The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MOTIONS
Casinos
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (12:01): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House of Representatives calls on the Australian Government to establish a Royal Commission to inquire into and report on the Australian casino industry, with particular reference to:
(1) allegations of Crown Casino's links to organised domestic and foreign crime, money laundering, tampering with poker machines, domestic violence and drug trafficking, including but not limited to:
(a) the allegations concerning Crown, raised by the Member for Denison in the House of Representatives on 18 October 2017;
(b) the Member for Clark's referral of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, and Victoria Police, to the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission on 24 July 2019;
(c) reports by Nine newspapers and 60 Minutes in July 2019 concerning alleged criminal activity involving Crown;
(d) the Member for Clark's referral of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation to the Victorian Ombudsman on 13 August 2019;
(e) the Member for Clark's referral of Crown Perth to the Premier of Western Australia on 19 September 2019;
(f) the allegations of criminal activity provided by a driver formerly associated with Crown revealed by the Member for Clark in the House of Representatives on 30 July 2019, and again during a media event yesterday, including the failure to process inbound and outbound flights and passengers;
(g) the evidence of money laundering at Crown revealed by the ABC and the Member for Clark today;
(h) the response to these allegations, including the possibility of criminality, by relevant state and federal agencies including but not limited to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, Victoria Police, the Australian Federal Police, Border Force and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre;
(i) the conduct of people associated directly with Crown, including the possibility of criminality and corruption; and
(j) the conduct of serving and former politicians and party officials especially relevant to Crown, including the possibility of criminality or corruption.
(2) the performance of relevant federal agencies regarding the operation of Australian casinos generally including but not limited to the Australian Federal Police, Border Force and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre.
(3) the conduct of Australian casino owners, board members and staff generally;
(4) the conduct of serving and former politicians and party officials regarding Australian casinos generally; and
(5) any related matters.
Leave not granted.
Mr WILKIE: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Clark from moving the following motion immediately—
That the House of Representatives calls on the Australian Government to establish a Royal Commission to inquire into and report on the Australian casino industry, with particular reference to:
(1) allegations of Crown Casino's links to organised domestic and foreign crime, money laundering, tampering with poker machines, domestic violence and drug trafficking, including but not limited to:
(a) the allegations concerning Crown, raised by the Member for Denison in the House of Representatives on 18 October 2017;
(b) the Member for Clark's referral of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, and Victoria Police, to the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission on 24 July 2019;
(c) reports by Nine newspapers and 60 Minutes in July 2019 concerning alleged criminal activity involving Crown;
(d) the Member for Clark's referral of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation to the Victorian Ombudsman on 13 August 2019;
(e) the Member for Clark's referral of Crown Perth to the Premier of Western Australia on 19 September 2019;
(f) the allegations of criminal activity provided by a driver formerly associated with Crown revealed by the Member for Clark in the House of Representatives on 30 July 2019, and again during a media event yesterday, including the failure to process inbound and outbound flights and passengers;
(g) the evidence of money laundering at Crown revealed by the ABC and the Member for Clark today;
(h) the response to these allegations, including the possibility of criminality, by relevant state and federal agencies including but not limited to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, Victoria Police, the Australian Federal Police, Border Force and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre;
(i) the conduct of people associated directly with Crown, including the possibility of criminality and corruption; and
(j) the conduct of serving and former politicians and party officials especially relevant to Crown, including the possibility of criminality or corruption.
(2) the performance of relevant federal agencies regarding the operation of Australian casinos generally including but not limited to the Australian Federal Police, Border Force and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre.
(3) the conduct of Australian casino owners, board members and staff generally;
(4) the conduct of serving and former politicians and party officials regarding Australian casinos generally; and
(5) any related matters.
There is an urgent need to debate this motion and for this parliament to decide whether or not the government should be obliged to establish a royal commission into Crown. I find it remarkable that the government has denied leave for this matter to be properly explored. I would have thought it would be in the government's very best interests to have a debate about this motion and establish a royal commission, as this motion would oblige.
This morning, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and I both released extraordinary vision of serious criminal activity inside Melbourne's Crown casino. In isolation, the vision this morning of brazen money laundering inside the Suncity junket room at Crown in Melbourne is truly shocking. But in its political context it's even more disturbing. There's an urgent need to suspend standing orders and address this. The ABC and I only possess this vision because a number of Victorian government gambling investigators decided they had had enough of all the lies and cover-ups. These investigators say they've been forced to watch on as crimes are routinely committed inside Crown, only for Crown to then publicly deny everything. There is an urgent need for this parliament to now act. Speaking of watching on and those Crown inspectors, it's important to point out that the vision released this morning was filmed by Crown's own security cameras. So don't believe anyone at Crown when they say they don't know what's going on.
Speaker, you'd recall that in 2017, in this very place, I revealed evidence of poker machine tampering and other serious offences at Crown. In response, Crown took out full-page ads to lie to the Australian people and to financial markets, claiming they'd done no wrong. But, while Crown's response was dishonest, the response from the major parties was pathetic. To the amazement of the Australian people, Labor and the coalition continued to run their protection racket for Crown and chose not to investigate the claims; hence there is an urgent need to investigate the claims now.
Of course, in time Crown were found guilty by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation of machine tampering, proving that Crown had lied when they claimed they hadn't tampered with their poker machines. Since then we have had whistleblowers and many more allegations, including recently when the Nine group produced their extraordinary series in their newspapers and on 60 Minutes highlighting the international crime networks that treat Melbourne's Crown casino like a lawless washing machine for unexplained fortunes. But again Crown denied everything and once again bought full-page ads in newspapers around the country, proving that the company has more money than sense, or, perhaps more accurately, more money than any sense of decency.
At the same time as those ads appeared, the major parties kidded themselves again into believing that, if they only waited long enough, the public would get bored and move on. But the public didn't get bored and they haven't moved on—and neither have the whistleblowers. In fact, that list of whistleblowers has grown to include the Crown Casino driver who came forward to provide firsthand evidence, which I, along with the Reason Party's Fiona Patten MLC, released yesterday. This driver provided firsthand accounts of foreign nationals illegally entering the country, as well as allegations of widespread drug use, domestic violence and illegal prostitution. But, faced with these new allegations, Crown lied again yesterday, with a Crown spokesman saying: 'Crown rejects all these claims. If anyone has any allegation or evidence of unlawful conduct, then they should contact the relevant authorities.'
So who are these 'relevant authorities'? Well, Victoria Police for one, but, as the driver says in the video, Victoria Police routinely fail to enforce Victoria's laws inside the casino. The other relevant authority is the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, and, as all of Australia now knows, not even the VCGLR's own inspectors trust the VCGLR to investigate the crimes of Crown. If anyone has any doubt about that fact—about the VCGLR's failure to investigate—we've now got the pictures today to prove it, and they're up on the ABC and on my website. As for the chairman of the VCGLR, here is what Mr Ross Kennedy confidently told The Age about his organisation over the weekend:
The VCGLR … emphatically rejects the unfounded attacks on its competency and any suggestion it is 'not doing its job …
Perhaps Mr Kennedy should talk to his own inspectors, who have risked so much professionally and personally in order to inform the Australian people that the VCGLR is absolutely not doing its job.
Make no mistake: today's vote on suspending standing orders in the first instance is not just about one casino in one Australian city; it's a vote about corruption and criminality that no-one can deny any longer. I say to the members of Labor and the coalition: there are only two possible explanations for what has happened so far. The first explanation is that you've known all along about these crimes at Crown but you didn't care. If that's true, then that is truly shameful. The second explanation is that you didn't know about any of it, and, if that is the case, there is only one way you can vote on suspending standing orders in the first instance, and that is in favour of suspending standing orders and then in favour of a royal commission into Australia's gambling industry.
Make no mistake: if anyone in this House votes no, the Australian people will see us as a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. It will be all the proof that the Australian people need, to know for sure that the major parties secretly approve of these appalling crimes and this appalling corruption.
Crown isn't just Melbourne's casino. It's also Prime Minister Scott Morrison's casino, as all this has happened under his watch and the watch of his political party. This is also opposition leader Anthony Albanese's casino, as Labor hasn't exactly covered itself in glory today either. It's Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews's casino, as he has long had the power to step in and clean up Crown but to date has failed to do so. And then we have the politicians who have traded their lives in politics for a cushy life funded by Crown—their pay packets, we now know, indirectly funded by crime—like former Liberal senator Helen Coonan. It's also former Labor senator Stephen Conroy's casino. It's former Labor operative Karl Bitar's casino. And, if you want to go back a little, you'd have to conclude that this is also Jeff Kennett's casino.
I've been asked on a number of occasions why I have pursued this matter—why an Independent from Hobart is so concerned about a casino in Melbourne. Well, it's not just because many of my constituents visit Crown when they visit the mainland, though that is an important factor. More important is how the crisis at Crown reflects a deep crisis in our democracy and how, for years now, politicians from the major parties have allowed Crown to corrupt our political system.
I ask: how can the Australian people trust any of us to make laws if we allow laws to be broken over and over again with no consequences for Crown? How can the Australian people have faith in our Border Force when our borders are so easily ignored by Crown? How can the Australian people have faith in the Australian Federal Police when they seem to treat crimes differently when they're committed in or by Crown? How can the Australian people have faith in Victoria Police when serving Victorian police officers refer to Crown as 'the Vatican'? And how can the Australian people have faith in us politicians if any of us vote against this royal commission and, in doing so, allow the criminal crisis of Crown to continue?
This is not about shutting Crown down. This is about cleaning Crown up. There is an urgent need to suspend standing orders, and I implore each and every politician in this parliament to vote today to suspend standing orders and then to vote in favour of a royal commission into the Australian casino industry.
The SPEAKER: The member for Clark's time has concluded. Is the motion moved by the member for Clark seconded? I call the member for Mayo.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (12:14): I second the motion. What more will it take for this place to act? It was not that long ago, just July this year, that we were all aghast—or, I may say, people outside of this chamber were aghast—at the 60 Minutes footage of Crown casino and the gambling industry and the very real and very disturbing allegations of money laundering, sex trafficking, junkets and money being washed through our casinos. Now we have seen, released by a very brave whistleblower, actual video footage from inside Crown itself. This video was provided by casino inspectors who worked inside Crown and who have gone public because they believe that the Australian people should see this, that the Australian people should see what is happening inside Crown. But this is beyond Crown. This is the gambling industry. They needed to show the Australian community, and they want this place to act. If you have not seen the video, another Aldi bag full of cash goes into the casino and wads of money, $100 bills in big wads, at least $10,000 per packet, go onto the table and come back as chips, and then everyone involved gets their share.
We can't allow that to happen in Australia. We can't allow this to continue. This is not just about Crown. This is why I support the member for Clark's motion here. He's correct. He is a member from Tasmania. I'm a member from South Australia. This is not just a Victorian issue. This is not just a Melbourne issue. This is entirely about border security, an area of government that the Australian taxpayer spends a huge amount of money on. Yet we are making a mockery of the good work that border security does when we allow this kind of corruption to occur. This is about public safety. If you oppose crime, if you oppose drug addiction, if you think that domestic violence and human trafficking are wrong, if you oppose the fact that we don't even know where this money is from—it could be it was from heroin dealers; we have no idea, but that money is washing through Crown casino and we have footage of it—we must act in this place.
As I said, just a few months ago everybody was aghast at the 60 Minutes expose on Crown casino. Yet, the following day, the opposition did not ask one single question about it of government in question time. Now they have an opportunity to redeem themselves. Now they have an opportunity to do the right thing and to make sure we clean up the gambling industry in this country—because we are hurting many, many Australians when we don't. When we walk past corruption, we all suffer. I urge both sides. I know Crown casino and the gambling industry generally have very close ties to many members of parliament. We all know this. We know that donations flow through. We get to see every February what's received and then published through the AEC. However, we have to do the right thing in this place. You can't ignore the footage. We must act on this footage.
So I would urge every member in this place: do the right thing and support this inquiry. We need to have a royal commission into this. Enough is enough. When we see Aldi bags with potentially millions of dollars in them, why on earth would we allow that to occur? AUSTRAC, the anti-money-laundering authority, must just shake their heads when they see that footage. It's like trying to hold back the ocean. Let me tell you: the gambling industry is our NRA in this country. People in this place who are elected to represent their communities must act and must support this motion.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (12:19): The government doesn't support this motion to suspend standing orders and obviously we do not support the substantive motion. The substantive motion is self-evidently a call to refer a matter to a royal commission—so to create a royal commission. There are reasons that that is completely premature and not the appropriate course of action at this point in time. Nevertheless, it's fair and reasonable that the member for Clark makes his submission that it should be the subject of a freshly created royal commission—and I'll address why we take an alternative view.
But what the member for Clark should not do, as he continually does in those submissions, is take the extra step into what are, frankly, quite outrageous statements. He finished his contribution with words to the effect: 'How can people have faith in the AFP when they treat differently crimes committed by Crown?' That is a clear and direct imputation that the good men and women of the AFP are turning some blind eye at an investigative level to known criminal conduct. You just cannot say things like that under privilege in this place without good evidence to support it. It is quite wrong. It is a slur on the people who work at that organisation. It demonstrates a step way too far in making what otherwise is a submission which we disagree with but is reasonably put. In fact, Member for Clark, it significantly detracts from the strength of your submission. It makes it look a bit crazy, to be honest, to make a statement like that about the AFP without any kind of backing-up of the statement.
Mr Wilkie: Watch the video.
The SPEAKER: The member for Clark will not interject.
Mr PORTER: I've listened to what you've said, and there is nothing that suggests corruption by the AFP in terms of a differential treatment of criminality that is asserted by one organisation over another. There is just simply nothing that supports that very, very serious statement.
Of course, this is not new to the House. Members will recall that in July when, admittedly, serious allegations were first raised, the government referred them to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity under section 18 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act. The commissioner accepted that referral and the commission is engaging in an appropriately comprehensive investigation of the allegations. As I said when the member for Clark first sought to establish a joint parliamentary committee into allegations surrounding Crown, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is the most appropriate body to consider those allegations. The government's position remains unchanged as to the appropriateness of ACLEI to investigate the allegations. We do not support the creation of a royal commission to conduct what would be a simultaneous investigation into Crown Casino, when the current investigation has adequate powers and resourcing.
I might note also that there would be three investigations simultaneously being conducted into these matters. First, as I noted, is the investigation by ACLEI, which is the specialist agency responsible for the investigation of corruption issues in the Australian government law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Home Affairs and any other law enforcement agency. That investigation is underway. ACLEI works very closely with state and territory counterparts. So, obviously, it has been working cooperatively with the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation's investigation into Crown—which is the second contemporaneous investigation. Also, the New South Wales state government has launched its own investigation, chaired by the Hon. Patricia Bergin SC—and ACLEI is, again, in discussion with that inquiry. So there are three inquiries, with the full breadth of jurisdiction and powers required.
ACLEI is highly experienced in these types of investigations. In fact, it is better resourced to quickly and effectively commence an investigation into allegations of corruption than any other single body or envisaged body in the Commonwealth. I might note for the member for Clark's benefit that ACLEI's investigative powers are essentially the same as a royal commission's, including the power to compel evidence. I might also note that it also has covert powers, such as controlled operations powers, as well as the power of arrest. So, if ACLEI obtains admissible evidence of any criminal offence in the course of its investigation into this matter, it must, by compulsion, give that evidence to the relevant police or prosecutorial authority, including state or territory authorities.
I might take a brief moment before closing to clarify a number of seriously inaccurate comments that have been made, particularly by the Australia Institute, on this matter and the ACLEI investigation, which, as I noted, was requested by the government in July of this year. The Australia Institute has made a number of factually inaccurate assertions with respect to ACLEI, its powers and its capacity to investigate. I can inform the House that those assertions from the Australia Institute were so inaccurate that the Integrity Commissioner felt the need to take the unusual step of writing to the Australia Institute directly to correct those statements. In fact, my office has spoken with the Commissioner for the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner and he considered it appropriate that I table the letter. I will seek to do that now.
I won't go through that letter in full here. But I will mention two of the points that the commissioner, quite properly, raises in response to claims that have been made by the Australia Institute. In the first point, he noted: 'The Australia Institute claim that ACLEI does not have the full investigative powers of the royal commission.' That is simply wrong. Secondly, the commissioner notes in his correspondence to the Australia Institute: 'ACLEI's powers are, in some respects, greater than that of a royal commission.' The Australia Institute also claimed ACLEI's definition of corrupt conduct is, in the words of the Australia Institute:
More limited than the definitions of the state-based anti-corruption commissions.
Again, this is simply inaccurate. Corrupt conduct is defined, for the purposes of this investigation, in section 6 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act as being: 'conduct that involves, or that is engaged in for the purpose of, an abuse of office; or perverting the course of justice; or conduct that, having regard to the duties and powers of the staff member as a staff member of the agency, involves, or is engaged in for the purpose of, corruption of any other kind'. As the Integrity Commissioner notes in his letter to the Australia Institute, it's clearly the case that those words 'corruption of any other kind' is an incredibly broad definition that would well and truly take into its scope any of the matters that have been alleged in this Crown investigation.
There is a full list of other factually inaccurate comments that have made in that correspondence that I've tabled. I won't seek to go through them all here. We decline to support the suspension of standing orders and the substantive motion, on the basis that it is not meritorious in the context of there being an ACLEI investigation, a Victorian investigation and a New South Wales investigation—all of them with the appropriate jurisdiction, all of them with the appropriate powers. I think it evidences the fact that this is not a meritorious proposition from the member for Clark when, at the end of the proposition, he resorts to what is a very nasty and quite wrong slur on the AFP.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the member for Clark be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2019
Consideration of Senate Message
Ordered that the amendment(s) be considered immediately.
Senate's amendment—
(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7), after item 15, insert:
15A After section 57
Insert:
57A Review of assistance to first home buyers
(1) The Minister must cause a review of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's activities assisting additional first home buyers to enter the housing market to be commenced within 3 months after the end of:
(a) the period beginning on the date when the first guarantee is issued and ending 12 months after that date; and
(b) each subsequent 12 month period.
(2) The persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months of the commencement of the review.
(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure) (12:30): I move:
That the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
COMMITTEES
Membership
The SPEAKER (12:31): I've received messages from the Senate informing the House of changes to the membership of certain joint committees. As the list is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read it to the House; details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BILLS
ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.
National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House criticises the Government for:
(1) delaying Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listings; and
(2) trying to increase PBS co-payments for all Australians".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (12:33): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dobell has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure) (12:35): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (12:36): It's disappointing that the government has chosen to bring this bill on for debate in the House before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has concluded its consultations with the Australian people about the measures in this bill and issued its report. The committee's inquiry in relation to this bill, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019, is not due to conclude until 7 November 2019 and so there is no reason why we need to vote on this bill in the House today, and yet here we are.
The fact that the government has brought this bill on for debate before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee completes its inquiry is further evidence, as if any were needed, that this government does not respect the parliament and the processes that have long been in place to enable MPs and senators to scrutinise, analyse and make informed judgements about proposed legislation.
In particular, the Morrison government's contempt for the parliamentary inquiry system disrespects the views of the Australian public, including legal experts and those from community groups with an interest in a particular piece of legislation—which in this context includes survivor groups and child advocacy organisations—because a primary purpose of the inquiry process is to give the Australian people, particularly those with expert knowledge, a chance to express their views about a bill before it becomes law. Through such a process, problems with the proposed law can be identified, and recommendations for improvements can be made by the committee. Those recommendations would usually be carefully considered by the government and, very often, form the basis of government amendments to the bill. Yet the Morrison government has chosen to try to force this bill through the House before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has even had a chance to consider the Australian public's views, let alone report back to parliament.
This ignoring of long-established democratic processes of scrutiny and review is the hallmark of an arrogant government, the hallmark of a government whose members believe they were born to rule, the hallmark of a government once again demonstrating its insufferable arrogance by effectively declaring, 'We don't care what the Australian people think, because we in the Liberal Party are always right.' It's another example of 'be quiet, Australians' from this Prime Minister.
Turning to the inquiry into this bill, a number of organisations have taken the time to make thoughtful submissions to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and many of those submissions express concerns about some aspects of the bill. Out of respect for that process and the organisations and individuals that are engaging with it, Labor will not finalise its position on the majority of measures introduced by this bill until that inquiry has concluded, but it can already be said that there are many aspects of this bill that should enjoy broad support across this parliament.
There is, however, one aspect of the bill that Labor has a longstanding position on, and that is the proposed introduction of mandatory sentencing. Labor's opposition to mandatory sentencing is well known. I will elaborate on the reasons for that opposition in a moment, but let me be clear: we do not support the introduction of mandatory sentencing in this bill. Those provisions should be removed.
This morning The Australian newspaper reported:
Scott Morrison will move to capitalise on Labor's division by opening parliamentary debate on issues contentious in Anthony Albanese's ranks, including drug tests for welfare recipients and minimum mandatory sentencing …
I had hoped that the reporting was inaccurate and that the proposed introduction of mandatory sentencing in this bill was not merely an attempt to attack Labor. People of goodwill can disagree in good faith about these matters. I'd hoped that the government was more interested in passing the best possible laws to protect children from abuse rather than attempting to use such laws as a political tool to attack Labor. I hope I'm wrong about the government's motivations in this context, but the government's talking points that were leaked yesterday appear to confirm that the government is intent on turning this bill and almost every other bill and policy debate in this country into a debate about Labor rather than a debate about what is in the national interest. Those leaked talking points mentioned Labor and the Leader of the Opposition an astonishing 40 times.
Sex crimes against children are abhorrent. Children are the most precious and vulnerable members of our community. They require and deserve our protection and support. The debate about this bill should be about one thing and one thing only—how best to protect and support children. This should not be a topic for scoring political points. This is not a topic and this is not a bill for the tawdry whose-side-are-you-on nonsense from the Prime Minister or his senior ministers.
I am a father and a grandfather. My colleagues are mothers, fathers and grandparents. Every single one of us wants to protect children from harm, but from time to time some of us may disagree on the best and most effective ways of doing so. Such things should, of course, go without saying. Sadly, they do not. Some in this place may recall that former defence minister and now defence lobbyist Christopher Pyne sent a tweet in December last year in which he accused the opposition of allowing 'terrorists and paedophiles to continue to do their evil work'. That pathetic tweet was prompted by the fact that my colleagues and I expressed concerns about certain aspects of the government's assistance and access bill dealing with encryption—concerns that were shared by media organisations, including every major media organisation in the country, by tech experts and by the Australian Industry Group. But at least Mr Pyne had the good sense to feel ashamed of himself and quickly delete the tweet. Not all of his colleagues in the last parliament appeared to have a similar capacity to feel shame. Some of you may recall that the former justice minister, Mr Michael Keenan, said that a vote against one aspect of the previous iteration of this bill was 'a vote to allow more paedophiles into the community'. That is a direct quotation from a prepared statement by Mr Keenan.
Regrettably, the comments that I've just referred to from Mr Pyne and Mr Keenan are not isolated examples. They are, unfortunately, only examples that illustrate this government's approach to politics. I believe it is an approach that was engaged in, with a lasting and destructive effect on our nation, by the former Leader of the Liberal Party, and later Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. It is an approach that has continued since Mr Abbott's brief and dysfunctional reign. It is an approach that continues to undermine what should be a robust but respectful contest of ideas between politicians and political parties—a contest of ideas that aims to ensure the best outcomes for our nation.
While I'm aware that politics has become more polarised not just here but across the world, I will still take this opportunity to express the hope that, in the context of debating laws to better protect children against abuse, we can return to a more respectful debate and that the kind of vile and contemptible comments I referred to earlier will not be heard again in this parliament or in public statements from members of this government. The debate over this bill is an opportunity for this Prime Minister to demonstrate that when he told Australians, 'What we need is not to disagree less but to disagree better,' those were not just empty words.
Labor always has and always will fight to protect children here and overseas from exploitation and abuse. Labor's proud of its record under the Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments in this area. To pick up on just a few examples, Labor in government introduced world-leading offences in 1994 targeting Australians who engage in the sexual abuse of children overseas. Labor in government brought federal, state and territory governments together in 2009 to implement the national framework for protecting Australia's children, which included a funding commitment of $63.6 million over four years from the Commonwealth government. In government, Labor introduced new child abuse preparatory offences and other protection measures in 2010. Labor in government established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the first inquiry of its kind at a national level. The royal commission, among other things, inquired into how systems have failed to protect children and made recommendations on how to improve laws, policies and practices to prevent and better respond to child sexual abuse in institutions. Some of the measures in this bill appear to pick up on recommendations made by the royal commission, as I'll discuss in a moment. Labor in government appointed Australia's first National Children's Commissioner to advocate for the rights of Australia's young people in 2013. I could go on.
As our record demonstrates, Labor are committed to doing what we can to protect children from harm and abuse. Let me be clear: I do not question the current government's commitment to doing what it can do to protect children. To the extent that there is disagreement between us and the government on this subject matter, it will only ever be about the means and not the ends. As I've already stated, Labor will not finalise our position on the majority of the measures introduced by this bill until the Senate inquiry has concluded and, as I've already noted, there are clearly many aspects of this bill that should enjoy broad support across this parliament, subject to working through the detail. The introduction of measures to protect child and other vulnerable witnesses in court proceedings, the creation of aggravated offences where a child victim has a mental impairment and requiring judges to consider a range of additional factors, including aggravating factors, at the time of sentencing are potential examples.
I would also add that Labor does not, as a matter of principle, oppose increasing maximum penalties in appropriate circumstances. Where there is evidence that offenders are consistently being given sentences that are, on any view, inadequate, it is appropriate for the parliament to respond by increasing maximum penalties. Doing so sends a clear signal to judges that sentences should be higher, a signal that as a matter of law and established sentencing practices cannot be ignored. That is why when a version of this bill was brought before the previous parliament, Labor called for amendments to further increase maximum sentences for some child sex offences over and above the increases originally proposed by the government. It appears that those calls by Labor in the previous parliament on the previous iteration of this bill have been heeded by the government and incorporated into the current version of the bill. That, I would suggest, is an example of the parliamentary process working.
As I noted earlier, this bill would also introduce some measures that we do not agree with. In particular, Labor have a longstanding opposition to mandatory sentencing and this bill would introduce mandatory minimum sentences. Labor's opposition to mandatory sentencing is no secret. It is spelled out in our national platform, which states clearly that:
Labor opposes mandatory sentencing and detention regimes; they are often discriminatory in practice, conflict with the role of the judiciary as an independent arm of government, and have not proved effective in reducing crime or criminality.
But it is not simply that mandatory sentencing regimes have not proven effective in reducing crime or criminality; experts have said that mandatory sentencing may make it harder to prosecute criminals and less likely for juries or judges to convict guilty people. The Commonwealth's own Attorney-General's Department has said that mandatory minimums should be avoided as they 'create an incentive for a defendant to fight charges even where there is little merit in doing so'. In its research, the Australian Institute of Criminology has previously found that in some circumstances, when an offender is faced with a mandatory penalty, juries have refused to convict. It goes without saying that this parliament should not introduce laws that make it harder to prosecute and convict child sex offenders, however well-intentioned such laws may be.
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse heard from more than 16,000 people, received over a thousand written accounts of abuse, reviewed allegations of sexual abuse in more than 4,000 institutions and held 57 public hearings and 35 policy roundtables. It also heard from over 8,000 people in private sessions. That royal commission issued a 17-volume final report and made over 400 recommendations for reform, but, notably, it did not recommend the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences. Indeed, according to research prepared for the royal commission, the evidence shows that mandatory sentences are not effective as deterrents and do not reduce crime rates.
I would also note the comments of the knowmore legal service to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill. Knowmore was established in 2013 to assist people to engage with the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Today it continues to do important work as a free and independent community legal centre which specialises in providing advice, representation and advocacy for victims and survivors of child abuse. In its submission to the Senate committee's inquiry, knowmore expresses concern about 'the lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of mandatory sentencing policy in achieving the bill's stated aims'. Labor shares that concern.
There are numerous other submissions to the current Senate committee inquiry that have also expressed concern about the introduction of mandatory sentencing. The Uniting Church synod of Victoria and Tasmania argues in its submission:
… mandatory minimum sentences and required periods of imprisonment need to be approached with extreme caution … criminological research finds the risk of apprehension serves as a more effective general deterrent than the severity of the punishment.
Jesuit Social Services told the Senate committee:
… research in Australia and other jurisdictions has consistently found that mandatory sentences do not work to deter offending, and do nothing to address the complex issues faced by many people who may offend.
The Sexual Assault Support Service is a free and confidential service for people of all ages, including children, who have been impacted by any form of sexual violence. In its submission it states that it does not support the introduction of mandatory sentencing. The service submitted:
Whilst we are strongly supportive of reform to strengthen punishments against those who sexually abuse children, we do not feel that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that mandatory minimum sentencing is an effective response. We note the concern expressed regarding mandatory minimum sentencing for sexual offences by various legal authorities including the Tasmanian Sentencing Advisory Council and the Law Council of Australia.
To go back to basics, it's the role of this parliament to indicate to the courts the seriousness with which parliament views different classes of crime, in particular by setting maximum penalties. The High Court of Australia is not in any doubt about the importance of setting maximum penalties. In a recent decision, Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh, the Chief Justice and Justices Bell and Keane quoted with approval from a 2005 decision of the court, Markarian v The Queen. In that case, former Chief Justice Gleeson and Justices Gummow, Hayne and Callinan said:
… careful attention to maximum penalties will almost always be required, first because the legislature has legislated for them; secondly, because they invite comparison between the worst possible case and the case before the court at the time; and thirdly, because in that regard they do provide, taken and balanced with all of the other relevant factors, a yardstick.
The High Court has been equally forthright about the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing, in judgement after judgement, for decades. Former Chief Justice Barwick of the High Court of Australia—a former Liberal Attorney-General—while recognising the power of the legislature to determine penalties for offences, said in 1970 in the case of Palling and Corfield:
It is both unusual and in general, in my opinion, undesirable that the court should not have a discretion in the imposition of penalties and sentences, for circumstances alter cases and it is a traditional function of a court of justice to endeavour to make the punishment appropriate to the circumstances as well as to the nature of the crime.
A decade later, Chief Justice Gibbs, in Sillery v The Queen, said that even in the case of a most serious crime:
… there may exist wide differences in the degree of culpability of particular offenders, so that in principle there is every reason for allowing a discretion for the judge at trial to impose an appropriate sentence not exceeding the statutory maximum.
He said that mandatory sentencing 'would lead to results that would be plainly unreasonable and unjust'.
In the Dalgliesh decision, which I've referred to previously, Chief Justice Kiefel and Justices Bell and Keane noted the observation of a previous High Court decision and said that 'the administration of the criminal law involves individualised justice'. They went on to say:
… the imposition of a just sentence on an offender in a particular case is an exercise of judicial discretion concerned to do justice in that case.
In its submission to the Senate inquiry, the Law Council of Australia set out a number of concerns about mandatory sentencing, including that there's no 'convincing evidence which demonstrated that mandatory minimum penalties deter crime' and that mandatory sentencing:
potentially increases the likelihood of recidivism because prisoners are placed in a learning environment for crime, which reinforces criminal identity and fails to address the underlying causes of crime;
… … …
displaces discretion to other parts of the criminal justice system, most notably law enforcement and prosecutors, and thereby fails to eliminate inconsistency in sentencing;
… … …
is likely to result in an increase in contested hearings (since offenders who may have considered pleading guilty in the hope of receiving an alternative to full-time imprisonment may be inclined to go trial) and, consequently, a further drain on resources, delay and unnecessary distress to alleged victims.
Bravehearts and the Carly Ryan Foundation have expressed some measure of support for the introduction of mandatory minimums. I acknowledge that and I look forward to further discussing this issue with those two important organisations over the coming weeks. As I said at the outset, people of goodwill can disagree on how best to achieve an objective we all agree with: the protection of children from harm.
In short, Labor is not aware of any evidence that mandatory sentences are effective in reducing crime. In fact, there is evidence that mandatory sentencing makes it more difficult to prosecute and convict offenders. So far, the Attorney-General has not pointed to any evidence to the contrary. Instead, he has sought to justify the introduction of mandatory sentencing by pointing out that, according to the Attorney-General, 28 per cent of child sex offenders convicted of federal offences in 2018-19 did not spend one day in jail. On the face of it, that statistic does appear to be alarming, but the Attorney-General has not provided any greater detail than that. That's not good enough. For example, we don't know whether that statistic applies to all sex offences, including offences that would not be the subject of mandatory sentences should this bill be passed.
I hope that the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Home Affairs are in a position to provide much greater detail about current sentencing practices to the Senate committee looking into this bill so we can all better understand the problem which the Attorney-General says he has identified and then work together on the most effective solutions. I implore the Attorney-General to consider alternative approaches to mandatory sentencing that are more likely to achieve the laudable objective of this bill, which, at its heart, is about keeping our children safe from harm.
In this House we debate legislation, but I wish to make it clear today that my colleagues and I are committed to working with the government on prevention and harm reduction measures, legislative or non-legislative, to address this epidemic of child abuse imagery online. Many of the proposed measures in this bill are addressed in one way or another to the online environment. This is in part a result of the fact that the Commonwealth has limited powers to make laws in this area, and so, as a consequence, a significant proportion of Commonwealth child sex offences relate to the electronic sending, receiving or storage of child abuse material. In practice, that will often mean images or videos being viewed, sent or received online.
The Carly Ryan Foundation is committed to the promotion of internet safety and the prevention of crime against children. Its mission is to make the internet safer for children and families. In its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, the Carly Ryan Foundation notes that:
There is a particular kind of insidiousness to child sex offences. For the majority of people, it is a level of offending that just cannot be comprehended. For law enforcement agencies and other organisations like the Carly Ryan Foundation who have some involvement in the space, the upward trend in the production and distribution of child abuse material combined with the trend in more violent assault can make us question where humanity is going wrong.
I thought of the Carly Ryan Foundation and the tremendous work that it does when I read some recent reporting in The New York Times on the upward trend in the sharing and distribution of child abuse material online. Some of the statistics quoted in that story are alarming. According to The New York Times, in 1998 there were over 3,000 reports of child sexual abuse imagery on the internet. In 2014 that number surpassed one million. In 2018 there were 18.4 million worldwide reports of child sexual abuse imagery; that's in one year. The reports in 2018 included 45 million photos and videos. The majority of those reports were made by tech companies; Facebook alone accounted for nearly 12 million of the 18.4 million reports in 2018.
The story told by The New York Times is a story of the failure of authorities around the world to keep up with the problem of child exploitation on the internet, but it is not, principally, about a failure of lawmaking; it is at least as much a story about inadequate resourcing and reporting practices. As a parliament, we can pass the strongest laws in the world, but, unless our agencies are equipped with the best technology and have an appropriate number of personnel, we will not get very far. Nor will we get very far if we do not work with our international partners, because the exploitation of children is a global problem. This is also not a problem that can be adequately addressed by law enforcement alone. Education of children and parents about online safety and the provision of mental health services for young people will also play a role, because protecting children from harm means the prevention of harm—not just the punishment of those who commit offences after the fact.
In conclusion, I make clear that Labor's No. 1 priority here is protecting children. There is nothing more sickening than child sexual abuse. Children are the most precious and vulnerable members of our community. Labor has no tolerance for these crimes, and we want to see paedophiles locked up. Labor will always work constructively, whether in opposition or in government, to put in place the most effective measures to protect children. In that spirit of cooperation, I urge the government to examine the evidence about mandatory sentencing and, in particular, to consider the significant potential for mandatory sentences to cause injustice and to actually make it harder to protect children. In light of that evidence, I call on the government to remove from this bill the schedule that would compel Australian judges to impose mandatory sentences. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Opposition supports the objectives of this bill and would like to work with the Government to ensure the bill best achieves those objectives—the most important being the protection of children;
(b) the bill is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which is due to report on 7 November 2019;
(c) while its final position on the bill will be determined following the conclusion of that inquiry, the Opposition has a longstanding opposition to mandatory sentencing; and
(d) among other things, the bill would introduce mandatory sentencing; and
(2) is of the view that:
(a) there is no evidence to suggest that mandatory sentencing is an effective mechanism for deterring offenders or protecting the community;
(b) by contrast, experts—including the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department—have argued against the introduction of mandatory sentencing regimes, including on the basis that, where an offender is facing a mandatory minimum sentence, juries may be less likely to convict; and
(c) in light of the concerns raised by experts, and in the absence of any evidence that mandatory sentencing is effective, the Government should work with the Opposition on alternative approaches to sentencing that are more likely to achieve the core objectives of this bill, which are to punish child sex offenders and keep children safe from harm".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I thank the member for Isaacs. Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Burney: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Barton. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Isaacs has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Wide Bay.
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (13:05): The Morrison government and the Australian community know that every child needs to be protected from sexual predators. Every child needs to witness adequate judicial sentencing of sexual predators. Every predator must be adequately sentenced and supervised to prevent reoffending. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019 will improve existing legislation to achieve these expectations. There should be no question as to whether this bill should pass in the form that it is in now, as it serves to correct the weaknesses that have been identified which favour depraved sex offenders and predators, who should receive the adequate sentencing that the community rightly expects.
The bill follows the government's previous reforms, which included the power to stop paedophiles from travelling overseas to reoffend and the introduction of Carly's Law. Following these increased powers of investigation and the tighter legislation, the AFP have detected an increase in child exploitation offences over the past year. The government will not sit idly on its hands when it can respond with clear, strong laws against these predators. We won't waste time kicking this issue into the long grass. There is a serious problem, and it needs to be dealt with now. I'm confident that not one member in this chamber would vote to make our child sex crimes any less effective or sentencing any more lenient. And nor should they, for they represent their communities, and their communities want more effective protection for their children and harsher penalties for those convicted. The Morrison government is acting on this expectation, and the bill includes mandatory sentencing for recidivist offenders, increased maximum penalties and a presumption in favour of actual imprisonment.
The previous speaker spoke of Labor's longstanding opposition to mandatory sentencing. Well, I have long been in support of mandatory sentencing. This doesn't come from shining a seat in a university as an academic or from sitting in Labor Party conferences, listening to other bleeding hearts about how mandatory sentencing doesn't work; it comes from having watched the most vile filth in our community walk free when they shouldn't have—walk free when a gutless member of the judiciary, who has lost touch with looking after victims and with community expectations, has let a sex offender or criminal walk back into the community.
I understand that mandatory sentencing is not for every offence. I understand that you need to take into account matters like hardship or education or the circumstances that someone finds themselves in, such as whether they have children to look after, as to whether you are going to give a custodial sentence. But you think about those things that I've just said and put them into the context of somebody who has decided to sexually offend against and sexually abuse a child.
Does hardship, not having enough money or no job, cause you to sexually abuse a child? No, it doesn't. Does not having education cause you to sexually abuse a child? No, it doesn't. Does having kids at home mean, because you've sexually abused a child, you should be let go back home to look after those children? Well, I think the answer to that is obvious; no, it shouldn't. Sex offenders are people who have a perverted, sick desire to satisfy themselves by sexually abusing a child. Anybody that is associated with this kind of thing should not be walking amongst us in our community. They should be incarcerated. And it is a disgrace that Labor opposes mandatory sentencing for child sex predators.
No longer will we tolerate a third of Commonwealth child sex offenders being convicted without going to jail. No longer will we tolerate child sex predators being released into the community without undergoing any rehabilitation programs. No longer will we tolerate paedophiles being released without adequate supervision. This bill is urgently needed to tackle the increased capability of child sex predators to commit offences in the ever-developing digital space. Unfortunately, in this online world, the monstrous act of child sexual abuse is often accompanied by wicked, cruel violence, and this bill augments sentencing with appropriate aggravating factors that allow tougher penalties for these sorriest of crimes.
The government is conscious that children as victims and, therefore, witnesses of these nightmare crimes need greater protection in court. No longer will they have to enter the adult-filled courtroom and look into the face of their attacker, as we will allow prerecorded evidence. No longer will they be unnecessarily re-traumatised, as we will stop them being unnecessarily cross-examined at committal or other preliminary hearings.
The Australian public's outcry of anguish when it learns that a repeat offending paedophile, or one charged with serious acts of paedophilia, is released from custody on bail must end. With the introduction of this bill, the government will make it difficult for these most dangerous of predators to obtain such releases. This bill will help the victims over the predators and will place the safety of children as the prime consideration. By passing this bill, we will ensure that never again will a convicted paedophile walk free in the community without mandated supervision. The government want this bill to pass and the Australian people want this bill to pass with mandatory minimum sentencing. The Australian government want us to be a tougher on paedophiles. This bill is our response to that call.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (13:13): I too would like to make a contribution on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019. Just before the member for Wide Bay leaves us, I would like to acknowledge his service as a most respected Queensland police officer—no doubt much of the contribution that he has just made probably comes from experience. That is not to say that I fully agree with all of his submissions about mandatory sentencing, but, nevertheless, I put on record our appreciation for the work our police do in keeping our community safe.
I want to make a contribution on this bill because, firstly, I want to ensure that there is no misapprehension that Labor supports the objectives of this bill. We are willing and able to work with this government on measures that best achieve the protection of children in our communities. Sex crimes against children are abhorrent to any of us, as parents or, in my case, as a grandparent. There should be an absolute abhorrence throughout our community of sexual and physical violence being brought to bear on any child. Children are—let's face it—one of the most vulnerable groups in our community, so every child deserves our protection and our support. Quite frankly, there is nothing more sickening than sexual abuse of children, and we have no tolerance for that. For members opposite and all those within the community, this is just something that you cannot rationalise. You cannot go about and try to put a positive aspect on anything associated with child sexual offences. Yes, we want to see paedophiles behind bars—no question about that. It's a matter not only of safety for the victims but of safety for the community at large that paedophiles be removed from our community and do not have the ability to spread their evil endeavours.
This debate shouldn't be one of pointscoring. People shouldn't be coming into this chamber and thinking, 'This is a form of wedge politics; this is something that we can get Labor on.' Labor does have a long history of opposing mandatory sentencing, and I'll come back to that. Many of the reasons why I personally came to that view, as I have expressed with my colleagues, come from my time in the police force, where I also expressed my concerns about minimum sentencing and its impact on trials and our criminal justice system. So, as I say, this is not about pointscoring.
Sex crimes against children destroy lives not only for the victims but for their families. For far too long we have seen individuals commit these vile offences, and they are handed sentences which, certainly in the minds of many in the community, are grossly inadequate. I understand that, and I also understand that people have been released on bail without proper rehabilitative requirements or without the necessary supervision. To some extent I do sympathise with the police, because they are coming under many, many supervision orders now, without any increased funding to our state and territory police forces to provide that role of monitoring and keeping people safe in that respect. We must ensure that the sentences that are handed down are appropriate to the gravity of the offence committed. It is not an issue that should be dealt with lightly. It's an issue that demands that community expectations, particularly when associated with sexual crimes against children, be met.
This bill also targets the inadequacies of the current legal framework in terms of new and emerging technologies. This is something that I just can't get my head around. I'm not a tech head in the first place, but I am seeing and hearing reports from many of my colleagues, particularly those currently serving in the police, about what technology has opened up for people to be able to abuse children, particularly children in other countries. This is something I think is just such a vile abuse of those technical aspects that we have in our lives today.
I reiterate: Labor will always fight to protect children here and overseas from the exploitative and abusive endeavours of those, hopefully, few people in our community. Labor has had a pretty positive record when it comes to protecting children under the Keating, Rudd and Gillard governments, which includes introducing in 1994 world-leading offences targeting Australians who engage in sexual abuse of children overseas; bringing state, federal and territory governments together in 2009 to implement the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children, and including in that the provision of Commonwealth funding; the introduction of new child abuse preparatory offences and other protection measures in 2010; the appointment in 2013 of Australia's first National Children's Commissioner to advocate for the rights of Australian young people; introducing the vulnerable witness act in 2013; and most notably, as everyone will recall, the establishment under the Gillard government of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the first inquiry of its kind at a national level. I think we have demonstrated our commitment. It's not about putting a political point on it—it is simply our commitment to ensuring that community expectations, when it comes to violence and the sexual abuse of children, are met.
This bill will make a number of changes to Commonwealth laws relating to child sex offenders. The changes cover areas such as sentencing, custody, bail, rules of evidence, parole and rehabilitative treatments. I don't intend to go into detail on many of these aspects of the bill, but I would like to take the opportunity to raise my concerns about mandatory sentencing. In this place I've spoken a number of times about mandatory sentencing in the criminal justice system, but, certainly, I haven't spoken about it with respect to schedule 6 as it currently appears in this bill. To apply mandatory sentencing, we need to have a view about what impact it will have on the criminal justice system referring to jury trials. Is it possible, which I've argued previously, that this could actually lead to lesser charges being preferred against an accused and pleas being taken? We don't want this being referred into some form of plea bargaining system.
Labor has a longstanding opposition when it comes to mandatory sentencing—one that I personally agree with. The Law Council of Australia also agree with that position. They put it very succinctly: 'The imposition of mandatory minimum penalties upon conviction for criminal offences imposes unacceptable restrictions on judicial discretion and independence, and undermines fundamental rule-of-law principles and human rights obligations.' As such, mandatory penalties necessarily undermine the discretion of judges to ensure that the penalties imposed are proportionate to the crime. Mandatory penalties are also often discriminatory in practice and conflict with the actual role of the judiciary, which we pride ourselves on in Australia—our judiciary certainly being independent from the role and control of government. It's fundamental to our operation of criminal justice.
Furthermore, the Law Council go on to talk about how mandatory sentencing can result in unjust outcomes; fails to prove effective in reducing crime; potentially increases the likelihood of recidivism; and can undermine the community's confidence in the judiciary. They also go on to talk about how mandatory sentencing can reduce and remove the incentive for defendants to cooperate with police and law enforcement agencies. I don't want to get into how that comes about, but many of us who have worked in the legal system know that modern policing is all about intelligence gathering and securing proper prosecutions of a wide group of offenders, and that may require agreements to be made. This would cut across that aspect, and may see a wider group of offenders flee prosecution.
