The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (09:31): I present report No. 7 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 21 October 2019. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 15 October 2019.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 15 October 2019, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 21 October 2019, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Mr Wilkie: To present a Bill for an Act to provide a legislative response to all people seeking asylum in Australia, and for related purposes. (Refugee Protection Bill 2019)
(Notice given 15 October 2019.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 Mr Bandt: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to elections and referendums, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2019)
(Notice given 15 October 2019.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 Mr M. C. Butler: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) climate change is a significant threat to our economy, natural environment, farming communities and national security;
(b) Australia's annual emissions have been rising in recent years;
(c) as a global problem, the solution to climate change requires concerted international cooperation to limit the production of greenhouse gasses;
(d) as the only global agreement designed to address climate change, the Paris Accords must play a central role in addressing climate change;
(e) the Paris Accords require signatory countries to deliver actions consistent with keeping the global temperature rise this century to well below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius;
(f) based on the latest scientific advice, the world is currently on track for warming of above 3 degrees, and efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions need to be strengthened to avoid catastrophic climate change impacts; and
(g) as a result of the threat posed by climate change, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Portugal, Argentina and the Republic of Ireland have declared a climate emergency; and
(2) therefore, affirms that:
(a) Australia remains committed to delivering on its obligations under the Paris Accords;
(b) failing to meet the goals of the Paris Accords would have unprecedented and devastating environmental, economic, societal and health impacts for Australia; and
(c) the threat posed by climate change on the future prosperity and security of Australia and the globe constitutes a climate change emergency.
(Notice given 15 October 2019.)
Time allotted—45 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr M. C. Butler—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 Ms Hammond: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that after more than twelve years at school, year 12 students will soon complete their final examinations and transition to the next phase of their lives—this may include pursuing higher education, engaging with vocational education and training (VET) or entering the workforce;
(2) acknowledges the valuable contribution hard working teachers have made in our communities in educating, nurturing, encouraging and motivating our 2019 school leavers;
(3) notes the Government's record investment in education funding including:
(a) a record $21.3 billion for state schools, catholic schools and independent schools for the 2020 school year, an increase in funding of $8.5 billion since 2013;
(b) a record $8.6 billion for child care and $17. 7 billion for the university sector in the 2019-20 budget;
(c) $30.2 million in 2019-20 to establish the Local School Community Fund to support priority projects in local schools that benefit students and their communities;
(d) $71.6 million to improve outcomes for very remote students by encouraging teachers to teach and stay longer in their schools through remitting the HELP debt; and
(e) a commitment to support the VET sector through a $525.3 million Skills Package; and
(4) congratulates the Government on its continued commitment and investment in education from early learning through to higher education and VET to ensure our young people have the opportunity to succeed, gain employment and live their best lives.
(Notice given 15 October 2019.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
Ms Hammond—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Mr Perrett: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) social harmony is vital to the continuation of a successful Australian democracy;
(b) all Australians should be able to go about their lives free from discrimination; and
(c) there is no legislative protection against vilification and incitement to hatred and/or violence based on a person's religion or religious belief;
(2) notes that:
(a) incitement of hatred and violence is a threat to religious minorities;
(b) vilification of minority groups through online social media is prolific;
(c) fifty-three per cent of Australian youth have witnessed anti-Muslim harmful content online;
(d) online vilification normalises negative attitudes against minority groups;
(e) vilification or inciting hatred is often the initial stage of a hate crime;
(f) personal attacks are also occurring against religious minorities, including verbal insults, graffiti, targeting religious dress and physical attacks on buildings and individuals;
(g) women are the main targets of personal attacks based on their religion; and
(h) almost half of all personal attacks occur in crowded community spaces where women should feel safe; and
(3) calls on the Government to protect:
(a) religious communities at risk of endangerment; and
(b) all Australians from incitement of hatred and violence.
(Notice given 14 October 2019.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Perrett—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 Mr Entsch: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) 14 September 2019 marks National Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Day; and
(b) 20 September 2019 marks the 20th anniversary of the deployment of the International Force East Timor (INTERFET), the peacemaking taskforce that came to Timor-Leste to address the humanitarian and security crisis from 1999-2000;
(2) recognises:
(a) the vital role of Australians in peace operations and their more than 70 years of dedicated service to the international community; and
(b) the more than 5,500 personnel who contributed to INTERFET—including that of former Governor-General, General Sir Peter Cosgrove, AK, CVO, MC (Retd)—and the important contribution they made at a critical time in the history of Timor-Leste; and
(3) acknowledges:
(a) the service and sacrifice of all those who served in peacekeeping operations and the families who supported them; and
(b) those currently serving in the UN Truce Supervision Organisation, the UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan, the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus, and the UN Disengagement Observer Force.
(Notice given 14 October 2019.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Entsch—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Ms Owens: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the latest Government report indicates around 120,000 older Australians are waiting for their approved home care package; and
(b) more than 72,000 older Australians on the waiting list have no home care package at all;
(2) recognises:
(a) the majority of older Australians waiting for level three and level four packages have high care needs;
(b) some older Australians have been waiting more than two years for their approved package, many of whom are in their 90s and others who have terminal illnesses; and
(c) older Australians are entering residential aged care or even emergency departments instead of receiving their approved home care package;
(3) condemns the Government for failing to stop the wait list growing; and
(4) calls on the Government to listen to the growing chorus of voices for urgent action to fix the home care packages wait list now and properly address this national crisis.
(Notice given 14 October 2019.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Owens—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
1 World Suicide Prevention Day: Resumption of debate (from 14 October 2019) on the motion of Dr Martin—That this House:
(1) notes that Tuesday, 10 September 2019 was World Suicide Prevention Day;
(2) confirms the Government's commitment to work with local communities to reduce the number of deaths by suicide in Australia;
(3) further notes the record level of funding of $736 million provided in the 2019-20 budget for mental health including $503.1 million for the Youth Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan to support coordination of Government activities and services including:
(a) the largest single expansion of the national Headspace network through the establishment of 36 new sites; and
(b) provision of support to farmers and communities that have been affected by drought to deal with the anxiety, stress and uncertainty of drought conditions; and
(4) welcomes the establishment of the Office of the National Suicide Prevention Adviser in 2019 to support a whole-of-government approach to suicide prevention, to ensure coordination of delivery of suicide prevention activities that reach Australians in the right way at the right time.
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
4 Mr Thistlethwaite: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that 29 October 2019 is the 100th anniversary of the International Labour Organization (ILO);
(2) acknowledges that the ILO:
(a) was established following the first world war in an effort to bridge the gap between governments, employers and working people;
(b) was originally an agency of the League of Nations and has continued as a specialised agency to this day where 187 member states work together on improving labour standards and living standards throughout the world; and
(c) is a tripartite organisation that seeks co-operation between governments, employers and workers through the development of policies, standards and programmes that reflect the views of all the representative groups;
(3) recognises:
(a) the historical, cultural and social significance of the ILO over the past 100 years in an Australian context and throughout the world;
(b) that the work of the ILO has played an important role in:
(i) improving incomes, working conditions, safety, equality and protections at work as well as improving productivity and living standards; and
(ii) ending oppressive work practices, removing discrimination and ending child labour; and
(c) that the ILO has passed some of the most important international agreements that reduce exploitation, discrimination and inequality and promote collective bargaining, including the:
(i) Forced Labour Convention of 1930, banning forced or compulsory labour;
(ii) Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention of 1948, providing the right to union organising for collective bargaining;
(iii) Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention of 1949, protection against discrimination for joining a trade union, and taking collective action;
(iv) Equal Remuneration Convention of 1951, providing the right to equal pay removal of gender discrimination;
(v) Discrimination Convention of 1958, providing the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin; and
(vi) Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention of 1999, prohibiting the worst forms of child labour (slavery, prostitution, drug trafficking and other dangerous jobs); and
(4) calls on the Government to adopt a more cooperative approach to workplace relations in the ILO tradition to work with unions and employers to improve Australian's incomes and living standards.
(Notice given 14 October 2019.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Thistlethwaite—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 Mr L. S. O'Brien: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the important, practical contribution the Black Spot Program makes in addressing the nation's road toll under the National Road Safety Action Plan 2018-2020;
(2) recognises the need for the Government to continue to invest in the Black Spot Program to improve road safety and reduce the death toll;
(3) commends the Government for putting road safety at the forefront of infrastructure investment, with further commitments to providing an additional $50 million per year from 2019-20 to 2022-2023 to the Black Spot Program; and
(4) acknowledges the Government's Black Spot Program reduces on average at the treated sites, death and serious injury from crashes by 30 per cent according to data from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics.
(Notice given 14 October 2019.)
Time allotted—50 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr L. S. O'Brien—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day
6 Ms McBride: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the:
(a) Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) has assisted generations of Australians to access affordable medicines since its inception by the Chifley Government in 1948; and
(b) longstanding practice of successive governments has been to accept and act on the advice of the independent experts—the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC)—when listing medicines on the PBS;
(2) acknowledges that the Department of Health revealed at Senate estimates hearings that there are more than 20 drugs that this Government will never list on the PBS because pricing negotiations with their manufacturers have broken down;
(3) recognises that there are increasing barriers to Australians accessing affordable medicines, including:
(a) the failure to act on a number of PBAC recommendations;
(b) the affordability of PBS co-payments; and
(c) increasing out of pocket costs to access primary and specialist health care; and
(4) condemns the Government for failing to recognise and address these barriers and calls on the Government to do so as a matter of urgency.
(Notice given 9 September 2019.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms McBride—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
7 Ms Flint: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) after six years of the previous Labor Government, just 51,000 users were connected to the National Broadband Network (NBN);
(b) under the Liberal National Coalition Government, over 60,000 premises are being connected to the NBN every two weeks; and
(c) the network roll out is scheduled to be completed in 2020;
(2) welcomes NBN Co's announcement that the NBN is now available to more than 10 million homes and businesses; and
(3) congratulates the Government for adopting a broadband roll out plan which will see the NBN completed four years early and for $30 billion less than had Labor's approach been continued—meaning that Australians will get access to fast broadband services more quickly, and at lower prices, than what would have occurred under Labor's plan.
(Notice given 14 October 2019.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Flint—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
8 Mr Katter: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that the Australian dairy industry is facing decimation as a result of the failure of government deregulation;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) successive governments have contributed to failure in the dairy industry and that the dairy industry will continue its decline if policy is driven by ideology;
(b) the time is up for our Australian dairy industry with national herds being sold for slaughter, farm foreclosures and employees now trapped in destitution in rural towns;
(c) in Queensland, the number of dairy farms has dropped from 1305 in 2000-01 to 393 in 2017‑18;
(d) Australia had 12,896 dairy farms in the year 2000 and as of 2018 there were just 5699, a reduction of 57 per cent;
(e) farmers are, in general, not receiving the full 10 cent levy promised by the supermarkets; and
(f) in 2001-02 our national herd produced 11.3 billion litres of whole milk, and in 2017-18 Australia produced 8.8 billion litres, a 22 per cent reduction of 2.5 billion litres; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) reintroduce the minimum price scheme, which delivered orderly marketing and fairness for nearly a century to Australia's farmers, contractors and employees; or
(b) secure from supermarket chains a 25 cent price rise (since they are able to set a 10 cent price rise), and oversee the mechanics of ensuring that this 25 cents goes back to the farm gate.
(Notice given 15 October 2019.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Katter—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
16 October 2019
BILLS
Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019
Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019
Returned from Senate
Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019
Consideration of Senate Message
Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendment disagreed to by the House.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by MrFletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (09:33): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2019 contains measures that will reduce the regulatory burden on the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors. The bill will also allow for the appointment of an industry body to manage telephone numbering, a function currently undertaken by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The bill also removes unnecessary and spent provisions.
