the member for Goldstein, and the actions could be seen to have caused damage to the committee's reputation and the reputation of the House committee system more generally. However, I do not believe that the evidence has been presented to demonstrate the member for Goldstein's actions have prevented the committee in a fundamental way from continuing to fulfil its basic responsibilities in relation to its inquiry work. I therefore do not propose to give precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.
As I have noted, whilst I do not believe the actions of the member for Goldstein meet the test set out in section 4 of the Privileges Act, I believe his actions have not always conformed with what I see as the conventions usually observed by chairs of House committees and the practice of House committees. The particular matters I would mention include: firstly, having a private website authorised by, and with the badging of, the chair of the committee, which appeared to solicit submissions and attendees at public hearings from just one perspective; and, secondly, apparently arranging for a public hearing of the committee to coincide with the meeting of a group with an active interest in the committee's inquiry, including the possible intention to engage in protest activity at the hearing.
As members would be aware, it's quite properly the role of the committee secretariat to seek submissions to inquiries and make arrangements for public hearings on behalf of a committee. Committee members and other interested parties should be able to expect that these arrangements will be made without influence or interference. Inevitably, political views influence some of the inquiries that committees conduct, but this shouldn't mean that the committees would not approach their task open to the evidence which may be presented and with clear and proper processes. In this case, although I am satisfied there has been the potential for interference with the evidence given to committee, I have not been provided with material to demonstrate any interference has unduly prevented the committee from performing its work. If there is such evidence, for example, from members of the committee itself, I would be happy to consider the matter further.
Can I also say in relation to two other matters raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, that the handing out of party political material or the display of signs by individual members at hearings of parliamentary committees should not be tolerated by chairs. The Manager of Opposition Business also noted that the member for Goldstein had apparently failed to declare in a timely way on the Register of Members' Interests that he had been a director and shareholder of a particular company. He advised that the member for Isaacs has written to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests in respect of this matter. I will leave it to that committee to consider this issue in line with the usual practice in accordance with resolutions of the House.
The Manager of Opposition Business also raised the question of whether the member for Goldstein is in breach of standing order 231, which states, in part:
A Member may not sit on a committee if he or she has a particular direct pecuniary interest in a matter under inquiry by the committee.
House of Representatives Practice notes, on page 656 that this rule:
… has been interpreted in the very narrow sense of an interest peculiar to a particular person.
It states on that page, and the next:
If, for example, a Member were an owner of bank shares he or she would not, for that reason alone, be under any obligation to disqualify himself or herself from serving on a committee inquiring into the banking industry, as the interest would be one held in common with many other people in the community. In the first instance it is a matter for individual committee members to judge whether they may have a conflict of interest in an inquiry.
However, House of Representatives Practice also notes on page 149:
No instances have occurred in the House of a Member not sitting on a committee for the reason that he or she was pecuniarily interested.
… … …
Members have been advised to declare at committee meetings any matters, whether of pecuniary or other interest, where there may be, or may be perceived to be, a possible conflict of interest.
Can I say that I consider this to be good practice.
Finally, having mentioned the role of the committee secretariats earlier in this statement, I would like to add that it's my understanding the secretariat of the House Economics Committee has performed its role properly throughout the inquiry, acting appropriately and impartially in support of the committee's work and each of its members in accordance with the established practice.
Mr BURKE ( Watson — Manager of Opposition Business ) ( 10:54 ): on indulgence—I want to respond to thank you for the consideration. Obviously, with your recommendation that it not be given precedence there's nothing for me to move at this stage. I've raised the question in two issues. One was as a question to you, and you've also dealt with those issues in the response that you've given. The advice that you've given with respect to additional evidence and other members of the committee is something that I'll make inquiries about subsequent to this moment.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (10:54): on indulgence—I just wanted to get up and thank you for your consideration of the matter, and the fair consideration in which you have raised it, and to make it clear that the objective of this inquiry at every point is to maximise and increase the participation of Australians in their parliament and make sure that people have the opportunity to have their say.
A number of members have raised concerns about the degree of involvement from the Australian people in the pathway and the consideration of the matters before the committee. I wish to restate my commitment that this process is open. People can make submissions at aph.gov.au/economics. Anybody is entitled to attend a public hearing, as has always been the case, and we welcome people's participation. Next week, we have hearings in Western Australia and South Australia. That position stands for those, as for any other future hearings that may occur in the fair deliberation of the matter, because this issue is not about anyone but the Australian people and those who are directly impacted. It's not an inquiry about shares; it is an inquiry about tax and tax application. For those people who are either over the retirement age and/or—
The SPEAKER: I will say to the member for Goldstein that I think he's addressed the issues I had to deal with. I think he should save everything else he's saying now for other public debates.
Mr TIM WILSON: Of course. Thank you, Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar is seeking indulgence. I'm not going to grant indulgence to other members of the committee. I've dealt with the complaint with respect to the member for Goldstein. If there's a complaint forthcoming about the member for Mackellar, I'll deal with that then, and then you'll get an indulgence. We don't have a wide-ranging debate on these matters.
Mr Falinski: It was a question.
The SPEAKER: I don't take questions on the matters either. The standing orders make it very clear: questions of the Speaker are asked at the end of question time. I think I've given, can I be very frank, quite a detailed statement on how committees should conduct their inquiries and I think members on that committee should study it first.
BILLS
Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McCormack.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of The Nationals) (10:58): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australian aviation is an essential part of our economy. It links our regions to our cities, and our cities to the world.
A strong aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the regulatory system which governs it. While Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety—built on a modern regulatory framework—any regulator must continue to keep pace with the industry it regulates.
Some sectors of the general aviation industry are seeking stronger assurances that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority takes into consideration the economic and cost impacts on industry, and the relative risk environment in the different aviation sectors, when developing new aviation safety standards.
The Australian government is very conscious of the challenges faced by small business in Australia and the need to remove unnecessary costs and regulatory burden.
This government has been the champion of small business and cutting red tape.
We are committed to aviation safety being the most important consideration in safety regulation and recognise that CASA must be allowed to ensure aviation in Australia is safe and reliable.
Costs and risks are both carefully weighed by CASA when it develops aviation safety standards. The requirements behind this process are spelt out in the government's statement of expectations issued to the CASA board.
Today I introduce into the parliament a bill that incorporates those guiding principles from the government's statement of expectations into the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
The Civil Aviation Safety Amendment Bill—the bill—is in direct response to the concerns raised by the general aviation industry.
The bill will allow the government to ensure CASA continues to consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community. It will take into account the differing risks posed by those sectors when developing and promulgating legislative aviation safety standards.
It is important we continue to support an aviation industry that is dynamic and sustainable, with a regulatory system that is responsive and proportionate to risks.
The government seeks a level of regulation that maintains the safety of the system without unreasonably restricting innovation and growth.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting day
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General) (11:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
The Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 will amend the Native Title Act 1993 and the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006—known as the CATSI Act. It will do this to better support the resolution of native title claims and agreement-making around the use of native title land, and to promote the autonomy of native title groups to make decisions about their land and to resolve internal disputes.
Developed through extensive consultation with key stakeholders, the bill will implement practical and pragmatic improvements to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the native title system.
The bill will also build on the amendments made by the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Act 2017toprovide certainty around the status of important mining and exploration-related native title agreements affected by the full Federal Court of Australia's decision in the matter of McGlade v Native Title Registrar & Ors.
Background
It has now been over 25 years since the High Court of Australia's historic decision in Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) [1992] HCA 23 and the passage of the Native Title Act 1993. The native title system has entered a period of maturity, with most legal issues relating to determination of native title claims settled and native title agreement-making now a recognised and normal part of "doing business on land" in Australia.
Through the collective efforts of all parties in the native title system, significant progress has been made in resolving claims for the recognition of native title. There are now more native title determinations than active claims on foot—as of January 2019, the National Native Title Tribunal's website reports there have been 450 determinations of native title compared to 230 claim applications on foot. Native title has been determined to exist over approximately 35.8 per cent of Australia's land mass, with another 23.9 per cent subject to a native title claim.
As at January 2019, according to the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, known as ORIC, there are 195 prescribed bodies corporate—or PBCs—being the Indigenous corporations that hold native title once it has been determined, operating across Australia.
While these statistics indicate the native title legislative framework is broadly operating well, there are a number of challenges this bill seeks to address. In particular, the bill seeks to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of native title claims resolution and agreement-making, and to support the sustainable management of native title land post-determination.
The bill also supports other Australian government objectives around native title, including the aspiration to resolve all native title claims existing at June 2015 by 2025 and initiatives to activate the economic potential of land rights under the Our north, our future: white paper on developing Northern Australia.
The bill will implement a number of recommendations from recent reviews of the Native Title Act, including:
the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2015 report on Connection to country: review of the Native Title Act 1993,
the Council of Australian Government's 2015 Investigation into land administration and use, and
ORIC's 2017 Technical Review of the CATSI Act, known as the ORIC Review.
The content of the bill is also informed by feedback from stakeholders, following consultation on a number of options which were set out in a paper for native title reform released from November 2017 to February 2018. The government received over 50 submissions on the options paper and conducted over 40 stakeholder meetings across the country. Exposure draft legislation, released for public comment on 29 October 2018, was carefully developed in consultation with stakeholders across the native title system.
An expert technical advisory group convened by the government and comprised of nominees from the National Native Title Council, the National Native Title Tribunal, the Federal Court of Australia, government and industry has also provided valuable technical assistance throughout the process of developing this bill.
Key objectives
The bill will improve the native title system for all parties, including by:
supporting the capacity of native title holders through greater flexibility around internal decision-making;
streamlining claims resolution and agreement-making processes;
allowing historical extinguishment to be disregarded over areas of national, state or territory parks with the agreement of the parties;
reducing the administration for increasing the transparency and accountability of particular native title corporations, known as prescribed bodies corporate or registered native title bodies corporate, to native title holders; and
improving pathways for dispute resolution following a determination of native title.
The bill will also as a matter of urgency confirm the validity of agreements made under section 31 of the Native Title Act in light of the full Federal Court of Australia's decision in McGlade. Section 31 agreements are a particular kind of native title agreement which relate to the grant of mining and exploration rights over land which may be subject to native title, and the compulsory acquisition of native title rights.
While the government took decisive action to ensure the validity of Indigenous land use agreements through the amendments in 2017, there is a risk that the issue raised by the McGlade decision similarly affects section 31 agreements.
The validity of section 31 agreements was not confirmed as part of the 2017 amendments because stakeholders wanted more time to consider this issue and its potential impact. Following the process of extensive consultation on this bill, there is widespread native title sector support for the validation of these agreements, and the proposed validation mechanism contained in this bill.
In particular, the bill will seek to confirm the validity of section 31 agreements where not all members of the native title party (also known as the 'applicant') have entered into the agreement. McGlade held that it is necessary for all members of this group to enter into an agreement, even if a single member was unwilling or unable to sign the agreement (including because the person was deceased).
Under the proposed amendments, section 31 agreements entered into prior to the commencement of this amending bill will be validated, provided that at least one member of each relevant native title party is a party to the agreement. These amendments will provide certainty to Indigenous and non-Indigenous parties who have already concluded these agreements, including by protecting any resulting benefits and interests paid to or by the parties.
Measures in the bill
Supporting the capacity of native title holders through greater flexi bility around internal decision- making
Under the Native Title Act, the applicant is the person or group of people authorised by a native title claim group to make and manage a claim on their behalf. The applicant can also enter into native title agreements on behalf of the group where authorised to do so. The process of authorisation recognises the communal character of traditional law and custom which grounds native title, and ensures that claims are not lodged without the consent of the broader native title claim group.
The amendments in schedule 1 to the bill will implement recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission report and COAG investigation to reduce the administrative burden and give native title holders greater flexibility around setting their internal decision- making processes, to support robust decision-making structures, and to ensure the applicant is accountable to the broader claim group.
The amendments will allow the claim group to impose conditions on the authority of the applicant, which might include, for example, a condition to require the applicant to get approval from the claim group before agreeing to a consent determination or discontinuing a claim. This will allow the claim group to retain control over the management of their claim, and increase the applicant ' s accountability as the group 's appointed representative.
The amendments will allow a majority of the applicant to make decisions in relation to the management of a native title claim or entering into native title agreements, rather than requiring all members of the applicant to act together, unless the claim group requires unanimity. These amendments extend the changes to the process for entering into Indigenous land use agreements made by the 2017 amendments to all things the applicant can do under the Native Title Act, consistent with recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission's report.
Finally, the amendments will make it simpler for the claim group to replace individual members of the applicant if the member becomes too ill to perform their duties, or has pas sed away, including through pre- agreed succession-planning arrangements. This is intended to both streamline the process of replacing members of the applicant, while also supporting native title claim groups to develop their own governance structures early on in th e life of a native title claim.
Streamlining claims resolution and agreement-making processes
It's the case that, as more native title claims are determined, the focus of the system will shift to the ways in which native title holders can make agreements with other parties about the use of the land and waters that have been subject to the native title decision. The efficient and effective operation of the Native Title Act's agreement-making processes is also critical to native title claimants and holders obtaining economic benefit from native title. The amendments in schedules 2 and 4 to the bill will implement a number of technical recommendations by the COAG investigation to improve the claims resolution and agreement-making procedures under the act.
They includes amendments to expand the scope of the agreement-making and claims resolution provisions for native title corporations. 'Body corporate Indigenous land use agreements' will now be able to include areas where native title has been extinguished—until now, these circumstances have required parties to use an 'area Indigenous land use agreement', which can be more costly and time-consuming to enter into. Enabling a wider and more flexible use of 'body corporate Indigenous land use agreements' will accordingly reduce transaction costs and time frames for all parties.
The circumstances under which a native title corporation can bring a claim for compensation for extinguishment of native title will also be expanded. This will provide native title compensation claim groups with a wider range of options for bringing those proceedings.
Disregarding historical extinguishment of areas of national, state or territory parks
Schedule 3 to the bill will amend the Native Title Act to enable parties to agree to disregard the historical extinguishment of native title over an area that has been set aside or vested to preserve the natural environment, such as areas of national, state and territory parks.
The proposed measure will only operate by agreement between the parties and will ensure that any existing third party interests are appropriately recognised.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide parties with more flexibility to disregard historical extinguishment, and will allow for more opportunities for native title to be recognised over areas where important connection to country exists for traditional owners.
Increasing the transparency and accountability of prescribed bodies corpor ate to the native title holders
Native title corporations manage native title rights on behalf of the native title holders. This role is an important one for the community and for land management generally. Unlike other corporations, these bodies have obligations to the native title holders, who may or may not be members of the corporation.
The amendments in schedule 8 to the bill include measures to improve the transparency, accountability and governance around the decisions that native title corporations make, with a particular focus on membership.
The amendments will remove the discretion of directors to refuse membership where an applicant meets the eligibility requirements and has applied for membership in the required manner, and will require native title corporations to align their membership criteria with the native title determination. The reforms also limit the grounds for cancelling membership to those provided for under the CATSI Act. These measures will assist to prevent the corporations from arbitrarily acting to exclude native title holders from membership and to ensure that all native title holders may be represented in a corporation, directly or indirectly.
Improving pathways for dispute resolution following a determination of native title
According to statistics held by ORIC, native title corporations are subject to a relatively large number of disputes about how the corporation is managing the native title. This is perhaps not surprising given the early stage of development of many of the corporations and the responsibilities of the PBC under both Australian and traditional law.
Native title disputes, in particular between native title corporations and native title holders, impact on corporation governance and the ability of the corporations to fulfil their obligations. Disputes also impact the ability of native title holders to exercise their native title rights. This package of reforms aims to improve the way that disputes are handled in future.
The amendments in schedule 8 to the bill require native title corporations to include a process in their rule books for resolving disputes with native title holders. Currently rule books are only required to include a dispute resolution clause relating to the internal operation of the corporation. This reform ensures corporations have procedures to address disputes with native title holders, whether or not they are members of the corporation, and aims to resolve disputes early and internally, before the corporation needs to obtain costly legal advice or the dispute escalates. The process would be designed by the corporation to meet their needs and circumstances.
The amendments clarify that the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations may place a native title corporation under special administration where it has seriously or repeatedly failed to comply with its obligations under the native title legislation. Examples of this conduct may include failing to consult with and obtain the consent of native title holders for certain decisions or failing to act in accordance with the directions of native title holders where there is a significant consequence for native title holders.
To further support dispute resolution pathways, the bill introduces a new requirement that certain matters arising under the CATSI Act that relate to native title corporations must be instituted in the Federal Court. This reform recognises the specialist expertise of the Federal Court to resolve disputes relating to native title.
In addition, schedule 7 to the bill will provide the National Native Title Tribunal with a new function to provide direct assistance to native title corporations and native title holders to promote agreement about native title related issues. Under the current law, the tribunal can only provide assistance in relation to intra-Indigenous disputes when invited by a native title representative body or service provider to do so. The function is designed to provide the tribunal with flexibility in how it is performed, but is broad enough to allow the tribunal to provide assistance to native title corporations and holders around the establishment of governance processes, around the mediation of disputes and to facilitate collaboration between native title corporations.
Conclusion
Despite significant progress, there is scope for reforming the native title system to improve the recognition and management of native titl e rights and traditional lands.
These amendments demonstrate the Australian government ' s commitment to ensuring that the native title system meets the current needs of all native title stakeholders. Taken together, these amendments will improve the native title system for all parties, promoting effective native title claims resolution and agreement- making and the manag ement of native title land post- determination.
For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (11:15): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Keeping Australian communities safe from those who seek to do us harm is, and will continue to be, the Australian government's number one priority.
Since the national terrorism threat level was raised in September 2014, the government has passed 17 tranches of national security legislation, 93 people have been charged with terrorism offences and there have been 15 major counterterrorism disruption operations.
Terrorism remains a global challenge, and Australia will continue to work closely with our international partners to manage this constantly evolving threat. Even after the defeat of Islamic State on the battlefield, the issue of foreign terrorist fighters will continue to be a challenge for our national security agencies and international partners for years to come.
As our national security challenges continue to evolve, we must constantly review our legislation and capabilities to address emerging threats. We must continue to disrupt and deny terrorists the ability to undertake attacks.
The Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019 supports the government's commitment to keeping Australians safe. The bill will introduce a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) scheme to provide greater control over returning Australians of counterterrorism interest, including foreign fighters.
Since 2012, around 230 Australians have travelled to Syria or Iraq to fight with or support groups involved in the conflict. Around 100 are still active in the conflict zone, having fought for or otherwise supported Islamic extremist groups.
Following the collapse of Islamic State's territorial control, more Australians participating in or supporting the conflict are seeking to leave the conflict zone, and return to Australia. The government is determined to deal with these people as far away from our shores as is possible to ensure that if they return it is into the hands of authorities. This will enable law enforcement and security agencies to reduce the threat returnees pose to Australia.
There will be two components to the TEO scheme.
First, an Australian who is overseas may be subject to a TEO prohibiting them from returning to Australia for up to two years at a time. A TEO can be made when the minister suspects on reasonable grounds that the order would substantially assist in preventing terrorism-related activities, or if ASIO assesses the person to be a risk to security for reasons related to politically motivated violence. This component will prevent Australians of counterterrorism interest returning without warning or adequate protections in place.
Entering Australia if a TEO is in force will be a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment up to two years. It will also be an offence punishable by up to two years' imprisonment for an owner or operator of a vessel or aircraft who knowingly permits the vessel or aircraft to be used to bring such a person to Australia in breach of a TEO. This is intended to act as a deterrent to people smugglers and others in control of vessels from conspiring with and facilitating a person who is the subject of a TEO to enter Australia. The offences will not capture persons or transport service providers who bring a person into Australia, but are unaware of the fact that a TEO is in place in relation to that person. The offence does not apply where a person is being deported or extradited to Australia.
A TEO cannot be made against a person who is younger than 14 years old. If the person is between 14 and 17 years old, the minister must have regard to the protection of the community as the paramount consideration, and the best interests of the minor as a primary consideration.
A person who is the subject of a TEO could have their Australian passport cancelled by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and may not be eligible to apply for or be issued with a passport.
The second component of the TEO scheme—a return permit—will mitigate the risks to the community should an Australian of counterterrorism interest return to Australia. While a TEO is in force, a person will only be able to return to Australia with a return permit issued by the minister. This will ensure that if an Australian of counterterrorism interest does return to Australia, it is with adequate forewarning and into the hands of authorities.
Under a return permit, the minister can impose conditions to control the manner in which a person subject to a TEO may return to Australia. A condition of a return permit may prohibit a person from entering Australia for up to 12 months, and the ability to delay a person's return to Australia will enable authorities to assess the threat posed by the person and make appropriate arrangements for their return.
The permit may also specify when and how the person is to return to Australia. This will ensure the person will arrive into the hands of authorities with no surprises.
Returning to our country in breach of a return permit will be a criminal offence, punishable by two years imprisonment. Knowingly facilitating the return of a person to Australia in breach of a TEO or a return permit will be a criminal offence, punishable, again, by up to two years imprisonment. Importantly, the fault element for the offences will be knowledge. Again, the offences will not capture transport service providers who are unaware and have no knowledge of the fact a TEO or return permit condition is in place.
If the person does not return to Australia, the return permit will expire and the minister may make another TEO in relation to the person.
The bill also provides that a return permit may specify conditions with which the person must comply once in Australia. Failure to comply with a condition will constitute a criminal offence, punishable by two years imprisonment.
The conditions specified under a return permit will assist law enforcement and security agencies to monitor the whereabouts, activities and associations of a person, by requiring the person to provide timely notification to authorities. Following a period of investigation and further assessment, authorities may use other powers to address risks posed by the person, such as a control order or arrest and prosecution.
In imposing any conditions, the minister must be satisfied that such condition or conditions, taken together, are reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of preventing terrorism-related conduct. Unlike a control order, the person will not be restricted or prohibited from undertaking certain activities, appropriately reflecting the fact that the person continues to be the subject of further investigation and assessment. A return permit may be varied or revoked on application by the person, or as decided by the minister.
The bill does not permit the permanent exclusion of any person who holds Australian citizenship. The minister must issue a return permit if a person who is subject to a TEO applies, or if the person is being deported to Australia. The minister also has a discretion to issue a return permit should the minister consider it appropriate to do so.
In conclusion, this bill not only ensures Australians remain safe from threats of terror, but also enables authorities to manage the return of Australians of counterterrorism interest in cooperation with international partners. In light of the evolving terrorism threat, it is essential that Australian authorities have the ability to comprehensively plan for and manage the arrival of people returning from the conflict zone. TEOs will not only assist in this endeavour, they will also enhance agencies' ability to monitor the movements and activities of such people once they do return, to mitigate any risks they pose to fellow Australians and Australia's interests.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr GEE (Calare—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (11:24): On behalf of the Special Minister of State, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Fit-out of leased premises for the Australian Federal Police at 140 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Treatment Benefits (Special Access) Bill 2019
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr GEE (Calare—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (11:25): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treatment Benefits (Special Access) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr GEE (Calare—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (11:26): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber with an unresolved question; certified copy of the bill and schedule of the unresolved question presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Unresolved question—
That the amendment be agreed to:
(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 10), after item 4, insert:
4A At the end of section 7
Add:
(4) EFIC must not perform a function, or exercise a power, to the extent that the performance of the function or the exercise of the power relates to a project that involves, or would facilitate, the mining and export of thermal coal on a commercial scale.
(5) Without limiting subsection (4), EFIC must not perform a function, or exercise a power, to the extent that the performance of the function or the exercise of the power relates to:
(a) providing insurance or financial services or products in relation to a project that involves, or would facilitate, the mining and export of thermal coal on a commercial scale; or
(b) encouraging banks, or other financial institutions, carrying on business in Australia to finance, or assist in financing, export contracts or eligible export transactions in relation to a project that involves, or would facilitate, the mining and export of thermal coal on a commercial scale; or
(c) providing information or advice to any person regarding insurance or financial arrangements available to support the export of thermal coal on a commercial scale.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:28): Eighty per cent—that is how much of Australia's thermal coal we export overseas. Twenty per cent we use here for generating power, and we're in the process of shifting away from that to renewables. But we need a plan to deal with the 80 per cent, because the world's scientists have told us that, if we don't have a plan to get out of coal within the next 12 years, we could hit dangerous global warming tipping points as soon as 2030, in 12 years time. By the time that my daughter is 14, she may face a world where we have tipped over 1½ degrees of global warming.
So what we here in Australia can do to contribute best to that and what those in the Pacific Islands are asking us to do with all their might and all their heart is to stop exporting coal. We need a plan to stop exporting coal by 2030—to phase it out, so that we look after the communities and the workers in the mines that are reliant on it at the moment, but, at the same time, pick up other export industries, like hydrogen and make sure that Australia becomes the place that you come to if you want to run a business with clean, green, cheap renewable energy. Others may disagree with that, but that's what the science requires.
At the very least, what we should all be able to agree on is that we should not be using taxpayers' money to facilitate the export of coal from Australia. But that is exactly what the government want to do—and it is what they want Efic, the finance corporation, to do, as one of their many ways of doing it. They are keen to write out cheques to coal-fired power stations here, but we also know that they are keen to use taxpayers' money, which should go to schools and hospitals, to fund the export of coal, even if it is run and managed by a big multinational like Adani.
We know that, because, back in 2017, the trade minister secretly changed Efic's mandate by a letter, by writing to them, saying, 'We'd like you to now use taxpayers' money for coal exports, including for Adani.' We also know that last year, Efic, the Export Finance Corporation—which is the subject of this bill and this amendment—had discussions with Adani and some of the contractors and suppliers associated with Adani to talk about how they could hand over taxpayers' money to facilitate what is a ticking climate bomb in the Galilee Basin. We cannot afford to open any more new coalmines, to open up new coal basins, if we're to have a chance of staying below warming thresholds—and we certainly shouldn't be using public money to facilitate it.
The amendment that I am moving should be unobjectionable. It allows the rest of this bill regarding the Export Finance Corporation, which I understand is agreed between Labor and Liberal, to pass through. I have some concerns about this bill, and the Greens will deal with those in the Senate. This amendment doesn't take anything out of the bill; it just adds in a rider that says, 'Taxpayers' money cannot be used through the Export Finance Corporation to fund and facilitate the export of thermal coal.'
We have to pass this amendment now. We are mere weeks away from an election, and we know that this government is keen to write out cheques for coal before the election and have them cashed. We know this government is hell-bent on opening up the Adani coalmine. I hope that this amendment gets up. I hope that Labor and people on the cross bench support it, because it should be unobjectionable. But I do note that the coal industry has been up here lobbying in Canberra this week, and I do know that, since 2012, the old parties, Labor and Liberal, have taken at least $3.8 million in donations from the coal companies.
I am worried that Labor is not being clear on where it stands on coal. We know the Liberals; they're a bunch of climate deniers who should be kicked out. But we have to get some clarity on coal. If you don't have a plan to get out of coal in Australia you're not serious about tackling climate change. This amendment is very simple: do you support taxpayer funds being able to go to Adani or any of its suppliers through the Export Finance Corporation? I hope that, on this amendment, the opposition sits with some of us on the cross bench and say, 'No; not one single dollar of taxpayer money should go to funding Adani and opening up coalmines.'
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (11:33): I oppose this amendment brought to the House by the member for Melbourne. This bill to change the structure of Efic is largely based around this country's commitment to the Pacific, our neighbours, and giving Efic the ability to fund projects that enable our developing neighbours to improve their welfare and improve the economy of their nations and also provide a return to the Australian people. Efic is not a charity. Efic is a financial device that has returned a dividend to the Australian taxpayer.
But on the member for Melbourne's contribution: I know that if you're a climate warrior and you're taking the high moral ground from your ivory castle in the most altered suburb in Australia that the truth doesn't matter that much. There is nowhere in this bill about Efic funding Adani; not one bit. When the member for Melbourne comes in here it might be an idea if he just sticks to the truth and the facts, rather than trying to scare the pants off the Australian people with innuendo and untruths that have nothing to do with this bill.
He might also want to explain why, when he represents one of the most altered suburbs across Australia—in the centre of Melbourne—he wants to remove 58,000 jobs from regional Australia and why he doesn't think that people in regional Australia should have a chance to have some of the benefits and lifestyle that his constituents do in the capital cities. He might want to ponder on that, if he's going to take the high moral ground.
I strongly oppose this amendment. It's based on things that are not factual and it has nothing to do with this bill, which has bipartisan support—for obvious reasons. I oppose this amendment.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (11:36): Just briefly—I won't detain the House for too long. I hope that we hear from the opposition about their stance on whether Efic should be used to fund coal exports, because it's a crucial question.
Despite what the last speaker just said, this isn't some academic question. We know that the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment changed the Efic's mandate. He did it in secret, and he only got found out after FOIs. We know that Efic has met with Adani and suppliers—that is a matter of public record. So we are dealing with a very, very real issue here. The minister mentioned the Pacific islands. Can I say that the one thing our near neighbours are crying out to Australia for is to get serious on climate change! The one issue that is at the top of their minds is Australia's continued export of coal and the threat that we might export more of it. It is no use using Efic to help with some infrastructure in the Pacific island region if, at the same time, we're threatening those people's homes and livelihoods by making climate change worse, and that is what they're telling us. They're saying: 'Please, please! Wean yourselves off coal,' and, because it doesn't matter where the coal is burnt, 'Don't burn it at home and please don't dig up more of it and export it.'
The minister mentioned jobs. Well, there are nigh on 70,000 jobs that are dependent on a healthy Great Barrier Reef. What is going to happen to those jobs, in Queensland predominantly, when the reef has not only back-to-back bleaching but back-to-back-to-back bleaching, and when it is no longer the vibrant ecosystem that encourages people to come from all around the world? Those jobs are real jobs too. The 70,000 jobs dependent on a healthy Great Barrier Reef are real jobs.
We have to take this transition by the horns and to do it in a way that is fair to workers and to communities. That is why we are talking about a phase-out by 2030, even though some are saying it needs to happen sooner. We're saying, 'Let's do this properly.' We don't say, 'Oh well, what about the jobs in the tobacco sector?' when we talk about regulating tobacco. We accept that this product comes at a cost to community, so we regulate it. We've done it with asbestos and we can do it with other products now as well, if we have the wit and the wherewithal. So the only way to be honest, and supportive of the jobs, the workers and the communities that currently rely on this industry that is being phased out, is for the government to get serious about it.
But, at the end of the day, this is a simple amendment that says, 'No, what has happened over the last couple of years in playing footsies with Adani and their contractors through Efic now has to stop, and Efic needs a clear role of guidance.' Again, I implore the Labor Party to support this, because the Labor Party has said, correctly, that they do not support taxpayer funds going to coal. I desperately hope there's a change of government in the next few weeks or months and that this mob of climate deniers is not sitting on the government benches. But if money is being shovelled out the door that helps the Adani coalmine go ahead, then the next government is going to have to deal with it. The next government will have the capacity now to stop it by simply saying, 'No taxpayer money for coalmines through Efic.'
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Mr Willkie and Ms McGowan voting yes.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (11:46): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Report
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (11:46): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the following reports: a report, incorporating a dissenting report, of the inquiry into the review processes associated with visa cancellations made on criminal grounds; and a report, incorporating a dissenting report, of the inquiry into advocacy of the current regulation of Australian migration education agents. I seek leave to make a statement on the first report.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I am pleased to present the committee's report for its inquiry into the review processes associated with visa cancellations made on character grounds.
Before continuing, I would like to thank the secretariat, which did a fantastic job: Pauline Cullen, committee secretary; Paul Zinkel, inquiry secretary; Emma Banyer, inquiry secretary; and Tanya Pratt, office manager. They did an incredible job putting the report together and giving the committee fantastic assistance.
The inquiry was referred to the committee by the Minister for Home Affairs on 14 March 2018. It provided an opportunity to look at the role of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in conducting reviews of character cancellations made by the Department of Home Affairs.
Sections 501 and 116 of the Migration Act allow the minister, or his delegate, to cancel the visas of noncitizens who pose a threat to our community, allowing for them to be deported.
These provisions are working well to remove dangerous criminals.
In 2018 alone, according to the minister, 13 murderers, 34 rapists, 53 domestic abusers, 56 armed robbers, and 100 paedophiles had their visas cancelled under these provisions.
But sometimes the AAT steps in and overturns the government's decision. The committee heard that the AAT generally overturns about 20 per cent of the visa cancellation decisions made by delegates in the Department of Home Affairs.
Some of these noncitizens the AAT has saved from deportation have committed serious crimes. I strongly believe these decisions are not aligned with community expectations.
Australians expect that visitors to our country will obey the law. When noncitizens break the law, especially if they commit serious violent crimes, Australians expect that they will lose the right to stay here.
To improve the quality of decision-making in the AAT, this report recommends a change to the guidelines that it uses to assess appeals—the ministerial directions.
Ministerial direction 65 and ministerial direction 63 need to be revised to ensure there's a greater focus on removing violent offenders and also to provide a greater role for the victims in the appeals process.
Under the current process, an offender gets to argue his case at the AAT, but the victims of his crimes are not invited. Decision-makers in the AAT can overturn the cancellation without having any understanding of the impact this will have on victims or their families. This can lead to further trauma for victims.
The best way to ensure decision-makers take into account the impact on victims is to give them a voice. The views of victims are critical and should be one of the primary considerations in deciding if a person is allowed to remain in Australia. This is particularly true in cases where the offender may pose a risk to the victim or their family, especially in family violence matters.
I have personally heard from victims and their families how these decisions can impact on them, and I feel their frustration at being left out of the appeals process.