The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills noted that the objective of the measure is to ensure the courts are handing down sentences:
… 'that reflect the gravity of these offences and ensure that the community is protected from child sex offenders' …
We fully agree with that. They go on to say—and I have not necessarily done my own research:
… current sentences 'do not sufficiently recognise the harm suffered by victims of child sex offences' or 'that the market demand for, and commercialisation of, child abuse material often leads to further physical and sexual abuse of children'.
I am prepared to accept it, as I say, without having done my own particular research.
Apart from issues in terms of the domestic legal principle, the mandatory sentencing measures proposed in schedule 6 of the bill invite consideration, as they necessarily do, of article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—to which Australia is a signatory—which protects the right to liberty, including the right to not be arbitrarily detained. In other words, we need to make sure that people are, firstly, properly indicted and, secondly, prosecuted for a particular offence in accordance with the law.
Depriving an individual of their liberty must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate in all circumstances in order to avoid being considered arbitrary. As consistently noted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights: 'Mandatory sentencing may lead to disproportionate or unduly harsh outcomes, as it removes the judicial discretion to take into account all the relevant circumstances of a particular case.' Mandatory sentencing involves a risk that the application of a mandatory minimum sentence may not be reasonable or necessary for, or proportionate to, an individual case.
As its record suggests, Labor is committed to doing what it can to protect children from harm and abuse. We wholeheartedly support the objectives of the bill. We certainly have no tolerance for child exploitation of any form. I think it is important, nevertheless, that we make every effort to ensure that the integrity and independence of our criminal justice system are maintained—certainly the integrity and independence of our judiciary. Nothing can interfere with the role of a commissioned juror in making what is fundamentally their position, which is to determine guilt or otherwise. I fear mandatory sentencing will also impact on the role of the jury insofar as not only will they decide guilt or otherwise but a juror will know, as they are making their decision, that they are in fact imposing the sentence. That may impact on their thinking and their deliberations as a jury, hence why I think we need to move to protect the integrity of our criminal justice system.
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (13:28): I rise to strongly support the bill before the House today, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019. Listening to the member for Isaacs's speech and the member for Fowler just now, I certainly accept that their words regarding their desire to protect children are heartfelt. But what strikes me is that, once again, Labor's rhetoric doesn't match their actions. They are happy to come into this place and talk about protecting children—as we certainly are with this bill—but they aren't willing to actually get behind the government and support the passage of this bill. What was particularly concerning was that the member for Isaacs spent more time on trying to lecture the government on parliamentary process than on talking about the protection of the child. This is a pretty clear-cut case of the government on the side of community expectations, and it is entirely out of step with community expectations that somebody who commits these heinous crimes against children should not receive a custodial sentence.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may resume at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
National Rural Women's Coalition
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:30): This morning I had the great pleasure of attending a breakfast meeting with Anita Long and other delegates of the National Rural Women's Coalition. We had a lovely breakfast and meeting this morning with the Minister for Agriculture, Bridget McKenzie. It was non-partisan. It was convivial. We heard fantastic stories from around the country of incredible women doing incredible things in our regions—women who do suicide prevention and women who've come off drought affected farms to come here today and talk about what they're doing.
I had great pleasure in speaking with Anita Long, the Tasmanian delegate from my electorate. Anita lives in the town of Richmond, and she's a beekeeper and farmer. Two years ago, Anita founded a group called Tasmanian Junior Beekeepers. She runs monthly beekeeping sessions, because she knows that we need more young people going into beekeeping. It's a very important industry for agriculture. She's now teaching up to a hundred kids a month all the basics of beekeeping. These kids learn all about honey, beeswax and everything. She says that these kids are also running their own businesses. They're going to local markets and they're selling their own honey. They're getting a real leg-up in this incredibly important industry for agriculture.
So I'd like to say thank you to Anita for coming today. She follows hot on the heels of Summer Gwynne, another of my constituents who also lives in Richmond and who was last year's delegate. So Richmond's really punching above its weight through the National Rural Women's Coalition. Congratulations to all the women taking part.
Turkey
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:31): The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have rightly taken a strong stand against the unilateral actions of the Erdogan regime for its invasion of northern Syria. Australia has been part of the coalition which destroyed ISIS plans for a caliphate, but Turkey's actions could undermine this and cause untold suffering for innocent people—in particular, Kurdish people, who've done more than their fair share of fighting and dying to stop the advance of ISIS.
The Kurds represent many of the values we've been fighting for in the Middle East. They are a multifaith, pluralist, pro-Western people. There are Christian Kurds, Shiah Kurds, Sunni Kurds, Jewish Kurds and Kurds of no faith. So many Australian Kurds have stories of their families being tortured, raped and killed by ISIS. Kurdish people who've fought for the same values as Australia are in Turkey's direct firing line. I want to express my solidarity with the Kurdish people.
Australia has had a good and perhaps unique relationship with the Western, secular, Muslim, democratic Turkey formed on the principles of Kemal Ataturk, who so many Turks and Australians admire for his bravery at Gallipoli and his conception of modern Turkey. But at every turn President Erdogan wants to destroy the Ataturk legacy—whether it's through the crackdown on the rights of his own people, his disgraceful comments about Australia and New Zealand after the Christchurch attacks or his invasion of northern Syria. He is again choosing to put Turkey on the wrong side of history. I want to encourage the government to continue to work with our allies to keep pressure on the Erdogan regime to withdraw its forces from northern Syria.
Iraq
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (13:33): I commend the last speaker for his contribution. Last week I had the opportunity to attend a function hosted by the Joint Committee of Iraqi Organisations in Australia to raise awareness about the civil unrest currently occurring in Iraq. For a country that has been ravaged by war and destruction, the current situation in Iraq is extremely regrettable. We have a country which, two years after the defeat of ISIS, is still grappling with uncertainty and worsening living conditions despite Iraq's significant wealth and ability to freely trade probably for the first extended period since 1970. Iraqi people are faced with damaged and deteriorating infrastructure and are particularly, in fact, impacted by entrenched and widespread corruption.
Mass protests have erupted in Iraq over the inadequacies of state services and the lack of jobs and employment opportunities, with over 100 people killed and thousands injured as a result of excessive force being used by security forces. Clearly, those responsible must be held to account. The situation in Iraq remains extremely concerning, with protesters unable to voice their concerns in a peaceful, democratic manner while the authorities are deploying excessive force. I call on the Iraqi government to cease its use of violence against peaceful demonstrators and bring justice to those responsible for these gross human rights abuses.
Diabetes
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:34): Most would know that I am the co-chair of the 'parliamentary enemies of diabetes'. Mr Deputy Speaker, I invite you, every other member of this place and their staff to come along to courtyard 27E between 11.30 am and 1 pm tomorrow and get your socks off to get your feet checked by a podiatrist. Diabetic foot disease costs the healthcare system $1.6 billion a year, has mortality rates worse than many cancers and results in an amputated limb every two hours. Every year there are 4,400 diabetes related amputations in Australia and 85 per cent of those are preventable. Diabetes is the leading cause of amputation. So a foot check is important for your health. Tomorrow come along and join in. We are advised that there may be inclement weather, but we have an alternative if indeed we have to shift the event.
I also thank members of the 'parliamentary enemies of diabetes' who have shot little videos of their feet and of them doing odd things in their electorate so that we will have something electronic to put back into our electorates. If members come along between 11.30 am and 1 pm they will be able to get a little promotional video of getting checked by a podiatrist. It doesn't matter if you have got great feet. Get checked. You can then put that back into your electorate so that we can send the message that people have to sit down on their backsides, expose their feet and have them looked at.
3 Wing Australian Air Force Cadets Band and the Australian Army Cadet Band
Bentley, Mr Jeff
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:36): RAAF Base Richmond has played host to an unusual squadron recently. It was the venue for a band music camp. High school students from around the country came together for a week of intensive rehearsals. The common bond was that they were all cadets, either Army or Air Force. The end result was a fabulous example of collaboration. Their 12-hour rehearsal days culminated in the One Night on Broadway performance in Windsor last weekend. It was a toe-tapping evening. One of the many highlights was the opening number. Band members marched in playing 76 trombones. I was delighted to see Winmalee musician Cadet Under Officer Henry Hutchinson in the lead and Springwood's leading cadet Dillen on alto sax. Cadet Dillen on clarinet joined him, along with around 60 others. The three-wing band was formed four years ago and parades six times a year at Richmond, while the Army cadet band goes back to 1992 and parades every Monday night at Holsworthy Barracks. Congratulations to all involved, including the civilians, who provided great guidance and support.
I commend Richmond RSL subbranch for their recognition of Vietnam veteran Jeff Bentley, who served as an engineer. It was a privilege to be at the presentation of his unit's extraordinary gallantry citation, pin and star for action during the battles of Coral and Balmoral fire bases in Vietnam in May and June 1968. It was long-overdue recognition.
Sydney Roosters Rugby League Club
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (13:38): I'm very pleased to be able to congratulate the Sydney Roosters on winning back-to-back NRL premierships. This is the first time that a club has done this since 1993 and it is the Roosters's 15th premiership since the club was formed in 1908. Of course, the Roosters's home is my own electorate of Wentworth. Apart from being a great NRL club, their charity work in the community is legendary.
Ms Burney: Nobody likes them.
Mr SHARMA: Everyone loves them in Bondi, I can assure you. The Steggles Roosters Charity Nest supports Lifestart, Children's Hospital Foundation Queensland, Children's Cancer Institute Australia and the Roosters Outreach program. This makes the Roosters, as I said, a beloved part of our community. You can't walk 10 metres in Bondi right now without seeing red, white and blue emblazoned somewhere. Congratulations to chairman Nick Politis, coach Trent Robinson, captains Boyd Cordner and Jake Friend and the whole team—including of course James Tedesco, who won the Players' Champion title at the Rugby League Players Association awards last night—on your outstanding success.
Finally, congratulations to Cooper Cronk, who played his last game of NRL in the grand final. He has been awarded a Roosters life membership, joining the likes of Arthur Beetson, Luke Ricketson, Brad Fittler, Anthony Minichiello, Russell Fairfax and Jack Gibson. We are all incredibly proud of you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): A very controversial contribution there, Member for Wentworth.
Live Animal Exports
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (13:39): It has been eight years since the Australian public was confronted by footage on Four Corners of the brutal treatment of animals in our live animal exports. Since 2011, there have been far too many incidents of cruelty to Australian animals. In particular, the live sheep export industry has been shown to be rife with animal cruelty time and time again. This industry has repeatedly failed to demonstrate that it is able to meet either community standards or scientific animal welfare standards, and, despite the significant public outcry that follows each and every episode, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has consistently refused to take action to end the suffering. But it almost wasn't so. The member for Farrer, on that side of the House, once said it was 'Time to pick a date by which all live sheep exports must end'. She also said:
… the industry's had too many chances to clean up its act …
The member for La Trobe once said:
… it's just cruel and inhumane and it has to stop. It's a simple as that.
A temporary ban on the live sheep trade was lifted just a few weeks ago, and the very same day a ship with 57,000 sheep left our shores for the Middle East.
A petition I started has been signed by over 450,000 constituents in Macnamara, and I want to thank each and every one of them for putting their name to it. The message is clear: the standards for live sheep exports must be upheld, and, since the industry has failed to do so time and time again, it's time to end the cruelty of live sheep exports.
North Sydney Electorate: Community Events
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (13:41): Across Australia, communities are coming together at fetes and festivals to celebrate the arrival of spring and warmer weather. My electorate is no different, and I particularly want to acknowledge all of those involved in two of our biggest community events, the Lane Cove Rotary Fair and the Crows Nest Festival.
Last Sunday, thousands of residents came together for the Lane Cove fair, which was once again a great success. The fair is organised by Lane Cove Rotary and Lane Cove Council. I particularly thank the mayor, Pam Palmer, and council staff; and all those volunteering from Rotary, including current president Stephen Miller, Councillor David Brooks-Horn, Lalitha Warren, Harry Clarsen, Vlad Kotlyar and Patty Wilson-Cust.
This Sunday we will again celebrate the strength of our community at the Crows Nest Festival, which is entering its 30th year. With over 200 stallholders, the festival continues to grow and now attracts something like 60,000 visitors in the course of the day. I want to congratulate North Sydney's mayor, Jilly Gibson, and her team; along with the Crows Nest Mainstreet committee, including chairman Anthony Melinz, Vince Caruso, Zar Bingham, Dennis and Peter Xenos, David French, Rudi Dietz and Andrew Morgan, for all their work.
Both events feature local businesses, arts and crafts, fitness opportunities, community organisations, food and a dazzling array of rides for the kids, both literally and figuratively. They are massive logistical undertakings, and we are grateful to all those involved for their work. They are great days which reflect the vibrancy of the community that I have the honour of representing in this place.
Climate Change
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (13:42): It is crystal clear to everyone in this country that we do not have global warming under control. As we suffer through record drought, as we see more and more fish kills in our rivers, as towns are told to expect to run out of water in the coming months and as parts of Australia start burning barely a couple of weeks out of winter, it is time to acknowledge that we do not have global warming under control. It is time to tell it like it is.
The first step towards fixing a problem is admitting that you've got a problem. That is why parliament must declare a climate emergency. It is what the United Kingdom, with a parliament that has a majority of Tories, has done. It is what Canada has done. It is what France has done. They have done it because the scientists have told us that we are running out of time. If we listen to the scientists and accept what the science says, we must accept what the science tells us we have to do, and that means we have to drastically cut our pollution over the next few years instead of letting it continue to rise.
The Greens and the crossbench have been pushing in this parliament for a declaration of a climate emergency so that Australia can join the other countries around the world. I'm glad that Labor has now come on board to support it. The spotlight is now on the Liberal members of parliament who say they accept climate change science. If you do, come and vote for— (Time expired)
Payneham Returned and Services League Sub Branch: 80th Anniversary
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (13:44): It's a great privilege to rise and pay tribute today to the Payneham RSL, which celebrated its 80th anniversary on Saturday evening, which I had the great pleasure of attending as one of the guests of honour, with the Hon. Vincent Tazia, the Speaker of the South Australian House of Assembly; and the Hon. Terry Stephens MLC, representing the Premier. Being the 80th anniversary, the Payneham RSL was established adjacent to the outbreak of the Second World War. It was particularly touching to celebrate the three surviving World War II diggers who are still members of the club, including a very dear family friend of mine, Mr Don Looker, who was a good friend of my grandmother until she passed away—she herself served as a nurse during the Second World War at Heidelberg—along with my grandfather, who served in the Royal Engineers in North Africa and the Pacific.
I would like to congratulate Mark Lawson-Kent, the president, and Scott Jeffrey, the vice-president, for the work they did. It was an absolutely sensational evening with the pipe band and excellent catering. It was a very dignified and fitting tribute to 80 wonderful years for the Payneham RSL. The work they do in the community is so very valued in the eastern suburbs of Adelaide.
Pathology
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (13:45): Half the Australian population had a pathology test of some sort in the last 12 months. Pathology is crucial to the detection of disease, the treatment of chronic disease and often to split-second decisions that are needed in emergency departments. Australia has world-class pathology and a dedicated workforce of 35,000 skilled people—scientists, pathologists, lab technicians and phlebotomists—working each and every day and often overnight to provide a crucial service to our community.
Yet most Australians don't have the opportunity to meet the pathologists and scientists responsible for their diagnosis or to see where they work. So I was lucky recently to be given a tour of the path lab at Frankston Hospital, to be introduced to the fascinating work done by the doctors and scientists there, managing the life-saving blood bank and vital daily tests. Every single person I met at Frankston Hospital was dedicated to their work, proud of their contribution to better health for people who live in Dunkley and beyond, and so impressively smart. It was a privilege to meet them, particularly as I am someone who has benefited and continues to benefit from their work and that of their colleagues.
I saw the examination of a section of bowel needed to provide information to treat bowel cancer. This month is breast cancer awareness month. Diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer crucially relies on path tests. Managing chronic diseases such as diabetes, prevalent in my electorate, relies on pathology tests. I pay credit to all the pathologists and allied health professionals around the country, and I urge members of parliament to visit their labs.
Herbert Electorate: Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (13:47): I would like to start by paying tribute to the member for her speech. The Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative is so important to my region. It is a $2.25 billion investment into Townsville and the surrounding areas to welcome up to 14,000 personnel from Singapore, training up to 18 weeks each year. Today I want to highlight the first major milestone of the initiative in my electorate, which I had the pleasure of opening last week. The $5.4 million explosive ordnance storage earth covered building—ECB—is the first step ahead of the establishment of a new military training area near Greenvale. Completed ahead of time, the ECB will extend explosive ordnance storage for the Singapore Armed Forces when they train in my electorate of Herbert. It has been built by locals for our Singaporean partners. This has been local work for local people, creating local jobs. Seventeen companies within the Townsville area participated in the construction of the ECB, providing essential services to Defence, such as concrete supply, concrete reinforcement, waterproofing, electrical and communications works, fire protection, structural steel, civil works, security, site accommodation, mechanical works, painting and rendering. It is so important for the region and the Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative. The people of Townsville welcome the Singaporeans when they visit a beautiful part of the world.
Werriwa Electorate: Hoxton Industries
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Opposition Whip) (13:48): Hoxton Industries is an organisation in my electorate which employs more than 100 people who otherwise face significant barriers to employment. The goal of the NDIS is to support people with disabilities to achieve independence and success. While this bipartisan initiative is still to fully realise those aims across the country, Hoxton Industries has been doing that for over 50 years. Hoxton Industries provides meaningful employment to people with disabilities and has done so for half a century. Hoxton Industries predominantly provides packaging services for businesses, but has recently branched out into e-waste sorting and other opportunities. It now supports 145 staff over three sites at Villawood, Campbelltown and Hoxton Park in the electorate of Werriwa.
I attended Hoxton Industries' 50th anniversary recently and celebrated with former and current board members and staff. Amazingly, some of the staff have worked at Hoxton Industries for more than 40 years. The original board was formed by parents determined to give their children good, meaningful lives and contribute by working if the jobs that they were doing met their particular needs. I met the management team and heard about their hardworking staff. I'd like to congratulate Mr Warren Jones and his board, as well as the chief executive officer, Nicole Bruce, and her team for their outstanding achievements. Congratulations on 50 years.
Forde Electorate: Pimpama Men's Shed
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (13:50): I would like to take this opportunity to give a shout-out to the Pimpama Men's Shed, one of the great local community groups in my electorate of Forde. I wish to thank Alan Herbert, who has recently retired as the shed's manager, and welcome Bob Lander to the interim manager position. Some might say it's just any old shed in the park, but to the members of the shed it's a refuge and place to call their own. Pimpama Men's Shed continues to enjoy strong membership and support from locals and is very active in giving back to our local community. Most recently, members John and Col finished the window frames for a project at the Pimpama State School and Max and Dave restored a 100-year-old gramophone, and four new buddy benches were completed, which also go to Pimpama State School. They're proudly supported by Michael Crandon, the state member for Coomera. The members also assisted in setting up the Community Springtime Soiree at Pimpama School of Arts. I heard the soiree was a hoot and that the band and the singers had a fantastic evening. Stan, Frank and John have also been busy mentoring six students at Norfolk Village State School in their basic woodwork sessions, using basic hand tools to prepare a jewellery box. I'm always amazed by the Pimpama Men's Shed and its willingness to get involved in community activities right across our local community in the northern part of the Gold Coast. I thank them for their hard work and efforts.
Parramatta Electorate: Deepavali
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:51): I'd like to wish everybody living in my community and in wider Australia a happy and harmonious Deepavali. Deepavali is the biggest festival in the Hindu calendar. It actually starts on 25 October and runs for four days, but in my community of Parramatta we celebrate it through so many communities that it tends to spill out over a two-week period. I'll be off to a few events this weekend. It's also known as the Festival of Lights and it symbolises the victory of good over evil, light over darkness and knowledge over ignorance, but not in the way that we sometimes battle it out here. These are the hard battles. These are the battles within, when we look within ourselves and find the best and the worst, and we strengthen the best and weaken the qualities that we don't want. It's a remarkable time in my electorate of Parramatta. We share a common humanity across this country, but, through millennia, communities in different parts of the world have found different ways to pursue the common human goal of being a better person. It may have been influenced by the nature of their land or the religion that grew over millennia, but we share that common humanity, and in Parramatta we celebrate the different ways we approach that single human purpose of being a better human being. I will be delighted to join in some local celebrations over the coming weekend. Some early ones are in Westmead, at Darcy Road Public School; in Harris Park with the Council of Indian Australians; and in Wentworthville with Cumberland Council. I'm so proud of my community. Happy Deepavali to everyone.
Tracey, Hon. Richard Ross Sinclair, AM, RFD, QC
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:53): I rise today to pay tribute to the late Richard Ross Sinclair Tracey AM, RFD, QC, who died last Friday. Richard was a leading lawyer and jurist in this country and, at the time of his premature death last week, the presiding officer of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. I first met Richard many decades ago when I was a student at Newman College. He was there a few years ahead of me and was President of the Students Club. Richard joined the Australian Defence Force in 1975 and retired in the position of major general. He was the Judge Advocate General for the Australian Defence Force from 2007 to 2014 and he was appointed as a Federal Court judge in 2006, a position he served in for some 12 years. Richard was also President of the Australian Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal from 2009 to 2018. At the time of his premature death last Friday, Richard had just completed the interim report on the royal commission into aged care, which is yet to be released. He was a very capable lawyer and a great Australian. I pay tribute to him and I extend my condolences to his wife, Hilary, and to his family and friends.
Solomon Electorate: India IdeasFest
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:54): Like my good friend the member for Parramatta, I rise to talk about India. India is one of the world's fastest-growing economies. It is predicted to become the third-largest economy on earth by 2035. India has also become Australia's fastest-growing tourism market, with visitor numbers increasing by 53 per cent. There are more than 100,000 Indian students in Australia, and India has now overtaken New Zealand as the third most common overseas country of birth for Australians.
India will play an incredibly important role in our nation's future, and we in the Top End know it. In recognition of this, I'll be hosting the India IdeasFest in Darwin, focused on our relationship with India, to seek views from the community and key stakeholders on how we can broaden and deepen our economic relationship with India. The India IdeasFest will be held on Saturday 2 November at the Darwin Innovation Hub. We'll have public forums and information sessions, and we'll workshop in sectors. Those sectors include international education, agribusiness, IT and innovation, tourism, sports, culture and community.
You can register through Eventbrite for the India IdeasFest that will be held in Darwin. I welcome all those who understand how important this relationship is to our country. (Time expired)
Mallee Electorate: Walpeup Primary School
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (13:56): Last week I had the opportunity to attend the unveiling of a commemorative plaque for the old Walpeup Primary School. The community came together to remember life and schooling in Walpeup over 100 years. The school originally opened in 1912, serving the community of dryland farmers and their families. As farms amalgamate and utilise larger machinery with increased output, less manpower is required. The natural effect of this is that people have moved away from many of our smaller towns, such as Walpeup, and there has been a natural attrition rate in student numbers at our small schools. In 2015, 100 years after Walpeup Primary School opened and with only six students remaining in the school, the Victorian government made a decision to de-staff the school and move the students to the Underbool school, 15 minutes away.
One of the locals, Gwen John, who will turn 90 next month, was at Walpeup on the commemoration day. Gwen is a treasure to her community and remains committed to volunteering at Ouyen Preschool on weekdays, reading to the children. When I visited the preschool last month for Early Learning Matters Week, it was heartwarming to see how much the children love their time with Gwen. It is volunteers such as Gwen who make Mallee a great place to live.
Bali, Mr Stephen Louis
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:57): Today I want to thank former Blacktown City Council mayor Stephen Bali for his service. He has been a councillor on Blacktown City Council for 15 years, five years as mayor, and in that time he has been a driver of major projects in the city. These include the redevelopment of Warrick Lane in Blacktown CBD and the planned International Centre of Training Excellence at Blacktown International Sportspark. In particular, I want to congratulate him on the establishment of a university campus in Blacktown, which both the member for Greenway and I are hugely supportive of. We'll soon welcome the Australian Catholic University to our city.
Under Stephen Bali's leadership, council has laid the foundations for responding to significant growth challenges facing our region. He has worked tirelessly to get a better deal for the people of our city, one of the largest council areas in the country, be it through his advocacy for Blacktown's inclusion in the Western Sydney City Deal or his advocacy for infrastructure funding for projects such as the M9. Importantly, he's helped change the public image of our area, recognising its vibrancy and its huge potential. I thank Stephen for his work on council and wish him all the best in his role as the state member for Blacktown. Both the member for Greenway and I look forward to continuing to work constructively for the benefit of the city of Blacktown.
Lindsay Electorate: Pink Up Penrith
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (13:59): 'Passion. Pride. Penrith.' That is the motto of 2019's Pink Up Penrith. We're turning the whole town pink throughout October to raise money for the McGrath Foundation and breast care nurses. I would like to acknowledge the member for Dunkley for raising the awareness of breast cancer in this place.
I have been inspired by the passion of my community from the first day of October, when I attended the turning on of the pink lights at Penrith City Council—from our local small businesses that are taking part in fundraising and creating awareness to the performances I attended of the talented young dancers in 'United in Dance and Cheer' at Jamison High School. Gay Hawthorne of Penrith CBD Corporation told me about one young woman who was encouraged by Pink Up Penrith this year to examine herself, and she found a lump. Raising awareness saves lives.
Raising money for the McGrath Foundation will contribute funds towards our local breast care nurses and their resources. Our nurses provide support and advice not only to patients but also to their families. They are essential in our community. I'm working to encourage a more healthy, active and connected local community across my electorate of Lindsay through the Lindsay Healthy Active Living Network. I congratulate everyone involved in Pink Up Penrith. Last year they raised $40,000, and I can't wait to see what they raise this year.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Trade Unions
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can he confirm that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 would mean the same actions taken by unions for asbestos victims could result in union officials being struck off, unions being deregistered and rogue employers like James Hardie getting off scot-free? Can the Prime Minister tell the asbestos victims who are in the gallery right now why he is on the side of rogue employers like James Hardie rather than the victims in the gallery today?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:01): It is simply an incorrect contention. It is one that has been made before. In fact, I think during the Senate committee process on this bill the point was sought to be made—it's not a true point—that minor infractions of industrial law could lead to deregistration. That's absolutely not the case. In fact, when it was raised during the Senate committee process by members opposite and endorsed by them, they took issue with two proposed sections of the law—proposed sections 28F and 28G in the bill. What is most notable, I think, is that those two proposed sections in the current bill were put into the industrial law by Labor in 2009. They were put into the industrial law by their side of politics in 2009.
The government has absolutely no interest in having—and it is a ridiculous proposition to suggest otherwise—anything other than the most serious, repetitive lawbreaking ever resulting in deregistration. That is for a great number of reasons, including the fact that ultimately the question resides with a court as to whether or not it would be just in all the circumstances to deregister. The fact is that we have organisations at the moment, such as the CFMMEU, that are in such constant and repetitive breach of the laws of this country that nothing is able to be done about them.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, it's on direct relevance. When we have asbestos victims in the gallery, he could at least give them three minutes to talk about a real issue.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Attorney-General and Leader of the House has the call. He is being relevant to the question.
Mr PORTER: The answer to the question is direct. This is not about those victims. It's not about them at all. It is about the 83 separate CFMMEU officials who, since 1 January 2017, have breached the industrial law of Australia—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will just pause for a second. The member for Griffith interjects loudly every day. The next interjection will see her ejected. Okay? I have made that very, very clear.
Mr PORTER: It is not about the people that you cite. This is about the 83 separate CFMMEU officials who, since 1 January 2017, have breached the law of this country 426 times. You turn a blind eye to it and you will not support the legislation that would let a rational, reasonable government end that sort of behaviour. That's the sort of behaviour we're talking about, not the spurious and pathetic argument that you're raising here now.
Economy
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is providing stability and certainty in response to the major challenges Australia is facing both at home and abroad? Is the Prime Minister aware of alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:05): I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. All those on this side of the House went to the last election with a plan to ensure we could further strengthen our economy, operate with a very disciplined and strong budget, and provide the stability and certainty Australians were seeking at that election. That is what we have been doing from the day we were elected, and that is what we have been delivering in accordance with the plans we set out at that election. Importantly, a strong economy and focusing on ensuring our economy can move ahead are at the centre of everything. That is why we have already acted, as part of our plan, to ensure Australians can keep more of what they earn by lowering taxes.
The government is acting to reduce the costs of actually operating in this economy, whether it is through the review being done on the regulations that can slow employment in the industrial relations area or, on top of that, the stultifying regulations and bureaucracy that can impede investment in housing developments, or whether it's environmental regulations that are unnecessary. We are ensuring that we can move through and get these projects happening where there are dams like the Dungowan Dam. I commend the New South Wales state government for the decision they took last night in cabinet to ensure that those dam projects could proceed, reducing the cost of doing business.
The government are ensuring that we can give our young people and those right across the age spectrum in our labour force the skills they need, and the business skills they need, to be successful, so that those businesses who are going to employ them are getting the skilled workforce they need. We need to fix our skills system. It is in urgent need of repair. I thank the state and territory premiers for their engagement on this issue, and I look forward to working closely with them as we continue to fix the problems in our skills sector to build the $100 billion of transport infrastructure we need to enable our economy to grow, to connect our markets with our farmers, to connect our businesses to their customers and to connect employees to their workplaces so people can get home sooner and safer. We can ensure that our cities operate in a more efficient way to lift productivity and expand our horizons, whether it's through our trade barriers, through realising opportunities in new sectors like the space industry or through backing our traditional sectors in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and mining, which have always been such a central part.
The government is delivering a stronger budget for this nation, which means it will have the resilience to face future challenges, to respond to the drought—as we're doing now—and to deal with pressures on the budget, whether it is in aged care or disability, so it can guarantee the essentials that Australians rely on.
There is an alternative path offered by those opposite. Instead of stability and certainty, they want to blow the budget with their reckless spending. (Time expired)
Dams
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister tell the people of New South Wales on Sunday that the Commonwealth would fund three water infrastructure projects on a fifty-fifty basis when half of the Commonwealth contribution is in the form of loans, making the Commonwealth funding of the projects just 25 per cent?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:09): I'm glad the member opposite can read a press release, because we're very transparent about the arrangements we put in place for these major projects. We're getting on and doing those projects, and I absolutely welcome the support of the New South Wales government. These projects are projects that, frankly, should be fully funded by state governments, but our Commonwealth government is going to turn up and support state governments that want to build dams.
Our support for this project is 50 per cent of the funding. Half of that is coming from concessional finance and half of that is coming from direct grant support. That's what we announced on Sunday, and that's what was warmly received by the New South Wales state government. Whether it's the shire council up there in the member for New England's electorate or elsewhere across New South Wales, we're getting on and we're building dams. We're building infrastructure. We have $1½ billion now in 21 water infrastructure projects all around the country, whether it's Scottsdale down in Tasmania, out at Dungowan or up in Queensland, where we'd like to build a lot more dams. We want to build the Emu Swamp dam.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: I get the interjections from those opposite, so I encourage them to ring the Premier of Queensland, who is the only person standing in the way of the Emu Swamp dam being built and the Rookwood Weir being built to the full capacity that we pledged to build it to. We want to get on and build this dam infrastructure, this water infrastructure, the pipelines—the plumbing of the nation, which is going to support our agricultural industries not just today but into the future. On this side of the House, we want to build dams; we want to build lots of dams. On that side of the House, they don't want to build any dams. How do we know that? Because their Labor cousins in the states continue to say no each and every time.
Rural and Regional Services
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (14:11): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's record level of investment in rural and regional Australia is ensuring prosperity and resilience for these communities into the future?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of The Nationals) (14:11): I thank the member for Mallee for her question, and acknowledge that she is one of those fine women—and there are many in the House; I appreciate there are many on this side, one or two on that side and, indeed, on the crossbench—who are celebrating International Rural Women's Day. It's an important day. It acknowledges exactly what our empowered rural women are achieving and what they are doing, particularly in this time of drought. Women, who are the backbone of regional Australia and regional farmers, are to the forefront. I also acknowledge what the member for Mallee did before she came to this place.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: If those opposite would just be quiet, they might actually learn something about the member for Mallee, who provided a safe place and a safe haven for women in her area, in the Sunraysia, to get a job. She took in women who were victims of domestic violence. She took in women who were Indigenous. She took in women who were down on their luck. She took in women who didn't have the skill set to get a job. She took in some women who had just missed out on an opportunity, and she taught them great skills to be able to get them work, to be able to get them employment, and to be able to achieve for them a better future. That's the member for Mallee: a powerful, strong-voiced woman who is achieving great things in the Mallee and who is going to achieve sensational things for rural and regional Victoria and, indeed, through that state, for Australia, via this place.
I acknowledge the role that women have played in rural and regional Australia. There are none I'm more proud of than my two sisters, Denise Buchanan and Robyn Brill, who are participating in family farms. Women are doing it tough in and around Wagga Wagga and the district. In fact, they're doing it tough right throughout Australia, and we're there to support them all of the way. In the member's electorate, the shire of Buloke did a two-day conference, through the Building Better Regions Fund, empowering women to be their best selves. I acknowledge the shire and I acknowledge the member for Mallee for her continued work and support in this regard.
Just recently I was in the member for Calare's electorate, where Rosemary Blowes and her husband, Philip, are doing some great work providing feed for sheep in an innovative way, through sprouts. They're producing six tonnes of feed from one tonne of seed. Their fat lambs are then sent to the Breakout lamb processing centre at Cowra. That's providing hope and resilience for those particular farmers in Yeoval. They are great workers; they are great doers. We should exalt regional Australia in these tough times, because regional Australia is doing very well, despite the drought; we understand that. But there are some great and positive stories about rural and regional Australia. We should promote those, we should exalt those and we should acknowledge those.
Dams
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:15): My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer. Why won't the Prime Minister admit that the Commonwealth will fund just 25 per cent of the cost of the dams, not the fifty-fifty investment that he claimed in his media release just 48 hours ago? Why can't the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a simple question?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:15): I refer again to my answer. I was very clear. Our fifty-fifty funding—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr MORRISON: Our contribution is comprised half of grant and half of concessional finance. That is the commitment that we've made and that we set out on Sunday when we were in Dungowan. I refer the members opposite to the statements that have been made about this. We were very up-front about it.
I'm very pleased that the New South Wales Premier was so pleased to receive the support. It was a month ago when we sat down, the Deputy Prime Minister and I, with the Deputy Premier and the Premier of New South Wales to see how we could fast-track important water infrastructure projects in New South Wales. I was very pleased to get that collaboration and that cooperation, and the urgency that the New South Wales Premier was going to bring to this task, not only to bring their resources to these projects but to bring their commitment to blast away the bureaucracy and the congestion of regulation that would prevent those projects from going ahead. So we're very happy to partner in the way we have. We took a $75 million commitment for just one of those projects to about $280 million in direct grant assistance, and that is a very significant increase on the commitment that we've made for important water infrastructure.
I was up there on the weekend with the Deputy Prime Minister and the member for New England, and we heard the local mayor talk about just how important for the Peel Valley region this was going to be—to guarantee investment into the future and the future of that town. Drought or no drought, the investment in this water infrastructure is important for the future of rural and regional Australia. As tough as our grazing and farming communities, and the towns that depend on their success, are doing it, they are also constantly raising with us issues of the longer-term financial sustainability and viability of those towns into the future—the future of rural and regional Australia.
That's why we have taken the initiative to set up the House inquiry into this very matter and hear about the exciting ideas that Australians have, throughout rural and regional Australia, to secure their future. We're backing them in with better trade agreements, lower taxes and investing in important infrastructure—not just with water but with transport as well. We'll continue to do it, because, on this side of the House, we believe in the future of rural and regional Australia. Last night I was at the NFF dinner, and I heard about issue after issue that our farmers have fought for over the last 40 years. On every single occasion, we were on their side. On so many other occasions, those on the opposite side were battling against our farmers. Not on this side of the House—we are for rural and regional Australians.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to table a document?
Mr Albanese: Yes. I'm seeking to table the Prime Minister's media release from just 48 hours ago, which speaks about fifty-fifty investment in a number of places and nowhere speaks about loans.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:18): I'd like to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon the winners of this year's My First Speech competition. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to Lucy Lonnqvist, Alexander Matters and Clara Kim. Congratulations again.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Climate Change
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (14:19): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. The government claims Australia will meet its Paris agreement targets in a canter. However, the truth is that the government is relying on accounting tricks to meet our targets by counting artificially inflated credits left over from the Kyoto protocol—credits which most developed countries have agreed to reject. Meanwhile, official government figures show that our emissions have reached record highs and continue to rise, fuelling the climate emergency—the effects of which we're seeing in our backyard, with the drought and fires. In other words, our planet is cooking while the government cooks the books. Minister, why the denial and when will the government take real action to reduce emissions?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:19): I thank the member for his question. Whilst some in this place are keen on symbolism, we are keen on real and meaningful action. That's why we have strong targets as part of coordinated global action. Those targets involve a 26 per cent emissions reduction obligation, which will see a 50 per cent reduction in our emissions per capita and a 65 per cent reduction in our emissions intensity across the whole economy.
We have an enviable track record in meeting and beating our targets. Indeed, we're on track to overachieve, to meet and beat our 2020 targets by 367 million tonnes. There are few countries that can boast such a report card. And we believe credit should be where credit is due. Australian households and businesses have worked hard to overachieve, to meet and beat those targets. That overachievement of 367 million tonnes is a 1.1 billion tonne turnaround on what we inherited from those opposite. We're also seeing record levels of investment in renewables. In fact, in the calendar year of 2018, the investment in Australia per capita was more than France, Germany and the UK combined.
We have a clear plan to meet our 2030 targets, through our fully funded $3½ billion Climate Solutions Package, which includes the $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund, energy efficiency initiatives and hydro projects, including Battery of the Nation and the Marinus Link in Tasmania. Looking forward, we're investing in technologies of the future. That includes our National Hydrogen Strategy, where we've already invested $140 million. That has contributed $50 million to the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project in the Latrobe Valley—a very important project for this crucial technology. There's also Jemena's Power to Gas trial in New South Wales, alongside a range of other hydrogen projects. All of this is focused on achieving our emissions reduction obligations, whilst we keep a strong economy—whilst we don't trash the economy, which is the policy that those opposite took to the last election.
Economy
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (14:22): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the Morrison government is delivering on its plan for an even stronger economy by building resilience and rewarding aspiration? Is the Treasurer aware of any threats to our economy?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:22): I thank the member for Braddon for his question. He has been a successful small-business person who has been involved in concrete manufacturing and a number of agribusinesses and he understands the importance of a strong economy.
Let me remind the House that, when the coalition came to government, unemployment was rising, investment was falling, and we inherited $240 billion of accumulated deficits, which had reached three per cent of GDP. Wind the clock forward to today, and we have delivered the first balanced budget in 11 years; full-time jobs growth is now the strongest in 12 years; and welfare dependency is at its lowest level in 30 years. The coalition has helped create 1.4 million new jobs and opened markets right around the world for Australian businesses to export to nearly two billion new customers.
Our economic plan, which involves more than $300 billion of legislated tax cuts, which involves a $100 billion of an infrastructure pipeline, which involves creating 80,000 new apprenticeships, which involves cutting red tape and which involves entering into new free trade agreements, is helping to create jobs—because this is what the coalition does. The coalition pays back Labor's debt; the coalition reduces taxes; and the coalition creates millions of new jobs. But I'm asked about any alternative policies and any threats to this approach. We know the member for Rankin likes to tax a lot. In fact, the member for Rankin was knighted for his services to higher taxes before the Speaker took away his knighthood! The reality is the member for Rankin was the co-architect of $387 billion with the now silent member for McMahon, who sits there wallowing in his silence because he knows that the retirees' tax, the housing tax, the higher income tax, the family business taxes and the superannuation taxes were put together by him and the member for Rankin, and they are still on Labor's books. You can't trust Labor with the public's money. Only the coalition will create a stronger economy.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:25): I'd like to inform the House that we have joining us in the gallery this afternoon the former member for Maranoa, former minister and former Deputy Speaker, the honourable Bruce Scott.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Morrison Government
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why do the Prime Minister's talking points make absolutely no reference to the 1.9 million Australians who are looking for a job or for more work, the worst wages growth on record, weak household consumption and retail spending, and the worst household savings rate in a decade?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:26): I'm very pleased the member made reference to the talking points. I suspect we might want to make a habit of actually issuing these on a weekly basis because it was the first time I'd seen our policies faithfully reported in some publications for some period of time. What I notice about our talking points which they refer to is that you'll find a lot of detail on the extensive policy work and implementation that our government is doing. You can work through all of those documents, as I'd encourage those opposite to do. They might learn one or two things about how you reduce taxes, because that seems to be an anathema, because, when you pick up the Labor Party's talking points, what you'll hear about is higher taxes, not lower taxes. And, when you look at the second point, you can see that we want to reduce the cost of doing business, whether it's dealing with the clutter of environmental regulation, some of which is unnecessary, or the clutter of what is done around industrial legislation. You won't find that in Labor's talking points. What you'll find is more legislation and regulation which will increase the cost of doing business and take away people's jobs.
You won't find in there an acknowledgement of the need to actually deal with the skills challenges of this country in a serious way or an acknowledgement about how the system has been failing us right across the board and the need to properly reform that system, but you'll find it in ours. You won't find in there an enthusiasm for expanding the trade borders of our country. You won't find that in the Labor points, but you'll certainly find it in ours, and you'll also find the record of us achieving it—taking the amount of our trade covered by agreements from 26 per cent to 70 per cent under our watch and we're heading to 90 per cent. But what you will find is the dithering and the delay when it comes to the Labor Party, as they fought against many of those agreements we've been able to bring through this parliament and see them supported.
You won't find in there their support for our traditional industries, like mining and resources. You won't find that. Well, you might find it from the member for Hunter. You may well find that from the member for Hunter. I'm a bit worried that the member for Hunter seems to be losing the argument when it comes to sensible policy on emissions reduction. I invite him to bring his posse over here, because he's losing the argument on that side, because on that side they're not for responsible emissions reduction targets, which is what we took to the election; they're for reckless targets that cost people's jobs. What you'll find on their talking points are policies and ideas that will increase your taxes, blow the budget, cost you a job, ensure that they are pursuing an approach which has recklessness at its absolute core.
I'm very happy with what's in our talking points, because it sets out the big agenda that was endorsed by the Australian people, and we will continue to implement that agenda every single day.
Infrastructure
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (14:29): My question is to the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is progressing congestion-busting infrastructure across Brisbane, including in my electorate of Ryan?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure) (14:30): I thank the member for Ryan for his question. Since parliament last sat, the member for Ryan joined me to announce a terrific congestion-busting agreement with the Brisbane lord mayor, Adrian Schrinner. This agreement involves nine congestion-busting projects in the Brisbane City Council area, with a total federal commitment of $115 million. We agreed every single one of those projects would be underway in the next 12 to 24 months, with the first one starting at the beginning of next year.
One of the larger of the nine projects that we announced that day is one that the member for Ryan has been calling for literally for years, even before he became a member of parliament—that is, the notorious Indooroopilly roundabout. As the member for Ryan knows, this roundabout is actually one of the busier ones in Brisbane, catering for the over 100,000 cars that go through that roundabout every single day. Moreover, it is one of the more dangerous ones. Indeed, over the last five years, 34 serious accidents have occurred at that roundabout, many of which have involved hospitalisations. Our commitment is to completely transform that intersection, fix it up, make it safer and make it quicker for people to get across. We will also make it safer for pedestrians, because there will be dedicated pedestrian crossings across that very large and dangerous intersection as we go. This particular intersection project was mooted a decade ago. We are getting on with it. We are fixing it. It is this government which is delivering upon it.
These projects are part of the overall plan to build resilience and a stronger economy by busting congestion in our big cities. At the moment, avoidable congestion in Brisbane alone costs over $1.7 billion. It's over $25 billion across the nation. On top of these nine smaller-scale projects, we have 22 other smaller-scale projects across the Brisbane area. We've also got massive city-shaping projects well and truly underway, including the M1, $300 million for the Brisbane Metro, $200 million for the Ipswich Motorway and $800 million for the Gateway Motorway. All of these projects across Brisbane—indeed, across our nation—are designed to get people home sooner and safer.
No government in Australian history has put more money into infrastructure than our government has. Just five years ago we had a $50 billion pipeline. It was mooted then as the biggest in Australia's history. Now we have a $100 billion infrastructure pipeline. It's because we have a strong economy, and through this pipeline we'll make it stronger still. (Time expired)
Urban Congestion Fund
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:33): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why won't the Prime Minister admit to what this table from his own minister's department shows—that not a single project, not one, under the Urban Congestion Fund, announced over 18 months ago, has actually commenced?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure) (14:33): I thank the member for Ballarat for her question. What I can confirm is that we have 130 projects underway right now, as we speak, supporting thousands of people in work across the country. On top of that, we have 280 major projects underway as we speak. If I could find the list I could go through, one after another, those projects which are well underway. We also have 166—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: I'm trying to help him out, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: What's the point of order?
Mr Albanese: It's on direct relevance. The question was about the Urban Congestion Fund. There's not a single project underway—not one.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
Mr TUDGE: On top of the 130 major projects which we have underway, we've also got 166 smaller-scale Urban Congestion Fund projects which we announced before the election, and we are working in close consultation with state governments to get them going. The first ones will begin at the end of this year. I've just mentioned ones in Brisbane which will begin at the beginning of next year.
But, she asks me again, what about projects which haven't started? There are two projects which haven't started. The one I mentioned last time which hasn't started is the East West Link. That is one that we do want to get underway. We've got $4 billion on the table to get this started. The Labor Party constantly says: 'Bring forward projects. Get them done.' Well, there's a project with $4 billion ready to go, if only the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Ballarat would pick up the phone to their state counterparts and just say, 'Let's get the job going.' The other one, which I know is also strongly supported over in Western Australia, is of course the Roe 8/Roe 9 project—another project which we would like to see delivered. They are the ones that are not being delivered. But our other projects are absolutely getting underway and delivering on our agenda of 166 smaller-scale projects which we're negotiating with state governments on. We're getting the job done, and they'll begin at the end of this year.