I will now outline the measures in each of the schedules to the bill.
Schedule 1
Schedule 1 of the bill will remove a duplicative obligation in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 that requires incoming controllers of regulated media assets to notify ACMA of changes in the control of a licence or publication. That act already requires licensees, publishers and controllers of regulated media assets to notify ACMA of such changes.
Schedule 1 will also remove the requirement in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 for the film classification scheme to apply to films broadcast on commercial television. The television classification guidelines will apply instead.
Similarly, any breaches of the classification requirements for films broadcast on television by commercial television broadcasting licensees, community television broadcasting licensees and open narrowcasting service providers will no longer be dealt with as breaches of broadcasting licence conditions. Rather, such breaches will be dealt with under the television code of practice.
The National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 will be amended to allow NBN Co to dispose of surplus non-communications goods. This change will allow NBN Co to sell items like office equipment and vehicles and better manage its assets.
Amendments will be made to the Telecommunications Act 1997 so that ACMA need no longer consult with an advisory committee before declaring a submarine-cable protection zone. It is sufficient that ACMA is required to consult with the secretary of the Department of the Environment and the public in these circumstances.
Schedule 2
Schedule 2 deals with the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017, which introduced the broadcasting spectrum tax arrangement and established a transitional support payment scheme covering financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22. That legislation provides that Network Investments Pty Ltd is entitled to receive a transitional support payment of $632,000 in each of those financial years.
However, one of Network Investments' transmitters was inadvertently excluded in the model used to calculate the payments. Once the existence of that transmitter is included in the modelling, Network Investments is entitled to receive $819,000 per year for five years and an additional $187,000 each year. Schedule 2 of the bill corrects this error, and Network Investments will be no worse off as a result of the transition from a revenue-based broadcasting licence fee to an interim broadcasting-spectrum tax arrangement.
Schedule 3
Schedule 3 of the bill will repeal tariff-filing arrangements applying to the telecommunications industry under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Division 4 of part XIB of that act allows the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to collect certain tariff information from carriers in carriage service providers that have a substantial degree of market power. Division 5 sets out a tariff-filing regime that applies specifically to Telstra.
These provisions impose an unnecessary regulatory burden on industry, and there is already considerable pricing information in the public domain.
Schedule 3 will also provide the ACCC and ACMA with greater flexibility to decide what matters to report on. The ACCC will be empowered to decide which telecommunications charges paid by consumers to monitor and report on, having regard to which goods and services are most commonly used by consumers. ACMA's mandatory reporting requirements relating to the performance of carriers and carriage-service providers would be limited to national interest matters and data retention requirements. The minister will retain the power to direct ACMA to report on specified matters.
The ACCC and ACMA will no longer need to provide these reports or the ACCC's annual report on competitive safeguards within the telecommunications industry to the minister, and the minister will no longer need to table them in parliament prior to wider publication. Instead, the ACCC and ACMA will be required to publish the reports on their respective websites within six months of the end of the financial year. The reports will then be available to the public more widely.
Schedule 3 will also require the ACCC to review any record-keeping rules it creates, directing specified carriers and carriage-service providers to keep or retain certain records to monitor charges paid by consumers. Those reviews will need to take place at least every five years so that the rules remain up to date.
Schedule 4
Schedule 4 of the bill will make minor technical amendments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1993, the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 and the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to improve consistency between those acts and remove redundant provisions.
Schedule 5
Schedule 5 of the bill would remove redundant and spent legislation within my portfolio.
Schedule 6
Schedule 6 would allow the minister to appoint an industry-based numbering manager in place of ACMA. The government wants to allow for such an arrangement in the event industry develops a suitable numbering scheme.
It is possible that the telecommunications industry may be able to manage numbering more efficiently and effectively than ACMA. For instance, the industry could introduce new number ranges more quickly, thereby promoting service innovation. Because service providers are directly involved in developing products, they have a greater incentive to fast-track new initiatives and keep down costs.
The minister would only be able to appoint someone to be the numbering scheme manager if he or she is satisfied that the proposed manager will be able to administer numbering in accordance with statutory principles that are designed to protect competition, consumers, national security and public revenue.
Schedule 7 of the bill will remove the requirement in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 for ACMA to publish a notice in the Commonwealth Gazette when it is determining, varying or revoking a program standard or standard relating to datacasting. Instead the amendments will require ACMA to publish a notice both on its website and in one or more forms that are readily accessible—like in a newspaper or another website. This will help ACMA better reach its target audience.
Schedule 8 of the bill will remove the ability of NBN Co, under the Telecommunications Act 1997, to issue and keep a register of statements that it will not be installing fibre in a new real estate development, which, in turn, removes the obligation on a developer to install fibre-ready pit and pipe.
The current provisions require NBN Co, as an industry participant, to make decisions of a regulatory nature. This is not appropriate. The minister will continue to have the power to exempt developments from the pit and pipe rules if required.
In conclusion, this bill makes a useful contribution to the government's commitment to ensuring that Australia's broadcasting and telecommunications laws are fit for purpose. The government remains committed to removing unnecessary and outdated legislation in light of changing technology and consumer expectations.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Education Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tehan.
Bill read a first time.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:42): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Education Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 builds on the government's commitment to ensure all Australians have access to a quality education by incentivising and rewarding teachers in very remote communities and improving access to aviation courses.
To improve access to aviation courses, schedule 1 to the bill makes changes to the combined HELP loan limit for students undertaking eligible aviation courses, who are seeking a career as a pilot with a commercial airline. The very intent of the Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, is to make higher education more accessible to students who may not otherwise have access.
From 1 January 2020, students studying an eligible aviation course at either a higher education provider or a VET student loans provider will be able to access the higher HELP loan limit, which for 2020 will be $152,700. This will bring aviation courses into line with courses in medicine, dentistry and veterinary science.
This bill gives effect to the government's commitment to invest in training today to meet the needs of industry in the future. We have listened to the concerns of industry and understand that the current lifetime loan limit does not adequately cover the cost of training for the licences and ratings required by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for most practical commercial aviation employment.
The government wants to ensure that the pilots of tomorrow are properly supported so they can continue to contribute to a growing industry, by reducing barriers for students enrolling in aviation courses through this increase to loan assistance to defer the tuition fees of their aviation study.
This measure will assist to unblock the training pipeline and help ensure the aviation industry can access pilots with the qualifications that the industry needs.
To incentivise and reward teachers in very remote locations, schedule 2 to the bill introduces remission of an individual's HELP debt relating to their recognised initial teacher education qualification, after they have been engaged for four years as a teacher in a school (this includes an early childhood education and care service providing a preschool education program; a preschool; and a school providing primary or secondary education) in very remote locations of Australia. This measure also waives indexation on a teacher's accumulated HELP debt while they are teaching at that school.
This amendment gives effect to the Prime Minister's Closing the Gap commitment of 14 February 2019 to remit the HELP debt of teachers who have been engaged and stay working as a teacher in very remote communities.
The government is committed to ensuring our very remote communities, as well as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families who live in them, are able to attract and retain the quality teaching they deserve.
Australian schools have many quality teachers, however recent reviews, including the Independent Review into Regional, Rural and Remote Education, have highlighted the difficulty faced by schools in non-metropolitan locations in attracting and retaining teachers.
This is especially true for very remote areas. We have 327 very remote schools and 250 early childhood education and care services, including preschools, employing approximately 3,500 teachers, and they deserve our support.
This measure will ensure Australia's schools located in very remote locations are able to recruit and retain high-quality teachers, thereby improving education outcomes for students in these very remote communities.
Schedule 3 of the bill introduces a number of other measures to:
improve the efficiency in the collection of student data from higher education providers, that will allow the Department of Human Services restricted access to higher education student data collected by the Department of Education; and
clarify that information collected under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 can be used to administer the VET Student Loans program.
Miscellaneous measures are also contained within schedule 3 relating to higher education provider name corrections, and definition changes to improve the clarity and operation of the Higher Education Support Act.
All of these amendments support the government's commitment to ensuring that higher education remains accessible and affordable to students while also meeting needs of Australia's aviation industry and improving quality of teaching in very remote schools of Australia.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Wood.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (09:48): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019 amends the Customs Act 1901 to implement Australia's obligations under three concluded free trade agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong.
This government is committed to creating more export opportunities across the Asia-Pacific region. For the first time, a government is bringing to the House not just one or two but three free trade agreements to be considered.
These three agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong reinforce the Morrison Liberal and Nationals government's commitment to growing Australia's strong economy through free trade and open trade, promoting Australian jobs and providing new opportunities for businesses of all sizes. In the last six years of the coalition government, our trade covered by trade agreements has grown from 26 per cent to around 70 per cent.
Australia has now concluded free trade agreements with seven of its top eight export markets for goods and services.
This government's record on trade speaks for itself: a record number of goods-exporting businesses—over 53,000, the second longest consecutive run of trade surpluses, and more trade than ever before covered by free trade agreements.
This comes on top of bringing into force trade deals with China, Korea, Japan and of course the TPP-11. Those opposite failed to start and conclude a single free trade agreement, and oversaw the total number of Australian businesses exporting decrease when in office. The member for Maribyrnong even said the TPP was 'dead in the water' when the US withdrew, yet the coalition stood up for our farmers and businesses to do the hard yards and we saw that agreement delivered, just as we have with these three agreements.
Today is about supporting Australian businesses and farmers to get better access and more opportunities to export their goods and services, allowing them to grow, diversify and employ more Australians.
The agreement with Indonesia, the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or IA-CEPA, will be critical in building Australia's strategic, economic and investment relationship with our largest near neighbour.
This agreement will allow 99 per cent of Australia's goods exports to enter Indonesia duty free or with significantly improved preferential arrangements. Australian agricultural producers will enjoy better market access and greater certainty, including for red meat and live cattle, grains, dairy, horticultural products and sugar. Australian manufacturers will have better access for products such as steel, plastics and copper cathodes. The IA-CEPA builds on the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement by, for example, having additional tariff cuts.
All of Indonesia's goods exports will enter Australia duty free. For the first time ever in an Australian FTA, there will be a dedicated chapter on non-tariff barriers to trade, which the Export Council of Australia said was 'one of the most important parts of the agreement'.
This agreement will also create more opportunities for Australians to help meet Indonesia's growing needs for investment and demand for Australia's world-class services, including in sectors like education and tourism, with universities and vocational training providers already looking at opportunities in Indonesia.
The two-way benefits of the IA-CEPA will launch a new chapter in our bilateral relations with Indonesia. It will foster partnerships between business, communities and individuals in both countries and support the shared interest of Australia and Indonesia in a secure and prosperous region.
Under the agreement with Peru, Australia has achieved significant new access to one of South America's fastest-growing economies. This agreement secures new quotas for Australian dairy, rice and sorghum free from tariffs. Australia has been able to get market access to Peru that was not possible under the TPP-11. Peru will eliminate its relatively high tariffs, up to 29 per cent in some cases, on major Australian exports like dairy, beef, grain, sheep meat, sugar, wine, pharmaceuticals, manufactured goods, medical devices, paper products, iron and steel.
The agreement with Peru is not just about goods; it also opens up an array of new opportunities for Australian service providers, recognition of Australian university degrees, and enables Australian tertiary education providers to establish campuses in Peru. This agreement delivers greater access for Australian financial, legal and other professional service operators, as well as for Australian businesses supplying mining-related and oilfield services in Peru, where Australian businesses are significant investors.
The PAFTA further expands on our close investment links. The number of Australian companies operating in Peru has grown significantly from 10 in 2003 to currently over 90. The Australian and Peruvian mining sectors, in particular, are already closely integrated. The PAFTA provides a platform for expanding and deepening these relationships.