Recommendation 6 in this report aims to ensure that victims have a voice at the AAT.
The committee also considered the efficacy of the merits review process and found that, on the whole, merits review is efficient. We do have some concerns, however, about the amount of time taken for the department to process revocation requests. As such, the committee has made a recommendation designed to speed up this process.
Another issue that arose during the inquiry was the impact of visa cancellations on New Zealanders in Australia. The committee heard that around 50 per cent of people who've had their visa cancelled on character grounds have been New Zealand citizens.
Most New Zealand citizens have been in Australia for many years and have never taken up Australian citizenship, because there was no incentive to do so in the past.
The committee agreed that decision-makers should be able to take this into account. However, it should be a secondary consideration, and New Zealand citizens who've committed violent crimes in Australia should not expect any leniency.
The provisions contained in sections 501 and 116 of the Migration Act are vital for protecting the Australian community from noncitizens who pose a threat to Australia's safety and the security of the Australian people.
The recommendations in this report look to strengthen the visa cancellations merits review process to ensure that its outcomes meet the expectations of Australians.
Can I make a very vital point here: I've noticed the Labor members have put a dissenting report in. My view is that the victim must be heard at the AAT's appeals process. It is absolutely unfair that, for a person who has a visa and who, for instance, could have violently assaulted an Australian citizen, sexually assaulted them or breached a family violence order and caused them great grief and pain, their victim's voice is never heard at the AAT. This needs to change, and I believe it's an absolute shame and disgrace for Labor Party members not to support the victims and simply allow them to have their voice heard at the AAT.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all those who participated in the inquiry, by providing submissions and attending the public hearings.
I would also like to thank the deputy chair for her contribution to this inquiry and my committee colleagues for their efforts through this inquiry.
I commend the report to the House.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (11:53): I'm pleased to be following the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. I want to, in the very little time that I have available to me, make some points about our inquiry into the efficacy of current regulation of the Australian migration agents.
This was a wide-ranging inquiry. It was also a timely inquiry, because it's always a good thing for the parliament to review the operations and the actions of migration agents. Generally, most of us as members of parliament will receive many complaints from our constituents about all sorts of things, but one of the more common complaints from constituents is around the negative experiences they've encountered at the hands of migration agents.
This was a very good inquiry, and it was an inquiry that also looked at the education agents. This was an introduction to the inquiry that very little examination has taken place in relation to education agents and how they operate. The international education industry is Australia's third-largest export sector and the country's leading service export sector. International students studying and living in Australia contribute some $30.3 billion to the Australian economy, and that was the figure for 2017.
International students generally engage the services of an education agent for a range of reasons, including travel, and assistance with options for studying and living in Australia. Education agents are contracted by the education providers and they're often used to recruit students on behalf of that education provider. Education agents are currently not regulated in Australia. During the inquiry, the committee received representations from a number of international students with evidence that alleged education agents were operating in an unlawful and unethical manner. These issues related to enrolment status, payments of enrolment fees and the processing of enrolment fees, payments of health insurance. Other areas of serious concern, I'd have to say, went to providing advice that certain courses of study have permanent migration pathways when they did not and they do not. These courses tended to be long and financially lucrative for the education agent and possibly the registered training college involved, but they were an economic burden to the international student who had been lured here virtually under the pretence that, if they did this, this was a pathway to permanent residency in Australia.
We heard anecdotal evidence that education agents, using their overseas businesses, were attempting to circumvent Australian migration regulations. As a result, those students who had the courage—we met with some of them in Sydney—came forward to give on-record evidence. I certainly spoke to them and so did the chair off the record. When they did find the courage to speak to us and raise concerns, they told us they were more often than not threatened. They were also threatened when they wanted to change courses, education providers or leave the country. So there is a very unsavoury thing going on in this space between education agents, international students and some colleges.
Another issue that was raised with us was that education agents who were not registered were also providing immigration advice. There was a very real fear by the students who had received this advice about complaining, because, more often than not, they were afraid it would impact on their visa application. So the committee agreed to examine the need to regulate education agents. The ones that were more difficult to pin down were the ones who were operating overseas.
At the end of the day, education providers are responsible for their education agents' actions, but the committee heard significant evidence that providers were not taking any responsibility whatsoever. International students had little consumer protection, and international education regulators and education providers did not provide any assistance to students who were affected. To address this, I draw the parliament's attention to recommendations 5, 6, 7 and 8, which, we believe, are recommendations that ensure education agents meet a set of requirements, including a government authorised training course and continued professional development.
The committee has also recommended the introduction of a sanctions structure using a demerit points system. I will end here, because I know we will have the opportunity to speak at greater length to both reports when they are referred to the Federation Chamber. I, too, wish to thank the chair and all members of the committee, including the secretariat.
Report
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (11:58): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I'm pleased to present the second report in its inquiry into the efficacy of current registration regulation of Australian migration agents and education agents.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr WOOD: by leave—Again, I would like to thank the secretariat—Pauline Cullen, the committee secretary; Emma Banyer, inquiry secretary; and Tanya Pratt, office manager—for the way they conducted the inquiries and for the professionalism they have always demonstrated dealing with me and my colleagues, and I know the opposition members feel the same way.
This inquiry was also referred to the committee by the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs on 14 March 2018. The inquiry focused on two particular issues—the integrity associated with the Malaysian ETA visa holders and issues concerning migration and education agents in Australia.
Corrupt and dishonest people operating here in Australia and Malaysia are targeting Malaysians wishing to work in Australia. These individuals are exploiting Australia's visa system and exploiting visa applicants with promises of work in Australia. There are also individuals who apply for an ETA under false pretences.
The committee acknowledges that the majority of ETA holders are compliant. However, it appears from the evidence that a disproportionate amount of Malaysian ETA visa holders are using the ETA visa as a means to find a way around our visa system. The committee heard that a significant amount of Malaysian ETA visa holders, upon arrival in Australia, are applying for a protection visa, obtaining work rights and exploiting the appeals process to stay in Australia for as long as eight years.
Over the last three years, the cost to the Australian taxpayer of the appeals process has been over $46 million.
To combat this, the committee has recommended establishing a fast tracked application and merits review process for Malaysian nationals on ETA visas who apply for a protection visa. In actual fact, this will apply to all those who apply for protection on ETA visas.
Can I just make a very important point here? In 2016-17, there were 26,247 Malaysian nationals who applied for protection so that they could remain in Australia. On the court appeal, only 168 have required protection. Once lodging a protection application, they are using the court system at a cost to the Australian taxpayer of $50 million. All they want to do is stay in Australia and by the time they are finished with the appeal system it can take up to eight years.
The government inquiry made recommendations to fast track these decisions and to not go through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal but instead use the Immigration Assessment Authority, which does not hold hearings and determines decisions based on documentation and within six weeks. To me, this is a very practical way of saving taxpayers' money and solving the issues. But, instead, the Labor members have put in a dissenting report, saying they'd rather see taxpayers fork out millions of dollars and allow overstaying Malaysian nationals who've falsely applied for protection visas to continue to remain in Australia for up to eight years.
The inquiry also examined the efficacy of migration and education agents in Australia, responding to concerns from the community about actions of some migration and education agents.
The committee acknowledges that the majority of agents are professional and provide an outstanding service but evidence of misconduct and fraudulent action by registered migration agents and education agents was apparent and the impact on their victims was significant.
Throughout the inquiry process, the committee heard evidence about agents taking advantage of vulnerable consumers. Witnesses told stories of migration agents:
taking money without completing work;
failing to meet lodgement deadlines;
overcharging for the preparation of visa applications; and
giving incorrect visa information.
Victims suffered considerable financial loss as a result of misconduct and fraudulent actions by registered and unregistered migration agents. The biggest concern throughout our inquiry was always the unregistered agents.
Some education agents had provided unlawful immigration assistance to international students regarding visas, sponsorships and permanent residence—they're simply not allowed to do that—and in some cases education agents were not passing on money to education providers.
One organisation reported that they had experienced regular instances of international students who had fallen victim to education agents. A lack of regulation enables them to operate without consequences as the relevant authorities have limited powers to take any action against them.
It is important that we protect the interests of migrants and international students in our visa system who are vulnerable to exploitation such as we saw during this inquiry. We need to consider mechanisms designed to take appropriate enforcement action against agents engaged in fraudulent or misleading practices.
The following key recommendations in this report are aimed at improving consumer protection and ensuring that Australia's registered migration agents and education agents are truly world-class providers of immigration and education assistance.
The committee's key recommendations for Australia's migration agent profession include a review of the current registration requirements for migration agents and proposing that all new migration agents be required to complete a period of supervised practice.
The committee also recommends for the education industry a range of recommendations designed to maintain scrutiny and protection. The recommendations include that education providers ensure that education agents are fully qualified before entering into a written agreement and that written agreements be reviewed once a year to ensure agents have completed a suitable number of professional development activities every year.
It is vital that Australia protect the integrity of its immigration system. The recommendations in this report will help protect the integrity of our visa system and maintain its credibility.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank those who participated in the inquiry, by providing submissions and attending the public hearings. Their input and insights greatly assisted the committee in shaping the recommendations contained in the report.
I would also like to thank the deputy chair for her contribution to this inquiry and my committee colleagues for their efforts throughout the inquiry process.
I commend the report to the House.
Petitions Committee
Report
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (12:05): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, I present the committee's report entitled Your voice can change the future: inquiry into the future of petitioning in the House, together with the minutes of proceedings, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mrs WICKS: Today I present the report of the Petitions Committee for theinquiry into the future of petitioning in the House, titled Your voice can change the future.Following the successful introduction of e-petitioning, the committee has taken the opportunity to review its own role and petitioning processes more broadly.
The committee compared its practices with other parliaments in Australia and overseas. We were particularly interested in some of the innovative reforms introduced by the UK House of Commons, such as holding parliamentary debates on petitions. These reforms have improved public engagement with petitioning, and have sparked greater interest in the wider workings of the UK parliament.
Initiating debate on petitions is an action currently available to members in the House during private members' business time. The committee encourages members to take up this opportunity in future parliaments.
In addition to this current practice, the committee recommends that petitions with at least 20,000 signatures should be considered for debate during a dedicated time in the Federation Chamber. Such a change would likely stimulate further public interest in petitioning in the House.
All Australians should have the opportunity to express themselves directly to the parliament.
The recommendations in this report aim to foster further public engagement in petitioning the House.
I would like to express my thanks to the deputy chair, the member for Richmond, and also to all my colleagues on the committee for their ongoing support of petitioning in the House. On behalf of the committee, I warmly extend my thanks to the inquiry participants, who prepared submissions or gave their time to the committee. In particular, I thank the parliamentarians and staff from other jurisdictions in Australia and overseas, who shared their experiences of petitioning for the benefit of the committee's considerations. Finally, may I sincerely thank the secretariat and staff for all their support and diligence during the inquiry.
I commend this report to the House of Representatives. On behalf of the committee I thank all Australians who continue to show interest in petitioning the House.
Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue
Report
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (12:08): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, I present the committee's report entitled 2017 annual report of the Australian Taxation Office: fairness, functions and frameworks—performance review, together with the minutes of proceedings, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mr FALINSKI: I am pleased to present the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue's review of the Australian Taxation Office's 2017 annual report.
This report has a subtitle which highlights the topics of interest to the committee in this review: the ATO's fairness to taxpayers and tax professionals, and how its functions and frameworks service that core commitment.
According to the ATO's 2017 annual report, the reinvention program has delivered against the goal of improving voluntary compliance over the tax year. Tax lodgements were up again strongly—a positive outcome for the ATO.
Nevertheless the 2016–17 reporting period was a challenging one for the ATO. Prolonged IT system outages in late 2016 and early 2017 left tax professionals without service access for lengthy periods. In May 2017 the revelations of Operation Elbrus rocked ATO confidence in its internal integrity management.
Then, as the committee commenced its annual report review in March 2018, there was an acceleration of bad press as the ATO fought off allegations of systemic unfairness to small business and performance driven debt action, later televised in an ABC/Fairfax media expose in April 2018.
These developments strengthened the committee's resolve to conduct a more rigorous performance review of the ATO's progress against reinvention values and objectives—to test the ATO's annual reportage against the experience of the taxpayer in the community.
The committee's inquiry attracted 30 submissions, 18 of these from taxpayers in dispute with the ATO, as well as from tax professionals assisting them. The committee has made 37 recommendations to ensure that there is consistent agency-wide benchmarking and reportage against core reinvention commitments on fairness to taxpayers and on digital functionality.
The report also recommends for improved data disaggregation on small business debt, including on garnishees, the restructuring of the ATO's appeals, dispute resolution and compensation processes, refinement of key aspects of tax law, and improvements to the ATO's communications and information strategies.
This annual report inquiry was unusual perhaps in that it drew on events after the reporting period to scrutinise ATO reportage in its annual report after the annual report for 2017–18 had been tabled.
The committee was pleased to see that while some of the measures recommended were not met in entirety as anticipated, the committee's scrutiny process had resulted in some improvements to comparative data on debt, and in farness measurement.
The committee thanks the taxpayers, tax agents and small business representatives who participated in the inquiry. The committee is also grateful to the ANAO and the retiring Inspector-General of Taxation , Mr Ali Noroozi, for their candid advice on the deficiencies in the current reportage on the costs and benefits of the reinvention program to taxpayers.
The committee also heard from experts in governance and in our compliance system who supported the committee's view that in a digital world, it is more important than ever that the ATO listens to and is responding to the concerns of taxpayers and tax professionals.
The recommendations made in this report intend to adjust the imbalance of power perceived by taxpayers in their engagement with the ATO, and regain their trust in our tax system.
I would also mention at this time that many members of the public, even those who are tax professionals and have a deep commanding of tax law, find it very difficult to access the committee system of the parliament. Therefore, it might be worth considering what more we can do to encourage members it the community to express directly to members of this House how legislation can be improved and the practical impacts of legislation that we pass here. It was, to me, particularly noteworthy that despite the wide-scale outages at the ATO and the mass loss of income that tax agents suffered, very few either knew or were willing to stand before the parliamentary committee to tell us of how it had cost them personally and their businesses practically. Therefore, I think there is more that we can do in this regard. Having said that, the work of the committee secretariat is superlative. Their performance, as always, has been fantastic.
I commend the report to the House.
The SPEAKER: Does the chair wish to move that the House take note of the report?
Mr FALINSKI: I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The SPEAKER: The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (12:14): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER (12:15): Just before we move to government business, I just want to make a very brief statement and say a few words about the departure next week from the Department of the House of Representatives of Bronwyn Notzon-Glenn, who joins us near here in the advisers' box. Bronwyn joined the department in 2014 from the Department of the Senate and is in the unique position of being the first person to have held both the offices of the Usher of the Black Rod in the Senate and Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Representatives. Currently, Bronwyn is the clerk assistant committees. Bronwyn was, however, the Serjeant-at-Arms when I was first elected Speaker, and my transition into that role was greatly assisted through her professionalism and astute advice. I want to thank Bronwyn for her service and support to the House, to the committees, to members and to my office during her time with the department. Bronwyn, we wish you; your husband, Richard; and your baby Alexander, who was nicknamed around the corridors in the House as Baby Mace when you were Serjeant-at-Arms, all the best and, of course, all the very best to you in your new role.
BILLS
Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (12:16): I applaud the government for taking a forward-leaning position on drought mitigation by creating a future drought fund. Climate change projections indicate a permanently hotter future for Australian farmers, accompanied by more extreme droughts, and I wholeheartedly agree that steps need to be taken now to help futureproof Australia's agricultural communities. We know drought all too well in South Australia. My electorate at the end of the Murray is still recovering both environmentally and economically from the millennium drought. Sadly, I cannot say that the federal government has been forward-leaning on the management of the greatest freshwater resource our country has available to it: the Murray-Darling Basin.
The Menindee Lakes have been the latest casualty. Those who have the most to lose from alterations to the management of the river say it is all the fault of the drought. It is not all the fault of the drought. No-one has denied that the drought has contributed to this situation and it has contributed to fish kills. However, some of those fish were 80 years of age, and we know we've had many, many droughts since then.
Ultimately, there is one fundamental challenge to the management of the Murray-Darling river system that our country leaders are yet to accept and acknowledge: more water is needed for environmental flows to keep the Murray-Darling River alive. Along with a historic cycle of droughts on this continent, political leadership is creating a man-made drought through poor management exacerbated by climate change. If the river dies, all of the crops, the fish and, ultimately, the communities will die as well.
Sadly, I do not mean this figuratively. We know the mental health toll the drought takes upon rural communities. It is an issue I investigated with my private member's bill on rural finance reform that sought to create a level playing field between the banks and farmers in times of financial hardship. The report of the Australian Academy of Science on the recent Menindee Lakes fish kills is impeccable and yet another canary in the coalmine in the ailing health and dwindling resilience of our Murray-Darling river system. If only science was actually used to guide our decisions on the river's management and not just politics, we wouldn't be where we are today. It is illuminating which groups have come out attacking the report of the Australian Academy of Science.
The Australian Academy of Science concludes that it is unusual to see fish kills on this scale. Over a million dead fish have been killed in the Murray, and that is not remotely normal. Something is seriously wrong. Their report concludes:
The root cause of the fish kills is that there is not enough water in the Darling system to avoid catastrophic decline of condition through dry periods.
There is not enough water. Remember that our country is no stranger to drought, and yet the report concludes that too much water has been taken out of the system. There are eight headline recommendations in the report and the top recommendation is to:
… take urgent steps to ensure that there is sufficient flow—considering both quality and quantity of water—in the Darling River to prevent stratification and blue-green algal blooms.
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is complex, and I acknowledge that these problems are hard to tackle easily.
However, there is one quick and necessary step: if we can remove the government water buyback caps, I think that will go a long way to ensuring that we can get more water in the river. Irrigators should be able to sell to who they want, and the government should be prevented from telling a participant in the market whether they can sell or not. Water buybacks are the quickest and most efficient way to safeguard regular flows and thus the livelihood of farmers and irrigators all the way along the Murray-Darling Basin.
A second, longer term, but equally urgent and necessary step is to properly incorporate the effects of climate change into the hydrological modelling of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We are kidding ourselves if we think climate change will not have a drastic impact upon the delivery of the plan. If the plan does not incorporate the science of climate change into its modelling, it is no real plan. We are spending much-needed money on drought resilience and on a drought fund because we realise that climate change exists and we realise that this drought will be one of many droughts, sadly, that our future Australia will experience.
Thirdly, the federal government needs to invest more in water science research. Despite being the driest inhabited continent in the world and becoming drier still, my understanding is that the government investment in water research has declined substantially in recent years. If that is correct, that is dumbfounding. I've lodged questions in writing to the relevant minister to get to the bottom of Australia's water research spending trajectory.
There is another topic I also briefly wish to discuss, which also relates to the pressure from drought and other circumstances facing farms, family farms and mum-and-dad farmers: the pressures that are exacerbated by ongoing drought. Yesterday, as I mentioned earlier in this chamber, I met with a young woman, Casey Treloar, whose family have walked away from their dairy farm in the electorate of Mayo, in my community, because they were brought to their knees financially due to years of low milk prices and rising costs. Casey's emotional Facebook video is about the plight of the dairy industry and of her family farm as she said farewell to the herd that her family had born and bred. When I spoke to Casey yesterday, she said that her dad has had these cows—he loves these cows and has hand-reared them—for 40 years. He knows every single one. Anyone who has been around dairy cows knows that every cow is different and they all have their own personality.
Casey's video has been viewed more than 1.5 million times. This means that the Australian community actually wants us to fix this. They want this place to fix the issues that our family farms are experiencing, the reasons why people are leaving dairy farms and the reasons why people are walking off the farm if they're producing horticulture. I applaud Casey for harnessing the subsequent media attention and trying to bring about change for the industry. I thank the dairy farmer advocacy group Farmer Power for not giving up the fight and bringing Casey to the parliament to plead for action.
We are running out of time. Farmer Power says that the price crunch has reached a critical point and farmers need emergency intervention. I personally don't support a floor price in milk. I think the member for New England articulated the argument quite well earlier today. We would start having floor prices in every industry. If we have one for dairy, others will then come along. But what we do need is to address the anticompetitive nature of the market that exists in Australia. I don't believe a floor price will fix the issues; however, I do believe divestiture powers will. We know that, both at processor level and at supermarket level, farmers in Australia have very few buyers and are beholden to whatever the buyer is willing to give them. I am open to a temporary levy to help our growers survive the coming years, but we need to act urgently on this in this place. We can't just wait for months. We know that many farmers, every day, contemplate leaving the farm or ending their life. We need action urgently. As I said, I believe that we need divestiture powers in this nation. We know that fines the major supermarkets have received from the ACCC in the past are considered really just part of the cost of doing business. In the end, the losers are our family farmers. We've had inquiries; we know what the problems are; now we need to act. I ask the government to urgently—urgently!—consider how we address this.
I would like to thank the member for Indi for the sensible amendments she's put forward with respect to this legislation. She has circulated those amendments and I understand that the government is supportive of them. We need to ensure that this package of money has very transparent governance arrangements around the fund, because transparency and a proper review of the drought resilience funding plans are imperative to ensuring that every dollar is spent well.
In closing, let me say I support the Future Drought Fund legislation, with the member for Indi's amendments, and I look forward to this money going to farmers in great need. I encourage anyone who cares about the Murray-Darling to read the Australian Academy of Science's report. The full title of the report is: Investigation of the causes of mass fish kills in the Menindee region NSW over the summer of 2018-2019. I seek leave to table this report.
Leave granted.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (12:27): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be put.
The House divided. [12:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (12:37): The question is this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [12:37]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (12:39): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) as circulated in my name together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute:
Commencement information |
||
Column 1 |
Column 2 |
Column 3 |
Provisions |
Commencement |
Date/Details |
1. Parts 1 and 2 |
A single day to be fixed by Proclamation. However, if the provisions do not commence within the period of 6 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent, they commence on the day after the end of that period. |
|
2. Part 3, Divisions 1 to 5 |
At the same time as the provisions covered by table item 1. |
|
3. Part 3, Division 6 |
The later of: (a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 1; and (b) the start of the day the Consolidated Revenue Fund is appropriated under another Act for the purposes of the Future Drought Fund Consultative Committee. However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur. |
|
4. Parts 4 to 6 |
At the same time as the provisions covered by table item 1. |
|
(2) Page 24 (after line 8), at the end of Division 2, add:
27A Publication of information relating to arrangements and grants
(1) The Agriculture Minister must cause the following information to be published on the Agriculture Department's website:
(a) each amount paid by the Commonwealth under a section 21 arrangement or as a section 21 grant;
(b) the total of the amounts referred to in paragraph (a);
(c) the total of the amounts payable, but not yet paid, by the Commonwealth under a section 21 arrangement or as a section 21 grant;
(d) for each section 21 arrangement or section 21 grant:
(i) the name of the person or body with whom the arrangement was made or to whom the grant was made; and
(ii) the purpose of the arrangement or grant;
(e) the date of the most recent amount paid by the Commonwealth under a section 21 arrangement or as a section 21 grant.
(2) The information published under subsection (1) must be kept up‑to‑date.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), information is up‑to‑date if it is published as soon as practicable.
(3) Clause 31, page 29 (lines 1 to 3), omit ", but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the Plan".
(4) Clause 32, page 29 (after line 18), at the end of paragraph (1) (a), add:
(iii) the final report of the Productivity Commission review relating to the previous Plan (if any); and
(5) Clause 32, page 29 (lines 21 and 22), omit "28 days", substitute "42 days".
(6) Page 29 (after line 23), at the end of Division 4, add:
32A Productivity Commission review of effectiveness of Drought Resilience Funding Plan
(1) Before the end of the period of 3 years after a Drought Resilience Funding Plan comes into force, the Minister administering the Productivity Commission Act 1998 (the Productivity Minister) must, under paragraph 6(1) (a) of that Act, refer to the Productivity Commission for inquiry the matter of the effectiveness of Part 3 of this Act:
(a) including an assessment of the effectiveness of the Drought Resilience Funding Plan; and
(b) having regard to economic, social and environmental outcomes.
(2) In referring the matter to the Productivity Commission for inquiry, the Productivity Minister must:
(a) under paragraph 11(1) (b) of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, specify that the Productivity Commission must submit its report on the inquiry to the Productivity Minister no later than 5 months before the end of the 4 year period that began when the Drought Resilience Funding Plan came into force; and
(b) under paragraph 11(1) (d) of that Act, require the Productivity Commission to make recommendations in relation to the matter.
Note: Under section 12 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, the Productivity Minister must cause a copy of the Productivity Commission's report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph 6(1) (a) of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, the matter mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is taken to be a matter relating to industry, industry development and productivity.
(7) Page 31 (after line 31), at the end of Part 3, add:
Division 6—Future Drought Fund Consultative Committee
Subdivision A—Preliminary
36A Definitions
In this Division:
Chair means the Chair of the Committee.
Committee means the Future Drought Fund Consultative Committee.
Subdivision B—Establishment of the Committee
36B Future Drought Fund Consultative Committee
A committee to be known as the Future Drought Fund Consultative Committee is established.
Subdivision C—Functions and powers of the Committee
36C Functions of the Committee
The Committee has the functions conferred on the Committee by this Subdivision.
36D Agriculture Minister must request advice from Committee about draft Drought Resilience Funding Plan
(1) In addition to the requirements of subsection 32(1), before determining a Drought Resilience Funding Plan the Agriculture Minister must:
(a) request the Committee to advise the Agriculture Minister about the draft Plan referred to in that subsection; and
(b) have regard to any advice that the Committee has given to the Agriculture Minister under this section in relation to the draft.
(2) The Committee must comply with a request under subsection (1).
(3) This section does not limit section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003.
36E Agriculture Minister must request advice from the Committee on design relating to arrangements and grants
(1) Before the Agriculture Minister first makes either an arrangement or a grant under section 21, the Agriculture Minister must request the Committee to advise the Agriculture Minister about whether the proposed design of the program of arrangements or grants to be made under that section is consistent with the Drought Resilience Funding Plan.
(2) The Committee must comply with a request under subsection (1).
36F Powers of the Committee
The Committee has power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for, or in connection with, the performance of its functions.
Subdivision D—Membership etc. of the Committee
36G Membership of the Committee
The Committee consists of the following members:
(a) a Chair;
(b) 4 other members.
36H Appointment of members of the Committee
(1) Each member of the Committee is to be appointed by the Agriculture Minister by written instrument.
Note: A member of the Committee may be reappointed, subject to subsection 36J(2): see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
(2) A member of the Committee holds office on a part‑time basis.
(3) A person must not be appointed as a member of the Committee unless the person has expertise or experience in at least 2 or more of the following areas:
(a) drought resilience measures;
(b) climate risk;
(c) the agriculture industry;
(d) rural and regional community leadership and resilience;
(e) rural and regional development;
(f) applied research;
(g) agricultural extension;
(h) economics.
(4) In appointing a person as a member of the Committee the Agriculture Minister must ensure that, as far as practicable, there is a balance of gender, knowledge and skills among members of the Committee.
36J Period of appointment for members of the Committee
(1) A member of the Committee holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 4 years.
(2) A person must not hold office as a member of the Committee for a total of more than 8 years.
36K Acting appointments
(1) The Agriculture Minister may appoint a member of the Committee (other than the Chair) to act as the Chair:
(a) during a vacancy in the office of the Chair (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or
(b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Chair:
(i) is absent from duty or from Australia; or
(ii) is for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.
(2) The Agriculture Minister may appoint a person to act as a member of the Committee (other than the Chair):
(a) during a vacancy in the office of a member (other than the Chair), whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or
(b) during any period, or during all periods, when a member (other than the Chair):
(i) is absent from duty or from Australia; or
(ii) is for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.
(3) A person is not eligible for appointment under subsection (2) unless the person is eligible for appointment as a member of the Committee.
36M Remuneration
(1) A member of the Committee is to be paid, by the Commonwealth, the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, a member of the Committee is to be paid, by the Commonwealth, the remuneration that is prescribed by the rules.
(2) A member of the Committee is to be paid, by the Commonwealth, the allowances that are prescribed by the rules.
(3) Subsections 7(9) and (13) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 do not apply in relation to the office of member of the Committee.
Note: The effect of this subsection is that remuneration or allowances of the member will be paid out of money appropriated by the Parliament by an Act other than the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.
(4) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (except as provided by subsection (3)).
36N Disclosure of interests to the Agriculture Minister
A member of the Committee must give written notice to the Agriculture Minister of all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the member has or acquires and that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the member's functions.
36P Outside work
A member of the Committee must not engage in any paid work that conflicts or may conflict with the proper performance of his or her duties.
36Q Leave of absence
(1) The Agriculture Minister may grant leave of absence to the Chair of the Committee on the terms and conditions that the Agriculture Minister determines.
(2) The Chair of the Committee may grant leave of absence to a member of the Committee (other than the Chair) on the terms and conditions that the Chair determines.
36R Resignation
(1) A member of the Committee may resign his or her appointment by giving the Agriculture Minister a written resignation.
(2) The resignation takes effect on the day it is received by the Agriculture Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day.
36S Termination of appointment
(1) The Agriculture Minister may terminate the appointment of a member of the Committee if the member is unable to perform the duties of his or her office because of physical or mental incapacity.
(2) The Agriculture Minister may terminate the appointment of a member of the Committee if:
(a) the member:
(i) becomes bankrupt; or
(ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or
(iii) compounds with his or her creditors; or
(iv) makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of his or her creditors; or
(b) the member fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 36N; or
(c) the member engages in paid work that conflicts or may conflict with the proper performance of his or her duties (see section 36P); or
(d) the member is absent, except on leave of absence, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Committee.
36T Other terms and conditions
A member of the Committee holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Agriculture Minister.
(8) Clause 63, page 46 (line 13), after "Department", insert "who has the expertise appropriate to the power".
(9) Clause 65, page 46 (line 27), before "The", insert "(1)".
(10) Clause 65, page 46 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) The responsible Ministers must cause a copy of:
(a) the terms of reference for the review; and
(b) a report of the review;
to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the tenth anniversary.
(3) The responsible Ministers must also cause a copy of the terms of reference and report to be published on the internet as soon as practicable after the tenth anniversary.
Colleagues, while I support the intent of the Future Drought Fund Bill 2018, I feel that we could make it better. The amendments I move today will ensure that the operation of the fund is more transparent, the minister is accountable to the parliament for expenditure, and good governance and proper processes are followed. The amendments pick up the concerns raised by the scrutiny of bills committee and by the Senate committee inquiry into the bill, and include improvements suggested by the National Farmers' Federation. As part of the Senate committee inquiry, the NFF raised concerns that the future plan and expenditure must incorporate the views of drought and related issue experts. The NFF recommended that the bill be amended to establish a future drought fund consultative committee. I agree.
Amendments (1) to (7) will create a future drought fund consultative committee. This committee will have five members, selected for their expertise or experience in drought resilience, climate risk, agricultural industry, rural and regional community leadership and resilience, rural and regional development, applied research, agricultural extension and economics. The appointments will be for four years with a maximum of eight years in total. There is a requirement for a balance of gender, knowledge and skills among members of the committee. The committee will have a role in providing advice to the minister at two stages: during the development, consultation and drafting of the funding plan, and during the design of arrangements and grant processes delivered on the funding plan. The amendments will mean that we will have some assurance that views of drought and related issue experts will influence the draft plan and implementation.
Amendment (5) will also extend the consultation period on the draft plan from 28 days to 42 days, or six weeks, to ensure regional communities have an opportunity to have a say. The Productivity Commission will review the drought funding plan. Under the current bill, the funding plan is to be reviewed every four years, but there's no mechanism to review the plan's effectiveness. There's no independent review of processes to improve drought resilience or effectiveness. Amendments (4) and (6) will require the Productivity Commission to review the plan before the plan is renewed, and the report is to be circulated as part of the consultation for the next plan. The review will occur as part of each four-year renewal cycle, and the Productivity Commission will be asked to review the effectiveness of the fund, having regard to economic, social and, really importantly, environmental outcomes. This is an important amendment that will provide transparency about the way the $100 million a year is spent.
There are other accountability and transparency amendments. Amendment (3) will make the funding plan a disallowable instrument, which will give the parliament an opportunity to hold the minister accountable to proper processes. Amendments (9) and (10) will require the minister to table the terms of reference and final report of the 10-yearly review of the operation of the act, providing parliament with the opportunity to review and debate the report. After passing this bill, the only point where the parliament could have had a chance to review the effectiveness of the fund would be to review the plan after 10 years of operation. But, as the bill is drafted, this report is not required to be tabled in parliament.
Colleagues, I want to say how important this money is: $100 million a year to be spent in our rural communities on long-term drought prevention. I've been absolutely delighted to work with the minister, to work with his staff, to work with Jeremy—can I name you, Jeremy? It's been a fantastic effort on this. As this is my last speech in parliament on a topic of such importance, I will say that in the six years I've been here this is the only time that the government has accepted my amendments. So, I feel like I'm leaving on a real high point, and I just want to say to the government: at long last, sense has prevailed! Listening to the crossbench gives you such dividends, because I think together we have got a much, much, much better piece of legislation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I give the call to the member for Hunter.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (12:43): I indicate that the—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My apologies. We need a seconder for the amendments. The member for Mayo?
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (12:44): I second the amendment of the member for Indi, and I—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You don't have the call, though.
Mr Pyne: The call alternates, but you haven't called our side, despite the fact that the minister was on his feet. I don't want to make a fuss about it, because I want Gai Brodtmann to get her valedictory, so—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be nice.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (12:39): I move:
That the question be put.