The SPEAKER: Is the member for Ballarat seeking to table a document?
Ms Catherine King: I seek to table the table from his own department which shows that not a single project under the Urban Congestion Fund has started.
Leave not granted.
Defence Industry
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's record investment in defence industry is backing small business and creating jobs throughout Australia?
Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (14:37): I'd like to thank the member for Hughes for his question, because he's like me: I'm very proud of our government's commitment to defence industry and to creating more jobs in the defence industry. The Morrison government is investing $200 billion in our defence capability, creating thousands more jobs in our defence industries and making many more opportunities for small businesses. All of this is possible because we have a strong economy and because of our government's strong budget management. But this record investment is not just about equipping our Defence Force, our men and women in uniform, as important as that is. It is also about creating jobs—Australian jobs; good jobs.
It was only last week that the Prime Minister and I had the pleasure of opening Quickstep's new facility out in Western Sydney. Let me tell you: manufacturing in Australia is alive and well. I'm sure the Prime Minister will agree with me that Quickstep is an excellent example of advanced manufacturing that is actually happening right here in our Australian defence industry. We have thousands of small businesses in this country that have manufacturing capability that are helping our Defence Force right across the nation.
Quickstep is no different. It really is a true Aussie success story. In 18 years it has gone from being a small start-up in Western Australia to now being a leading supplier to the global F-35 program. The new facility that the Prime Minister opened last week will manufacture countermeasures for the F-35 program, which is going to create at least 20 new highly-skilled jobs on top of the existing 200 highly-skilled jobs of people employed by Quickstep.
There are US$250,000 worth of Quickstep products on every F-35 globally, and I was incredibly proud when I saw it with my own eyes when I visited Lockheed Martin's production line in Texas the other week. It was a very proud moment. It's businesses like Quickstep that our government is backing to create more and more Aussie jobs. All of this is possible, it's worth remembering, because we have a strong economy and good budget management. Fifty Australian businesses, so far, have participated in the F-35 program, manufacturing parts valued at around $1.69 billion and employing more than 2,000 Aussies. We're on track, to increase that number to 5,000 Australians involved in the F-35 program by 2023, sharing in more than $5 billion of work. The Morrison government is backing small businesses and backing those small businesses in our defence industries.
Economy
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why won't the Prime Minister be straight with the Australian people about the slowest economic growth in a decade, the fact that the OECD has slashed Australia's growth outlook by twice as much as the G20 average, declining productivity and the fact that net debt has more than doubled on his watch?
Mr McCormack interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:40): Australia's economic growth is the second highest compared to all the G7 nations of the world. One point four million jobs are being created under the stewardship of this government. In fact, today there are more people who are employed as a share of Australia's total population than at any other time in Australia's history. Only the Labor Party could find a problem with that. That's why we took the strong economic plan that we did to the election, and it was a complete contrast to the plan that was taken by those opposite. What we took was a plan to lower taxes, to ensure that we're cutting the costs of doing business in this country, that we're investing in the skills needs of the future of this country, that we're expanding the horizons of our economy by both supporting our traditional industries and developing new export markets and that we're investing in the infrastructure that Australia needs to grow. That's what we're doing. That's what we took to the Australian people.
Now, those opposite took a very different plan. Those opposite took a plan which was going to impose $387 billion of higher taxes on the Australian economy. How they thought that was going to actually support Australia's growth into the future was a mystery to Australians—and they, rightfully, rejected those policies at the ballot box. So there is a clear alternative; there is a clear choice, as we have continued to demonstrate, and that is the sound, stable and certain policies—not getting riled up, not getting spooked by the international conditions that we're faced with, but ensuring we protect the budget resilience that enables us to meet the challenges ahead.
The shadow Treasurer would have us blow the budget on reckless spending. The shadow Treasurer would have us blow the budget of individual Australians and their families by putting up their taxes. Who knows what the shadow Treasurer's position is on climate reduction targets! There's a climate fight club going on over there on the other side. But the thing they've forgotten about climate fight club is: you're not supposed to talk about it. But they can't help talking about it. 'We've got the for 28 position over here', from the member for Hunter. We've got the, 'Well, I'm not for 28, but I'm not sure if I'm for 45 per cent,' from the climate change spokesperson. We've got the member for Sydney who's for the 45 per cent. And now we've got the Leader of the Opposition who wants to come into this place and effectively engage in a protest and glue his hands to the dispatch box. That's his latest today, which, I note, would see the full banning of coalmining in Australia.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: I was going to bring out the 'on weirdness' one, Mr Speaker, because that is just not relevant at all to the question.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
Agriculture
Mr YOUNG (Longman) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management. Will the minister inform the House how the Morrison government is continuing to create opportunities for the agricultural sector by building resilience and effectively managing the economy?
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management) (14:44): I thank the member for Longman for his question and for his interest in agriculture. Let me tell the member that the story of agriculture is a good one. The story of agriculture is: just add rain—and, when it does rain, our farmers and our communities will rebound. But, until then, we need to work with those communities to get them through one of the worst droughts in our nation's history.
Tackling drought is like going up a set of stairs: as it escalates, you take another step. That has been our response as a government, including with the $7 billion that we put out there to support our farmers and our communities. But one of the first things we did was get unanimous agreement, after the drought summit that the Prime Minister called with the states to understand the responsibilities, where states look after animal welfare, freight and fodder and we look after farmer welfare.
Our response comes under three pillars, and it has been in action for some time, as this drought—even in my own electorate—has been going for some eight years. The first pillar is about the here and now, giving people the support, the dignity and the respect through the farm household allowance, putting farm household counsellors around them to help them make the decisions with their financial counsellors about their future—their strategic future—and coupling that with concessional loans from the Regional Investment Corporation, which is saving farmers tens of thousands of dollars and putting money back in their pockets in the here and now.
Our second pillar is about our communities, because they also hurt economically. That's why we have the Drought Communities Program, putting a million dollars into each of these shires to build lasting infrastructure. That allows the 122 shires that we've given a million dollars each to to procure local materials and to use local tradies, as a stimulus to keep those towns going. It is also about targeting mental health and being able to build the resilience in our farmers and in our communities to get through one of the worst droughts in our nation's history.
The third pillar is about the future—a future we're positive about. That's why the government is providing over $500 million a year in tax incentives to farmers so that they can be prepared for future droughts, through farm management deposit offsets and infrastructure write-offs. There is also the Future Drought Fund—a $100 million dividend every year to equip our farmers and our communities with the tools to be able to tackle drought into the future.
On Sunday we announced more infrastructure for water. Finally we found a state other than Tasmania that will lead with us to build the infrastructure, to build the resilience and to build regional economies through water infrastructure, which will change the nation. I welcome the Queensland government's announcement that they also want to build it, but now it's time for them to put their hand out and grab ours. I plead with them: come with us, even on Myall River. You can support New South Wales, in supporting Queensland and those communities in Warwick and Stanthorpe. This is a time for leadership from all levels of government. I plead with every level to work with us to build a stronger and better regional Australia.
Drought
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (14:47): My question is to the Prime Minister. When will the Prime Minister admit that his Future Drought Fund hasn't delivered and will never deliver one cent directly to desperate farming families?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:47): The question that has just been posed by the member for Hunter once again demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of the policy issues that that fund is seeking to address. I announced the Future Drought Fund at the drought summit—which he attended, and we were very pleased for him to attend—and he has opposed it from the day I first announced it. On that very day he was speaking against it, and he sought to have it frustrated, even in this place.
The national drought fund, which begins with a $3.9 million investment, will, over the course of the decade, grow to $5 billion and, from 1 July next year, it will draw down $100 million to invest in water infrastructure resilience projects. That's what we said the purpose of the drought fund was. It will draw down on that investment from 1 July next year, as we put the board in place and as we seek their advice.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Hunter!
Mr MORRISON: The $300 million we expended just last year on infrastructure and farm household allowance projects and support—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Hunter!
Mr MORRISON: He interjects again, Mr Speaker. I've already explained to him once that the Future Drought Fund is not to provide direct financial assistance payments to farmers; it's there to provide direct support for water resilience projects to plan for the future.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: If the member for Hunter doesn't think it's a good idea to invest in water resilience for the future of Australian agriculture, he should leave the post of spokesperson on agriculture immediately, because he doesn't understand one of the most fundamental elements of agriculture in this country, which is that you have to provide water. When there's a drought, it means there's no water. So therefore you need to provide storage facilities for the—
The SPEAKER: Would the Prime Minister just pause for a second. I'm just going to say to the member for Hunter that I'm not going to keep mentioning his name and asking him to cease interjecting. He's asked the question. I'm pretty tolerant. He can listen to the answer. If he wants to make a speech, he can do it sometime later in the day. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: If he took the time to actually understand what the Future Drought Fund was for, rather than seeking to play petty politics with this, then he might understand that the fund is there to provide for future water resilience. What we're doing on farm household allowance, what we're doing on rural financial counsellors, what we're doing on support for mental health, what we're doing on everything, whether it's to increase the allowances for silage investments or on-farm water infrastructure projects—which the farmers are actually doing themselves—whether it's the money we're putting into councils to ensure they're keeping local communities supported throughout the drought, or whether it's the more than $50 million we've put directly into charitable organisations like the Salvos and Vinnies, is a comprehensive response. I would simply appeal to the member for Hunter to support the government's initiatives, which are reaching out to farmers, and just stop being such a dill.
The SPEAKER: The member for Higgins. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
Mr Burke: The Prime Minister concluded with an unparliamentary term which should be withdrawn.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right! The member for Higgins will resume her seat. It's all right; no-one else is going to get the call. It'll be okay. I have previously said—I say to the Manager of Opposition Business—I would rather the discourse be a bit better, and I think it has been. Terms like that are, of course, littered through the Hansard, but I'm prepared to say now I don't welcome them. I could go through the history of it all, but I'm not going to at this point. I think, really, in terms of the interchange, it's not helpful. I'd rather those terms weren't used, I've got to say. I'd just say to the Prime Minister: if those terms are used, they will be used by both sides of the House.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Absolutely!
The SPEAKER: I'm just going to say to members: I'm going to keep a close watch on this. I did very much think about asking the Prime Minister to withdraw. The only reason I didn't is that, of terms that have been used—not so much in questions recently but in adjournment speeches, in 90-second statements and all the rest of it—the term the Prime Minister used, I do have to say, was very much at the lower level of some of the other terms that have been used. And, no, I'm not going to repeat them.
Mr Fitzgibbon: I'll debate him on these issues right now. Bring it on!
The SPEAKER: No, you won't; you'll leave under 94(a). It couldn't be more clear.
The member for Hunter then left the chamber.
Medical Technology
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (14:53): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how a strong and stable economy enables the Morrison government to invest in medical research, development and manufacturing? How is this investment helping deliver advancements to Australian businesses, such as CSL and Anatomics, to benefit their patients?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (14:53): I want to thank the member for Higgins, who comes here after a distinguished career in paediatrics. Only today, she was helping lead, in a bipartisan way, the parliamentary polio support group.
One of the things she would have seen in her work was the extraordinary success of our paediatric trauma teams. One particular case involves a young man, Connor. Connor had an accident, falling off the rocks in the Byron Bay area, and he had a shattered skull. This boy was lucky in that he had a trauma team that made a brilliant decision to leave part of his skull uncapped so as to allow the swelling to occur and then the recovery. Then he was also lucky in that he had a paediatric surgeon who was able to incorporate the latest technology. It's new, 3D-printed polymer technology—a precision implant that was placed on his skull. It has melded with the sinew in the bone and he's making a remarkable recovery.
That technology came from the Australian firm Anatomics. I was privileged to visit Anatomics's new 3D polymer printing centre in Bentleigh last week. It comes about as a result of the Medical Research Future Fund $5 billion allocation that we made in the budget this year and in particular a $900,000 grant under the BioMedTech Horizons program. It will double the number of jobs that this firm has—from 40 to 80—but, most importantly, it will lead to better treatment for patients here in Australia and abroad.
We are seeing that same pattern with the extraordinary investment by CSL, one of Australia's great firms. Their blood fractionation plant in Broadmeadows is currently undergoing a dramatic transformation. There is $200 million going into the construction of an extraordinary new blood fractionation facility. This will lead to over 350 jobs at the height of construction—230 jobs for construction workers alone and 84 jobs on the management team and for project engineers—and ongoing jobs and a massive increase in their capacity to produce these products. These products support patients with haemophilia and support patients with immune deficiency. Significantly, this comes about and is only possible because the government has a strong economic and budget position that has allowed the long-term agreement of $3.3 million for the supply of blood products in Australia. The combination of the economy, the long-term certainty and the investment has led to not only job creation but, above all else, action that will help save lives and protect lives.
Drought
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (14:57): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister claim that the government has a drought policy when the National Farmers Federation President Fiona Simson says it doesn't?
Mr McCormack interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:57): I thank the member for his question because it gives me a good opportunity to point out exactly what the National Farmers Federation has presented to me on these issues. The National Farmers Federation have been extremely supportive of the government's response to the drought. They said as much and directly last night at the 40th anniversary of the National Farmers Federation. I'm not sure whether the member was in attendance on that night. I thank those members from around the chamber, including those from the opposite side, who were in attendance at that event. Those who were there would know that the National Farmers Federation and President Fiona Simson were very clear about the appreciation that they had for the extensive and comprehensive response to the drought that has been provided by the government, in concert, of course, with the state and territory governments where they are affected.
The point that the National Farmers Federation have been making about the issue that they have raised is that they would like to see an agreement between all the states and territories with the Commonwealth with common standards and common triggers for the activation of state based drought response. That is what they are seeking, and that is currently not in place. After the drought summit last year we put in place a reformed national agreement on drought, which added to the original agreement, that made it very clear that states and territories were responsible for the initiatives that went directly to the welfare of animals on the farm—and that's fodder and support for the animals—and that the Commonwealth government was responsible for direct financial assistance—income support and like measures—for the farmers and graziers. That was the agreement that was reached at the end of last year.
What they would like to see is a common set of standards and a common set of triggers and policies by state governments. There has not been a response from the state and territory governments to move to that level of standardisation on their drought responses. They believe that they would like to keep complete autonomy about how they customise their response to the drought in their jurisdictions, and that's a matter for the states and territories. They are sovereign governments. They have constitutional authority for these matters, and that's what they would like to see.
I understand why the National Farmers Federation would like to see greater consistency across these areas, and I've undertaken to work with the National Farmers Federation to see what such a common standard might look like. At the end of the day, we have to respect the autonomy and the sovereignty of each of the state governments to deal with the issues that they present. I thank the member for his question and for the opportunity to make this crystal clear.
National Security
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of the Morrison government's strong and consistent border protection measures? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (15:00): I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his service to his country and now, of course, to the people in his electorate. He is a very hardworking local member. We know that in Townsville, like across the rest of the country, people want to make sure we have control of our borders—and that has not always been the case, of course. We know that, not so many years ago, the Labor Party, when in power, had 50,000 people arrive on 800 boats, and, tragically, 1,200 people drowned at sea.
In addition to that, we know that the bill now racked up as a result of Labor's complete and utter destruction of our border protection policies in this country has gone up to $16 billion. So 1,200 people drowned at sea—a humanitarian disaster—with a $16 billion cost to the budget. That is money that we could be spending on hospitals, on education, on roads or on whatever the Commonwealth funds otherwise. In addition to that, they put people on Manus and Nauru in record numbers and 8,000 children in detention. We have sought to clean all of that mess up.
I can inform the House today that we are in a very good position because of the deal we did with the United States. We've got over 630 people off to the United States. But importantly—this is a very important point—we've got the number of people Labor put on Manus Island down to four. We will get to that zero within coming weeks, because the last four will transfer to Port Moresby. We have completely closed down the regional processing centre on Manus Island, and we have done that because we don't have new boat arrivals.
I'm asked about what the alternative policy would be. You would have thought, given that Labor presided over a system of 8,000 children in detention, all of those people drowning, all of the detention centres that they had to open to cope with the complete disaster they presided over, that they wouldn't repeat those mistakes again—but they would. You see, the shadow minister is presiding over a policy disaster again. She has no idea what she is doing in relation to medevac laws, in relation to border protection laws, in relation to national security laws. They would all be watered down on her watch.
The Labor Party continue to eat themselves alive not just in relation to climate change policy, not just in relation to economic policy, but in relation to border protection policy as well. All of this is happening on the watch of the Leader of the Opposition, who has been the chief cheerleader of weak border protection policy. He stood up at conference after conference and sought to water down Labor's border protection policy. He has learnt nothing in his years in this place, and Labor can never be trusted on border protection. (Time expired)
Child Care
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why won't the Prime Minister admit childcare fees have increased by 30 per cent under his three-term government?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:04): I'll invite the Minister for Education to add to this answer. But, on this matter—speaking as the former Minister for Social Services, who had responsibility for child care at the time—it was actually our government that introduced the reform package to child care, which those opposite, when they were in government and when they were in opposition, failed to deliver. That is ensuring that people, particularly on low and middle incomes, are getting access to up to 85 per cent rebates under our government. We got rid of the caps that were applied to those seeking childcare rebates that had previously seen them run out of childcare support by about February and March of every year. So we took action to address the manifold failures that were in the childcare system that turned it into a money pit from what was designed under those opposite when they were in government. I invite the Minister for Education to add to this answer.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (15:05): Thanks, Prime Minister, because you have pretty much covered it all—the most comprehensive reforms ever undertaken in our history, which will see $10 billion going into child care. What has this meant? Out-of-pocket expenses have dropped by 7.9 per cent for Australian parents. We are going to make sure that we keep on delivering affordable child care of high quality for Australian parents. Those opposite were not doing that. You failed to do that. It was only through the reforms led by the Prime Minister that we've got the outcomes that we see in child care. Prime Minister, I commend you for what you did, because you have put this sector on the right path.
Energy
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (15:06): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. As we mark the 70th anniversary of the Snowy Hydro scheme this week, will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is delivering lower energy prices for consumers across the country? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (15:06): I thank the honourable member for his question and I acknowledge his strong commitment to affordable, reliable energy for all Australians while we reach our emission reduction obligations and keep a strong economy. He is right. This week does mark the 70th anniversary of the Snowy Hydro scheme. It is a great time to reflect on that iconic engineering feat and its long history in serving our nation. This week we are also celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Liberal Party. It's important to note that the Snowy scheme is just another incredible achievement of Liberal governments. I have a close personal connection to the Snowy scheme.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: Ben Chifley was no Tory. Your lot opposed it.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr TAYLOR: I have a deep personal connection to the scheme. My grandfather, William Hudson, worked on the scheme as the chief engineer and commissioner throughout the construction. I acknowledge that many others in this House have close personal connections to the scheme, including the member for Sydney, whose father worked on the scheme.
The SPEAKER: I think it would be better if the minister stuck to the question and dealt with the question he has been asked, and let's leave all the personal relationships out of it for the time being.
Mr TAYLOR: The scheme powers more than half a million houses across the east coast of Australia. It's also this government that has committed to the Snowy 2.0 project, which will help to reduce the volatility of electricity prices and reduce the average price of power, as it takes advantage of the low prices during the day and brings down prices at the those peak times, particularly in January and in the evening when the sun goes down. This, combined with other policies, including the default market offer and the retailer reliability obligation, is helping to bring power prices down and put power back into the hands of consumers.
I welcome reports this week that the opposition will now support the government's big-stick legislation to back consumers against the unacceptable and unsustainable practices that the ACCC has highlighted.
On this side we know that, for 75 years, it's been the Liberal Party that has supported lower, more affordable power prices, whilst Labor governments—and the opposition—have supported reckless targets and carbon taxes. Indeed, we've seen them in open hostility in recent days over their energy and carbon policies. Only this side of the House has a plan to deliver affordable, reliable power, meeting our emissions obligations and keeping a strong economy.
Mr Morrison: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Parliamentary Integrity Awards
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:10): There was an award given today which I think is worthy of acknowledgement. I'll be very brief. It's unusual for all of us to have any occasion where an award is given for our work in parliament, but an award was given both to the former member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, and to you, Mr Speaker.
The Accountability Round Table presented what is called the Parliamentary Integrity Award, and in that they acknowledge the work that you've done as chair—specifically some difficult decisions that you had to make during the medevac debate last year, where, effectively, you handed over a difficult decision to the House itself to resolve—and also for being the first Speaker ever to have been nominated by each side of the House, and I think it's important that the parliament simply note that and congratulate you on it.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:11): Mr Speaker, can I add to the Manager of Opposition Business's—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: Seriously—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: I'll ignore the petty interjections. I took the Manager of Opposition Business's statement as a serious attempt to commend the former member for Indi and the Speaker for their excellent work. I didn't think it was some sort of political tactic because—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: I note the Leader of the Opposition is now interjecting on us also. I would simply like to commend the Manager of Opposition Business for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. The government is very pleased to support the comments of the Manager of Opposition Business in commending both the former member for Indi—and I acknowledge the former member for Indi—and you, Mr Speaker, in particular, for your work. Mr Speaker, your stewardship of this House is absolutely exemplary, and we thank you for your stewardship of it every single day. Thank you.
The SPEAKER (15:16): I thank the Manager of Opposition Business and the Prime Minister, and all members—as members leave.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:12): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Morrison Government
The SPEAKER (15:12): I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to provide answers to the pressing needs facing the nation.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): This is a prime minister who is characterised as being loose with the truth. There is such a vast gap between reality and his rhetoric. The fact is Australians are doing it tough. They're dealing with wage stagnation. They're dealing with higher power prices. They're dealing with higher costs of living. Those on retirement incomes are dealing with interest rates at just 0.75 per cent. Yet this Prime Minister has no plan for the economy, no plan for jobs. We are in circumstances where emissions are rising, but the Prime Minister has no energy plan.
The one area in which this Prime Minister has been genuinely successful is in avoiding answers, because whenever he is asked a question, whether it's in this parliament, whether it's at media conferences or whether it's in TV interviews, there he is, dodging questions like Keanu Reeves dodging bullets in The Matrix—except not quite as cool, it must be said! When questioned, he responds dismissively. He speaks about 'the Canberra bubble'. He speaks about gossip. He speaks about rumours. He speaks about unsourced reports. He does anything but answer questions and, when all else fails, he blames the media. This is what he said at the Pacific leaders forum and what he claimed were their views of the government's inaction on climate change: 'Where do they get their information from? Who knows? Maybe they read it. Maybe they read it.'
I repeat the question I put to him yesterday: why won't the Prime Minister just give straight answers, whether it's here or in media interviews? Spoiler alert: he didn't answer that question either! He didn't answer that question yesterday, as he didn't today. Instead, he claims in the government's talking points that 'Australia has the strongest-growing economy'. Let's have a look at the economic indicators. Our economic growth is at its lowest level since the GFC. Real household median income is lower than it was in 2013. Wages growth is the worst on record. Household debt is at record levels. Business investment is at its lowest since the 1990s recession. Consumer confidence is down. Interest rates are at 0.75 per cent. When they were at three per cent during the GFC, they were at emergency levels, according to the coalition. Productivity is declining. Net debt has doubled on their watch. Australia, under Labor, of course, became one of the two fastest-growing economies in the OECD. Where are we now? 20th. From either first or second throughout that period we've gone to 20th.
The truth is that, when you examine who is best to manage the economy, whether it's the Hawke and Keating governments laying the groundwork for 28 years of consecutive economic growth or whether it's the Rudd and Gillard governments seeing Australia through the global financial crisis, the worst crisis since the Great Depression in the 1930s, it is Labor who have the stewardship and who can make the decisions and provide the leadership that this country needs.
Let's look at other issues. Today we've been looking at drought. The Prime Minister wants his members to talk about, from their talking points, $7 billion of drought funding. That's just a fantasy figure. Of that, $5 billion is for the drought fund. But the drought fund is actually $3.9 billion, because that's what they took from the Building Australia Fund and put there. What's the other $1.1 billion? That's the interest, because they won't actually be spending anything for such a long period of time. $100 million will be expended in the next financial year from July next year. The drought's on right now, and not a single cent of that money is available to farmers—not one. What farmers have actually copped is that 600 of them and their drought-stricken families have been kicked off the farm household allowance in the past two years.
We saw this morning the train wreck interview with Alan Jones. Here's what some of the listeners had to say about the Prime Minister in that interview—'arrogant bloviater', 'waste of space' and 'talking drivel'. One told the Prime Minister directly: 'Give us some bloody hope, Scott. My town is dying, the country is dying and you're not giving us hope.' They were rejecting the rhetoric and spin of this Prime Minister who won't actually answer direct questions. It's not personal with us; he wouldn't answer Alan Jones's questions this morning either.
But we see it across the board. He talks about dams. There was his media release we tried to table today. He rejected his own words being recorded in Hansard because they don't reflect the facts. It says repeatedly in that media release that there'll fifty-fifty funding, and what we know is that half of that is just a loan and not grant funding at all. Nowhere in the media release did they say that. Of course, we know that some of it is money that was announced three years ago and none of it has been expended at all.
Then we have the consistent prevarication. When the AFP had the raids on journalists, he said, 'It never troubles me that our laws are being upheld.' That was his response to scrutiny. He went to the UN and engaged on the climate change issue. In a speech to the Lowy Institute, he spoke about 'negative globalism', as if Australia has not had a bipartisan position for 50 years of supporting global institutions that we voluntarily signed up for. We have been taking our place in the world. But he's prepared to press buttons of nationalism out there in order to try to criticise us.
He went to the UN as well and said that our emissions were going down, but we know that all the records say that they're actually going up and they'll go up every year until 2030. While he was there, he attacked children for being concerned about the scientifically proven facts of climate change—about caring for the planet that they, after all, will be on for longer than those of us who are no longer young people. He's like a Scooby Doo villain who's sure he would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids! That's his attitude. He says we're on track to meet our Paris targets. We know that that's not the case. When he was in the United States he skipped the UN summit on climate change, even though he was there, to visit smart drive-through technology at McDonald's, of all places. Not even there could he follow through.
The fact is that, during his visit, Scott Morrison proclaimed, 'We're making jobs great again.' As much as we used to mock the former member for Warringah for his slogans, at least they were original. FauxMo can't even come up with a slogan of his own—that's the truth of the matter. He also speaks about apprenticeships and training. We know that he's promised 80,000 new apprenticeships but there are 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees today than when they came to office. And that's not surprising, because they ripped $3 billion out of TAFE and training. The fact is that the closest this government has come to a concrete achievement was leaking its talking points to the press gallery yesterday.
Claim after claim in those talking points was debunked yesterday. What they say about the medevac legislation is not true. We know, from the facts, that they said before it was introduced that what we would see was an end to our borders existing—there would be armadas on the waters, invading here, to end any border protection. You would think that, given the period of time that has passed since that legislation was carried, the facts would show that that legislation is working—that it is no threat to the integrity of our borders. You would think they would say, 'Well, we actually have to acknowledge the fact.' But oh, no. They just doubled down. They aren't worried about the facts.
When it comes to Newstart, the fact is that people can't survive on $40 a day. Yet you have a Minister for Social Services who says that the only people that will benefit are drug dealers—a disgraceful attitude from those opposite. The fact is that those talking points just leave us with more questions.
But, if it's answers you're looking for, don't look towards this Prime Minister because he is not prepared to be accountable. He is drunk on power after 18 May, and he's arrogant— (Time expired)
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) (15:23): I just wanted to quickly talk about Memories of an Angel. Today I'm wearing the blue and pink ribbon. I don't always wear these, but I think it's important to mention that everyone here in the parliament today is with those people who have suffered pregnancy and infant loss. We know the member for Longman himself mentioned in his maiden speech losing a baby at a very young age, and we think of him and others. A woman in my electorate recently came to see me; she had lost a baby just a week before the cut-off after which she could have had a funeral for that baby, and she was dealing with a lot of grief over that. I just want to say on behalf of the government and the parliament that we are with those people today.
The opposition want to talk here about the pressing needs of the nation, and that's great. I want to talk about the pressing needs of the nation today as well. We heard the Treasurer talk about the 1.4 million new jobs created in this country since 2013. That's a pressing need for those people not just in my electorate but right around the country. People want to have work. They don't want to be dependent on handouts from governments—absolutely not. But what do we hear from the opposition leader? In the 10 minutes that he has just rattled on here before us he has been talking down the economy. That's all we hear from those opposite. That's what we hear from the Leader of the Opposition—talking down the economy—when, in fact, our economy is continuing to grow. It's going well.
From running a small family business before coming into this place, I know that at times business can be tough. The government is continuing to support business. We want to continue to help them because we know that that's where the jobs are created. Most jobs have been created in the small and medium family sized businesses over the last few years, primarily because of the government's tax cuts—reducing tax from 30 per cent to 25 per cent for industry. But what do we hear from those opposite? As the member for Forrest would know, during the whole last term, they talked down those tax cuts. They said that they were actually going to reintroduce higher taxes on businesses over $2 million. That was their policy right up to a few weeks before the last election, and then all of a sudden they did a dramatic turnaround.
In the May election this year, many of those opposite were very arrogant and believed that they would win. They were getting their photos taken and trash talking people on our side and saying, 'Well, we won't see you here next time.' They were very, very arrogant. Well, the people spoke, just a few months ago, in May, and delivered a third term for the coalition government. Why was that? It was partly because of Labor's massive, high-taxing agenda on everyone from pensioners and retirees right through to businesses and people who were renting, who would have seen their rents go up—and it goes on and on.
But what have we been doing? In June this year, we saw the Prime Minister reach out to our Pacific neighbours. He visited the Solomon Islands and Fiji and he has recently come back from the USA, where the President there rolled out the welcome mat for him—something he hasn't done for many other neighbours. Our Prime Minister visited Japan in June as well. June was a great month. We all remember Ash Barty winning the French Open. It was a fantastic month. The Prime Minister has been reaching out to our neighbours and saying that we want to work cooperatively with them.
In July we saw massive tax cuts that were put through this place for people right across the nation—tax cuts that are putting more dollars in their own pockets. But what did this Leader of the Opposition and members of the Labor Party want to do? They wanted to increase taxes on all Australians right across the board, and they particularly wanted to increase income tax.
The opposition leader spoke today about net debt, but didn't speak about the fact that there was no debt at all when John Howard left office and all of a sudden, under the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, they had billions and billions in deficits.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Mr HOWARTH: Have you heard of something called interest repayments?
Mr Brendan O'Connor: Have you heard of something called the global financial crisis?
Mr HOWARTH: Interest repayments, son—and it has continued to go up.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Mr HOWARTH: The first time I met this fellow here, Mr Deputy Speaker, was when he came into my electorate, when the former member spoke at a Chamber of Commerce event at North Lake. He wouldn't have had a clue what he was talking about. He wouldn't know the first thing about small business, and here he is—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The member for Gorton!
Mr HOWARTH: I know the pressure is getting to him. He expected to be on this side of the chamber. Well, the fact is that the people spoke and you're in opposition. They rejected your policies.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The assistant minister will address the chair, and the member for Gorton is warned.
Mr HOWARTH: Absolutely, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—if I can get a word in between those opposite. We hear the Leader of the Opposition talking about how Labor are somehow the masters of the economy. The last time the Labor Party ran a surplus in this place was 30 years ago—I was finishing high school—and we continue to see failure from those opposite.
There are so many good policies. Let's talk about what the Prime Minister said in August. In August, the Prime Minister secured the agreement of all state and territory leaders to ban the export of waste, plastic, paper, glass and tyres. All of Australia's environment ministers have agreed that we will deal with our own waste here. That's why we've put $167 million into an Australian recycling plan—to grow and strengthen Australia's recycling industry. There's $100 million for the Australian Recycling Investment Fund. And it goes on. There's $20 million to make sure that the recycling of e-waste, mobile phones, tyres and computers is managed here, locally. There's $20 million for a new cooperative research centre to help with plastics. There's $16 million for our Pacific neighbours to help reduce plastics and other waste in our oceans. There's more than $11 million for community action, right across our electorates and to the Labor members as well. If you go across any electorate, there are environmental grants rolling out across this country. There are things like Seabins going into marinas to help collect plastic. There are things like Green Army projects to help replant native plants and vegetation. And that's just on the environment.
We know that the coalition has created over 1.4 million new jobs, and part of that has been through free trade agreements. For those people in the gallery: we have a population of 25 million people in this country and under our free trade agreements we've opened up a market to two billion people across the world—80 times the population of Australia. We've got $100 billion going into infrastructure projects around the country, including in my own electorate—for things like the Linkfield Road overpass in Aspley—and $1 billion of that $100 billion to upgrade the Gateway Motorway from Bracken Ridge, at St John Fisher, through to the Pine River. I've got to say: the state government is dragging the chain here; the Palaszczuk government is dragging the chain. When it comes to infrastructure investment, the states are the ones that roll it out—like Queensland's Department of Transport and Main Roads.
We're continuing to do a lot. We do need the states to catch up a little bit, particularly on dams and water as well. When it comes to education, we're continuing to roll out increased funding for education. I had to laugh at the member for Hotham's contribution the other day in The Courier Mail on 11 October. This is the member for Hotham:
We haven't had a really good conversation in Canberra about why, even though we're spending more money on schools all the time. Our performance is pretty static …
Well, thank you, Member for Hotham. For the first time in the last six years, that I can remember, a member of the Labor Party is actually saying we're investing more in schools. In every school in my own electorate and the member for Capricornia's electorate, and right around this country, school funding continues to go up. In relation to universities, in my own electorate, we're also seeing the first university on the Sunshine Coast being built at Petrie. So we're seeing plenty of investment. We know that with health we've recently added medicines to treat lung cancer and leukaemia—all on the PBS—and, in some cases, saving patients up to $100,000 a year. That increase in investment, in education and in health can only be done because of a strong economy, yet those opposite continually want to whack the economy. They want to put more taxes on business. They want to put more taxes on individuals. It's just not acceptable; it's not great for our economy. We can't continue to invest if we bring in new taxes.
The coalition government has done a lot. We're focused on the Australian people. The Prime Minister, the Hon. Scott Morrison, is focused on the Australian people. That's why we're here in Canberra. We're here to represent our electorates. We're here to represent the needs of Australians. We're not here to talk down the economy—everything that we'll hear from those opposite in a moment.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (15:33): Unfortunately, the assistant minister hasn't learnt from his previous mistake, just as the solution to homelessness is not to put a positive spin on it, nor is the solution for the economy is to put a positive spin on it. It's a pretty sad day when a journalist's first response to a mistakenly sent talking points cheat sheet is to fact check it—not only that, but for there to be significant discrepancies between what the Prime Minister's office is telling members opposite to say and what the hard facts are actually telling us. It's like people don't trust him, and that may be what happens when you put out media releases that claim to be 50-50 funding for a dam, when in fact, when it boils down to it, it's 25-75 per cent. I say this as someone who spent their 20s testing the voracity of governments and oppositions as a journalist. It strikes me that perhaps the Prime Minister's visit to President Trump has rubbed off on him just a little bit too much.
Let's turn to one of the things that actually matter most to people—one of the things where we do need to have some action. People want a decent, steady, fairly paid job, and they want the means to get the skills so they can get one. It's pretty fundamental. This is the basis of knowing that, if you work hard, you will be rewarded, you'll get ahead of the bills and you'll have some sense of financial security.
But working hard is no guarantee of anything under this Prime Minister. Just getting the skills in the first place is an ever-growing challenge. This Prime Minister promised 80,000 new apprentices, but in fact there are 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees today than when the Liberals first took office. There's a systemic problem when we have more people dropping out of apprenticeships today than completing them. I'm not going to assign blame to the apprentices or their employers or teachers, but clearly there is an absolute flaw in the system that those opposite are refusing to address. It sees us with fewer apprentices and trainees today than 10 years ago, and all that while we've got 1.9 million Australians looking for work or extra work hours, and three-quarters of businesses saying that they can't find the trained and skilled staff they need.
If you've tried to hire a brickie or a carpenter lately, as I have, you'll know the challenge. The shortages go across a range of skills and trades, from pastry chefs to hairdressers to aircraft maintenance workers. I can't help but think that the $3 billion cut from TAFE and training by those opposite has something to do with the problem, yet the government's solution is a PR one. I like a good celebrity as much as the next person, but how is that a policy solution? We are not in the business of marketing here; we are in the business of solving problems with genuine solutions. It's not just this arrogant Prime Minister doing it; that whole side believe that there's nothing that a marketing, advertising or PR campaign can't fix. How wrong they are! As someone who spent 25 years in that industry, I know it has a role—but not here.
As for jobs, over a million Australians want and need extra work—on average, an additional 23 hours—but they can't get it. Then there are the million who've given up looking and don't even get counted in the figures, because they can see no employment options open to them. I have men and women in their 50s with a lifetime of work skills telling me that no-one will look at them in spite of the experience that they have. I speak to young people juggling multiple jobs to put together a portfolio that just pays the bills but rarely provides paid sick leave or holiday leave. Even full-time workers can see their pay isn't growing at the same pace that costs are rising. These are real problems that need real solutions, not papering over by marketing campaigns.
I want to turn to that other huge problem the government's failing to tackle, and that's the response to climate change. I'm a mum, so I am not for scaring the children unnecessarily. But, sadly for the Prime Minister, kids these days have access to information—the same information that those opposite should be able to access—that tells us the climate is changing, whether we like it or not, and that we need to respond accordingly. The cause of anxiety is not just that things are changing but that the government is failing to act. This government fails to acknowledge that emissions across the economy are rising and have risen every year since it came to power. There are steps we can take, but the Prime Minister won't find them in a McDonald's smart drive-through.
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (15:38): I note the previous speaker's focus on marketing. It's something that exercised the minister at the table, the member for Hasluck. He reminded me that the greatest spending on marketing was actually by the previous Labor government. So, when we talk about spin, we just need to look at the previous Labor government.
In looking at the pressing needs—the MPI today is on 'answers to the pressing needs facing the nation'—I look at my own electorate and some of the simple things that matter most to families and to people who live in our areas. I look at the over $10 billion that's been spent by this government on the listing of important medicines on the PBS. There's not much more pressing than this issue when you talk to people out in our communities. The fact that the economy—the budget we're running—allows us to list these medicines and put over $10 billion worth of new listings on the PBS is just an extraordinary achievement and one that I'm particularly proud of.
When I meet the people most affected—those who otherwise might not be able to afford these medications; Kalydeco is now available for infants aged from 12 months to 24 months—when I meet families in my electorate for whom that means everything, that's when I know that we are meeting the pressing needs facing the Australian people, which is what this MPI is supposed to be about. That's exactly what we're doing. It matters so much that we understand and listen to what the Australian people want and need and respond to that. The Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services talked earlier about the medications for leukaemia and lung cancer. When you're out listening to your community you hear that this is what matters most to them. It's not this debate today; it's how the government takes action on matters that matter most to families and people.
The personal income tax cuts matter there most as well. Many of us have thousands of small businesses in our electorates. It is the tax cuts and the instant asset write-off that enable them to keep doing what they do very well and invest in themselves and jobs for people in their businesses. That matters.
The government moved to protect the privacy of farmers. I saw it directly in my own area and in Harvey. It protected the privacy of primary producers and even the abattoirs. There was legislation to protect members in this sector from the unlawful actions of animal activists—the Criminal Code amendment bill. Those opposite obviously don't feel that that is important, but when you are a farmer whose family is being put at risk by this sort of action it is these sorts of simple things that matter most. This is what we in government are focusing on—the simple things that matter most to people.
I look at the investment in headspace. Young people in my part of the world in Busselton and Margaret River have benefited and are benefiting from new headspace centres. These are real genuine grassroots achievements.
Another one introduced by our government—and this matters so much to us—is the Mobile Black Spot Program. For those of us who live and work in rural and regional Australia, connectivity is a critical issue. This is something the previous government had zero interest in, yet we saw this as being absolutely critical. The mobile black spot towers have proven enormously beneficial, particularly for our emergency services. We've had the bushfires. In Northern Queensland we've had floods, and in rural and regional Australia we have the drought factor as well to deal with. Communication is critical to us. This Mobile Black Spot Program has been invaluable in rural and regional Australia, as has the investment in aged-care facilities.
In my own part of the world there is Hocart Lodge and Tuia Lodge. The minister who is at the table, the member for Hasluck, previously had responsibility for aged care. He understood perhaps better than so many the real and critical needs of rural and regional aged-care providers and why they're so important to a small community. Any funding provided to those facilities for capital works makes an enormous difference, as you saw, Minister, in Tuia Lodge in Donnybrook and Hocart Lodge in Harvey. (Time expired)
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (15:43): Seven continents, seven dwarfs, seven members of the S Club and this government's leaked talking points had seven priorities. I'm not going to allocate who would be Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, Dopey or Doc—that would be unparliamentary—but I'm going to outline that in those seven priorities there is no mention of health, no mention of defending Medicare and no mention of investing in our hospitals. There is no mention of the government's alleged No. 1 priority: the drought. Given the debate and the lectures we hear on a daily basis about the urgent need to act on the drought, it is astounding that in their own leaked talking points not one of their seven priorities is 'acting on the drought'. Seriously, I can't believe that they would say that the drought is not one of their seven priorities, but their own document shows that to be the case.
There's nothing about child care. Maybe that's because childcare fees have gone up 30 per cent since this government was elected. Some contest the truth of that, but I went and checked the figures. At the end of 2013, the hourly rate for child care was, on average, $7.50. Now, in 2019, the average hourly rate for childcare services is $9.95. That is a fact. It has gone up by $2.45 per hour on this government's watch. It's a terrible thing for the many families who struggle to make ends meet. The reality is that the government's package that the Prime Minister told us about hasn't actually done what it was designed to do: it hasn't delivered more affordable child care for many hundreds of thousands of families, including families in my electorate. And, of course, in those seven priorities, in those talking points, there's nothing about investing in schools, although that one didn't surprise me so much.
If the government want to talk about the sorts of priorities they could be investing in, let me give them a few things that Western Australians would love to see action on. One is investment in infrastructure. There is a huge need to bring forward infrastructure investment in Western Australia.
There is a huge need, in particular, to act on housing. When it comes to wiping housing debts, sometimes I think that Senator Cormann is the 13th senator for Tasmania, not a senator for Western Australia, because he does more for the Tasmanians to help with their housing challenges, in secret deals with senators who are doing the right thing in advocating for their states. I would love to see some action from this government on housing and homelessness in the state of Western Australia. There are some 14,000 people on the Western Australian public housing list, and there are estimates that some 600 people are sleeping rough in the Perth CBD every night. If we could come to some sort of arrangement for $343 million to wipe the housing debt—I've written to a number of ministers, and I'll continue to do so—that would be a great thing. We've heard from both sides about the need, at times, to act in a bipartisan way. This is one of those times. This isn't about political reward; this is about helping some of the most vulnerable in our community.
Speaking of infrastructure, I would love to see some action on the Perth City Deal. It's been announced twice, by two prime ministers—announced twice, done zero times, much like the number of dams that have actually been built. It was announced by former Prime Minister Turnbull. It's been announced under the Morrison government. I don't know where Malcolm Turnbull has gone, but maybe he took the Perth City Deal with him!
And then we come to investment in skills and training. The member for Dunkley and I have decided that it would've been much better to have Shaynna Blaze as the ambassador for skills and training!
Ms Murphy: Team Shaynna!
Mr GORMAN: We've started 'Team Shaynna'; membership is still open! But the reality is that we do have a skills crisis in this country. I always look at what governments do, not what they say. When you look at what they did in Western Australia, the now Liberal leader, Liza Harvey, presided over a 510 per cent increase in TAFE fees when she was the responsible minister. I want to commend Premier Mark McGowan for taking serious action, because of the state's strong financial management, to halve TAFE fees for a number of courses, including nursing, child care and disability services—a huge step in the right direction.
I will end on one other priority that the government should take a little bit more seriously, which is climate change. Climate change is real. I had a great conversation with Girl Guides WA on Friday about the need to take action on climate change. I just note that maybe, when the Prime Minister was at McDonald's in the United States, he should've asked McDonald's about their climate change commitments. McDonald's has a 36 per cent emissions reduction target. They are cutting— (Time expired)
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (15:48): The opposition wants to talk about the pressing needs of the nation. I'll just explain a few things about the federation, for the member for Perth. I don't think he was here in 2017, but one of the acts that were passed was the Medicare Guarantee Act, which created the Medicare guarantee fund, which is the first cab off the rank in any budget. Medicare is guaranteed. And, while we're talking about health, there's extra money for WA's hospitals. Every hospital in the country is getting more federal money via their state governments. In our federation, the states build the bricks-and-mortar public infrastructure, like the roads that you're frustrated about and like hospitals. But the federal contribution by this government has gone up exponentially over the last seven years.
What did we inherit? We inherited a deficit and a debt that were never, ever present when those opposite came into government, back in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd period. We had money in the bank. Those opposite spent it all like there was no tomorrow; they built up and locked in spending programs and deficits for the first four years. Then, for the next six years, they blocked all our savings measures. So we have balanced the budget and brought it back into the black. That's why we've been able to provide money for schools and hospitals, and it's why we've reformed child care.
We are delivering infrastructure. At least in New South Wales we've got a coalition state government that cooperates when we put money on the table. They use it to build the infrastructure like the Pacific Highway. They use it to build infrastructure like, in my electorate, the Bucketts Way improvements and like all the bridges and roads that we've improved. We've improved them courtesy of black spots funding, which we've increased; Roads to Recovery funding, which we've increased; and the Bridges Renewal Program, which we've increased. All of this is happening because we have cooperation from the state government, unlike what we see with Queensland and Victoria. The Queensland Labor government is obstructing our efforts to fund dams and the Victoria Labor government is obstructing our efforts to build infrastructure in Victoria, like the East West Link. The connecting obstructing issue is not us; it's the state governments.
Getting back to health: we have pharmaceutical benefits that the PBAC has approved, and we have funded over 2,100 new medications on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This has been a period where we have seen more new cutting-edge drugs made available for Australian taxpayers and, most importantly, for our pensioners than I can remember in my whole medical career. I practised for 33 years before I came into this place. This period is just exploding with new drugs all time, because we've balanced our books and we have grown the economy.