Hong Kong is a leading business and financial centre in Asia and a significant and well-established commercial partner for Australia. Hong Kong is Australia's seventh-largest export destination. We have a strong investment relationship with Hong Kong, as our fifth-largest source of total foreign investment.
This agreement provides increased certainty for Australian exporters and investors and locks in zero tariffs on all Australian goods exported to Hong Kong. This ensures Hong Kong cannot apply tariffs to Australian goods in the future, benefiting Australia for generations to come.
Hong Kong will guarantee open market settings for services suppliers so Australian exporters of education, financial and professional services can continue to explore growth opportunities in Hong Kong's large and competitive market.
The agreement will significantly improve conditions for two-way investment, including through updated investment rules to protect investors on both sides. The agreement with Hong Kong, and the associated investment agreement, will underpin our growing economic engagement and support Australia's long-term economic and commercial interests by strengthening this already substantial and important relationship. The agreements are balanced and have best practice protections for governments to legislate in the national interest, including in public health and the environment. These protections are absent in the older-style investment agreements.
It, also, importantly, reaffirms Australia's support for the 'one country, two systems' principle, through which Hong Kong's autonomy has underpinned its success as a regional business hub.
We know that some raise issues about the movement of natural persons. None of the agreements include any new commitments on labour market testing waivers.
But it is not just the government saying there are benefits and value in these agreements. Importantly, Australian businesses and industry groups also strongly support these agreements because they recognise these agreements will bring benefits for Australian exporters, Australian jobs and the Australian economy.
Some of these industry groups and businesses include the Australia Indonesia Business Council, the National Farmers Federation, Australian Grape and Wine, Meat and Livestock Australia, TAFE Directors, the Group of Eight universities, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Export Council of Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia, Pork Australia, CANEGROWERS, the Australian Industry Group, Citrus Australia, the Red Meat Advisory Council, the Australian dairy industry, GrainGrowers, the Australia Peru Chamber of Commerce, CPA Australia, the Perth USAsia Centre, AUSVEG, Bluescope, Consolidated Pastoral Company, the Food and Grocery Council and the Australia-Latin America Business Council, as well as many others. I thank them for their strong advocacy and support, in some cases over many years.
I note that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has considered each of the three agreements in detail and recommended that binding treaty action be taken for all agreements. I thank the committee for its work on the agreements with Indonesia and Hong Kong, and the former committee for its work on Peru. Swift passage of this bill will enable the agreements to enter into force promptly and unlock the benefits of these agreements for the Australian economy.
The three agreements covered by this bill support Australia's national interest. They will enable our exporters and investors to build on our already strong and growing commercial relationships and to take up further opportunities across the Asia-Pacific.
This bill will allow Australia to ratify these three free trade agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong and, at a time of global uncertainty and trade tensions, open up more opportunities for Australian businesses, Australian investors and Australian farmers to export and invest across the Asia-Pacific.
The Morrison Liberal and Nationals government is focused on creating more opportunities and more jobs for Australians, and that is exactly what this legislation and these trade agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong will achieve.
I say to the parliament: we need to pass this legislation like we did for the TPP-11 last year and continue to take a bipartisan approach to trade, as we have done for the past 30 years, so that this parliament can pass these agreements to benefit Australian businesses, farmers and investors.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Wood.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (10:00): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019 amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to implement Australia's obligations relating to goods under the three recently concluded free trade agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong. The amendments contained in this bill complement the amendments to be made to the Customs Act 1901 by the Customs Tariff Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019. I reiterate the comments I made in relation to the introduction of that bill earlier. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Report
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (10:01): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 5 2019.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Dr McVEIGH: by leave—Report No. 5 considers one proposal re-referred to the committee in July 2019, which had lapsed in the 45th Parliament. The proposal is for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's—known to all of us as CSIRO—Sydney consolidation project in New South Wales. CSIRO sought approval from the committee to proceed with the project to reduce surplus accommodation capacity; provide relief in managing current escalating property operating, repair and maintenance costs; and advance current and future science capabilities.
To achieve this outcome, CSIRO plans to divest its Marsfield site, close North Ryde, at the expiration of the current lease, and consolidate staff and capability to Lindfield. Built in the 1970s as a bespoke physics laboratory with an original capacity of 600 to 700 staff, the CSIRO Lindfield facility has sufficient capacity to house staff and equipment from North Ryde and Marsfield. However, the Lindfield facility will require extensive internal reconfiguration and modernisation of the existing facility to ensure the site continues to meet the current and emerging needs of CSIRO scientists. Minor works at the Mayfield and Eveleigh facilities are also included within the scope of the project. The estimated cost of this project is $107.26 million, excluding GST.
I thank members of the Public Works Committee in the current parliament for conducting the inquiry and for conducting a site visit of the Lindfield facility, and I thank those who presented and made submissions—obviously CSIRO itself and local community members, amongst others. The committee recommended that the House find it expedient that the project proceed, and I therefore commend the report to the House.
COMMITTEES
Membership
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (10:04): The Speaker has received messages from the Senate informing the House of the appointment to senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read it to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BILLS
Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (10:04): The Labor Party will be supporting the Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which seeks to improve the operation of indemnity insurance following a first principles review. This is a very important item and I note that this bill does go some way—but only some way—to addressing some problems in the current environment for Australia's midwives. The requirement that all indemnity insurers must provide cover to all providers who need it is a particularly useful provision in this bill. At present this universal cover obligation only applies to the four insurers who have contracts with the Commonwealth. This is a sensible extension which will help.
I want to place on record my thanks to all the doctors, midwives, pharmacists and others who've contributed to the review process that has led to this legislation. We do support this legislation but I need to note that this will be an ongoing problem. This legislation does not fix some of the fundamental issues facing Australia's midwives. There are big gaps in indemnity insurance for Australia's midwives, and this legislation does not even attempt to deal with those. There are two major issues with midwifery indemnity insurance that it does not address: the lack of cover for homebirths and the lack of competition and choice in other midwifery cover.
There's only one provider for indemnity insurance for midwives, which means there is absolutely no competition in the market. The lack of competition—I freely acknowledge—is not an easy issue for the government to fix, but it is one the government should pay some attention to and should be trying to think of creative solutions for. The other issue is that there is no indemnity insurance for all homebirths. While there's an exemption for holding that insurance, it is set to expire, which, of course, creates massive uncertainty for midwives in relation to homebirths. This is not a sustainable situation, and the minister does need to be turning his attention to this issue. Ultimately, it could jeopardise the ability of midwives to attend homebirths. Parents should have a range of choices when considering their birthing options. One of those choices is to have a midwife attend a homebirth, but that may not be the case if the exemption is not extended or if there's not a solution found for the lack of indemnity insurance, because then midwives will have to respond accordingly to the risk.
Our concerns about these issues are consistent with our longstanding support for midwives. It's important to remember that the last Labor government added midwives to the national registration scheme, which was a very important initiative in recognition of their professionalism and their importance in the health system. We ensured that regulations are on par with other medical professionals, as they should be. It also gave midwives access to a range of Medicare and PBS items for the first time.
I was very pleased to attend the conference of the College of Midwives a few weeks ago and to address some of these issues at their important conference in Canberra and to express my support for midwifery and the roles they play in supporting new parents across the country.
I now 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 calls on the Government to address the lack of indemnity insurance for midwives who attend home births, as well as the lack of competition and choice in other midwifery cover”.
This amendment will give the House an opportunity to express its concerns about these issues. We don't pretend they're easy. This has been an ongoing issue for Australian midwives since 2002, when a major provider went bankrupt. Midwives deserve the support of the government of the day, and they deserve the attention of this House. So we call on the government to provide more attention to these issues.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Catherine King: I second the amendment.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (10:09): I rise to support the Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 and the amendment moved by the shadow health minister. This issue did have its start in the major market failure that occurred in 2002 and which impacted midwifery indemnity insurance. Since then, various reviews have determined a way forward. I note the involvement of stakeholders like the College of Midwives, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and the Australian Medical Association, who are all supporting the fact that there is now action on this issue. I thank them for engaging in the process; I know it has been a long one.
There are two unresolved issues in the midwifery indemnity insurance area. They both have an impact on midwives and, therefore, on women who seek to had a midwife at their birth and in particular at a homebirth. In my electorate of Macquarie a significant number of families choose to have a homebirth. That is their preferred option. The first unresolved issue is the lack of indemnity insurance for midwives who are doing homebirths. Midwives delivered both of my children. I didn't choose to have a homebirth, but we need to respect the right of women who want to go down that path and ensure that they have the support they need to do that, and that means having access to midwives. When midwives can't access insurance, the process becomes harder and riskier. That may well happen if the current exemption expires and there is no further action on it.
In Australia about 0.3 per cent of births are planned homebirths. That compares with two or three per cent in Britain, up to five per cent in New Zealand and around 13 per cent in the Netherlands. That shows that, where there is support, there are women who choose this option—women like Aimee Sing, a consumer advocate with Homebirth Access Sydney and a part of the Blue Mountains homebirth community. She is a fierce advocate for this matter. She is keen to see any barriers to women choosing a homebirth—if that is their preference—come down.
I also note that there have been calls recently from midwives and homebirthing groups for a Medicare rebate to be applied to homebirths. The minister has advised that the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Taskforce will submit its findings on that matter before the end of the year. I look forward to that.
I also note that this bill doesn't provide for any choice of insurer for midwifery cover. There is a monopoly; there is just one provider. Again, we are really limiting the choices for midwives. My concern with that is that it flows through to the choices that women have. They need to make decisions that are in their best interests, their family's best interests and their unborn child's best interests.
I urge the government to address those issues. This really is about women having the ability to make choices about where and with whom they give birth. It's a very individual decision. What determines that decision shouldn't be insurance considerations.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (10:12): I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 and the second reading amendment. It's quite rare in this place to rise to speak on legislation in which one has a very particular interest. I can say without much hesitation that this legislation is of great interest to me. I have personal involvement. I still practise as a paediatrician. Even though I raise no income from that, I have to pay medical indemnity insurance because I'm still seeing patients. It is a significant cost. Over my 40 years in practice I have seen a huge change in medical indemnity costs. When I first started in my private practice, my medical indemnity fees rose to $250 a year. When I was working as a doctor only in the public health system, I paid $100 a year. I can remember being quite annoyed that my medical indemnity insurance rose from $100 and more than doubled to $250 a year because I started a private practice and was still working in the public hospital system.
Since that time we've seen an explosion in medical indemnity costs. The reasons why those costs should have increased so hugely are not completely clear even now to me, but they've now risen to the point where they have a significant influence on medical practice across many specialties and are altering the way young doctors are entering practice. For example, in my field of paediatrics we have quite large medical indemnity costs because the lag time where people can take legal action against you is so long. The normal statute of limitations is seven years. But, because the age of majority is 18, people can take legal action against paediatricians for up to 25 years after birth, so it's a huge lag time, which increases the premiums. When I was in private practice, before entering politics, my medical insurance costs were over $30,000 a year. That has a significant influence now on young paediatricians as to whether they go into private practice, combine private and public practice or work exclusively as staff physicians in public hospitals, where their medical indemnity costs are paid by the state government.
What we're now seeing is a huge disincentive for people to enter private practice. That has a really major effect on patients' ability to access paediatric care and see paediatricians, because the fewer doctors in private practice the bigger the burdens put on the public hospital system. The public hospital outpatient clinics are often poorly staffed and poorly funded, so people may only do one or two clinics a week in public practice, compared to daily clinics in private practice. So it is already affecting the way people practise medicine and the type of practice they start.