Mr Fitzgibbon: That's outrageous. You are kidding me.
Mr PYNE: You spend an hour wasting time on the dairy farming legislation—
Mr Fitzgibbon: We need to indicate our position.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, can I have a bit of order in the House? Can we proceed? We are wasting precious time.
Mr PYNE: I withdraw my motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (12:44): In the spirit of that somewhat impromptu agreement, I will be as brief as I possibly can. It's very important that I indicate the opposition's intentions on these amendments and on this bill. We will be supporting the member for Indi's amendments, but we will, in any case, oppose this bill. We do that because this bill is fundamentally flawed. Obviously the government has done a deal with the crossbenchers and this bill will go through the parliament, notwithstanding the fact that the opposition will oppose the bill.
We support the amendments because the amendments will improve a bad bill. They introduce some accountability into the bill and put some constraints on a National Party that is out of control. They can't fix the bill because the fundamental flaw in the bill is that it's robbing money from regional road projects to fund a drought fund. We welcome the fact that, after five years, they are prepared on the other side to embrace a long-term, sensible way of addressing drought. But if that project is worthy, it should be funded in the budget, as the opposition is committed to doing. We have an alternative plan to spend the same amount of money, but in a responsible way that is quicker and more efficient.
Ms McGowan interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: I do take the interjection from the member for Indi. I have had a great working relationship with her. I have no doubt that she comes into this place with all of the right intentions and she comes with great energy, but sadly on this occasion she has been conned by this government. What she doesn't understand is that they will now go to this election campaign and they will have that first tranche of $100 million spent in the first week. They will pick the marginal seats and they will say, 'If we do this project, this is drought resilience.' They will make the promises. I'm sorry, Member for Indi. They will make the commitments before the end of the election campaign. There will be no panel of experts making the decisions. If they win government, it will just be a tick. You have made a bad mistake. I'm sorry, Member for Indi.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:47): I rise to indicate, as well, my supports for the amendments, which do introduce some level of transparency. I must say that the member for Indi has a triumph of hope over experience in saying that the Productivity Commission is going to look at environmental outcomes—I mean, seriously. That is not what the Productivity Commission do. If you look at any of their reports on any issue, at any time, under any government, you would know that.
What you are doing, in supporting this legislation, is taking over $3 billion of infrastructure investment away. That is what you are doing. You are undermining Infrastructure Australia through the abolition of the Building Australia Fund. There is no link between the Building Australia Fund and drought resilience, just like there was no link when they tried to abolish the Building Australia Fund to fund the NDIS or to fund the privatisation of assets through the recycling scheme. This mob have hated the Building Australia Fund because it's not a slush fund. It has to be used for infrastructure that's on the priority list.
I say to the honourable members who have approached me about infrastructure commitments that you've just reduced the budget by $3 billion on infrastructure if we are elected or if they are elected, for that matter. That is what you are doing with this legislation. Bear that in mind next time there's a request, because it's very clear that this is a con by the government. There is no linkage between the drought fund and infrastructure except that they both have National Party ministers. That's all it is. Michael McCormack, the Deputy Prime Minister, is so weak. He couldn't stand up to this bloke. He has allowed him to rip $3 billion out of the infrastructure investment that is there, that is protected and that is for priority projects.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Drought Preparation and Response) (12:49): The hollowness of the principles of the Australian Labor Party knows no bounds. They sit there and they say that there will be more under them. Let me tell you: there's another rolled-gold promise, another $100 million that they're going to continue to pump into it. We are legislating this money so it has to be paid. It's not at the whim of the next government, and God forbid that that might be the Australian Labor Party.
The reality is this is a sound policy with great principles. I have to admire the member for Indi for the constructive way that she has worked with my office to make sure that we do get the accountability that those opposite believe there is not, and we are going to achieve that. There have been no deals. It's been predicated on fact, on actually trying to work for the betterment of this nation, not for cheap political points that those opposite have tried to score all day on dairy and on drought. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds, so they become irrelevant to this whole debate. I say to the member for Indi: thank you for the constructive way that you have set future drought policy for this nation. It is a legacy we will leave together, and I thank you. I acknowledge that we will be supporting the amendments.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (12:51): I want to make sure that the House is very clear that the projects under this bill actually won't start until 2020, so I think we need to make sure that we are accurate in what we're saying here. I say to the member for Grayndler: with the greatest of respect, no deal has been done in relation to this. I have, in my electorate, very sadly, farmers who are taking their lives, and we do not have the drought that is in Queensland and New South Wales.
I would also like to say with respect to the amendments from the member from Indi that this shows why we have a crossbench. You have a piece of legislation, and we see it as our role to work with the government of the day to make that legislation better. That is something that has happened in the Senate for many, many years. We see that as our role here. Everyone has the right in this House to vote as they please with respect to how their constituents expect them to vote on legislation.
I would like to say that the member for Indi is leaving us in this great place, and it has been a great pleasure to work with her on these amendments. I give great respect to her for the work she's done on this. We do this as a crossbench with very limited resources. Congratulations to the member, and I look forward to this bill proceeding in the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The question now is that these amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:57]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy) (13:01): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:02): Speaker, it was day one as the newly minted member for Canberra. I'd just picked up the keys for my electorate office and I was opening it up for the very first time. I was on my own because none of my team had started yet. And as I opened the door, I heard the phone ringing. At the end of the line was a very distressed woman, a single mother, living with her three daughters in her mom's two-bedroom home, sleeping on the couch, doing it tough, desperate for a home. I got Lee a home and she is just one of the many Canberrans my team and I have helped to secure that most fundamental of needs—safe shelter. And it's those days that are the very best days of this job. Because as another single mother said to me, 'My whole life turned around once I got a house.' It's a reminder that there is no greater office in this chamber than that of local member. When I spoke for the first time in this chamber, I said:
I admire anyone who takes up the challenge of politics and who honestly tries to improve the lives of his or her people, no matter what political lights they follow.
In the end, it's about improving people's lives and, at its best, politics is about building a better community and a better nation. But politics is a contest of ideas and there is a reason why I am Labor. I come from a working-class matriarchy of single mothers, just like Lee. My great grandmother was a domestic. She brought up 13 children on her own in a house with dirt floors and paper walls. She spent her life bent over a copper, cleaning the clothes of the wealthy and she left school when she was just 11. My grandmother worked three cleaning jobs. She brought up seven children on her own in a housing commission home. She spent her life with an abiding fear that the state would take her children away because she was poor. She left school at just 13.
My mother was dragged kicking and screaming from school at 15. I'm not looking at you, Mum! She brought up my sisters and me on her own when my father left us, when I was 11, with $30 in the bank. Those early years after he left were really tough. We ate out every second night at relatives' and friends' homes. There were no school camps, and my desk was borrowed from my school—my public school. Each and every day, Mum lived with the fear that the cycle of poverty and disadvantage would continue for yet another generation. But her world and mine changed forever because of Labor.
I got a quirky but quality public education and became the first woman in my family to go to university. I got to go to university thanks to the Labor government, the Whitlam Labor government, who ensured my tertiary education was free. Thanks to Gough and with the support of friends and family and my mother's determination and tenacity, my sisters and I broke free of that cycle of disadvantage. We are living proof of the transformative powers of education. My middle sister, Meg, is Australia's first female Master of Wine and an internationally renowned winemaker. My baby sister, Amy, is an internationally acclaimed neurologist, specialising in stroke and dementia. And I am the enormously proud member for Canberra and a shadow assistant minister.
Unlike our female forebears, Meg, Amy and I have had choice and opportunity. Unlike the long line of sisters stretching back through history, we are empowered. Labor gave us education. Labor gave us universal health care. Labor gave us fertility control. That has given us financial independence that has allowed us to lead bold and fearless lives. I want that for every Australian. I want that for every Canberran. I want every Australian, I want every Canberran, to have the opportunities that we have enjoyed, even though we didn't come from wealth or privilege. Our opportunities came from the social policies of the 1970s and the 1980s. Our opportunities came from Labor.
I sought a career in politics after careers in public service and small business for many reasons—to serve and represent my community; to fight for my beloved Canberra, particularly after being one of the thousands of public servants who lost their job in the Howard government cuts of 1996; and to influence and shape public policy. Now, as I leave this place, I like to think I've achieved some of that, despite two of my three terms being in opposition. It's not a boast; it is the recognition of a great gift. I know that few get the opportunity I have had to serve, and I will be forever grateful that ACT Labor, many of whom are here today, chose me to do that on their behalf. Leadership is not about the power of one; it's about how one person can harness the power of many, how one person can amplify the hopes of many in solidarity with others.
I serve because I truly and deeply love my community. It's one of the continuing follies of this place that MPs think they can score cheap political points by claiming that Canberra isn't part of the nation. Without Canberra, there would be no Australia. To borrow the words of Sir Henry Parkes, 'The crimson thread of kinship runs through us all,' and those threads are drawn together here in this city. If I've succeeded here, it's because I've helped Canberrans stand up and fight for everything that makes this city great and helped the people who live and work in this city, particularly our proud servants of democracy, who make this nation great.
The Prime Minister likes to talk about the Canberra bubble, and I want to tell you, Speaker, what that bubble actually looks like. There, in that bubble, are public servants who protect our national interests, who make sure our cities and towns are safe, who make sure our food is clean, who help the sick, who help the aged, who help the disadvantaged and who help the disabled. There, in that bubble, are public servants who keep our history alive, who keep our story alive.
The husband and daughter of one of the finest public servants that I've ever worked with, my dear friend Liz O'Neill, are here today. Thank you so much for coming, Wayne and Lucinda. Liz died in the line of duty in the Garuda crash in Yogyakarta in 2007, when Lucinda was just six months old. It's wonderful that you're here today, Lucinda, that you've taken the day off school—your first year at Kincoppal—to be with me and to hear this valedictory speech. We all miss your mum very, very much. We think about her each and every day. Thank you, Wayne, and thank you, Lucinda, for coming.
Public service is a noble calling and should be lauded and not derided, and I've been proud to take up the fight for public servants and everyone else in my community. It's one of the favourite parts of my job: having the platform to bang on about Canberra, having the platform to advocate for Canberra, having the platform to celebrate and share the achievements of my community, to sing the praises of local and school legends, inspirational volunteers, inspirational leaders and quiet achievers. Speaker, as you know, I am not the queen of 90-second statements for nothing! I've been proud to take up the fight against cuts to the Public Service and our national institutions, against cuts to our public and Catholic schools, against next to zero federal investment in infrastructure in our national capital in the last six years, and against injustice—injustice like that experienced by Lachlan, whose NDIS plan slashed his core supports so vital services were taken from this child, whose uncontrollable seizures led to him having one-third of his brain removed when he was just 12 months old.
I've fought against the hate that saw the Canberra Islamic Centre vandalised, and I helped summon the better angels of this town for the clean-up. I've summoned those better angels so many times to support domestic violence services, to support rape crisis services, to support Foodbank, and sanitary product and back-to-school drives. I've fought against the sexism that debases women and girls and robs them of opportunity and I've fought against indifference and fought against ignorance—like the wall of silence experienced by up to one million Australian women suffering from endometriosis. I want to thank the Endo Warriors, the endo activists, the members for Forrest and Boothby, the Minister for Health and the shadow minister for the work that we've done together on ending the silence on endometriosis. We have made a difference on endo. It is palpable. Finally, these women are being heard, so thank you, sisters, for being part of that fight. I also want to thank the member for Higgins, Senator Hanson-Young, Ovarian Cancer Australia, Sabra Lane, Eliza Borrello and Jane Norman for the work that we've done together on this deadliest of women's cancers. Thank you so much.
When I was elected in 2010 I came to parliament with a very long list of things to do: to improve organ and tissue donation rates in Australia; to empower girls and women to be confident, to believe in themselves and to have the courage of their convictions. I've done this empowerment with women with gusto and it has been one of the highlights of my time here. I've mentored hundreds of girls and women, fought hard for housing for single mothers and older women and repeatedly underscored the fact—and I'll repeat it again, sisters: a man is not a financial plan!
Being the beneficiary of the charity of others in my seminal years, I was also keen to encourage giving and altruism, but with dignity and respect. The Salvos gave that to my grandmother during hard times. So much of the work I've done in Canberra has been done quietly. It's been done without fanfare and it's been done without media, unlike so many in this chamber.
After running my own microbusiness for 10 years before coming into politics, I wanted to improve the understanding among decision-makers and government agencies about the lived experience of a small-business owner. There's still a lot of work that needs to be done on this front, particularly on the basics—like government agencies actually paying the bills on time and government agencies giving small businesses and microbusinesses access to government work. Just buy one—that's all I ask!
Before small business, I served Australia as a diplomat. I worked with brilliant men and women—some of them are here today—and learned that, if we are to flourish as a nation, we have to be outward looking and generous. In an interconnected and uncertain world we cannot be indifferent to what happens beyond our borders. A peaceful, prosperous Australian future hangs on a peaceful and prosperous future for our region and our world, and that will not happen by accident. It will be built on diplomacy, it will be built on the rule of law, it will be built on norms and it will be built on defence. Diplomacy demands a strong and modern Defence Force, because sometimes we have to defend our freedom and that of our friends. We have to have an understanding of what it is that we are prepared to fight for, what it is that we cherish and the values on which we will never compromise. Yes, it is an uncertain age, but it provides us with an opportunity to have a conversation about how we will operate and engage in the national interest. It's an opportunity to articulate the principles that will operate inside our borders and how they will translate to our approach beyond them. It's an opportunity to acknowledge that we are indeed a middle power but a middle power that is confident in asserting how we will engage at home and abroad and how we think others should engage in Australia and abroad. It's an opportunity to say, 'This is who we are, this is what will guide us, this is what we will discuss and these are the no-go zones.'
In the time I've been here, I've also seen the rise of a new threat. Our interconnected world has brought great wonders but it's also brought adversaries into our offices and our homes. We need to be doing much, much more on every front on cybersecurity. To be quite frank, I am alarmed by the complacency on this issue in some circles—complacency around skills, standards, empowerment, government agency, critical infrastructure, cyber-resilience, innovation, research, industry cooperation and the fact that only 11 per cent of the cyber industry workforce are women. We have got to grip this up, Australia. We are falling behind the rest of the world, and the urgency on cybersecurity is now.
In an age that is more connected than ever, in an era where that connectedness is meant to enhance democracy, Australians seem more disengaged and disillusioned and, through that, disenfranchised. We in this place, in the media and in the community have been the first to call for behavioural and cultural change in our schools; in the corporate world; in our boardrooms; in our cultural, sporting, academic and religious institutions; in the Public Service; and in the ADF. Yet we are particularly quiet, particularly coy, when it comes to the need for behavioural and cultural change here in this place. We all know parliament is a contest of ideas. That contest, rightly, should be rigorous and robust, but that contest should not be personal and it does not need to be a blood sport. Please, in my final days, can we have more policy and less posturing in parliament.
Over the course of my three terms, I've lost too many friends and loved ones. Vale again to Brendan Morrison, Kurt Steel, Garth Pilkinton, Liz Dawson, Jayson Hinder, Yah Menzies, Amanda Cavill, Michael Byrne, Chris Grady, Mary Uhlmann, Ian Uhlmann and my father, Graeme Brodtmann.
I know the danger of thanking people means someone gets left out, so I seek forgiveness in advance for the fact that the list that follows will be too long for some and too short for others. Thank you to the member for Fowler and the member for Lalor for being model whips, supporters and shoulders. Thank you to Stephen Conroy and the member for Corio for giving me the licence and freedom to develop policies in the defence and cybersecurity portfolios. I have loved every single minute of it. Thanks to David Feeney and member for Eden-Monaro for your advice and assistance. As a junior frontbencher, I have been truly, truly blessed to work with people like you. Thank you so much.
Thank you to the many members of the ADF that I've met on ships and bases here and overseas. We are also blessed as a nation to have a highly trained and committed ADF and defence department, and it's been a privilege to meet and work with you.
Thank you to the members for Cunningham, Greenway, Parramatta, Newcastle, Richmond, Lingiari, Wakefield, Kingston, Melbourne Ports, Blair, Gippsland, Wannon, Tangney and to my colleague here. Thanks to Senators Pratt, Kitching, Reynolds, McKenzie, Dean Smith and Deb Biggs for your friendship. Thank you to Michael Forshaw, Simon Crean, Martin Ferguson and Gary Gray for your mentoring in my first term. Thank you to Gail Morgan, Narelle Luchetti, Simon Tatz, Alison Byrne and Paul Scully for getting me here.
Thanks to the many members of my team—hi to Madeleine Firth and Alicia Turner, who are watching from Scotland—for keeping me here and helping me serve the people of Canberra so well. Thank you to my current team: Vic, Drew, Steph, Neda and Martin. Canberra is the largest electorate by population in this country, and you have given your all to provide the highest level of service in a busy high street office and to work with me on policies. Particular thanks to Eva Cawthorne, my first chief of staff, who helped me set up my office from scratch, which was a very steep learning curve for both of us—a steep learning curve not helped by both of us being in the throes of the hot flushes, night sweats, endless periods, sleeplessness, anxiety, mood swings and depression that is the wonderful hormonal ride of perimenopause. This is something else we should be talking about, Australia!
Thank you to Norfolk Islanders Mike King, Mel Ward, Sue Menzies and the Banyan Park girls for your wisdom, guidance and friendship on the journey of reform. Thank you to Canberra's multicultural community, particularly Sandi Mitra, Diana Abdel-Rahman, Natalie Mobini and Chin Wong. Thank you to ASPI's Peter Jennings, Fergus Hanson, Danielle Cave, Lisa Sharland, Anthony Bergin and Stephen Loosley for your sage advice and for being my brains trust. Thank you to the Canberrans who've tirelessly served on many grants panels, particularly Steve Rowan Jones, Anthony Corder and Louise Bilston, who've been there with me from the start.
Thank you to Diana Atkinson, who has kept our house in order for more than 20 years. You always give above and beyond, most recently when it became the house of horrors and was filled with hundreds of blowflies after a rat died in our roof when we were away at the coast over summer! Thank you, Diana. I think a round of applause is due to Diana for that effort.
Thank you to my patient, patient girlfriends, who've always been there for me even though I haven't always been there for them. Special thanks to my best mate, Virginia Stanhope.
Thank you to our deputy leader, for your tireless commitment to advancing the cause of women. Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for your friendship and support, particularly at the beginning of this term. There is daylight between my first term and the last two terms. You have led a truly united team and you've encouraged us all to be bold in our thinking and our ideas, and to advance our great Labor tradition. Thank you.
Thank you to my wonderful sisters, who, unfortunately, can't be here today. Meg's in the middle of vintage and Amy is in the middle of clinic. Neither of them wanted me to go into politics, but they've given me boundless loyalty and merciless honesty—which they've been giving me all their lives. Thank you to my beautiful nieces and nephews and godchildren.
Thank you to my mum, a champion campaigner, who, contrary to popular belief—which was not helped by my media release—is actually alive and well! She's up in the gallery. Sorry, Mum, for frightening all your friends and your current affairs, cryptic crossword, Move It or Lose It and Zumba classmates, with the unintentional suggestion that you were dying! Thank you for teaching Meg, Amy and me to be strong and confident feminists, to be proud of our womanhood. Thank you for teaching us the importance of education, fertility control, financial independence and for teaching us to treat everyone with respect and dignity.
Thank you to my beautiful husband, Chris Uhlmann. I'm not going to lose it here! I know our relationship has been an endless source of fascination for so many in the past years, which we have both found rather curious. You are the love of my life, and my love only grows stronger for you each and every day. Thank you so much for your support, which has allowed me to give to the people of Canberra my heart and my soul for three terms.
I have chosen to leave my political career at this point because I now want to give my heart and soul to my family and friends. Mum turning 80 this year and the loss of too many close friends too young has made me realise that life is short and life is precious. When you're saying goodbye over the phone to a friend in his 50s who has just two weeks to live, or you're saying goodbye to a friend in his 60s who has hours to live, which we did over the summer break, you do really focus on what's important in life. For me, that is my husband, my family, my friends and my godchildren. It's now time to change down a few gears, so I'm closing this chapter of my career, and I'm looking forward to the next one, knowing I will always serve my community—just not at the same pace!
Representing the people of Canberra has been an enormous honour and privilege and has brought me great pride and joy. I want to thank you, Canberra, for putting your faith in me for three terms. Above all, I want to thank my Labor family for your support and for allowing me to be part of—to play a small role, admittedly—in our great Labor story. I'm not a blind partisan, and I have many friends of all political dispositions, but I am Labor to my bootstraps. In 1983, I handed out my first how-to-vote cards in the election that saw the Hawke Labor government sweep to power. Thirty-six years on, I'm looking forward to handing out how-to-votes for a Shorten Labor government. To those who now take up Labor's fight for Bean and Canberra, to Senator Dave Smith and Alicia Payne: I am with you.
We are in the battle of ideas, and I believe it's vitally important that we win. When we win, our prosperity is shared and our children get the chance of a world-class education. Australia is a country that supports the weak, a nation that uses its wealth to help the poor. When we win, individuals are encouraged to excel, but never at the expense of the common good. Workers get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. We fight for jobs. We fight for the environment. When we win, our nation is outward-looking and engaged with our allies and the forums of the world. We demand from each the best they can give and offer to each the chance to be the best they can be.
A Shorten Labor government will change Canberra and it will change the nation for the better, offering equality, choice and hope to all, no matter what their postcode, no matter what their background and no matter how much their parents earn. It will offer opportunity for people like Meg, Amy and me to realise their potential, to contribute to their community and to lead bold and fearless lives. I thank the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I acknowledge the member for Canberra. The hugs have been timed perfectly and have ended at the perfect time. The debate is interrupted in accordance to standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Townsville: Floods
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (13:30): As I have said many times in this chamber over the last two sittings, Townsville has experienced the worst extreme weather event in our recorded history. People are struggling, and we forget about the children and the impact that such an event has on their little lives. We often don't ask how they're feeling. My granddaughter is nine years old. Her mum and dad took in a family of four friends who had to leave their homes during the flood. Matilda sat quietly in her room after the event and wrote the following letter, which I would like to share with those in this place:
Dear Townsvill Army
Thankyou for helping the people in the Townsvill flud—
F-L-U-D—good spelling!—
and thank's for heping my mum's frend's truck.
and if it wazint for you people could have died in the fuld and I uspsherly—
I love that spelling: U-S-P-S-H-E-R-L-Y—
want to thankyou for helping my granny.
My name is Matilda and I rote you this letter.
This country is in great shape with young people like Matilda who have kind hearts, compassion and gratitude in abundance. We can learn so much from our young people if we take the time to be in their presence and genuinely listen to them. But the message in what Matilda is saying is that the ADF personnel in my community were nothing short of outstanding in assisting people day and night for now over two weeks to get their lives back in order. From the bottom on my heart, I say thank you.
Coal Industry
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:31): Last year, bolstered by rising prices and increased demand from Asia, coal was our nation's No. 1 export earner, accounting for $66 billion in export revenue. Yet, in the delusional fantasy world of members of the opposition, they think coal exports are collapsing. But the real concern is that Labor members think that a collapse of our nation's largest export earner would be 'a wonderful thing', 'a good thing'. If our nation's largest export earner collapses, where will the money come from to pay for listing new life-saving drugs on the PBS? Where will the money come from to assist with our disaster relief programs? Where will the money come from to help kids with disabilities and our nation's defence forces, public schools and hospitals? And where will the money come from to pay for the unemployment benefits of the 336,000 Australians who will be out of work because of Labor's reckless and insane economy-wrecking 45 per cent Paris target? I am an optimist at heart, but for the first time in my life I fear for the future of my country under the policies of this Labor opposition.
Nguyen, Dr Hoang Van
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:33): I rise to inform the parliament of the tragic passing of Dr Hoang Van Nguyen, who yesterday, sadly, lost his life to a sudden heart attack. Dr Nguyen was born on 26 August 1961 in Vietnam and came to Australia to study medicine and chemistry at the University of Queensland, graduating in 1987. He was not only a highly respected and accomplished doctor; he was also a passionate advocate and campaigner for human rights, particularly for those still suffering in communist Vietnam. He served as a former vice-president of the Vietnamese Community in Australia Queensland Chapter, serving two terms, and has always been an active supporter of the international Youth Human Rights Movement.
It was only a short time ago—a matter of weeks—that I stood side by side with Dr Nguyen at one of the many freedom rallies he helped organise to fight for justice for the Vietnamese people. And it was only as recently as last Saturday that Hoang and the Vietnamese community gathered to raise funds to help people who had been taken as prisoners of conscience in Vietnam. He was never scared to fight for justice and the truth. His legacy will live on as we continue that fight.
Dr Nguyen was also a loving family man and leaves behind his wife, Kim Eun Young, and his much loved older sister, my dear friend Phuong Nguyen, and a wide extended family. Doctor Nguyen, thank you for everything you have done for not only our local Vietnamese community but also the Vietnamese community throughout Brisbane and those who are still suffering today. We will continue to fight for justice in your name. I commit to that today. In your name, I'll keep fighting for Vietnamese people in my community, in Australia and in Vietnam.
Bowman Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:35): It's been a wild week down here but an even wilder week in Redland City. The state Labor government has a strange way of showing love to their own MPs. The interisland travel in Moreton Bay, normally free because you can't afford to put card-reading machines on every island, was suddenly framed as being a saving policy from state Labor at the end of last year. Come 2019, Kim Richards comes out and says, 'Now we're going to be hitting up locals for the cost of interisland fares.' That Mark Bailey has a strange way of showing love to local MPs. Then we have the Victoria Point bypass. That was going to be a road subject to an election win and is now just a study. Who wanted a car park at Redland Hospital? Stephen Miles. Where are you? The bloke has a PhD in organising unions. He really should be down here, showing people what a real PhD is. Up there he is saying: 'We're not going to do a car park in the hospital. We will do a study of a car park.' You have to study these things over 12 months. He wants a pre-election pledge so you have to vote for them again for it to happen. This entire Redlands Labor lot have been #hampered, their entire reputation in the community #wrecked. When the Labor Party sees a road with 11 bottlenecks, instead of duplicating it like the LNP offered to for $55 million, they upgrade one intersection and create 13 bottlenecks. If you are trying to get to work and you've got a Labor government, you're going to be sitting on a bus in a traffic jam because they simply won't upgrade the roads.
Government Procurement
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (13:36): Let's talk about #rorts. It's been an embarrassing month to be a Western Australian. We saw the member for Moore cross the line and become a lobster lobbyist promoting his own business interests rather than the interests of his own constituents. The member should be embarrassed to be on the Privileges Committee. For most of us, 'Hello, world' is something we learn when we learn computer programming, but, for the Minister for Finance, he learnt it because it's how he discovered his own fully funded, fully paid CEO concierge service. He should be embarrassed to be the Minister for Finance.
But what's the culture? Where does this culture come from? The culture comes from the assistant minister for the Prime Minister, the member for Swan. The Prime Minister had so many people he could have chosen from to be his assistant minister. He should have chosen the member for Tangney. He should have chosen the member for Tangney, but instead he chose the member for Swan. Here is a little trip down memory lane: in 2013 the member for Swan had to repay $11,000—that's three Helloworld flights worth of flights—to Minister Cormann's Department of Finance for wrongly claimed airfares and car costs because he had to spend some 130 nights in Melbourne. I can see the electorate of Swan from my electorate of Perth. It's not very close to Melbourne. I don't know why he was there.
Mr Laming: Stop reading it. You don't need to read it.
Mr GORMAN: I do need to read it. I need to read that he had to charge taxpayers to attend the Gold Coast golfing— (Time expired)
Kashmir: Attacks
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:38): I rise as Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of India and as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to condemn the appalling terrorist attack that occurred in India on Valentine's Day by the Pakistani Islamist terror organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed, an organisation I am pleased to say is listed as a terrorist organisation in this country and in many of our Five Eyes partners. Jaish-e-Mohammed has previously indiscriminately killed Indian citizens and advocated against Western interests. It's aligned with al-Qaeda, with Lashkar-e-Taiba and with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
On Valentine's Day, a vehicle travelling from Jammu to Srinagar in the Pulwama district, loaded with 350 kilos of explosives, slammed into a convoy of Central Reserve Police. Forty-four Indian reserve police were killed as a result of the attack. The Indian community around the world is mourning, and we join in grief with the 700,000 people of Indian origin who live in this country as well as Indian people around the world in condemning this attack. The security of a nation and the defence of its people is the first task of any government. To attack paramilitary police in this way is to attack India and its sovereignty as well as to attack each person who was killed and their families and colleagues.
Australia has always stood with India and marched with India since the early days of the First World War. Australia will continue to march with India in the war on global Islamic terror, which will unfortunately be a major feature of global security challenges for the next century.
Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:39): Not confined to the Liberal Party, the Nationals have signed up to this credo: one rule for them, another for the rest of the country. After all, they're a coalition in everything.
Enter Senator Bridget McKenzie. In September 2018 this senator spent $14,000 of taxpayers' money on a private jet to watch basketball with Prince Charles. Not to be finished there, in February we learned that she'd spent $20,000 of taxpayers money on a private plane to watch an ice hockey match. Let's face it, this is supposedly the age when entitlement was over and the choppergate scandal was finished. But, no.
It's no wonder that those opposite don't support Labor's housing affordability measures; let's face it, $37,000 is a deposit on an affordable house in my electorate. What am I supposed to say, Senator McKenzie, to the young people in my electorate who are saving for a house deposit? What am I supposed to say to them, when they're lining up at an auction and bidding against someone who already owns six homes? I'll tell them that Senator McKenzie, the Victorian senator, doesn't care about housing affordability. Why should she? She's on the bandwagon: one rule for them and another for the rest of this country.
Groom Electorate: Sports Darling Downs
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (13:41): On 9 February we gathered in Toowoomba to acknowledge the recipients of awards at the Sports Darling Downs annual presentation dinner. It was tremendous to see Senior Sports Star of the Year, Matthew Denny, from athletics, who is from Allora, like me, and the runner-up, Lara Nielsen, also from athletics. Their junior colleagues were Evan Mclean, from water polo, and Mason Hughes from athletics. The Senior Rookie of the Year was Brielle Erbacher, again, from athletics. The Senior Chase Your Dream Award went to Hayden Siebuhr, for wheelchair basketball. Junior rookie was Carter Blades, again from athletics, and Tatum Stewart and Briana Suey, from hockey, took out the Junior Chase Your Dream Award.
Category award winners also included Toowoomba Grammar School and St Mary's College in Toowoomba, and Dalby State School and Fairholme College in the various awards for schools and teams. Umpire/Referee of the Year was Luke McKenzie, for touch football; Coach of the Year was Greg Hobol, for weightlifting; Junior Para Athlete of the Year was Henry Reardon, for swimming; Senior Para Athlete of the Year was Corey Anderson, for athletics; and Volunteer of the Year was Sophie Smith, for AFL.
It was tremendous to see Sports Darling Downs continue its efforts in our community to support young people chasing their dreams. This organisation is 20 years old and, led by its president, Mick Smith, it has raised over a million dollars to support locals in our community.
Parliament: Equal Representation
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (13:42): This week we have heard some wonderful valedictory speeches from female MPs in this parliament. From across the political divide, their speeches have shown that they all have big hearts and they all have great minds, and they've all contributed so much to our nation's interest and those of their local communities.
But we need more female hearts and minds in this parliament. Equal representation of men and women should be here now. We should never say never, especially to this. Women vote. Women are over half the population of this great country and yet they, especially those with sensible Centre values, feel severely underrepresented. Equal representation will create, organically, a culture change and a healthier and better workplace. Australia will be the stronger for it, if women of all ages, backgrounds and walks of life are reflected by our parliamentary representatives as in our population, from the young students and the young parents to the more senior and those women who are often referred to as the 'sandwich' or 'invisible' generation—those between their 40s and 60s, many of whom, like me, know firsthand the dual juggle of raising children and families and also caring for ageing parents against a backdrop of work outside the home. These are women with a lived experience.
Women can have it all, and all the same time, and they can have parliamentary careers. But it is up to those men and women here on the inside to ensure that more women on the outside can see a clear pathway to equal representation of men and women in this parliament.
Queensland: Mining
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:44): My topic is coal in Central Queensland. And so the war begins! There is a $66 billion for the economy at stake. Coal was the biggest export earner last year, 2018, for Australia, with 7,000 direct full-time jobs and 35,000 indirect full-time jobs in Queensland, supporting small business. The Australian reported this morning that with, Labor's 45 per cent emissions target and 50 per cent renewable target, $9,000 a year will be lost in wages by the year 2030; $472 billion will be wiped from the economy in 10 years; and there will be a 50 per cent hike in electricity prices.
The member for Corio, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Griffith and Annastacia Palaszczuk, the Queensland Premier, have all openly stated that they do not like coal. Labor candidate for Flynn is scrambling for a new position. Clearly Labor are divided on coal and divided on energy. They will close down the coal industry and close down coal-fired power stations. They will cost us coal jobs. No coal is Labor's goal—a sad day for Australia.
Government Procurement
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:45): Chumgate is a very liberal scandal. It's a scandal of Liberal chums, Liberal donors, Liberal CEOs, Liberal Treasurers, Liberal shareholders, Liberal finance ministers and, of course, a very liberal approach to travel arrangements.