The other thing that we've done is we have the least number of people—about 200,000 fewer people—on income support, because we've grown the economy. I know it's a big problem for those opposite that we have 1.4 million more jobs in the economy, that we've grown the pie and we've grown our revenue, and that we've actually cut taxes. People are getting their tax refunds. Most people in my electorate definitely earn under $90,000, and they are getting the full $1,080 in their refunds; they've just got to get their returns in. There are over four million people that have, and there are many more that will. There are plenty of couples in my area of the country who are both working and earning less than $90,000. They'll get the maximum tax return of $1,080. That is continuing right out to 2022, where, in our tax plan, we're extending the threshold of those paying 19 per cent tax up to $45,000. So we have delivered.
Small businesses are benefiting too; they've got a tax cut down to 27.5 per cent. Most of the small businesses in my part of the country are earning less than $50 million, and they're all getting the benefit of it. With the drought, everyone's familiar with the funds that we've put on the table for state governments. Like I said, New South Wales cooperate; they want to build dams too, and they've just passed through the cabinet the emergency measures to make this happen and cut away all the bureaucratic obstruction. So well done to the New South Wales coalition government.
But we have the record for creating more jobs. We have 70 new apprentices due to our apprentice subsidy scheme rounds 1 and 2. We have $2 million of grants in the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, North Coast, which has led to $7 million of investment by private industry and 200 new jobs. (Time expired)
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (15:54): Facts matter. The truth matters. This is what we teach students at school. We look around this chamber today, and we have students who've been watching question time and students who are here watching us. What do we teach students at school about how they should prosecute an argument? We teach them to stand up for what they believe in and to make their argument forcefully, but to make it based on facts. We teach students at school that you should politely but firmly address your opponent based on facts. You shouldn't bully them and you shouldn't resort to personal insults. We teach them that if the facts don't support your argument, just admit it. If you get something wrong, admit it. We don't teach children in our schools that we don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument unless, maybe, they're studying advertising, because that seems to be the place where facts don't matter. Sadly, the other place where facts don't seem to matter at the moment is the government benches.
If we want our children to live up to what we teach them, then this place needs to demonstrate what we're teaching them. It's not what they're getting from this government. The Prime Minister likes to claim that emissions per person and the emissions intensity of the economy are at their lowest levels in 29 years. But he has failed to mention that emissions across the economy are, in fact, rising and have risen every year since the government abolished the carbon price. He said emissions in the electricity sector have fallen, but he failed to mention that emissions in other sectors of the economy are rising—for example, in transport. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Mr Morrison, the Prime Minister, has claimed that the media was misrepresenting Australia's climate change record; it's not his fault! Negative media coverage has fuelled criticism of him; it's completely false and completely misleading! People are expressing prejudiced views about Australia's climate policy. The Prime Minister said:
Where do they get their information from? Who knows, maybe they read it.
Maybe they did read it. Maybe they read it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Maybe they read the record of what this government hasn't done on climate change. Maybe they looked at the facts and they came to the conclusion that this government has no real plan to reach the Paris targets, and that we are not going to get there. Maybe the young people of Australia are doing what they're taught at school; they're looking up the facts based on research and they're arguing for a better future. The young people are not going to sit back and accept what they are being fed in this parliament by the government and by the Prime Minister. Of course they're anxious about the future. They're not just anxious because the facts tell them that we are facing a climate emergency. They're anxious because they've got a government and a Prime Minister that basically tell them they should just go back to school and not worry about the future, and they've got a government that's not acting. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Australians deserve better from their government. They deserve better than spin, obfuscation and avoidance. They deserve a government that acknowledges the challenges we are facing now and into the future, and that's willing to engage in a real conversation and a debate about finding the answers, not just yelling at people from across the chamber. But they're not getting that.
In question time yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister whether the record low wages growth we have experienced under the six years of the Liberal government is a contributing factor to record household debt. How can we address the problems unless we first acknowledge the facts and where they've come from? Did I get an answer that made any sense and addressed the facts? Read the Hansard; you'll find out for yourself.
The facts are clear: economic growth is at its lowest since the GFC. Household median income is lower than it was in 2013. We have the worst wages growth on record, household debt at record lows, business investment at its lowest since the 1990s recession and declining productivity. Net debt has more than doubled. What do we hear from the other side of the chamber? 'Don't talk down the economy.' Actually look at the facts, come up with a plan and do something for the future of the country.
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (15:59): We enter parliament to improve the lives of the people that surround us, to work for our community and to unlock the potential of all Australians. Rightly so, Australians expect us to deliver infrastructure, to provide a strong economy, to create more jobs and to lower the cost of living for families. The Labor Party went to the 2019 election with a policy of $200 billion in higher taxes, a retiree tax, a housing tax, a small-business tax and a superannuation tax. In Lindsay over 3,600 retirees would have been hit by Labor's retiree tax, and over 8,000 residents living in a rental house or a flat would have been flogged by Labor's negative gearing proposals. I've worked in social housing, where people want to get out of social housing and move into the rental market, and these people would've been hurt by Labor's renter tax. The Morrison government was given a mandate by the Australian people at the election. Australians simply didn't want Labor's higher taxes and higher costs of living.
While members opposite are playing politics, I'm speaking on the Morrison government's strong track record of unlocking opportunities for aspirational Australians and delivering vital services for people who live in my electorate of Lindsay. Western Sydney is one of Australia's fastest growing areas, and we are delivering the infrastructure, the education and the health services so that we can continue to create vibrant communities with less congestion and safer roads and the education our kids need to be prepared for the jobs of the future. We are backing our local small and medium businesses, as well as investing in new and emerging industries to create local jobs. We are delivering tax relief to over 14,000 local small and medium-sized businesses in Lindsay and extending the instant asset write-off so that our businesses are encouraged to purchase that piece of equipment or to upgrade their systems so that they can expand and grow and employ more local people.
Our biggest investment is $5.3 billion to fully fund the construction of Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport, and $3.5 billion for stage 1 of the north-south rail link from St Marys in the electorate of Lindsay to Western Sydney Airport and the aerotropolis. During construction of the airport, there will be 11,300 jobs. Within five years of opening, there'll be 28,000 full-time jobs, and 50 per cent of those will be local. This will include jobs in construction, transport, logistics, retail, hospitality and professional services right in Western Sydney. I want these jobs to be local, and that's why I created the Lindsay Jobs of the Future Network, to ensure that our schools, our industry and our small businesses are coming together to make sure that our kids are getting educated in those jobs of the future that are coming with all the infrastructure that's coming to Western Sydney.
The Western Sydney City Deal will deliver the infrastructure needed to support the aerotropolis precinct as a hub for advanced manufacturing, research, medicine, education, industries that we have not yet thought of, and space industries, and also agriculture. Our track record shows we're investing in projects in our community. One of the biggest infrastructure projects in Lindsay is $63½ million for the upgrade to Dunheved Road, as well as more commuter parking at Kingswood, St Marys and Emu Plains stations, because we're busting congestion. We're making sure people are getting to work and home again more safely and quickly. That's what the Morrison government is doing.
We're also delivering upgrades to sporting facilities, to the Penrith Valley Regional Sports Centre, the Penrith Whitewater Stadium and the Chapman Gardens sports precinct, because the health and wellbeing of everyone in our community is of utmost importance to the Morrison government. We're delivering to improve the health of our beautiful Nepean River, and we're committed to the Cumberland Conservation Corridor project to conserve our natural environment. I visited this project and saw the great work that they're doing.
We also announced $1 million for the Great River Walk, which will include lighting between Jamison Road and Nepean Avenue. The safety of our community and people who want to walk at night is of the utmost importance, particularly for women.
We're investing record amounts in health and education. We've also announced funding for mental health, and, with the Minister for Health, we've announced the Lindsay Healthy Active Living Network, to encourage healthy and more active lifestyles. This includes mental health as well. Part of this focus is on preventive health, and I look forward to working with everyone in our community interested in health and wellbeing to come up with collaborative solutions.
A strong economy means that we can deliver for our local community. The Morrison government is not just using rhetoric like those opposite; we're getting on with the job of delivering for the Australian people, including the people of Lindsay.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (16:03): I get—and I think some of us here get—that most punters aren't really watching the ins and outs of politics up here in Canberra every day. I know that. Most punters usually cast their eye over politics when election campaigns come around. But what I'm noticing when I'm talking to punters and constituents in my electorate, when I'm having those conversations, is that people are starting to have just that doubt around the Prime Minister and this government. That little niggling feeling is coming out in the conversations—that something is not quite right about the Prime Minister and this government.
They saw a lot of the PM in the campaign. He was bouncing around. He was bouncing balls. He was bouncing them on his head. He was kicking balls. He was throwing a few. He was hitting a few. The whole baseball-cap-wearing daggy dad routine was an amusing distraction—but a distraction from what? The answer to that question is becoming increasingly apparent to the average working Australian. It's becoming apparent that the Prime Minister and his whole government are just all smoke and mirrors, that this whole act, his whole schtick, has distracted Australians from the fact that there is no substance to this Prime Minister and that the coalition policy cupboard is bare.
They have no answers to the pressing needs that this nation faces—no answers, whether it be on social justice, meaningful action on climate change, addressing economic inequality or our place in the world. The fact is that in the first few months of the Morrison government Australians have been offered nothing but obfuscation, distraction and bluster. The PM's act is losing its superficial gloss. The schtick is wearing thin. The carry-on no longer hides the gaping policy holes that are at the heart of this government and that are now having a very, very real impact on people's lives.
As well as having no answers, now, more than ever, they try to hide it. They try to hide it by being loose with the truth. Let me give you a few examples. The Prime Minister has claimed that 'emissions are at their lowest in 29 years'. That's just not true. It's provably untrue. Emissions are rising under this government. That's a fact. They have risen every year since this government dismantled the system built by the Labor Party when they were last in power to bring down emissions and transition to a low-carbon economy. When he's called out for being lose with the truth, the Prime Minister attacks the messenger. He tries to undermine the credibility of those relying on established and overwhelming scientific evidence about climate change. Maybe that's why, instead of going to the UN climate change conference, he visited Macca's, or Mickey D's as they call it in New York. That's what he was doing: downing cheeseburgers while the rest of the world were mobilising to tackle a climate emergency. The Prime Minister should know that in an emergency you don't clock off and go to Macca's. You don't order 70 reviews in your first couple of months of government. In an emergency, you act to protect people from harm.
The fact is that this government has no answers. The Prime Minister and his government simply don't care about the interests of working people. It's the only explanation for the failure across such contrasting policy areas, and it explains the misleading tactics that they use to cover up that failure. For instance, with skills and training, the gap between promises and reality gets wider and wider. The government promised 80,000 new apprenticeships, but they have destroyed more than 150,000 since they took office. There are fewer apprentices today than there were 10 years ago, and that's because they ripped off $3 billion from skills and training. That's the substance of their policy. The PM's schtick is: let's pay a TV tradie a lot of money to distract people. They promised to build hundreds of dams. They haven't built a single one, even as drought and climate change hit our farmers harder than ever. They've done a review about dams, they've produced a glossy pamphlet and promised to build 100 dams, but what they haven't actually done is build a dam. It's amazing!
This policy failure, and the subsequent attempt to hide it, is more and more apparent in their economic mismanagement. Under this coalition government, everything is going up except people's wages. They claim that they're actually good economic managers, yet the truth is that they're terrified to take any action. The Treasurer is sitting behind the wheel of a car. He should be driving the economy, but it's veering off the road and all the Treasurer can do is hope that Philip Lowe reaches over and takes control of the steering wheel for him. They seriously try and tell us that they're good economic managers. I wouldn't trust the member for Kooyong to ride a tricycle through a kindergarten. Australians deserve a better government than this—not used car salesmen trying to sell policy lemons. Australians deserve a government with a plan, a government with substance, a government that cares. They deserve a government that actually provides the answers that this nation needs.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (16:08): All I can say is that it is a great privilege to be able to follow that address from the member for Wills. It's a great privilege, because what the people of Australia did on 18 May this year was vote for a little less conversation and a little more action. When it comes down to it, that is what we are delivering every single step of the way. I fully concede that it is not the action that the opposition is looking for, because the action they're looking for is the thing that led them to lose. It is the policy platform they took to the people of Australia and said, 'We want to do this; we want to increase your taxes by $387 billion.' So, if you're looking for that plan—I'm sorry to break it to the opposition—you'll find it was rejected. It was rejected resoundingly. In fact, everybody expected that, despite all their follies and failures, the plan would be endorsed and they would be sitting on this side of the parliament. That's how comprehensively it was rejected. I know you feel the pain every day, because you wanted to have the chance to govern this country, and the Australian people turned around and said: 'No! We do not want what you have to offer. We do not believe in your policy plan.' What they actually wanted was a government that did act, that did stand up for the national interest and that will take decisive action to deliver against challenges.
So let's talk about the drought. Let's talk about the plan that this government is not thinking about, not getting up in question time and asking questions about, but delivering. Let's talk about the support package we have delivered: $100 million to drought-hit communities. Let's talk about that being on top of the $7 billion in drought support funding already provided by the government, because the drought is a concern for everybody in the Australian community. Yes, there are drought-affected communities in rural and regional Australia and parts of Queensland and New South Wales and Victoria, and they're concerned. But I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the people in the electorate of Goldstein are also concerned, because they're connected to the land as well. They know it's critical for dealing with issues around our exports, our food supply and for the future growth of this nation. We have provided billions in support to make sure we help our farmers. We back them every step of the way and we back our drought-affected communities every step of the way. The only reason you can do it is that you're running a strong economy and you have the budget surplus to provide the assistance and support in a situation like we're facing right now. You don't have it when all you do is slow the economy, whack massive new taxes on it and then go off and spend it in an indulgent way without any concern for the future.
I fully accept that this action is completely foreign to the opposition, because their plan for heavy new taxes, like the housing tax and abolishing negative gearing as we know it, is what they wanted to do. We're not doing that. The insidious, evil retiree tax, where they wanted to hit a million Australian low-income earners, is not something we are going to do. I see the member for Macnamara over there smugly looking at us on this side of the parliament. He wanted to vote to hit his own low-income earners who are self-funded retirees, people who stood on their own two feet and made a contribution to this country. Their only solution is to wreck them.
Go back to the speech from the member for Wills and look at what he was taking about. He was extolling the virtues of a carbon tax he wants to introduce. He wants a carbon tax to be introduced in this country. Now the International Monetary Fund has tolled the bell and said, 'To deliver Labor's plan of what they want to achieve, you would need a carbon tax in excess of $100 per tonne of CO2 greenhouse gases.' That's your plan. Why don't you take it, and be honest, to the Australian people! This is the plan that Labor has.
I can just keep going. In the end—
Mr Wyatt interjecting—
Mr TIM WILSON: My dear and beloved colleague at the table, the member for Hasluck, among many other illustrious colleagues, points out that the member for Perth doesn't even seem to know the consequences of his own state Labor government's policy. We have given top-up money for the GST to the WA government. We have given housing agreements. And what's the barrier? The state Labor government! Even a Victorian can see how shallow your arguments are.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The member will resume his seat. The time for the discussion has concluded.
MOTIONS
Casinos
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Clark from moving the following motion immediately—
That the House of Representatives calls on the Australian Government to establish a Royal Commission to inquire into and report on the Australian casino industry, with particular reference to:
(1) allegations of Crown Casino's links to organised domestic and foreign crime, money laundering, tampering with poker machines, domestic violence and drug trafficking, including but not limited to:
(a) the allegations concerning Crown, raised by the Member for Denison in the House of Representatives on 18 October 2017;
(b) the Member for Clark's referral of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, and Victoria Police, to the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission on 24 July 2019;
(c) reports by Nine newspapers and 60 Minutes in July 2019 concerning alleged criminal activity involving Crown;
(d) the Member for Clark's referral of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation to the Victorian Ombudsman on 13 August 2019;
(e) the Member for Clark's referral of Crown Perth to the Premier of Western Australia on 19 September 2019;
(f) the allegations of criminal activity provided by a driver formerly associated with Crown revealed by the Member for Clark in the House of Representatives on 30 July 2019, and again during a media event yesterday, including the failure to process inbound and outbound flights and passengers;
(g) the evidence of money laundering at Crown revealed by the ABC and the Member for Clark today;
(h) the response to these allegations, including the possibility of criminality, by relevant state and federal agencies including but not limited to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, Victoria Police, the Australian Federal Police, Border Force and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre;
(i) the conduct of people associated directly with Crown, including the possibility of criminality and corruption; and
(j) the conduct of serving and former politicians and party officials especially relevant to Crown, including the possibility of criminality or corruption.
(2) the performance of relevant federal agencies regarding the operation of Australian casinos generally including but not limited to the Australian Federal Police, Border Force and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre.
(3) the conduct of Australian casino owners, board members and staff generally;
(4) the conduct of serving and former politicians and party officials regarding Australian casinos generally; and
(5) any related matters.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ) (16:14): In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Clark on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing order. No further debate is allowed.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Clark be agreed to.
The House divided. [16:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
BILLS
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (before line 8), before section 3UL, insert:
3ULA Expiration of this Division
This Division is repealed at the start of the day after the end of the period of 4 years beginning on the day the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Act 2019 commenced.
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (after line 17), at the end of Division 3B, add:
3UV Review of Division
(1) The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security must review:
(a) the operation, effectiveness and implications of this Division; and
(b) security matters relating to major airports.
(2) The Committee must begin the review before the end of the period of 3 years beginning on the day the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Act 2019 commenced.
(3) The Committee must report on the review to each House of the Parliament before the end of the period of 9 months beginning on the day the review commences.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (16:26): I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendment (1) be disagreed to, and that amendment (2) be agreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House first to consider amendment (1) and when that amendment has been disposed of to consider amendment (2).
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:26): The opposition is happy to give leave for them to be considered in that order.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (16:26): I move:
That Senate amendment (1) be disagreed to.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (16:27): This amendment made in the Senate would place a sunset clause in this legislation. I rise in support of this amendment. It was moved in the Senate by Senator Patrick. It needs to be said that sunset clauses are not unusual, especially when they're inserted in respect of legislation that would introduce new coercive powers, and are often complemented by a statutory review provision, as is the case here. What has occurred in the Senate is that—as we have seen in, I would have to say, countless national security laws, particularly ones that insert new powers—we've got a pair of provisions. One is inserting a sunset for four years and the second is a review to enable parliament to consider whether or not the coercive power should be continued.
Senator Patrick's proposal is that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security be required to preview the provisions that are introduced by the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019 in three years time. The purpose of the sunset provision is to, in effect, require the parliament to take the outcome of the review seriously. That's because after four years, the parliament will be presented with a choice in the light of the outcome of the statutory review: does it reindorse the measures introduced by the bill, does it amend them or does it allow them to sunset and thereby cease to have effect? We shouldn't be afraid of sunset clauses, they're not unusual and they exist in many pieces of legislation—particularly in national security legislation. I commend Senator Patrick for moving this amendment. Labor supports it.
The SPEAKER: The question is that Senate amendment (1) be disagreed to.
The House divided. [16:33]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (16:37): I move:
That amendment (2) be agreed to.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (16:37): I rise in support of this amendment, which the government is also agreeing to. This was an amendment that was moved in the Senate by Senator Patrick. It's a sensible amendment. It does no more than require the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to take another look at the measures in this bill in three years time. What it will do is enable the committee to make an informed judgement about whether the measures are fit for purpose and appropriate with the benefit of experience.
It's worth remembering that, on the creation of the Home Affairs portfolio in July 2017, then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said: 'When it comes to our nation's security, we must stay ahead of the threats against us. There's no room for complacency; there's no room for set and forget.' The current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has used the same phrase when describing everything from Australia's foreign policy, where he said, 'The rules and institutions that support global cooperation must reflect the modern world. It can't be set and forget,' to his emergency response to the drought, 'Our drought response is not set and forget.' So let's not set and forget.
Just to give an illustration, the intelligence committee is presently conducting a review of the mandatory data retention scheme legislated in 2015. It's presently conducting a review of the assistance and access bill, which is an unusual review because it was set in train and legislated for immediately on the passage of the legislation. The intelligence committee is conducting a review of citizenship laws passed in 2015, and recently the intelligence committee completed a review of the questioning-and-detention warrant powers first legislated by the Howard government. They were sunset provisions and review provisions, but it ultimately allowed two reviews to be conducted by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, recommending that those powers be repealed. The intelligence committee got to the same position. The government is now considering that review report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
It's a simple proposition: when new coercive powers are being introduced, when there's an increase in the powers that are given to our intelligence agencies or our police to deal with national security questions or to deal with terrorism, then it's appropriate that we not 'set and forget'—to use the phrase used by former Prime Minister Turnbull, and the same phrase used by Prime Minister Morrison—but, rather, that we do legislate for reviews so that it can be assessed in three years time as to whether or not it is appropriate that the additional coercive powers that have been conferred on our police and our intelligence agencies should in fact be continued. It is of course the case that the opposition supported this bill, which grants new powers to the Australian Federal Police. We accepted the position that the Australian Federal Police put to the intelligence committee—that they shouldn't have to rely on inconsistent state and territory laws to exercise the sorts of powers that are contained in this bill. It made sense, and will make sense now that we have the legislation almost passed. It will make sense to have a uniform law instead.
It's of course the case that airports can be the focal points for serious and organised crime groups, including those involved in the illicit drug trade. This bill will enable constables and AFP protective service officers—PSOs—at major airports to do a whole range of things. This is what needs to be reviewed in three years time: directing a person to produce evidence of their identity; directing a person to leave the airport; directing a person not to take a specified flight; and directing a person to stop, and do anything necessary to facilitate the identity check or a move-on direction. There are limitations and there are safeguards in these powers, but, nevertheless, they do reflect an extension of power to the Australian Federal Police. That's why it's right that Senator Patrick, of Centre Alliance, has moved this amendment to the legislation, which will create a statutory review in three years time. We think that's a good idea. That is why we are supporting the amendment that has been returned to the House from the Senate. I'm very hopeful that this legislation will now be enabled to be completed, returned to the Senate in its amended form and be completed in the Senate in short order.
Question agreed to.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (16:42): I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to Senate amendment (1) and I move:
That the reasons be adopted.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Climate Change
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:43): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) declares an environment and climate emergency;
(2) recognises that:
(a) the recent report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 °C, indicates that we are facing a climate emergency, and as a result, meaningful action on climate change is urgent, at home and internationally;
(b) this IPCC report has found that the world is not on track to limit global warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius;
(c) at a national level, England, France, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and Canada have all declared a climate emergency; and
(d) unmitigated climate change will lead to a steep increase in the severity and frequency of extreme weather events that will devastate large parts of Australia and radically impact food production, water availability, public health, infrastructure, the community and the financial system; and
(3) notes that the Government has acknowledged urgent action is required to address climate change and calls on the Government to take urgent action consistent with avoiding catastrophic climate change, the goals of the Paris Agreement and internationally accepted science.
Leave not granted.
Mr BANDT: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Melbourne from moving the following motion immediately—
That the House:
(1) declares an environment and climate emergency;
(2) recognises that:
(a) the recent report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 °C, indicates that we are facing a climate emergency, and as a result, meaningful action on climate change is urgent, at home and internationally;
(b) this IPCC report has found that the world is not on track to limit global warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius;
(c) at a national level, England, France, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and Canada have all declared a climate emergency; and
(d) unmitigated climate change will lead to a steep increase in the severity and frequency of extreme weather events that will devastate large parts of Australia and radically impact food production, water availability, public health, infrastructure, the community and the financial system; and
(3) notes that the Government has acknowledged urgent action is required to address climate change and calls on the Government to take urgent action consistent with avoiding catastrophic climate change, the goals of the Paris Agreement and internationally accepted science.
If the government can declare a budget emergency, then parliament can declare a climate emergency. Nothing is more urgent than acting when people's lives and livelihoods are under threat. That is what we are witnessing now. This is urgent because people are going to the wall because of climate change. We are experiencing record drought. Some of our communities have been told to expect that they might run out of water over the coming months. Parts of Australia were on fire barely two weeks into spring, and it is clear that we do not have global warming under control. Let me read you a quote:
There is growing agreement between economists and scientists that … risk of catastrophic and irreversible disaster is rising, implying potentially infinite costs of unmitigated climate change, including, in the extreme, human extinction.
That isn't a quote from the people who were out protesting over the last couple of weeks. That isn't a quote from a political party in this place. That is a quote from the IMF, who now understand that extinction is a very real possibility if we do not get global warming under control. What it will mean, if we don't act soon, is that the carrying capacity of the planet shrivels to a billion people by 2100. That is what we are on track for at the moment. That means that by the time my daughter is in an aged-care home or enjoying her retirement we will be on a planet where we have gone from 7.5 billion down to one billion people. I do not want to think about the wars, the conflict, the persecution, the people movements and the fights over resources that are going to come with that, but that is what the world's scientists have told us we are on track for, unless we get global warming under control.
The first step in tackling a problem is admitting that you've got a problem. There have been far too many statements like, 'It is okay and climate change is under control'. It is not. It is clearly not under control. We need to move this suspension of standing orders, and we can deal with it quickly, because it's not a motion that seeks to condemn the government and it's not a motion that seeks to take a particular stance on a particular policy issue. It's a motion that stands in the footsteps of the United Kingdom—where the conservatives have a majority—who have declared a climate emergency, and of Canada, France, and the many other jurisdictions around the world who have said it is time to tell the truth to people about how severe it is.
If we do it, we are sending a very clear message to everyone who is suffering through drought, to everyone who is worried about the next heatwave and to everyone who is worried about water drying up and rising sea levels: we hear you, we understand this is an emergency and we are going to act accordingly. It is critical that we don't just say the science leads us to an emergency but that we declare it, so that we send that message absolutely loud and clear. Once we have declared it, then we can have a sensible debate about the best way to get there. This is a motion that has its genesis with the Greens and the crossbench and is now getting support from Labor. It's something that should, just like in the United Kingdom, get support from the conservatives as well.
I say to all of those members on the government side: if you accept the science of climate change then you have to accept what the science is telling us to do. That is to urgently cut pollution. Yes, we can have a debate about how we get there, but we have to accept that. This is an opportunity for every individual member of the government to take a stand, because history will judge where people line up on this vote. History will look back and ask whether we had the courage to tell it like it is and say, 'It's an emergency and we are going to start to act accordingly.' This will put Australia in lock step with the rest of the world and it will be the first step towards telling the truth about how serious global warming is and then starting to fix it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (16:50): I second the motion. It is undeniable that we live in a climate emergency. Politicians in hundreds of jurisdictions right around the world know we're in a climate emergency. Scientists—thousands of scientists—know we live in a climate emergency. Military planners know we're in a climate emergency. The community knows we're in a climate emergency. The thousands of people enduring the gripping drought around this country know we're in a climate emergency. The many people who endured bushfires recently know that we are in a climate emergency. Our children know we're in a climate emergency. I was so proud of my two young daughters when I accompanied them to the recent climate strike. But this government does not know we are in a climate emergency. This is the opportunity for this government to change direction, to support the motion by the member for Melbourne and to join thousands of politicians in hundreds of jurisdictions right around the world, including in countries with conservative governments like the UK, and to finally say, 'Yes, we are in a climate emergency and we will do something about it'.
The Tasmanian government too seem to be in a complete and utter state of denial, keen as they are to develop our coal resources—in Tasmania of all places—with their full support behind a proposal for mines in the Midlands that will be exporting three million tonnes of coal a year from Tasmania to markets in Asia. They don't worry that it's going to ruin our clean, green reputation and cost us billions of dollars in lost opportunities for our food exports and tourism.
We must declare a climate emergency. The government must get behind this motion. The alternative government must get behind this motion as it's written. Then we need to put this country on a credible pathway to dealing with climate change, including a commitment to zero net carbon emissions as fast as we humanly can and a credible pathway for reliance on 100 per cent renewable energy as fast as we can. Then not only will we finally be dealing effectively with climate change but we'll be unleashing the potential to be a global leader in addressing climate change, a global leader in renewable technologies and the country where we invent the best energy solutions, export those solutions and send teams to install those solutions to unleash a remarkable amount of wealth for this fortunate country of ours. And, in addition to the economic benefit, we will be able to go to bed at night and know that we have done what is right—what is morally and practically right—and that we have done everything in our power to ensure that we're doing our bit around the world.
It's not good enough for the government to say, 'We're only one or two per cent of global emissions.' You know what we are: we're the source of 29 per cent of coal that's traded globally around the world. That's got to stop. We've got to wind down the coal industry, not open any new coalmines and put ourselves on a pathway to zero net carbon emissions, 100 per cent renewable energy and not being an exporter, because—let's face it—we export more pollution than we even generate ourselves. Those export industries have got to be wound up.
I know there are other people wanting to have their say, so I'll wind it up there. I second this motion, I applaud the member for Melbourne and I stand next to him when we say, 'We are in a climate emergency, we must acknowledge that and we must address that.'
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh) (16:54): The Labor Party will support this suspension motion. As members of the House may well know, I lodged, seconded by the member for Shortland, a similar motion seeking to have the parliament declare a climate emergency this afternoon. Although our motions are different in some respects, the broad thrust of the motion being proposed by the member for Melbourne and seconded by the member for Clark is of a similar type to the motion that's been proposed by the Labor Party today.
As I think members also know, because they will be receiving advice from their own constituents, there are at the moment almost 350,000 Australians who have signed a petition asking this parliament to follow the lead of parliaments in the UK, Canada and several other nations besides, not to mention all of the city councils and local government areas in Australia and beyond who have declared a climate emergency, because over the past 12 months in particular we have received piece after piece of urgent advice from the world's scientists, from the world's health professionals and from the world's leading economic regulators that things are getting very dire indeed around the climate. The IPCC has issued three reports in the last 12 or 18 months, each of them more urgent than the first, saying that the window is closing on our generation's ability to meet our responsibility to our children, our grandchildren and generations beyond to discharge the commitments set out in the Paris agreement to ensure that global warming is kept well below two degrees and to pursue efforts around 1.5 degrees. The advice from the scientists on the IPCC could not be clearer. In recent days, we've again seen the Bank of England governor, who chaired the Financial Stability Board, reiterate his advice and the advice of that board. The leading 20 economies in the world indicate that this is a leading risk to the stability of the global financial system, echoing advice from the RBA, APRA, ASIC and other economic regulators here in Australia. We've seen very recently the AMA reflect advice of their equivalents overseas that climate change poses a health emergency, reflecting also the advice of the World Health Organization that climate change is the defining health challenge of the 21st century. All of that advice is framed around the commitments in the Paris agreement.
What we should all understand is that we are currently on track to exceed three degrees of global warming, which would be utterly catastrophic not just for Australia but for all nations around the world, and the window is closing on our generation's unique ability to meet our responsibility to future generations. As former US President Barack Obama said, this generation is the first to feel the impacts of climate change and the last with a serious ability to do something about it. That is why parliaments in the UK, Canada and several other nations have already recognised climate change as an emergency, and that is why this parliament should do the same thing.
The motion moved by the member for Melbourne and the motion lodged by me on behalf of the Labor Party are in relatively uncontroversial terms. They don't seek to make political points about the performance or otherwise of this government in this policy area. We can have a heated debate about what we should be doing and how we should be doing it, but that should be for another day. Today we should try to unite as a parliament about why we should be doing something about climate change and why it is so urgent that this generation, which has a unique place in response to this defining challenge of the 21st century, respond to the advice from economists, from scientists and from health professionals that this is an emergency. That's why standing orders should be suspended to allow this parliament to have this debate.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (16:59): Earlier today the Greens pulled a classic stunt by sending up a hot air balloon, emitting 100 litres an hour. Talk about symbolism! The party of protest is all about grand symbolic gestures and emotive language, but has absolutely no idea about the real and practical needs of everyday Australians. Labor is making a huge song and dance about declaring a climate emergency, yet refuses to commit to a single policy in this area from the last election. Are they for a 45 per cent target or against it? Are they for coal exports or against them? Are they for gas exports or against them? Are they for coal generators or against them? Are they for a carbon tax or against one? Are they for carbon pricing or against it?
This shows what an absolutely empty gesture Labor's attempted declaration is. It is intended to cover for their total absence of real and meaningful policies. Indeed, they've just said this afternoon that they're not going to have any policies until just before the next election. Yet they want to declare a climate emergency. Labor's hollow symbolism will not deliver a single tonne of emissions reductions. By contrast, this government is taking real and meaningful action. We have a strong target: 26 per cent. That's a 50 per cent reduction in per capita emissions and a 65 per cent reduction in the emissions intensity of the economy by 2030. We have an enviable track record of meeting and beating our targets. We're on track to beat our 2020 targets by 367 million tonnes. That is the envy of the world. It is absolutely true that credit should go where credit is due, and that is to the hardworking Australians, small businesses and farmers—farmers have played a hugely important role in managing land to ensure that we achieve those 2020 obligations.
We've laid out to the last tonne how we'll achieve our 2030 obligations. There are 328 million tonnes of abatement through the $3½ billion Climate Solutions Package, which includes $2 billion for the Climate Solutions Fund energy efficiency initiatives, 25 million tonnes for hydro initiatives—Snowy Hydro, Battery of the Nation and Marinus Link—and so on. We have laid it out very clearly. At the same time, despite the upward pressure we are facing from LNG exports, those LNG exports are reducing emissions around the world. The equivalent of 28 per cent of Australia's annual domestic emissions are being reduced by our LNG exports. They are playing a hugely important role globally. Meanwhile, we are using technologies and investing in technologies that can play a significant role beyond 2030 because those technology pathways—with hydrogen, with lithium, with biofuels and so on—are crucial to finding those cost-effective pathways that maintain a strong economy beyond 2030.
But those opposite tell us everything that is wrong with this debate. They are all symbolism, no policy. The member for Hindmarsh asked for a ruthless and unsparing review of the policies he took to the last election. But they couldn't explain the costs and the details. The member for Hunter gave him a ruthless and unsparing review. He said, 'Drop the policies and go to the coalition's.' That's what he said. It was ruthless and unsparing, but it turns out the member for Hindmarsh didn't want it to be that ruthless and unsparing. He does admit that he had his backside delivered at the last election—his words. He sure did, because those opposite went to the Australian people with policies that would trash the economy, trash incomes, trash jobs, trash sectors and trash industries. These are industries that are central to electorates right across this country, particularly in regional Australia—in agriculture and in resources—and we won't stand for that. We stand for reaching and achieving, for meeting and beating sensible targets, whilst maintaining a strong economy.
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (17:04): The minister can say as much as he likes, but Australians know—experts know—that our emissions are going up and we face a climate emergency. That is why today we stand on this side of the House to work together with whoever will be willing to work with us, to help make sure that we, in this time, in this place, do our bit as Australians, as part of a global community, to take action to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, to make sure that the next generation sees a world where climate change isn't the threat that we know it will be. This is not about politics. This is not about making points—one political party against another. This is about a time and a place to declare a climate emergency, to do our bit as Australians and as global citizens, and to tackle this international curse.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (17:05): I can't begin to say how disappointing it is to listen to the rhetoric we hear on this issue in this place. It is a serious question, and we should stop politicising it. It is a question of acknowledging we have a problem. It's not a question of saying, 'Your targets are too big or too costly and our targets are great and we're going to overreach them.' Repeating that doesn't make it fact and doesn't make it enough. If you accept the science that we have to reduce emissions, then you have to accept the science that is saying we are not doing enough, whatever targets you want to lay your hat to. As far as Paris went, it was a starting point. It was never meant to be the end point of where we have to get to if we want to have a meaningful impact on our carbon emissions and have some chance of keeping temperatures to a liveable and acceptable standard. Ideally that would be 1.5 degrees of warming, but we are on track for two to three degrees of warming. Who are we kidding here?
If the government accepts the science that we have to reduce emissions, then it must accept the science that says we are not doing enough. The starting point has to be to acknowledge that we have a problem. There are so many members in this House, especially on the government side, who went to their electorates during the last election saying, 'I believe in climate change and I believe we are going to take action.' Well, if the science is now telling you need to do more, then you have to adjust. It is not wrong or a failure to adjust your trajectory if you are being told it's not working or it's not enough. It isn't about pointing a finger or apportioning blame. It's about collectively coming up with a solution for the Australian people so that they actually have something to look forward to, so that our children have something to look forward to.
The Parliamentary Friends of Climate Action heard from a number of medical bodies yesterday. The presentations we got were sobering. It's frightening to understand the impact of a warming world—what heat can do to the body, how it will impact our young people and our older people, who will be vulnerable, the increase in deaths and heat stroke—really serious implications. I asked them, 'Did you write to our health minister and indicate concerns about the health impacts of climate change and a warming climate?' The response was: 'The health minister doesn't see a warming climate as a health issue.' It is. The doctors are telling us it is. It's a priority. We need to know in what ways we are equipped to deal with that scenario.
It's so important that everyone is accountable in this place. We've heard so much over the last 10 to 15 years on this issue. You actually all now need to be accountable. Stand up and be counted. Have a conscience vote, all of you, on both sides. Put your colours to the mast of where you stand on this issue. We saw it happen with marriage equality. We need to start to see it happening on climate change.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the member for Melbourne to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The House divided. [17:12]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
BILLS
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Opposition supports the objectives of this bill and would like to work with the Government to ensure the bill best achieves those objectives—the most important being the protection of children;
(b) the bill is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which is due to report on 7 November 2019;
(c) while its final position on the bill will be determined following the conclusion of that inquiry, the Opposition has a longstanding opposition to mandatory sentencing; and
(d) among other things, the bill would introduce mandatory sentencing; and
(2) is of the view that:
(a) there is no evidence to suggest that mandatory sentencing is an effective mechanism for deterring offenders or protecting the community;
(b) by contrast, experts—including the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department—have argued against the introduction of mandatory sentencing regimes, including on the basis that, where an offender is facing a mandatory minimum sentence, juries may be less likely to convict; and
(c) in light of the concerns raised by experts, and in the absence of any evidence that mandatory sentencing is effective, the Government should work with the Opposition on alternative approaches to sentencing that are more likely to achieve the core objectives of this bill, which are to punish child sex offenders and keep children safe from harm".
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (17:19): I will start where I was cut off. The Labor Party's position on this particular bill is completely out of step with community expectations. Thirty-nine per cent of child sex offenders convicted federally last year didn't spend a single day in jail. The community expect better than that. We, the Morrison government, understand that, and that's why this bill is here—to correct that and to make a difference. For the Labor Party to stand there and for the member for Isaacs to, rather than support this bill, try and give the government a lecture on parliamentary process just shows that their actions do not match their rhetoric.
The member for Fowler also raised a number of issues in defence of Labor's position not to do anything on this particular issue. Even though there were a lot of platitudes—and I accept that Labor's platitudes were heartfelt—the member for Fowler raised the issue that, somehow, mandatory sentencing might remove the incentive for people to cooperate. Well, we know that the legislation deals with that. If he had bothered to read the legislation, rather than simply seeking an arbitrary reason to justify Labor's indefensible position, he would know that. The fact is: this bill retains discretion for the judiciary to reduce a mandatory minimum penalty by up to 25 per cent to allow for recognition of early guilty pleas and cooperation with law enforcement. Quite clearly, there is still an incentive within this bill for people to either plead guilty or to cooperate with law enforcement agencies. There is also significant discretion for the courts remaining in this bill. That is what is going to prevent the spectre that Labor keeps raising—that, somehow, this will lead to a situation where juries are less likely to convict.
Courts will still retain their important power to set non-parole periods for child sex offenders as they see fit. Importantly, law enforcement officers and prosecutors will retain their broad discretions regarding whether or not to charge or prosecute individuals. But the point is that, when these individuals are found to have undertaken these most heinous of acts against children in our community—acts which create victims for life—we will not have the situation that has been the case for the last year, where 39 per cent of perpetrators who were convicted did not spend a day in jail. Their victims, and the victims' families, are affected by these crimes for the rest of their days. The idea that 39 per cent of child sex offenders convicted federally last year didn't spend a single day in jail is so out of step with community expectations that we must seek to rectify it urgently, which is what this bill does.
I'm disappointed that, despite the platitudes, Labor members opposite can't bring themselves to join with the government to take action on this important issue. Our children must be protected from the dangers of sexual abuse. We must do everything in our power that we can to address the inadequacies of our criminal justice system. There must be severe penalties for those individuals who seek to commit these heinous crimes. We on this side of the chamber not only believe this but are willing to act so that we can stand, hand on heart, as fathers and mothers, and say we have done everything to keep our children safe.
Children are among the most vulnerable in the community, and the crimes that this bill deals with are some of the most serious we are faced with. Children are more trusting of the adults around them, and their innocence can, disgustingly, be preyed on. This bill is an example of the government's commitment to protect children from sexual abuse. These offenders are predators—have no doubt about that. For too long, punishments have been inadequate, in the eyes of the community, and grossly below our expectations and the public's.
Just last week in my home town of Brisbane we had a disturbing judgement handed down by the Brisbane District Court. Last December, during the Christmas rush, at a department store in North Lakes, a paedophile by the name of Sterling Free lured a seven-year-old girl away from her mother. He proceeded to take her into bushland, where he sexually assaulted her, before returning her to the store. This is the nightmare of every parent. I am at a loss for words to describe how I feel about such despicable acts, and I am at a loss to think about how a family recovers from something like that. He was sentenced to just eight years in prison, with parole after two. This offender could be back in the Brisbane community in August 2021.
Queenslanders are justifiably outraged, as they expect more from the Queensland state Labor government when it comes to punishing this individual for this disturbing act. I stand with the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Dutton, who has rightly slammed the sentence as an outrage and called on Queensland's state Labor government to immediately appeal, and to follow the Morrison government's lead and introduce legislation, such as that we have before us, creating minimum mandatory sentences for child sex offenders.
With that in mind, I'm speaking on this bill so we can do what we can in this place to improve the situation. The bill will strengthen Commonwealth laws to provide greater protection of our children and send a strong message, a deterrent, that people, should they choose to act in this way, will be duly punished. The bill does four things to achieve this. It introduces new offences relating to grooming activities and to websites and online platforms designed to host child abuse material. It introduces new aggravated offences for the most horrific types of child abuse engaged in while somebody is outside of Australia, including where the child is subjected to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. It implements a range of presumptions against bail and presumptions for imprisonment, meaning it is more likely that child sex offenders will go to prison and will stay there longer, and it will be harder for them to get bail. It introduces mandatory minimum sentences for the most serious child sex offences and for those who are repeat offenders.
Unfortunately, as technology continues to improve and enhance the way we live, so, too, can it be harmful in the wrong hands. Importantly, this reform seeks to bolster the tools available to combat this increasingly changing form of child sexual abuse. In an age where it is now standard for children to be online for schoolwork or at home, particularly at an increasingly young age, we must do all we can to protect them against emerging threats. Perverse individuals could be lurking at the other end of a keyboard. Online services making a profit from making or facilitating the exchange of child abuse material is a sickening and growing problem. Currently, those behind such acts can only be prosecuted where it can be proven they are themselves also accessing child abuse material or encouraging others to do so. This bill will introduce a new offence, allowing a sentence of up to 20 years in jail, that ensures that providers of these services are rightly held to account for the damage they are doing to our community.
As I said, in the last financial year 39 per cent of Commonwealth child sex offenders walked away with a non-custodial sentence. This is not an acceptable figure. The bill, I am pleased to say, will dramatically improve judicial outcomes. Mandatory minimum sentences will apply to child sex offences that attract the highest penalties, particularly to reoffenders who have previously been convicted of separate child sex offences. The bill introduces minimum five- to seven-year terms for the most serious child sex offenders. Recidivists will face from one to four years across a spectrum at the Commonwealth level. This, together with a new presumption in favour of cumulative sentences for multiple child sex offences, will see sentences that will adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending that has occurred.
Bail is another issue in these cases. This bill will introduce a presumption against bail for those who have reoffended. In consideration of bail for repeat child sex offenders or those charged with the most serious of offences, there will be an expectation that bail should be refused on the grounds of community safety. Nothing is a bigger priority for me in this place than ensuring my community is safe. I'm a dad, a parent, with a two-year-old son, and I will do everything I can to ensure that he and the other children in Ryan are safe from predators like the ones targeted and addressed in this bill.
I will circle back to finish where I started, and that is that it is so disappointing to me and the other members of the Morrison government that this bill does not have bipartisan support. I've spent the last few minutes outlining what's in this bill, and I'm yet to see anything that could be disagreed with, quite frankly. What is the argument against from the Labor members—that those who commit these hideous crimes shouldn't go to jail for longer; that they shouldn't go to jail full stop, as opposed to what is currently happening; that there shouldn't be a presumption that bail is denied so that the community can be kept safe in these circumstances? I've heard a lot of words from members opposite about standing up for the principle of no mandatory sentencing. But why aren't they standing up for the principle that our children should be safe? We in the Morrison government certainly are. We're doing it with actions, through this bill, not with words. So, when Labor members talk about standing up for a principle, remember that they're standing up for the principle of process rather than for the principle of keeping our kids safe, as we here in the Morrison government are doing.
There are perfect examples of where mandatory sentencing has worked. When the Western Australian state Liberal government introduced mandatory sentencing provisions for assaults against police and other officers—again, serious offences within our community where there is a community expectation that they be dealt with in a significant way—there was a 28 per cent drop in assaults against police in just a 12-month period. This demonstrates that, when these criminals, these evil individuals, are forced to confront the fact that their fate will be a minimum of five to eight years in jail, this will be a deterrent to their committing those acts. If even one of these kinds of heinous acts is prevented thanks to this legislation, it will have been well worth it.
I have faith in our judicial system. That's why I'm pleased that this bill still allows flexibility for judges to make decisions and for prosecutors about whether or not they prosecute a case, and makes allowances for people who work with prosecutors and police for intelligence gathering. But, at the end of the day, I'm prouder still of the fact that this bill, if passed by the House, will ensure that people who are convicted of these most heinous acts are sent to jail, and sent to jail for a reasonable period of time, in line with community standards.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (17:33): In the United States, President Trump recently signed the FIRST STEP Act. That act takes several steps to ease mandatory minimum sentences under US federal law. It passed with overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats, and the support of a wide range of groups—from the American Civil Liberties Union to the right-wing organisation Right on Crime. It reflects the reality that many other countries' legislators are moving away from mandatory sentences. As Hilde Tubex from the University of Western Australia has said:
… let's follow international jurisdictions that are moving away from mandatory sentences, due to a lack of evidence that they work in protecting the community, and leave it to the judges to judge.