That's true in paediatrics. It's very true in the other specialties that have high medical indemnity costs—in particular, neurosurgery. Many people are reluctant now to go into private neurosurgical practice and prefer to stay working in the public hospital system. Those who do go into private practice are forced to charge extremely large gap fees to at least partly cover their insurance costs. So it is affecting access to neurosurgical care.
Of course, there is a big difference in obstetrics. When I started my training as a medical student, the vast majority of obstetricians worked in private practice, even though they also practised in public hospitals. The change in medical indemnity costs in the eighties and nineties has meant that most obstetricians going into practice now are going into fully paid staff obstetrics jobs in the public hospital system; they're not entering private practice. That limits the options available for women who are pregnant to access obstetric care, and once again the burden has fallen back on the public hospital system to cover all those costs and to cover those women.
In the public hospital in Campbelltown where I worked, for example, we have a rapidly increasing population, which is rapidly ramping up demands on our obstetrics services. We now do 4,000 deliveries a year, which is really a very big number, increased from about 2,000 10 years ago. The numbers are increasing, and there are very few obstetricians now in private practice. When I started at Campbelltown in 1984, there were eight obstetricians in private medical practice and there was one staff obstetrician. There are now eight staff obstetricians and only two obstetricians in private practice. At least a significant part of that change has been due to the rapid increase in medical indemnity costs.
The other issue in obstetrics we're now facing is that—while we have midwives in private practice who are now at least able to access medical indemnity insurance, and that is a very good thing—increasingly, particularly in outer metropolitan, rural and regional areas, a lot of the obstetric care load is being placed on the midwives rather than on obstetricians, and many of the GP obstetricians in country and regional areas have been forced out of practice because of the high medical indemnity costs. So we're seeing a whole change in medical practice. More and more women are being forced to deliver in the major hospitals and can't deliver in their local hospitals. That has a significant impact, particularly on Indigenous people, who much prefer to give birth on country—it's very culturally and spiritually important for them, and it is being denied to them. At least private midwives are now able to access medical insurance, and that will help in rural and regional areas. But, because of the cost of insurance, it does nothing to help those GP obstetricians to set up practice, and fewer and fewer general practitioners in rural and regional areas are opting to include obstetrics. I think that's a very sad thing, and I think that it is putting more and more pressure on our public hospital system. We are seeing a huge ramp-up in women accessing obstetric care in the public hospital system and fewer and fewer women being able to deliver in their local hospitals in rural and regional areas because of the lack of access to GP obstetricians.
I think it's a very good thing that our midwives can now access private medical insurance, and I hope to see more and more midwives enter private practice, because we certainly need them and, for uncomplicated pregnancies, they're a very good care model. Shared care models are also very good. But, once again, our medical insurance costs are limiting the ability of GPs and obstetricians to go into private practice, thus limiting the options for many people in rural and regional areas.
This is also true in my own specialty of paediatrics. More and more paediatricians in rural and country areas are opting for staff jobs rather than private practice jobs. One thing we know about private practice is that it copes with volumes of patients very well, much more efficiently than the public hospital system. And we see that, in rural and regional areas in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia, and even in Canberra, it is harder and harder for people to access paediatric care, because waiting lists for the public hospital clinics, if they do exist, are blowing out further and further.
So, whilst we do support this legislation, it does nothing very much to improve the access to care in obstetrics and in many other specialties in many areas of the country, and the problem is only going to get worse. More and more doctors are opting for fully paid staff jobs. At the same time, state governments—and I include the New South Wales government in this—are intent on reducing the number of outpatient clinics being provided, so the waiting lists are blowing out further and further. In some areas, I believe, waiting lists for public outpatient clinics are now measured not in months but in years. I know also that in some hospitals, including my hospital, some specialties no longer have public outpatient clinics.
So it's a sort of double whammy. The increasing insurance costs are forcing doctors to stay in the public hospital system, with fully paid salaries, and state governments are reducing funding for public outpatient clinics, so more and more people are being forced into these public outpatient clinics but the waiting lists are getting longer and longer. People are even being forced to go out of area to some outpatient clinics because their local hospitals don't actually have clinics in certain specialties, such as cardiology, neurology, neurosurgery et cetera. At my hospital, the waiting time to get into the obstetric outpatient clinic has blown out, so many people are not having their first visit to the obstetric clinic until after 14 weeks gestation, which is also limiting their ability to maintain a healthy pregnancy, to get early imaging if there's any concern about the foetus or any treatment that may well be needed. Whilst improving the number of midwives able to access medical indemnity insurance may help individual midwifes, it's going to do very little in the public hospital system, particularly in obstetrics and in other specialties. Whilst we support this legislation, it's going to do very little to keep premiums down, it's going to do very little to encourage people into private practice, and it's going to do very little to improve public hospital waiting lists.
Very quickly, I'd also like to say one thing about homebirths and about midwives attending homebirths being able to access private medical insurance. I personally do not like the concept of homebirthing. I think it puts the mother and also the baby at risk because obstetrics is a trial of life, and it's not always immediately obvious whether a pregnancy is going to be a troubled pregnancy with a difficult delivery at the end. It's not always obvious. My grandmother died during childbirth. I know that even with the best assessments it's still a risk, so I prefer babies to be born in hospitals, where they have access to acute resuscitation if needed. What we want from every pregnancy is a healthy baby and a healthy mother. However, having said that, some people these days do want a homebirth, and they're insistent upon it. If that's their choice, there's very little that I can do to stop them. And, if that is what they want, then they should be able to access the best support they can with a midwife at home. I strongly believe that we should be providing indemnity insurance for those midwives who want to do homebirths, because that's what people choose. If that's what they choose, they should be able to access the best possible care. This legislation does not provide for that, and I think that it would be very important if that could be considered, because people's choices don't mean that we shouldn't provide them with the best possible care.
This is a piece of legislation that I have a very personal interest in, and I commend the bill to the House.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (10:27): I was reminded when preparing to speak today of the number of people in my electorate who have contacted me over recent years with a great passion for midwifery—midwives, who were looking at ways to improve indemnity for themselves and create more choice for mothers; and mothers, who were looking for homebirths or stronger relationships with midwives.
The area that we're talking about today, the indemnity of medical professionals, is one which has had bipartisan support for a long period of time. I'm going to talk a little bit about the history of medical indemnity, particularly since about the year 2000. I'm aware that the former health minister is sitting at the table down the front, so if a small piece of balled-up paper heads in my direction and you see it fly and hit me, it's because I've got something slightly wrong—or terribly wrong! I'm sure she'll correct me. Way back before 2010, there were no obligations for nurses or midwives to have professional indemnity insurance as a condition of their registration or practice. Indemnity insurance arrangements varied significantly. Midwives who were employed in public and private sectors were indemnified under their employer's insurance policies, usually as part of their employment relationships. Prior to 2001, midwives could purchase their own private indemnity insurance through membership of industrial and professional organisations, such as the Australian Nursing Federation and the Royal College of Nursing Australia. But in 2000-01 professional indemnity insurance coverage was withdrawn from midwives engaged in private practice, and this decision was considered to be in response to the perceived medical indemnity crisis of the late 1990s. Between 2001 and 2010, insurers did not offer professional indemnity insurance to midwives in private practice at all. Commonwealth medical indemnity laws, intended to ensure the affordability of professional indemnity cover across Australia, did not extend to midwives.
In 2002 Australia's largest medical indemnity insurer was placed in provisional liquidation. This liquidation would've left 60 per cent of medical providers without cover, meaning their patients may not have been compensated for medical negligence. In response, the Howard government established what is now known as the Indemnity Insurance Fund. The IIF is made up of seven separate schemes to promote stability in the medical indemnity insurance market and ensure affordable cover for private doctors and midwives. The Howard government's intention was to phase out the scheme over time as the medical indemnity insurance market was normalised. There were reviews in 2014 and 2016, and the government committed to the first principles review in the 2016 MYEFO, which also included savings of $36 million. But the review reported in 2018 and recommended that, in spite of John Howard's view that this would be phased out over time, it should actually be maintained. But, as I said earlier, midwives in private practice were not covered by that scheme.
In June 2008 the Rudd government undertook a national review of maternity services in Australia. The report, Improving maternity services in Australia: the report of the Maternity Services Review, was released in February 2009. It examined a range of issues, including the safety and quality of maternity services; women's access to a range of models of care; inequality of outcomes and access; information and support for women and their families; and financing arrangements. The review noted that there were a number of financial restraints on private service delivery by midwives, which acted as a barrier to increasing the range of models of maternity care available in Australia and therefore limited women's choice. Such constraints included the lack of access to professional indemnity insurance. The review examined the reasons for this, noting:
It is difficult for insurers to come up with a suitable premium for midwives because the provision of birthing services by privately practising midwives is perceived to be a high-risk activity. No adequate and reliable data is available to develop an accurate risk profile for privately practising midwives who provide birthing services. Accordingly, midwives operating privately in Australia who wish to provide the full range of maternity services are currently not able to do so with the protection of professional indemnity cover.
The review also found that, as a consequence, midwives providing support for birthing privately were doing so at their own financial risk, or, depending on the midwife's financial circumstances, the risk was being transferred to the client, who would have no recourse to compensation. It further found that a lack of professional indemnity cover was a barrier to the development of collaborative models of maternity care involving privately practising midwives. The report noted that the planned introduction of the health profession's National Registration and Accreditation Scheme would pose problems for privately practising midwives, who would not obtain the professional indemnity insurance required for registration under state and territory laws. It recommended that, while a risk profile for midwife professional indemnity insurance premiums is being developed, consideration be given to Commonwealth support to ensure that suitable professional indemnity insurance is available for appropriately qualified and skilled midwives operating in collaborative team-based models. Consideration would include both the period and the quantum of funding.
In response to the Maternity Services Review, the government announced a $120.5 million package of maternity measures in the 2009-10 budget. The measures included giving access to Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme benefits for certain services provided by midwives for the first time, as well as providing government supported professional indemnity insurance for midwives.
The laws that were introduced enabled the Commonwealth to meet part of the cost of large settlements or awards paid by eligible insurers that indemnify eligible midwives, including meeting the amounts by which such payments exceed the insurance contact limits, and to provide ongoing insurance for eligible midwives who have ceased private practice—remembering, of course, that claims can be made for past medical services, so the liability of a midwife does not cease when the midwife ceases to practice.
The Commonwealth has also moved to contract with an insurer to provide an affordable professional indemnity insurance product to certain midwives, and in May 2010 announced that this would be provided by Medical Insurance Group Australia. That insurance has been available through MIGA since 2010. However, as discussed previously and by previous speakers, this insurance did not cover the planned delivery of babies in the home.
Now we come to this bill, the Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019—which is a good bill and Labor supports it. This bill goes some way to addressing some problems in the current environment. The requirement that all indemnity insurers must provide cover to all providers who need it is particularly useful. At present, this universal cover obligation only applies to the four insurers who have contracts with the Commonwealth. So that's really a very good thing.
I would like to thank all the doctors, midwives, pharmacists and others who contributed to the review process under the current government and the outcomes that have been achieved, but there are still some gaps that this bill does not address. It does not address two major issues in midwifery indemnity insurance: firstly, the lack of choice in midwifery cover. There's only one provider for indemnity insurance for midwives, which means that there is no competition in the market—but it is great that there is one. Again, this is due to work done on both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan manner. Without the histrionics and fist-waving that sometimes surrounds policy areas, this one has been quietly worked on by both sides of government for a long time, and much of the work that has been done is really good. But there are always gaps and there are always ways to make improvements. The lack of competition isn't an easy one for any government to fix, but it is one that government should play a role in and have attention to fixing. I look forward to both sides of the House working to find solutions to that.