When the Liberal finance minister, Mathias Cormann, wanted to book a family holiday to Singapore, he didn't hop on the internet to find a deal for his flights; he used his mobile phone to directly call a Liberal CEO of a travel company with major government contracts and ended up getting the flights for free. When the subsidiary of that Liberal CEO's travel company wanted contracts with DFAT, they didn't wait for a tender; they asked the ambassador to the US, the former Liberal Treasurer, one of their 20 largest shareholders, to set up a meeting for them.
It's just like the time the former Liberal Speaker of the parliament, Bronwyn Bishop, travelled to the wedding of former Liberal MP, Sophie Mirabella, and charged taxpayers for the privilege, or the time that Bronwyn Bishop decided to travel from Melbourne to Geelong for a Liberal fundraiser by helicopter and charged taxpayers $5,000 for the jolly. It's the Liberal way to fly—with someone else picking up the bill. The then Treasurer, Joe Hockey, said that Bronwyn Bishop's very liberal travel arrangements didn't pass the sniff test. Well, Joe, chumgate doesn't pass the sniff test either. In fact, it stinks—and the stench isn't going away.
We know that the Liberals think that there's one rule for them and another rule for everyone else. So we know that it's only a matter of time before this Liberal approach to travel arrangements embroils more Liberal MPs and chums in the 'hellogate' scandal.
National Security
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (13:47): Today we learn of more mistakes in the Labor's medivac amendments. This is exactly what happens when the Labor Party puts politics ahead of national security and border protection. This is an important issue for me. I've visited Christmas Island and I've stood at the site where many lives have been lost, crashed upon the most unimaginable volcanic, sharp rocks—which, quite frankly, are indescribable. I've also met with a survivor of this terrible incident. We should never forget the humanitarian crisis that confronted this country when 1,200 people died at sea, when 50,000 arrivals came on 800 illegal boats—costing $16 billion. Over the past five years, the federal government has secured Australia's borders. We've fixed Labor's mess—stopping the boats, closing 19 detention centres and removing all children from detention.
The advice from our intelligence agencies is clear. Any weakening of our border protection policies will re-open the people-smuggler trade. The facts are undeniable. The Labor Party start the boats and the Liberal Party stop them. Labor put men, women and children into detention centres, and the Liberals work hard and process them out. Labor weaken our borders; the Liberals will always keep them secure.
Member for Fadden
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (13:48): Can you smell that stench wafting over here from the Liberals? The Helloworld saga is putrid. But, sadly, it's nothing new when it comes to the coalition. In fact, the member for Fadden has a track record that would make Fine Cotton blush. How could we forget the Rolex watch gift and being dumped from the ministry after it was revealed he had a financial interest in a company he spruiked while travelling on the taxpayer dime in China. He took his government phone on a trip to China where he met with communist officials, jeopardising our national security. He accepted donations from a developer, and then delivered in this chamber a speech written by a lobbyist for the same developer. His father was unaware for six years that he was a director of his son's company. He called for billionaires to get a GST exemption for their luxury super yachts—speaking for the people. ASIC is investigating his directorship of a company. The member for Fadden is involved in a new business council based in a Sydney office that has no staff and is connected to his fundraising arm, the famous—or infamous—Fadden Forum. He headlined a fundraiser about the banking royal commission. And who could forget that he is one of the largest investors in a resources exploration company founded by a person once accused of embezzling US$7 million.
There is a pattern to the behaviour on that side of the chamber. We've seen it with the member for Fadden—and we haven't heard the last of chumgate. (Time expired)
Economy
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:50): As we wrap up this sitting period, I want to use this opportunity to reflect on the government's economic achievements in the lead-up to budget week in April. We came to government with a plan for a stronger economy and that plan is delivering. It's delivering for my constituents in Barker. More than 1.2 million new Aussie jobs have been created since we were elected. That's around 24,000 jobs a year. Barker's unemployment rate is down to four per cent, from 5.8 per cent when we came in to government in September 2013. Because of this record level of employment being driven by a strong economy, welfare dependency is now at its lowest level in 30 years.
We are delivering lower taxes for 10 million Australian taxpayers. More than 58,000 low- and middle-income earners in Barker will benefit from income tax relief this year, many receiving a full $330 tax offset. And there will be lower taxes for 3.3 million Aussie small businesses, including the more than 19,000 in Barker. We're delivering more money for schools, investing an extra $37.6 billion in Australian schools' funding over next decade. Funding for 101 public schools in Barker is increasing, in some cases by 60 per cent per student. There is more money for health. Our economic approach stands in contrast to those opposite, who want to rip your taxes up by $200 billion. If you want a strong Australia, a strong economy and a strong Barker, stick with our plan.
Morrison Government
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:51): The sense of entitlement these Liberals have is breathtaking, and there are some common themes running through it. Aside from arrogance, the Liberals seem to have a problem with travel. It's not that they don't like it; in fact, they do—they just don't like paying for it themselves. It's not just Senator Cormann who didn't notice that a private company had paid for his family trip to Singapore—Helloworld; the member for Farrer resigned as minister after a pattern of trips that featured the Gold Coast as a destination and a propensity for charter flights on busy capital city routes.
The revelations included charging taxpayers more than $12,000 to charter a government VIP jet to the Gold Coast for an afternoon meeting in 2016. Then we learned that she and her husband bought a $795,000 Gold Coast investment property on a May 2015 taxpayer funded trip to Queensland. But in her view, that was okay, because it was a spontaneous spend of more than three-quarters of a million dollars, as you do. You have to wonder how unplanned it was when you know the member for Farrer had been inspecting Gold Coast apartments nine months before she actually bought one. What about the air fares and taxis paid for taxpayers for her New Year's Eve celebrations in 2012 and 2014—17 trips to the Gold Coast at a cost of $40,000? There's a pattern; they don't believe the rules apply to them but they do.
Wide Bay Electorate: Rotary Club of Noosa Heads
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (13:53): The 50th anniversary of the Rotary Club of Noosa Heads is approaching. To mark this special occasion, I want to pay tribute to everyone who has been associated with the club for their fantastic work that they do, not only in Noosa but nationally and internationally. It's an extraordinary record of achievement, from helping farmers in drought to assisting flood victims, supporting local events like the Noosa Triathlon and delivering the Rotary Youth Driver Awareness Program. Noosa Rotary and its members are an integral part of the Noosa community. Noosa Rotary's Helping Hands program extends far and wide. Over the past 10 years Noosa Rotary's annual Circus Quirkus event has entertained disabled and disadvantaged children and their families with acrobats and clowns, reaching audiences in excess of 1,500 people a year.
Rotary has sent at least one 40-foot shipping container each year to Mozambique, filled with medical and pharmaceutical supplies for use in their hospitals. Rotary also supports students in East Timor by sending thousands of shoe boxes to them, filled with educational resources and toys. For the last 50 years, Noosa Rotary has supported the sick, entertained and educated children, brightening the lives of people in Noosa and around the world. Thank you and congratulations to Rotary Club of Noosa Heads.
Coalition Government
Ms LAMB (Longman) (13:54): I got into politics in 2007 after going to a packed-out community forum at Caboolture State School hall. We were there to hear from candidates, including Labor's candidate at the time, Jon Sullivan, and we were there to hear from the local LNP member for Longman at the time, Mal Brough. Well, guess what? Mal didn't show up. It felt like there was us the community and then there was them, the Liberals. That's what it felt like. His conduct as an MP showed exactly the same thinking—he just did whatever he wanted, like the rules didn't apply to him, just like we've been seeing this past week with another batch of Liberals who just think there's a different set of rules for them.
Back to the time of Brough. Things were a bit different. Eventually Mal stood down after Prime Minister Turnbull acknowledged it was just the right thing to do. Well, let's think about our new Prime Minister. He condones this entitled, above-the-law behaviour. Actually, what he does is he doubles down on it. If this Prime Minister can't see just how much this whole Helloworld scandal stinks, if he can't see that the people in my community have to work hard to pay for their travel and don't just get it handed to them, then this government, this Prime Minister, is more out of touch than ever.
Grieve, Ms Katie-Jayne
Seth, Ms Philipa
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (13:56): We are well and truly into the third season of the AFL Women's football league, and I want to congratulate two young women from my electorate and the South-West of Western Australia who are making up the ranks of this exciting competition. Katie-Jayne Grieve and Philipa Seth are currently playing for the Fremantle Dockers women's team, which is currently undefeated in this year's competition. It's Philipa's first year after being drafted from East Fremantle, while Katie-Jayne played for Carlton last season before heading back to WA.
Katie-Jayne started her football career with South Bunbury Football Club, and Philipa recently played with and was an assistant coach of the Collie Eagles Football Club. Both of these teams play in the fantastic South West Football League, which is one of the first leagues in Australia to field women sides and now has eight teams in the competition, including my local Harvey Bulls Football Club women's team.
Katie-Jayne and Philipa are role models and an inspiration for young women currently preparing for this year's South West Football League. They are also an inspiration to the thousands of young girls and women across Australia who dream of representing their club in the AFL, people like myself, who have only been able to watch it for so many years. I look forward to the inclusion of the West Coast Eagles, who will field a women's team next season. It should have been this season, AFL. I wish Katie-Jayne, Philipa and all of the women who are playing AFL good luck this season.
Government Procurement
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:58): Who could forget the 2014 budget, when this mob on that side declared to all Australians that the age of entitlement is over? There were cuts to pensions, there was the dreaded GP tax, there were $100,000 university degrees, and the cost of medicines were going up and up and up. The Treasurer of Australia danced on a table as the people of Australia suffered.
Well, it turns out that the age of entitlement wasn't dead—it's just resting. Smoking Joe Hockey is back at it again. He's been directing DFAT staff to conduct meetings with the bosses at Helloworld so that they can get an inside run on a lucrative contract with that agency. And Senator Cormann, the Minister for Finance and the Public Service, who's been busy for the last five years cutting hospital and school funding, has been at it as well, helping himself to a free trip to Singapore with his family—a regular guy who didn't realise that $3,000 hadn't been taken out of his business account. We're all expected to believe there was no connection between these free flights and the multimillion-dollar contract that the Helloworld bosses have got. Well, the age of entitlement is back on, and these chums are in it up to their necks. (Time expired)
Australian Labor Party
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:59): The Labor Party is weak on economic management and the Labor Party is weak on national security. We know that and the Australian people know that. But what the Australian people did not know until this sitting of parliament was that the Labor Party is also deeply, deeply divided.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TED O'BRIEN: Very clearly, they are upset about this. I'd love to take an interjection, but these are actually cries from people who want help, because they know that they are so divided. Do they support Australia's largest export industry or not? They have two different views. Do they support the use of Christmas Island for medical treatment or not? Their heads are down because they know that they are divided. They have two very different views.
The Australian people have always known that the Labor Party is weak on national security and that the Labor Party is weak when it comes to managing the economy. What they now know is that the Labor Party is also deeply, deeply divided.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Government Procurement
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of evidence at Senate estimates today from the former group general manager of a Helloworld company who met with Joe Hockey in Washington? I ask the Prime Minister what his response is to the fact that the evidence includes:
I asked Mr Burnes how could this be done so quickly, he verbally advised me, 'Hockey owes me'.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:02): I note the member's question and I simply refer to the statement made to the Australian Stock Exchange. Companies do not make statements to the Stock Exchange lightly. Others may make statements, and their veracity can be tested in those forums, but, when you make a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange, that is a very serious matter.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: The statement to the Australian Stock Exchange from Helloworld Travel Ltd, says:
At no time has ambassador Hockey or Helloworld CEO Andrew Burnes discussed the DFAT tender and neither Mr Hockey nor Mr Burnes have had any involvement in the tender process.
Mr Burnes did not request the meeting with DFAT personnel in the United States.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, I will give that reminder that I give every day at about this time: when questions covering aspects of detail like this are asked I do need to be able to hear the answer. And, generally, I point out to those who are interjecting that they are not helping either the questioner or the person answering. I just wish they'd get the message. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: On direct relevance: the question relates quite specifically to a period sometime before the tender. The Prime Minister is answering about what happened around the time of the tender. This question goes entirely to events prior to what the Prime Minister is talking about.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat. I did get to listen to the question without interjection, unlike the answer. The Prime Minister is in order because the first part of the question merely asked him whether he was aware of Senate estimates evidence. On that basis, he is answering in the way that he sees fit. The second part was certainly more specific. So, Prime Minister, I'm listening to you very closely. If those behind the Manager of Opposition Business would assist me and, I would also say, assist the Manager of Opposition Business and stop interjecting, I'll be able to listen to the answer to check that the Prime Minister continues to be relevant.
Mr MORRISON: The statement provided by Helloworld to the Australian Stock Exchange I think is very clear about this matter, and the exchanges between Ambassador Hockey and the Helloworld CEO.
But what we do know about this issue is this: we know that the Labor Party have had this in their bottom drawer for some time, and, if this issue was so important for so many months, why is it being used as some sort of distracting political tactic here in this chamber to appeal to the good old Canberra bubble, where the leader of the Labor Party dwells? As we also read today, on this issue—how arrogant have the Labor Party become—what was the headline today in The Age? 'Shorten may sack Hockey'. So arrogant have they become that they are already deciding who they might sack, who they might keep, who they might target. I'll tell you who they're going to target. They're going to target retirees in this country, with higher taxes. They're going to target homeowners, with higher taxes. They're going to target renters. They're going to attack farmers, who they today wouldn't even support a Future Drought Fund for. Shame on the Labor Party.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Prime Minister's now strayed off—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: He's completed his answer.
Morrison Government
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is united in taking action to deliver a stronger economy and keep Australians safe and secure? Is the Prime Minister aware of any other approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:06): Our government is united on our stronger plan for our economy, our government is united on securing our nation and the results that we have achieved with the implementation of our plan over the last 5½ years and we're united on ensuring that we have a stronger Australia. The last two weeks in this place have shown that the Labor Party is hopelessly divided when it comes to what is required to create a stronger economy, to protect jobs in our most important export industries in the country and to ensure stronger borders. They have failed the test when it comes to being united, together, on these important issues in the country. And the Labor Party leader has failed the test of character. He has failed the test of character of uniting his party when it comes to standing up for jobs in traditional industries—because what did we hear from the member for Corio? We heard from the member for Corio that it would be wonderful if the market for traditional mining products was to collapse, threatening the jobs of 53,400 coalminers across the country. The member for Herbert sits there silently while the jobs of people in Townsville are put at risk because of a divided Labor Party when it comes to the traditional industries of this country.
But, on this side of the House, we will fight for jobs. We will fight for jobs in the mining industry; we will fight for jobs in the forestry industry, as I announced with the Tasmanian forestry hubs policy last weekend; and we'll fight for the jobs in the farming and agricultural sector. We will always fight for these jobs. Today we learnt that 65,000 full-time jobs were created in the month of January, and the unemployment rate remains at a 7½-year low at five per cent. We know that in the last year around 85 per cent of the jobs that were created, some 270,000 or thereabouts, I understand, were full time—full-time jobs being created in this country.
In New South Wales, they have led the charge. In New South Wales, the unemployment rate has fallen to 3.9 per cent. That is the lowest rate on a 40-year record. How good is Gladys Berejiklian as the New South Wales Premier, delivering a stronger economy for New South Wales and ensuring that our national economy is strong as well? And we'll continue to work strongly with the New South Wales government, because they've been our partner.
One and a quarter million jobs—that's our target. That's what we'll achieve with our economic plan. How do we know we'll achieve that? Because we've created over 1.25 million jobs since we were elected—on the first occasion. We are united on creating jobs. We're united on protecting our borders. We're united on our traditional industries. The Labor Party is hopelessly divided, under this leader, on those issues. (Time expired)
Government Procurement
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:09): My question is again to the Prime Minister. What is the Prime Minister's response to the fact that the document provided to Senate estimates today includes, and I quote, 'I asked Mr Burnes, "How could this be done so quickly?" He verbally advised me, "Hockey owes me"'?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House, on a point of order.
Mr Pyne: The question is claiming—is making the implication—that somehow the ambassador in Washington intervened in a tender process and had a conflict of interest. That is the gravamen of the question. The truth is, as we pointed out yesterday in the House, Mr Hockey has absolutely no role in the tender process whatsoever. He isn't the decision-maker. For there to be a conflict of interest, there has to be some capacity for Mr Hockey to have been able to influence the tender and be involved in it. But he's not the decision-maker. The decision-maker is the DFAT chief financial officer. That was pointed out yesterday, Mr Speaker.
Mr Bowen: Is this an answer?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will pause.
Mr Pyne: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer the question.
The SPEAKER: I thought the Leader of the House was rising on a point of order. Okay, the Leader of the House will proceed. We haven't started the clock. You can do it all again!
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:10): I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. I don't need to do it all again! The very clear point here is that the Labor Party are trying to smear Joe Hockey. And the central gravamen of their argument is that somehow he had a conflict of interest and influenced a tender outcome. The point I was making was that he has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the decision-making process in this tender, which is actually ongoing. It hasn't been completed yet. The decision-maker is the DFAT chief financial officer. It's also been pointed out that the Australian embassy staff who met with QBT on 26 April were not meeting in relation to the tender process. Labor is trying, in some smear and slur to distract from their current political woes, to conflate meetings that had nothing to do with a tender with a tender that has nothing to do with the ambassador, Joe Hockey. It is a desperate move by the Labor Party. They haven't been able to produce any evidence whatsoever that the ambassador has made any attempt at any point to influence the tender. Therefore, he has no conflict of interest.
It is perfectly normal for officials from embassies, for ambassadors, to meet with people from industry. One of the main jobs of an ambassador or a high commissioner is to promote Australia's interests. If the Labor Party were right, then no ambassador or high commissioner would be able to accept meetings from anybody in industry—the defence industries or other industries—where a decision might need to be made about a tender on a particular contract. That is clearly absurd. Taken to its logical conclusion, ministers would not be allowed to meet with people in industries from their own portfolios who were promoting products and services that they thought the government might like to purchase.
Clearly, the Labor Party is desperately reaching for straws to try to distract from the fact that this fortnight was supposed to be about when the government finally collapsed. That was the Labor Party message to the press and to the people leading up to this fortnight. They really over-egged the omelette about what was going to happen in this fortnight. Half of the things that Labor told the press gallery were going to go on when the parliament sat didn't happen. They didn't happen.
The truth is, at the end of this week we're talking about border protection. This side of the House is in favour of strong border protection, and that side of the House has been proven to be in favour of weak border protection. We're talking about retiree's taxes, housing taxes and small business taxes, which Labor would support $200 billion of—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House. The material he has moved into is irrelevant to the question.
Economy
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (14:13): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government is united in supporting our primary industries to ensure stronger regions? How would alternative plans impact jobs and opportunities in the regions?
Mr Conroy interjecting —
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of The Nationals) (14:14): I don't know why the member for Shortland is going on. He'd buy and sell you for integrity and for business acumen any day of the week—before breakfast!—any day of the week, any of you! He absolutely would.
A strong Australia means a strong economy. It means strong borders, and that's what we've got—strong borders and a strong economy. A strong Australia means investing in the regions, such as the Rookwood Weir and $176.1 million that we've invested in that marvellous water infrastructure storage and flood mitigation project in the member for Flynn's electorate in Central Queensland. The Liberals and the Nationals—we deliver. We stand up for Queensland jobs. We support them. We want to see more Queensland jobs, and I know all Team Queensland on this side of the House absolutely want that.
We stand up for farmers. We support them. We passed in the House this morning the Future Drought Fund—something Labor opposed. Labor has voted against giving drought-stricken farmers assistance. Why would you oppose giving aid to drought-stricken farmers? It beggars belief. And for the shadow agriculture minister to come in here and play stunts with our dairy farmers, to play stunts with the Future Drought Fund, is just a disgrace, and he knows it.
It gets worse than that. We've got the member for Corio calling for an end to our biggest export industry, and calling it a good thing. Why would you want to see an end to a $66 billion export industry? He had an absolute shocker yesterday. Labor has no idea whether it believes in jobs or whether it believes in Greens preferences. Greens or Gladstone? Who would know? It has no idea. Mining or Melbourne? Who would know? It has no idea. The Leader of the Opposition has no idea either, because he says one thing when he's up campaigning in North Queensland and another thing when he's down in Melbourne.
Now we have the member for Herbert launching into a spray at the Queensland Labor government, telling Queensland Labor to 'keep out of North Queensland's business'. I'd agree with her! It should keep out of North Queensland's business, but we're involved in North Queensland's business. We're helping to rebuild, helping relief and recovery efforts and helping reconstruction. She'd be better off talking about that and asking a question about that than supporting the member for Corio and all those others who want an end to Australia's biggest export industry.
Yesterday, the member for Herbert had questions to answer, and now she's discovered that the answer is not the Labor Party. It certainly is not. Our farmers also know that the answer is not the Labor Party. How could they deny drought-stricken farmers assistance?
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: What a disgrace. Each and every rural and regional member of the Labor Party should absolutely hang their heads in shame. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen, I want you to cease interjecting. Flick yesterday's Hansard up if it helps.
Government Procurement
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:17): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Joe Hockey directed embassy staff to set up a meeting with a subsidiary of Helloworld, a company in which he has a million-dollar shareholding, and that estimates evidence confirmed that the meeting with this company was arranged because, in the words of Mr Burnes, 'Hockey owes me'? Doesn't this confirm that Mr Hockey has been using taxpayers' money and his own position to line his own pockets and pay off political debts to Liberal Party donors?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House, on a point of order?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:18): No; I'm going to answer the question. The Labor Party, of course, will stoop to any level to smear and slur good Australians who've given good public service, like Joe Hockey. Joe Hockey is a great Australian. He's been a great ambassador in Washington. He's done a fantastic job. There have been some crucial times in the last three years, particularly in the last two years, when Australia's interests have needed to be represented in Washington. Steel and aluminium tariffs were a very good example. Joe Hockey's relationships in the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill or in the White House made a tangible difference to the outcome for Australia.
The fact that the Labor Party dismisses that only indicates how unfit they are to be in government, because ambassadors in major national capitals like London, Beijing, Tokyo and Washington are very important to represent this nation's interests and to get good outcomes. Getting the kids off Nauru is an example, as is setting up the deal with the Americans in order for them to do the necessary checks and then take as many people off Nauru as possible. Joe Hockey was engaged in that. For the Labor Party to seek to smear the ambassador in Washington to make a cheap political point for its political gain indicates how desperate it has become. And the other thing that it indicates is that you have known about this for months. If you really thought this was so serious, if you really thought this was as serious as you're pretending, with all fake gravity, you would have raised this months ago. This feigned indignation—you might even have decided to try to refer it to one of the inquiries if you thought it was that serious. But, no, you didn't do that. The Labor Party didn't do that. They waited until their political fortunes dipped, which is what has happened in the last fortnight, because inexplicably the Labor Party decided it was a good idea to pass legislation to weaken Australia's border protection.
The Leader of the Opposition gave in to the left because they were so overconfident they're going to win the next election—so hubristic, so certain they would be around in the ministerial wing that they thought they would get away with it. They thought they would inflict a political defeat on the government on border protection and that that would be the issue. But the Australian people are not stupid. They can work their way through the Canberra bubble. They can sort the wheat from the chaff and they realise that the real issue at the end of this fortnight and at the next election is who you are going to be able to trust on borders. Who are you going to be able to trust on the economy? You can ask all these Canberra bubble questions you like. You'll get the same answer. (Time expired)
Fuel
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:21): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Tasmanians are being ripped off by high fuel prices and they're mightily furious. Now, no-one can blame the added transport and handling costs or the lower volumes, because, according to the ACCC, the net margin on fuels is still consistently higher in Tasmania than on the mainland. So, Prime Minister, will the government give the ACCC the power to intervene in the fuel market and to help stop Tasmanians being ripped off? While you're at it, will the government also direct the ACCC to start monitoring the price of bottled LPG as a start to cracking down on that particular price gouging?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:22): I thank the member for his question. As Treasurer, we initiated quite a number of measures that actually increased the powers of the ACCC to work specifically in this area of fuel prices, and so I will ask the Treasurer to further update the House on those matters.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:22): I thank the member for Denison for his question and note that, earlier this week, he had a briefing from Rod Sims, the head of the ACCC, and today again I spoke to Rod Sims about this particular issue. As the Prime Minister reminds the House, it was this side of politics, this government, that actually gave a direction to the ACCC to monitor prices and profits across the fuel supply industry. Earlier this week, the ACCC published a report which said that fuel prices had come down and that the refiners' margins were the lowest in a decade. As we import 80 per cent of the petrol that we sell in this country, there are factors that drive the price of petrol outside this country's control like the international oil price and like where the Australian dollar is. With respect to Tasmania, there was a report, again commissioned by this government, by the ACCC, into Launceston, because that was to be indicative of the broader Tasmanian market. It found that there were higher transport costs, that there were lower volumes and that there were higher operating costs and margins in Tasmania, but there were no breaches of the law. As the head of the ACCC has pointed out to me, over the last week in Hobart, the prices varied, with the highest price being nine cents higher than the lowest price across Hobart in the same week. So the ACCC's advice is that they will continue to monitor prices, costs and profits but it's up to consumers to put the pressure on and to shop around.
With respect to bottled LPG, the head of the ACCC's advice is that, if there are any issues relating to competition and consumer issues, they should be directed to the ACCC.
Taxation
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:24): My question is to Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the impact any changes to franking credit refunds would have on our senior Australians, many of whom are in my electorate, who have worked hard to ensure their financial independence?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:25): I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. He is fighting hard for the 4,463 people in his electorate who would have their money and retirement savings ripped away by the Labor Party. Retired Australians are a valued and important part of this Australian economy, an Australian economy where unemployment has come down to five per cent, the lowest in eight years. And, as the Prime Minister told the House, more than 64,000 fulltime jobs were created in the last month, and the female participation rates are up. On this side of the House, we've created more than 1.2 million new jobs and have put the Australian economy in a strong position.
But just earlier this week, the member for McMahon went on 7.30 and told the Australian people that the Labor Party would not change one bit their dreaded retirees tax. He said they wouldn't change it one bit. And would you believe that the member for Rankin, who wants the member for McMahon's job now, has actually said he's pleased and proud about Labor's retirees tax—pleased and proud—and that the member for McMahon has told all those one million-plus Australians who are going to be hit by the retirees tax that if they don't like their policy, don't vote Labor. Well, one of those people who the member for McMahon has insulted is Helen. Helen told the parliamentary committee:
I'm writing to express how unfair I feel the ALP's refundable franking credits policy is, should it be implemented. My husband and I have a self-managed super fund and we stand to lose 20 to 30 per cent of our income. We don't have a large fund, but that equates to $8,500 a year. We do not receive a full or part pension.
Helen said:
My husband, who turns 70 next year, works part-time mowing lawns to supplement our income. That $8,500 is large for us.
The member for McMahon dismisses that $8,500. He dismisses Helen. He dismisses the one million-plus Australians who are going to be hit by the retirees tax. This dreaded retiree tax is going to fall hardest on women, over half of whom are affected and many of whom are over the age of 60. Only one side of politics, only one side of parliament—this Prime Minister and the Liberal and National parties in government—will stand with retirees and do everything we can to stop the Labor Party raiding their savings with their dreaded retirees tax.
Government Procurement
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:28): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that DFAT told Senate estimates today that embassy staff weren't aware of Mr Hockey's million-dollar Helloworld shareholding when he directed them to set up the meeting? DFAT officials in Australia were not told about Mr Hockey's conflict of interest until after the meeting, and Mr Hockey didn't list his million-dollar Helloworld shareholding on his Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade register of interests until a month after the meeting. How can the government possibly claim that Mr Hockey's conduct was completely acceptable?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:28): I can confirm that the secretary of DFAT has said the actions that Mr Hockey has undertaken in declaring his conflict of interest are entirely appropriate.
National Security
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (14:29): My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General explain to the House how poorly drafted legislation can impact the administration and operation of Australia's border security?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General) (14:29): I thank the member for his question. The requirement to return a person to a regional processing country and the power to achieve that return are both contained in a very specific section of the Migration Act: 198AD.
That is a very important section, because if someone doesn't volunteer to return to the offshore processing facility it is sometimes necessary to remove them and place them on a flight, and rarely, thankfully, to restrain them—although sometimes that does happen. To do these things, a member of Border Force has to be able to point to a specific statutory power. If they don't have a statutory power, then doing things like removing someone and putting them on a plane is effectively an unlawful act against that transferee.
Now, that very important return power in 198AD of the act only applies to the specific categories of transitory persons who are set out in another provision of the act, which is 198AH. The problem is, that section does not include a person transferred under Labor's new medevac transfer. It does not include that person. So what Labor has done is add in an entirely new medevac transfer process to the Migration Act but they've failed to link that entirely new medevac transfer process to the existing provisions that provide the minister with the power to return.
Mr Neumann: You'll never run it in court! You'll never run the argument!
Mr PORTER: It seems like the member for Blair, who is interjecting at the moment, ably advised by the shadow Attorney-General, has forgotten to apply the return system. But from what he said this morning, again, we can all feel comforted, because he said: 'It's no issue. The laws have not changed the return system.'
It is true that the laws haven't changed the return system. The problem is that the laws don't apply the return system to the new laws. That is the problem. What we have had here—
Mr Morrison: That's the genius.
Mr PORTER: We've had the genius of the member for Blair, and this is what he said this morning, 'If a person is transferred to Australia for temporary medical treatment we will return them once doctors advise they have completed medical treatment.' The problem is you actually need a section of the act to authorise the return.
Mr Neumann interjecting—
Mr PORTER: If I and the government are wrong about this—and I'll take this interjection—what is the section of the act, member for Blair, that authorises the return? I'm just listening for a number! Can anyone hear the number? It's a thousand pages of legislation! You could just pick a number if you wanted to! What was the member for Blair's plan? Was he going to go up to Christmas Island and personally ask people, nicely, to go home? Was he going to utilise the mystic powers of the ring of steel? Was that the plan?
If you do not have a statutory power, the people who you are saying that you are treating humanely will be detained indefinitely on Christmas Island. He is a shemozzle member, a shemozzle! (Time expired)
Government Procurement
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister described the meeting between the US Embassy and Helloworld as an 'embassy staff meeting'. Why did the Prime Minister withhold the critical fact that Joe Hockey attended the meeting himself, a fact confirmed at Senate estimates today? How is it possibly appropriate for Mr Hockey, a million-dollar shareholder in Helloworld, to attend a meeting with Helloworld to discuss the embassy's travel arrangements?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr Pyne: In the member for Rankin's question, he asserted that the Prime Minister withheld information in his answer yesterday. I don't think he can assert that he knows what information the Prime Minister did or didn't choose to put into the Hansard. It's up to the Prime Minister how he answers a question, it's not up to the opposition. The opposition can't direct ministers how to answer—
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just pause for a second. Would those members interjecting behind the front bench cease interjecting. I think the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business would agree on one thing: they both want me to hear the question and the points of order so I can adjudicate. The Leader of the House.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, the standing orders are very clear that the answer cannot be directed by the House. The minister has the entire discretion about how to answer a question, therefore the member for Rankin's question today, asserting that the Prime Minister did or didn't leave something out of his answer suggests to me that he is in breach of the standing orders and that he should withdraw that part of the question or rephrase it. I don't think he can know what is in the Prime Minister's mind when he answers a question and assert it as a fact in his question the next day.
The SPEAKER: I've heard the Leader of the House on that point. Respectfully, I disagree with him. I'm trying to say this as subtly as possible: there are two principles here. You don't want Speakers giving their opinion of the factual accuracy of any questions. Speaker Andrew addressed this point a number of years ago quite obviously, and I think his principle's the right one, which is: by ruling such a question out of order, it prevents the minister or the Prime Minister rebutting claims that they regard as factually inaccurate. I've referred to that before, and I think I'll stick with that for this question. The question's in order. Now the Leader of the House on behalf of the Prime Minister is going to answer the question.
Mr PYNE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As has been pointed out yesterday, and as I've pointed out again today, the Australian embassy staff meeting with QBT on 26 April 2017, which is the meeting in question, was not in relation to the tender process.
Employment
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:35): 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's strong economic plan is helping to get more Australians, including more women, into the workforce? And what are the risks of a different approach?
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Women and Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations) (14:36): I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She knows that the coalition's economic plan is working and it is delivering for all Australians—delivering lower taxes, delivering a growing and strong economy, and, importantly, delivering more jobs. Of course, the proof of that was with the latest ABS labour force figures.
There are more Australians in work now than ever before. In January we saw employment increase by 39,100. It means, of course, that we have seen an increase as well in full-time employment. We have seen the growth accounted for in full-time employment account for 87 per cent of the total increase in full-time jobs over the last 12 months. And it means that there are more Australians in full-time work than ever before, with both male and female full-time employment at record highs.
Of course, there is a particular gold medal performer in this department, and that gold medal performer is Premier Gladys Berejiklian. The New South Wales unemployment figure has gone down to 3.9 per cent—the lowest on record since 1978. Of course, that was the year after I was born. Employment in New South Wales has reached record highs. Full-time employment has risen by more than 49,000 in January of this year. Of course, Gladys Berejiklian is not just a brilliant Premier, she is a brilliant woman.
As Minister for Women, I can also deliver good news that the gender pay gap has also gone down. The gender pay gap is now at a record low—at 14.2 per cent. It has gone down from 17.2 per cent—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton is now warned.
Ms O'DWYER: which was Labor's record—17.2 per cent. I know they hate it. They find it really uncomfortable whenever I mention it because, of course, it is an achievement of our government to get it down.