In Australia, we face the same situation that Britain, the United States and New Zealand also face: a massive rise in incarceration rates. Australia's incarceration rate is now the highest that it has been since 1899. Australia is facing a second convict age. The imprisonment rate now stands at 221 prisoners per 100,000 Australian adults, and has had a 130 per cent rise in the incarceration rate since 1985.
Among Indigenous Australians, the incarceration rate is probably best expressed simply as a percentage—2.5 per cent of Indigenous adults are now behind bars. In Western Australia, 4.3 per cent of Indigenous adults are incarcerated. Noel Pearson has referred to Indigenous Australians as the most incarcerated people on earth, and my research finds that the incarceration rate of Indigenous Australians is higher than the incarceration rate of African Americans. This has occurred in an environment in which sentences have increased. In 1985, the average time expected to serve for sentenced prisoners was 2.4 years; now it's 3.7 years. Back then, the share of prisoners expected to serve more than 10 years was 1.8 per cent. In 2018 it was 8.6 per cent. This increase in sentence lengths has been one of the reasons that Australia's incarceration rate has risen, one of the reasons why Australia now spends some $5 billion a year on prisons and one of the reasons why many states are expecting to have to build new prisons in coming years.
Let me be absolutely clear. I am the father of three beautiful little boys, ages 7, 10 and 12. Nothing is more abhorrent to me than sex crimes against children. My focus is on what we can do in order to reduce the scourge of child sex abuse. The reason that Labor will not support the mandatory minimum sentence provisions in this bill is because we don't believe they work. This is not a question of who is going to be tougher on paedophiles. If I believed that increasing sentences would reduce the chances of child sex abuse, then I would support it. The reason I don't support it, the reason the shadow Attorney-General doesn't support it, the reason the Law Council of Australia, the Institute of Criminology and indeed the Attorney-General's Department don't support it is that mandatory minimum sentences have not been proven to work. The government has brought to this debate a great deal of ideology but precious little evidence.
Labor has a strong record in protecting children. In 1994, we introduced world-leading offences targeting Australians who engage in the sexual abuse of children overseas. In 2009, we brought jurisdictions together to implement the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children. It was the Gillard government that established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Labor appointed Australia's first National Children's Commissioner to advocate for the rights of Australia's young people. But we don't support mandatory minimum sentences, because, as the Law Council has pointed out, they may well be counterproductive. The Law Council has pointed out that mandatory sentencing 'potentially increases the likelihood of recidivism, because prisoners are placed in a learning environment for crime, which reinforces criminal identity and fails to address the underlying causes of crime'. They point out that mandatory sentences 'are likely to result in an increase in contested hearings since offenders who may have considered pleading guilty in the hope of receiving an alternative to full-time imprisonment may be inclined to go to trial,' causing a further drain on resources, delay and unnecessary distress to alleged victims.
As the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has consistently noted:
… mandatory penalties necessarily undermine the discretion of judges to ensure that penalties imposed are proportionate in light of the individual circumstances of particular cases.
The Attorney-General's Department says that mandatory minimums should be avoided as they 'create an incentive for a defendant to fight charges, even where there is little merit in doing so'. The Australian Institute of Criminology has pointed out that mandatory sentences can lead to circumstances in which juries can refuse to convict. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse brought down a report which was in 17 volumes and contained some 400 recommendations. None of those recommendations were for the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for offences of this kind. That was the most extensive inquiry into child sexual abuse that we have seen in Australia's history, and it did not propose that mandatory sentences be put in place.
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee noted:
The Chief Magistrate of the Northern Territory provided the committee with evidence of incarceration rates as a result of the imposition of mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory during the period 1997 to 2001. The Chief Magistrate noted that the imprisonment rate was 50 per cent higher during this period than following repeal of the laws. Non-custodial orders such as home-detention and community work were almost unused for property offences during the mandatory sentencing era.
The member who spoke before me referred to mandatory sentences for assaults on police officers in Western Australia. It is my understanding that that offence is rarely charged and that that is a direct result of the mandatory sentence that is in place.
The Australian Law Reform Commission, in its Pathways to justice report, noted:
Mandatory sentencing may also disproportionately affect particular groups within society, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples …
That is always a risk that must be borne in mind. Labor has called for incarceration targets to be part of the Closing the Gap targets. Those who are concerned with closing the gaps must also be concerned with the impact that mandatory minimums could have. The Law Council of Australia put it well:
We all agree these are heinous crimes that should be subject to severe sentences. The community is not interested in cheap law and order politics but solutions that prevent harm.
We need to be practical and evidence based. We need to be ruled by the philosophy of what works, not what feels good. As criminal justice reformers have pointed out in the United States, we should ensure that policies are based on the best available evidence.
The Law Council's submission also pointed out the potential for unjust outcomes to occur, and they give a range of examples which could occur as a result of this bill. The examples include the hypothetical:
On a scout’s trip to New Zealand, an 18 year old Year 12 student has sex with his 15 year old Year 10 girlfriend—
Under the bill, that would be conduct punishable by a mandatory minimum of six years in jail—
On a holiday overseas between two families, an 18 year old and 15 year old commence a romantic relationship and they touch each other—
That would be subject to a mandatory minimum penalty of five years—
An 18 year old and a 15 year old exchange images and sexual stories on Snapchat—
or—
An 18 year old and a 15 year old engage in sexual activity using FaceTime—
That would subject the 18-year-old to a mandatory minimum penalty of five years—
An 18 year old text messages her 15 year old friend encouraging him to send an indecent image to his 18 year old girlfriend—
That would be subject to a mandatory minimum penalty of five years—
An 18 year old boy and a 15 year old girl in a relationship and constantly exchange intimate images. The boy has previously been convicted of a child sexual abuse offence.
That would carry an additional offence of three years. It would surprise me greatly if there were no-one in the current parliament who had committed one of these acts, yet this bill proposes to levy multiyear mandatory minimum penalties.
The Law Council also points out that there is also the strange feature of the bill that, 'if the conduct continued after the victim’s 16th birthday, the conduct would no longer be an offence'. As the Law Council points out:
This serves to highlight the arbitrary and unjust nature of the mandatory sentencing provisions and their blindness to the actual moral culpability of offenders in particular cases.
This is fundamentally, as the Law Council points out, a task best left to judges.
If we want to reduce the terrible scourge of child exploitation, of child sex abuse, we must do it based on the best available evidence. We must ensure that that evidence guides us as parliamentarians. We must also make these decisions in a context in which we recognise that the incarceration rate in Australia has not been higher in the lifetimes of any of us. The last time Australia locked up such a large share of our population was 1899. The rise in incarceration has been due, in part, to the increase in sentence lengths, and the increase in sentences has not been a principal driver of the fall in crime. Crime has fallen markedly since the 1980s. Murder rates are down by almost 50 per cent. Rates of car theft, burglary, robbery and assault are all significantly down since the 1980s. This has occurred through a confluence of factors, but increased incarceration has played little part in that fall in crime. It is vital that we deal with the problem of child sex abuse in a way which is best targeted to achieve the purpose, not in a way which is calculated to buy a headline or to make us feel good. This issue is too important for ideology to trump evidence.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (17:46): I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019. I thank the member for Fenner for his contribution, and I point out that, as stated by the member for Fenner, Labor strongly supports the objectives of this bill. The protection of children is and always will be a priority for Labor—as it should be for all political parties, obviously. I'm very proud to have been a member of parliament in November 2012, when Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that she would recommend to the Governor-General that a royal commission be appointed to inquire into institutional responses to child abuse.
The workload of that royal commission, instigated by Labor, was phenomenal. I thank the commissioners and their staff for their considered work over five years, work that will no doubt leave a lasting imprint on all of their lives as well; I say that in my 25th year of being married to someone that has worked in child protection areas. I know how horrible it can be when you see humanity at its worst. That royal commission received 42,041 calls and 25,964 letters and emails, held 8,013 private sessions and made 2,575 referrals to authorities, including the police. The royal commission handed down its final report in December 2017 and made a total of 409 recommendations. None of them, as pointed out by the member for Fenner, included mandatory minimum sentences.
That royal commission changed lives. It looked at child protection and the welfare of children in a more forensic way than anything has ever done, yet it did not recommend what this legislation is contemplating. That royal commission allowed many survivors of child sexual abuse to tell their stories for the very first time. Importantly, it shone a light on the abhorrent sexual abuse that had been conveniently ignored by many—often people in positions of power—for far too long. It shone a cleansing light into some corners where powerful people thought they were above the law.
Child sexual abuse is sickening. There should be no tolerance for these crimes. There is no tolerance for these crimes, and there are no sides to be taken in this debate. It is simply political pointscoring for the Prime Minister and his senior ministers to suggest otherwise. I particularly want to call out a former minister, Michael Keenan, who was an absolute grub at the dispatch box when it came to doing that in the 45th Parliament. I will never ever forget—or forgive him for—what he said. We all want to see paedophiles locked up.
I'm very proud of Labor's record on child protection. In 1994 Labor introduced world-leading offences targeting Australians who engage in the sexual abuse of children overseas. Labor brought federal, state and territory governments together in 2009 to implement the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children, which included a funding commitment of $63.6 million over four years from the Commonwealth government. Labor introduced new child abuse preparatory offences and other protection measures in 2010. Labor appointed Australia's first National Children's Commissioner, in 2013, to advocate for the rights of Australia's young people, and Labor introduced the vulnerable witness act in 2013. I haven't checked but, in defence of the coalition, I'm certain that the Liberal Party, the National Party and many other political parties would have supported that legislation at the time.
I just wanted to put on the record that Labor is committed to protecting children from harm and abuse. While Labor supports the objectives of this bill to protect children, Labor has had a longstanding and well-reasoned objection to mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing undermines fundamental rule of law principles. It restricts judicial discretion and independence and the ability of a member of the judiciary to look at the facts in front of them. It also violates Australia's human rights obligations.
It's not just an ideological objection to mandatory sentencing. We know, and all sensible lawyers know, that serious problems will occur when mandatory sentencing is imposed. The Law Council says:
… the Law Council's Mandatory Sentencing Policy considers that mandatory sentencing:
potentially results in disproportionate sentences where the punishment did not fit the crime because it was not possible for Parliament to know in advance whether a minimum mandatory penalty would be just and appropriate across the full range of circumstances in which an offence might be committed;
can result in unjust outcomes, particularly for vulnerable groups within society such as indigenous peoples, young adults, juveniles, persons with a mental illness or cognitive impairment and the impoverished;
fails to produce convincing evidence which demonstrated that mandatory minimum penalties deter crime;
potentially increases the likelihood of recidivism because prisoners are placed in a learning environment for crime, which reinforces criminal identity and fails to address the underlying causes of crime;
provides short-to-medium-terms of incapacitation of offenders without regard for rehabilitation prospects and the likelihood of prisoners reoffending once released back into the community;
wrongly undermines the community's confidence in the judiciary and the criminal justice system as a whole. In-depth research has demonstrated that when members of the public were fully informed—
rather than just listening to some shock jock—
about the particular circumstances of the case and the offender, 90 per cent viewed judges' sentences as appropriate;
displaces discretion to other parts of the criminal justice system, most notably law enforcement and prosecutors, and thereby fails to eliminate inconsistency in sentencing;
increases the burden upon the already under-resourced criminal justice system, without sufficient evidence to suggest a commensurate reduction in crime;
is likely to result in an increase in contested hearings (since offenders who may have considered pleading guilty in the hope of receiving an alternative to full-time imprisonment may be inclined to go to trial)—
and chance their luck—
and, consequently, a further drain on resources, delay and unnecessary distress to alleged victims; and
could be inconsistent with Australia's international obligations, including the prohibition against arbitrary detention as contained in Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—
something that the Australian nation willingly signed up for; we weren't coopted into signing up but willingly signed up—
the right to a fair trial and the provision that prison sentences must in effect be subject to appeal as per Article 14 of the ICCPR.
The Law Council are not the only organisation concerned about mandatory sentencing. Knowmore, the free and independent community legal centre that provides legal information, advice, representation and referrals, education and systematic advocacy for victims and survivors of child abuse, also has serious concerns about mandatory sentencing. I should declare that my wife used to work for knowmore before becoming a member of the judiciary, just to put that on the record. Knowmore's submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee says:
…knowmore is concerned by the lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of mandatory sentencing policy in achieving the Bill's stated aims. The Royal Commission expressed concerns with mandatory sentencing policy, warning that it '… imposes a significant or complete constraint on judicial discretion …'
The royal commission itself said:
[t]he criminological evidence is that mandatory sentences are not as effective as deterrents, do not reduce crime rates and generally operate in such a way that discriminates against certain minority groups. In terms of consistency, rather than leniency of sentences, mandatory sentencing has the effect of treating unlike cases as like, creating a form of unfairness analogous to the situation where there is too much discretion and where like cases are treated differently.
The Australian Lawyers Alliance also have grave concerns about implementing mandatory sentencing. They say in their submission to the Senate committee:
The simultaneous provision of mandatory minimum sentences removes judicial discretion and shows a manifest want of trust and faith in the competence of the judiciary. If maximum sentences are increased, then the message of gravity of wrongdoing and the need for deterrence is clear but there will always be cases where flexibility needs to be available to judges in sentencing and the imposition of minimum sentences removes all useful discretion. Minimum sentences are offensive to our system if they imply that judges are not properly applying the existing law. The increase in maximum sentences suggests that it was the existing law which was the problem; not the judges. The ALA strongly submits that sentencing should ultimately be a discretionary matter and judges' hands should not be tied so that there is an unjust result in particular and unusual circumstances.
So the experts all agree. Mandatory sentencing will not achieve the desired objective of keeping children safe. Mandatory sentencing may result in fewer criminals being convicted of child sex offences. Mandatory sentencing can also result in unjust outcomes.
The Law Council, in their submission, gave examples of what they describe as 'not uncommon teenage behaviour'—heaven forbid, I say as the father of a 14-year-old—that could be caught by the mandatory minimum sentences included in the current bill:
On a scout's trip to New Zealand, an 18 year old Year 12 student has sex with his 15 year old Year 10 girlfriend.
That would meet the offence of sexual intercourse with a child outside Australia under this proposed legislation and would result in a mandatory minimum penalty of six years in prison. Another example is:
An 18 year old text messages her 15 year old friend encouraging him to send an indecent image to his 18 year old girlfriend.
That would meet the offence of using a carriage service for sexual activity with a person under 16, causing child to engage, resulting in a mandatory minimum penalty of five years in prison.
There are lots of other examples we could give that are of a similar nature. We could all say, 'This is not what teenagers should do,' but that is not the world that we live in. It's a reality that, with social media, inappropriate sharing of information and images is much more common. Let me be clear: this is not behaviour that I am in any way encouraging. But do we really want teenagers who did something like that being locked up for many years, with a member of the judiciary having no option but to lock them up?
I urge the government—the National Party and Liberal Party coalition—to consider alternative approaches to mandatory sentencing—alternatives that would be more likely to achieve the objectives of this bill that Labor supports, which are to punish child sex offenders and keep our children safe. Labor is ready and willing to work with the government to achieve these objectives, the most important being the protection of vulnerable children. It would be unforgivable if political pointscoring or some lame attempt at 'wedgislation' to get some cheap media out there by the showman that we have in the Lodge ended up with kids in jail for doing stupid things rather than being child sex offenders. So I ask the Attorney-General and the government to reconsider. We will carefully consider this bill through the Senate committee process and also engage with stakeholders from across the community, and I say again that our focus, my focus, will always be on the protection of children.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (17:58): I thank all the members for their contribution at the second reading stage of this bill. The Morrison government is evidently wholeheartedly committed to protecting communities, especially children, from the dangers of child sex offenders. This government has introduced the most significant reforms to the legal framework concerning child sex offenders since the establishment of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth in 1995. The increases to the maximum penalties for the most serious Commonwealth offences with respect to child sex offending better reflect the seriousness of the offending, and that the impact of these offences can be damaging and the impact is lifelong.
The increased maximum penalties reflect the gravity and the higher level of culpability of these most serious offences. However, the proposal to simply increase maximum penalties will not be enough to shift sentencing practices. For those Commonwealth child sex offenders who even received a custodial sentence, the most common amount of time spent in jail was six months, despite offences currently attracting imprisonment maximum penalties of up to 20 years. In the 2018-19 financial year, 39 per cent of convicted Commonwealth child sex offenders were not sentenced to spend a day in prison. For those that did spend time in prison, the most common sentence was 18 months. These statistics, updated from initial figures provided last month by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, are alarming and clearly demonstrate that we need to act to ensure that child sex offenders receive the sentences that they deserve. The introduction of mandatory minimum sentencing for the most serious offences and repeat child sex offenders is necessary to send a clear message that society will not tolerate sexual crimes against children and to ensure that criminal penalties appropriately reflect the gravity of the offending.
Members of the opposition have made a number of comments during the debate and in the media that the Labor Party is opposed to mandatory penalties in principle. It does seem strange to me that the party that legislated mandatory minimum sentences for people-smuggling offences in 2010 will not now contemplate the same sentencing regime for child sex offences in 2019. One could draw the view that that means that Labor does not think that these are equivalent in terms of seriousness of offences, but they clearly are. Indeed, the view the government takes is that this category of offences is significantly more serious than those for which Labor instituted mandatory sentencing principles.
The argument that mandatory sentencing will lead to fewer convictions is, I must say, nonsensical. It is completely at odds with community expectations that 39 per cent of child sex offenders convicted federally last year were not sentenced to spend a single day in jail. The community expects that child sex offenders go to jail, and this bill is the way to make that happen. The Morrison government is firmly of the view that, while setting mandatory minimum penalties is unusual, it is wrong in principle that people who commit abhorrent acts against children that can destroy the lives of the victims avoid jail time and/or are released into the community without appropriate protections in place.
So, for the sake of clarity: these provisions do not set mandatory minimum non-parole periods for child sex offences. The mandatory sentencing scheme is a layered and considered approach and has built-in safeguards that enable the courts to take into account the individual circumstances of a case. It does not apply to persons under 18 years old, and it enables a court to discount sentences for pleading guilty and cooperating with law enforcement. Judicial discretion over the non-parole period is retained, allowing the courts to take a range of sentencing considerations into account in determining a sentence of appropriate severity in all the circumstances of the case. People suffering from a cognitive impairment at the time of their offending will not be subject to minimum mandatory sentencing, as the Criminal Code already contains protections to ensure that they do not face criminal responsibility. The mandatory minimum sentencing scheme is a sensible solution that reflects community expectations and ensures that sentences for child sex offences actually reflect the gravity of those crimes.
The Commonwealth already has mandatory minimum penalties for people-smuggling offences. These impose a mandatory minimum non-parole period as well as a mandatory minimum head sentence. The High Court have considered these types of penalties and held that they are constitutionally valid, noting, in their 2013 decision of Magaming:
In Markarian v The Queen, the plurality observed that "[l]egislatures do not enact maximum available sentences as mere formalities. Judges need sentencing yardsticks." The prescription of a mandatory minimum penalty may now be uncommon but, if prescribed, a mandatory minimum penalty fixes one end of the relevant yardstick.
The appellant may be right to have submitted, as he did, that, even at 1901, mandatory minimum custodial sentences were "rare and exceptional". But as the appellant's submission implicitly recognised, mandatory sentences (including, at 1901, sentence of death and, since, sentence of life imprisonment) were then, and are now, known forms of legislative prescription of penalty for crime.
These mandatory minimum penalties, consistent with the principle that I've just read from, set a sentencing yardstick for judges sentencing Commonwealth child sex offenders. The bill also makes it harder for serious child sex offenders to get bail once they've been charged, by creating an offence based presumption against bail for certain Commonwealth child sex offences. Given the seriousness of the offences to which the proposed new presumption would apply, and the potential risk to the most vulnerable members of the community if bail were granted, this measure will provide for protection of the community.
The new offences in this bill deal with new and emerging threats and criminalise reprehensible and harmful behaviour which facilitates or perpetuates child sexual abuse, such as being the administrator of a website that exists for the purposes of distributing child abuse material or the groomer of another person for the purposes of procuring a child for sexual activity. The most important task of the government and of this parliament is to ensure the safety of the Australian community, especially those most vulnerable—our children. The package of measures introduced by this bill marks a tough and necessary crackdown on paedophiles.
I might note one or two additional points with respect to matters that were raised by the final speaker from the opposition regarding, particularly, the issue of children and the effect, potentially, on them. The final example that was provided by the last speaker from the opposition was with respect to a male over the age of 18 who had had sexual intercourse with his girlfriend, who was 15. I might just note that, at that age, there is no ability to provide consent. In that example, it is, under the law of the Commonwealth, a rape. That is the law as it presently stands. I think it demonstrates some of the misunderstandings of how the law actually operates. I also note that people who were under 18 at the time of the offence themselves are exempt from the mandatory minimums. So those who were under 18 at the time of the offence are exempt from mandatory minimum sentences, and that is, obviously, to ensure that children who may have engaged in things like sexting and other consensual sharing of images with other children are not captured by the mandatory minimums. It is not, I think, a viable submission to put that the bill would have unduly harsh outcomes for consenting teens engaging in sexual activity. When this bill previously came before the House, the opposition erroneously said that the government's legislation would see teenagers locked up for five years for flirtations over Snapchat, Facebook and other social media platforms. This bill does not target that type of relationship between consenting young persons. Rather, it targets serious predation aiming to sexually exploit vulnerable children.
The criminal justice system has effective safeguards. Firstly, all sex child offenders in part 10.6 of the Criminal Code require the Attorney-General's consent to prosecute where the accused was a minor at the time of the offending. Further, police and prosecutors retain discretion to pursue an investigation, and they must ensure that any prosecution is in the public interest. These existing considerable safeguards have not been altered by this bill. A review of the cases of actual prosecutions for engaging in sexual activity with a child under 16 since the introduction of the offence in 2010 reveals that consenting teenagers are not, in fact, being prosecuted. The people who have been convicted of these crimes include examples of the most serious offending. Three examples put before me are a 56-year-old preying on a nine-year-old, a 49-year-old targeting children in the range from nine to14 and a 36-year-old who abused eight child victims and made video recordings of the abuse that made out the offences. He was released on a condition of good behaviour after serving only 14 months in prison. On the few occasions where young persons aged 18 and above have been prosecuted for engaging in sexual activity with a child, often the victim was manipulated or deceived into sexual activity or providing child abuse material to the offender. They dealt with cases where victims were tricked about the age and often the gender of the offender, and such conduct simply cannot be excused.
So I think those submissions that were made in the latter part of the second reading debate do not actually reflect the provisions in the bill and, for those reasons and the reasons stated in the substantive remarks, we commend this bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Isaacs has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (18:10): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (18:10): I am very supportive of the substance of this proposed legislation, which gives life to a concept that will be of particular use to a lot of firms that are engaged in the fin-tech space—basically the utilisation of technology to come up with new products and services in the financial services realm. The array of laws that are in place, rightly, to protect consumers and to ensure the proper operation of financial services organisations in this sector are very important. For these new firms that are emerging—the fin-techs that will be most interested in this legislation—to conceive of new offerings and to then consider how they can breathe life into those new offerings is not like any other sector where start-ups emerge, other than, say, in highly complex areas, particularly around medtech.
But in this space, a lot of the firms do need to think through how they can structure their offering so that it not only attracts consumer support but that it satisfies the expectations, the demands and the rigours of the law. To help get around that, various jurisdictions across the world have created what's been described as a 'regulatory sandbox'—that is, a freer space in which to start thinking about these types of products, where the full effect of laws do not apply and where these products are given room to grow for a smaller group of customers and with a less onerous application of legislation.
The benefit is clearly that these innovative concepts can be tested in a much easier regulatory environment and, in doing so, potentially offer consumers new products that are in their best interests as opposed to the concern that many have expressed—that a lot of the products work in the interests of a lot of big financial firms. But, having said that too, you can't give people free rein. You do need to set some boundaries and you also need to ensure with these fin-tech regulatory sandboxes that the concepts that are being explored are legitimately innovative, that they are something new, something different, something better than what's been in place previously. Consumer advocates have rightly pointed out that firms have got to be able to demonstrate that legitimate need.
I had some association with this legislation in the previous parliament and have certainly argued that other jurisdictions put a test before firms can get access to regulatory sandboxes. The test is simple. It is: 'Are you doing something different? What is innovative about what you're proposing?' This is not an outrageous or heavy requirement. These types of rules are in place in the UK, in Singapore and in Hong Kong, where, in fact—when you compare the records of the way in which those sandboxes have operated compared to our own—they're doing quite well. So it's not like this is an anchor or lead weight in terms of the performance of these things.
In the Australian context, off the top of my head, the regulatory sandbox has existed since 2016, and it has not necessarily proven to be a smash hit, if I can put it very delicately. There have been a number of reforms considered to improve the outcomes. But, like so much fintech reform in this place, it has taken ages to get these things moving. The government talks a lot about supporting start-ups and innovative activity in this country, but it rarely delivers. It rarely does stuff in a timely way or through a meaningful or concrete form of action to support these start-ups. We have constantly pointed this out—from equity crowdfunding to the angel investment reforms that had been put forward. By the way, we're still waiting to see evidence on those. Three terms this coalition has been in place; it's had ample time to demonstrate whether or not some of the moves it's made, particularly around angel investment and taxation arrangements, have actually worked. We have seen very little evidence. It should have flowed through. We've gone through financial years. That data should be available, and we've got no evidence that some of the reforms that have been undertaken have worked. While we supported them, we did raise concerns that some of the reforms, which had been based on the UK Seed Enterprise Investment Incentive Scheme, hadn't necessarily mirrored what had worked in other jurisdictions. But we gave them the support to ensure that they got through and that investment funds would be made available for start-ups eager to get that investment, particularly through angel investors, at that point in their growth cycle. We have seen very little evidence on that.
Again, there has been a lot of talk, a lot of movement, a lot of sound, a lot of noise and not much evidence. We have seen it with equity crowdfunding, which took ages to get through and then was put through in a way that was deliberately, we said, designed to get more a headline than an outcome and then had to be re-reformed in the space of 12 months after that. These other measures, as I said, we are still waiting to see evidence on. And then there's the sandbox. People have said you can start to align these in ways that have been used elsewhere and been quite successful, and that should be done.
I note that in the last sitting in the other place we had a senator set up what's been called the Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology. That's just fantastic. It sounds great to set up a special select committee on fintech, but we've had in place a Treasurer's advisory council on fintech. If you can't get that Treasurer's advisory council that had been in place when the now Prime Minister was Treasurer to fast-track reforms that would help deliver these outcomes and create, in the words of the resolution that was put to the Senate, 'the effectiveness of current initiatives in promoting a positive environment for fintech', how much hope do you genuinely think a Senate select committee is going to have? They already had that in place. Craig Dunn, I understand, was the chair of that. They had a stack of fintechs represented on it. When the test came to actually put the stuff in place to make it work to ensure that we get a much more beneficial environment for fintechs to thrive, the government took its sweet time on the legislation and it replaced its advisory committee with some other advisory committee within the Senate.
To be honest, fintech is well on its way to getting established in this country. What we do need to see is the government taking other areas of technology seriously. For example, we are being outgunned on the world stage when it comes to the application of artificial intelligence and the support that we are giving to see its wider application within the economy and society. We have to our north the Chinese government dedicating billions of dollars in this space. Across the Pacific, the US is dedicating billions of dollars in this space. You can see in the UK and France similar amounts.
Given the size of our government and the size of our economy, I'm not advocating that we match that, but you would think that we would take it seriously. You would think, for example, that when it comes to investment in artificial intelligence we would be able to at least match what the Singaporeans are doing. Off the top of my head I think that the Singaporeans are investing over five years about $150 million in basically pursuing how AI can support the evolution of the Singaporean economy and society. In Australia what do we get? In the 2018 budget, last year's budget, Australia nominated $30 million over four years and, in another pretence of demonstrated activity, they said that they would develop a road map and they would put stuff in place that would show that we are getting serious on this. The Singaporeans put in $150 million and we put in $30 million.
I'll give you some context. PwC estimated the economic value that can be generated by the proper application of artificial intelligence on economies. They estimated that $15 trillion of economic value can be generated. They reckon two countries are going to basically accrue 70 per cent of that economic benefit—and that will be the US and China. I'll point out some of the thinking people have around this. Kai-Fu Lee in his book AI Superpowers raises the point that there will be two types of economies that emerge over time. There will be economies that are superpowered through the application of AI and then there will be economies that are dependent on those economies. I wonder in which of those two camps Australia is destined to be, given that we are investing only $30 million in AI research, as opposed to the billions that are being invested on the world stage.
You can imagine my surprise when we are investing only $30 million and our Singaporean neighbour is investing $150 million that, as a result of a fancy state dinner in the US, the Prime Minister announced that he'll put $150 million to support another nation's efforts in relation to space. Talk about selling us out. We should be taking this seriously. We should be applying technology to improve the operation of our economy to get better outcomes for the community. But, because we want to crawl and suck up to another country, we're putting $150 million towards their technological ambitions instead of our own. How often are we sick in this country of governments not backing local innovators and not supporting the ideas that can actually make our economy evolve? This is the case.
It's an all-talk, all-squawk government over there. That is all they do. They talk about this stuff, but they're not there when they're needed to make sure that this happens. We see it with this legislation, which has taken its sweet time to get through this place. We've seen it with other forms of legislation. But if there is a sweet announcement that will get them a little bit of coverage and maybe a little bit of kudos elsewhere—if they've set up some sort of a select committee—well, they're there for that. But they're not there for the hard yards, and that's what gets me about this.
We are supporting this legislation, and we've said that. We think that there are some things that can be done to improve it. We won't stand in the way of that. But what we think will work way better than a few cute announcements and a few cute committees is a genuine, wholehearted commitment by the government to make sure that laws get through in a timely way, that regulatory reform occurs when it should and that the investment is made by government to ensure that longer term we can actually see the full benefit of this investment in our economy, and that it will make us stand tall on the world stage and will genuinely fulfil the ambitions that we rightly hold for the application of smart Australian ideas in this country.
Mr MORTON (Tangney—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet) (18:24): I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019. The government remains committed to establishing Australia as a leading global fintech hub. This bill builds on our work to ensure we have the policy settings in place to foster innovation.
Schedule 1 to this bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to lay the foundations for the government's enhanced regulatory sandbox by extending the regulation-making powers in the Corporations Act. This will support fintech businesses to test their products and services without a licence from ASIC under certain conditions. We believe this measure will reduce the initial burden faced by firms as they look to innovate in providing specified or specific financial services by retaining important measures to minimise risks for consumers. Schedule 2 to this bill makes a number of minor technical amendments to the early stage venture capital limited partnership and tax incentives for early-stage investor regimes to clarify the income tax law to provide certainty to investors and ensure these provisions operate in accordance with their original policy intent.
The measures contained in this bill demonstrate the government's continuing commitment to promote a culture of entrepreneurship and risk-taking in Australia and will help ensure innovative Australian businesses have access to the capital and expertise they need to grow and succeed. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (18:26): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (8), as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 16 to 21), omit subsection 926B(3), substitute:
FinTech sandbox exemption
(3) A FinTech sandbox exemption may apply unconditionally or subject to specified conditions.
(3A) A FinTech sandbox exemption does not apply in relation to a person and a financial service unless:
(a) the person has lodged a notification in relation to the service with ASIC that complies with subsection (3B); and
(b) the 30-day period starting on the day the notification was so lodged has ended without ASIC giving the provider written notice of a decision under subsection (3C) relating to the notification.
(3B) For the purposes of paragraph (3A) (a), the person must lodge a notification with ASIC that includes the following:
(a) a description of each financial service (including of any related kind of financial product) for which the person is proposing to use the exemption;
(b) a justification of why exempting each of those financial services will result, or be likely to result, in a benefit to the public that will outweigh the detriment to the public that will result, or be likely to result, from exempting that service;
(c) any other information required by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.
(3C) ASIC may, after considering the notification referred to in paragraph (3A) (a), decide it is not satisfied of one or more of the following:
(a) that the financial service:
(i) is new; or
(ii) is a new adaptation, or new improvement, of another financial service;
(b) that exempting the financial service will result, or be likely to result, in a benefit to the public that will outweigh the detriment to the public that will result, or be likely to result, from exempting that service;
(c) that any other condition prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph is met.
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 22), omit "an exemption", substitute "a FinTech sandbox exemption".
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 26), omit "An exemption described in subsection (3)", substitute "A FinTech sandbox exemption".
(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 28), at the end of section 926B, add:
(6) In this section:
FinTech sandbox exemption means an exemption that:
(a) is made for the for purposes of paragraph (1) (a); and
(b) exempts a person or class of persons from subsection 911A(1) to enable testing of particular financial services.
(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (lines 10 to 14), omit subsection 110(2), substitute:
FinTech sandbox exemption
(2) A FinTech sandbox exemption may apply unconditionally or subject to specified conditions.
(2A) A FinTech sandbox exemption does not apply in relation to a person and a credit activity unless:
(a) the person has lodged a notification in relation to the activity with ASIC that complies with subsection (2B); and
(b) the 30-day period starting on the day the notification was so lodged has ended without ASIC giving the provider written notice of a decision under subsection (2C) relating to the notification.
(2B) For the purposes of paragraph (2A) (a), the person must lodge a notification with ASIC that includes the following:
(a) a description of each credit activity (including of any related kind of credit activity) for which the person is proposing to use the exemption;
(b) a justification of why exempting each of those credit activities will result, or be likely to result, in a benefit to the public that will outweigh the detriment to the public that will result, or be likely to result, from exempting that activity;
(c) any other information required by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2C) ASIC may, after considering the notification referred to in paragraph (2A) (a), decide it is not satisfied of one or more of the following:
(a) that the credit activity:
(i) is new; or
(ii) is a new adaptation, or new improvement, of another credit activity;
(b) that exempting the credit activity will result, or be likely to result, in a benefit to the public that will outweigh the detriment to the public that will result, or be likely to result, from exempting that activity;
(c) that any other condition prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph is met.
(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 15), omit "an exemption", substitute "a FinTech sandbox exemption".
(7) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 19), omit "An exemption described in subsection (2)", substitute "A FinTech sandbox exemption".
(8) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 21), at the end of section 110, add:
(5) In this section:
FinTech sandbox exemption means an exemption that:
(a) is made for the for purposes of paragraph 1(a); and
(b) exempts a person or class of persons from subsection 29(1) to enable testing of particular credit activities.
Labor's amendments apply to schedule 1 of the bill. Our amendments introduce a requirement for companies accessing the fintech sandbox exemption created under this bill to submit a notice outlining the details of their service or product and giving a justification as to why such an exemption is likely to benefit the public. Under Labor's amendments, ASIC will have the power to remove a company's access to a fintech sandbox exemption or, probably more correctly, not consider a company's access to the exemption provided by this bill if they decide that they're not satisfied that the new service or product is innovative or likely to provide a benefit to the public. This is necessary and a relevant test for the bill.
The substantive bill authorises ASIC to provide wide-ranging exemptions to financial services laws—laws that have been established by this place for the express purpose of protecting customers or consumers. Such exemptions should only be granted if such an exemption is likely to provide significant benefit to the public. The regulator is being asked to make a judgement either that there is minimal risk and/or that the countervailing public interest is so great that it warrants waiving the provisions that apply to every other licensee in the market. We do not want to see regulatory relief provided through the mechanisms of this bill for products that are not innovative and have no prospect of providing substantial benefits for the customers. We do not have to turn our mind too hard to think of sorts of innovations that could occur within the fintech space, in the financial services space, which might be very innovative but may not be in the public interest. They aren't the sorts of innovations that I think parliament has in mind when it's authorising the regulator to create exemptions to the general law.
The imposition of the test that we're proposing has been supported by consumer groups such as Choice, the Financial Rights Legal Centre and the Consumer Action Law Centre. Such a test is a characteristic of similar fintech sandboxes in other jurisdictions around the world, as the member for Chifley pointed out in his contribution to the second reading debate. They appear in similar legislation in the United Kingdom and in Singapore, as two examples.
The government themselves admit the necessity of such a test. The disagreement is over where it should lie. They have included a near-identical provision in their draft regulations, which have been circulated with the bill. So the question simply comes down to this: should the guidance to the regulator that is contemplated by our amendment be provided for within the substantive legislation, or should it be provided in the subsidiary legislation—that is, the regulations? It is our position that this guidance and these principles should exist within the substantive legislation. They should be in the minds of both houses of parliament, as we pass these provisions for an exemption through both houses, and they should provide guidance to the regulator that stands for good. It is not, if I can put it this way, a disagreement between the government and the opposition as to the substance. It is, if you like, a philosophical but very practical disagreement about whether the guidance to the regulator should exist within the substantive bill. We argue that it should.
Labor's amendment is not controversial. The amendment proposes setting a simple and basic bar, which any proposed fintech service provider worthy of an exemption should clear. Genuine innovation is in the public interest. Our amendment gives ASIC the reasonable flexibility that it needs, that we agree with the government it should have, while providing some limitations as well. We commend the amendment to the House.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Whitlam be agreed to.
The House divided. [18:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr MORTON (Tangney—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet) (18:44): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (18:46): I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"The House declines to give the bill a second reading and:
(1) notes the overwhelming medical, expert and overseas evidence that this bill will not work to address addiction, decrease unemployment or create jobs; and
(2) calls on the Government to reject the bill and instead pursue evidence-based policy and invest in quality health and social services".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Butler: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Ms BURNEY: I rise to oppose this bill. The government has tried this twice previously, and both times we opposed them, and both times they were defeated. This continues to be Labor's position. This government is reheating old ideas because this government has run out of ideas when it comes to getting people back to work and when it comes to getting people who are suffering the health condition of addiction the help and support they need. This is what is really going on here.
This proposal is indiscriminate, ineffective and demeaning and will not create a single job. There is no evidentiary basis for the selection of these trial sites whatsoever, and there has been a complete lack of any proper evaluation. Medical experts, experts in the field of addiction and experts in the field of social policy have said that this simply won't work. This should be treated as a health issue, and that is how we will get people out of addiction. Everyone will be caught by this. It doesn't matter if the person is meeting all the requirements. It doesn't matter if they don't have addiction issues. It doesn't matter if they have never used drugs in their life. This will affect single mums looking after their children. This will affect older Australians who have been retrenched. This will affect carers returning to the workforce. This will affect grandparents in their 50s and 60s who have never used drugs. They will be forced to urinate in a cup, have their hair plucked or their mouths swabbed just to keep food on the table. It is demeaning and completely inappropriate.
I remind the government that one in four people on Newstart is over the age of 55, and the number of over-55s trying to re-enter the workforce has surged by a staggering 45 per cent on their watch. We know that older Australians are experiencing particular difficulty in re-entering the workforce due to structural barriers and age discrimination. One of the most observed things about this legislation is that it appears that even people who have a job will be targeted by the drug testing. One in five Newstart recipients—or over 130,000 people—have a job, but they don't earn enough or they don't receive enough hours to get off Newstart. So people who get a job, people who are actually working but struggling to get more hours from work, will be subject to this humiliating and punitive measure.
Australians know that under this government unemployment remains high. Jobs are less secure than ever before and wages are stagnant. In September, the ABS labour force figures revealed that underemployment was at a record high at over a million people. Yet, rather than stimulating our stagnating economy and easing the situation for older Australians who have fallen on hard times, the government is more interested in subjecting them to a humiliating drug test. How is it that the government spends so much time obsessing over and devising ways to humiliate and prod Australians who are trying desperately to re-enter the workforce? There is no plan for jobs. There is no plan to boost an economy that is weak and getting weaker.
This government does not have a plan to address the serious and heartbreaking issue of addiction either. Those of us who have personally witnessed the struggle of addiction know too well that this sort of punitive measure simply will not work. Those of us who have tried to get loved ones to seek help know how difficult it can be to get the help, let alone to have a Centrelink officer direct them for a drug test randomly.
This has been tried overseas in countries like New Zealand and the United States and has been proven a failure. In New Zealand, of the 8,100 recipients tested, only 22 returned a positive result. This is less than one per cent. It is also incredibly expensive. According to the Royal Australian College of Physicians, a single urine test can cost up to $950 and a hair test can cost up to $1,000. This is bad for the community. It will push problems underground, risking increases in homelessness and crime. Between 200,000 and 500,000 Australians a year can't access the addiction services they desperately need, because the services are underfunded and unavailable. If the government were serious, they would be investing more in rehab, not demonising people on social security.
I want to take this opportunity to put on the record how disappointed I was with the comments made by the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston, earlier this month. She said:
Giving [people] more money would do absolutely nothing … probably all it would do is give drug dealers more money and give pubs more money.
These comments about Australians trying to get jobs are disappointing base politics. They fly in the face of evidence. It was particularly disappointing that the minister would make these comments at a single parents forum no less. To make matters worse, instead of apologising, the minister doubled down on the comments in a TV interview on Sky News.
If the government were serious about treating addiction, it would treat it as a health-care issue. If it were serious about this, it would listen to the experts. The experts have said, clearly, with one voice, 'This will not work.' The Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Alcohol and Drug Foundation, the Kirby Institute, Windana Drug and Alcohol Recovery, Monash University, cohealth, St Vincent's Health Australia, the NSW Users and AIDS Association, the Public Health Association of Australia, the Alcohol and Other Drug Peaks Network, the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League are the organisations or the institutes that have made comments and are concerned about this legislation.
Labor is, and always has been, led by the evidence and by the experts. The Ted Noffs Foundation expressed concern about the program's interaction with the treatment system. Here is what they have had to say:
The Explanatory Memorandum states that "Where treatment is not immediately available, recipients [who return a positive drug test] will be required to take appropriate action such as being on a waiting list [for treatment]". Current waiting lists for public treatment facilities can be up to six months long. Placing recipients onto these lists will only add to the burden on the sector. Rather than facilitate access, as the Minister claims, this trial will further complicate pathways to treatment.
The Australian Medical Association said:
Substance dependence or addiction is primarily a health problem, and that those affected must be treated in the same way as other patients with serious health conditions
… … …
Referring individuals who test positive to treatment will increase demand on these services, resulting in less capacity to assist those individuals who are actively seeking treatment (independent of the trial).
The Royal Australian College of Physicians said:
This proposed drug testing trial fails to recognise the nature of drug addiction. Addiction is a health issue with complex biological, psychological and social underpinnings; it is not a personal choice. Repeated drug or alcohol use leads to structural and functional brain changes that challenge an addicted person's self-control and interfere with their ability to resist intense urges to take drugs. In addition, recurring instances of relapse are inherent to the nature of addiction.
These is no evidence that this drug testing trial will work, on the contrary, there is evidence that it could do harm. For example, there is a real concern that people could shift their choice of drug to one that isn't being tested for, which in some cases might be more dangerous, for example synthetic cannabis or synthetic opioids such as Fentanyl. Another significant risk is that individuals suffering from substance use disorder may divert their drug use toward prescription drugs which may or may not have been prescribed to them directly and this is a significant concern given that, after tobacco and alcohol, prescription drugs cause the highest numbers of drug related deaths in Australia.
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said:
… the proposed drug testing program lacks an evidential basis …
… … …
… punitive or coercive addiction treatment methods, such the proposed program, are less successful in meeting treatment goals than rewards … the proposed program is ill-founded and lacks evidence and on that basis should not proceed in the event that it causes further harm to an already vulnerable population of Australians.
The Queensland Network of Alcohol and Other Drug Agencies are concerned this could push people into crime. They said:
An expert review of a Canadian Government drug testing trial proposal in Ontario published in the International Journal of Drug Policy found that such a program could increase crime, health problems and be legally challenged as a violation of human rights.
The Network of Alcohol and Other Drug Agencies said:
… the New Zealand government's drug testing trial among welfare recipients as a pre-employment condition returned a detection rate in that population much lower than the proportion of the population estimated to be using illicit drugs in New Zealand as a whole.
Dr Kate Seear, Professor Suzanne Fraser, Professor David Moore and Associate Professor Kylie Valentine said:
… a recent analysis of submissions to the Committees exploring the 2017 and 2018 bills, Professor Alison Ritter (Director of the Drug Policy Modelling Program at the University of New South Wales) observed that 98% of submissions by organisations and individuals opposed the bills. The remaining submissions were from the Department itself.
Why on earth is the government persisting with this when almost all the submissions to the committee exploring this very issue, except for the one from the department, said it was a bad idea?
Of course, it is not just the health and medical experts who have strongly expressed their opposition; it's been welfare and employment organisations too. The Australian Council of Social Services says that there is no evidence 'to show drug testing of income support recipients helps to address addiction or employment outcomes'. Jobs Australia said:
This policy, which is deaf to international experience where similar policies have consumed significant resources and failed, is subject to a consensus of criticism from a range of experts across the alcohol and other drug (AOD) and employment services sectors, It should be disbanded.
Even the Human Rights Commission has urged the Senate not to pass the bill.
It is apt that we are having this discussion about income support. The reality is this government isn't genuinely or sincerely interested in assisting vulnerable Australians to get back on their feet, as this bill absolutely demonstrates.
This week is Anti-Poverty Week, and these are the facts: three million, or 13.2 per cent of Australians, live below the poverty line, when defined as 50 per cent of median income; 739,000 children, or more than one in six Australian children, live below the poverty line; those on Newstart and Youth Allowance, the people that will be subject to this drug testing, experience poverty at the highest rates; and as many as one in five Australians have experienced food insecurity in the last year. Poverty directly affects over one in 10 Australians but, indirectly, it affects us all. If a child goes hungry or has no roof over their head, they cannot do their homework or complete their education to reach their potential. When a person cannot afford clothes for a job interview or transport costs to get there, they cannot re-enter the workforce and contribute to the economy. When a person skips meals or medication, they cannot participate economically or socially in our society. When people cannot afford the basics and essentials, our local businesses have less to spend on wages and jobs.