The other issue is that there is still no indemnity insurance at all for homebirths. While there's an exemption for holding that insurance, it is set to expire at the end of 2019, which creates massive uncertainty for midwives in relation to homebirths. And, again, it prevents some of those collaborative models that we might see grow if there were better protection for mothers and practitioners.
Labor's concern about these issues is consistent with our longstanding support for midwives. It is important to remember that the last Labor government added midwives to the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme and ensured that the regulation was on par with other medical professions, as of course it should be. We also gave midwives access to a range of Medicare and PBS items for the first time.
Those two weaknesses that I mentioned in the current law also create a third one, which is a lack of midwives. We are seeing around the country some major midwifery services closing because of a lack of midwives. Without certainty, without indemnity and without the protections that other healthcare professionals enjoy we will not see the growth in this sector that we should see. That would be a shame, because choice for mothers, alternative models and new approaches are welcome as long as they are undertaken with the appropriate safety protections in place.
This is a good bill, and I'm pleased to have spoken on it. It will do a number of good things. It will require all indemnity insurers to provide cover to all providers who need it. It will increase the maximum risk loading for providers with poor records to 200 per cent of average premiums and allow insurers to refuse cover in exceptional circumstances. It will establish a separate high-cost claim scheme for all allied health providers, including midwives. At present, there is a separate scheme for midwives but some pharmacists are inadvertently covered by the medical scheme. It will streamline the legislation that covers the schemes and it will require an actuarial assessment of the medical indemnity market to be tabled in parliament by February 2001. The bill's major provisions will take effect on 1 July 2020, following the tabling of detailed regulations on which the government is currently consulting widely.
I don't have anything more to add except to remark once again that it is good to see the quality of work that can be done in this House when governments and oppositions do not run at each other chest forward; when we work quietly through our committees and through consultation processes to get good results. There is still a way to go, but this is a step in the right direction.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (10:40): I thank the member for Parramatta for the comments she has just made. I'd like to add my voice to the discussion on this bill, the Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. Firstly, I congratulate Minister Hunt on this bill, which has the full support of the AMA, the Australian College of Midwives, the Australian College of GPs, and respective allied health and midwifery leaders. And I very much support the amendment that has been put forward by the member for McMahon and was spoken to just now by the member for Parramatta.
This bill addresses a key problem that is occurring in our maternity services, and I'm very pleased to see that this problem is being addressed. It's so important to ensure that Australian women have access to the highest quality of maternity care. We know that the highest quality of maternity care has the woman in the right place at the right time with the right health professionals, and we know that the right health professionals are a blend of midwives, obstetricians and allied health professionals. This bill helps us to undertake the work that is required to remove what was a systemic barrier for midwives in particular to accessing the indemnity insurance that they needed in order to practise to the full capacity of their scope as a midwife in private practice.
This is really important because what we need are models of care in our maternity system that allow choice for women. When we have choice for women, we give women control of their immediate circumstances. When we have choice for women, we allow them to see practitioners in addition to the traditional model of medical care that has largely been available in our health system. One of the things that we know about midwifery care—and I speak on this with some passion, as I practised as a midwife for more than 20 years prior to undertaking an academic career—is that midwives are frontline public health practitioners. Midwives are the people who introduce women to the essential public health aspects of vaccination, breastfeeding and early parenting whereby the most essential parts of a person's life are set up. We know, in fact, that the most essential determinants of a person's future health are set up during pregnancy and the early parenting period. Midwives play a key role in ensuring that women enter their pregnancy, give birth and then establish early parenting with their front foot forward. So I am really pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill in the House.
I really want to highlight today the importance of the role of the midwife, including the ways that midwives work in continuity-of-care models. That includes private practice and, indeed, homebirth, which is a part of private practice. I want to draw the attention of the House to the Cochrane systematic review of midwifery practice that was undertaken with more than 12,000 people. It showed very, very clearly that, when we have a midwife engaged in the care of healthy women, we have significant improvements to women's health. There are significant improvements that reduce the number of fetal deaths. Something that we were marking in this House yesterday was the reduction of stillbirths in our population. The Cochrane review indicated that when we have midwives leading the care of women we have a significant reduction in those deaths—in fact, 12 per cent. That's a very, very important thing.
What's also important is that, when we have midwives leading the care of women in collaboration with their medical colleagues, we reduce the numbers of operative births and we reduce the number of instances of regional anaesthesia that are required during childbirth, and, when we do that, of course we reduce the morbidity that women experience. That is extremely important to the broader health system and the ongoing care of our women.
Removing a structural barrier to accessing full insurance coverage is so important, and so is fostering models of midwifery care that can be useful in rural communities such as where I live. It is a clear signal to midwives that this government takes their role very, very seriously, and midwives need that clear signal. Right now in my electorate, we have severe workforce shortages in our rural midwifery workforce. In fact, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data from 2017 shows that in major cities we have 16 midwives to every 100,000 people. In inner regional and outer regional areas, that number falls to six.
In Yarrawonga, right next door to my electorate of Indi, the health service announced last week that they will be closing the maternity services come January 2020. The reason for that is they have no midwives. That means that the GPs in that town have no midwives to support them either. This is a symbiotic relationship. Midwives and GPs in rural areas work hand in hand. Midwives and rural obstetricians work hand in hand. With the loss of maternity services in Yarrawonga comes pressure on my home town of Wangaratta, a regional health service which itself is experiencing an extreme shortage of midwives. Right now they're paying exorbitant amounts of money to bring in agency midwives from Melbourne to staff the maternity wards. That puts enormous pressure on the health service, it puts enormous pressure on the longer-term midwives and it puts enormous pressure on the obstetricians who are taking care of those women. So I'm really concerned about that. We know that without midwives the quality of care for both healthy women and women at medical risk becomes something that is not optimised. A bill such as this gives a clear signal to midwives that they're valued in the system, and I really appreciate that.
I would particularly like to highlight today the role of midwife led models of care and I had the opportunity to mention this to Minister Hunt a few weeks ago. A midwife led model of care is a continuity model, in which a woman gets to meet a midwife right at the beginning of her pregnancy and that midwife, and a small group of backup midwives, looks after her throughout her pregnancy and throughout the birthing period and perinatal period. This is incredibly important, because the international research is very clear that, when a midwife is known to a woman, all aspects of her care are improved. Most importantly, her satisfaction with care is improved. I've done substantial research around fear and anxiety in childbirth, and the one thing that we know in reducing a woman's fear, anxiety and subsequent perinatal mental distress—and indeed perinatal anxiety and depression—is if she has confidence in the care that she is given. So this is extremely important.
Again, bringing it back to my electorate of Indi, I'm very proud to say that in my early days as a midwife there I was part of a team that established a continuity of midwife care model called the Wangaratta community midwife care program. It's the longest-running rural continuity of midwife care program in Australia and it recently celebrated its 20-year anniversary, which I was very proud to attend. I pay tribute to the midwives who have continued to offer that model of care. That model of care can be enhanced by a bill such as this, because it means that privately practising midwives who are not part of the traditional model that generally operates out of a hospital can work in a model such as this with the full security of indemnity insurance. Perhaps some of midwives who are no longer able to work in Yarrawonga can now register as privately practising midwives and join that program in Wangaratta, to offer the care that is no longer available in Yarrawonga and to have the backup of services of the Wangaratta hospital.
So a bill such as this is very practical and useful. But I would add my voice to that of the member for Parramatta and say that the bill could go a bit further and ensure that homebirth services are also included in this—homebirth services that are backed up by the Australian College of Midwives, with all of the quality assurance that goes with the registration required to be a homebirth midwife. Homebirthing is not something that most women want. It's something that some women want. Some women want it because they’ve been disenfranchised by the traditional models of care. I think that that, if this bill was able to include midwives in private practice offering homebirths, that would be a very welcome addition to a small but significant number of women.
That small number of women includes some women who undertake freebirthing, birthing without a midwife or a medical practitioner at all, because they're too afraid to go to a hospital. That's a small number of women, but, significantly, those women are at great risk of incurring problems to themselves and their baby. Wherever possible, of course, we want women to have the care of a fully professional midwife with all of the training and skills that they bring. As I said before, the Cochrane systematic review on midwife-led models of care has significant advantages for women, and I am very pleased that I can stand here as a midwife and support this bill.
In addition to normalising and humanising birth, the contribution of midwives to the quality and safety of health care is absolutely substantial. And the contribution that we in this House, as policymakers who really wish to improve maternity services, can make is substantial. Any way that we can remove systematic barriers to having the best possible team looking after the women in our care in the public health system is extremely important. This bill contributes to the opportunities that we can create across our health system, and I support this bill wholeheartedly, with the addition of this amendment if we can possibly come to some agreement on that.
That's really all I want to say today about this. As a midwife, as someone who has practised substantially in this field, and as someone who still has very strong links into the rural community of Indi, where I'm very privileged to be the member, I want to point out to this House that the midwifery workforce is currently under enormous stress. Anything that we can do to provide financing, increase the numbers of midwives trained in our rural areas and increase the opportunities for midwives from the city to consider a career in rural health services would be most welcome, and any way that we can contribute to increasing the choices that women can have as they approach the most important period of their life—giving birth to a baby and early parenting, including breastfeeding and all of the aspects of public health—is extremely important.
The final thing I want to say is that a midwife's role goes beyond even that. The public health role of midwife, including the role that they can play in women speaking to them of domestic violence and in putting in early intervention around aspects of family life that can increase the likelihood of a small child having a higher quality of life, is incredibly important. So I add my voice to those others in the House today to commend the minister for this bill, to commend the collaboration that's happened across the aisles and to commend my colleagues in medicine, midwifery and allied health for their collaboration in drafting this piece of legislation.
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (10:52): I rise to speak to the Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. Labor too supports this bill, as it helps to ensure stable premiums for providers and therefore makes their services much more affordable for their patients. By requiring all indemnity insurers to provide cover to all practitioners and providers who need it, instead of just the current four insurers who have contracts with the Commonwealth, our community, including birthing families, will have more choice. Having more players in this field will also increase competition amongst the insurers, which, hopefully, means that premium prices are actually competitive and kept lower. The scheme establishes separate high-cost claim schemes for allied health providers, including midwives, with an important review of the medical indemnity market to be done by February 2021 following the introduction of the bill on 1 July 2020.
I understand there is still consultation with stakeholders on the detailed regulations, and that is important because this bill does not address two major issues: there is a lack of cover for midwives for home births, and there is a monopoly held by the only provider of midwifery insurance cover. In 2002, Australia's largest medical indemnity insurer was placed in provisional liquidation, and this would have left 60 per cent of medical providers without cover, meaning their patients might not have been compensated for medical negligence. So the Indemnity Insurance Fund was set up by the Howard government. It made insurance more affordable for private doctors and midwives who work predominantly in public hospitals. The scheme has been reviewed, but the review recommended that it should be maintained, and the changes we see here with this bill are a result of that review.
In a past life I had the privilege of being a nurse and working very closely with midwives. I listened intently and with great interest to the previous speaker, the member for Indi, who of course is well known in this area and admired for her work. I'd like to acknowledge that.
At the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation where I worked, we had a great relationship with our midwifery members, and I worked very closely with the College of Midwives, who have long been advocating for midwifery led care. Midwives and nurses, as we know, are among the most trusted people in our community. We have heard from the member for Indi how outcomes for mums and babies are enhanced when there is continuity of care—of midwifery led care in particular. In Australia, over decades, we have seen that birthing of babies has become almost completely medicalised. Babies are born in hospital with the support and oversight of an obstetrician, a doctor. This hasn't happened in all countries. I am sure lots of us have seen the wonderful TV series Call the Midwife, which really illustrates beautifully how midwifery led care is a hallmark of British society, and there are lots of other countries that have similar systems set up, where midwives lead the care from the minute the mother notifies the service that they are pregnant right through to the birth.