What are the risks? Well, the risks are obvious. The risks of a Shorten Labor government are $200 billion worth of new or increased taxes—taxes on your retirement, taxes on your superannuation, taxes on your home, and, in particular, taxes on small businesses that are structured as trusts. Small business, of course, is one of the greatest engines for employment growth in this country, employing around seven million Australians. I don't know what they've got against small business, but I can tell you this: we are for small business, for job creation and for all Australians.
Government Procurement
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:39): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the answer just given by the Leader of the House. Is the Prime Minister aware that, when asked if she believed Mr Hockey's behaviour reflects the high standards expected of someone in that position, the secretary of DFAT replied, in part: 'There are a whole range of things that you've raised today that I think we need to think about, and we need to provide answers to you. I'm not in a position right now to say that, in all respects, those actions have met the standard.' If the Secretary of DFAT can't say that Mr Hockey has acted appropriately, how can the Prime Minister?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:39): My mere presence gets them very excited, Mr Speaker!
Government members interjecting—
Mr PYNE: It surprises me too!
The SPEAKER: If you could read my mind! Anyway, go on.
Mr PYNE: The Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs has said that the actions that Mr Hockey has undertaken in declaring his conflict of interest are entirely appropriate. It has also been confirmed that the shareholding of Mr Hockey in Helloworld was declared entirely in keep with the DFAT guidelines.
National Security
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs: Will the minister please update the House on the importance of strong and consistent border protection measures? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would weaken Australia's borders and put lives at risk?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:40): I thank the honourable member for her question. The Australian public know that the Labor Party is a disaster when it comes to border protection. There is no doubt about that. You should never just look at what a Labor leader says; you should always look at what a Labor leader does. Before the 2007 election, Kevin Rudd—
Mr Hill interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister will pause. The member for Bruce has been warned. He can leave under standing order 94(a)
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
Mr DUTTON: Before the 2007 election, the then Labor leader promised that there would be no change to the approach to border protection in this country. But we now know that 50,000 people came on 800 boats, 1,200 people drowned at sea and 8,000 children, tragically, were put into detention. We have spent years cleaning this mess up. It has cost $16 billion.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton is warned!
Mr DUTTON: In their day they opened detention centres. We have closed 19 and we have got all the children out of detention, and we've done it in a way that hasn't recommenced boats. We have done it in a way that hasn't seen children go back into detention.
Yet what we've seen in the last couple of weeks is Labor reverting back to the worst days of the Rudd and Gillard government. The Labor leader wants to tell the Australian public, as he did at the last election, that there would be no difference between our approach to border protection and that which he would provide if he's elected at the next election. But what the Australian public has seen over the last couple of weeks is a very important insight through the window into what a Labor government would look like. Labor, through the bill which is now known as Shorten's law, allows people to come from Manus and Nauru.
The SPEAKER: The minister will—
Mr DUTTON: Sorry, the Leader of the Opposition's law, Mr Speaker—my apologies. It allows people to come from Manus and Nauru, including the case that we've cited—but many others—of a man who was involved in a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old. Not only does that person have the ability to come to our country, they have the ability—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
Mr DUTTON: They have the ability now to stay. They have the ability under Labor's law to stay here—not to be deported. So what happens at the moment? We've cancelled 4,200 visas of people who have committed criminal offences, including people who have committed rape, sexual offence otherwise, and people that are involved in all sorts of activities that don't bear speaking about in this parliament. They are the worst people. We've deported 4,200 people and we've made our country a safer place.
The Labor Party have demonstrated to the Australian public not only that they can't keep our borders secure but also that they can't keep our country safe either—and they should be condemned for it. The Australian public know that the way in which the Labor Party have unwound our border protection laws in this country over the last couple of weeks should be absolutely condemned. If they are doing this in opposition, imagine what they'd do in government.
Government Procurement
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:44): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the Attorney-General said in relation to the tender of government travel covering the US embassy: 'Well, I understand that they were unsuccessful in that tender.' How can the Attorney-General know this and publicly declare it when the tender has not been completed? Has the government been seeking information on the tender as it progresses instead of keeping it at arm's length?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General) (14:44): It is just an error. I have no knowledge about the contract.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Energy
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (14:45): My question goes to the Minister for Energy.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned!
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members can just contain themselves, including the member for Isaacs. Member for Fairfax, could you just begin your question again?
Mr TED O'BRIEN: My question goes to the Minister for Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government is defending Australian families and businesses from higher electricity prices? Also, what are the risks associated with alternative approaches?
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Ballarat!
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy) (14:45): I thank the member for Fairfax for his question and I acknowledge the hard work he does to get a fair deal on energy for his constituents. He knows that this week the government has cracked down on the sneaky late payment fees that are being charged by the big energy companies—big energy companies that those opposite have been defending. The rule change that we've submitted to the AEMC will see 25 per cent of customers and 59 per cent of vulnerable customers who fail to meet strict discount conditions given a fair deal. They will be charged only reasonable costs, and this will save an average household in the member's electorate in South-East Queensland $500 or more.
I was asked about alternative approaches. Modelling released today by a former economic adviser to the Hawke and Keating governments shows that Labor's reckless 45 per cent 2030 emissions reduction target will have the following impact.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Shortland!
Mr TAYLOR: It will cost the economy $472 billion over a decade. It will reduce full-time employment by 336,000 jobs and it will slash wages by $9,000 a year for an average worker. That's $173 a week. Meanwhile, it will increase wholesale electricity prices by 58 per cent. The fact is that, under Labor's big new tax—and let's call it for what it is: a big new electricity tax—Australians will pay more for essentials like food, housing, energy and transport.
Those opposite want to increase every Australian's electricity bill. The Leader of the Opposition has failed to come clean to the Australian people on the impact of Labor's reckless targets, and now we know why. Yesterday, the member for Corio belled the cat in one sector, the mining sector, saying that it would be a wonderful and good thing if jobs were slashed in our most successful export sector. How many regional towns will be devastated by Labor's policies? The Australian people deserve to know what Labor is wanting to sign them up for. Labor's dirty secret is the devastating impact of their high emissions targets. Only this government can be trusted to keep the economy strong. (Time expired)
Government Procurement
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:48): My question is to the Prime Minister. Has any minister declared any interest or dealing with Helloworld or Mr Andrew Burnes to the Prime Minister or his office this week? Given the responsibility of ministers to promptly update their register of interest both with the Prime Minister and with the parliament, is the Prime Minister confident no other minister will rush to make declarations after the parliament rises today for five weeks?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:49): I'm not aware of any, and, if there are, they'd be updated on the register and that matter would be disclosed. I'd be happy to update the House if there is anything further to add.
National Security
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the government's successful border security policies? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that may jeopardise Australia's borders?
Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (14:50): Those opposite should be deeply ashamed of what occurred on their watch in border protection: a humanitarian catastrophe—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield is warned.
Mr COLEMAN: in which 1,200 people drowned at sea and 8,000 children were forcibly placed in detention. The greatest public policy failure in Australia's postwar history, an absolute disgrace, is what occurred. We fixed it. We got the kids out of detention. We stopped the boats. Do you know what else we did? We increased Australia's humanitarian program by some 35 per cent.
But do you know what else we've always done? We've said that in multicultural migrant Australia everyone has to play by the same rules and everyone has to pass the character test. Everyone has to pass the character test under this government. Section 501 sets out those important rules that we expect everyone to pass. But, under Labor's notorious amendment (14), which they wrote out—they got a pen and wrote out amendment (14) to the legislation last week—people from Manus and Nauru do not have to pass the character test that applies to every other person coming to Australia on a visa. Every one of the people from the top 10 nations who came to Australia on permanent visas last year—India, China, the United Kingdom, Philippines, Pakistan, Vietnam, South Africa, Malaysia, Nepal, the United States of America—had to pass the character test. Under Labor, people from Manus and Nauru don't, but everyone who is coming on a visa to Australia does.
So Australians are asking: why does Labor want to impose a different standard on their families than on people from Manus and Nauru? If an Australian's sister from China has to pass the character test, why, under Labor, don't people from Manus and Nauru? If an Australian's husband from New York coming to Australia on a spouse visa has to pass the character test, why, under Labor, don't people from Manus and Nauru? If an Australian's friend from India has to pass the character test before getting a job in Australia, why, under Labor, don't people from Manus and Nauru? The opposition own this law. It is their law. They wrote it. It is a disastrous law with more and more failings discovered every day, and they must explain very, very clearly to all Australians: why do the families of Australians have to pass a higher test than people from Manus and Nauru? Why?
Government Procurement
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:53): My question's to the Prime Minister. In the last financial year, the government spent more than $600 million of taxpayers' money on travel. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Minister Cormann abolished the government travel panel—
Mr McCormack interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will pause. The Deputy Prime Minister will cease bellowing. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his question again.
Mr SHORTEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question's to the Prime Minister. In the last financial year, this government spent more than $600 million of taxpayer money on travel. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Minister Cormann abolished the government travel panel and made it compulsory for all government travel to be booked through Helloworld companies, moved a senior public servant because Helloworld thought he was driving too hard a bargain and received thousands of dollars worth of free flights from Helloworld? Why hasn't the Prime Minister recalled Ambassador Hockey and sacked Minister Cormann?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! The Manager of Opposition Business. Members will cease interjecting. I'm trying to hear the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: A point of order, Mr Speaker: there is a convention in this place that, when a question is asked about a minister being sacked, the Prime Minister is the person to answer that and defend their decision.
The SPEAKER: We've been over this before. I can see the Manager of Opposition Business finds the issue frustrating but the Practice does make very clear that the Prime Minister can refer a question to any minister and that's longstanding practice. Even if members may think the Prime Minister is better placed to answer it, it doesn't alter the fact that he has that right, and that is a very long standing convention that's written up in the Practice. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:55): The question contained a number of different parts, covering both the Minister for Finance and Ambassador Hockey. It contained a series of assertions and implications. The truth is that the Minister for Finance spent five hours in Senate estimates this week answering questions about that issue and covered every aspect of the assertions being made by the Leader of the Opposition. I would refer him to the Hansard record of the Senate estimates and the five hours of questioning, where Senator Cormann went through every single aspect of the issue that was being raised.
He also asked why Ambassador Hockey had not been recalled from Washington. I'll tell you why Ambassador Hockey hasn't been recalled from Washington, because he's doing a darn good job. He's doing a very good job on behalf of the Australian government and the Australian people. He has a series of achievements, and I'm sure, actually, that there would be members on the other side of the House who've visited Washington DC in the last 2½ or three years that Joe Hockey's been the ambassador there. I've never heard one of them criticise the job that Joe Hockey is doing there. They've all been happy to go to the residence, I am sure, for lunch or for dinner or for receptions that the ambassador has put on. I'm sure they told him what a great job he was doing and thanked them for the meetings that he's organised on Capitol Hill yet they come in here and, for their base political purposes, decide to tear down one of the great Treasurers in Australian political history, who set up this year's budget six years and five years ago to get to the point where, in this year's budget, on 2 April, we will deliver a surplus budget, the first surplus budget since Labor were last in office.
Labor, of course, have never delivered a surplus budget since 1989. Because of the good work that Joe Hockey did as Treasurer, we'll deliver a surplus budget. We've created over a million new jobs. We are delivering the infrastructure and services the Australian public expect yet those opposite come in here to smear a good man. He has not been recalled from Washington DC because he's doing a very good job there.
I would refer the member for Rankin and the Leader of the Opposition to the Helloworld clarification of media report to the Australian Stock Exchange. Those clarifications and statements to the ASX are not done lightly. They said, 'At no time has Ambassador Hockey or Helloworld CEO Andrew Burnes discussed the DFAT tender,' and 'Neither Mr Hockey nor Mr Burnes have had any involvement in the tender process.' That's a very clear statement yet Labor continues to try and make connections, which have no connection, and I think the Australian public will see this for what it is.
Taxation
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (14:58): I ask the Treasurer to outline to the House how the government is helping those Australians who have saved for their retirement to plan their future with confidence. Secondly, is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches that impact or would impact on senior Australians, including those senior Australians in my electorate of Menzies?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:58): I thank the member for Menzies for his question and know he's fighting hard for the 9,439 people in his electorate who are going to be hit by Labor's retiree tax. The member for Menzies and those on this side of the House ask the question: why is the member for Barton happy to see over 4,000 people in her electorate hit by Labor's retirees tax? Why is the member for Batman happy to see the 4,372 members of her electorate hit by Labor's retirees tax? Why is the member for Ballarat staying silent when more than 6,000 members of her own electorate are going to be hit by Labor's retiree tax?
Imagine what those people felt and thought when they saw the member for McMahon, earlier in the week, say to them that the Labor Party was not listening and would not change the dreaded retirees tax. They wouldn't change it one bit and, if you didn't like Labor's retirees tax and you were one of the more than one million people across Australia who were affected, that's all right; just don't vote for the Labor Party. That was an arrogant dismissal of the concerns of over a million Australians like Murray, who said: 'I'm almost 72. My wife is 68. We really have no likelihood of being able to get income from other sources to replace the 16 per cent loss to our income if the refundable franking credits are removed.'
The proposal is a direct attack on older Australians who have ungrudgingly paid their way over many years through personal tax payments with no government handouts. They have created employment and wealth. Murray and Helen are not the only ones affected. Richard points out that from his early income he will lose almost 30 per cent as a result of Labor's retirees tax. He says, 'As much as this upsets me, the reduction would include stopping charity donations to organisations such as the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. Further, our planned sponsorship of children for the Smith Family will also not occur.' These are real-life stories of real people—people who will lose a substantial part of their income as a result of Labor's desperate tax grab through a retirees tax that the people in Australia do not need, do not deserve and do not want.
But the arrogance of the Labor Party, who think that they've already got government sewn up, telling the people, if they don't like the policy, don't vote for them—I can tell those people that the Labor Party will take their money and the Liberal Party will let them keep it.
MOTIONS
Government Procurement
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:01): I move:
That the House:
(1)notes that:
(a)the Finance Minister abolished the Labor Government's travel panel and made it compulsory for all Government travel to be booked through Helloworld companies;
(b)the Finance Minister received free flights to Singapore from Helloworld just before it was awarded a multimillion dollar whole of government contract by the Minister's own Department;
(c)the CEO of Helloworld and one of its largest shareholders, Mr Andrew Burnes, is the Liberal Party Treasurer;
(d)the US Ambassador Joe Hockey helped Helloworld lobby for Embassy travel arrangements but Embassy staff weren't aware of Mr Hockey's million dollar Helloworld shareholding when he directed them to set up a meeting with a Helloworld company, a meeting which Mr Hockey personally attended;
(e)DFAT officials in Australia weren't told about Mr Hockey's conflict of interest until after the meeting and Mr Hockey didn't list his million dollar Helloworld shareholding on his DFAT register of interests until the month after that meeting;
(f)explosive Estimates evidence today confirms that the meetings was arranged because, in the words of Mr Andrew Burns, "Hockey owes me"; and
(g)these are just the latest examples of Members in this Government acting as if they are above the rules and treating taxpayers' money as their own, including the:
(i)Helloworld scandal;
(ii)Paladin scandal;
(iii)unlawful tipping off an Australian Federal Police raid;
(iv)use of Ministerial authority to assist Liberal Party donors;
(v)treatment of a parliamentary committee as if it were a branch of the Liberal Party; and
(vi)use of a Members' position to promote their own commercial interests; and
(2)therefore, condemns Members of this Government for acting as though they are above the rules and treating taxpayers' money as their own.
I start this speech with the following words: 'Hockey owes me.' That tells you everything you need to know about this government. Somebody owes a Liberal donor, so they get a meeting. A Liberal minister owes their mates who run a small private foundation, so they get half a billion dollars in half an hour. A Liberal minister owes a chum, who gets a juicy contract. The Liberals owe the big banks big time, so they vote against a royal commission 26 times. But the one group this government do not think they owe anything to are the Australian people who are not members of their special club. What happens if you're not in their club, and what happens if you're not one of the chums? Your penalty rates get cut; they cut funding to your local school, TAFE and child care; they cut funding from hospitals; they charge you more to see a doctor; and they put up everything except your wages.
A week after this Prime Minister rolled Malcolm Turnbull, he made the pilgrimage to Albury to define his new leadership. He did the usual Liberal Party thing and disinterred the words of some dreary old Robert Menzies quote, like he was reading a mantra from the Dead Sea scrolls. He told the assembled conservative faithful the core philosophy of his government. He said, 'We look after our mates.' Well, they certainly do look after their mates. The Liberals look after their mates, and their mates look after them. $400 million for Paladin? Why not? It has a company registered at a beach shack on Kangaroo Island. I didn't realise that Kangaroo Island was a tax haven! There was another $500 million for the mysterious Great Barrier Reef Foundation, half a billion dollars for a foundation that didn't even ask for it. As long as the donations flow in the Liberal Party, this government doesn't mind.
This is a Liberal government of their donors, by their donors and for their donors. No wonder the Prime Minister described our call for a national integrity commission as a 'fringe issue'. No wonder they have kicked that into the long grass. We won't hear any of that before the next election. The Prime Minister doesn't want to know about Senator Cormann's free flights. He doesn't see anything wrong with the Liberal Minister for Finance and the Public Service calling the treasurer of the Liberal Party, who just also happens to be the CEO of a multimillion-dollar travel company, to sort out some free overseas travel. But apparently that's how things work at Helloworld.
I want to draw to the House's attention the half-year Helloworld investor presentation. It is truly remarkable. As part of the reasons why you should invest in Helloworld, they talk about their merits and their strengths. I kid you not, it's says that one of the reasons why this is a great company with brand awareness and customer acquisition is that it 'has the right people in the right places'. Let's be candid here. I like the finance minister personally. But it just doesn't fly that when you book a $2,700 holiday you don't notice that it's not on your credit card and never notice if you paid for it. In the real world, people notice that money and if they have paid for it.
The Prime Minister's determined to imitate the three wise monkeys—I hear nothing, I know nothing and I say nothing—on this issue just doesn't stop at that. Apparently he has no interest in getting to the bottom of what happened with Ambassador Hockey. Joe Hockey is not a bad fella, but what on earth was he thinking? For a million-dollar shareholding, he just lined up the introductions. The whistle-blower at Helloworld just spells it out. He asked, 'How can this meeting happen with the Liberal Treasurer of Australia?' The response: 'Hockey owes me.'
Joe Hockey declared that the age of entitlement was over, but for this Liberal government it never, ever ended. If people want to understand the mentality of the modern Liberal Party—it's not every member over there, but it's a heck of a lot of them—they rub shoulders with their rich donors and they have a sense of frustration. These Liberal members of parliament look at their friends, who they rub shoulders with in private sector, and they say, 'They earn more money than us. Poor us, we're Liberals. We're sacrifices our wages to serve the public, so therefore it's permissible to take the gifts and to do the introductions.' This is the mentality. They feel that public service should come with a special subsidy, because that's the way they view public service. The problem is that they treat everyone else with disdain. They use taxpayer money like it's their own personal expense account. They can shout over there, but they can't deny the truth.
When it comes to kicking people off the dole, they're all over it. If it comes to sending threatening letters, they're all over it. They know when someone shouldn't be getting $265 a week, but they don't just understand why they shouldn't have it all for themselves. When it comes to the way they treat the health budget, they will cut that. But when it comes to holiday, they say, 'Hello, mate! Helloworld!' There is one set of rules for the Liberals and one set of rules for everyone else. We see that again with the fact that these people are happy to put everyone else in court, and they're happy to put everyone else in front of a royal commission. They expect everyone else to cooperate and they expect people to pay their own legal bills. But when it comes to them, the rules do not apply. Was is $288,000 for Senator Cash not to write a witness statement? That is the most expensive nonstatement in the history of the Commonwealth.
We see the minister for Goldstein. You know: 'Geoffy, Geoffy,' 'Timmy, Timmy,' 'How are you mate?' 'How are you mate?' 'Could we line up an investor shareholding meeting to go with your little branch meeting so we could do a bit of product placement for both. Right people in the right place.'
And then, of course, we cannot forget that old faithful, the member for Fadden. He is the great multitasker of the modern Liberals, the Renaissance man of rorts. I have one question, which Australians are asking: how do you spend $40,000 on the internet? What on earth are you downloading? What the Prime Minister will say is, 'Oh, it's all the Canberra bubble—a union conspiracy. Watch out, votes will start. Watch out!' Scare, scare! He'll say that the voters out there don't care about the government wasting money and disrespecting ministerial standards. What a contemptuous attitude this born-to-rule mob have about public money and public service!
Australians do care about integrity. That is why, if we are elected, Helloworld will be the first item on the national integrity commission that we will set up. When they're faced by facts, they just ignore it. What they will say is we're wrong; this is the bubble. Well, you know what they say? They say that the workers are wrong about flat wages, the women are wrong about sexism, the teachers are wrong about the cuts to school. They say the carers are wrong with the crisis in aged care—we haven't forgot you, Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. They say the CSIRO are wrong about climate change, the energy experts are wrong about renewables, the Academy of Science is wrong about the fish kills in the Menindee Lakes, the First Australians are wrong about the Indigenous voice in the Constitution, the international community was wrong about moving the embassy, ASIO are wrong in their security briefings. They say the Federal Police are wrong about Senator Cash. And, of course, to the banking victims they'll say they were not wrong to oppose the banking royal commission. All this government has left is fear and dishonest scare campaigns. They think the public will forget their failures. Oh, no, they won't. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (15:12): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:12): The leader of the Labor Party sounds a little rattled, doesn't he.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Shortland!
Mr MORRISON: He sounds a little rattled and a little breathless today. But I do know one thing.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr MORRISON: The leader of the Labor Party has never seen a private jet that he hasn't wanted to climb on board of. He's never seen a big table that he hasn't wanted to sneak his knees under. He's never seen that, as you've heard from this despatch box before.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr MORRISON: And when the former Prime Minister called you out on that, he was dead right. This is the leader of the Labor Party who has been sucking up to the Melbourne elite all of his life. As he sought to climb up the greasy pole, over one body after another, he sought to destroy them, and all those members who sit opposite know it only too well. This is the leader of the Labor Party who wants to run the country like a union. He runs the Labor Party like a union, and we know—and they know—the character of the leader of the Labor Party.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for McMahon! Deputy Leader of the Opposition!
Mr MORRISON: But I'll tell you why he's so rattled. What the last fortnight has demonstrated is not only the lack of character of the leader of the Labor Party, which the Australian people have had a good 5½ years to have a good look at. They've made up their minds on this bloke. They know he's weak. They know he's someone who rolls over, whether it's to the left on taxes or to the left when it comes to border protection or any of these things. They know the leader of the Labor Party is a very weak man. They can see it in his character and they know he's not the sort of person that they would want to have leading this country.
But the other thing is this. In the last fortnight, not only have we seen the weakness in the character of the leader of the Labor Party; we have seen that he is leading a divided party on matters of the greatest importance to the Australian people: their jobs, the economy and their safety.
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Eden-Monaro!
Mr MORRISON: These are matters upon which the Labor Party are hopelessly divided. We know they are divided on the economy, because when we wanted to expand Australia's trade borders, when we wanted to go out there and execute those arrangements with China and Korea and all of these countries—particularly with China—what did the Labor Party do? They opposed it. And then they were for it, then they were against it and then they were for it. When it comes to matters of the Australian economy, the Labor Party is riven.
What do we also know about the Labor Party in this past fortnight? We know when it comes to our traditional industries—the minerals industry, the resources sector, the forestry sector and the agriculture sector—this is a Labor Party that has deserted the workers in all of those areas. They have deserted them.
We have in the member for Corio, who would be part of a Shorten cabinet, someone who said this, 'The global market for thermal coal has collapsed, and, wonderful'—Captain Wonderful over there!—'that's a good thing.' Our biggest minerals export employs, across the sector, some 55,000 people who are seeing the market upon which their jobs depend evaporating away, and the Labor Party says that this is a wonderful thing. So if you're living in North Queensland, if you're living in Townsville, if you're living across the Galilee Basin, if you're living in Queensland, if you're living anywhere in New South Wales—perhaps up in the Hunter Valley—if you're living up there, know this: the Labor Party's not for you. The Labor Party says that your job doesn't matter. The Labor Party says the global markets upon which your job depends don't matter. Those in the Labor Party who used to think that it did matter no longer have a voice under this leader of the Labor Party. This leader of the Labor Party, who says he's a great person for jobs, with his career in the union movement—clearly what he was learning in the union movement was not how to support people's jobs but only how to support himself. So many union leaders we've seen from those militant unions go into those jobs seeking only to support themselves, advance themselves and get themselves into this place.
The number of times I've asked those opposite to raise their hands if they're a member of a union—here we go again! Raise your hands if you’re a member of the union? There's just one! Maybe there are three. What a brave bunch they are! They cannot even declare their hand that they are members of union movements. I don't know why they wouldn't. If it's a good thing, why wouldn't you happily proclaim it? Because they know that the only reason they were members of those union movements was to try and crawl into this chamber on the back of their union members.
It's not only in the area of our traditional industries where the Labor Party have declared their hand in the last fortnight as being hopelessly divided. Of course we know that under the Labor Party they are hopelessly divided on the issues of national security. That was no clearer than when they came into this place last week and voted to support weakening Australia's border protection regime, hopelessly ignoring the lessons of their own history and ignoring the body count on their own watch. I remember well when the Labor Party members were in government and they came into this chamber and wept. The tears have dried up, just like their memories when it comes to border protection, because they have committed the same sin of offence in this place that they committed when they were in government, when they hopelessly ran our borders down.
The reason that happened is not because there are some people on the other side who believe that borders should be protected. It's because those who don't are controlling the Labor Party, and the leader of the Labor Party has hopelessly rolled over to the left, and others simply want to undermine our borders. They have recklessly supported a bill that does many things, as the Attorney and the Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for immigration outlined this week: transferring permanently to Australia people who, in many cases, have been found in those countries not to be refugees at all, and those who, under a character test, would never be allowed to come to Australia, because, also under that bill, what the Labor Party have done is weakened the ministerial discretion that previously existed that prevents a minister and the government of the day being able to protect our borders. They've watered down that discretion. And, as a result, they've also ignored the fact that, in order to address the very error that they were advised by our security agencies that they'd be making, we would need to immediately reopen the Christmas Island detention centre.
Mr Neumann: Nonsense, it's rubbish.
Mr MORRISON: I get the interjection from the member for Blair that this is absolute rubbish. Now if he won't listen to the advice of security agencies when he's in opposition to protect our borders, what hope would we have that he'd listen to them if he were in government? This is a betrayal of the member for Blair. We don't know if he would be Minister for Home Affairs, because not even the leader of the Labor Party can express that confidence in the member for Blair in terms of what his job would be. But he's not prepared to listen to those agencies now. The Labor Party and the leader of the Labor Party are not prepared to listen to our security agencies now when it comes to protecting our borders. It was the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs who said to the government after the bill was passed, 'you must now reopen the Christmas Island detention centre'.
Now we have the member for Blair saying that's the wrong thing to do. We had Senator Wong say it's the wrong thing to do. We had the leader of the Labor Party say it was a tactic one day and it was fine the next. And the member for Sydney still doesn't believe it's the right thing to do despite the fact that that advice has been made very clearly. So understand this: the reason why Labor were so hopeless on our borders was not just because they lack the will, it wasn't just that they didn't understand the consequences of their own divisions, it was not that they didn't understand that you have to deal with the world as it is, not as you'd like it to be, but because, when it comes to border protection, the Labor Party are hopelessly divided. They fought with themselves year after year on the issue of border protection, and minister after minister failed and failed. Let's not forget the tragic record of those ministers who were in that government who wish to now be ministers again in a new government. The member for Watson had over 4,000 people turn up in just one month. The shadow Treasurer had 25,000 people turn up on his watch. They cannot be trusted to make Australia stronger; they can only be relied on to make Australia weaker.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (15:22): Honourable members will remember that, when the member for Cook became the Prime Minister, he said that he wanted all Australians to know whose side he was on. Well, Prime Minister, you have ticked that box this week. Every single Australian knows, after the sordid, disgraceful and stinky revelations of the last week, just whose side you're on. And if they didn't know before this week, they certainly know now. This chumgate scandal has now entered a dangerous new phase, which shows that government contracts worth many millions of dollars of taxpayers money are determined in this government on the basis of who owes who in the Liberal Party power broking structure, a dangerous new phase where the finance minister can rewrite the rules of government procurement to ensure not just that Liberal Party companies get a slice of the action but they get the only slice of the action. It is a dangerous new phase, where the Attorney-General puts his hand up to be investigated as well because he seems to have some kind of understanding of what is going on behind the scenes.
Helloworld has turned into a world of pain for this government. In Helloworld, it's entirely normal for the finance minister to rewrite the procurement rules to benefit the company of a Liberal Party donor; in the real world, wages are stagnant. In Helloworld, it's entirely normal for contracts to be handed out on the basis of who owes who in the Liberal Party; in the real world, we have job insecurity and under-employment. Those opposite don't have a clue. They spend all of their time doing insider deals for their rich mates. If those opposite are really serious about ending the age of entitlement, they're going about it all wrong. You said you wanted to end the age of entitlement; you've got a funny way of showing it. The member for Sturt says the ambassador to the US is doing a good job. What he really meant is: this is a tidy little earner for Liberal Party donors, for people who run companies who benefit from these government contracts. When Joe Hockey—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House, on a point of order.
Mr Pyne: The member for Rankin implied that I was in favour of corruption, and I find that deeply offensive and I expect him to withdraw it.
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin will withdraw.
Dr CHALMERS: I withdraw. Now, when Joe Hockey hits the fence as the Australian Ambassador to the United States, as he should and will, it doesn't end there. It doesn't end there, because Minister Cormann has shown by rewriting—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
Dr CHALMERS: You should sack Hockey. I'm saying you should sack Hockey, sunshine! I'm saying he should be sacked. But, when he is sacked by this Prime Minister, it won't end there, because Minister Cormann should go as well. Minister Cormann has been shown to be the beneficiary of free flights and other freebies while giving big contracts to companies run by Liberal Party donors. This finance minister abolished the travel panel and made sure that all of the travel went through this Liberal Party company.
Instead of the Prime Minister answering in question time—we asked him again and again to give a simple explanation of these very serious issues—he got the member for Sturt to do it. Doesn't that just speak volumes? When asked by the Leader of the Opposition did he support Minister Cormann, he couldn't even answer that basic question. So Minister Cormann has a lot to worry about. All the Prime Minister did when he finally got to his feet was blame the Labor Party and plagiarise Malcolm Turnbull. First he stole Malcolm Turnbull's job and then he stole his jokes! And the rest of Australia wonders why you got rid of Malcolm Turnbull in the first place; you still haven't explained that.
This scandal, as I said, has a long way to run. It won't end with Hockey or Cormann. It will dog those opposite every day until the election, and beyond, because the Australian people do know whose side those opposite are on, and it's not the Australian people's.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the leader of the opposition be agreed to.
Mr Morrison: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
The House divided. [15:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (15:38): I present report No. 36 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 18 February—21 February 2019.
1. The committee met in private session on Thursday, 21 February 2019.
2. The committee determined that the following referral of a bill to a committee be made—
Standing Committee on Economics:
Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2019
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 28 of 2018-19
The SPEAKER (15:38): I present the Auditor-General's Performance Audit Report No. 28 of 2018-19 entitled Management of Smart Centres' Centrelink telephone services—follow-up: Department of Human Services.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:38): 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.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Member for Curtin
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin) (15:39): Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a brief statement.
The SPEAKER: The member for Curtin may proceed.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: During the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to closely consider the future of the coalition government and the pending general election. I have closely observed Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the Liberal-National team in the parliament—in question time—in the party room, in press conferences and elsewhere. It is evident that the policy platform that we will take to the next election is crystallising, based on the very firm foundations of our unrelenting focus on prudent management of our national finances so that we can afford the services that Australians need—in returning the budget to surplus, in paying down debt, in lowering taxes, in backing enterprise and job creation and in growing the economy for the benefit of all Australians.
Australians will remember that in 2007 the Labor Party promised to deliver responsible budgets, yet in government they trashed the national finances through wasteful and reckless spending. Labor also promised to maintain strong border protection, yet in government they presided over one of the greatest policy failures in a generation when they weakened those border protection laws. During the last two weeks, it has become evident that Labor has learned nothing from its past failings and is doomed to repeat those failings should it be re-elected. It is thus my view that the Liberal-National coalition will win the next election—
Government members: Hear, hear!
Ms JULIE BISHOP: and that the government will be returned to office because it is focusing on the matters that matter to the Australian people. On that basis, I have reconsidered my position as the member for Curtin. I've been contacted by a number of talented—indeed, extraordinary—people, including women, who have indicated to me that, should I not recontest the seat of Curtin, they would seek pre-selection for that seat from the Curtin division of the Liberal Party. Accordingly, I will not recontest the seat of Curtin at the next election and I will work hard in the meantime to assist a new Liberal candidate to win the seat. It is time for a new member to take my place.
I will leave the seat of Curtin in very good shape; indeed, a winning position for the Liberal Party. When I first contested the seat, in 1998, I won the election with a primary vote of 44.6 per cent. At the last election, my seventh election, my primary vote was 65.6 per cent within essentially the same electoral boundary. With a two-party preferred of 71 per cent and with an experienced campaign team and campaign funds already in place, I am confident that a Liberal candidate will have every opportunity to win the support of the people of Curtin.
It has been an immense honour to be the longest serving member for Curtin and also to have been the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party—the first female to hold the role for 11 years—over half my entire political career. I'm also proud of the fact that I am the first woman to have contested the leadership ballot of the Liberal Party in its 75-year history. It has also been an immense honour to serve in cabinet, first as the Minister for Education, Science and Training and minister for women's issues and then as the Minister for Foreign Affairs—Australia's first female foreign minister. I'm so very proud that my successor, Senator Marise Payne, is the second female foreign minister of Australia.