All Australians, whether they live below or above the poverty line, will in some form or another feel the struggle of poverty. They feel it in their stagnant wages. They feel it in their lack of job security. This vicious cycle will continue unless we as a country choose to do something about it. We can break the cycle of poverty and boost the economy. It is time for the Prime Minister to lead, beginning with an increase to Newstart, not subject people to these ill-founded ideas of drug testing so people can be job ready. It is a complete nonsense.
We have heard so many voices in the community outline the need for an increase to Newstart. This month KPMG released its submission to the Senate inquiry into Newstart which said that the inadequacy of Newstart was preventing people from attending job interviews and that it is insufficient for the unemployed to actively conduct a job search. This follows a similar report from Deloitte Access Economics in 2018 which found, as did the KPMG report, that an increase in Newstart would boost the economy and employment, in particular in the regions. This follows the suite of calls from the business sector for an increase to Newstart, including from the Business Council of Australia, Ai Group and the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia—the very businesses the member for Bowman said were talking complete rubbish and were just after a cheap headline.
The Prime Minister and the member for Bowman may have their heads buried in the sand on this issue, but everyone knows the rate of Newstart is too low, including former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard; former Nationals Deputy Prime Minister and member for New England Barnaby Joyce; deputy Nationals leader in the Senate Matthew Canavan; Senator Dean Smith; the member for Monash, Russell Broadbent; the member for Fisher, Andrew Wallace; Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos; former member for Lindsay Fiona Scott; the Australian Council of Social Service; the Council of the Ageing; National Seniors Australia; St Vincent de Paul; Catholic Social Services Australia; the Brotherhood of St Laurence; the University of New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre; Jobs Australia; community interest groups; and Universities Australia.
The economy is weak and getting weaker, and this type of legislation, this type of demonisation, is not going to help the economy and is certainly not going to help people get back into jobs. We are advocating very strongly that the government have a very close look at this. Look at the evidence. Look at what the experts are saying. Look at what the inquiry said. Listen to what is being put forward in a genuine voice and understand that demonising people on social security is not going to assist anyone. It's certainly not going to assist the economy and it's certainly not going to get people back into employment.
This type of approach to social services, choosing people that happen to be on a social service benefit or a social service payment for randomised drug testing, is an idea that has been proven by this parliament to be a bad idea on two occasions. My prediction: it will happen on three occasions. The government cannot possibly think that it is a good idea to put forward such legislation without investing properly in services that help people with addiction to address that addiction. This is not a social services issue. This is a health issue. People don't choose to be in these situations. I cannot for the life of me understand why on earth the government is persisting with this legislation. The only thing I can surmise is that somehow or other, as I said in the first part of my speech, there is nothing else for this government to do but to reheat old ideas.
This is not only an old idea; this is a bad idea. This is an idea that will further demonise people. This is an idea that will further push the problem underground. This is a dangerous idea. Why does the minister for social services think it's the business of social services to conduct such random trials, when they've been proven across the world to be unsuccessful, when they are expensive and when money has been taken out of treatment by this government? It's reprehensible; it truly is. It's irresponsible. I think people need to look into their hearts, look into their heads and look into the evidence, which is what Labor is doing. We are following the evidence. We are listening to people that know more about this than anyone else in this country and certainly anyone else in this chamber or the other chamber.
We are not experts, but the people that I have quoted today are experts. They know what they're talking about. Politicians and bureaucrats in the Department of Social Services are not experts in treating drug addiction. I understand there's a job to be done and an instruction; I do understand that. But the Prime Minister, the minister and members of the government also need to listen to the experts. They need to understand that this is dangerous. This will not help people. This will harm. And the responsibility of this place is not to cause harm and further distress. The Prime Minister is very good at saying, 'If you have a go, you'll get a go.' What on earth does that mean, honestly? People with drug addiction issues are unwell. This is a health issue. It is not some sort of social experiment, and it shouldn't be about further demonising people that have to rely on the social security system at some points in their life.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (19:09): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019—and I have spoken on the previous versions of this bill as well. I choose to speak on this bill because I am one of those whose constituents will be directly affected if this bill passes this parliament. I think it is important for me to make a contribution to this debate. We heard the contribution from the member for Barton, including some very emotive language that, in reality, isn't supported by the facts relating to what the bill is proposed to do. I think it's important that Australians understand the truth of what we are proposing and that we debunk some of the mistruths that are being perpetuated by those opposite and others.
The proposed trial seeks to identify those jobseekers with substance abuse issues—to be tested and assisted. There is evidence for this. Interestingly, the member for Barton didn't really touch on some of the reasons that this trial has merit. In 2017 there were some 4,800 occasions where a jobseeker gave drug or alcohol dependency as a reason for not meeting their mutual obligation requirements. In addition, around 5,250 people who were temporarily exempt from all mutual obligations had a drug or alcohol condition. This was an 86 per cent increase from 2011. I accept the argument that it is primarily a health issue, and the reality is that the structure of this bill and what we are trying to do will focus on exactly that issue. Under this trial, people who test positive will not lose a single cent of welfare payments, whether it's Newstart or youth allowance. They will not lose a single cent. Sadly, I think that is forgotten or glossed over by those opposite and others in this debate.
Many of the comments that we heard from the member for Barton in her contribution I well remember from the debates that we had in this place about the cashless welfare card. We know from experience with the cashless welfare card that, in the communities where it was initially rolled out as a trial—and now in additional communities—it has been a success. You hear that when you speak to the people in those communities. I know from the discussions I have had with my colleague the member for Grey that the cashless welfare card has been a success in his community in Ceduna or, closer to home—where we would both know, Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh—in Hinkler.
I do believe that we have a responsibility to trial new ideas and new ways of doing things to assist people who have a drug and alcohol dependency problem. That is what this legislation is fundamentally about. It will cover three locations: Canterbury Bankstown in New South Wales; Mandurah in Western Australia; and Logan, in my electorate. These locations have been chosen based on evidence and consultation carried out by the Department of Social Services with the relevant state government departments, state alcohol and other drug treatment agency networks, state councils of social services, primary health networks and local councils as well as other local stakeholders, including treatment providers, social services organisations and employment services providers. I know that the department did a number of consultations in Logan in relation to previous versions of this legislation.
Sadly, the fact is that Logan has a higher than average flow of entrants onto the two welfare payments included in this trial. This is one of the reasons that Logan was deemed an ideal location to properly examine the merits of this strategy. On top of this, the data from the Department of Human Services also indicates that the proportion of jobseekers with a drug and alcohol vulnerability indicator in Logan is, sadly, above the national average. So we know the need is there and the issue is prevalent in our community. I know from my own experience of dealing with families across my electorate that they are crying out for help and that children and their families are suffering from the scourge of drugs in our community.
Fortunately, there are a great number of drug and alcohol services who do a terrific job each and every day to support those facing drug and alcohol related dependency issues. The real challenge here, however, more often than not, is those who need help but don't access these services. As I said in my opening remarks, this trial will allow us to identify jobseekers with a drug or alcohol addiction—clearly a barrier to employment—and ensure that they are connected with the treatment services appropriate to their individual needs and circumstances. The other important part of this legislation that the member for Barton didn't touch on was the $10 million to provide additional services, and I'll get to that shortly.
Many people in my community are concerned that this trial will take welfare payments away from those who test positive, but this is simply untrue. It is merely a perpetuation of mistruths by people who, for whatever reason, want to tell a different story from what is actually happening. The fact is that welfare recipients who test positive for an illicit drug will be placed on income management for a period of 24 months or the duration of the trial, and 80 per cent of their welfare payment will be quarantined to prevent money being spent on drugs, alcohol and gambling products—and rightly so, I think. It is also our obligation to taxpayers to ensure that their hard-earned tax dollars are being used to provide a safety net for those who find themselves out of work or unable to participate in the workforce.
It's important to reflect on why employment is so important. It's well documented that sustained unemployment imposes significant economic, personal and social costs that include, for example, but are not limited to social exclusion, the loss of freedoms and the loss of skills. In a lot of cases, due to maybe mental health issues because they haven't been able to get work, they also suffer ill health. For some people, there is a loss of motivation to get back into the workforce. There can be an undermining of interpersonal relationships and family life, and the loss of social values and responsibility. That is an extensive list of very good reasons why we need to support people who are unemployed and get them back into the workforce, and that is ultimately the purpose of this trial. If you don't do drugs, then you have nothing to worry about.
It is also interesting to note that, in our economy, testing for drugs in people who are working is also prevalent, but we hear no complaints about that. I know that Logan City Council, for example, one of my local councils, do random drug tests of their employees. So the notion of drug testing and the system of drug testing is well accepted throughout our community and well understood.
As I touched on earlier, as part of this legislation the government will establish a $10 million treatment fund to provide additional treatment support in these trial locations, should the existing state or Commonwealth supports and services not meet the additional related demand as a result of the trial. We are already doing a number of things in that space in my electorate of Forde. We've made an investment of nearly $1 million in additional family rehabilitation units at Logan House at Chambers Flat, through Lives Lived Well. We've provided another $600,000 over three years to Pharmaceutical Rehabilitation Services in Beenleigh, who assist people with a drug addiction to recover from that drug addiction. So this $10 million means additional, real money for real services to treat these real problems. It's in addition to what we're already doing.
I want to again touch on the issue of drug testing and its relevance across the community. The fact of the matter is that jobseekers should be held to the same standards as those who have a job. Employees in many industries are regularly subjected to drug testing—industries such as mining, construction, advanced manufacturing, food processing and transport. Even elite sports men and women are drug tested. In any number of areas people are drug tested as part of their day-to-day occupational requirements. The member for Barton used emotive language in her contribution. Do the emotive terms that she used apply equally to how businesses are treating their employees? I think not. I didn't hear the member for Barton reference that in her contribution.
We are not treating people receiving Newstart or youth allowance under this proposed trial any differently to the way any number of other people already get treated in our society in terms of drug testing. Through this process we are seeking to provide these people with support and encouragement to get through a very difficult stage of their lives—and we recognise that—and get back into the workforce. We are doing this for the very reasons that I outlined earlier as to why it's important that people have good, stable work.
I commend the bill in its original form to the House. I ask that the House does support this legislation to bring these trials to fruition, because I do believe that these trials have the potential to help many people in my community and people across Australia in the communities where these trials are occurring. It will support them to recover from their drug and alcohol addiction. I quite readily agree with the member for Barton. I believe it is a health issue, and we should treat it as such. We are doing that. I have already outlined examples of what we are doing in my electorate of Forde. We are already treating it as a health issue. This is about providing additional support and identifying those people who need additional help and who may not be engaging presently with the services that are available. We are investing the additional funds necessary to provide those additional services. I commend this bill in its original form to the House.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (19:23): Before the member for Forde leaves the House I draw to his attention a few facts. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales has found that between 200,000 and 500,000 Australians a year cannot access addiction services, because they are underfunded and unavailable. I'd like the member for Forde to think carefully what this testing could actually mean in his community. This testing could mean that somebody on Newstart who has had two positive drug tests is referred to a counselling service when they don't want to be referred to a counselling service and they take the place of someone who is ready and willing to engage in that counselling. We absolutely know that places in those counselling services are not available in the numbers that we need them to be available to treat this as a health issue.
That's only a small part of why I don't support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019. I don't support this bill on that first premise. Anyone who has ever dealt with counselling services of any kind should understand that psychologists are not a magic pill taken to cure all ills, that it requires the person to seek support and that a prerequisite for any improvement to occur is willingness on the part of the person who needs the support. So setting up a system where we're going to mandate those referrals is destined, for many, to absolutely fail. Worse than that, they'll have taken the place of someone who was ready and willing and for whom that support might have ended in successful outcomes. So that's my first premise.
My second premise as to why I don't support this bill is that this bill has been brought into this House absolutely evidence-free. The member for Forde suggested that the member for Barton—possibly because she's female—was just being emotional in her objections to this bill. Well, perhaps he needed to read the dissenting report by Labor senators, because, if he had, he would know that the experts asked for this bill not to be supported. They do not want to see this trial occur.
The list of those experts starts with the Network of Alcohol and other Drugs Agencies. They believe that the bill is not supported by current evidence. They say:
… the New Zealand government's drug testing trial among welfare recipients as a pre-employment condition returned a detection rate in that population much lower than the proportion of the population estimated to be using illicit drugs in New Zealand as a whole.
That begs the question: why would you therefore target this group in the community for mandatory drug testing? It's built on a non-evidence-based notion that people on Newstart are more likely to be using drugs. The member for Forde also repeatedly referenced drugs and alcohol. There is nothing in this bill that suggests testing for alcohol. So the notion that it's about drugs and alcohol is a furphy—an absolute furphy.
Dr Kate Seear, Professor Suzanne Fraser, Professor David Moore and Associate Professor kylie valentine said:
As senior researchers with longstanding expertise in social policy issues relating to alcohol and other drug use, our assessment is that the bill is poorly conceived and counterproductive …
Another expert body, the Western Australian Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies, said:
Expert consensus, as demonstrated through a multitude of submissions to the previous two inquiries on the topic, indicate significant concern that the trial will:
not address the underlying causes of unemployment and disadvantage;
fail to provide an appropriate referral pathway to specialist treatment and support; and
result in a range of unintended consequences, further risking the health and wellbeing of vulnerable people.
The list goes on and on.
This is not an evidence based decision. This is an ideological decision. It's an ideological piece of legislation. It is an ideological trial. It has not come from evidence that this trial will give us the outcomes that the member for Forde believes it will. It's that simple. The people of Logan are the ones who are going to be involved in a process that has no evidence base—in fact, if there is evidence, it says that this shouldn't happen. So it's counter to evidence and absolutely counterintuitive.
I do want to go to the crux of the matter for me, and that is: there's the evidence; there are the experts; you've heard and will hear speakers recount those experts' opinions in this debate. But I cannot get past the fact that this is the third time that it has been to this House. Twice it's been rejected, because experts have told us that it's not a good idea, and yet here it is again. It's from the same government who, in their 2014 budget, thought that a six-month waiting period for all new claimants under the age of 30 for Newstart or youth allowance was appropriate. It's the same government who thought that poor people could wait six months before they accessed support. It is the same government that can't put together a crisis in homelessness and a problem in the space around Newstart and youth allowance. They can't figure that out. This six-month wait included a requirement to demonstrate appropriate job search and participation in employment services for up to six months. So they were going to have a mutual obligation for six months as a prerequisite to accessing support.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr McVeigh ) (19:30): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Morrison Government
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (19:30): I want to take this opportunity this evening in the adjournment debate to talk about child care in the context of the unrelenting financial pressures facing Australian families. Child care is one of the biggest imposts on family budgets. I know it is one that causes many families in my community great stress, and it is little wonder. When we had the release of the latest quarterly data on childcare costs last month, it confirmed what thousands of families in my home city of Newcastle already knew—that is, that childcare costs are blowing out. In the last year alone we have seen out-of-pocket costs for child care increase by 4.9 per cent. Over roughly the same period the consumer price index rose just 1.6 per cent. The impact of this is very clear. Families are going backwards, and they're going backwards at a rapid rate.
We are now more than one year into the government's new childcare system and it has demonstrably failed to put downward pressure on fees, and communities across the country are paying the price. Not only are families paying more this year but today they are paying a staggering 30 per cent more than they did in fees since the Liberals came to power. The cost of long day care, which is the type of child care most people are using, has increased yet again to $14,328 per year. When the Liberals were elected, the average annual cost of child care was $11,016 per year. That means families across Australia are having to find a further $3,300 each year to ensure their children are receiving early childhood education. That's a tough ask in anyone's books, especially given that families are already being hit with mounting costs of living.
The complete absence of an energy policy by this government has seen electricity bills go through the roof. At the same time, Australians are facing sky-high gas prices. Health care isn't any better. Under this government, out-of-pocket health costs and wait times for health care are at record highs. Then there's housing. Rents are crippling family budgets across the country. Without at least one six-figure income and one six-figure deposit to match, you can forget about getting into the housing market in most cities. Now the Morrison government's complete failure to do anything about negative gearing has seen the speculative real estate market ramp up in earnest once again.
Of course, while all these fundamental, unavoidable costs of living are increasingly exorbitantly, wages are barely moving. The most recent data showed our wages growth continued to flatline for an annual pace of 2.3 per cent, so families are paying more for everything and getting so much less to start. But the worst part is that the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, himself said on live television that that's exactly what this government designed. Ultra-low wages aren't accidental; they are the main game—or, as Minister Cormann has so honestly put it, they are 'a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture'. There you have it. The government's own goal of driving down wages and working conditions is exactly what the Liberals intended.
Is it any wonder that Australians are closing their wallets and holding tightly to what little left they have? Is it any wonder that Australia recently registered the slowest economic growth in more than a decade? Is it any wonder that people are starting to ask whether this government has any plans for the country beyond low wages and high prices?
All of this has led to the extraordinary situation of the RBA having to step in and cut interest rates twice from their already record lows to 0.75 per cent in an attempt to resuscitate the economy and boost the anaemic growth this government has created. This government has betrayed Australian families and betrayed Australian children. But the path forward is clear: it's time the Morrison government acted in the interests of Australian families. It needs to stop these endless cost-of-living increases, especially for basic living costs. It needs to put a lid on increases, including to childcare fees, and it needs to turn its back on the policies that are actively driving wages into the ground. (Time expired)
Fairfax Electorate: Nambour
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (19:35): The Sunshine Coast is one of those unique places in Australia where the values of the past and the opportunities of the future coexist. And, within the Sunshine Coast, where better reflects that uniqueness than the town of Nambour? Nambour has a heart and it has a soul. It's due to its people, who truly possess a sense of pride which is second to none. Nambour has had its challenges. Certainly the 2003 closure of the Moreton sugar mill looms large as one of those challenges, but, in more recent years, there's been the downsizing of the council operations and the downsizing of the hospital, and we've seen large retail outlets move from Nambour to the coastal strip and some businesses close down. It's had its challenges.
Amidst all of this, a few years ago I spent considerable time doing what we parliamentarians should be doing—knocking on doors and walking the beat around the town, hosting stalls and trying to understand what could be done. There were two key insights for me that came out of that. The first was that the people of Nambour, as much as they are part of a broader growing Sunshine Coast region, want to maintain their own distinct identity. They're proudly from Nambour and they want to have that maintained.
The second insight was that the people of Nambour recognised a need to transition their economy. They recognised the need to move in a different direction. This was not going to be done organically. Indeed, it needed, first and foremost, a plan of attack. The people of Nambour were the first to say that what they really needed was a map for Nambour's future—how would they build that new future, maintaining its identity but transitioning the economy? This led to the establishment of a project called Reimagine Nambour.
Reimagine Nambour is a project that I instigated probably 18 months ago now, at least in its initial stages, together with local councillor Greg Rogerson and also the state member, Marty Hunt. The three tiers of government had to be in lock step together. But, more importantly, it needed the community leaders from business, from civil society, from different walks of life. We established a steering committee of 12 people that oversaw a process that involved a high degree of analysis. We engaged external consultants through a project funded by the federal government and also the Sunshine Coast regional council to do an enormous amount of quantitative and qualitative analysis, hold pop-ups across the town and host forums and strategy days. Ultimately, this culminated in a Reimagine Nambour strategy which was released only last month. That strategy really has the idea of a 10- to 15-year plan across the themes of renewal, growth and transformation. For Nambour, it is about renewal, growth and transformation. Under each of those buckets of themes exists a lot of work to be done and different work streams. Now that the work has been identified and been scheduled across an implementation plan, we have identified the task forces that will take those actions forward to deliver on renewal, growth and transformation.
Right now we have people signing up across Nambour as a sign of unity to get behind the Reimagine Nambour plan. My call-out to the people of Nambour is to join the cause, and go to reimaginenambour.com.au and sign up.
Women in Parliament
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (19:40): As of February 2019, around the world, only 24.3 per cent and 20.7 per cent of all national parliamentarians and government ministers respectively were women. Australia's not doing much better. As of now, women make up 35 per cent of our parliament, with only 28.3 per cent of our House of Representatives and 38.7 per cent of the Senate being female. This is in no way a reflection of the percentage of women we have in our streets, in our suburbs and in society. That's not even considering the representation, or lack thereof, of the diversity that we have in ethnicity, socio-economic background and age.
Yesterday I was fortunate enough to be involved with Jasiri Australia's Girls Takeover Parliament program, which saw 60 young women pairing up with parliamentarians to take over their offices for the day. In my office I had Ashley Liang, a university student from Melbourne who is passionate about climate action, increasing representation and bringing policy back to politics. Ashley put this speech together, and I'm very proud to deliver it to parliament.
One of the first things I asked Ashley was why she wanted to participate in this program. Her response was something that I've heard many times before. Politics has always been something that had interested her but had never been something that was accessible. She'd never seen someone who represented her and her voice and beliefs, and she'd never seen how she could get past the many barriers, both societal and cultural, which had long prevented women—and especially women of colour—from entering into leadership positions. Increasingly young women are being excluded from our democracy—told to believe in our systems and institutions and freedoms, yet denied the opportunities to engage and work with representatives to ensure that their voices are heard. The work that Girls Takeover Parliament does is important, primarily because of what Ashley said to me. It gives young women access to leaders and role models, and empowers them to feel like they can do it despite all the barriers.
I was presented with the Girls Takeover Parliament's Young Women's Charter for Australian Democracy by Ashley, on behalf of all the young women involved with the program. In it, the feelings of the young women involved in this program were made clear. While they believed in our Australian democracy and all the rights and freedoms that come with it, for most of them their lived experience of democracy was not one which aligned with the promises made to them by us as representatives. The charter calls on the government to pledge to facilitate opportunities for young women and minorities to be engaged in our democracy and to make sure that parliament is representative on the basis of age, ethnicity and gender. Essentially it is asking us to help remove those barriers that are preventing young women like Ashley from feeling like they can be involved with leading and representing the country.
The reason that I said yes to having a young woman take over my office for the day was in the hope that I could be part of that bridge between young women and parliament. The fact is that these young women are going to be part of our next generation of leaders, and it's our duty to ensure that they feel empowered enough to take on those roles. We need to start listening and engaging with the issues that matter to young women so that they know that they matter.
As of now, only one per cent of young women aged 15 to 19 want a career in politics. One per cent of young women want a career in politics. When they reach the ages of 21 to 25, the stats show that that number falls to zero. Young women, though, are not disengaged—the girls here yesterday proved it—but they're not being made to feel heard, nor are they being given the opportunities and support to fight for the issues that they care about. We as leaders and representatives have the opportunity now to make it clear to the next generation that they are being listened to and welcomed in our democracy. We have the opportunity to break down those barriers and to help increase diversity within these walls. And we have to take this opportunity; otherwise, we risk missing out on an incredible group of young people from all different backgrounds and experiences with great ideas, great hopes and great dreams for Australia.
Energy
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (19:45): This government is committed to bringing down power prices and keeping the lights on while meeting Australia's emissions reduction targets. In August I was pleased to welcome energy minister Angus Taylor to the electorate of Grey, where we met with representatives from the energy sector and announced up to $40 million in funding towards the development of pumped hydro in South Australia. This aligns with the government's Underwriting New Generation Investments program, which has short-listed 12 projects around Australia. Four of them are in South Australia, all of which are in my electorate of Grey. These will deliver new, reliable, renewable and dispatchable electricity into the market, putting downward pressure on prices and ensuring the security of the grid.
The minister and I visited two of the proposed pumped hydro sites. One is the Altura Group's 250-megawatt generation proposal at Goat Hill, capable of operating for seven hours, producing about 840 megawatt hours. That's 20 kilometres west of Port Augusta, and it's an ideal site for both generation and storage, being within 20 kilometres of the high-voltage electricity transmission system formerly connected to the Northern Power Station. It is also adjacent to Nexif Energy's 1,212-megawatt capacity Lincoln Gap Wind Farm. The wind farm is a prime site, and it's worth noting that the turbines will run at better than 42 per cent efficiency.
Later we visited the Baroota Reservoir, about 30 kilometres from Port Pirie in the Southern Flinders Ranges. There Rise Renewables are planning to develop an upper dam to feed back to the existing dam. They too are confident of delivering their project, which will generate better than 200 megawatts for eight hours—in other words, 1,600 megawatt hours.
These are the kinds of serious storage projects that confirm supply in South Australia at an affordable price and turn intermittent renewable energy into dispatchable energy. While we did not visit the Simec Zen Energy site at Whyalla, in one of Sanjeev Gupta's disused mine sites, that too is on our list of possibilities. The fourth project in Grey is a gas peaking plant at Long Plains.
South Australia has been through a tough time with our electricity supply, with the premature closure of the Northern Power Station. That was especially damaging because, while the previous Weatherill government were complicit in the power station's closure, they had made no plan to transition to a reliable renewable energy future. For us in South Australia, it is essential that households and businesses have confidence there will be enough energy to meet their electricity needs.
This is why on 1 July the government implemented the retailer reliability obligation, which requires retailers to guarantee their energy supply three years in advance. The government has also committed to investing in energy infrastructure like the second Bass Strait interconnector and Snowy Hydro 2.0. The government has delivered a price safety net by capping the electricity standing offer prices. South Australian households who were on the highest standing offers before 1 July can save up to $526 a year from this reform, while some small businesses will save as much as $1,700.
On 1 July we also introduced the reference price, requiring retailers to benchmark their electricity offers and discounts against a common price, making it easier than ever before for customers to compare offers and find the best deal. It comes on top of the government's work to stop dodgy discounting and charges from the big energy companies. We're committed to holding these companies to account, and the minister recently launched a $50 million program to help communities across regional Australia access cheaper and more reliable power through microgrids. The first round of the Regional and Remote Communities Reliability Fund is now open to applicants across Australia. Up to $20 million of grants will be awarded for feasibility studies in the first round.
The next step to stabilising the National Electricity Market is to bring in our 'big stick' legislation. The bill will hold energy companies to account in three ways: retail pricing prohibition, requiring retailers to pass on sustained and substantial reductions in cost to households and small businesses; contract liquidity prohibition, penalising generators that hold electricity contracts for the purposes of substantially lessening market competition; and wholesale conduct prohibition, banning generators from manipulating the spot market and withholding supply to inflate prices. There are a series of mechanisms and enforcements along the way, eventually culminating in divestiture—which is the ultimate big stick coming from government—not for buying by government but to sell to other operators.
Climate Change
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (19:50): Today I saw pictures of a sign installed at the site of a former glacier in Iceland. It reads:
Ok is the first Icelandic glacier to lose its status as a glacier. In the next 200 years all our glaciers are expected to follow the same path. This monument is to acknowledge that we know what is happening and we know what needs to be done. Only you will know if we did it.
This is what is at stake. This issue is what will define our generation and our governments. Did we act to combat climate change when we knew the consequences of inaction? We are already seeing the impact of climate change across Australia. In my home state of Queensland, Binna Burra Lodge, in the Gold Coast hinterland, stood for 90 years. This year it burned down, and now 70 people have lost their jobs. It is in rainforest that burned down just a week after the end of winter. This is not just a usual environmental cycle. Prolonged droughts, floods and fires right across Australia, from Tasmania to Queensland, have yielded one-in-100-year malevolences that are now happening every year. That is why today Labor moved to declare a climate emergency to recognise that we need urgent action on climate change and that it cannot wait while this government is locked in internal conflict and paralysis on energy policy.
Labor remains committed to implementing the principles of the Paris Agreement. We are committed to a mid-century target of zero emissions and strong medium-term targets consistent with our international obligations. But action on climate change is not just limited to the big policy issues, like our energy supply. Urgent action is also needed at a local level. I have been told by my constituents at mobile offices in Wavell Heights that local services, particularly NGOs, are exhausted and they are struggling. They need more funding to account for the fact that these natural disasters are more frequent and are now a year-round occurrence.
Climate change is not just a moral imperative but also an economic imperative. We cannot stand by and allow our economy and our workers to be unprepared for the global shift in energy supply. We need a just transition and investment in the renewable energy sector. Fighting for good jobs in that sector is paramount, and that's what Labor is going to do. In Queensland, the Labor state government is leading the way on the creation of renewable jobs. There is the new $350 million wind farm south-west of Gladstone, which will create up to 150 construction jobs and 15 ongoing jobs and add to the big surge in wind power now coming online in our state. There is the Mount Emerald wind farm south of Cairns, which will power 75,000 homes and create 150 construction jobs. The Coopers Gap wind farm, under construction, will power 264,000 homes. In total, the current renewables projects in Queensland will provide 4,500 construction jobs and hundreds of ongoing jobs.
Locally, in my electorate of Lilley, there are renewable companies like GEM Energy, a solar power and battery company that started out in Emerald in Queensland and now has offices on the north side of Brisbane, in Lilley, and also in Darwin. They've grown from a team of five to have over 60 direct employees whose jobs range from engineering and electrical to sales and administration. The stories from GEM Energy show us that renewable energy has a bright future for Australian workers. Aaron, who was working in an insurance call centre, living near the poverty line, started his career in solar energy and moved up through the industry over the last 10 years to become the sales manager for GEM. Solar has allowed him and his family a life and a home in Boondall, easily one of the top five suburbs in Lilley. Young men have gone from casual warehouse work to completing electrical apprenticeships in solar. Older workers struggling to find work can retrain and find good full-time and permanent jobs in the solar industry. We need to support these jobs of the future for our young people in need of permanent and meaningful work and the older workers needing a new industry to utilise their skills and experience.
As I said in my first speech to parliament, I am here to be a good ancestor. I am here to champion the long term over the short term. I am here to ensure that the fact that Australia became the first country to lose a mammal to climate change doesn't go unnoticed and that we take action on the climate emergency that we all face.
Queensland Government
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (19:54): I thank the member for Lilley for opening the door on the Queensland Labor government. One thing I will point out to the member for Lilley is that you can't complete an electrical apprenticeship as a solar installer. There is simply not enough technical work in that one single operation. As an electrician by trade, I can tell you that that is just a statement of fact.
In terms of the Queensland Labor government, I can tell you what they are doing: they are removing 85,000 megalitres of storage from the Paradise Dam near Bundaberg. This is the newest dam in Queensland. It was opened with much fanfare in 2006 by then Premier Beattie. They went out and one of our local growers, John Russo, said he was 'ropable at the announcement' that was made and:
They did it in the dead of night. I saw an email at five o'clock this morning saying they're dropping the level by five metres, this is just absolute rubbish.
The Queensland Labor government is stealing the wealth of the people of my community—the long-term reliability for infrastructure pieces which are already built. The spin started from there. The original spin from Minister Lynham started as something like: 'We are doing great things for drought-stricken farmers by providing 110,000 megalitres of water for free.' It will just happen to be over a 10-week period when they lower this dam to 42 per cent which, in my understanding, is the equivalent of one year's worth of supply of the already allocated amount. That didn't run for long before they got kicked about and they changed their mind. It is now an 'unspecified safety issue'.
Governments—regardless of whether they are a local government, state government or federal government—have a responsibility to the community first and foremost. Forget the politics and political spin. If there is a safety issue with this dam, state what it is. Tell the people what the problem is, tell them what you plan to do about it, tell them how you will fix it and tell them how you will restore the capacity of Paradise Dam. We are not seeing that from the Queensland Labor government.
What we are seeing is more spin. They are now running communication sessions. Once again, I'll provide a quote from someone who rang me this morning who attended one of these. What he said was that the poor people from SunWater stood at front of the room and got run over by a dozen buses. They didn't answer the single most important question, which was: what is the issue with the dam? If it needs to be repaired, tell the people that is what is going to happen. This is affecting property values in our region. This is affecting reliability of water supply. This is affecting investment decisions being made right now.
What I'm saying to the Queensland government is that this is the time for transparency. This is not the time to hide things in the shadowy back rooms of whatever happens in Brisbane. Now is the time to be up-front. Tell the community what the problem is and how you plan to fix it, because, right now, they don't know. Right now, they think it is just all rumours. Right now, they simply do not know what to do.
I live on the river. My house is on the Burnett River. It will be potentially affected if there is a challenge with this dam. We need to know, I need to know and the people I represent need to know what will happen. So I say once again to Premier Palaszczuk: it is time to come clean. It is time to walk up to a camera and tell the people of my community what you are doing and why.
This is the question: why is it important? Quite simply, because our region is now the biggest producer of macadamia nuts in the country. We grow an awful lot of the nation's avocados. We are the biggest producer of sweet potatoes. This is where the wealth in my community comes from. This is what drives jobs. The people who are making investment decisions are making those decisions based on the reliability of the level of their water supply. They know that in its current state it is over 90 per cent reliable in providing water year on year for crops which grow for a very long term, particularly when you're talking about tree crops. This is a long-term and significant investment. In fact, when we're talking about macadamias, most investors don't even break even until about year seven to eight. This is a lot of money to put on the line, and they are very concerned about what is going on.
I say again to Premier Palaszczuk: 85,000 megalitres of water is wealth. This government has a plan to deliver $100 billion worth of agriculture in this country by 2030. You cannot do that without water. So I say again to Minister Lynham: get out of your office, go and make a statement and tell my community what the problem is with this dam. Don't say it's an 'unspecified safety issue'. Tell us what it is, what you plan to do about it and how it's going to be fixed. Right now, the proposal looks like we will end up with less water in Queensland, the taxpayer will pay $500 million for new wares and new dam infrastructure and they will miss out, particularly in my community.
The SPEAKER: It being 8.00 pm, the House stands adjourned until 9.30 am tomorrow.
House adjourned at 20 : 00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews) took the chair at 16:00.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews) took the chair at 16:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Greenway Electorate: Schools
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (15:59): My electorate of Greenway is home to many schools giving local students the very best start in life. All of us in this place understand the transformative power of education. It's something I mentioned in my first speech. We witness it every time we're invited to join a school community. I want to take this opportunity to mention a few schools in my electorate, including Girraween Public School and Parklea Public School. Both of these fine Greenway schools recently celebrated the centenary of their formation. They have become most respected institutions in our local community.
Visiting Girraween Public School was like stepping back in time. The historical displays were a delightful reminder of where we have come from as a community and what we've achieved together. I was particularly impressed by the school's Great Depression garden, a demonstration of what Greenway locals would have kept in their own gardens during this period. I want to make special mention of the participation of the Wentworthville Tamil Study Centre in these celebrations. It's had a long association with Girraween Public School, which is in the area of a high Tamil-speaking cohort, and there's been a great partnership between the school and the Tamil study centre for many years. Congratulations to principal Mr Glenn Walker and the entire Girraween executive and all the students, parents and caregivers on their efforts. The centenary was a tremendous success.
Parklea Public School's Rides Night was an exciting celebration of their centenary. I had the pleasure of taking my daughters, Octavia and Aurelia, who very much enjoyed the festive atmosphere and the hospitality provided. It was wonderful to join with such a vibrant community to celebrate their history and, of course, look to what can be achieved in the future. Congratulations to principal Mr Ross Sutherland, the Parklea executive and the centenary organising committee for their hard work, and particularly to all the volunteers who ran such a great evening.
I would like to congratulate Seven Hills High School and Hambledon Public School in Quakers Hill on the celebration of their 60th and 25th anniversaries respectively. Your anniversary dinners were an absolute pleasure to attend. Thank you so much for your generous hospitality in hosting me. Having visited both schools on a great number of occasions, it was fantastic to join with staff, students, former staff and students, and parents to celebrate this milestone. Congratulations to the Seven Hills High School principal Mr Greg Johnston and Hambledon Public School principal Ms Judy McEwen for all of your efforts. On behalf of this place, I'd like to extend my congratulations to the staff, students and parents of Girraween, Parklea and Hambledon public schools and Seven Hills High School on all their achievements. Your commitment to excellence, promotion of first-class public education and the celebration of our diversity in the Greenway community makes our local area a fantastic place to live and educate our children.
CQUniversity Australia
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:02): Last Wednesday I had the pleasure of attending CQU—Central Queensland University—Gladstone Marina campus to inspect the ongoing construction of the new trade training centre. The facility is on track for completion by the end of this year, so there's only eight weeks to go. It's been funded by the Australian government for $10 million and the CQU, themselves, who tipped in $2½ million to complete the project. Once completed, their facility will accommodate the delivery of vocational training skills in the region in workshop rooms, teaching spaces and a hair and beauty salon. The trade training centre consists of two separate buildings: the trade training centre with 3,000 square metres under the roof and the hair and beauty salon with 500 square metres under the roof. It will help the university to deliver courses that are accessible for local students.
I fully believe training locals for local jobs is the way to go. This is specifically important to rural areas like Gladstone, and there are towns like Biloela and Monto, Miriam Vale, Mount Larcom and Calliope which will also benefit from these training skills. This will enhance a fuller community engagement in Gladstone. On at least one occasion this year an electrical contractor in Gladstone told me that he had won a contract in Blackwater in a coalmine. The contract involved around 12 electricians. He was not even able to recruit one electrician for this project and had to return the tender to the mine.
With the skills centre up and running, these shortages will become less of an issue in the future. The centre will benefit a broad range of businesses and help the surrounding districts with the skills they are lacking at the moment. The new facility will provide a training centre for undergraduate and postgraduate students to further their training in Gladstone without having to move to a capital city. I would like to congratulate all those involved in the trade centre for the progress that has been made since the beginning of this year. It's another great achievement for the Flynn electorate. I urge parents to consider putting their children through a trade as opposed to a university degree. There is good money to be made in this field.
Gilmore Electorate: Roads
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (16:05): My electorate is a picturesque place, and it rightly attracts a high number of holiday-makers during school holidays and long weekends. Our population can quadruple during these times, and, with it, so does the traffic. That is why the state of our roads is such a critical issue and one we are reminded of every time the tourist season hits. The Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and the Victorian border is notorious for a reason. Tragically the last two weeks of school holidays have been no exception. Yesterday there was an accident in Tuross Head—the second in two weeks. On only the second day of the school holidays, five people, including two children, were taken to hospital after a crash.
Last week we saw a crash on the Princes Highway near Island Point Road. In August and September, even before the holiday rush, there were accidents in Moruya and Wandandian, where a man, heartbreakingly, lost his life. These stats aren't new. Between July 2012 and June 2017, there were 1,494 crashes on the Princes Highway between Jervis Bay Road and the Victorian border. They caused 30 fatalities and 350 serious injuries. Devastatingly, between December 2017 and June 2018, eight people lost their lives in accidents on the highway.
During the election I was delighted that the Morrison government provided bipartisan support for funding for the highway, but I was left feeling disappointed when only $50 million out of the $500 million was allocated in the budget. I have written to the minister on a number of occasions asking him to bring forward the funding for the highway. In his response, the minister spoke of a 'strategic business case' to look at a 'refined concept design' and 'cost appropriate solution'. He suggested I write to the New South Wales government, as he said New South Wales would be providing the community updates—a disappointing response indeed.
But I will not give up. I want to see this road fixed faster. Last week I heard that the Treasurer wrote to the states asking them what infrastructure projects they want brought forward. I hope that the Princes Highway is on the New South Wales government's wish list. I know it is on mine. I am willing to work with all levels of government—federal, state and local—to get this done. I want to see this road made safe so that everyone—tourists and locals alike—can return home safely. This goes above party politics and political games. I don't want to play games with people's lives. I want to get it done. So I say to Mr McCormack and to the New South Wales government: let's work together to improve the Princes Highway. Bring forward the funding now and let's stop another tragedy during the holiday season.
Hinkler Electorate
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (16:08): Mr Deputy Speaker, as I'm sure you and everyone else in the chamber are aware, last week the city of Hervey Bay was declared the world's first Whale Heritage Site. Local media reported that the prestigious title was awarded by the World Cetacean Alliance, the world's largest partnership working to protect whales, dolphins and porpoises. But wait till you hear about the competition, Mr Deputy Speaker. Other candidates for the title included The Bluff, Durban, in South Africa, a former whaling station turned tourist attraction; Vancouver Island North, in Canada; New Zealand's Marlborough Sounds; and US drawcard Nantucket island, the former centre of the whaling world and home of the great literary work Moby-Dick.
Around a hundred delegates from around the world attended the four-day World Whale Conference in Hervey Bay. Fraser Coast Tourism & Events general manager Martin Simons said the status would be a huge brand booster, particularly in Europe and the US, and had the potential to generate millions in extra tourism dollars in coming years. Hervey Bay was the first region in Australia, would you believe—the very first—to offer commercial whale-watching experiences from boats, back in 1986. I will congratulate the Perry family, the first ones up and at them. The whale-watching fleet is the backbone of the tourism economy in Hervey Bay and a very important part of generating jobs in that local area.
The Veteran Car Club of Australia's National Veteran Vehicle Rally was held in Bundaberg recently, with around 300 participants and over 130 vehicles, which makes this the largest gathering of those veteran vehicles in Australia. We had participants from the UK, the US and New Zealand. The gaslight parade—not the sort that those on the other side might be thinking about at the moment—in the Bundaberg CBD included a car which once belonged to Bert Hinkler's sister Queenie. Owner Chris Sorenson, a member of the Bundaberg Veteran Vehicle Club, still has the original papers for the car, which showed it was the second car to ever be registered in the town of Bundaberg.
We know that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. So last week my office hosted a pink morning tea to help raise funds for breast cancer awareness. It was a great opportunity for people to come along from the community. I have to congratulate Anne Howard from my office, who went all the way, pink wig included. As a point of interest, she's married to John Howard—not John Winston Howard, but another John Howard who I'm sure is just as eminent. Congratulations to Anne and all of my team, and thanks to Rebecca from the Queensland Cancer Council, who also came along.
Breast cancer remains among the most common cancers in Australian women, excluding non-melanoma skin cancers. Around 17,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year and one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 85. So a quick shout-out to the more than 400 participants who will be taking part in the Hervey Bay Relay for Life this weekend, 19-20 October, at Ralph Stafford Park.
Bondi to Manly Walk
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney) (16:11): Lloyd Rees, one of our best-known and most prominent artists, said of Sydney Harbour: 'The first glimpse, a picture of a circular frame, opal blue water, a band of golden sand, another of silver-green trees; above them a skyline of coral pink, shimmering against the limpid air. In that first long look Sydney cast her spell and it remains with me ever since.'
Lloyd Rees is one of the many who love Sydney Harbour, Manly Beach and Bondi Beach. One of the most exciting things I can report to this place in some time is that a walk will soon be launched that will take walkers all the way from Manly Beach to Bondi Beach around the ring of Sydney Harbour. People will pass our beautiful Sydney Harbour National Park. They will pass significant Aboriginal heritage sites between Fisher Bay and Sandy Bay and Grotto Point, where there are a large number of Aboriginal engravings, and Reef Beach, which is an ancestral reburial and rock art site. Walkers will pass Mrs Macquarie's Chair, an 1810 convict carved bench where I love to go myself. They will walk through Camp Cove, the first landing place of Captain Arthur Philip in 1788. And they will pass the mouth of the harbour, passing Vaucluse House and gardens, Elizabeth Bay House, Strickland House, which Tom Uren campaigned so hard for, and Curlew Camp, where artists lived and worked, including Arthur Streeton and Tom Roberts. They will pass May Gibbs' Nutcote, the home of the children's author and illustrator, which is now a museum. Of course they will pass beautiful Taronga Zoo.
This will become one of the world's great walks. It will attract tourists from around the globe to our beautiful Sydney Harbour. They will be able to walk across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, past the Sydney Opera House and through our botanical gardens. This will put walking on the map for that group of international tourists who love to visit a place and see it in the best possible way—on foot.
This walk would not have happened if it weren't for John Faulkner, my former colleague in this place, and Lachlan Harris, the driving forces behind this walk. But of course it has also required the support of six councils—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:15 to 16 :28
Ms PLIBERSEK: The 80-kilometre Bondi to Manly walk will be launched on 8 December this year. It will be an exciting addition to our tourism offering. I congratulate all of those involved in this magnificent effort—14 partnering landholders from three levels of government. What a great project!
Defence Industry
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (16:28): It's my pleasure to report to the chamber on the naval shipbuilding events that surrounded the naval Pacific conference in Sydney, the Sea Power Conference that's held every two years. Last week it was held for 2019, which resulted in some important developments for South Australia.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:29 to 16:40
Mr STEVENS: I won't repeat my preamble from before the division; I know that everyone was paying fierce attention! There were two significant developments around the naval Pacific conference last week relevant to jobs in South Australia. The first was the decision by the Naval Group, which is building the 12 Attack class submarines, to sign an agreement with Schneider Electric, which is a French company—and which, helpfully, purchased a prominent South Australian company, Gerard Electric Manufacturers, probably about 10 years ago now, from memory. So the decision has been made that the contract for the circuitry for the submarines has been awarded to Schneider. Of course, they have existing expertise in France from working in the supply chains there. They're going to undertake a technology transfer over to their Australian subsidiary, Schneider Australia, which of course is a fantastic outcome for South Australia in particular. As I've outlined, that business is based in Adelaide.
The second significant development last week was the agreement between the Naval Group, the submarine manufacturer and the ASC to enter into a partnership to develop apprenticeships. Effectively, this is an agreement where Naval Group are sponsoring young South Australians—of course, for the benefit of Adelaide in particular—who will commence apprenticeships with the ASC, but who will ultimately find jobs as the Attack class program commences within the Naval Group. These were two very significant germination decisions through the supply chain, which go to show the sort of value that is coming online for the South Australian economy thanks to the very important naval shipbuilding decisions that this government has made.
There are more to come, but this just goes to show that in the space of a week we can have those kinds of significant decisions. It's a very exciting time in South Australia for our economy because of these naval shipbuilding decisions and the opportunities that are being opened up, and I look forward to keeping this chamber informed about all the great news that is going to keep flowing in South Australia because of the strong decisions of the Morrison government to invest in our national security and our defence industry capability in this country.
Kingston Electorate: Hallett Cove
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:43): In my electorate we have one of the most beautiful pieces of coastline in South Australia. In fact, I would say it's the most beautiful piece of coastline. Touring our beaches and coastline is part of our community, and for local residents and families it's an endless source of free and accessible weekend activities.