Right now in Australia we see that this has changed. We don't really have a service like that anymore. There have been midwifery led care models set up very successfully around the country—and, again, we heard about very successful ones from the member for Indi. There are great models of care where midwives work in collaboration with GPs and obstetricians. I'm pleased to say that many public hospitals, particularly in my area in Melbourne, are now initiating the midwifery models of care that are run in conjunction with medical experts, but it is the midwives who actually do all of the initial assessments and ongoing care, and call in medical experts when they are needed.
When we live in a land where choice is valued so dearly in all aspects of life, it is amazing that, at the beginning of a life, when a mother is giving birth, her choices are severely limited and she is denied choice—because, as I said, this bill does not cover midwives who wish to help mums deliver in their own home. Homebirths are not covered, and I think this is unfortunate. We know that at the moment there are 150 private midwives doing homebirths in this country, but they are doing it without insurance. This is far from optimal for both the mum and the midwife if something were to go wrong. It makes it very difficult.
I do understand that there are benefits with this bill. I have been told by the ANMF and my colleagues at the College of Midwives that it is good for nurses practising in those private practices and also for nurses working in Aboriginal communities, where we know child mortality is a very important issue and something that we need to work on. Of course, as previous speakers have pointed out, we know that midwifery led care does have enhanced outcomes, and, in those Aboriginal communities in particular, I understand that we are getting really excellent outcomes.
So, whilst we do support this bill and we know it does enhance the very important work of midwives in our community, we are still concerned that it falls short in helping midwives to establish private practice and, in particular, to do homebirths. I think that is something this country is lacking when I see how successful such models are in other countries. We will support this bill but we do hope that these other issues are going to be addressed by this government.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (10:59): I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Medical and Midwife Indemnity Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. This bill amends the Medical Indemnity Act 2002 and related legislation to reduce and simplify the legislation underpinning the medical indemnity schemes through consolidation and repeal of redundant legislation. The new legislation will continue to ensure medical indemnity insurance products are both available to and affordable for medical and allied health practitioners. Improvements have been made to the provision of universal cover for doctors who may otherwise be uninsurable. While there is a risk that poor performing doctors benefit from universal cover, the reason it exists is to protect doctors with a significant claims history from being denied cover where the claims history relates to their specialty, location or patient cohort. The risk is mitigated by increasing the risk loading which insurers can apply, and by enabling insurers to refuse cover in exceptional circumstances.
Only four of the six participating insurers have a contract with the Commonwealth. The effect of this has been that the two insurers outside of these contractual arrangements cannot be compelled to provide cover, and there is no mechanism to enforce universal cover. The effect of the contractual arrangements has therefore been unevenly distributed. Insurers will continue to be able to impose risk-management conditions on high-risk doctors and to refuse insurance in exceptional circumstances. These new arrangements will reduce administrative requirements and insurers will no longer need to contract with the Commonwealth, removing inequities between contracted and non-contracted parties. This will reduce burdensome and duplicate reporting and ensure there is an equitable and open medical indemnity insurance market.
The government will also be maintaining support for high-cost claims and exceptional claims made in respect of health practitioners who are insured by insurers presently participating in the schemes. These practitioners will need to be practising in professions accredited by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority. For allied health professions, included employed, privately practising midwives, the government will be establishing separate schemes for high-cost claims and exceptional claims. The allied health schemes will mirror the existing high-cost claims and exceptional claims schemes to include midwives and close an inequitable gap. This means that all registered midwives not covered under the midwife professional indemnity Commonwealth contribution scheme are covered under the allied health high-cost claims scheme. Claims made under these schemes will apply regardless of whether they are made against a practitioner covered by an insurance contract between the individual practitioner and insurer or by an insurance contract between the practitioner's employer and insurer. However, the claim must be against the individual practitioner. The amendments in the bill will ensure parity arrangements for doctors, allied health practitioners and midwives.
In summary, these legislative changes support the recommendations of both the first principles and thematic reviews, while addressing recommendations made by the Australian National Audit Office. The government will continue to ensure improvements are made in the monitoring of the performance of the Indemnity Insurance Fund against its objectives through the delivery of the independent actuarial evaluation, to be tabled in parliament in 2021. I commend the bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for McMahon 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 moved by the member for McMahon be agreed to.
The House divided. [11:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (11:13): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (11:13): 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:
(a) that this Government has no plan to support the Australian economy; and
(b) that, in the absence of any Government plan for the economy, the IMF has today slashed Australia's growth rate forecast to just 1.7 per cent—the lowest level in a decade—and predicts unemployment to stay stubbornly high; and
(2) calls on the Government to immediately undertake sensible economic action by:
(a) bringing forward infrastructure investments, particularly in regional areas;
(b) bringing forward part of its stage 2 income tax package to 2019-20 to provide relief for middle income earners, as this would have provided up to $1,350 a year to those earning above $90,000 three years earlier than currently planned;
(c) reviewing and responsibly increasing the rate of Newstart, as this would help to alleviate poverty, help people get into work, and would provide an effective and much needed boost to consumption;
(d) implementing a version of the Opposition's Australian Investment Guarantee to incentivise and boost business investment; and
(e) developing a comprehensive plan to boost wages, starting with restoring penalty rates for workers who are most likely to spend in the economy".
Australians woke up this morning to learn that the International Monetary Fund had downgraded Australia's economic growth forecast to 1.7 per cent this year and to 2.3 per cent in 2020. This is the second time this year that the IMF has downgraded Australia's growth forecast, and it comes after a string of economic commentators, supervisors and regulators have sent a very clear message to the government that business as usual is not going to see an end to the sluggish economic growth. It's not going to turn the economy around. It is time for the government to get out of the grandstand, get on the playing field and put in place an economic strategy which will turn this country around.
We have wages growth at record lows. We have interest rates at levels lower than during the global financial crisis, when this mob over on that side of the House decried that those interest rates were at emergency levels. So if they were at emergency levels during the global financial crisis, what are they today? If the second downgrade in Australia's economic growth forecast by the IMF in a single year will not jolt this government out of its arrogant slumber, then what will?
Australians need a plan. Australian businesses need a plan. They do not need a Prime Minister who struts his way around the country in an arrogant victory lap after an unexpected election win with nary a plan to turn the economy around. Australians need real wages growth. Businesses need certainty, so that they can invest in productivity-enhancing infrastructure and capital and ensure that the next generation of economic growth is going to be sustainable. Without a plan, we can expect the situation to continue.
Through this amendment, we are calling on the parliament and the government to do what is necessary to put in place a fiscal strategy, which should start with bringing forward infrastructure spending. We are told that the government has set aside $100 billion to boost infrastructure spending in this country. The problem with that is that the majority—over 70 per cent—of that $100 billion won't be spent this year; it won't be spent next year; and it won't be spent the year after. In fact, over 70 per cent of that $100 billion won't be spent until after the next election. Well, Australia is crying out for these projects to be invested in today.
Throughout regional Australia, there are literally thousands of community and economic infrastructure projects which, if invested in today, would boost local employment, would boost wages and would boost those local economies. In my own electorate, where over 20,000 people a day get in a car or on a train and travel to Sydney or Western Sydney for employment, an upgrade to the Illawarra-Sydney rail link, an improvement in the Appin Road, an improvement in the Picton Road, and improvements to and investment in the Princes Highway—which the government has promised to do—are sorely needed investments which should happen and can happen. The planning has been done. Money has been set aside, we are told. Bring that money forward. Invest in those local projects to get the economy moving. We call on the government to invest in those projects within the Illawarra and on the South Coast and right around the country.
No. 2: if there is a politician on that side of the House who says that they can live on $280 a week, well, stick your hand up, because we want to see it. A chorus of people, from big business and the Business Council of Australia to the community organisations—in fact, the majority of organisations who have turned their mind to the problem of the unsurvivability of Newstart—have said: 'We need to shift the rate of Newstart.' So we call on the government, as part of a comprehensive fiscal strategy which invests in infrastructure, to review the rate of Newstart, because we know that that will provide an immediate stimulus to the economy and provide much-needed sustenance to the people who are on the lowest incomes in this country. We are told that the level of Newstart is so low that it is actually acting as an impediment to people entering the workforce. So we call on the government to do the right thing: firstly, invest in infrastructure; secondly, review the rate of Newstart; and thirdly, bring forward those stage 2 income tax cuts.
The majority of the income tax package won't be delivered until close to or after the next election. We're calling on the government to bring forward those stage 2 income tax packages to provide relief for middle- and low-income earners. This will provide, three years earlier than currently planned, up to $1,350 a year to those earning above $90,000. Again, it's another sensible measure which would provide much-needed stimulus to the economy. This is the strategy that is needed—not strutting around the country unwilling to listen to business, unwilling to listen to the Reserve Bank of Australia, unwilling to listen to the investors and unwilling to listen to anybody who doesn't agree on the need to put in place an economic plan and a fiscal strategy. So I commend the amendment to the House.
Going to the details of the bill, schedule 1 extends concessional tax treatments of genuine redundancies and early retirement scheme payments to those under the pension qualifying age. These payments generally include a tax-free component. However, currently, a person can only receive the tax-free component if they are under 65 years of age at the time of the termination of their employment or their retirement from employment. This change has been necessary since the age for pension eligibility increased on 1 July 2017. These amendments will assist older Australians who receive a genuine redundancy or early retirement payment but are not yet able to receive the age pension. These are much-needed reforms, a little late in coming to this parliament, but they are reforms the opposition will support.
Schedule 2 to the bill provides an increased refund of the luxury car tax to individuals who purchase a heavy duty passenger vehicle as part of their tourism or primary production business. The proportion of luxury car tax that can be refunded will be increased, and the maximum amount of the refund will also be increased, to $10,000. These changes will apply to eligible vehicles acquired on or after 1 July 2019. We support these proposed amendments.
Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to expand the board of the Australian Energy Regulator from three to five members, and puts other measures in place to ensure that the expanded board can operate efficiently. We support this uncontroversial amendment.
Schedule 4 to the bill includes an amendment which was initially drafted by Labor to include a deletion right as part of the consumer data right reforms passed with bipartisan support a few months ago. Labor made the introduction of this amendment a condition of its support for the consumer data right legislation. Labor supports the open banking regime. However, we want to ensure that, as consumers' information is passed from one bank to another or through to intermediaries through the operation of this scheme, the owners of that data, the people whom the data is in respect of, have the right to initiate the deletion of that data. That is an important privacy protection that should have been a part of the initial drafting of the scheme.
The amendment requires the ACCC to develop rules relating to the deletion of personal data, allowing individuals to demand that their data is deleted by a data recipient. This will instil greater confidence in the consumer data rights system and ensure that respect for consumers is a central element of any participating data recipient's approach. This is a win for the consumers in the CDR regime, and I commend the Treasurer and the government for honouring the agreement that they reached with me and the opposition in bringing forward this amendment.
Schedule 5 of the bill amends the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999 to enable the Commissioner of Taxation to calculate and pay interest on ATO held superannuation that is held by the commissioner under the act. For the benefit of members, the ATO now has responsibility for holding in trust unclaimed or unidentifiable superannuation accounts—that is, those superannuation accounts where the super fund has made attempts to contact the owners but, because of a lack of personal information, the fund has been unable to track down those account holders. The ATO, if you like, is the trustee of last resort, taking control of and ownership in trust of those superannuation funds until they can be reunited with their rightful owners.