My five years as foreign minister, being able to represent Australia on the world stage, were a particular privilege. We should be so proud of our reputation and the high regard in which we are held as a nation: as an open, liberal democracy committed to freedoms and the rule of law and democratic institutions; an open, highly competitive export-oriented market economy entering our 28th consecutive year of uninterrupted economic growth—that's a world record—with a lifestyle and a standard of living that is unparalleled.
I thank and acknowledge the prime ministers in whose cabinets I served: John Howard, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. I thank the Liberal Party of Australia, my division of Curtin, the state division, my colleagues, past and present, in this place and the Liberal Party members across Australia and living overseas everywhere for the remarkable opportunity they have afforded me to be a member of the House of Representatives since 1998. I have been blessed to work with some outstanding political and ministerial staff who shared my passion for my political and policy endeavours, and I thank them—particularly, Murray Hanson, my closest adviser for 14 years.
I thank my big, beautiful supportive family—my siblings: MaryLou and Joe; Patricia and Ed; and Douglas and Nicole—and David Panton and his family. I say to my many close and trusted friends that I look forward to seeing a lot more of you.
As I said in this place in my first speech, in November 1998, I was brought up to believe that entering public office should be one of the highest callings, that being able to direct your energies and abilities to the betterment of your state or your country was one of the greatest contributions you could make and that I'd always had an intense conviction that an individual can make a difference to the life of their times. That remains my view.
I also set out a goal in that speech: to represent the people of Curtin with all the vigour, courage and ability that I had to offer, with honesty and with decency, and, above all, to put their interests above my own. I will leave this place positive about the future and proud of the service that I have been able to give to my electorate of Curtin, to my beloved Liberal Party, to the state of Western Australia and to my country.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:47): Mr Speaker, I know that the member has just departed the chamber, but I think it's important to mark the speech that we've just heard from the member for Curtin—simply to acknowledge her tremendous service to our country, her tremendous service to her community and her tremendous service to our party, the Liberal Party.
Julie is a Liberal through and through. She has always held fast to those important Liberal principles. We share many things in common, not just thinking that Tina Arena is the best Australian female singer! Apart from that, there is the passion that she has always brought to her role; the dignity and grace that she has always demonstrated in every single role that she has held. She is an incredibly classy individual, as we remarked about Julie in our own party room some time ago.
The other thing I'd say about this is that one of my favourite verses relates to the phrase, 'Well done, good and faithful servant.' That is a phrase that, I think, very much speaks of the service that we seen from the member for Curtin. Her successor will have big shoes to fill, and we all know Julie has the best shoes in the parliament! They will, indeed, take some filling. I have no doubt that whoever does fill those shoes as the member for Curtin that the former member for Curtin—when she becomes that—will be there to support her all the way.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:49): The member for Curtin left, as she started, with a fierce attack upon the Labor Party at the start. That's fair enough. She loves her Liberal Party. I suspect today that there will be Liberal supporters, Western Australians and, indeed, people around Australia who like her particular brand of politics and will be disappointed by this news. I recognise how they will feel too. Even though she was a fierce adversary of Labor, I always felt that she admired the fact that the Labor Party did such a big job in terms of trying to encourage women into parliament. She was always generous in that regard.
I just want to talk more about the fact that she was a trailblazer: the first woman foreign minister—that's a big achievement. There can never be another first. I hope that whatever she chooses to do in the future—and I'm sure she won't be short of offers—she contemplates some form of public service. I think this country needs to be better at using our former prime ministers and senior representatives. I recognise her experience and breadth.
Personally, from Chloe, I would like to say that she and Chloe got on very well. The member for Curtin always said to me that I punch above my weight, as, I suspect, many blokes here in this place do. She and Chloe are good friends, so Chloe would want to extend to her and David the very best.
In closing, there was one moment as I was listening to her when I thought, 'It's a bit of an end of an era.' After all my dealings with her and watching her, I think about her time as foreign minister after MH17 was shot out of the sky. Former Prime Minister Abbott would remember that very much so because of his fierce passion about that event and the terrible tragedy and murder that it was. I don't just remember that flight, MH17, and the morning we gathered here in the chamber to learn the news that 38 Australian lives had been stolen. A lot of it fell to her. I saw firsthand how she showed up for the families, and her calm, composure and kindness was real; it was authentic in that grief and bewilderment. I remember the service in Melbourne at St Patrick's. She really was a leader.
But I also saw her steely determination in international forums to help pursue justice, and she was very strong. In that regard, if any of us were ever privileged to be in the position that she was in, dealing with the Russians and other people, I hope that we would show the same strength that she showed. That she did is to her everlasting credit. She did Australia proud that day and in those weeks.
I wish Julie and David well in everything that is ahead. I feel that the Liberal Party can have nothing but good regard for her because she has been a faithful servant of the Liberal Party and she has done everything she ever should for that party. Congratulations to the member for Curtin.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Capital Works
The SPEAKER (15:52): Just before we call on the matter of public importance, I had planned to give a statement on capital works. The President of the Senate made a detailed statement on Monday, so it's all public. I think it would probably suit the House if I just tabled that statement, which I'll do.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Education
The SPEAKER (15:53): I have received letters from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Kennedy proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, namely:
The Government's failure to properly invest in education and Australia's children.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:53): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting my matter of public importance rather than the member for Kennedy's—although, I guess, if you had selected his, it would have been tough for him to rise in support. If a child had started kindergarten in 2013, the year that those opposite were elected, what their parents would have heard during the 2013 election would have been those opposite saying, 'You can vote Liberal, you can vote Labor, but there's not a dollar's difference to your school.' A child who started kindergarten in that year would have, when he or she went into year 1, been in a situation where the government cut $30 billion from schools across Australia.
Between that time, 2013, and this year, 2019, when that child is likely to move from primary school to high school, what's happened in that six years when it comes to education in this country? First of all, we had the Leader of House, the Minister for Defence, who's not here. He said that all of the reforms that Labor had set in train were just red tape. We could get rid of them. On top of the $30 billion of cuts to schools, we didn't need any plan for school improvement in this country. We didn't need to do anything about getting our best and brightest into teaching. We didn't need to do anything about offering continuing professional development to keep our teachers—our highly successful teachers—at the top of their game, familiar with new research and approaches, making sure that they're applying them successfully in the classroom. We didn't need to do that. We didn't need to do anything about identifying aspiring school leaders or realising that the workforce is ageing. We didn't need to find any new school leaders and start to train them up to take on the educational instructional leadership role in our schools. We didn't need to do that.
We didn't need to do anything about TAFE or university. In fact, we could cut TAFE, university and preschool. Over this six-year period, from this little child starting kindergarten in 2013 to this year, when they're going to move from primary school up to high school, depending on which state or territory they're in, there has been cut after cut in education. It hasn't even been a go-slow when it comes to reform; it's actually been a turn-back-the-clock when it comes to improving our education system in this country.
Here is what we know about the cuts. There is $14 billion still missing from that original $30 billion that was cut from schools in the 2014 budget. What we actually saw was that, when the member for Cook became the Prime Minister, there was the deal that restored funding to Catholic and independent schools—which is great; we campaigned with them to see that funding restored—but not a dollar was restored to our public schools, which educate 2½ million children around Australia, the majority of children growing up in remote communities and regional Australia, the majority of children with a disability, the majority of Indigenous children and the majority of children in low socioeconomic communities. Not a dollar was returned to our great public schools. So, yes, we stand by the Catholic and independent sectors having their funding restored—we argued for it—but what kind of government says to two-thirds of Australian schoolchildren, 'Your education doesn't matter as much as those other kids'? So now 100 per cent of the government's school funding cuts fall on our public schools. That's what this government has done.
But it's not just schools. What can we say to parents? We've got this child who's gone from kindergarten to the end of primary school under the period of the Liberals opposite. They've got a little brother or sister. The little brother or sister's getting ready for preschool. It's an exciting time in the life of the family. Four-year-old preschool, from next year, is not funded under those opposite. For 350,000 children, their parents don't know what's going to happen with preschool funding next year. They are looking at about $1,200 from 2020 missing from the family budget if they want to pay for that preschool themselves. In contrast, of course, we have committed to funding preschool for four-year-olds, but we say it's important to fund preschool for three-year-olds as well, because we know how important early learning is. We know that early childhood education and care is not just a workforce measure for parents; it's about the children, it's about our children.
Take a look at TAFE. You only need to look around the country and see what those opposite have done to TAFE in this country, quite often with the assistance of Liberal state governments. More than $3 billion has been cut from TAFE and vocational education. The single largest cut was the Tools For Your Trade program in 2014, with $914 million in just one cut from vocational education. There are 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees now than when the Liberals came to office. They sometimes accuse us of having a bias towards universities because we are in favour of and will fund a demand driven university system which will see an extra 200,000 Australians over the coming years get the chance to go to university. But we believe in a strong, world-class TAFE system side by side with a strong, world-class university system. Those opposite have cut both. We will fund, we will defend, we will reform and we will improve both. Those opposite have just cut both.
You would think that it was all spending cuts from those opposite, but I can inform you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there is one area where those opposite are doing a lot better than Labor. It's in the advertising budget for education. I can't tell you how many TV ads I've seen talking about the extra school funding. I can't tell you. There's a billboard on Parramatta Road I drove past the other day—in Burwood, I think it was—with a big ad saying how great schools are doing under those opposite. I tell you, there's not a parent, not a teacher, not a school principal and not an education assistant anywhere who believes it, because they know what's happening to their school budgets. They know that the support they used to have is drying up. They know that the extra funding they were expecting under the need based funding system that they were promised, that their state governments signed up to, that their state governments found room in their budget to supplement, is gone under those opposite.
There is the most gross dishonesty in a government cutting funding from four-year-old preschool. They're leaving a quarter of families who get child care worse off, including many of the poorest families. They're cutting school funding, now with 100 per cent of that funding cut hitting public schools. They're cutting funding for TAFE and vocational education and apprenticeships. They're cutting funding for university, meaning 200,000 students will miss out and almost $400 million cut from university research. They're cutting at every opportunity but finding millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to lie to the people who are suffering the cuts. Australians won't forget it—not the kids of Australia, and, most particularly, not their parents, not their grandparents, not their teachers and not their principals.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (16:04): If I can, on indulgence, refer to a previous education minister who announced to this place 10 minutes ago that she would be leaving. Can I acknowledge her contribution as education minister, and, in particular, as foreign minister. As someone who was a diplomat and who worked at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and has a little bit of experience in this area, can I absolutely commend her for the outstanding job she did as Australia's foreign minister. She did this nation proud, she did the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade proud and she did this parliament proud. I would just like to put on the record the outstanding contribution that she has made as a parliamentarian, as a senior cabinet minister, as a deputy leader of the Liberal Party and as the member for Curtin.
I will now turn to this matter of public importance. Can I just say that it's about time the Labor Party stopped lying.
Ms Henderson: It's a disgrace!
Mr TEHAN: It is an absolute disgrace; it is blatant, blatant lies. Let's just have a look at the facts. Child care: the facts are that in Labor's last budget the amount of investment in child care was $6 billion. In the last budget that we delivered it was $8.3 billion.
Mr Coleman: That is a lot more!
Mr TEHAN: It's a lot, lot more. Let's have a look at schools. When it comes to schools, in Labor's last budget, when they were in office, $13.7 billion was delivered for schools. Last year's budget for the coalition was $19.3 billion.
Mr Coleman: It's a lot more.
Mr TEHAN: A lot more. Let's go to higher education and research. Labor's last budget was $14.9 billion. The coalition's was $17.3 billion. The facts are that we have put record levels of investment into child care. We've put it into preschools, we've put it into schools and we've put it into higher education.
I would also just like to deal with the myth that, somehow, through this investment parts of the school sector are missing out. It is record funding for government schools, record funding for Catholic schools and record funding for independent schools. I would just like to make this point: when it comes to state schools or government schools, the government's spending is growing at around 6.3 per cent per student each year from 2019 to 2023, compared to per student growth of 5.2 per cent for the non-government sector. That is worth repeating: the government is investing an increase of 6.3 per cent per student each year from 2019 to 2023 for government schools. That's compared to per student growth of 5.2 per cent for the non-government sector.
So, whichever way you look at it, record funding is being provided by this government for all parts of our education sector, and it's something that all members on this side are extremely proud of. Not only that, our focus is on reform and our focus is on making sure that all Australians benefit from this record investment. We don't just take a narrow focus. It's a bit of a shame and a pity that in the shadow minister's speech I didn't hear mentioned once what Labor will do for Indigenous students, what they will do for rural and remote students or what they'll do for those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. The facts are that this is where we need to prioritise and focus. This is where the gaps are.
Let's take preschools. This government has been absolutely focused on making sure we don't just pay for enrolment but ensuring that when we deliver our record funding the states and territories know we want it to benefit those who aren't attending.
Ms Rishworth: No, you didn't!
Mr TEHAN: Yes, we did. The shadow minister for early childhood is interjecting, but yesterday she spoke for 10 minutes on this subject matter and didn't refer at all to what their policies will do to help Indigenous attendance, low-socioeconomic attendance and rural and remote attendance. There was not one word, and that is where the gap is. As the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, who is at the table, has stated, it's incredibly important that you don't just invest the money but that you invest in the right ways to get the right outcomes that will benefit every Australian child, and that is what this government is doing. I say to those opposite: look at our policies closely because you could learn a lot from the approach that we're taking. That is something that you might want to contemplate and think about in your next three years of opposition, because it is absolutely important that, no matter where you come from or where you live, you get the opportunities that are required to give you a decent education. That is what we are doing.
What are we doing with regard to reform? We're implementing the school reforms that were put forward by David Gonski. We're doing that in collaboration and cooperation with every single state and territory government. Every single state and territory government signed up to the school reform agenda that we took to the Education Council last year. It's worth reminding people that every single state and territory signed up to that national reform agenda, and that includes the Labor government in Western Australia, the Labor government in Victoria, the Labor government in Queensland and the Labor governments in the ACT and in the Northern Territory. So we have bipartisan agreement to the national school reform agenda that we put on the table. I thank all those state and territory education ministers for understanding the importance of school reform and backing the proposals that were put forward by David Gonski.
We on this side also understand how important it is to provide the support that our teachers need, and I see that that is something the shadow minister has taken on board. People may or may not remember, but the government put the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group in place to consult and come up with recommendations to help improve the support we are providing to our teachers. The government invested $16.9 million to back the work of this group to ensure quality assurance for teacher education courses and rigorous selection for entry to teaching degrees, and to ensure that teachers are in the top 30 per cent when it comes to literacy and numeracy when they graduate. These are very, very important reforms for a very, very important component of our education system, because we all know that, when it comes to encouraging students to learn and when it comes to providing the support that students need to learn, teachers are absolutely vital. As a matter of fact, they are second only to the influence that parents and guardians can have on a child's education.
The facts are absolutely clear. There has been record funding for child care, record funding for early childhood learning, record funding for government schools, record funding for Catholic schools, record funding for independent schools and record funding for the higher education sector. All this has been done without us having to tax the Australian people an additional $200 billion, as those opposite are going to do, including retired teachers.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:14): I am pleased that the minister was able to get to the full 10 minutes talking about education this time. Last time, earlier in the week, he could only get to seven minutes. I am pleased to be speaking on this, because the minister obvious needs a history lesson. In 2014, it was clearly stated in the budget that there were $30 billion worth of savings from schools. We know that what 'savings' means there is a fancy word for cuts. There were $30 billion worth of cuts out of the budget, and these cuts have not been restored in full to our schools. The minister can use the argument that funding has gone up, but the truth is that when you look at the budget papers from 2014 you can see that there is a cut to our schools. There is no other way to argue it; there was a cut.
In addition, we have seen the minister talk about attendance at preschool. Attendance at preschool is very important. I'm very pleased that Labor's universal access, which was introduced in 2009, improved both enrolment and attendance at preschool. The minister has failed to recognise this important element, but there's one bit the minister has missed: he has no funding in the budget for preschool—I'm not talk being a cut; I'm talking about zero money in the budget for preschool—so I'm really not sure how he plans to increase those enrolment and attendance figures. In fact, what we're hearing around the country from state and territories is that access will be cut. If this minister does not put ongoing, permanent funding into the budget for four-year-olds then the access and enrolments will be cut for families right around the country.
It is appalling that the minister uses the excuse of low attendance in low socioeconomic and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander areas as an excuse not to put any money in the budget. That is a cop-out. The minister talked about how important it was to look at the data. When it comes to Senate estimates just today, with their new childcare system that he was bragging about, the department has confirmed that they have no idea which families have dropped out of the system, how many have dropped out of the system and whether that means those families are no longer accessing early childhood education. If the minister is so interested in data-driven evidence in the early childhood sector, he should get his department to collect a bit of evidence when it comes to early childhood education and to collect the data of who is missing out on that. They previously estimated that one-in-four families would be worse off and that the majority of those would be from low-income families in the lowest two income bracket. But, of course, he is ignoring this. I don't know whether he has told the department not to collect it or not to report it. I'm not sure, but he's certainly not paying attention to any data—because there is none—when it comes to the new childcare system.
What we do know when it comes to preschools is that if there's no money in the budget then that's going to do nothing to help attendance at preschools. I'm very keen to see better enrolments for four-year-olds and better attendance for four-year-olds, but we also need to fund three-year-olds as well. Our plan to fund three-year-olds and four-year-olds is endorsed by so many. It is not endorsed by the Minister for Education and Training. We hear the excuses that come from other members on their side, who say, 'Well, we can't do three-year-olds because we can't do four-year-olds. We're not funding either of them.' They then somehow bringing franking credits into it.
Our plan has broad endorsement: the Parenthood, the Australian Education Union, the Australian Childcare Alliance, the state Victorian government, the Queensland Minister for Education, the Mitchell Institute, Early Learning Association Australia, Early Childhood Australia, Goodstart Early Learning, the Early Learning and Care Council of Australia and the director of Save the Children. That's just to name a few of those who are backing in our plan. If the minister thought our plan was so irresponsible, why do we have the sector united—here, when we announced it and down at the National Press Club today—in calling on both sides to not play politics when it comes to early learning and, in fact, calling on the Liberal Party and the National Party to back Labor's plan when it comes to funding for three-year-olds and four-year-olds. There is only one group who have got it wrong when it comes to preschool and early learning: it's the Liberal Party, and it's shameful for them.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite—Assistant Minister for Social Services, Housing and Disability Services) (16:19): It's my great pleasure to rise and contribute to this MPI. We notice in Labor's contributions that they have been very silent about child care. We have funded $2.5 billion extra to child care, which is delivering some low- and middle-income families up to $8,000 a year in savings. That's why the Labor Party are not talking about child care; it's because they have been embarrassed.
When Labor were in government, they prioritised high-income families. We on this side are prioritising the extra funding for low- and middle-income families, and the dividend is there for all to see. Some families are receiving a rebate of up to 85 per cent of daily childcare costs. And I supported very much the Minister for Education when he regretfully had to say that, on education, we hear every single day the Labor Party continuing to lie. They continue to lie. The facts speak for themselves. On child care, the facts are: in Labor's last budget, they delivered $6 billion. In our last budget, we delivered $8.3 billion. On schools, the facts are: in Labor's last budget, they delivered $13.7 billion; in our budget last year, we delivered $19.3 billion. On higher education and research, the facts are: in Labor's last budget, they delivered $14.9 billion; in our most recent budget, we delivered $17.3 billion. These are the facts.
Labor talk about this ridiculous so-called $30 billion. I tell you what Labor did. When Labor were in government, this so-called mysterious amount of money was not in their budget; it was put beyond the forward estimates. So they didn't have the guts, they didn't have the courage to actually put it in their budget. The whole thing is a complete fraud. They put it in years 5 and 6. I have been around a long time and we were on a unity ticket with Labor for the first four years of spending; absolutely, we were on a unity ticket. But Labor never delivered the so-called extra money to this country. It was never delivered to schools, never delivered to families, because the Labor Party put it in years 5 and 6. They did not put it into the budget. That was what the Labor Party did. The whole thing is a fraud. The shadow minister for education stood up there and she unfortunately—and I do not like to use this word—lied. She has lied.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): I ask the minister to withdraw that.
Ms HENDERSON: I will withdraw against the shadow minister for education. The Labor Party tell lies about education funding. And that's what they did when they were in government. I am really proud—and I will say this very loudly and clearly—that in Victoria, over 10 years, government schools funding is going up 124 per cent, $31.2 billion; Catholic schools funding is going up 69.5 per cent, $30.7 billion; independent schools funding is going up 104 per cent, $18 billion; and the total increase over 10 years will be 96 per cent growth, or $80.7 billion in total. When the Labor Party talk about funding in Corangamite, perhaps they could have a look at Bellbrae, which was left out of the last state Labor budget. We had to run a campaign locally to secure the money by way of an election commitment with the former member for South Barwon, Andrew Katos, leading the way.
We still have Captain Wonderful, the member for Corio, who has done nothing about Bellaire Primary School, which needs $10 million for a capital upgrade, completely ignored by state Labor. We have Grovedale West Primary School, with some of the worst facilities, completely taken for granted by the Labor Party. Grovedale West Primary School is a wonderful school. It desperately needs a large injection of funding. It's cramming hundreds of children into an inadequate gymnasium. They don't even have the buildings to accommodate their children. And Winchelsea Primary School can't even get the funding to remove asbestos. It's an absolute disgrace.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:24): What a revealing debate this has been, which demonstrates the clear contrast between the opposition and the government in this most critical of policy areas. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who delivered a fantastic policy- and reform-rich speech at the National Press Club this week, made clear where we come from in this debate on this matter of public importance. She said, 'It's about our children.'
What did we hear from the government contributors to this debate? It was another Comical Ali performance from the Minister for Education, who can't engage with any of the challenges in his portfolio—or perhaps he's denied that opportunity around the cabinet table. But his performance was exceeded by that of the parliamentary secretary, who backed him in with more bluster and less rationale. I want to start in reference to her contribution. She began by referencing my colleague the member for Kingston and said something quite strange: that the member for Kingston had said nothing about child care. Perhaps she should listen to how the member for Kingston and other Labor members discuss this area. We are concerned about early learning. We are concerned about our children. We are concerned about our future. Workforce participation is important—that's part of the role—but we are committing to the funding of kinder for four-year-olds because we recognise the imperative of early learning. Beyond that, we are investing deeply in kindergarten for three-year-olds because it is vitally important. The statistics in terms of brain development and the learning process associated with participation in early learning are clear. For the Minister for Education to talk about equity while ignoring the opportunity for our most needy kids to start their school life on even terms is simply appalling. It is absolutely shameful. He should reconsider that part of his speech if nothing else.
I'm so proud to be part of a Labor team that is committed to giving every child every chance of education at every level. We on this side of the House understand that it begins with early learning. The fact that members opposite are more interested in accounting tricks for managing their budget bottom line than giving parents—and, indeed, Australia's children—the certainty of funding for four-year-olds is appalling. And their failure to invest in kinder for three-year-olds is just mystifying.
All that is before we get to schools. Here we heard the government members again trying to play games. It was the 2014 budget that baked in these cuts. There was a $30 billion cut, and they have put in $16 billion and expect to be congratulated. It's still a $14 billion cut, and that cut impacts most—in fact, entirely—on the 2.5 million children in our public schools. The Minister for Education talks about kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. Well, they are overwhelmingly educated in those schools.
Mr Broadbent: You know that's totally misleading.
Mr GILES: As the member for McMillan well knows, it is a $14 billion cut. We have put our money where our mouth is, member for McMillan. We are going to put every cent back in. More than that, we're going to scrap what's worse than the cut, which is the arbitrary decision to cap Commonwealth funding of state schooling at 20 per cent. That is outrageous. It's short-changing our most vulnerable, most needy students across the board but, in particular, in jurisdictions like Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory. You are creating two tiers of school education in Australia and you stand condemned for that, member for McMillan, as does the minister. It is a two-tier system of school education, and you have no vision for reform.
In fact, I will give the member for Wannon some credit. Unlike his two predecessors, he has effectively engaged in some conversations with the ministers council—he has—after five wasted years. He talks about reform, but it is on no foundation whatsoever. We support the recommendations in so-called Gonski 2.0 but we will fund them. We will give every child every chance to succeed in school.
Time doesn't permit me to go beyond schools, but the member for Sydney articulated the case clearly. Actually, there is a worse case of policy failure from this government than in schools and early learning, and that is in skills and university, because the government have absolutely nothing at all to say about this vital sector.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:29): What a contrast we have had in the matter of public importance today. Just before the matter of public importance started, we heard from the member for Curtin, whose wonderfully dazzling career as Minister for Foreign Affairs somewhat overshadows the equally important contributions she made as Minister for Education, where she was responsible for the higher education fund and the national education standards. But her greatest education contribution was, as a shadow minister, coming up with the idea of the New Colombo Plan, which is going to educate—and is already educating—40,000 Australians in Asia, giving them a great Asian experience. In contrast—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
Economy
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (16:30): The abbreviated autumn sittings are about to end without actually making it into autumn. As I look across the chamber, I see a wasted government, thoroughly rattled by problems that are mostly of its own making. I see a government on the run from the parliament, avoiding the problems the nation wants and needs addressed. I see a government that believes its only hope of survival is reprising the deceptions of the children overboard affair. I see a Prime Minister, a jingo of a Prime Minister, who's warped idea of Australian history caused Matthew Flinders's grave to be discovered—because he was making so much noise as he was turning in his grave!
I see a government making wild and unjustifiable claims, including that it will deliver a jobs bonanza that it says can only happen under it and not under Labor. Such claims defy logic and deny history. A coalition election win would, in all reality, make it harder to find a job that pays a living wage. There been a serious fall in unemployment in just one of the coalition's nearly six years in office. Jobs-wise, it's had one excellent year, two average years and two duds. Coalition budgets have made little effort to attack unemployment directly, because of misplaced fears that it might pump up wages and inflation. They relied instead on trickle-down economics, and they've got it wrong. Unemployment is down but inflation and wages growth are still below the Reserve Bank target range. Employment growth has been a stop-start affair—barely enough to offset the growth in the working-age population and modest improvements in labour productivity.
The benefits of economic growth have self-evidently not been shared. Wages are stagnant; the wage share has collapsed. Cruelly, the government sponsored cuts to penalty rates and household incomes have been left flatlining. Unemployment across the advanced economies fell on average by 2.5 percentage points between 2013 and December 2018. Here it inched down by only around three-quarters of a per cent. The Prime Minister now boasts that he has a plan to increase jobs by 1¼ million over the next five years. Adding those extra jobs translates to an annual rate of jobs growth of about 1.8 per cent, a rate that is actually below trend and which confirms the drop-off in jobs creation since around mid-2018. As targets go, it's not what you'd call ambitious.
Barring a major calamity like the GFC, our labour force will grow solidly because of higher rates of migration. Even in the depths of the GFC, employment growth still bumped along at a bit over one per cent. We've got a robust labour market because we've had such a sound financial system over many years, and a well-educated and adaptive work force. Stable government would promote certainty, too, but we've had little of that of late. Like many a coalition plan, this one is woefully short on detail. The Prime Minister doesn't distinguish between high- and low-wage jobs, part-time or full-time work, or say how many jobs will be created beyond New South Wales and Victoria or in regional Australia. Clearly, he hasn't realised that his mooted plans to cut migration would reduce job growth and undermine his grand job plan.
What this government has stood by and watched is a growth in the number of persons employed but only a marginal increase in the total number of hours worked. Underemployment remains at near record levels. The government has put the squeeze on working Australians. Not being able to find enough work to offset low wage growth has driven many into debt and many into stress such as mortgage stress. Wage and salary earners on $80,000 a year have had more and more of their pay creamed off in government taxes, courtesy of fiscal drag and bracket creep. This government has only ever pursued one change to the tax treatment of ordinary workers: a failed attempt to increase the Medicare levy. This government falsely claims to have generated more than a million jobs, when the Reserve Bank and the states and territories deserve the lion's share of the credit.
The coalition's third Treasurer in four years just may land a small budget surplus, but it will be due to cuts to the poor, higher commodity prices and the enforced generosity of wage and salary earners, especially those on $80,000 a year or less. Australian workers have little to show for years of wage restraint and higher PAYE taxes. They're under more financial stress, and this government has done little to help them in areas such as health care, in areas such as education and in areas such as social policy. It's a shame, and shame on this government, whose performance today demonstrated how inept and lacking in vision they are.
Dividend Imputation
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:35): We never forget our roots—where we came from, what contribution we made in the community. I was out of small business. I created businesses out of nothing. I employed a lot of people and I'm very proud of my history in that area. So, whenever there's an article that starts off with small business, I'm the first one to go have a look at it, because I know there are people out there just like me that struggled just like my family did to build a business and build opportunities for all the other families I worked with. Robert Gottliebsen wrote this article on small business. He was talking about the Labor retiree tax policies.
Let's start with the collateral damage. The retiree tax levied via franking credits is aimed at about one million retirees trying to self-fund their retirement.
But collateral damage flows to the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that have been storing their tax-paid profits in their company (it's invested in stock, equipment and capital items). The entrepreneurs were planning to distribute these profits on retirement when the business is sold or closed. It was their planned pension.
They are looking after themselves.
Now their franking credits representing past tax will be lost because in retirement they have no income. Not surprisingly their anger is now "white hot" and it is compounded because a proposed taxing measure has reduced the value of their business and that of many of their friends' businesses. And the word is spreading via the barbecues.
The ALP saw there was an opportunity to tax rich families whose affairs were organised in trusts, via a 30 per cent tax of the predistribution profits. Those small businesses that are not organised as companies often use trusts, so this represents a significant tax hike on their business. They are only now just starting to understand that in this area they are set to become the collateral damage.
There's a further impost. These small businesses, he says:
… work long hours to lift the value of their business. They may not always achieve their aim, but they dream of selling at a profit. Now the ALP plans to hike the tax on their dreamt-of profit. More anger.
For many small businesses the residential home is their capital and the acceleration of the dwelling value falls that will come via the ALP negative gearing policy represents more collateral damage.
… … …
Small business is just starting to grasp the adverse implications of these policies to the way they run their business. Taken together, that's an enormous amount of collateral damage …
The last thing a small business needs is collateral damage. I know that, in your electorate of Page, Deputy Speaker Hogan, and in my electorate of McMillan-Monash our biggest employment driver is entrepreneurial small businesses that have created some of the most innovative businesses in Australia. It doesn't matter whether it's in the timber industry, ideas around internet technology, technology in general or the changes we might make to the way we use brown coal. All of these things add up to jobs, jobs and more jobs.
Now take the pristine areas that go around the Western Port Bay from Tooradin to Philip Island. Tourism is extremely important to us, and the number of businesses that spring off the millions of tourists that come down to Phillip Island in one year, the growth I'm seeing around those small businesses and the entrepreneurs doing amazing things—you know, the people I represent are the window cleaners, the lawn mowers, the tradies and Matt down the street, who's renovating the property on the foreshore. I've seen the work he's been doing and watching what's going on there. They are all small businesses and they are going to be under attack. For the people listening to this debate: all of those businesses are going to be under attack in their future from the ALP policies that will indirectly affect them. These are unintended consequences by government that have a slingback that affects, in this particular case, small and medium-sized business.
At all times there should be an overlay. How will this affect a small business? This was just meant to affect a few. In one case, this franking credits exercise is going to really damage the income of a retired nun who had very little income. She said to me, 'Look, it just gives me a little bit more so I can buy a present for the grandchildren and so I can do some reasonable things.' A retired nun! These people have entered into arrangements and agreements on behalf of her and her family so, importantly, it's affecting real people with real lives. It's a change that we should not make. Small business and families should not trust the ALP, who are going to be putting their hands in your pocket.
Australian Greens
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:40): Tonight I want to take the opportunity to put on the record what the Greens party say about themselves. For many years, those of us on the progressive side of Australian politics have known about the toxic divisions within the Greens political party. Many of these divisions surround the civil war within the New South Wales Greens. This has pitted activists, focused on the environment, against the more radical fringe, which sees the party's role as destroying capitalism. This faction describes itself as the 'watermelons', and they sneeringly refer to their more moderate colleagues as 'tree Tories'.
The New South Wales Greens, state and federal, are more focused on themselves than they are on removing right-wing Liberal governments. As I've said many times, former Leader of the Australian Greens, Bob Brown, was a man of integrity. I had differences with him, but he left parliament with just about everybody's respect. That high regard, of course, has never been shared by the New South Wales Greens, who have undertaken an ongoing war against Bob Brown and against all moderates and environmentalists within their own party.
An ever-increasing number of Greens party members are blowing the whistle on their own party. These are some of the things that they've said—firstly, Bob Brown himself, after the last federal election:
I've been approached in the streets in Sydney by people saying, 'I'm a Green but I'm not going to vote for the candidates you've put up here in Sydney.
New South Wales MP, Cate Faehrmann, a former chief of staff to Senator Di Natale, said:
It is my firm belief that the party in NSW has been infiltrated by destructive extreme left forces who will stop at nothing …
In an open letter, she went on to say:
Honesty, integrity, due process and natural justice - these are fundamental values that any voter should expect in a political party … Currently the NSW Greens cannot claim to be meeting these most basic tests.