One of the most iconic and important parts of the coastline is in my home suburb of Hallett Cove. It is a beautiful section of coastline and offers some of the best views you can get in metropolitan Adelaide—and, indeed, the best sunsets. But, more than that, it's one of the most geologically significant sites in Australia, as recognised by the Hallett Cove Conservation Park. One of the defining features of the Hallett Cove coastline is its accessibility through a lengthy boardwalk, which allows safe enjoyment of the coastline for local residents and visitors alike. The over-five-kilometre walk is incredibly popular and is enjoyed every weekend. It also attracts people from across the state. Whether it's to look at the geological sites, to take in the view or to see it as a fitness challenge, the boardwalk is always packed full of people every single weekend.
However, unfortunately the future of this boardwalk is under threat and now hangs in the balance. We need action from the local council and the state government. It's recently come to light that there are structural issues in some parts of the boardwalk. Rather than spend money to fix it, the local council is considering closing the boardwalk permanently.
The reaction of local residents has been significant. There is deep, deep concern about and opposition to the permanent closure of the boardwalk. It's my view that we need to fight to keep this exciting, wonderful opportunity for local residents alive, and it's a view shared by many others. As Jonathan says, it's surely one of our region's most enjoyable activities. It's accessible; it's free. There are too few of these opportunities. We need to keep it. Alison says:
We are so lucky to have this on our doorstep this cannot be closed.
Hannah says:
Everyone loves this boardwalk. I grew up fairly close by and used it every other week. Now I live a 40 minute drive away but it’s still one of my favourite walks in Adelaide and I take all visitors to Adelaide here.
Rima says:
I love this walk and always tell people about this wonderful walk we are so proud we have it in Hallett Cove.
This is an incredibly important community asset, and it is now time for local residents to stand up and demand their voices be heard. It's time that the Marion council and state government worked together to save this boardwalk. It's more than money; its value is incredibly important. It's time for everyone to stand up, work together and save this iconic place.
Queensland Shark Control Program
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (16:46): It's time for the Queensland Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, to find where her spine is located and sack the fisheries minister, Mark Furner, for the deception and misinformation he and his state Labor colleagues have been trumpeting over the shark drum lines saga. The advice from the Australian Government Solicitor couldn't be clearer—the drum lines never had to be removed. Furner and others have been citing the Cardno report to back up the decision to remove them after last month's Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision. This begs the question: have they actually read it? They claim that the report made it clear that the catch-and-release method, forced on us by the AAT and the Federal Court after action by the Humane Society International, just can't work in the marine park. Actually, the report stated:
We have concluded that there is merit in a limited trial of SMART drumlines—
and that Cairns, Townsville and Mackay are all appropriate trial sites. That means the drum lines can go back in and that state Labor must also trial other, non-lethal methods.
Furner also says:
The solution is clearer than ever – the Federal Government must legislate to allow our long-standing catch-and-remove program back in to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
But the court orders did not demand a removal of the drum lines, only that they be checked more frequently, non-target species be released, and target species be tagged and relocated. The orders allow drum lines to remain in the water catching sharks during this time—those found alive can be removed and relocated offshore—while other modern technology is trialled and implemented progressively.
New South Wales and WA run successful and safe tag-and-release programs. Contractors in those states are trained and safely operate tag-and-release relocation every day. There is no reason that Queensland contractors cannot perform the same tasks up to the same safety standards. GBRMPA has already issued a new permit to the Queensland government for the operation of drum lines in the marine park, in accordance with AAT orders, but have they bothered to put them back in? They have not. That's the problem with state Labor: they put politics over people.
All levels of government should be working together to address the issue. It's now been more than three weeks since the drum lines were removed and more than six months since they lost their first case—plenty of time to plan for this outcome. The appropriate course of action for Premier Palaszczuk is clear: put the drum lines back in the water, sack Minister Furner and start caring about the safety of Queenslanders.
Climate Change
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:49): On the Friday at the end of the last sitting fortnight, students around Australia took action and were part of the global student strike for climate change. It also occurred in my electorate. It also happened to be the last day of school term in Victoria. Hundreds of local kids in Castlemaine, in Bendigo and in Kyneton either protested locally or caught the train to Melbourne to be part of this action. I spoke at the rally in Bendigo and wanted to acknowledge that young people getting actively involved in social issues, in global issues, should be encouraged. Being part of a robust democracy means the opportunity to stand up and to speak up. Whether you're a politician protesting on the streets of Hong Kong or a student taking time off in the afternoon from school to protest about your local environment and climate change, taking action is a big part of democracy, and I want to acknowledge all the students in my electorate who took that step.
Their asks are simple, and I do wish—and committed to them—to put on record some of the comments that they made to me in the letter that they presented to me at the Bendigo rally. It starts with: 'There is no Planet B. We require immediate action. We are all very worried about climate change because the future affects everybody. We are in the midst of the biggest threat to human existence and, even if we do manage to survive, we need action now.' They express their concerns about this government 'opening the floodgates' and not being serious when it comes to fossil fuels and talking about a transition to cleaner, greener energy. They say that these are the reasons why they're taking part in the global climate strike on 20 September, together with millions of young people around the world, to ask for action.
This is a movement that is happening not just in my community but all over Australia and, we also know, all over the world. I was proud to nominate one of the young activists from my electorate, Harriet O'Shea Carre, to attend the United Nations Youth Climate Summit in New York during this same period. Harriet, who also came to our parliament to speak, helped lead the movement in my community.
We should encourage our young people to speak up and, when they speak up, we should listen. It is their future that is at risk when we talk. We should take more action on climate change.
Calare Electorate: Sport
Mr GEE (Calare—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (16:52): I'd like to draw the House's attention to the wonderful achievements of our young sporting champions in Calare. These high achievers put in an extraordinary amount of hard work and, with their supportive families, travel vast distances to compete at elite levels. They are role models, and we're very proud of them. I was fortunate enough to meet with some of them recently over an afternoon tea and a cuppa to present some certificates. Today, I would like to acknowledge all of them, including Sam Flannery.
Sam competed in the Australian junior nationals for tenpin bowling. He won gold as part of the New South Wales President's Shield team and achieved bronze as a member of the combined boys and girls team. He's also a member of the New South Wales Tenpin Bowling Association. Well done, Sam.
Micaylah Downey also participated in the Australian junior nationals for tenpin bowling. She placed third overall and was named an all-star among just five other competitors nationally. Micaylah also represents the New South Wales Tenpin Bowling Association through Orange Tenpin Bowl. She's a fine bowler and she's done wonderful things in that sporting endeavour.
Michael and Mark Selmes were also present in my office for our afternoon tea and presentation. They travelled recently to Africa to compete in the World Rimfire and Air Rifle Benchrest Federation's fourth world championship international. Michael won three silver medals, and both boys are already hoping to go again next year. Well done, Michael and Mark. You are also great achievers.
I also need to mention some other great young achievers and athletes in our area. Cody Kelso and Thomas Richardson competed in the Sydney International Rowing Regatta. They achieved a bronze medal in the under-19s coxless squad and represented the Kinross Wolaroi School rowing club in Orange. Sofia Dihel competed in the Sydney International Rowing Regatta. She achieved second place in the schoolgirls 4B final and also represented Kinross. Ethan Crisp participated in a total of seven events at the Hancock Prospecting Australian Age Swimming Championships. He came 12th in two events for his age group. Ky Hurst also participated in the International Friendship Series softball international competition. He's a member of the Bletchington Softball Club in Orange.
Cambell Williams competed in the FIM world junior motocross championship, in Moscow. He qualified 18th in the first race—and placed 19th out of 40 competitors—and 24th out of 40 riders in the second race. He represented Motorcycling Australia. Kaden Williams competed in the New South Wales Combined Catholic Colleges team at the Australian Rugby League under 15 championship, nationals. Kaden's team achieved first place in the competition. He was also selected in the under 15 Australian schoolboys merit team.
I would like to add my personal congratulations to all of those sporting high achievers but also to their supporting families, who move heaven and earth to get these young athletes to competitions and help them achieve the wonderful things they do.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the following Address in Reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to:
May it please Your Excellency:
We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament—
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (16:55): It is the procedure of this place that, post an election, the parliament is called and the Governor-General addresses the parliament about the agenda of the newly elected government. I acknowledge, in making this speech, that it is actually quite some months since that occurred, but I think this is an important opportunity for members of this place to talk about the issues that confront the nation and the agenda of the government that has been elected and to express the views of their constituencies on those matters. I want to take the opportunity to do that today.
I want to start by saying that I was very impressed and I thought it was a wonderful thing that the Governor-General made the welcome and acknowledgement of country in the Ngunawal language. It was a really lovely thing to hear the Governor-General of this nation speak those words in the language of the original inhabitants of the place on which we meet, whom we acknowledge as our parliament opens each day. It is important to acknowledge that, in the Governor-General's address outlining the priorities for the government, there were a range of matters on which the newly elected government indicated it would take action in the area of Indigenous Australians—significantly, identifying that the first Aboriginal minister for Indigenous affairs, Mr Ken Wyatt, had been appointed. I welcome that, as many people would have.
I was a bit disappointed with the government's fairly weak commitment in terms of a voice to parliament from our Indigenous Australians. We had the First Peoples of the nation gather at Uluru to express to the parliament of the nation their desire for a structure to create a voice to parliament directly from our First Peoples. I think it is really important to have far more commitment and progress on that. I was particularly proud of Labor's platform at the election, with the commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. But I think it was a very gracious indication by the Governor-General of the respect that he pays to Indigenous people.
I was able to join the Governor-General and his wife, Mrs Hurley, for lunch last Friday in my electorate. They were in the electorate to speak at the Mental Health in the Workplace luncheon that is a regular feature of our calendar in Wollongong. This year it was raising funds for the One Door Illawarra service and some of the programs that they run around people with mental health challenges. They have a wonderful clubhouse there. The local chair, Professor Frank Deane, and deputy chair, Janine Cullen, have done a great job in not only running that service but keeping opportunities for community members who want to be able to give some support. This luncheon is one of the ways that they deliver on that. The Governor-General gave a fantastic speech to that gathering about the importance of workplaces being places where people with mental health issues feel supported and able to continue to contribute. I will say—I'm sure I'm not telling stories out of school, because there were several hundred people at the luncheon—that Mrs Hurley led us in a resounding rendition of a song that she'd written for the One Door Mental Health service, as well as 'You are my Sunshine', and it was just a really lovely thing for her to do. I thought the room was very moved and touched by her contribution as well.
The Governor-General's speech outlined a range of areas in which the newly elected government is seeking to take action, and I want to address those in the time that I have available to me. The first area that his speech went to was the economy and tax reform. In particular, the government outlined some of its priorities around managing the economy. I have to say that, several months down the track, 'much greater effort is required'—as we used to say when I was writing school reports. Only this week we've seen the RBA Board minutes released. They tell us that economic growth is the lowest in a decade, wages are stagnant and employment is fragile.
The reality for so many people in our community is that those who have work know that their wages have been stagnant and simply not keeping up with the cost of living for too long now, and the government of the day doesn't have any solutions for that. It really is a significant area that government must engage on. Those who have a less reliable attachment to the workforce—I'm thinking of people who are in casual employment or contract employment—are increasingly seeing their capacity to earn an income undermined because of this wage stagnation. It is always difficult when you're a casual or contract worker to manage the family budget, or your own budget if you're an individual, and this overall impact on the workforce means that it's even more difficult and more unreliable for people who are in casual or contract work arrangements. And then there are the many people who want to get into the workforce but are dealing with things like the retail sector, which is hugely important in my own area, suffering from the effects of a severe lack of confidence in the economy. These are real issues facing people in my electorate, as they are people across the country, and they are an important part of the story of economic management. As I said, I think the government needs to do better.
The second area the Governor-General's speech went to was regulatory reform and industrial relations. The government has focused a great deal on what it calls 'lawlessness in the union movement'; however, the most concerning stories that have come out in my local area have been about the exploitation of workers. Indeed, only last week my state colleague the member for Wollongong, Paul Scully, had the state shadow minister in Wollongong to talk to students at the University of Wollongong about the sorts of exploitation of young people that they've seen in the workplace. This is certainly something that our local Labor council, the South Coast Labor Council, and affiliated unions have been doing a great deal of work on, and the Illawarra Mercury reported that one of the students—Zak Jory—talked about what had happened to him. He'd worked for more than two years and he'd been underpaid by about $20,000. He'd worked long hours but he didn't get penalty rates or overtime. The international studies student unionised with his fellow workers and he ended up settling with the company, but for a fraction of the wages that he had lost. This story, as told to Paul Scully and the state shadow minister Daniel Mookhey, is not unusual. We hear it constantly. For young people entering the workforce to have their early experiences be ones of exploitation is really unacceptable and something that should be the focus of far more attention by this government rather than the union bashing that they tend to undertake.
The third area that I particularly want to talk about is a priority on infrastructure, and the Governor-General outlined some of the government's priority. For my own area—and I've spoken in this House before and I will not give up talking about this until the government takes some action—there have been no infrastructure commitments for the last seven years. I really need the government to understand that Wollongong is the third-largest city in New South Wales, with a significant commuter base and with a major port that requires a great deal of truck movement, and Wollongong seriously needs an upgrade of its road and rail infrastructure.
I'm very pleased that the Labor team understand the importance of our region and back it in. I was able to go to the election with a $50-million commitment for the Maldon-Dombarton rail link, which is an important part of connecting us to Western and south Western Sydney; $55 million for safety upgrades to the Appin Road, a major arterial road; and $50 million for safety upgrades to the Picton Road, our other major arterial road. These three pieces of infrastructure feeding into our region badly need investment by government, and we, sadly, did not see a single commitment from the Liberal candidate to our transport infrastructure. To be fair, the Liberal candidate in my seat didn't have one commitment across any portfolio area, but the transport area is obviously something that should be about nation building, it should be beyond party politics, and it was very disappointing.
The Governor-General also spoke about the areas of health and mental health that the government was looking at prioritising during this period of the 46th Parliament. I acknowledge that in this space of mental health the One Door Illawarra group, which I mentioned in my opening comments, does fantastic work at their clubhouse. I was able to get a $20,000 commitment for them from a Labor government, if we'd been elected, to do some really important upgrades to that clubhouse to allow them to extend the sorts of activities that they undertake. I'll continue to try and lobby and find that funding for them.
The Governor-General, on behalf of the government, also spoke about the NDIS. I want to say that this is an area where the government really has to pick up its act. I notice our shadow minister making the point today that it's been, I think, over 1,000 days since the head of the NDIA, which runs the NDIS, moved on, and there's been no replacement, even, of the person running the agency that's required to deliver this scheme. There's been a cap on the recruitment of staff, which—as so many people across the chamber must know—is resulting in people taking far too long to get their plans in place, far too long to get their plans reviewed and far too long to have issues that come up dealt with. We find case after case coming through our doors in electorate offices with people who are exhausted, to be honest, from dealing with the NDIA trying to get an appropriate plan in place and to access the services and equipment that they need. And so, in terms of the NDIS, while the government says it is committed to it, it needs to show by its actions far more strongly that it's actually delivering on that.
On the NDIS, I also just want to make the point—it's been raised with me by several local providers, and I've written to the minister about this—that the government made a commitment that there would be additional funding put into packages to allow the service providers to make the adjustments that they need in their organisations in order to be able to deliver—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 17:08 to 17 : 21
Ms BIRD: Before the division, I was just making the point that one of the areas in the Governor-General's speech that the government had indicated they were going to prioritise was the NDIS. I made the point that there is the need to appoint a head of the NDIA, the agency that runs the NDIS, and the need to address the fact that there is significant underresourcing because of the cap that's placed on the employment of people who deliver agency decisions. That's causing major gaps in time for getting plans in place and reviewed to ensure that the services and equipment people need are delivered. This is an issue that every electorate office will be dealing with consistently.
I also want to highlight the fact that several of my providers—most of them are not-for-profit providers of long standing in our area—have raised with me their concern that the government made a promise to the sector that it would put boosted additional funding into packages to enable providers to make the adjustments they need to provide services to people. Those could be things like new software or adjustments in staffing and so forth at their organisations. They're very upset that the government has actually gone back on that commitment and is saying to them that they have to take that money out of the client's package. In effect, that takes the money from the client. That's against the providers' ethos, and they are very, very unhappy. I have written to the minister about that.
I want to touch generally on the fact that education was mentioned in the Governor-General's address. Obviously, it was a major area of disagreement between the government and Labor in the election campaign. I'm very disappointed, on behalf of my constituents, not to see the $18 million in additional funding that would have gone into our schools. There was also increased funding for our TAFE and universities, and a much fairer and more accessible early childhood education commitment.
This was particularly so for the University of Wollongong. We had a $10 million commitment for a facility for intelligent fabrication and $1 million to establish a 3D-bioprinting facility. This was for really important research work that our university does in 3D and biotechnology. It would have helped us to build on that. There was also $2.5 million for the Early Start Discovery Space bus. That bus engenders excitement about science, technology and maths in preschool-aged children and is taken to other regions, including to my colleague the member for Gilmore's area, where there are disadvantaged children who aren't able to access the amazing discovery space facility that is at the University of Wollongong.
There was a section on government services, and I won't even begin to go through my gripes with this government on delivering services. When you look at the waiting lists to get processed for the age pension and at the robo-debt scheme and so forth, these are all things I have spoken about in this House before. Government service delivery is an oxymoron. They are not delivering government services in a timely way, in a compassionate way, in even an effective way. It really does need a great deal more attention.
In a similar vein, climate change was listed. Obviously there is a significant disappointment with the government on climate change and, as many of my colleagues have said, a PR exercise and grasping at whatever alternative talking points you can think of, whether it's recycling or plastics in the ocean. As important as they are, they are not an alternative for an energy policy and action on climate change.
I mentioned Indigenous Australians at the beginning, but there's also a section on older Australians. In my area the waiting list for home care packages is a disgrace. The fact that there are people in this nation dying before they receive the home care package that they were assessed as needing is a disgrace, and the impacts on families who are the carers for these elderly people are heartbreaking. It was just not acceptable, in particular, to have women, but also men, come in and tell you that they have had to give up their job in order to be able to look after elderly relatives. It's just devastating for families. There really must be urgent attention given in the aged-care sector. Obviously we have the royal commission, and that is doing important work, but we need action now on so many of these aspects.
Finally, the Governor-General's speech on the government's agenda addressed ending violence against women. This is a very important area in which to take action. It is by and large done on a bipartisan basis. I was very pleased, with my colleague the member for Whitlam, to secure a commitment of $1.5 million for the Illawarra Women's Health Centre to establish a service to support women escaping domestic and family violence. I thought that was a really important initiative that they were looking at putting in place. I will continue to lobby this government to find opportunities for agreements to enable this wonderful service, which does amazing work locally, to be able to run that program on domestic violence.
As I said, I thought the Governor-General did a wonderful job in the presentation of his opening of this parliament. I acknowledge that the agenda outlined by the government was covered in that speech, and I hope I have given some idea about the areas of that that are important in my electorate and where we would like to see more achievement delivered on those priority areas.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (17:27): It is an honour to return here today as the member for Mackellar. At my first re-election, and with an increase in my primary vote, I'm gratified to be reinstated by my community. As I know too well, elections are hard work. I stand here as a result of the ongoing support of my wife and daughter and a village of volunteers who gave of themselves and their time for reasons that I wonder at nearly as much as I am grateful. Early morning bus stops, phone canvassing, doorknocking, street stalls on Saturdays—the dedication of this team knew no bounds. I thank them all.
But though much is taken, much abides. The Northern Beaches community expects much from this government and, rightly, from me. Like all communities, we have our challenges and our success stories—those who struggle and those who live the belief that, from those to whom much is given, much is expected. I'd like to speak to some of those here today. History has shown us that government enforced equality ultimately and quickly leads to injustice. But we cannot possibly be a parliament of equality of opportunity if we do not make education our highest priority. Too many of our fellow Australians are condemned to lives of quiet desperation, cycles of poverty that cannot be broken even when the will exists to do so. This parliament has predetermined that the right answer for everyone is a university education, despite the fact that in other nations only around 20 per cent of people choose tertiary education, and these nations provide better outcomes for the economy, national wealth, business formation, productivity, employment and real wages. As just one example, in the United States the vast majority of companies in their top 20 by capitalisation were started after 1975—I believe it is 19 out of 20 of those companies. By contrast, Australia's youngest company in the top 20 was formed just before the Great Depression, in the 1930s.
We continue to ignore best practice and inconvenient truths throughout the education sector. We ignore the fact that decentralised education systems are the most successful, as we continue to do all we can to centralise our education system. We ignore the importance of teacher training and experimentations in curriculum as the major drivers of education outcome, as we plough billions of dollars into a system that is producing decreasing outcomes in education. In Australia, there is currently a negative correlation between spending and education outcomes. We pretend that giving parents freedom to choose is somehow a bad thing for their children, them and our nation. But, most of all, we pander to a conga line of stakeholders whose self-interest goes unchecked and unchallenged. Our children suffer; our liberal ideals are undermined; the cycle of poverty continues; our economy and national dynamism suffers; the quiet desperation of so many continues to go on, unheard and unheeded. No matter, though—the good and the great are satiated. If we are to live up to our highest ideals, then this parliament should advance the cause of a better and more responsive education system for all, not just for some.
All of us in this place come from unique communities. Even so, despite the ferocity with which we debate, there is much more that unites us than there is that divides us. We spend too much time here constructing walls between ourselves rather than crossing the many bridges that already exist. My community, like so many others, believes the only way to create and maintain a fair country is through freedom, for no one person knows the path of happiness for every person. Care and compassion come not from the generosity of the state but from our families, friends, neighbours and those voluntary organisations we choose to join and build. History's surest pathway to serfdom is by replacing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Our most solemn duty in this place is to preserve and protect all that is right with our nation for all who live in it. Ultimately, let those who judge us, both now and in the future, do so not on the basis of the treasures we possess but on the basis of the gifts that we have shared.
Australia remains one of the great nations on our planet, and our planet remains the best planet in our solar system, if not the entire galaxy. To be born here is to have won life's great lottery. One of the things that make us so great is that we are always building a more perfect nation in so many areas. One of the economic challenges we face is improving the productivity of our economy. There is little doubt that one of the reasons our productivity has not been better is due to Labor-era laws—whether it is the legacy of corruption and inaction of the Carr-Keneally state government, or the Gillard-Swan spendathon on pink batts or Gillard's trashing of our workplaces through the Fair Work Act. All of these things have made it more difficult for the people of Australia, our hardworking families, to enjoy a better life.
In 2016, the Liberal Party announced the National Innovation and Science Agenda. Its specific goal was not only to increase the amount of research and development going on in our community but also to make sure it stayed here in Australia and got commercialised so that all of us could enjoy the fruits of the great ideas that so many of our fellow citizens come up with. Right on cue, the IMF recently released a report demonstrating that too many of our exports are raw or uncomplex in their nature. The NISAhas never been more important, ensuring that our already competitive advantage in quantum computing continues and is extended.
It is at this point that I want to mention the extraordinary leadership of Michelle Simmons at the University of New South Wales centre for quantum computing. It is no exaggeration to say that the development of quantum computing will be as significant as the discovery of the electron. Reforming employee share schemes so that start-ups can get access to the best and brightest and so that the best and brightest can get their fair share of the benefits of their ideas is more critical now than ever. This is how Silicon Valley was built. This is how innovation will be built in Australia. From pure science to grants, tax reform, capital market incentivisation, and higher institutes of education, and to programs that allow researchers to get a share in the commercial benefits of their work, NISA is a groundbreaking program that is changing the structure of our economy and making all Australians better off.
As we know, some Australians are born in this country, and some Australians are born elsewhere in the world, choosing to make a life here as citizens. It is a frequent honour and joy to attend citizenship ceremonies for those who have chosen the Northern Beaches as their home. I'm often moved to hear the personal stories behind the individuals who make this decision. I think of my own family and how we came to become Australians. My father was the son of a Polish migrant who fled firstly Nazi invasion and then, in 1957, communist oppression. When they arrived in this country, my father was a young man and learnt English by selling encyclopedias door to door. Unfortunately, the standing orders do not allow me to repeat some of the words he learnt in that exercise. His mother, my grandmother, helped to sustain her family by spending her nights screwing caps on toothpaste tubes at the Colgate factory. Many nights, she came home with bleeding fingers. Modern Australia was built by migrants like my grandparents. Those who are welcomed into our community at these ceremonies will, I am sure, make a positive contribution, like my father and his father before him.
This year, I am again hosting a food drive in my office, accepting food donations on behalf of Foodbank. Hunger is a hidden crisis in Australia, with over 3.6 million Australians seeking food relief at some point each year. Half of those are children. The items will be collected at Foodbank on 16 December. So I encourage Northern Beaches residents to consider what they could give this Christmas to support those in need. Foodbank will accept tinned food, packaged goods, and personal hygiene and laundry products.
The 46th Parliament is in its early days. However, I look forward to the three years ahead as a time of action, positive change, and progress, both here and in my electorate on the Northern Beaches. I'm proud to share in the responsibility that we have in our nation and our constituencies. We shall not let them down.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (17:38): It's been over three months since the Governor-General gave his address and outlined the Morrison government's agenda for the 46th Parliament. In my response, I firstly congratulate General David Hurley on his appointment as Australia's 27th Governor-General. He comes to the office well credentialed, and I believe with the good wishes of most Australians. I also thank Sir Peter Cosgrove for his time as Governor-General of Australia. Sir Peter served with distinction, and leaves the office with much respect and affection from the Australian people.
Of course, I would not be here to give this address at all were it not for the good people of Makin who, on 18 May, once again elected me to represent them in this place. They have placed their trust and confidence in me, and that comes with a great deal of responsibility, which I take very seriously. It is indeed a privilege and an honour to represent in parliament the community that I've spent my life living and working amongst.
On the subject of elections, it's already five months since the May election. That means that this parliamentary term has two years and seven months left in it in order to complete a three-year term. It is simply not long enough. Parliamentary terms should be much longer. However, whilst my view is that terms should be for four years, I'm fully cognisant of failed attempts in the past to change federal parliamentary terms and the complicated House of Representatives and Senate relationship, not to mention the difficulty in changing the Constitution.
An alternative proposition which should be considered is to have fixed three-year terms. Since Federation in 1901, parliamentary terms have effectively averaged less than 2½ years. Section 28 of the Australian Constitution states:
Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General.
Interestingly, the Senate has fixed six-year terms, with half-Senate elections every three years, unless of course a double dissolution occurs.
Frequent elections are costly and disruptive to policy implementation and a stable economy. That's why most other governments in Australia and overseas have four- or five-year terms. Australia is one of only three countries with a bicameral parliament that has a three-year lower house term. Four-year terms were considered and ultimately rejected by the Constitution founders but subsequently supported by several reviews, with the most recent being a 2004 report by parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. However, referendums in 1974, 1977, 1984 and 1988 on constitutional changes to parliamentary terms all failed. Most notably, the 1988 referendum, which proposed four-year terms, was lost convincingly, with only one-third of voters being in support.
Whilst there continues to be widespread support for four-year terms for the House of Representatives, the complicating factor is changing the six-year Senate terms. Four-year lower house terms, without also extending Senate terms to eight years, would mean that half-Senate elections would be held separately to House of Representatives elections. Voters would not likely be happy about longer Senate terms, nor would they be keen on voting twice—or the public cost of another election. It would also require changing section 7 of the Constitution. Constitutional change is difficult. Of 44 proposals to change the constitution to date, only eight have been agreed to—hence the dilemma.
An alternative option for more stable government is therefore fixed three-year terms, which may be possible without constitutional change. With bipartisan support and appropriate exceptions so that early elections can be called where the government has lost the confidence of the parliament, fixed three-year terms should be considered. They would ensure a full three years, and end the uncertainty surrounding election timing and the manipulation of election dates for political advantages by governments of the day. The idea is not new, with former senator Gareth Evans introducing a private senators' bill back in 1981 to lock in three-year terms by changing the Constitution. That bill was never pursued. Given the difficulty of changing the Constitution to four-year lower house terms, the fixed three-year term option has considerable merit.
On a separate matter: the loss of public confidence in what were traditionally considered reputable, respected pillars of society should be of profound concern to us all. I refer to religious institutions; international corporate entities, including our major banks, national utility providers and health insurers; and so many other sectors of society that in recent times have come under scrutiny and lost the confidence of the Australian people. Indeed, right now we have another two royal commissions underway, looking into two other sectors.
Of particular concern is the public loss of confidence in our parliaments and even in our judicial systems. When civic leadership at all levels is lost there is an imperative to act. It seems that we live in a world where traditional values, common decency and generosity are diminishing traits. Why large corporations such as IT providers and big banks and utility providers, who are already making billions of dollars in profit, see a need to offshore their operations, evade tax or squeeze more money out of customers when they already make healthy profits baffles me. It seems that greed and self-interest come first and foremost. Corporate culture needs to change, and governments have a role in leading that change.
Regrettably, I have no confidence that the leadership will come from the Morrison government. Its response to the banking royal commission is indeed disappointing. This is a government that does not have a long-term, inspirational ambition for Australia. It is a government that is filled with lots of empty rhetoric and big-dollar claims but is very light on substance. It is a government that keeps shielding itself by pointing to Labor's term in office. Can I point out to members opposite that that was six years ago. This government has now been in office for over six years. It can no longer shirk its responsibility for its own failures. How long does this government need before it takes responsibility and accepts that it has had plenty of time to turn around the so-called failures of previous governments? This is a government that has indeed failed. It has failed to manage the Australian economy, failed to implement an energy policy, failed to rein in the big banks, failed to fix Australia's health system, failed to competently roll out the National Disability Insurance Scheme, failed to implement an effective climate change policy, failed to fix the Murray-Darling Basin mess, failed to fix the aged-care crisis facing the nation, failed to articulate a coherent foreign affairs policy and, on a matter that is very important to my home state of Australia, after six years, failed to commence construction of the 12 submarines and other naval shipbuilding that is expected to take place. This is a government that talks big numbers, but we see very little action on the ground.
I turn now to the state of the Australian economy. I'll quote the campaign line used in Bill Clinton's campaign speech some two decades ago: it's the economy, stupid. It was an effective campaign line because everything hangs off the economy. So what is the state of the Australian economy after six years of a coalition government? Unemployment is rising. We saw the figures last month at 5.3 per cent. In my home state it is 7.3 per cent, the highest across the nation, and there are other job losses to come. Underemployment is now at 1.1 million people or thereabouts in this country, which effectively means that we have around 1.8 million Australians looking for work or looking for more work. Household debt is at record highs. Wage growth is stagnant. Consumer confidence is down. Productivity is declining. Living standards are falling. And net debt has doubled.
Those are not my figures. Those are the figures that are presented by economists and, indeed, in some cases by the government itself. The figures don't lie, and the story with respect to the Australian economy is not good. That's why the Reserve Bank has cut interest rates to an all-time low of 0.75 per cent. That in itself sends out a very strong message that the economy of this country is in crisis. That rate, 0.75 per cent, is an all-time low, and the Reserve Bank did that in the hope that lower interest rates would prop up the Australian economy. Regrettably, I don't believe that that will be the case. Indeed, when I read the comments of other economists, I see many of them feel the same way. I spoke to one person recently who made it very clear from his analysis and his assessment—and this is a person whose opinion I value—that it will make absolutely no difference at all to the Australian economy, just as reducing interest rates from one per cent to 0.75 per cent and prior to that from 1½ to one per cent et cetera had made no difference. The reason is that, when you get interest rates that low, it is no longer the interest rates that are a barrier to investment; it is concerns about the future economy of this country. People will not borrow, even at those rates, if they have no confidence in the future of the economy of Australia. And that is exactly what is happening.
And so the continuous lowering of interest rates is not the solution that this country needs. Quite frankly, I think it's starting to have an adverse effect. As others have commented, it would appear that people, rather than invest their money in Australia when interest rates are so low, start to invest their money in overseas jurisdictions where they might be able to get a better return. If that happens, that's simply a drain on the funds in this country that could otherwise be used for investment purposes. And so it seems to me that the government's whole strategy of managing the economy has not only failed but continues in a downward spiral. The more it cuts interest rates and the more it cuts expenditure to lower-income people in this country, the worse the economy is going to get.
Regrettably, not only do I not believe that the cuts in interest rates are going to solve the economic woes of this country; for two other reasons, I think they will do the opposite. One is that the big banks, as we have already seen, will not necessarily pass on the interest rate cuts in full. And yet, at the same time, they will cut the interest rates for anyone who's got money deposited with them, thereby cutting income to people who are dependent on their investments with the big banks. One of the groups of people that I'm particularly concerned about with respect to that are the Australian pensioners. For them, the cuts to the interest rates will cut further the meagre income that they already have. These are people who are likely to be hit twice, and they will be hit twice in many cases—not in all but in many cases—because on one hand they will lose interest income whilst on the other the deeming rates, which the government still maintains at too high a level, will be used to affect their pension income. So not only will they get less money from the banks but the amount that the government will deem that they earn when they don't actually earn it will remain high. And so they will be affected in both cases. My understanding is that there are something like 600,000 pensioners who are subject to the deeming rates alone.
This is a government that is no friend of older Australians, and yet it is older Australians who in most cases not only built this country but, quite frankly, are the ones who keep spending their money and boosting the economy wherever they live or wherever they go. For them, whatever money they seem to earn or have as income they are prepared to spend. This is a government that wanted to cut pension incomes by changing the indexation formula. It cut the pension of 330,000 Australians by changing the assets test. It wanted to cut the energy supplement from them. It wanted to raise the pension age to 70 years. It has left 129,000 older Australians waiting months and months—in some cases years—for home care packages, and tens of thousands more have been waiting months and even years for elective surgery. In the meantime, the cost of living for all Australians and, in particular, older Australians, who are often on a fixed income, keeps rising while their income continues to fall.
These are people who, in many cases, have no other option. They can't go out and get part-time work. They can't secure income from any other source, and so relying on the pension or the meagre interest that they might get from their bank deposit is all they have. Yet this government seems to think that it will make savings by squeezing people on low incomes, who are the most vulnerable in our society. If the government thinks that the answer to fixing the economic woes of this country is to squeeze the poor, it is sorely wrong.
On that note, I turn to the issue of Newstart. The base rate of Newstart has not been increased in this country since 1994. Yes, there have been some minimal CPI increases, but the base rate has not been increased since 1994. On the last figures I saw, there were 723,000 people on Newstart. Nearly half of them were over the age of 45 years. These are not young people who are simply bludging. These are people who have lost their jobs—probably in most cases they have been retrenched—as a result of changes in our economy and who now, because of their age, are finding it extremely difficult to find work. To ask them to try and survive on less than $40 a day is unreasonable, just as it's unreasonable to say to them: 'Just go and get a job. Our focus is on getting jobs for you.' As I said earlier on in my remarks, there are 1.8 million Australians trying to get work or trying to get more work. For these people, it's a pretty tough gig trying to get work when you're out there and, in some cases, you've got limited qualifications. But they're being told that they can, supposedly, live on less than $40 a day.
It is not only unreasonable to ask them to get a job but it is unreasonable to ask them to survive on $40 a day, particularly if they have children. It is high time that this government accepted that Newstart needs to be increased. If Newstart were increased, it would actually boost the economy, because these people don't have spare money and they would therefore spend their money and generate economic activity in their local communities and beyond. Indeed, there have been studies to that effect, which show that tax revenue in this country would probably increase to the tune of about $1 billion simply through an increase to Newstart. I have no doubt that those studies are pretty much on the ball because I am confident that any money that the government paid in additional Newstart would all be spent throughout the community.
My time has just about run out, but I say this in respect of the Governor-General's address in which there was a vision outlined for the 46th Parliament for this government. It's a vision that, quite frankly, doesn't set too many KPIs, too many benchmarks, against which the government can be measured at the end of its term. That is quite deliberate, because this government knows that it doesn't have a particular plan for this country. It doesn't have an agenda that gives us any hope for the future. It is prepared to just muddle along from one month to the next, one year to the next and then perhaps from one election to the next, in the hope that, if it doesn't upset people too much, they might re-elect the government. We need a government that's prepared to do a bit more than that, particularly at a time when the world is screaming out for leadership.
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (17:58): I refer to His Excellency's address on opening day, in which he said:
… a new parliament marks a new chapter in our country's history.
It marks an opportunity for our nation's elected members and senators to come together to tackle important new issues, and to view existing challenges with fresh eyes.
That is best achieved when members and senators focus on the lives, welfare and opportunities of the people of Australia. I commence by thanking the electors of Moore for entrusting me with being their representative for a third term. I pledge to keep doing my very best to ensure that our community continues to have access to the infrastructure, facilities and services required to develop as a regional city, the second CBD to Perth. My vision for Moore is to see the greater City of Joondalup continue to grow, prosper and develop into a safe, vibrant regional city that will provide locals with essential services and employment opportunities close to home for generations to come. I'm committed to ensuring continued access to world-class health care, a wide variety of professional services available in our community and higher education opportunities within our innovative Joondalup Learning Precinct. To achieve this, I will continue to advocate for the necessary infrastructure, including improved roads, community facilities and high-speed internet to connect Moore both physically and digitally to other metropolitan activity centres.
For the past six years I have been proud to serve as a member of the Liberal-National coalition government, achieving many key milestones which have benefited our community. We have a strong track record of delivering key projects, including: the six-kilometre extension of the Mitchell Freeway from Burns Beach Road to Hester Avenue, costing $209 million; a new $50 million cybersecurity research centre at Edith Cowan University; and the opening up of the Neerabup Industrial Area, located in close proximity to Joondalup's CBD. Joondalup will benefit as more businesses relocate to Neerabup, with up to 20,000 workers based within five kilometres, making Joondalup their closest centre for professional services, banking, supplies and hospitality. The freeway extension, the widening of Wanneroo Road, and the grade separation bridge over the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Wanneroo Road are all intended to better connect Joondalup with Neerabup.
There is still much more work to be done to benefit local residents and business people in our northern suburbs community by delivering essential services and investing in community infrastructure. Over the next term of government I will be a strong advocate for a number of priority projects, including: extending the Mitchell Freeway for a further six kilometres northwards, from Hester Avenue to Romeo Road; widening the Mitchell Freeway between Hodges Drive and Hepburn Avenue; extending the northern suburbs railway to Yanchep, providing a continuous link from Yanchep to Perth via Joondalup; and expanding the Joondalup hospital, with a $360 million construction program to reduce emergency department waiting times and alleviate the need for local patients to travel long distances into Perth for medical treatment. It should be noted that the federal government has already delivered $158 million in funding towards the expansion of Joondalup hospital; however, the WA state Labor government has reneged on a 2017 election commitment to extend the hospital. To date, no provision has been made in the McGowan government's state budgets for its share of the Joondalup hospital expansion. This is an unfulfilled election commitment which is forcing local residents to drive long distances into Perth for medical treatment—in most cases a two-hour round trip for each medical appointment.
In terms of priority community facilities, there is the construction of a new clubhouse for the Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club; new club rooms at Heathridge Park for the Ocean Ridge Amateur Football Club, Ocean Ridge Tennis Club and Ocean Ridge Cricket Club; and the upgrade of the facilities at MacDonald Reserve in Padbury for the Whitford Junior Football Club. These are projects worthy of federal funding support. In addition, a strong case can be made for federal funding going towards the master plan upgrades at Percy Doyle Reserve for the Sorrento Bowling Club and facility upgrades at HBF Arena in Joondalup, which is utilised by a number of sporting clubs, including: the Joondalup Brothers Rugby Union Football Club, Joondalup Netball Association, Joondalup Little Athletics, Team XTR Triathlon Club and the Joondalup Lakers Hockey Club.
My vision is to develop Joondalup CBD into a vibrant hub through the government's City Deals initiative. In April this year the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure, the Hon. Alan Tudge, visited the City of Joondalup to discuss plans for the redevelopment of Boas Place and the potential for the relocation of a federal government department to Joondalup. This would add substantial commercial floor space to Joondalup and act as a catalyst for construction, generating local employment and the economic activity necessary to activate the city centre. The long-awaited Ocean Reef Marina redevelopment is anticipated to commence next year, with support from the Western Australian state government. This project represents over 55 hectares of developable area, with a gross development value in excess of $1 billion.
I'm a strong advocate for the expansion of the Joondalup Learning Precinct, including a $200 million building program at the Edith Cowan University over the next five years. Vice-Chancellor Professor Steve Chapman recently led me on a tour of the new $48 million science building under construction, which is due to open next year. In addition, further investment in North Metropolitan TAFE will transform the Joondalup Learning Precinct with state-of-the-art vocational education and training facilities to develop the skilled workforce of the future. I'm a strong advocate of increased investment in research and development and the commercialisation of Australian inventions and intellectual property. The City of Joondalup has a strategic advantage in the fields of higher education, science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
International education is Australia's third largest source of export income. We welcome students from all nations in our colleges and universities. Their presence strengthens international cooperation and understanding, establishing important business links and networks in the future. I was pleased to have visited the campus of the China Australia Business College of Shanxi, which plans to establish a campus in Perth's northern suburbs, around Yanchep, which will facilitate international education exchanges between Australia and China, further strengthening our bilateral relationship.
The northern suburbs of Moore are home to a large number of mortgage holders, for whom maintaining a lower taxing, low inflation and low interest rate environment through responsible economic management is a priority to ensure housing affordability. Local employment self-sufficiency is a key priority to avoid the creation of dormitory suburbs from which residents commute long distances to work each day. A key strategy has been to improve the connectivity of Moore in all directions to promote economic development and growth, as greater visitor numbers provide for consumers and market demand essential to grow our local market. This can be achieved by adopting a regional approach to infrastructure. We are joining the cities of Joondalup, Stirling and Wanneroo, which have a combined population in excess of 500,000 residents, and we have developed a cooperative working relationship in interacting with government. Infrastructure projects such as NorthLink connect multiple electorates, promoting regional and outer metropolitan economic development.
One of the local priorities is the revitalisation of Hillarys Marina, which, although it is a major tourist attraction, is experiencing a downturn in business activity. Through tourism development and marketing, this precinct can be activated as a thriving economic centre. I held preliminary discussions with Greg Poland, Mike Holtham and Michael Tilaka from the Strzelecki Group about initiatives to revitalise Sorrento Quay and boost visitor numbers to assist local traders. Suggestions included providing bicycle facilities, outdoor fitness equipment, a children's playground and destination marketing to draw crowds. I recently held a business forum with all stakeholders, including the shadow minister for tourism, Alyssa Hayden MLA, the state member for Hillarys, Peter Katsambanis MLA, the Wyllie Group, the Strzelecki Group, the Department of Transport and the City of Joondalup to boost the precinct.
Western Australians represent 10.4 per cent of the national population, yet we will receive 12.6 per cent of infrastructure spending in 2019-20, amounting to $911 million. In the forward estimates this rises to 14.7 per cent, or $5.7 billion. Consider our track record. Since being elected to government in 2013, the coalition has committed more than $13.5 billion in transport infrastructure investment in Western Australia. This includes $1.6 billion in the current budget and $2.8 billion in last year's budget. It was the Liberal-National coalition government that reformed the inequitable distribution of the goods and services tax prior to the election. The reform package will leave Western Australia $4.7 billion better off over the next decade. A GST floor of 70c will be implemented in 2022-23, and in 2024-25 the GST floor will increase to 75c.
A strong approach to law and order remains a priority for my constituents, particularly in the area of the misuse of illicit drugs. The Liberal coalition government has invested in increased border security and upgraded Customs screening in a concerted effort to detect and intercept drugs and illegal contraband at our borders before they cause harm on our streets. More than 4,000 criminals who are noncitizens have had their visas cancelled and been deported. Our national security policies will ensure that foreign fighters and terrorists will be denied entry into Australia.
It has been a priority to increase defence spending to two per cent of gross domestic product. Australia is located in a geopolitical region where emerging nations are spending as much as six per cent of their national GDPs on defence. In order to maintain and enhance the effectiveness of the Australian Defence Force, we must invest in the facilities, infrastructure, equipment, weapons, technology and personnel to protect and defend our nation and its national interests. It is reassuring to see continued investment in our domestic defence industry, which ensures that local expertise is maintained.
As our population ages, there is the need to provide more aged-care and respite care facilities to meet the growing need in Moore. It is encouraging to see additional aged-care facilities planned at Burns Beach, Currambine, Edgewater and Joondalup. The federal government must ensure that an adequate number of places are funded each year for our elderly residents. In addition, the federal government should be cognisant of the needs of self-funded retirees—in particular, the increasing cost-of-living pressures and healthcare costs. Deeming rates ought to be reviewed more regularly in light of the current low-interest rate environment, which affects our retirees' interest-bearing investments.
Our nation benefits from increased international trade and investment. One of my key priorities since being elected has been the development of export markets for Australian produced goods and services. My work has focused on building relationships with the Association of South-East Asian Nations. It's a region with which I am most familiar and where I have developed a network of connections. There are tremendous opportunities to supply the emerging economies of South-East Asia and beyond with premium Australian agricultural products, professional services, technology, resources and energy. We must implement strategies to further develop our economy through value adding and downstream processing.
In terms of environmental initiatives, I am involved in furthering the work of the LNG Marine Fuel Institute, which aims to convert the maritime shipping industry to the use of low-emission and environmentally friendly liquefied natural gas as a mainstream marine fuel in place of the existing heavy fuel oils used in global shipping, which emit significant amounts of toxic sulphur and nitrous oxide pollutants into the atmosphere. The objective is to replace the use of heavy fuel oil as the primary fuel for maritime shipping with more environmentally friendly LNG, which is produced abundantly in Western Australia's north-west.
By promoting and facilitating the use of LNG as a marine transportation fuel, the federal government can partner with industry to help grow Australia's economy and create jobs whilst reducing pollution and emissions on a large scale. The barriers preventing the transmission from heavy fuel oils to LNG include a lack of appropriate infrastructure, such as bunkering facilities, and the lack of an appropriate policy framework. It should be a priority for the Commonwealth to implement an emissions control area covering all Australian ports, as has already been done in the USA, Canada, China, the North Sea and the Baltic.