Schedule 5 also amends the relevant regulations to prescribe the rate of interest paid by the commissioner on those ATO held accounts, which, according to the regulations, will be based on the consumer price index. It is interesting to note that this rate is significantly below that which the government or any Australian would consider to be a reasonable rate of return for a superannuation account. I am quite certain—as APRA is conducting its heat map of the performance of superannuation funds or RSEs over the next 12 months, with the initial data to be released in a few months time—that the expected rate of return for those funds will be considerably more than the CPI. I fully anticipate that both APRA and, perhaps in due course, ASIC will be issuing 'please explain' notices to the trustees of those funds if they are delivering rates of return at just CPI. We do note that the ATO is intended only to hold these funds on a short-term basis. However, this is a provision that warrants the ongoing scrutiny of parliament in all its forms to ensure that if these funds are not kept for a short period of time—that is, they are unable to be reunited with their rightful owner—then we review the rate of return which is presumed to be earned by those funds held in trust by the ATO.
I would encourage the government to review these regulations and consider whether paying Australians CPI rates on their superannuation funds—funds that they are relying on for their retirement—is an appropriate decision. With these observations in mind, we encourage all members to vote for the amendments and to support the schedules to the bill as indicated in in my address.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Thistlethwaite: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (11:28): I thank once again the member for Whitlam for his erudite speech and for his insights into our superannuation system and into the bill in front of us.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
Mr Falinski: I am just buttering you up, don't worry. Having owned and run my own business—
Mr Stephen Jones: Hansard is no place for irony.
Mr FALINSKI: I know, it's on the Hansard now; I'll have to own those words—I agree, Jonesy. Having owned and run my own business, I have always been committed to ensuring that Australian entrepreneurs are given every available opportunity. Our small and medium-sized business owners remain pivotal to this country's ability to innovate and provide jobs. We have always punched above our weight when it comes to our small businesses as global innovators expanding internationally.
Schedule 2 of this bill increases the luxury car tax refund available to eligible primary producers and tourism operators. This will support small to medium-sized businesses around Australia and proactively assist industries critical to the livelihoods of many communities.
This is the Asian century, and Australia is perfectly positioned to take full advantage of this opportunity. There is no better way to do that than by reducing the tax burden on Australian businesses so that they are empowered to do what Australian businesses do best. To give full effect to schedule 2 of the luxury car tax, primary producers or tourism operators who have acquired an eligible vehicle on or after 1 July 2019 will be able to apply for a current partial refund of the luxury car tax paid up until the legislation comes into effect. We are aiming for the positive outcomes of this bill to be felt as soon as possible. At the point when the legislation does come into effect, an increased refund amount on eligible vehicles will be adjusted for any amount of the partial refund which may have already been paid.
Businesses in this country can have full confidence that this government is their strongest advocate both internationally and in ensuring that the domestic climate is supportive of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, encouraging businesses to grow, innovate and hire. Running my own business taught me just how constraining and dumb government overregulation, overtaxation and red tape can be. Australians are always at their best when free from the imposed limitations of the government and bureaucratic apparatus. At the very heart of this government is the commitment to small and struggling businesses to give them every opportunity to thrive and grow in an increasingly competitive domestic and international marketplace.
Another component of this Treasury laws amendment bill is the extension of the concessional tax treatment of genuine redundancy and early retirement scheme payments to those under the age pension qualifying age. The effect of this is to align the pension age with the early retirement scheme payments. This is an important step in enacting the government's commitment to retirees while helping to reduce the burden on future generations. This amendment will benefit Australians under the age pension qualifying age who receive a genuine redundancy payment or early retirement scheme payment. The tax-free component is not being made available to people at the age pension qualifying age or over as there are a number of other government assistance schemes available, such as concessionally taxed superannuation and the age pension.
Whilst the tax-free component is not available for those at the age pension qualifying age or over, the termination payment they receive is concessionally taxed at 15 per cent up to the employment termination payment cap. Payments made in relation to the termination of employment will continue to attract significant tax concessions to ensure that people are able to pay their own way and make the life choices they want to make. This amendment's focus is on providing seamless support to older Australians and retirees to maximise their quality of life whilst ensuring that we don't pay for the present at the expense of future generations.
Another key element of the bill is working to expand the board of the Australian Energy Regulator. The composition of the increased board will include two Commonwealth members and three state or territory members. Providing Australians with affordable and reliable energy remains a priority for this government. The energy security of Australia and Australians and the protection of Australian consumers in the energy market must be a continuing priority. Whilst this is primarily an administrative change, increasing the board's resources and implementing these changes will increase the regulator's efficiency and help to enforce effective competition that puts the customer first.
Further protecting the rights of consumers, schedule 4 of this Treasury laws amendment bill is focused on giving consumers more power over their own data. We live in the century of data. This is the Asian century and the data century. This amendment is focusing on giving consumers more power over their own data. This is enshrined in the consumer data right, which provides individuals and businesses with the right to access data related to them but held by businesses. This may include information related to their raw bank transaction data. The consumer data right also enables the authorisation of accredited third parties to access this data. The right does not allow businesses who hold or receive data to transfer or use this data without the consent of the customer.
The consumer data right drives improved outcomes for the consumer and businesses alike by giving greater access to data on goods and services offered by them. In short, it untangles the complexity which so many businesses have used to confuse and conflate consumers and drive them into products that are not the best possible products for them. By improving this access to their own data, consumers will be able to compare services more effectively and there will be increased competition. Australians will be able to get a better deal and select products and services that are more tailored to their individual circumstances. This is particularly critical in relation to the banks and financial services sector at large. Open banking is about serving the interests of the customer by creating a more effective marketplace through honest product comparison and driving competition into the market.
In a fintech age, the consumer data right, or CDR, may prove critical to supporting data driven innovation and insights. In helping to create and sustain a strong start-up system, we have to begin with providing a legislative framework conducive to protecting the consumer whilst empowering entrepreneurs and industry disrupters. New jobs and economic growth come in the wake of innovation in Australia. As a government, we will continue to work to ensure that they are supported.
Instrumental in the protection of consumer rights over their own data is the requirement of the ACCC to create consumer data rules that include an obligation on accredited data recipients to delete CDR data in response to a request. Practically, this gives consumers the right for their data to be deleted—the right to be forgotten. Part of strong privacy safeguards embedded within the legislation is the encryption of communication, as part of the implementation of wider data standards related to the transfer and securitisation of data. This is coupled with further requirements requiring explicit consumer consent for the collection, use and disclosure of data.
This bill, the bill in front of this parliament now, will also work to ensure that regulators such as the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner are strengthened and given significant resources to ensure that consumers are protected. In cases where data breaches do occur, we are putting in place a framework where adequate remedies and dispute resolution arrangements are in place to help safeguard privacy.
Due to the rapidly changing nature in how data is utilised, the CDR enables the ACCC to make consumer data rules to determine the detail of how the right will apply in different circumstances. This flexibility in rule-making will enable a system tailored to the industry itself. By taking into account different industries, business and existing regulatory frameworks, the ACCC will be able to better make provisions benefitting all stakeholders.
As technological advancement continues to evolve, it is important that our regulatory framework does not lag behind, especially when it relates to the protection of consumers. This similarly assists in addressing different and emerging risks which may occur as technology continues to develop. The rule-making freedom that the ACCC has is constrained within the limitation of matters related to datasets and data portability. In the rapidly changing field related to consumer big data, this will ensure that government remains responsive and engaged.
The fifth schedule of the bill introduces a regulation-making power to allow the Commissioner of Taxation to pay interest on lost, unclaimed or inactive low-balance superannuation amounts that are proactively returned to members' active accounts. This change is long overdue. The objective of this section of the bill is to protect lost, unclaimed, inactive or low-balance accounts from erosion by paying interest while they are held with the ATO. Protecting superannuation from being needlessly depleted is important to take care of future retirees relying on their super. This is important to ensure the integrity of the superannuation system at large and protect consumers from having their superannuation needlessly depleted due to accidental mismanagement.
Protecting the rights of consumers remains fundamental to maintaining the integrity of businesses operating in sensitive spaces, whilst minimising the downside for entrepreneurs trying to innovate. The response to these amendments has been overwhelmingly positive, as reflected in the submissions and consultation that took place. As a government, we are committed to markets powered by innovation and defined by protection of consumers, for it has never been any other way. We stand by retirees seeking to fund their own future and by the next generation, who won't have to foot the bill. We are a government dedicated to supporting small businesses, whether they are operating as primary producers, as tourism operators or as start-ups and innovators. This bill works to continue to implement the government's strong economic agenda, and for this reason I commend it to the House.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management) (11:40): Firstly, I'd like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. This bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019, contains measures which will assist older Australians, help farmers and tourism operators, improve the efficiency of the Australian Energy Regulator, ensure that consumer privacy remains central to the Consumer Data Right regime, and protect retirement savings from erosion.
Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to extend the concessional tax treatment of genuine redundancy and early retirement scheme payments for those under age-pension-qualifying age. These amendments will assist older Australians who receive a genuine redundancy or early retirement scheme payment but are not yet able to receive the age pension. These amendments are a part of the government's commitment to deliver lower taxes and ensure Australians keep more of the money that they earn.
Schedule 2 to the bill helps those farmers and tourism operators who need heavy-duty passenger vehicles to traverse vast distances and rugged terrain. Schedule 2 will provide them with a greater refund of the luxury car tax which has been paid, by now allowing for a full refund and by lifting the refund cap to $10,000. These new arrangements will apply to eligible vehicles acquired on or after 1 July 2019.
Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to expand the board of the Australian Energy Regulator from three to five members and ensures the expanded board can operate efficiently. This will ensure that the Australian Energy Regulator is adequately resourced to effectively regulate our energy markets, which will lead to better outcomes for energy market participants and consumers.
Schedule 4 to the bill amends the Consumer Data Right to ensure that consumer privacy remains central to the regime. The introduction of the Consumer Data Right implemented an economy-wide right to data access and use for consumers. It requires that the primary consumer data right regulator, the ACCC, use the rule-making power already afforded to them in the original act to create rules that allow consumers to request that the accredited data recipients delete consumer data relating to them. This is stronger than the specifications in the original act, which provided the ACCC with the power to make these rules but did not compel them to do so. By legislating that the ACCC must include rules relating to the deletion of personal data, we are encouraging longer-lasting confidence in the system and helping to ensure that government-to-government public concerns about privacy remain central as the system expands.
Schedule 5 to the bill enables the Commissioner of Taxation to calculate and pay interest on ATO-held super that the ATO proactively reunites with members' active accounts. This is another step in the government's agenda to ensure that people's hard-earned retirement savings are protected from erosion.
I commend the bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam be agreed to.
The House divided. [11:47]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (11:52): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019
Second Reading
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management) (11:53): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
What a great pleasure it is to move the second reading of the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019. Maritime trade is vital to Australia's economy. International shipping carries 99 per cent of our imports and exports by weight, connecting Australia to the world.
Our domestic maritime industries are vital to Australian tourism and to our transport networks. These industries, including fishing and aquaculture, are significant employers of Australians, particularly in our regional and coastal communities.
Across Australia, shipping and maritime trade directly or indirectly supports people's livelihoods and lifestyles.
As a government, it is our duty to ensure Australia's regulatory framework for our maritime industries remains up to date and fit for purpose, and meets community expectations to support safety, protect our marine environment, and facilitate trade.
This includes supporting the efficient operation of maritime businesses by removing unnecessary regulation.
Today I present the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019.
The bill repeals the ANL Act 1956 and the ANL Guarantee Act 1994.
These two acts set out arrangements relating to the former Commonwealth shipping line 'ANL', or 'Australian National Line', which was owned and operated by the Commonwealth during the last century.