Of course, it was reported recently that there were detailed discussions involving Mr Brown, Ms Faehrmann and fellow New South Wales MP, Justin Field, about forming a split-away party. And, announcing his split from the Greens party in December, Jeremy Buckingham said:
… the fact is that the New South Wales Greens as an organisation is corrupt and rotten.
Later, he went on to say: 'In New South Wales, what we actually have is a clandestine, organised program by socialist organisations to take over the NSW Greens. It's been successful, and to move our policy platform to one of pure socialism, pure Marxism.'
When he was asked by Hamish Macdonald what he would say to people who were considering voting for the Greens party at the upcoming federal election, he said this: 'I would say to them, especially in NSW, to take a good hard look … the Greens organisation in NSW has departed from the project that Bob Brown started all those years ago.' And, of course, he has recently criticised his replacement on the New South Wales Greens upper house ticket—Allen & Overy corporate lawyer, Abigail Boyd, who, ironically, has worked in the interests of a number of companies at odds with the Greens party platform. He said:
The Greens have lost their focus on the climate and environment. They've been hijacked by phonies who see it as a path to power if they just mouth the correct ideology, regardless of how hypocritical it may be. It's pathetic and sad to see the Greens running a candidate whose company was working for Adani, Santos, Origin and Gina Rinehart.
It's an extraordinary proposition.'
Long-term staffer of Cate Faehrmann, James Gough, said:
While the global Green movement represents me and my political philosophy, the NSW Greens no longer do.
And, to be fair, the triumphant Left renewal faction, aligned with Lee Rhiannon, doesn't shy away from its objectives. This is what it says that people who join up with Lee Rhiannon have to sign up to:
4. That a rejection of class antagonism, and capitalism, also depends on a rejection of the state’s legitimacy and the right of it, and its apparatuses, to impose oppression upon the working class and oppressed people in order to liberate the working class and all oppressed people. We further rejected state mediated oppression in all of its forms, and recognise that violent apparatuses like the police do not share an interest with the working class.
At the last election, Jim Casey, my opponent, said this:
I would prefer to see Tony Abbott returned as prime minister with a Labor movement that is growing, with an anti-war movement that was disrupting things in the streets …
He went on to say:
I'd prefer to see Abbott as the prime minister in that environment than Bill Shorten as prime minister without it.
The fact is that they have preselected him again to run for Grayndler. He went so well last time that they've backed him and have selected him again! The New South Wales Greens are out of touch with mainstream environmentalists.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): I thank the member for that very informative contribution.
Dunkley Electorate: Schools
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (16:45): Each year I award the Dunkley Shield to a student chosen by each participating school in my electorate who has been found to be capable, compassionate and committed in all that they do—in the school and amongst their peers, family, teachers and the wider community. It is the highest award that I give as the federal member of parliament for Dunkley. In late 2018 and early 2019 I awarded students at 42 Dunkley schools the Dunkley Shield for displaying these exceptional personal qualities. I'd like to congratulate those students from each suburb and village in my electorate.
I'd like to congratulate the following Dunkley Shield award winners in Frankston: William Griffiths from Frankston Primary School, Aiden Lennie from Frankston East Primary School, Andy Dzemidzic from Frankston Heights Primary School, Callum Bassett from Ballam Park Primary School; Angelina Amato from St Francis Xavier Primary School; Garrett Comey from St John's Primary School; Riley Malacarne from John Paul College; Kaitylyn Dastey from Kingsley Park Primary School; and Brodie Amphlett-Cargill from Naranga School.
I would like to congratulate those in Frankston South who received the Dunkley Shield award: Aiden Hawkins from Derinya Primary School, Michaela Groggin from Frankston High School, Lily Craigie from St Augustine's Catholic Primary School, and Ethan Duff from Mount Erin College. In Frankston North, I'd like to congratulate Jasmine Low from Mahogany Rise Primary School, Kadenyce Wesley from Aldercourt Primary School, and others in that areas who received the Dunkley Shield award.
In Karingal, I'd like to congratulate Taliah Black from Karingal Heights Primary School, and Sai Hodgkinson-Aughterson from Karingal Primary School.
In Langwarrin, I'd like to congratulate Katelyn Fellows from Langwarrin Park Primary School, Callan Kilby from Langwarrin Primary School, Sarah Garnier from McClelland College, Dannii Jennings from Elisabeth Murdoch College, and Laura Kemp from St Jude's Catholic Parish Primary School, Langwarrin. In Langwarrin South, I'd like to congratulate the following Dunkley Shield award winners: Zali Schwarz from Bayside Christian College, and Charlotte Swayn from Woodleigh School.
In Mount Eliza, I'd like to congratulate Vivashh Maheswaran from Mount Eliza North Primary School, Abbie McKinna and Jake Ketelaar from Mt Eliza Primary School, Gracie Fielden from Kunyung Primary School, Sarah Standfield from Mount Eliza Secondary College, Sophia Phillips from Peninsula Grammar, Amelia Hirst from Toorak College, and Lucas Parish from St Thomas More's Primary School.
I'm getting towards the end, Deputy Speaker Hogan! I'd like to congratulate the following Dunkley Shield award winners in Mornington: Anna Douglas-O'Loughlin from Mornington Park Primary School, and Archer Hornsby from Mornington Secondary College.
In Seaford, I'd like to congratulate Sarah Maguire from Seaford North Primary School, Alesia Iliagouev from Seaford Park Primary School, Paige Harmor from Seaford Primary School, Mya Sheppard from Belvedere Park Primary School, Montana Warke from Nepean School, and Chloe Windhuss from St Anne's Primary School Seaford.
Last but not least, in Carrum Downs I'd like to congratulate Klaire Santos from Carrum Downs Secondary College; Larissa Shashkoff from Flinders Christian Community College, Carrum Downs Campus; and Mia Pitcher from Rowellyn Park Primary School.
I congratulate all of these deserving students who are committed to improving themselves inside and outside of the classroom, and clearly they are students who reflect their school's values. As you can see, there were quite a number of award ceremonies that I attended late last year, some five or six in the one evening, But it's always great to go out to the local schools in Dunkley, and it's been a pleasure to attend the various ceremonies, awards, assemblies and graduations, to join the celebration of the success of our wonderfully talented students and to witness how many future leaders we have in our local area. Congratulations once again to all Dunkley Shield award winners over the last year. Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A great effort there, Member for Dunkley.
Member for Jagajaga
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:49): Yesterday a Labor legend and a giant of Australian politics and policymaking spoke in this place for the last time. So I rise this evening to pay tribute to my friend the member for Jagajaga—the person who has done more than any other to drive the development and the implementation of social policy in this country and to expand and secure our social compact, always determined to do the most for and with the most in need. Often the description of politics as the 'art of the possible' evokes cynicism—not so for the member for Jagajaga. For her, this seemed to me a daily inspiration—a challenge to seize every chance to make progressive change and to ensure that all of us get every chance to lead lives of decency and dignity on our own terms.
In her first speech, she spoke of active citizenship—what it can mean to be Australian. She described this in the following terms: 'being able to share in the life of the community; it means enjoying a certain level of security; it means belonging'. This concept was threaded through that speech and through all of her time in this place. She went on, talking of a commitment to three things underpinning active citizenship: recognition of every person's equal worth; their right to work together to advance their interests; and their right to work, education and health services—an enduring formulation; the building blocks of a good society and matters she pursued consistently, thoughtfully and without a moments equivocation in this place.
Last night, she returned to this theme and concluded, 'The truth is we all need each other.' We do. That truth is social democracy's fundamental concern and our great mission in the Labor Party to build and sustain a society without the corrosions of discrimination and inequality. Over 23 years in this parliament the member for Jagajaga has set the standard the rest of us look up to and strive to live up to as a candidate representative, minister and shadow minister—without ego, focused always on others and the wider purposes of our role.
Her policy contribution is vast, incomparably so, and began long before her election. I think of her work for and with Brian Howe, that other giant of the Victorian Left. And then to reset Labor's sense of purpose and program in opposition during the Howard years, and again after the 2013 election when she literally rewrote our social policy framework. Her work drove so much of the agenda of the Rudd and Gillard governments—those things that enlarge us and which will endure: the Apology, lifting pensioners out of poverty, paid parental leave, founding the NDIS. She was always prepared to take tough decisions—always asking tough questions to ensure that the right answers would be found. Not that I always enjoyed her Socratic method! Jenny asking me, 'Why?' always made me nervous, but this practice taught me so much about the discipline of policymaking.
All of us in the Labor team owe the member for Jagajaga for her selfless leadership, through which she brought out the best in us. She was never too busy to help others or to support a colleague in tough times. Yesterday she spoke of camaraderie in this place. In my party, no-one has done more to foster this. In the Labor team, we enjoy a great sense of shared purpose, but clearly it hasn't always been this way. In this place, while I've been here, it's been Jenny who has reminded the rest of us about our wider responsibilities and the need to live up to the values we profess. Here too we all need each other. This surely is part of our wider challenge to restore trust and confidence in our politics and its institutions by adhering to her example.
It's been my extraordinary privilege to have known the member for Jagajaga and to have spent my two terms in this parliament alongside her. It's with the greatest of pride that I call her my friend. I will miss her terribly here, but I take consolation in three things: that she leaves on her terms, which is a rare privilege and a fitting one for her; that Kate Thwaites is such a wonderful candidate for Jagajaga; and that Jenny supported Kate's selection, which says almost all that needs to be said in this regard. I can't wait to get to work with her in this place.
I'm so excited by what's next for private citizen Macklin. I know that her contribution to our movement and our nation is far from done. So thanks, Jenny, for everything. For however long I'm here, I will always be mindful of your example to guide me through my responsibilities.
Murray Electorate : Agriculture Industry
Mr DRUM (Murray—Nationals Whip) (16:54): I'd like to run through a snapshot of the Goulburn Valley, one of the most productive agricultural regions in Australia. In Murray, the food and grocery manufacturing industry generates over $5 billion of output annually. This economic activity is led by the dairy sector, which contributes over $2 billion annually, and fruit and vegetable produce manufacturing, which has an output of over $1.6 billion. Employment in the Murray food and grocery sector comes in at 8,500, where the dairy sector is over 2,700. Another 2,000 workers work in the local fruit and vegetable farming sector, and over a thousand people work in the meat manufacturing sector. This is a very, very productive area of Australia, and it is estimated that over $3.89 billion in exports come from the Murray region, including dairy, which is exported at a value of $1.69 billion. These statistics show you exactly how important the processing and agricultural sectors of Murray are to Australia.
We continue to see growers and local farmers invest their own money and their businesses' money in furthering the processing opportunities throughout the Goulburn Valley. We really need some support for these industries into the future. Just recently Peter Thompson and the Geoffrey Thompson Fruit Packing Company have been making a push to increase the productivity of their business via a world-class packing and grading facility. This is one part of the fruit and vegetable sector that is lagging behind our competitor nations. Our ability to speed up the grading and packing process in the Goulburn Valley for a whole range of our fruit growers is something that is desperately needed within the whole industry to actually bring our sector in line with world efficiencies. Our whole cropping sector has had a disastrous year, with many of our crops being cut for hay. A lot of that hay was sold to our drought-affected farmers across New South Wales.
Another input cost that is really affecting our farming sector at the moment is the price of water. Water is currently trading at $500 a megalitre on the temporary market. Hay is trading at $335 a tonne, excluding GST, grain is at $550 a tonne, and there is a very poor market for dairy cows. In relation to the cost of water, what has recently been announced by the Labor Party is quite worrying and threatening. Labor wants to reintroduce indiscriminate buybacks, where they will go to a market full of vulnerable customers and indiscriminately pick those that need to sell their water. This is the worst, most destructive and most dangerous of all water policies. For Labor to threaten to reintroduce indiscriminate buybacks, which will leave a whole raft of stranded farmers at the end of an irrigation channel, is not only dumb but extremely destructive and dangerous. What we need is a carefully thought out policy in relation to circumstances in which we need to deliver more water from our irrigation sector to the rivers.
I've got a letter here from Suzie Jacobs, who effectively put it this way: 'Our dairy cattle are worth $500 a head and we're in the process now of taking them off to Greenham abattoir, where we might receive $500 per head. Our little business generates about $160,000 to $200,000 per annum. If we go out of business'—which it looks like they're going to—'that's another $200,000 that will leave our community.' Every time the Labor Party move these reckless policies, they force farmers out of business, and this sort of money leaves regional Australia.
The stunt that happened this week in relation to a floor price for milk means the Labor Party have no understanding of the fact that the vast majority of our milk in Australia finds its way overseas and therefore our products are at the beck and call of the world milk price; that it has very little to do with what could be a floor price here in Australia. The Labor Party either don't understand or don't care or can't quite work out that these policies are, in fact, very degrading to people who are going through a really tough time.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 1 8:59
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Pyne: To move—
(1) standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for the sitting on Tuesday, 2 April, 2019; and
(2) standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 4 April, 2019 and at that sitting, after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically stand adjourned until 10 am on Monday, 15 April 2019, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.
Mr Katter: 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 (Mr Goodenough) took the chair at 10:11, a division having been called in the House of Representatives.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Education
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:11): This morning I rise to talk about the fabulous education announcements made by my good friend the member for Sydney, who is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for education. I'm incredibly excited about the $40,000 bursaries for student teachers. It's up to $40,000 to encourage the best and brightest Australians into teaching, a career that I enjoyed for 27 years. My first choice when I finished school was to go into teaching. This is part of Labor's plan to raise the status of the teaching profession. I don't think there's anything more important that we can do for our communities across this country. After graduating, working in public schools will be required for between one and four years. It's tried and tested. We know it works. We had thousands of teachers who joined the teaching profession through a similar process many years ago. Thousands of women became teachers, built a life in that profession and shared great practice in their classrooms around this country. This supports teachers. It will rejuvenate our classrooms and, in outer suburban areas, where we do the serious heavy lifting of taking on graduate teachers and supporting them to become professionals in our profession, this will go a long way towards raising the community's expectations around teachers as well as assisting and raising the status and profile of teachers.
The minister also announced yesterday a $30 million investment to establish a national principals academy. As a former state school principal, I find this is a really exciting announcement because, state to state, there is such variation happening on the ground in our schools. This national academy will allow principals from different parts of Australia to get together, to share their knowledge, to collaborate, to find the best ways forward and to attest to what's working and what's not working in real time.
Those are really exciting announcements, but nothing is more exciting than the announcement that we will increase funding for students with a disability by $300 million over three years from 2020. This is a really exciting announcement, welcomed across the country by parents of students with a disability. It will ensure that more teachers are involved in supporting those students and that they'll get more one-to-one attention and it will develop the best ways to support students with various disabilities in our classrooms across Australia. Labor are going to put back the $14.1 billion into state schools. That's what's important about Labor. We're going to an election on a win.
Fadden Electorate: Schools
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Treasurer) (10:14): I rise to acknowledge the great student leaders within the schools of the northern Gold Coast in the electorate of Fadden. Young people play an extraordinary part in the life of our communities. Their actions have the potential to influence their peers, and that influence should not be underestimated. For many of them, 2019 is the start of their great leadership journey. For the northern Gold Coast schools, 448 outstanding young Australians from 27 local schools have answered the call to serve their community.
These schools include A. B. Paterson College, Arundel State School, Biggera Waters State School, Coombabah State School, Coombabah State High School, Coomera State School, Coomera Rivers State School, Helensvale State High School, Helensvale State School, King's Christian College Pimpama Campus, Jubilee Primary School, Labrador State School, Livingstone Christian College, Lutheran Ormeau Rivers District School, Mother Teresa Catholic Primary School, Ormeau State School, Ormeau Woods State High School, Oxenford State School, Pacific Pines State High School, Pacific Pines Primary School, Park Lake State School, Picnic Creek State School, Pimpama State Primary College, Pimpama State Secondary College, St Francis Xavier Catholic Primary School, Toogoolawa School and Woongoolba State School.
I urge these student leaders to strive to achieve their very best in their current roles. Through their influence they now carry a torch of responsibility—in many ways, the first start of a lifelong journey of leadership. I frequently visit the schools, whose leaders' names I'll seek to table today, and I'm regularly welcomed, as many members of this House are, by those schools and the schools' leadership groups. I'm as universally impressed with the young people the schools have chosen to represent them as I am impressed with the teaching staff that serve them through their life of learning.
It's clear the calibre of these young individuals in the northern Gold Coast is of an extraordinarily high level. Some of these students have been elected by their peers and some have been appointed by consensus with members of the school staff, all of whom are watching these exceptional young people grow up, recognising the contribution they can make to their schools, families and communities.
I believe it's important for the Commonwealth to acknowledge the roles and responsibilities of all our young leaders in school communities, which is why I publicly recognise their achievements in the federal parliament today. I wish their students well in their important positions and trust they'll represent their schools and communities to the very best of their abilities. Above all, they should remember that leaders can only truly lead by serving those they seek to represent. Congratulations to all 2019 student leaders. I seek leave to table the names of 448 extraordinary young Gold Coasters who are stepping up to serve their community.
Leave granted.
Playford Community Fund Inc.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (10:17): I rise to speak on a very active community organisation in my electorate of Wakefield, the Playford Community Fund. The Playford Community Fund, which is located at Elizabeth City Centre, has been actively helping families and individuals in dire circumstances since 1964. It's operated by volunteers. The Playford Community Fund has provided food for families who cannot afford it and furniture for families who don't have it. They provide bill assistance so struggling families can keep the power on. They help with vital support for women and mothers who have experienced domestic violence or homelessness. They provide assistance in paying prescriptions for those who desperately need medication but often can't afford it. Of course, there are many other services that the Playford Community Fund provides, including financial advice to those who have budgeting issues.
This is a particularly active organisation. It's run 100 per cent by volunteers. It has no paid staff. The volunteers even make the furniture that they give away to some of my constituents and people outside the electorate. And so it's puzzling that the government is now turning its back on them. The first unreasonable demand this government made of the Playford Community Fund, which, I've got to say, was accepted, was to significantly increase the area of service for the fund to operate in but keep the funding static. But the fund has now been notified that from the end of the next financial year their funding will be halved.
Now, there are a great number of examples of government waste I could go into, but I'm not going to do that today, because I don't want to make a partisan speech. I just want to make a plea on behalf of the Playford Community Fund. It is a really important institution in my electorate.
A government member interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: Well, I'm talking about a fund that helps people and you're making jokes about it. It's really funny, isn't it? Helping poor people, and you've cut their funding, and you find it funny. It's a big joke!
I make a plea to the government to take this seriously, to actually talk to the fund, to restore their funding, to look at the service area and to try to do some good work for a change rather than treating this all like a big joke, a big game. It's not a game. This is about people who literally face the grinding hardship of poverty. They face unemployment. They face very dire budgeting situations. They have their services cut off. They face homelessness.
The Playford Community Fund is really the last line of defence for many in the community. I urge the government not to treat it as a joke or a laughing matter but rather to help this fund to continue its good work that it has been doing since 1964.
Coorong and Lower Lakes
Mr PASIN (Barker) (10:20): I rise to speak about two geographically linked environmental needs in the iconic Lower Lakes and Coorong. Having an interconnector between Lake Albert and the Coorong is something that has been explored and discussed for a very long time. This is because the connection between the neighbouring larger lake, Lake Alexandrina, and Lake Albert is very restricted, so it's very hard to facilitate water exchange. A Lake Albert scoping study was undertaken in 2013. It investigated a range of potential management actions to reduce salinity in Lake Albert. In relation to the interconnector, the proposed study concluded that there would be social, environmental and ecological benefits. It would help us improve salinity levels by returning them in a water-efficient manner to their historical ranges. Also, according to the Murraylands RDA, there would be a significant economic benefit, an additional 273 jobs, taking gross regional product from $2.7 million to $33.4 million.
The second issue I want to touch on is the New Zealand fur seals in the Coorong. Long-nosed New Zealand fur seals are found all along the South Australian coast, where they frequently interact with fishers, water users and beachgoers. Between 1800 and 1830, the species was hunted to near extinction. Thankfully, they've recovered, and the population in South Australian waters is now estimated in the range of 100,000 animals. Long-nosed fur seals are inquisitive creatures. They will often explore new territory.
Reports of fur seals appearing in the Coorong began in 2007. Fishers and the traditional owners of the Lower Murray lakes, the Coorong and surrounding areas, the Ngarrindjeri people, have both been impacted by the arrival of seals in the Coorong. The New Zealand fur seal is an apex predator in the Coorong and Lower Lakes and is not a native one. These seals are decimating the native fish populations. Generations of fishermen in the Coorong have made a living from fishing the Lower Lakes and Coorong, and it's not just the fish; native birdlife is also under attack.
In 2015, I met with local leaders in Meningie and confirmed that federal legislation does not stand in the way of dealing with the issues of these seals in the Coorong and Lower Lakes through a sustainable cull. I commend the local state member of parliament, Adrian Pederick MP, for all his hard work lobbying on this issue. Regions matter, as the South Australian state government tells us, and the Coorong is no exception. We need action on this issue for the economic, environmental and ecological future of the Coorong and Lower Lakes. I urge the South Australian state government and its relevant authorities to authorise a sustainable cull of the New Zealand fur seal in the interests of our environment.
Moreton Electorate: Schools
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (10:23): In Brisbane, every student and every one of their parents know that when the jacarandas are blooming it means one thing: the end-of-year exams. For year 12 students, those last exams bring with them a lot of anxiety about whether they'll achieve the score they need to continue their chosen study path. While it's a student's work that is marked, the support that the school provides during those vital final years of school is crucial to each student's success. I'm proud of all the schools in my electorate and love visiting them throughout the year. As a former teacher, I love to go along and teach a few lessons.
In December, many of those year 12 students are in a fluster, waiting for their OP score to arrive, but it's in January that the school principals have their own anxious moments, waiting for the list of school rankings to be released. I'm quick to acknowledge that the number of OP students in a school is only one measure of that school, and some would say one measure at a point in time. Many schools in my electorate are excellent educational facilities with incredible programs tailored to suit their students and their needs and aspirations. However, unfortunately, newspapers do rank schools each year according to the OP results of their students. And this year St Aidan's Anglican Girls' School—
Mrs Prentice interjecting —
Mr PERRETT: I'll take that interjection from the member for Ryan because I know many in her electorate send students over the river to St Aidan's. St Aidan's was ranked 10th in Queensland, with almost 42 per cent of OP eligible St Aidan's students receiving a score between one and five. I congratulate all the girls on their hard work and achievement. I congratulate Principal Toni Riordan for her leadership in supporting those students and all of her staff.
Another school in my electorate that has achieved amazing results this year is Corinda State High School. Under the leadership of Principal Helen Jamieson, who I used to teach with many years ago—not that many, Helen—Corinda State High School has been ranked No. 1 in the top 20 most-improved schools. We know that means hard work. Corinda State High School was ranked 245 in 2008 and it is now ranked 106. That's a remarkable achievement, achieved under Helen. This year, 22 per cent of OP eligible students at Corinda State High School received an OP between one and five. I congratulate the students at Corinda State High School, Principal Helen Jamieson for her leadership, and her hardworking team for supporting these students.
Helen was quoted in The Courier-Mail as saying: 'My mission was to get them up there with the best, and it's about believing in the kids.' I'm sure all of us, on both sides of the chamber, would want to have a principal who believes in students and wants them to get up there with the best. That's why I'm very proud that Labor announced this week that policies would have encouraged principals, like Helen and Toni, to have chosen teaching as a vocation in the first place. For the teachers already in our classrooms, Labor will rejuvenate the Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher program that provides a career path for teachers, recognises exceptional teaching and uses the skills of exceptional teachers to guide and mentor their colleagues.
Mining
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (10:26): Today we finally see the Labor Party show their true colours. The media may say that this is an outbreak of disunity, but I say it's an outbreak of truth from their side. Today's Courier-Mail in Queensland has the headline 'Labor shafts itself on coal mine conundrum'. In fact, it reports that Mr Shorten has been trying to rein in rogue shadow frontbenchers like Richard Marles. We now see Ms Terri Butler, the member for Griffith, a shadow minister, a Labor opposition frontbencher, is on the record opposing the Carmichael mine and the opening of the Galilee Basin. She said: 'I don't support the project. My views haven't changed.'
Labor Party members should get out into regional Queensland and tell those people what they really think. I am pretty confident that they would like to keep their jobs. They would like to be able to pay for their children to go to school. They want to ensure that they can pay their bills, buy their house and continue to support them and their family. That is what is important to them.
Clearly, it's a bit of an outbreak. Apparently a Queensland Labor source said: 'Let's hope that Richard Marles knows more about defence, because he clearly knows nothing about regional Queensland.' Finally a comment I can agree with from the opposition side. Regional Queensland is an important part of the Australian economy. The resources sector is an incredibly important part—more than $200 billion worth of exports, which is more than 50 per cent of what we produce and sell around the world, and 200,000 jobs. Yet people on the opposition side think it's wonderful if the business shuts down.
The Labor candidates in Capricornia, Flynn, Dawson and Hinkler should say exactly what their position is. I know that we need jobs. We need to ensure our economy continues to build. We need to ensure that we can provide opportunities for our youth and those who choose to live in the region. The Labor candidate for Capricornia is a coalminer. He can't support the coal industry that provides him with a job and pays his wages. He should allow himself to be one of the first—and this is what is being suggested by those opposite—to be transitioned right out of the industry. If you want to be in that business and take money from the resources industry in this country but don't want to stand up and fight for those people, you have no place being in politics and in particular you have no place being in this building.
We even saw the Labor candidate for Flynn have a bit of a go. He came out and said that he supports the coalmine. He recognises he needs jobs. Everyone in this place knows that it doesn't matter what that candidate thinks, because he will be directed what to do. His job is simply to be obedient. He must comply with the directions of his union organisers and masters. He cannot do a damn thing about it. Be upfront and be truthful: if you don't support it, say so. We need jobs in regional Queensland. I'm all for the resources industry.
India: Attacks
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (10:29): I stand before you today to condemn the atrocious terrorist attack against Indian security personnel in Jammu and Kashmir in India on 14 February 2019. On 14 February, a convoy of vehicles carrying Indian security personnel on the Jammu Srinagar National Highway was attacked by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber at Lethpora in the Pulwama district in Jammu and Kashmir in India. The attack resulted in the death of 40 Central Police Reserve Force personnel. Responsibility for this attack was claimed by the Pakistani based Islamic group Jaish-e-Mohammad.
This particular group, a fundamentalist organisation, uses violence in pursuit of its objective to force the withdrawal of Indian security forces from the Indian-administered Kashmir. Due to the barbaric actions of this terrorist organisation—and to those from the Indian community who are watching, I want you to know that—since the year 2000, our Australian government, supported by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, has proscribed this terrorist organisation, Jaish-e-Mohammad, first on April 2003 and subsequently in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018. I also want the Indian community to know that I was a member of this committee when it was proscribed, justly, as a terrorist organisation in 2007, 2012, 2015 and 2018.
India and Australia are long-term partners and friends. We are the happy recipient of India's greatest gift to the world—the many people who have come from India to make Australia their home. I want the community to know that I stand with you in your grief on this terrorist attack. I note that last weekend the Indian community conducted a number of events across Australia to condemn the actions of this particular group.
I want to conclude with a comment that was provided to me by Dr Asha Muhammed, a person who came from Kerala and made Australia her home. She said—reflecting, I think, the sentiments of the Indian community, the diaspora, in this country—in response to this event:
The death of more than 40 soldiers in the central police force is the single deadliest attack on security forces in Kashmir in 30 years. This terrorist attack is not just a national tragedy, it is a human tragedy. The soldiers killed were not wealthy or well off. They came from families that in many cases don't have much money. These families have now lost their sole hope. They have lost fathers, husbands and sons who often were the sole source of income and support for their families.
As a mother I weep because of the mothers of the soldiers in Kashmir who have lost husbands and sons. Lost them to an act of complete inhumanity. We grieve for our lost hope and we hope that those who took away our hope meet with swift justice.
And so do I.
Beyond the Broncos Mentoring Program
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:32): Justin Hodges, Scott Prince and Jharal Yow Yeh are names you may have heard roared in Rugby League matches throughout Australia. But you mightn't know that they are also ambassadors for the Beyond the Broncos Mentoring Program. This program, which is also supported by the Australian government, aims to improve school attendance rates and year 12 attainment rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in eight high schools across Brisbane. Improving educational outcomes will lead to greater achievements in their education and offer increased opportunities for their future careers.
A dedicated team of Broncos Indigenous staff provide one-on-one mentoring support, encouragement and motivation for students to achieve maximum school attendance, effort and behaviour and to complete year 12. This year, the program supports approximately 250 students in years 10 to 12. For example, at one of the most disadvantaged schools in which the program operates, the attendance rate for Indigenous students has improved from 73 per cent to more than 90 per cent.
The Broncos also offer a girls academy, which values the vital role that young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women play in influencing the next generation and provides culturally based support for these future leaders to succeed at school and beyond. Forty-two per cent of the 637 enrolments in this part of the program have a 90 per cent attendance rate. This program would not be the success it is today without the dedication and passion of the mentors and support staff. With 29 staff, 25 of whom are Indigenous, and more than 32,000 hours of mentoring, it is, in my opinion, worthy to recognise the tremendous input they have to the success of each and every student.
Since 2010, there have been more than 3,000 Indigenous youths supported through weekly mentoring across Queensland. Features of the Beyond the Broncos program include: weekly in-school mentoring and support from the Brisbane Broncos support officers; semester challenges and rewards for attendance, effort, behaviour and achievement; group presentations on topics including culture, lifestyle and careers; support for completing year 12 and developing career pathway plans; and exclusive access to Brisbane Broncos staff, players, facilities and events.
I was recently delighted to attend and join with participating students at Mitchelton State High School. I believe that this program is vital in leading the way to closing the gap, and it was encouraging to see the enthusiasm students had during the activities. The Broncos' on-field impact might be felt by opposing players, but the profound impact they have on the enrichment and improvement of Indigenous students' lives is immense. Congratulations to everyone who's involved, and I look forward to attending your future graduation!
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10 : 35 to 10 : 48
Citizenship
Mr HILL (Bruce) (10:48): I want to draw the House's attention to the case of Ali Yawari from my electorate. I've met Ali many times. He's a frequent visitor and caller to my office. He's lived in Australia for almost 10 years. He's a permanent resident. He's a hardworking man. He works six days a week as a tiler across south-east Melbourne. He's been waiting for four years for his citizenship application to be approved and he inquires regularly. Worse than that, though, he's been waiting for more than six years to see his wife and children, since their visa applications were lodged and nothing has happened. I've written twice to ministers and received the same kind of drivelous, useless, pathetic replies. They use phrases like: 'Things are under assessment. We're doing thorough analysis. Rest assured the case remains under consideration.' And then they talk publicly about a so-called surge in citizenship applications—'We're being overwhelmed!'—an increase in complex cases and delays because of boat people. Let's have a go at boat people. Let's all be terrified of boat people.
The Auditor-General last week exposed each one of these claims by the government as an abject lie. He exposed the maladministration in the Department of Home Affairs and took to pieces every one of those claims. There has been no surge in applications. There was a minor steady increase with population growth, most of it triggered by the government's own racist legislation to introduce a university-level English language test as people rushed to get in. There was no surge. There was no increase in complex applications, as government ministers continue to lie about. The Auditor-General took the numbers to pieces and showed, in fact, there had been a decrease in complex applications. Most of the applications received were from highly skilled migrants with good documentation. Again, the Liberals lie.
The biggest lie of all is to say that this is because of humanitarian arrivals, boat people; 0.7 per cent of applications in 2017-18 were from humanitarian arrivals—0.7 per cent! There has been a decrease by nine per cent of humanitarian arrivals. Every time I talk about this, government muppets opposite start laughing. Do you actually talk to these people who have not seen their wife and children for 10 years? Do you actually talk to these people?
Mr Broad interjecting—
Mr HILL: We know what you're doing, Member for Mallee, instead of actually doing your constituency work, don't we? The whole nation knows about that. In the queue, 240,000 people are waiting for citizenship, and the government just laughs. Ali's just one of these people, but I'd like to know: when can he see his wife? When can he see his children? When will the government process the pieces of paper sitting in their department?
Petitions: Rural and Regional Health Services
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (10:51): I'd like to present a petition to the Australian parliament on behalf of 1,341 petitioners from Gwydir Shire in my electorate and the electorate of New England. The petitioners from Gwydir Shire are concerned by the 277 already identified vacancies for GPs in rural locations across the Commonwealth and are concerned about the need for GPs to move to regional and rural areas and to stay there on a long-term basis. They have identified some government policies that they would like attention to, and they are in the petition.
I will say that, in response to the critical need for health professionals, particularly GPs in rural areas, the government has made a considerable effort, more recently with the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network, where doctors now will be doing end-to-end training in regional areas as well as their specialty training. In Dubbo, for instance, under the auspice of the University of Sydney's medical school, students will be able to do their complete medical training in Dubbo and even continue on if they wish to do specialist training. That's one of the issues that we have. As the model for health delivery changes, as the aspirations of our health professionals have shifted over the last couple of decades, we need to be flexible, to make sure that we have programs in place.
Unfortunately, the days of doctors coming to a town and buying a practice and staying there for a long time are limited. I have to say, in Warialda's case, where these petitioners are coming from, we have been very privileged to have Dr Clem Gordon and his wife, Dr Diana Coote, who have been in Warialda for 28 years. When they had their 25th anniversary of being in the town, 500 people out of a population of a thousand turned up to celebrate. There is a concern when Clem and Di decide to retire and move on as to how Warialda is going to be serviced in such a fine way, as they have been for the last 28 years. It gives me great privilege on behalf of the petitioners to present this to the Australian parliament.