As a lifelong Christian, I'm a supporter of traditional family values, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, multiculturalism and reconciliation. In the current debate on religious freedom, it is important that we're respectful and tolerant of the religious beliefs of all Australians. Governments should not restrict the rights of Australians to worship freely according to their faiths, beliefs, values and conscience, except in instances where hate, violence or illegal acts are incited. Simply disagreeing with the religious views of another person should not be grounds for government intervention. Religious freedom extends into the realm of cultural freedom, which is important in our multicultural society. Individuals must be free to live their lives according to deeply held values and beliefs, which are not only religious but cultural in nature, without impinging on the rights of others to exercise their rights and freedoms.
Looking to the future, I believe that all Australians should become more united through reconciliation and multiculturalism. Australians should all be united as one people under one flag, regardless of our origins or history. Indigenous Australians, new migrants from different ethnic backgrounds and persons born in Australia should all be treated equally, with access to opportunity and advancement based on merit. Having emigrated from a country which had a policy of recording a citizen's race on official documents, I can appreciate the benefits of not having one's racial background recorded on Australian official documents. Our Constitution should promote harmony, unity and the principle of a single national identity, rather than differentiation based on race or ethnicity. In any debate surrounding a referendum to change the Constitution, the principle of national unity should be promoted: one people united under one flag.
I thank the many volunteers and supporters who assisted me during the federal election, working on prepoll early voting, putting up signs, delivering leaflets, attending functions and at the polling booths on election day. It was a massive team effort. The positive election result in Moore, which saw me re-elected with an increased margin, could not have been achieved without all the support.
In particular, I thank the members of the Moore division of the Liberal Party who supported my campaign. There are too many volunteers to mention individually, for fear of excluding some. However, special mention goes to President Colleen Borger, Sheldon Ingham, Eve Currie, David Anson, Tony Brooks, Sherryl Paternoster, Kate Taylor, Wayne Carroll, Marcus Henriques, Jan Norberger, and David and Cindy Harding. I would also like to thank my team of dedicated staff who work long hours to ensure that my office operates smoothly.
To conclude, this term of parliament provides the opportunity to deliver improved services, community facilities and infrastructure for the people of Moore. I pledge to do my very best to ensure that our community continues to have access to the infrastructure, facilities and services required to develop as an outer metropolitan regional city.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (18:18): We need to talk about dams. I know that dams have been on the agenda this week, but there's one dam in particular that we need to talk about, and that's Warragamba Dam. The New South Wales government's proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall continues to be exposed as reckless and a simplistic response to a very complex and important issue.
This is supposedly not a proposal to increase the availability of water supply for Western Sydney, although Premier Gladys Berejiklian did cite that as a reason for wanting to raise the dam wall during the New South Wales election campaign. Apparently that's not the reason—not that there are any clear plans for supplying drinking water to the aerotropolis which is to be built around the nearby Western Sydney Airport, perilously close to Sydney's major water supply, but that is another issue. What we're told is that the purpose of raising the Warragamba Dam wall is to reduce the risk of flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley. But what we have learned about are the consequences for the Blue Mountains of this proposal to build a wall and leave it empty. A report on the leaked draft environmental impact statement reveals that up to 1,300 hectares of World Heritage bushland could suffer permanent damage. That's permanent damage from temporary inundation. This is an area that is rated unique in the world. The local tourism industry depends on that World Heritage listing, and anything that undermines it also threatens this key economic plank of the Blue Mountains. If this is the sort of impact that is being anticipated, the New South Wales government needs to come clean with the community and international agencies, like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, because this would seriously undermine our World Heritage listing, the basis of so much that matters for the Blue Mountains.
Now, in June this year, a UN report assessing the state of the Blue Mountains World Heritage listing raised concerns about the proposed addition to the dam wall. UNESCO said any increased temporary inundation was 'likely to impact on its outstanding universal value'. It called on both the New South Wales and federal governments to send it any environmental impact statements before any decision on the dam was made. I welcome the comments from the federal Minister for the Environment, who told the ABC that no construction activity on raising the dam wall would happen unless all government approvals were in place. She said:
The Federal Government acknowledges the concern expressed in the draft World Heritage Committee decision about potential impacts of development on the Greater Blue Mountains Area.
She said:
I look forward to working closely with the World Heritage Committee and keeping them informed about the actions we intend to take which recognise the value of this world class natural landscape.
But it isn't just environmental assets at risk. The New South Wales government's assessment of cultural heritage is a 2,000-page report the traditional owners were given only 40 days to respond to. Many sites of Aboriginal cultural heritage would be flooded, and I think the historical context is important. We need to remember that the Gundungurra people were forced off their land in the 1940s when Warragamba was built. I want to single out two women in particular who have been instrumental in helping raise awareness about the impacts. They are Kazan Brown and Aunty Sharyn Halls, two strong Gundungurra women.
What remains of our Aboriginal heritage in this region is crucial, and I support the traditional owners in their plea for more time to consider the 2,000-page report on cultural heritage impacts. I also welcome the New South Wales Legislative Council's inquiry into the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. That inquiry is going to look at things like conflicting reports on the planning height for the dam wall raising, which vary from 14 to 17 metres, and the potential use of the raising for additional storage capacity as well as flood mitigation. It will also look at plans for future property development on the flood-prone land in the Hawkesbury-Nepean flood plain. It's not called a flood plain for nothing. It will also consider the adequacy of the environmental impact assessment process to date, including the assessment of impacts on World Heritage, Aboriginal cultural heritage, the ecological values of the greater Blue Mountains National Park, the Warragamba community, and communities on the Hawkesbury-Nepean flood plain. It will also examine the nature and extent of the alternative options for flood management that form the basis of the cost-benefit analysis of the project.
So they have much work to do, and I look forward to the findings of that inquiry. I do note that already a joint submission from 17 Indigenous and environmental NGOs from six countries has been made to this inquiry. They've raised concerns about the consultant commissioned by the New South Wales government to do the cultural and environmental assessments, SMEC, with concerns that there is a history of abusing Indigenous rights across the globe, most notably in South-East Asia, Mongolia and Africa.
I also want to address some of the silly and dangerous comments that have been made when this issue has been discussed. Any politician who tries to paint this as a trees-versus-lives debate should be ashamed of themselves. There has been development on flood-prone land across the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley that should never have been allowed. Yet, here we are, and we have another plan designed to allow the opening up of more land for development and, as I said, according to the Premier, to provide additional water storage capacity. The state government cannot continue to ignore the mounting criticism coming from all directions, including those international bodies, federal and state departments, and leading scientists.
I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the work of Harry Burkitt from the Give a Dam campaign, the Colong Foundation and the former member for Macquarie Bob Debus, who have all helped raise the issues of concern, which the New South Wales government would so happily have swept under the carpet as they tout purely a benefit approach to this project. In fact, the New South Wales government's own charts, which have been leaked, suggest that a 14-metre lifting of the wall only provides a small benefit during extreme flood events. As Professor Jamie Pittock, a flood management expert at the ANU, said, 'It really undercuts the argument for raising the dam wall.' His view is that no matter how high you build the wall, floods will still happen in this area. And, as I said, there are some leaked documents suggesting a 17-metre wall raising. So there is much to be examined before decisions are made on this. Right now, the focus should be on fully exploring all options, including the provision of major regional road evacuation options for existing residents in the event of a large flood—something that has not been prioritised by the New South Wales government.
One of my biggest fears is that raising the wall could lull governments, developers and residents into thinking that they are safe, when we need to actually be preparing for a flood, and that, at a stroke of a pen, a future minister could change what might be empty space in case of flood into water storage, thereby increasing the likelihood of a catastrophic flood. All affected communities need to be involved in consideration of a range of strategies that could protect lives in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley and that don't result in the destruction of World Heritage areas.
The dam raising proposal ignores the reality that several rivers contribute to flood levels across the Hawkesbury, including, among others, the Grose River, the Colo River, South Creek and Macdonald River. In fact, the problem outlined in the 2015 Hawkesbury Nepean Flood Plan shows that the Grose River in particular drains a high rainfall from the Blue Mountains and can have a significant effect on flooding at Windsor. In addition, the flood plan includes the fact that the river level rises at North Richmond even before floodwater arrives via the Nepean River or Warragamba Dam.
The New South Wales government should also be looking at the serious issue of long-term water supply for this ever-expanding Western Sydney population. These are issues that are simply not properly being addressed. I'll continue to demand that the New South Wales government consults with our whole community to ensure that our voices are heard. This is a matter of the utmost importance to both the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury.
I've had the privilege in the last few weeks of visiting some of my local aged-care residences and retirement villages. I've been very grateful for those invitations to the new Rivera Place that the Richmond Club opened, to the Uniting Hawkesbury Richmond aged-care facility and to Riverside Gardens, a lovely retirement village in North Richmond. What those visits have demonstrated is ongoing concern amongst our ageing population and their families about levels of services. For those in retirement villages, it's things like in-home care and getting the response that you need when you just need a bit of help to stay in your own independent space. But they're also concerned about access to after-hours GPs, and that's something we really need to consider—how we better deliver those sorts of services to the more outlying areas of Sydney. Access might be great in the CBD, but in areas like mine it is hard to come by.
For those who are living in aged care and their families, there are always concerns about the adequacy of dementia support and the adequacy of government funding to ensure the right numbers of staff to look after people with quite high needs. So I will continue to work with my local aged-care facilities and my seniors in retirement villages. They have done so much for our country. They are now in their twilight years, and they really deserve our support, ensuring they have a high quality of life as they, hopefully, slow down and take it a bit easy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That grievances be noted.
In The Zone
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (18:30): Last week I had the pleasure of speaking at the 10th annual In The Zone conference in Perth, with this year's event focusing on critical mineral resources. Members may have heard me outline in a number of speeches that, before I was elected to the federal parliament in 2016, I was the chief operating officer of the Perth USAsia Centre, which now organises the In The Zone conference. It is a source of great pride to me—and, I'm sure, to all involved—that the conference seems to grow bigger and better each year, with the focal point of course that these discussions and debates are held in Perth, Western Australia—Australia's gateway to the Indo-Pacific.
This annual conference seeks to bring critical discussion on Australia, Western Australia and the region to Perth, a capital that shares the same time zone with a most dynamic part of the world—that part of the world that will see the greatest economic growth and has enormous demographic advantages simply waiting to be unleashed. The theme of the inaugural In The Zone was 'Crisis, opportunity and the new world order'. It is a theme that remains as relevant today as it was 10 years ago, when participants from around the world met in Perth to debate Australia's role in Asia, regional financial markets and foreign investment and sovereignty.
In my speech to this conference last week, I focused on what Australian governments now and in the future can learn from this nation's previous experience in the supply chain of critical minerals and what government might do to further support the development of our critical minerals industry. There is no doubt it is a unique industry. Critical minerals are a relatively low-volume prospect, especially compared to one of our greatest comparative advantages, the iron ore in the north of WA. Critical mineral resources are relatively scarce, with few supply options available for these minerals, which are an essential component of technological advances that we all desire and many of which, I suspect, we are yet to see.
Scarcity of any product—but in particular one nominated as a critical mineral—can be a danger to international markets because of the dominant supplier's ability to withhold and make political demands. I would warn against the temptation to develop industry policy that subjects the supply of the critical minerals of Western Australia to conditions or even restricts their supply and thereby politicises participation in the working of international markets.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 18 : 33 to 18 : 46
Ms MADELEINE KING: As I was saying, ordinarily, I—and, I'm sure, many members of this place—would think this unlikely to happen. But in these unusual times we are witnessing the nation that created the post-war rules-based international trading system seemingly turn on its heel and walk away. Australia's economy has thrived for decades in a trading system that embraced clear rules and multilateralism. This is now under threat as some countries embrace unilateralism and protectionism. Australia's critical mineral sector will only reach its full export potential under a trading system that offers the opportunity to access the world's biggest markets.
There are lessons from the past to be learned here. Australia has been an important supplier of critical and strategic minerals before. The urgent demand of the 1940s for the critical minerals and ore of WA explains the 1949 headline from the now-defunct The Western Mail, 'New minerals for the atomic age'. The proposal in 1949 was to establish a processing facility in the metropolitan Perth industrial suburb of Welshpool that would enable Western Australians to participate in the value chain of the scarce minerals which are the natural endowment of that state. But, as we know now, it did not come to pass. The processing of those new minerals for the atomic age did not occur in WA.
A declassified CIA report from Dr JD Morgan of the US Bureau of Mines from 1983 entitled Strategic materials in World War II shows that the USA had a significant dependence on the import of metals and minerals in the war years 1942, 1943 and 1944. During this time, and of particular relevance to WA, more than 90 per cent of the strategic minerals beryl, which was processed into beryllium, and tantalite, which was processed into tantalum, were imported into the US.
Not many people in this parliament, or outside of it, would have heard of Dr Buller Murphy or of Lady Moulden—or Lady Moulden-Hackett, as she was sometimes known. Hackett will be a familiar name to many Western Australians, particularly those with any association with the University of Western Australia or The West Australian newspaper. I would expect it to be unfamiliar to most in this place, but the story of Lady Deborah Vernon Hackett is one of no small significance and one which I believe should be recorded in this place.
She was the wife and then widow of the great benefactor who ensured the establishment of UWA, Sir John Winthrop Hackett. She was also known as Lady Moulden from her second marriage. Sadly, widowed twice and eventually thrice, Lady Hackett was also Dr Buller Murphy, who owned the Wodgina mine, which was 100 kilometres from Port Hedland in north-west WA. Her portrait hangs in the Chancellor's Room of UWA, in Winthrop Hall.
From 1905 to 1939, the Wodgina mine enjoyed a global monopoly in the production of high-grade tantalite. As it happened, Lady Moulden-Hackett-Dr Buller Murphy also had control of a very light and extraordinarily hard mineral called beryl, which could be transformed into the highly desirable beryllium. Tantalum and beryllium were strategic minerals for the US in the early 1940s, and they remain so in 2019.
A woman who took the name of her three husbands was the first Western Australian to recognise the importance of the globally scarce mineral resources of the state. She took the story of the Wodgina mine endowment of scarce and strategic minerals to London. She sought to convince our old friends in England of the strategic importance of her tenement. She was not only seeking international investment to support the continued extraction of minerals critical to the war effort but looking to the long-term development of processing facilities in WA, the facility in Welshpool. Then, as now, international investment and international economic partnerships were critical to the exploitation of the vast natural mineral resources that are both Western Australia's endowment and our comparative advantage in a competitive world.
As Dr Buller Murphy sought investment, the war expanded and the need for resources became urgent to its newest reluctant participant, the USA. The Commonwealth government of Australia received a request from the US government for as much tantalite as could be supplied. To meet this request, the comptroller of mines took over the Wodgina mine and its supply of tantalite. The need for this mineral of abundance in north-west WA was so urgent that 18 tons of it was airlifted from the desert in the US, and in the United States it was from this Western Australian ore that the entire requirements of the Allied nations for refined tantalum was produced. Notwithstanding the efforts of Dr Buller Murphy on site at Wodgina, and seeking international investment, it was not enough. Australia was not able to participate in the strategic minerals story of the war beyond the extraction of ore.
In 1942 the US again sent an urgent request to the Australian government, this time to meet the urgent need for large amounts of beryl to make beryllium and also to produce caesium. The demand was able to be met from one mine in Western Australia, Dr Buller Murphy's Wodgina mine. Beryl was mined and shipped from the Pilbara to New York, but only in 70-ton lots in case the shipment was attacked on its voyage and to ensure the entire stockpile would not be lost. It is likely the Wodgina beryl was destined to participate in the Manhattan project, as pure beryllium is able to moderate neutrons and control nuclear reactions and therefore aids the function of nuclear weapons. It was a dread cargo. Beryllium has played a significant role in aircraft navigation and space exploration as it is lightweight, noncorrosive and nonmagnetic. Now it is used in personal computers and phone devices because of its thermal qualities. Tantalum was critical for the development of radar technology and is now used extensively in avionics.
The circumstances of the 1940s and the story of the Wodgina mine are clearly very different to the circumstances of the critical minerals industry today. We live in peaceful if somewhat tense times, but, like Dr Buller Murphy, we also hope for the advanced processing required to make critical minerals strategically useful to take place in Australia. Like her, we know that this will require international economic partnerships and strong investment of financial and intellectual capital into Australia. The role of governments in this sector will be very important.
I firmly believe that Australia can be a world leader in the exploration, extraction, production and processing of these scarce resources, but it will require all shoulders to be applied to the wheel, especially in the effort to bring international investment, capital and know-how into Australia. Federal and state ministers need to work together constructively with local industry to plan and, in fact, go and seek that critical investment and build solid international economic relationships that will develop an Australian critical minerals industry. If we learn the lessons of Dr Buller Murphy, we can ensure that Australians are able to share in a prosperous future from the critical minerals industry. If we learn from our past experience, when ore was extracted straight from the Pilbara, put on a plane and sent straight to New York, we might have a chance of developing a critical mineral industry that works for more Western Australians and more Australians and that creates the processing facility that Dr Buller Murphy dreamed of and hoped to establish in Welshpool but was out of our reach because we were not able to attract the international investment that we needed. This is what governments should do and is how they can best help a critical minerals industry establish itself in WA so that we may source those parts of the world that need the minerals in the development of all manner of things that people use every day in this world. I urge the government to continue to seek that critical capital investment and know-how and to continue to seek those relationships that Australia will need with our international partners and to build the economic relationships that will be critical to the development of a critical minerals industry in Australia.
World Mental Health Day
Townsville: Floods
Herbert Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (18:54): I want to take this opportunity this evening to say, 'How good is Townsville?' I am so proud of our community. Last Thursday, 10 October, was a very special day. Of course I'm talking about World Mental Health Day. Most people might like to mark these sorts of occasions by wearing a badge, making a donation or of course putting a social media video up on your Facebook or Instagram. Those are all great things. But that's not how Townsville celebrated World Mental Health Day. Instead, hundreds of locals put on high-vis fluoro reflective vests at Bunnings in Fairfield Waters to stand in solidarity over mental illness, which can be hard to live with. We need to be supporting others with it. It can so often be completely invisible. Sufferers can suffer in silence and look like they have normal lives, but beneath the surface it's a horrible battle that's raging, and they don't want to speak up or do anything about it because of stigma. So high-vis was chosen for the people of Townsville so that they could say loudly and proudly that it's okay not to be okay. It's good to say something to someone. It's important to have the conversation about how you're going. So these hundreds of people together at Bunnings were able to have an invaluable conversation about mental health.
I will admit that there was a bit of ulterior motive to the gathering at the Fairfield Waters wearing high-vis. That was because there was an attempt to break a Guinness world record. Thanks to the initiative of Mental Health Australia and the Queensland Alliance for Mental Health I, with other civic leaders, launched a massive campaign in September to get as many people as possible to take part. Last Thursday from 4 pm the car park began to fill up as locals and national celebrities provided entertainment and important interviews regarding their own journeys with the ups and downs of mental illness. But as 6 pm drew nearer the crowd swelled, and it certainly looked like the potential was there to get close to the current world record of 2,136 people, which was set by a city in Japan a few years ago. Soon enough the crowds were herded into official lines of 50 people, the adjudicators were checking and verifying counts, and the final figure was in: 2,499 Townsville locals broke the world record for the most people wearing high-vis in the same place. It was a huge win, with a total of 363 people above and beyond the world record. The excitement was obvious as the massive crowd screamed out in joy, knowing that together they'd achieved something amazing.
It was such a great event, showing that this is the exact sort of thing that we, as a community, need to be doing to reduce stigma and open up the conversation about mental illness and mental health and wellbeing. In this event over 2,500 people gave even a little bit of thought to mental illness, thought about suicide prevention, and were encouraged and empowered to do more to check on their mates and ensure they're okay. I was so proud of Townsville, the community that I live in. I've said before and I'll say it again: mental illness and suicide prevention are not dirty words. It's not a Defence issue. It's not a veteran issue. It's a societal issue. We need to do more to encourage people to speak up and get help if they need it, before it's too late. That's why I'm proud of a government which is investing in primary health care. This government recognises that suicide is one of the leading causes of premature death in Australia, which is a national tragedy. But actions speak louder than words and promises, and that is why I want to encourage anyone listening today to speak up if you're not feeling okay, to reach out for help, to know that there are options available and people to speak to before anyone contemplates ending their own life. And if you're going pretty well yourself, use your own mental health and wellbeing to ask others if they're doing all right, and put them in touch with the right agencies and help if need be. I'm not a counsellor, and unless you're a counsellor we shouldn't be giving advice; we should be giving information on where people can get the help that they need.
It was an amazing event, and having my daughter, who's 16 months old, run around with a high-vis vest on, singing and dancing and being involved, really brought the whole community together. As someone who spoke about my own challenges with mental ill health, I think it's extremely important to speak about it, because if you don't speak about it, it just builds up inside. I think that everyone in this place would agree with me that mental illness and suicide prevention aren't dirty words. We will be, and should be, working together to lower the stigma and lower the high rate of suicide.
I want to mention another community group, which isn't completely related to mental health, although we all know that physical fitness can go a long way to fighting off mental health issues. This is a group that I met a few weeks ago, who were absolutely devastated by the monsoon which hit Townsville in February. A lot of sporting clubs were affected, and one that was hit hard was the Rockwheelers Mountain Bike Club. It was eye-opening to hear from Travis Bailey, the land access manager for the Mount Stuart track, about just how much the weather event had affected the club. Travis told me that he had literally hundreds of photos of damaged parts of the tracks in his phone, because they all need some sort of repair work. Eight months on from the monsoon weather, the club's members still haven't been able to have a proper day on the tracks due to the damage. It hasn't been just the members of the club who have been affected. I am told that up to 400 people, both mountain bikers and walkers, would use the track every single day. So, despite the countless of hours of volunteer labour and amazing community spirit to try and get things up and running, many people were still not able to enjoy getting out and about in our beautiful bush.
Fortunately, the Minister for natural disaster and emergency management was able to find a $200,000 grant out of the $20 million community and recreational assets program under the disaster recovery funding arrangements. This is the kind of project that really gives a community a boost. It will restore the mountain bike trails and repair facilities damaged by the floods so mountain bikers in Townsville can get back to what they love doing. We live in a very active community, so it will be great to see mountain bikers whizzing down Mount Stuart again soon and this great community sporting group bringing people together, once again.
While I'm on the subject of the fantastic Townsville community, I want to highlight the amazing contributions of some of the members of that community—because a community is only as good as the people who make it up. At the Australian honours and awards ceremony I had the privilege to attend a few weeks ago, I was able to meet some of the people and recognise their achievements in special way. Of course, the headline award of the afternoon was the appointment, as a Member of the Order of Australia in the General Division, of Johnathan Thurston. Jonno—a former Cowboys captain, Maroons legend, and of the course representative player for the Australian Kangaroos—was recognised as a role model and ambassador for support programs for Indigenous communities.
Also among the award winners was my own former company sergeant major, Warrant Officer Mark Retallick, who was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the Military Division. Warrant Officer Retallick was recognised for his performance of duty to the Australian Army in regimental leadership roles, demonstrating exceptional professionalism in his contribution to remote Australian units and the Defence Indigenous Development Program. 'Rats'—as I call him, as a mate, was someone who looked after me when I was injured in Afghanistan. It was an honour for me to be able to be there when he was presented with a Medal of the Order of Australia.
There were, of course, other people who were awarded medals of the Order of Australia in the General Division. I want to recognise Mr Greg Jones, Mr Robert Pack and Mr Kevin Pattel for their various contributions to our community.
There is one Medal of the Order of Australia awardee I would like to highlight, and that is Mr George White. The first thing I noticed about Mr White is his big white beard—you can't miss it—and soon it was very obvious how important his beard was. Mr White has been spending hours and hours every Christmas volunteering his time with children with illnesses and disabilities, and their families, to serve as Santa Claus. Mr White has served in that role at Townsville's Special Children's Christmas party for the past 23 years. It was a pleasure and a privilege to meet Mr White after the ceremony; it's not often that you meet people who are more warm and friendly. It didn't take me long to realise how deserving Mr White was of this particular recognition, and we finished our conversation with him giving me a hug. He's just a lovely, friendly person who wants to be involved and help everyone he speaks with.
Well done to all the award winners. Like I said, it was a really great honour and a privilege to be there for the ceremony.
Infrastructure
Blair Electorate: Medical Workforce
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (19:04): This coalition government talks a lot about congestion busting on infrastructure. Tonight I would like to engage in a bit of deception busting instead, because this government's approach to infrastructure is nothing less than smoke and mirrors.
The government sat on its hands when it comes to infrastructure projects. In fact, less than 30 per cent of the much-heralded $100 billion in infrastructure programs is budgeted over the next four years. That's right: less than 30 per cent. The government's so-called $100 billion includes programs like financial assistance grants components, which are a regular part of what governments do to fund local governments for roads; black spot funding, which is a bipartisan program which has been operating for many years; and the Roads to Recovery Program, which is also a program supported by both sides of parliament for many years.
When you look at the $100 billion, you can see it includes many programs that have been around for a very long time and very little in terms of new initiatives. If you look at the budget papers, you see that much of this so-called $100 billion plan is pushed out to the outer years—off in the never-never, to be honest with you. It is not even within this election cycle or the one after that. A project such as the M1 Pacific Motorway extension to Raymond Terrace in New South Wales has only three per cent of funding budgeted. Others, such as the rail upgrade in South Geelong, won't commence until July 2024. The so-called $100 billion infrastructure program doesn't even add up, because it relies on projects that, frankly, aren't adequately budgeted for and are not even supported by state governments—for example, the Perth Freight Link, the East West Link in Victoria and others which need funding such as the Cross River Rail project in South East Queensland, a shovel-ready project that will deliver many jobs. This government won't even fund it. So the government continues to overpromise and underdeliver.
In their seventh year this government haven't even been able to deliver what they promised. We have seen an underspend of about $5 billion in the infrastructure budget, so it looks to us as though the so-called budget surplus which they claim they will deliver will be underspent in the infrastructure portfolio and others, like the NDIS, with a $4.6 billion underspend, or will involve reprogramming or pushing out expenditure in areas like defence, with rubbery figures and budget jiggery-pokery. When it comes to the so-called Urban Congestion Fund, this government have failed to spend a dollar in the 2018-19 year. It's like an episode of Utopia.
But they did manage to spend $11.6 million on taxpayer-funded congestion-busting advertising in the lead-up to the election. Talk about life imitating art! This is a fund the government has announced with great fanfare, out of which they are going to fund many projects, yet we have seen not one start. Analysis from Infrastructure Partnership Australia confirms the infrastructure spending as a proportion of general government expenditure will fall to 1.37 per cent over the forward estimates, down from 1.46 per cent over the last decade. So, the infrastructure spending as a proportion of general government expenditure is actually going down and will be weaker across the forward estimates, and the government's attitude is to say one thing and do another—or not do anything at all, to be honest with you. They are a third-term government in their seventh year, and they have no agenda and no plan for nation-building infrastructure.
They just don't get it. They see infrastructure as a state issue and see no strategic leadership or planning for the Commonwealth or any role for infrastructure providing economic stimulus. One of the best examples of that that I've seen locally is in the Warrego and Cunningham highways. The Cunningham Highway needs upgrading from Yamanto to Ebenezer Creek. The turn-off is the Willowbank interchange, which leads to the RAAF base in Amberley. Labor made a commitment of $170 million, and this government followed it but have done nothing in terms of negotiating with the Queensland government to get it done. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure to come to my electorate and meet with the local Willowbank Area (Residents) Group to hear what they have to say or meet with the personnel at the RAAF base at Amberley, who have to face the congestion every day. They'd like that busted if it could be.
This is a government which has ignored the fact that this road needs urgent upgrading outside one of the biggest military bases in the country, RAAF Base Amberley, in an area that's growing. Ipswich's population is set to more than double in the next 20 years. They need to sit down with the Queensland government, sort out the funding and get this done.
Also, with the Warrego Highway, there's money in the budget, they've said, but nothing has been allocated for the Mount Crosby interchange. If you live at Karana Downs, Karalee, Tivoli or any of the northern suburbs of Ipswich, you know this is a safety issue and a bottleneck. People take their lives into their hands every day by going through this interchange. It needs to be fixed, and the government needs to do it.
This government brags about infrastructure spending, but, if you look at the budget papers, you see they don't get it done. They don't sit down with state governments to negotiate better outcomes for the Warrego Highway and the Cunningham Highway. They've let the people of Ipswich down again and again. They're a government that talk big on infrastructure and congestion but they engage in deception—
Mr Thompson interjecting—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The member for Herbert and the member for Chifley!
Mr NEUMANN: In addition to that, I'm concerned about the shortage of doctors in the Ipswich region going forward. On 1 July this year the government, without any fanfare, without much warning at all, decided to change the previous District of Workforce Shortage system, which used a simple GP-to-population ratio, to the new Distribution Priority Area system, which has adversely impacted my area and will continue to do so. I've met many GPs and GP practices in my area, and they are very concerned about what's going to happen in relation to this issue. Minister Mark Coulton, the Minister for Regional Services, Decentralisation and Local Government, wrote to me. After I had received his letter, I wrote back to him, and, to give him credit, he met with me to talk about the local issues. The problem in relation to this issue is that the regional areas in my electorate—and they are regional areas, country towns—will be adversely affected, and so will the city of Ipswich. So I wrote to the minister about it. I think what should happen—and I have the support of the member for Oxley in relation to this—is that these areas around Ipswich and the areas around the southern part of the Somerset region, such as Lowood, Fernvale and Karana Downs, should be included and recognised as regional areas.
Already 50 per cent of our GPs in the Ipswich and West Moreton region are not Australians. I've met with many of the local GPs and GP practices. It's been a topic of much discussion amongst the medical fraternity in Ipswich and the surrounding areas, and The Queensland Times has reported widely and wisely in relation to this. I wrote to the minister, I met with him and he wrote back to me saying that he won't do it, he won't change it; however, should the circumstances of an area change substantially, such as a dramatic reduction in the number of GPs employed in the area, resulting in a substantial drop in health services in the community, they may consider the community's needs. Seriously? You've got to wait until people in my area get adverse impacts on their health before you'll do anything about it?
You've got to listen to what the local GPs have to say in the area. I have the support, by the way, of the Darling Downs and West Moreton PHN. Merrilyn Strohfeldt, the CEO, supports what I'm doing in terms of the reclassification. I also have the support of the West Moreton Hospital and Health Service in relation to this. Dr Kerrie Freeman supports me. They're supportive of what I'm doing, and the government won't listen. The government say: 'If we've got a substantial drop in GPs, we may do something about it in future.' Well, they're waiting for my community and surrounding communities to be adversely impacted in terms of health outcomes. They're completely ignoring the health needs assessments done in 2017, 2018 and 2019 by the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network. You can see them on their website going forward to 2021. I'd recommend the minister have a look at the issues of diabetes, poverty, heart disease, lung disease and a whole range of areas where we have real problems in our region. But the government say: 'If your health needs decline and you have fewer doctors, we may consider it.'
It gets worse. It is like that episode of Utopia. Guess what they say? They've established a 'distribution advisory group'. He's going to refer my request off to a committee. At the same time, in the paragraph before, he says: 'By the way, if you get adversely impacted by losing a substantial number of doctors, we're going to have a look at it at some stage in the future. But don't worry. There's a committee looking at it.' I'm waiting for Rob Sitch to come along—you know, Tony, who's in charge of the NBA? He'll help you! The minister says: 'No. We're going to refer it to a committee. We'll look at it at the next meeting.' Well, I'm still waiting for that. I've got that, by the way, in a letter dated 23 September 2019 and received on 27 September 2019. I'm waiting for the minister, waiting for the committee—the much-vaunted committee that'll sort out the problem. They're not worrying about the adverse impact on our area. They should listen to Doctors Cathryn Hester and Tony Bayliss from the Colleges Crossing Family Practice, or indeed the doctors from the Riverlink Family Practice. I recommend they go and talk to them or any number of other doctors I've spoken to. The government should do much better.
Syria
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (19:14): I rise to raise concerns about Turkey's unilateral military incursion into north-eastern Syria which commenced on 9 October. As the Prime Minister and the foreign minister stated in a joint media release on 10 October:
Actions of this nature will have grave consequences for regional security and could significantly undermine the gains made by the international coalition in its fight against Da'esh …
It will cause additional civilian suffering, lead to greater population displacement, and further inhibit humanitarian access.
The nation of Syria has experienced unspeakable suffering since the civil war commenced there in 2011. Roughly half a million Syrians have been killed in the conflict, most of them civilians, more than five million Syrians have fled the country since the war began and more than six million people are displaced internally. For a country of 24 million people at the outbreak of the war, this is a heavy toll of horror.
During my time as ambassador to Israel, on a number of occasions I visited Syrians who were being treated in Israeli hospitals, having fled across the border after sustaining injuries from the conflict: children who were awfully young but having to cope with limb amputations or shocking internal and trauma related injuries; mothers and aunts and grandmothers—and fathers too. Most of them were in a state of disbelief, grateful to have escaped the horrors of that war. They were incredulous that Israeli doctors and nurses—people from a country they had been educated to believe was their sworn enemy—opened their arms and their hospitals and were treating them as they would their own people and providing them with the best medical care available.
Eight years after it started, the Syrian civil war is still exacting a high toll of human tragedy. The Assad regime has employed odious tactics that are, on any measure, a gross violation of the laws of war: the use of chemical weapons, the deliberate targeting of hospitals and medical facilities, the use of barrel bombs and double-tap strikes, torture and arbitrary imprisonment. This Assad regime is, sadly, in ascendancy. One of the few coordinates of hope in an otherwise bleak landscape has been the relative stability and normalcy secured in the north-eastern part of Syria by Kurdish forces, a de facto autonomous region known as Rojava. This Kurdish controlled area of stability is now being imperilled by Turkey's incursion. And it is the Assad regime—and its backers, Russia and Iran—that looks likely to emerge as the biggest winner from these latest developments.
There are few peoples in the Middle East more deserving of national self-determination than the Kurds: a people of 30 million who respect the rights of minorities, treat women as equals, disavow terrorism, disavow anti-Semitism, and who have been a steadfast force for stability in the Middle East and a reliable Western security partner for decades. It is only the vagaries of history that prevented them from achieving a state of their own following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. The homeland promised to the Kurdish people at the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 was overturned by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, a victim of geopolitical trade-offs at the time. The Kurds are a stabilising and positive force in the Middle East.
From at least the time of Salah ad-Din they have been a formidable fighting force. They have also been steadfastly on our side. While they may not have participated in the Normandy landings in World War II, Kurds of the Assyrian parachute company fought for the Allies in Greece and Albania, amongst other places. They also helped overthrow a pro-Nazi regime in Iraq. In the Gulf War of 1991 and the Iraq War of 2003, they supported allied and Australian efforts. Most recently, they formed the spearhead of our collective effort to defeat Islamic State, or ISIS. The Syrian Democratic Forces, made up mostly of Kurdish fighters, lost an estimated 10,000 soldiers fighting and defeating ISIS and recapturing ISIS-held territory. In doing so, they helped reduce a direct national security threat to Australia and to our allies. For that, the Kurds deserve our immeasurable gratitude, and I wish to place that on record today.
The crossing of Turkish forces into north-eastern Kurdish controlled Syria following the withdrawal of the small number of US troops from the border region now threatens a number of grave consequences. There is the certainty of further population displacement and human suffering. There is a likelihood that the roughly 10,000 Islamic State terrorist prisoners being held by Kurdish forces in this region will find their way free in the chaos and revitalise the efforts of ISIS, or find their way back to Australia or elsewhere in the West, where they will pose a threat to all of us. There is the opportunity this will create for the Assad regime and its backers, Iran and Russia, to further entrench their influence in the Middle East and destabilise the neighbourhood, and for Iran to consolidate its supply lines from Iraq through to Lebanon. Finally, there is the potentially unnerving signal being sent about the steadfastness of alliance relationships.
Since the Turkish incursion began, just a few days ago, on 9 October, we have already seen scores of people killed and more than 100,000 displaced; troubling media reports of summary executions of Kurdish political leaders by Turkish backed militias; and at least two terrorist attacks in Syria, for which ISIS has claimed responsibility. It seems the Syrian Democratic Forces have been forced to cut a deal with the Assad regime in order to survive. This is understandable given their predicament. The Kurdish commander-in-chief, Mazloum Abdi, wrote in Foreign Policy on 13 October:
… if we have to choose between compromises and the genocide of our people, we will surely choose life for our people.
The desire on the part of the United States administration to lessen its security burden and bring its troops home is understandable, and I do not intend to criticise it. I would simply point out that the deployment of military personnel abroad is intrinsic to how a global power, such as the United States, is able to exert influence. The United States currently has some 170,000 active duty personnel stationed abroad in over 150 countries. There are some 55,000 in Japan, some 25,000 in Korea and some 35,000 in Germany. They are a stabilising presence around the world, allowing the United States to exert influence and discouraging potential aggression from neighbours. The United States has just announced the deployment of 2,800 additional troops to Saudi Arabia for precisely this reason—to help deter further aggression against Saudi oil infrastructure from its neighbours.
The same was true for the US presence on the Syrian border. Despite the US personnel being small in number and not directly involved in combat, their presence acted as a stabilising force. With the withdrawal of these US personnel, the challenge is to find other tools to exert influence, limit humanitarian suffering and contain instability in Syria. I note the United States has foreshadowed the imposition of economic sanctions against Turkey. European leaders have condemned Turkey's military offensive. It will be equally important for Europe to take direct steps and measures in response. Australia too has a role to play.
There are no easy solutions in Syria. Optimal outcomes were rendered unfeasible a long time ago, and path dependence has constrained our options to date. But, whilst we may not readily be able to make Syria better, we surely have an obligation to attempt to prevent things from becoming worse. The Syria Study Group, a bipartisan commission charged by the US Congress with making recommendations with respect to the conflict in Syria, released its final report just a few weeks ago, on 24 September. The group concluded:
… the threats the conflict in Syria poses—of terrorism directed against the United States and its allies and partners; of an empowered Iran; of an aggrandized Russia; of large numbers of refugees, displaced persons, and other forms of humanitarian catastrophe; and of the erosion of international norms of war and the Western commitment to them—are sufficiently serious to merit a determined response …
These concerns, and the need for a determined response, are just as pertinent to Australia and Australian interests. I'm pleased that Australia has expressed to the Turkish government directly its concerns about its military operations in Syria. I expect Australia will continue, and should continue, to make our views known and we'll support a concerted international effort to mitigate the impact of Turkey's offensive. Our interests demand no less.
Extremism
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (19:24): I would make the point, in response to the member for Wentworth, that it's easy for us to rightly ascribe concern about what the Turks are doing—absolutely. But we should also remember that this situation has come about because one bloke wouldn't follow advice about the presence of his country in that part of the world and how it shouldn't pull out in the way that has happened. I've said a number of times I'm genuinely concerned about the way that the Trump administration's making decisions against taking in the advice of its allies. We cannot act unilaterally. We have to work as a group, and I think we should also call that out as well. I'll be on the record as saying I'm genuinely concerned about what the Turkish government is doing there, but we should also call out the way that the US has pulled out, and I say that as someone who is a strong believer in the US-Australia alliance. I will leave my comments at that.
I have other things to talk about, in particular something that's concerned me from last week. Last week, a bloke with a machete walked up to a place of worship in Brisbane. This is not the first time this place of worship has faced violence or some fairly extreme behaviour. The place of worship is the Holland Park mosque. Last month they had swastikas painted on their fence and they also had the words 'St Tarrant' graffitied on this place. Last week, as I said, we had a bloke with a machete walking up to this mosque. This isn't right, and it is raising a point and reinforcing a point that I've been raising with the government, that we have got to take seriously white supremacists and far-right extremism. This stuff is rearing its head in the US, and we've seen it a number of times this year where people have been the victim of some terrible behaviour that has resulted in the loss of life. This form of extremism is very serious, and I have raised my concerns that it is crossing borders. People can say, 'Well, that's just hype,' and, 'That's not true.'
For the people who reckon that this is just contained on the shores of the US, they should take the time to read Paul Maley's work in The Australian. Paul Maley has done some important work in basically tracing what the shooter at Christchurch did, the thinking that influenced this person and the way others are copying him. I have to tell you, I was chilled to the bone when I read in Paul Maley's account in The Australian. I give The Australian full credit for doing this. They looked deeply into this issue. I want to read into the Hansard this paragraph that, as I said, sent a chill through me:
Five and a half months after he attacked the Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre, Tarrant has become a cult hero on the sites he once trawled with semi-anonymity. A post by John Earnest, a 20-year-old from San Diego accused of graffitiing a mosque with pro-Tarrant slogans, shows how the Grafton boy has already joined the ranks of right-wing terrorists Anders Breivik and Dylann Roof, two of Tarrant’s heroes.
"For Brenton Tarrant –t/pol/" Earnest wrote on the mosque’s wall, referencing online forums known as /pol/ for "politically incorrect". Earnest would later be accused of attacking a synagogue, killing one. Like Tarrant he tried to live-stream the shooting but failed, thanks to a technical hitch.
These people are watching each other and mimicking each other, and they're are all doing it through the internet.
You then go to the Australian space and you look at what people say who are in the know, like Greg Barton, from Deakin University, who just earlier this month wrote an article entitled 'Despite Christchurch, Australia still not taking far-right extremism seriously'. He said:
Police and counter-terrorism officials have long been warning us of the rising threat of far-right violent extremism.
He also goes on to make the point:
We now need to face the reality that of 50 terrorism-related deaths in the US last year, almost all involved far-right extremism.
The point is this: I don't care if it's Islamist inspired or supremacist inspired, if it represents a threat to the Australian people it should be taken seriously. And I'm telling you now, based on the briefings I've received, we are not taking this seriously. We reckon that we're only following a few people on this issue here in this country. I have the greatest respect for what our security agencies and intelligence agencies are doing. But we also know in this day and age, with the rise of the lone wolf, we can't track these people easily. We need to take this seriously. We need to deal with it now.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 30
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Contract Notice CN3610753
(Question No. 83)
Mr Conroy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 25 July 2019 :
In respect of Contract Notice CN3610753 published on Austender on 15 July 2019, what economic analysis will be provided by MannNorth Pty Ltd.
Mr Morrison: The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
MannNorth has been retained to provide a business analyst to assist with strengthening alumni databases and systems.
The AusTender notice described the activity as "economic analysis". A more accurate description is "information technology consultation services". The description was corrected on AusTender on 23 September 2019.
Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability
(Question No. 100)
Ms Sharkie asked the Minister representing the Minister for Families and Social Services in writing on 31 July 2019:
(1) How will the $527.9 million funding to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability be allocated amongst government agencies.(2) What funding, if any, has been allocated to advocacy support services for the purposes of the Royal Commission; if funding has been allocated: (a) what is the breakdown for each state and territory; and (b) what funding has been allocated to, (i) individual advocacy; (ii) systemic advocacy for each state and territory, and (iii) systemic advocacy at a national level.
Mr Fletcher: The Minister for Families and Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) The $527.9 million funding to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (the Royal Commission) has been allocated among government agencies as tabulated below:
Item |
Totals $m |
Department of Social Services |
116.9 |
National Disability Insurance Agency |
27.6 |
NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission |
4.3 |
Attorney-General's Department# |
379.1 |
Grand Total |
527.9 |
# This combines funding for legal assistance by the Attorney-General's Department and establishment and implementation of the Royal Commission.
(2) Funding of $27 million is allocated to the Department of Social Services to fund advocacy support for people with disability to engage with the Royal Commission over the period 2019-20 to 2021-22.
(a) The Australian Government's contribution to the funding of Royal Commission-specific individual advocacy is distributed equitably across the states and territories using a methodology that takes into account population and service delivery challenges.
State/Territory |
Totals $m |
Australian Capital Territory |
0.7 |
New South Wales |
5.4 |
Northern Territory |
0.7 |
Queensland |
3.4 |
South Australia |
2.1 |
Tasmania |
0.6 |
Victoria |
5.1 |
Western Australia |
2.1 |
Grand Total |
20.1 |
(b) (i) As per 2 (a) above, $20.1 million to individual advocacy over the period 2019-20 to 2021‑22.
(b) (ii) and (iii) No decision has yet been made about funding for systemic advocacy at a state and territory or national level noting that state and territory governments also have a responsibility to support people with disability through the Royal Commission.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
(Question No. 108)
Mr Zappia asked the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, in writing, on 1 August 2019:
For each South Australian federal electoral division, how many National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants have: (a) sought a review and are awaiting an outcome; and (b) have been accepted as an NDIS participant but are awaiting a planning meeting.
Mr Robert: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) is unable to produce the review data as requested. The NDIA is in the process of collecting more robust data on NDIS reviews.
(b) PLEASE NOTE: The data provided in the table below is at 30 June 2019. The numbers are subject to change as planning processes have commenced and been completed since this date.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA |
|
As at 30 June 2019 |
|
Electorate (2018) |
Number of participants (Access Met, but awaiting planning) |
Adelaide |
214 |
Barker |
148 |
Boothby |
234 |
Grey |
220 |
Hindmarsh |
165 |
Kingston |
258 |
Makin |
213 |
Mayo |
144 |
Spence |
353 |
Sturt |
199 |
Other* |
13 |
TOTAL |
2161 |
*Other include "Missing" and where number of participants in an Electorate was smaller than 20.
Mental Health
(Question No. 130)
Mr Gosling asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 09 September 2019:
In respect of the $14 million promised during the 2019 federal election campaign for an adult mental health center at Royal Darwin Hospital: (a) have the funds been released to the grant recipient; if not, why not and when will the funding be released; and (b) when will the projects be completed.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
As part of the 2019-20 Budget the Government announced funding of $114.5 million over four years for a trial of eight adult community mental health centres across Australia. Funds have not yet been released. The trial, which includes the centre proposed for Darwin, is currently in a consultation and design phase and will progressively roll out from 2020-21 to 2024-25.