The petition s read as follows—
Rural and Regional Health Services
draws to the attention of the House: As at October 2018, there are already at least 277 vacancies for GPs in rural, remote and regional locations across NSW impacting community access to, and viability of general practice services in those locations. Rather than address this shortage of GPS in rural, remote and regional locations, the Commonwealth's Stronger Rural Health Strategy - Improved Access to Australian Trained General Practitioners, which is to take effect on 1 November 2018, will have a detrimental impact on the recruitment and viability of adequate GP workforce to service these locations, as it will be right across Australia. Further, the 20% reduction in Medicare rebates available to new non Vocationally Registered GPs as part of the Strategy (i.e. the introduction of A7 Level Medicare rebates for non VR GPs not on an approved GP training program), will further compromise the viability of general practice in rural locations at a time where drought affected communities can least afford a decrease in access to GP services, or an increase in health care costs.
We therefore ask the House to 1) Oversee the reinstatement of the Rural Other Medical Practitioners (ROMPs) Program which will be abolished on 31 October 2018 as part of the Stronger Rural Health Strategy and 2) Increase the opportunities for non VR GPs in locations classified as Modified Monash Model 4,5,6,7 to join approved GP training programs to better support them and improve the quality of primary healthcare in rural areas
from 1341 citizens (Petition No.PN0398)
Rural and Regional Health Services
draws to the attention of the House: As at October 2018, there are already at least 277 vacancies for GPs in rural, remote and regional locations across NSW impacting community access to, and viability of general practice services in those locations. Rather than address this shortage of GPS in rural, remote and regional locations, the Commonwealth's Stronger Rural Health Strategy - Improved Access to Australian Trained General Practitioners, which is to take effect on 1 November 2018, will have a detrimental impact on the recruitment and viability of adequate GP workforce to service these locations, as it will be right across Australia. Further, the 20% reduction in Medicare rebates available to new non Vocationally Registered GPs as part of the Strategy (i.e. the introduction of A7 Level Medicare rebates for non VR GPs not on an approved GP training program), will further compromise the viability of general practice in rural locations at a time where drought affected communities can least afford a decrease in access to GP services, or an increase in health care costs.
We therefore ask the House to 1) Oversee the reinstatement of the Rural Other Medical Practitioners (ROMPs) Program which will be abolished on 31 October 2018 as part of the Stronger Rural Health Strategy and 2) Increase the opportunities for non VR GPs in locations classified as Modified Monash Model 4,5,6,7 to join approved GP training programs to better support them and improve the quality of primary healthcare in rural areas
from 361 citizens (Petition No.EN0761)
Petition received.
BILLS
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Land Scheduling) Bill 2018
Second Reading
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (10:55): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill, and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is my pleasure to introduce the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Land Scheduling) Bill 2018 (Bill) to the chamber.
The bill demonstrates the government's commitment to recognising traditional Aboriginal ownership of land and to finalising land claims in the Northern Territory which have remained unresolved for decades.
It delivers on the government's election commitment to resolve outstanding Aboriginal land claims in the Northern Territory and to work with Indigenous landowners to ensure their land rights deliver the economic opportunities that should come from owning your own land.
This bill also gives practical effect to our commitment to working in partnership with Indigenous Australians.
The government is committed to the recognition of Indigenous land through statutory land rights and native title, and we are working with traditional owners and land councillors to make this happen.
The government has provided the necessary resources to all stakeholders, including an additional $1 million to the Aboriginal Land Commissioner to ensure that the delays experienced under previous governments no longer hold back this important process.
We believe that these land claims have been unresolved for too long.
That Aboriginal people and communities have waited too long for the recognition of their ownership of land.
And that the Northern Territory people, industries and stakeholders have waited too long for certainty about the management of land across the Territory.
The bill adds land that was subject to a successful native title application in Central Australia to schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Land Rights Act) so that land can be granted as Aboriginal land.
Scheduling of the land is consistent with the terms of the Ammaroo Indigenous land use agreement executed by the relevant parties, including the affected pastoralists, and registered with the National Native Title Tribunal.
This is a good example of what can be achieved when parties take a pragmatic and cooperative approach to resolving native title issues.
A native title determination over former stock routes and stock reserve on Ammaroo Station in Central Australia had the potential to create management challenges for the holder of the pastoral lease.
The bill delivers on an agreement between all parties that allows for the continued operation of Ammaroo Station, supporting the important pastoral industry in the Northern Territory, and at the same time provides for the recognition of Aboriginal ownership of land for traditional owners. The native title holders have agreed to surrender any exclusive native title rights in the former stock routes and stock reserve in return for acquiring title under the land rights act to an area of land currently forming part of the pastoral lease.
The pastoralist has agreed that an area of land comprising part of the existing pastoral lease could be granted as Aboriginal land in return for the opportunity to incorporate former stock routes and stock reserve as part of the pastoral lease, with the assistance of the Northern Territory.
The land to be scheduled and granted as Aboriginal land is approximately 3,105 hectares in area and would be incorporated into an adjacent area of land already held by the Aherrenge Aboriginal Land Trust, on which the community of Ampilatwatja is located.
The government looks forward to seeing the future decisions that traditional owners make about the use of their land when their recognition of ownership of the land is finalised. The proposed grant of land is supported by all stakeholders, including the native title parties, the Northern Territory government, the Central Land Council and other local stakeholders.
The government acknowledges the work of all stakeholders, especially the Central Land Council, in delivering this important outcome for the people in the Northern Territory.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (10:59): Labor support the bill. I rise to speak to these amendments. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Land Scheduling) Bill 2018 adds an area of land that is detailed in the Ammaroo Indigenous land use agreement—the Ammaroo ILUA, schedule 1 of the land rights act—so that the Ammaroo land can be granted as Aboriginal land. The agreement area covers about 193 square kilometres in the vicinity of Ammaroo Station, about 250 kilometres north-east of Alice Springs. So this bill allows that land in question to be granted to the relevant Aboriginal land trust under sections 10 and 12 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
This bill is associated with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2017 which the House passed on Tuesday this week—19 February. The honourable member opposite will remember what the member for Lingiari said during his contribution when that bill passed. As he is not here, I just want to acknowledge his advocacy around pushing for this second bill with amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. As he said, it is a shame it's taken a year, but at least we are here. I thank the government and I acknowledge the member for Lingiari's advocacy. It's great the bill can be brought to a vote in this setting. There's no dispute about it. We agree on it. It is a shame that it hasn't come forward before today, but here we are.
I wanted to give those listening some sense of this land around Ammaroo. If you head north out of Alice Springs and then head out on the Sandover Highway, 200-odd kilometres north-east of Alice Springs you come to this area. It is absolutely incredible. It always has been Aboriginal land and now it is in legislation. It is a fantastic thing for people who live in that area to have that confirmed in law. I won't go into the history of the land rights act except to say it's an incredibly important and essential piece of legislation that should be protected.
I want to acknowledge, as the member for Hasluck did, all those stakeholders who have supported this movement. In my life prior to politics, I was taking health professionals out to communities in that region such as Utopia, or Urapuntja, and Ampilatwatja. It was a real privilege to be out on that country and be shown around and to be making a contribution to health services for the people of that region. This is the land we are talking about and the people who have a connection to that land.
I just wanted to bring alive this amendment somehow for those who are wondering whether it's important. Recently in Darwin I went to one of the Salon Indigenous art galleries in Darwin. They have some incredible artwork at the moment from this region that we are talking about. You can see some of it if you want to go to my Instagram. I put up one piece by Julieanne Morton. I actually remember meeting some of her family, the Morton family from Ampilatwatja, when I was there 10 or so years ago. It is an incredible piece. It gives you a sense of that land that this legislation is granting as Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act for these people. This is from an elder and artist in that community. She says of that amazing piece of art, which talks about the bush medicine of this area:
The landscape changes during the different seasons in the year. I paint the dried flowers and bushes from last season as well as the new plants that come after the rain. These plants have special meanings and uses for us. I have been taught how to read the country, and now I teach my children these skills.
That's the artist, Julieanne Morton.
This region of Australia is special. Earlier in the week, we talked about lands in the Kakadu area being part of the lands—around 50 per cent of the lands of the Northern Territory—that are now Aboriginal land in law.
I'm very proud of our ongoing commitment to the people of this country and to the lands that the previous legislation this week incorporated under the act. I'm proud of our commitment to the Kakadu region and to showing regions like Ammaroo Station to the world. I thank all of those stakeholders who have supported this coming to the House. I also support all of those working with First Nations people on their country—organisations like Salon Indigenous Art Projects. They show that not only is economic development possible in these communities but it's possible in a way that celebrates the connection of First Nations people with their land, which is now enshrined for Ammaroo Station with this bill. I support the bill and thank the chamber for listening.
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (11:06): Can I just thank the member for Solomon for painting the picture of this particular piece of land like a local member who has that knowledge. I myself, being a farmer, have—though not to the historic extent of our Indigenous brothers—that understanding of what land can mean and that sense of place.
I just wanted to speak briefly on this bill and reflect a little bit from my family's experience. In the early 1970s, my parents were involved in Indigenous missionary work, actually, in Western Australia. It was on the reserves, when people were dying and when the standards of living were horrendously worse than now. My father took the secretariat notes for the federal minister for Indigenous affairs, who came to Carnarvon and Onslow. As they took the notes, they were trying to work out whether the federal government at the time would buy a fishing boat for the Yamatji people of the Gascoyne and Murchison region so that they could have purposeful employment. The government—thinking it knew what was best, coming from Canberra—went there, and the Aboriginal elders sort of listened and nodded. And, when they'd finished, dad—who was just a bit of a quietly-spoken farmer before he got involved in this work—turned to the elders and said, 'Who's going to hop on the boat?' because the Yamatji people are land people, and they said, 'Well, we think the water is salty.' So it was a classic example of a government thinking that it knew what was best and coming in with an idea that actually never was a success because they couldn't get the people to hop on the boat—they were not sea people.
So what we have discovered is: when you work with communities you actually get the best outcomes, and when you can actually give a sense of ownership you get the best outcomes. So, as we have progressively moved across to granting rights and allowing people to use that land in a productive way, to gain meaningful, purposeful activity, you actually get a lot more positive outcomes. This is something that I think we have learnt, from where we were many, many years ago.
In my region, which has a strong Indigenous community around Mildura, we have a group called Sunraysia Regional Consulting. They have said, 'We have a choice for our town: we can actually include our Aboriginal people in our economy in purposeful activity, or we can exclude them.' Instead, they've gone very much for purposeful inclusion.
I talked to a guy called Alan Fisher, who owned a chain of IGA supermarkets in our region. He would take young Aboriginal kids and give them meaningful employment. What he found was that, when they had the pressure of a death in their family and sorry business, there would be pressure in their home life and from their family to have to attend, and then they would feel too ashamed to come back and work for him because they'd feel that they'd let him down. Once he understood the cultural sensitivities, he was able to address that, so that he could get these people back and get them working. So sometimes misunderstandings can be overcome by businesses that want to play a very active role, and that has been wonderful in our community.
Sunraysia Regional Consulting is a group that works very closely with partnering Aboriginal people—in particular, young people—in the Mildura region to get jobs. The federal government gave them $1.7 million to support them in this program. We now have 180 jobs as a direct result of that money and those people have continued to have gainful employment. We are going to announce another $1 million to do another 100 jobs. It actually works. When you can create an understanding of one another, when you can create employment settings and when you can incentivise people to gain meaningful employment, you actually lift the standard of living.
My parents are coming up to their 50th wedding anniversary. The first thing they did as a married couple was head off and do Aboriginal mission work in the early seventies in Western Australia—Norseman, Onslow, Carnarvon, Wittenoom and all over the place. When they travel back to those communities now, they take some comfort in the fact that things have improved. There is still a lot to do, but things have improved—because we have started to listen and work constructively to help people get involved in the economic activity of this country and we have an understanding of what land rights are and what that means to them.
This is a small piece of legislation but it is supported by both sides of the chamber. It shows the maturity of the government in dealing with the challenges. The challenges are still there, but we are making process and I think that is a good thing.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health) (11:11): I thank the member for Solomon and the member for Mallee for their contributions to the debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Land Scheduling) Bill 2018. The bill adds an area of land that was subject to a successful native title application in Central Australia to schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act so that the land can be granted as Aboriginal land. Scheduling the land is consistent with the terms of the Amaroo Indigenous land use agreement executed by the relevant parties including the affected pastoralists and registered with the National Native Title Tribunal. The amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 will enable the implementation of a native title settlement in the Northern Territory that has been agreed between the Aboriginal traditional owners and local stakeholders. It is a positive example of people working together to support the recognition of Aboriginal land and the advancement of economic opportunities for the region.
The coalition government is committed to resolving outstanding land claims and is investing to achieve this. We've invested in the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, land councils and Territory stakeholders to deliver on this. We are delivering on the coalition government's commitment to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to ensure traditional owners can make decisions and unlock the potential that comes with owning your own land.
The coalition government is working with traditional owners on township leases held by communities in the Northern Territory, including North East Arnhem Land, and we are investing record amounts in support for land tenure reforms, including as part of our commitment to develop northern Australia, because we recognise the opportunity and potential that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have to be part of the next stage of this exciting agenda. We have given the processing of land claims the priority it deserves and we will continue to fight for the rights of Indigenous Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (11:14): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Tourism Industry
Broadband
Hobson, Mr Ted
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (11:14): I take the opportunity to reflect on a few things that have occurred over the last couple of weeks. I'm very glad to have the role and responsibility of being the convenor of Labor Friends of Tourism. Last night we held an event here in the parliament with a number of representatives and stakeholders from the tourism industry, and we had a very useful and instructive panel. The featured guests of the panel included the member for Grayndler, who is both the shadow minister for tourism and the shadow minister for infrastructure, transport, cities and regional development and who has a long-standing interest in and commitment to all things tourism; Joyce Di Mascio, who is the CEO of the Exhibition and Event Association of Australasia; and Stephen Wood, who's the general manager of the National Convention Centre here in Canberra.
At the last election, there was only one side of politics that had a tourism policy. It was the Labor Party. In the aftermath of the election, there was only one side of politics that had someone with specific ministerial responsibility for tourism. It was the Australian Labor Party. We know how important the tourism industry is to Australia, as one of our two key service exports. It is something that we should always be looking to do better, in a way that increases the broad economic and social benefits and extends those benefits into regional Australia. If you want to do that, you need to recognise that supporting tourism means a lot more than just marketing initiatives. We have to look at proper and sustained career pathways in tourism, we have to look at appropriate training and we have to look at infrastructure. Infrastructure is key to bringing people to Australia and allowing them to enjoy the physical and cultural beauty of this place.
When it comes to infrastructure, there's no bigger or more important project at the moment than the National Broadband Network. Sadly, that has been delivered in very poor fashion. One of the things that has become clear over the last couple of weeks, particularly through the NBN committee, which I'm fortunate to be the deputy chair of, is that my state of Western Australia is getting a very poor share when it comes to the government's multi-technology mix, or multi-technology mess. The worst form of broadband infrastructure is fibre to the node. It uses 19th century copper, and in most jurisdiction the proportion to fibre to the node is around 40 per cent. In Western Australia it is 60 per cent. We're getting even more of the worst form of NBN technology, and it will create a significant and lasting digital divide in Western Australia. It should never have been allowed to occur in the first place. It must be addressed. The basic quality benchmark of 90 per cent of premises getting 50 megabits per second or better—the national quality benchmark that the government set for the NBN—will not be met in Western Australia, by some considerable margin. Most parts of Australia will have one in 10 premises not receiving fast broadband. In Western Australia it will be more than one in five.
Finally, I'd like to offer my condolences to the family of Ted Hobson, who died on Tuesday. Ted was a long-time and active member of the Fremantle community. In recognition of his long commitment to the good function of the Fremantle branch of the Labor Party and his unstinting participation in Labor campaigns, state and federal, over decades, Ted was appropriately honoured with an outstanding service award. I'm personally grateful to have had the benefit of Ted's support, encouragement and friendship. I know my predecessors Melissa Parke and Carmen Lawrence and my state colleagues Simone McGurk and Jim McGinty also benefited from that support. I'm grateful that I had the chance to share a few words with Ted while he was getting a haircut at Kennedy's on South Terrace, down the road from my office, a few weeks ago.
Ted was a gentleman. He was a man for principle. He was a stickler for good process, particularly in Labor branch meetings. When he was engaged on an issue, he was steady and insistent but always courteous and reasoned. He was a loving and supportive husband to his wife, Jean. And Jean and Ted together have been a powerful duo in their service to, and participation in, community life and the Labor Party. I send my best wishes and condolences to Jean and to their daughters.
Bowman Electorate: Redland Hospital
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (10:19): Thank goodness for a national health funding body that reveals exactly what money goes where in the hospital system. On behalf of my people who rely on cancer treatment, surgical treatment, outpatient emergency treatment, medical care, paediatric care and mental health care, I'm glad that that funding body is revealed. There has been a $39 million reduction in state Labor funding to Redland Hospital. There's a very good reason why it was that hospital and not every other hospital in Queensland on the front pages of newspapers and on all three commercial television news programs last week. There's a very good reason for it: metro south is the most underfunded part of Queensland, and my hospital the most underfunded within metro south.
It's an utterly reasonable request that in a civil democracy you should be able to go up to a minister for health and ask, 'How much money is spent in our hospital?' The reality is that you actually can't under a Labor government. No, that information is way too sensitive, way too painful to release. That's why I've insisted on meeting with the state minister, who has very kindly allowed me to meet with the deputy director-general, to talk about the very simple data that my city wants: what was Queensland Treasury's appropriation last year for Redland Hospital? Of course, money is appropriated, as my colleagues on the other side would know, very, very specifically by Treasury. It will go into an LHN and from there into individual hospital budgets. Treasury doesn't release money unless that occurs. But these appropriations are simply top-secret information. It's almost like I'm trying to dive into some hegemony that refuses to release anything about how much state, federal and user-paid money funds a simple public hospital.
Now, Labor were quite quick to release the staffing budget. They went, 'Look over here: the staffing budget is going up!' But that's only 61 per cent of what you spend on a hospital. Labor won't release the other 40 per cent, because they know it's going down. But by golly didn't they find some blame? The first thing they blamed was that home oxygen was out of control, and that explained why the hospital was dropping in funding, but that's just a recategorisation. There are only 20 people, if you look at the numbers per capita, that are getting home oxygen, at a cost of $17,000. That doesn't explain $39 million ripped out. Then they said, 'Oh, that massive boost in Commonwealth money is actually just late payments trickling through later. But the late payments, when we looked at it, were only $8 million. That doesn't explain the other $76 million of Commonwealth funding.
Let's get right to the truth—because then Labor blamed constipation. Yes, they did. They actually said, 'We've been ticking so many constipation boxes this year. There's an epidemic of constipation and we're completely unfunded to deal with it!' In fact, constipation didn't change at all; it was just the clipboards that were ticking constipation that changed. They wanted more money, and they said that we were withholding funds.
This is a Labor government with no clue except for game playing. When we pressed them on it, and we asked, 'What's the most important thing,' they released a million dollar plan for a trip to Bunnings, a bit of paint and some waterbirthing in the corner—in one suite. Waterbirthing was the priority when they have a hospital in such demise. Yes, they offered an increase in the A&E area, but when the car parking issue was raised, they very cleverly said, 'We need a 12-month study before we can fix car parking.' Car parking is a disaster.
Today I'm saying to state Labor, tomorrow I will visit your department in that high-rise building in the city. I'm going to ask: 'Are you serious about car parking? Will you go dollar for dollar in a solution? Will you please, on behalf of my electorate, not take 12 months to study parking?' This is not rocket science. You have user-pay car parks in all large hospitals. You know exactly what the patterns of usage are. You know the size of my hospital and the number of treatments. For goodness sake, just put a tender out for a car park. Just do something, and stop ordering studies. It's a tactic to delay action until the next state election, when we know you're going to announce something and hope to get re-elected. You turn building something as simple as a multistorey car park into a multi-election-term issue. Fix the problem. On behalf of our seniors that have to walk so far, our nurses that have to walk in darkness and the buses that don't connect to the hospital, you need a car park and you need decent, functional public transport.
Redlands isn't a big hospital, but it's a hospital in complete chaos. It is held together only by the morale of its staff. This is a hospital on life support, with Labor just about to flick the switch. We know they're just amping to do it, and it is the community stopping them. When I heard last week, and I went and met a couple—they live a stone's throw from the hospital. This gentleman has needed dialysis as of last November. Labor said: 'Not only is there no dialysis for you; there never will be dialysis. You don't need to call back. There is no room for you.' They now have to carpool this gentleman on an 11-hour trip every second day of his life. He needs 11 hours to get to his dialysis and back in Greenslopes because there's no room to put another dialysis chair in a large suite, because they won't spend the money. This is a state Labor government obsessed with running hospitals badly. Now, they chose to pick on a medical specialist and health economist as a federal MP. That's okay. They are going to have the fight, but this fight will end with a properly funded hospital. Today I challenge them on car parking, to go dollar for dollar with the federal government.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Before I call the next member, I understand that the member for Bowman was speaking by leave without closing the debate.
Queensland: Floods
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (11:25): Every day I have stood in this place and fought for the people of Townsville during one of our most difficult times. The Townsville floods have devastated our community. Over the last six years our community was already doing it incredibly tough. Every time we have tried to stand up we seem to get knocked down. We have experienced the closure of QNI, the mining downturn, the local economy downturn, our unemployment rate doubling and now the floods. The Townsville community are so incredibly resilient though. We prove that you can't keep a good Queenslander down. We will get back up again and again, but we need the government's help.
It's not good enough that this LNP government has put such harsh restrictions on the disaster recovery payment. People living in Queenslander homes that have been destroyed are being denied vital assistance because the water didn't reach the first-floor floorboards. Kevin in Rosslea had water come through the bottom floor. He was nine days without power. His hot water system, his fridge, his freezer and numerous belongings on the bottom floor were destroyed. There is mud throughout the bottom floor and now the house is covered in mould. He shouldn't be denied because he lives in a Queenslander. The Queenslander style home is the iconic piece of architecture that people identify with North Queensland. These homes are our Buckingham Palaces. They are just as iconic. For this LNP government to deny people living in Queenslander homes is not just disgusting but also un-Australian.
Then there is the LNP's denial for small business to access category C funding—the $75,000. Insurance in Townsville is incredibly costly. It costs small businesses in some areas up to $20,000 a year. Small businesses are experiencing a huge economic downturn as it is. As such, there have been many cases where businesses have been unable to afford the insurance coverage. This cost would kill their business. As this is a one-in-1,000-year flood, the damage to small businesses has been huge and expensive. The LNP government cannot turn their backs on small business owners when they need them the most. I am demanding that the LNP government allow small businesses to access category C funding—with $75,000.
After the floods many of our community went straight back to work and worked extra hours to help each other out. Our Defence personnel worked incredibly long hours. Bureau of Meteorology staff, local council workers, waste workers, radio staff, cleaners, taxidrivers, SES and volunteers—the list goes on—all worked extra hours, because that's what you do when your community needs a hand. This LNP government is refusing to work even one extra hour to pass Labor's bill that would assist in protecting the Townsville flood victims with their insurance claims. One of the urgent recommendations from the banking royal commission was to give ASIC the power to have oversight over the claims-handling process.
This bill is vital for Townsville flood-affected victims, who are right now fighting with their insurance companies just to get what is owed to them. People like Matt and Nicole in Townsville have been subjected to repeated bullying and intimidating tactics by their insurance company, CommInsure. CommInsure neglected to offer policy entitlements to financial compensation for alternative or emergency accommodation and instead encouraged them to accept an emergency cash payment for temporary emergency accommodation at every query. It was only after hours on hold and multiple interactions with staff that they learnt that the emergency cash payment will get deducted from the final settlement for contents. This is disgraceful and unconscionable conduct. The LNP government are allowing the insurance companies to continue to do this because they refuse to work even one extra hour to pass Labor's bill that would protect people like Matt and Nicole. The LNP refuse to put the interests of Townsville victims first, ahead of their banking and insurance mates. This is a shame.
Townsville needs government assistance now more than ever. The LNP government should not be turning their backs on us at every stage during this disaster. Townsville shouldn't have to fight to lift the LNP's rigid restrictions on disaster recovery funding. Townsville shouldn't have to fight to get their fair share of small business assistance funding. Townsville shouldn't have to fight with the LNP government, who would prefer to put the interests of bankers and insurance companies ahead of the flood victims in Townsville. I will always vote for my community. I demand that the LNP government stand up and start looking after the people of Townsville, because now is when we need this help.
Fry, Mr Peter and Mrs Jenny
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (11:29): I want to talk about Peter and Jenny Fry—two absolute stalwarts of the tiny community of Benger in the south-west of Western Australia. For over 60 years, you could say that almost nothing happened in Benger that Pete and Jen weren't a part of—whether it was the Benger school P&C, the community centre or the Benger cricket club—the list is endless. They both contributed to the nearby towns of Harvey and Brunswick: the Harvey Agricultural Society, BPW, Landcare in Brunswick and arts and crafts—you name it, they were part of it.
Jenny passed away at the end of 2017, frustrated beyond belief because in her later years she was virtually unable to speak because of a series of serious strokes. The first major stroke took away her speech. It robbed her of her speech. For such an articulate, strong woman, it was absolutely devastating. Peter passed away just two weeks ago, and I extend my deepest sympathy to Don, Julie, Tim and their families.
Peter and Jenny were a wonderful couple, who were committed to their family, their community and the dairy industry. Peter was the quintessential quiet achiever, who, like Jenny, contributed so much to his community. At his recent funeral, his family and friends acknowledged and celebrated his life as one of giving and sacrifice. He was one of those rare people with an open heart, an open mind and a gentle soul. His life was filled with love for his family, his strong faith and his church, particularly St Peter's in Brunswick. He was a Tiger Moth pilot. He loved music and played the organ and piano. He had a wonderful ear for music and played from memory. Our community has been so lucky to have Peter as part of it. He volunteered countless hours playing music for community groups and organisations, in aged care facilities and to seniors groups—anyone who asked. He was always in places where often others weren't. He lived by the motto of 'Treat others how you would like to be treated'. Not long before he died, he gave a concert for his children and grandchildren of his favourite songs.
I now turn to the indomitable, strong and passionate Jenny Fry. Jenny was born in Big Bell and moved to Benger when she married Peter. They finished their lives in Bethanie Esprit village in Eaton. Jenny enjoyed sewing, patchwork, quilting and tapestry. She was passionate, forthright, determined and loyal. When we worked together in the dairy industry together for 40-odd years, she was the person to have on your side. She stood in front of you, not behind you. She was fantastic. She worked countless hours taking milkshakes everywhere around Western Australia.
Pete and Jen had over 60 years together. Their lives were well lived, and they were well loved by their family and friends. Jen had a saying that really meant a lot. She said:
When I think of life I think of it as like a road as they were in the Murchison in days gone, sometimes smoothly on the bitumen and then you hit those awful corrugations, drive a bit further and then that wonderful bitumen again….. That bitumen around the corner has kept me together in times of family illness and stressful times.'
She said:
I have been very privileged in my life, been part of many great teams, made many great friends and had many fun times.
Pete and Jen passed away peacefully, over 12 months apart, and both were listening, would you believe, to their favourite hymn, How Great Thou Art. They both passed away listening to the same hymn. They are absolutely typical of the grassroots heart and soul of our rural and regional communities. They volunteered countless, countless hours in selfless service. The one thing they did so beautifully was being caring and welcoming to people whether they lived in the area and had been there forever like them or whether they were newcomers, new people, to our community. Theirs was an open heart, an open mind and a gentle soul.
So I want to pay tribute to two amazing people. In their later years, Pete and Jen would go along as a couple to the aged care facilities in our communities right around the south-west, where Jen would tell jokes—sometimes a bit blue!—and Pete would entertain on the piano. They were a wonderful duo, who gave so much. I think it is appropriate that in this place we acknowledge those people who contribute, but we don't always see what they do. I love those two people.
National Security
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:34): I want to talk about border protection—and I mean the real story, not the government's pathetic, desperate, shrill scare campaign about boats. It's about how the Liberals have lost control of the borders through mismanaging the entire visa processing system, creating a honey pot for people smugglers, who are now just sending their clients by plane from Malaysia, China, India and Vietnam to work in sex shops, on farms and in restaurants.
We've seen more than 80,000 applications from asylum seekers lodged over the last few years by people who arrived by plane. This is an inconvenient truth for the government amidst their scare campaign, but their own published data and expert advice reveals the scale of the mess. There has been an explosion over the last four years in the numbers of people seeking asylum who arrived by plane—from about 8,500 to 28,000 last year. The raw numbers alone tell you that something has gone badly wrong under the Liberals on border protection, but it actually gets worse because these increases have been driven mainly by people from Malaysia and China. More than two-thirds in 2017-18 were from those two countries, with a rapid growth now in people from India and Vietnam. And they're dodgy. In 2017-18, only 22 per cent of the applicants from Malaysia were found to be genuine refugees and only 10 per cent from China.
Amidst this crisis, the Prime Minister's desperately trying to convince us all he's some kind of John Howard-style figure. What a joke! John Howard's legacy was an increase in legal migration and a decrease in illegal migration, yet these Liberals have presided over an increase in illegal migration while actually managing to cut permanent skilled migration. In one sense, it's ironic that you could stuff it up this badly—a kind of achievement award—but it's actually really serious because, unlike those who arrive by boat, most of these people are not genuine refugees. So the real story of illegal immigration now is not boats; it's planes.
This record surge in dodgy protection visa applications, however, is not an accident. It's because people smugglers are taking advantage of the complete chaos that the Department of Home Affairs is now in. It's seen massive staff cuts—thousands of staff cut by the Liberals—and delays in critical programs like family reunion visas, which have paralysed and choked the entire system because there's now an unprecedented backlog of applications across all visa categories. As the waiting times blow-out, ordinary-life things like getting your new wife or husband a visa become impossible, so people are coming on visitor visas. What happens then is, while they're in the country waiting for their real visa to be processed for months or years, they get a bridging visa. We now have around 200,000 people in Australia on bridging visas.
Bridging visas are the canary in the coal mine for the system—the lead indicator of the seriousness we're now in—and they're the green light to people smugglers because they signal the department is in chaos, allowing them to strike. People smugglers know that, once the system is choked, they can sneak people in on visitor visas then lodge their dodgy protection claims. People smugglers know that, because of massive staff cuts under the Liberals, the government simply cannot process the claims and reject them because the whole system is choked. Dodgy asylum seekers can stay here for years on these bridging visas, working and paying the people smugglers their cut.
It's not new, though. Experienced immigration officials who are speaking out now have known about the risk for decades, but instead of putting more resources—public servants—on to fix the backlog and stop the honey pot, the government is continuing to cut thousands of staff and are now trying to privatise the whole visa system to their Liberal Party mates for profit. Privatisation will make this mess worse because contractors will chase the profit. They'll jack up the fees for the profitable visas, not clean up this mess and restore integrity. Whoever wins is going to have to face up to this mess. Whoever is the government after the election is going to have to reverse these cuts and put resources back into the department.
But the scariest thing is not actually the money that's going to be needed to fix this. It's the emerging nightmare that Australia now faces the very real risk of a US- and European-style migrant crisis, with a permanent and growing underclass in the community of failed asylum seekers because it appears that many of these people are not being deported. They're disappearing into the community. We don't know how many disappear as the government has stopped publishing the figures on the net stock of asylum seekers in Australia. You can do the maths from annual reports and you'd figure out the backlog grew by about 13,000 last year alone. The AAT is about to be overwhelmed by a tsunami. There are already 18,000 there, and the Malaysians and the Chinese haven't reached there. If this mess is not tackled quickly and firmly, Australia will face a crisis so large and so entrenched that it may become impossible to fix, as the US are seeing, and it will permanently change our society for the worse. Bring on the election.
Deakin Electorate: Roads
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (11:40): If you had any doubt about the way in which the Labor Party treat the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, about how poorly they treat the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, we were reminded of that again yesterday when we saw that the state Labor government, supported by Bill Shorten, is looking to extend tolls on eastern suburbs commuters for an additional 10 years in order to fund a road in the western suburbs.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:41
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Energy
(Question No. 1225)
Ms Sharkie asked the Minister for Energy, in writing, on 06 December 2018:
Has the Government completed the delivery of its Mayo by-election Solar Communities Program funding commitment to (a) the Strathalbyn Woodshed, (b) the Nairne Oval Committee, (c) the Macclesfield Recreation Grounds Committee, and (d) Hills Radio; if not, what is the expected schedule for delivery of the grants for each organisation.
Mr Taylor: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The installations for these four grant recipients under the Solar Communities grants program are complete, with details as per the table below.
Organisation |
Project Title |
Installation Done / Date |
Project Status Update / Comments |
Strathalbyn Woodcraft Group Inc. |
13.11 kW Solar PV System for the Strathalbyn Woodshed |
Yes - 13/09/2018 |
Installation Completed |
Hills Radio Incorporated |
A 6.27kW Solar PV and battery storage system for the Hills Radio office. |
Yes - 29/09/2018 |
Installation Completed |
Nairne Oval Committee Inc. |
Battery storage for the existing 15kW Solar PV system at the Nairne Oval |
Yes - 10/01/2019 |
Installation Completed |
Macclesfield Recreation Grounds Committee |
13KW Solar PV system at the Macclesfiled Recreation Grounds |
Yes - 30/11/2018 |
Installation Completed |