In 1998, the Commonwealth sold the ANL shipping line to container shipping company CMA CGM, including all associated business names, trademarks, and intellectual property.
From this time, CMA CGM has traded in our region under the name ANL. Transitional arrangements are long concluded, and the Commonwealth has ceased to have any stake in the ANL shipping line.
Following the sale of ANL in 1998, most provisions of the ANL Act have no longer had any legal or practical effect. For example, provisions relating to the structure and staff of the government business ANL became defunct as a result of the sale and privatisation of the ANL shipping line.
One key exception is the provision of the ANL Act protecting the use of the business name 'ANL' and other associated terms, such as 'Searoad'. These provisions have recently impeded the business operations of a small number of maritime businesses, including by impeding the re-registering of website names and registration of trademarks.
This is despite the affected businesses having used their names for many years in good faith.
The protected name provisions of the ANL Act should have been removed around the time of the sale in 1998. Having sold the ANL shipping line, the Commonwealth no longer needed to protect these names. However, the protections were retained through a historical oversight.
This bill corrects that oversight to honour the sale of ANL in good faith and remove unnecessary and unintended barriers for the affected maritime businesses.
This will allow these businesses to get on with their operations and making important contributions to our national economy, without interference from unintended, historical regulatory barriers.
The bill also takes the opportunity to repeal a related piece of spent legislation—the ANL Guarantee Act.
The guarantee act empowered the Treasurer to guarantee loans made in respect of the former government shipping line ANL. Similar to the ANL Act, the guarantee act has been effectively obsolete since the 1998 sale of ANL so should also be removed as an unnecessary and outdated piece of legislation.
I thank the Treasurer for his agreement to repeal these two acts simultaneously.
His support enables the efficient use of the parliament's time to remove two related and outdated pieces of legislation and remove unnecessary historical barriers to maritime business.
I commend the bill to the House.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (11:57): I rise to speak on the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019 and, from the outset, signal that the opposition will be supporting the legislation but also moving a second reading amendment, particularly in relation to Australian shipping. I note that this bill repeals the ANL Act 1956 and the ANL Guarantee Act 1994. The legislation, in essence, as the minister has said, is a tidy-up of the arrangements that were put in place when the Australian National Line was sold by the Howard government in 1998. At the time of the sale, employee entitlements were transferred to the new owners, along with all physical assets and the ownership of all business names and associated intellectual property. It has since become apparent that, due to the original ANL Act not being repealed, whilst the Australian government no longer owns the business name of the Australian National Line the current owners' use of it is compromised.
The ANL Act lists the business name 'Australian National Line' as a name protected from unauthorised use. The original intent of protecting the name under the 1956 act was to ensure that parties not associated with the Australian National Line would be unable to use the name, or similar names, as a trading name. Since the sale, in essence that is no longer necessary. Instead, what has come to light is that the owners of ANL, CMA CGM, now face limitations on registering and re-registering domain names and other intellectual property, due to the 1956 protection of the name ANL still being in place. This has left the Australian government exposed to the risk of legal action. The opposition agrees that it is unreasonable for this impediment to be in place and therefore supports the legislation.
Similarly, we support the repeal of the ANL Guarantee Act, another piece of legislation that has not been required since the sale of ANL in 1998. The old guarantee act was in place to provide that the Commonwealth government guarantee any loans or other financial undertakings given by the then government-owned entity.
Whilst I note that the coalition government is prepared to take action to support one international shipping line, I do think it is incredibly disappointing that it won't lift a finger, frankly, to support and rebuild our domestic shipping industry. As an island nation and a nation of islands, we are reliant on shipping for so much of our domestic and international freight task, a shipping freight task that is the fourth largest in the world. Virtually all of our imports and our exports come and go by way of ship, and one-tenth of global sea trade flows through our ports. Strong management of shipping is crucial to our national security and our economic and also our environmental interests.
But on this government's watch we are now in a situation where less than half a per cent of our seaborne trade is carried by Australian ships. That percentage is rapidly heading towards zero, with regular reports of operators removing Australian flagged vessels from service. There will come a time under the watch of this government when we will see no Australian flagged vessels in our waters if we don't do something now. Under this government's watch, the number of Australian flagged vessels has fallen, on the reports that I have, to 14, but in fact I think it is lower than that; it is now at around 11. For the six years that this government has been in office it has stood idle, when it should have been supporting our shipping industry.
It's not just about Australian flagged vessels; it's about what comes because we have Australian flagged vessels. We have increased national security when it comes to fuel. We have a pipeline of training for regional jobs in the maritime industry. Our ports are able to access Australian trained pilots. We have a fantastic Australian Maritime College in Tasmania, and we have the capacity, if we have Australian flagged vessels and an Australian shipping industry, to provide the training pathways for those wonderful AMC graduates to then be able to get high-paying jobs in this country. It means that, for our defence forces, we are able to supply a pipeline of people trained in the shipping industry that then can jump into the Australian Defence Force, into the Navy. It is not just about Australian flagged vessels; it is what that means for the entire Australian maritime industry and jobs in the maritime industry.
This government, frankly, has been not just asleep at the wheel but prepared to actually trash what is in place currently to try and build that shipping industry. No nation should surrender its economic sovereignty in this way. No nation should decide that an entire sector, the maritime industry, is not worthy of support to get jobs into our regions, and yet that is what this government has done. Those opposite see no value in the existence of a vibrant domestic shipping sector, or any other part of maritime industry for that matter. They have twice sought to rip up the reforms made by the Labor government aimed at protecting Australian shipping, under the guise of reducing costs. The parliament twice has rejected those reforms, calling out the legislation as bad for Australian passengers and freight, bad for Australian workers and bad for Australia's national security. All the while, each and every coalition transport minister undermined policy settings put in place by the former Labor government that sought to enhance and rebuild the Australian shipping industry. In particular, the repeated misuse of temporary licences by this government has enabled foreign flagged ships with crews paid a pittance to continue to regularly transport goods between Australian ports—work that can and should be done by Australian maritime workers paid Australian wages under Australian conditions.
I met yesterday with a senior maritime worker who was here on another matter, but he was telling me he is the only Australian working on a ship that regularly plies the Australian coast. It doesn't go anywhere else; it only goes from port to port in Australia, shipping goods between Australian ports. He is the only Australian who works on that ship at all. When you've got people coming through the Australian Maritime College desperate to find berths on ships and to get to the level of being able to become pilots in our ports, and you've got a ship regularly trading right around the coast of Australia—in fact, that is all it does—and there is only one Australian citizen working on that ship and being paid Australian wages, there is something very, very wrong. But, rather than present a vision to support and rebuild Australian shipping and Australian jobs, and all that comes from that, the Deputy Prime Minister has recently announced a further round of consultation on coastal trading reforms.
I remind the House that, in July 2012, following extensive consultation with industry and with unions, the former Labor government attempted to revive Australian shipping with a substantial reform package. That package included an international shipping register, the first national ports strategy in this country, a single national regulator to administer a national set of laws, a zero corporate tax rate, more generous accelerated depreciation arrangements, rollover relief for selected capital assets, new tax incentives to employ Australian seafarers and an exemption from the royalty withholding tax for bare-boat leased vessels. The reforms needed time to bear down, but they would have supported a substantial revival of the Australian maritime industry. However, as soon as this government—which is now in its third term—came to office in 2013, it began a concerted effort to undermine every single one of those reforms.
Through two failed rounds of legislation and the ongoing high use of temporary licences, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has done all it can to weaken the Australian shipping and maritime industries. Almost seven years into its term of government, it has quietly contacted the maritime industry stakeholders to begin looking for support to 'reform' coastal shipping—and I say 'reform' because so far what this government has done when it comes to its so-called reforms of coastal shipping has been to do everything it possibly can to undermine the capacity of Australian jobs in this industry. That is what the government has done.
I've seen a copy of the government's correspondence to industry, signed by the Deputy Prime Minister. It includes a letter and a two-page note titled 'Why do we need coastal trading reform?' I know why we need coastal trading reform. It's because we want to get more Australians into work in Australia's maritime and shipping industry. I'm not convinced, on the basis of what the government have put forward to industry, that that is in fact what they're intending to do. Read together, the letter and the two-page explainer set an incredibly narrow frame for such a crucial debate.
The government has ruled out big reforms while leaving the door open to undermine protections for Australian flagged vessels. While it notionally rules out opening up the coast, it leaves open achieving this by stealth, through further exploitation of temporary licences. While it claims protections for Australian vessels are critical, it flags that new approaches are certainly possible. Further, it explicitly rules out even a conversation on proposals put forward to save Australian shipping, like a strategic maritime fleet, mandating use of Australian vessels, large tax concessions, or subsidies. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the government has ruled out all of these things if the purpose of the consultation is to actually improve coastal shipping. I would add that the purpose of any consultation should be to grow and expand jobs in the maritime industry, particularly those in our regions.
Crucially, the fact sheet notes that the 2018 seafaring skills census recently conducted forecasts a skills shortage by 2023 and goes on to comment how 'Australian mariners are unable to complete their sea time locally'. What on earth is the government doing, if there are people coming through the Australian Maritime College in Tasmania being completely unable to find a berth on a ship to get the sea time that they need to be able to then progress through their training pathway?
We've got Australian seafarers who want to work, who want to work in Australia and who want to pay their dues through the maritime industry—and it takes a long time to train someone up to be a pilot at port, and rightly so, because it's a very dangerous and very important set of skills to have. We've got all these people who are very keen to participate in this industry and very keen to learn and develop, but they can't actually do that in their own country. What on earth has the government been doing? We've got a new generation dreaming of going to sea, but they cannot get the training. Even if they did get the training, the jobs are simply not there for them when they are finished. This is in spite of Australia's economy having the fourth-largest shipping task in the world.
I go back to where we started: we've got the fourth-largest shipping task in the world. We're heavily reliant on shipping for export and import, yet the Australian jobs in this industry are on the decline. What has government been doing to ensure that Australian mariners and Australians who want to go to sea get the training they need to advance their career or get a start in this industry? There is no career pathway for Australian master mariners, marine pilots or our harbour masters. How is it in Australia's best interests to be recruiting these critical maritime workers from overseas or having to attract them out of our defence force—out of our critical navy, which has a substantial workforce shortage as well? How is that in Australia's national interest?
I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to also answer this simple question: what is the government's actual policy when it comes to Australia's shipping? The industry does not have time for more reviews. Our economy does not have time for more and more reviews. This is a third-term government with no plan for our economy and certainly no plan for how Australian shipping contributes substantially to that economy and to jobs across the country.
Turning back to the correspondence that the minister has circulated, I note the fact sheet also states that if reform is pursued, stakeholders have to agree where there is middle ground. When there are, as I said, just 14 or fewer Australian flagged vessels operating on our coast, I'd say to the Deputy Prime Minister: what is 'middle ground' for coastal trading when there are now only 14 or fewer Australian flagged vessels on our sea under his government's watch?
Shipping is an important national strategic industry. Maintaining a domestic shipping industry is critical for Australia as an island nation. Labor remains committed to working with stakeholders to revitalise Australia's shipping industry. Unlike those opposite, Labor believes in a strong and vibrant maritime industry, and we will always support Australian seafarers, maritime workers and Australian flagged vessels.
While supporting this legislation, Labor would also welcome the support of the chamber in standing up for Australian coastal shipping and Australian maritime jobs in this country. We can't have a strong and secure economy if our nation is completely reliant on foreign vessels to provide our fuel, to bring the goods that we need into our markets, to carry our exports and to move products around our coastline.
It is pretty clear from the letter that the minister has circulated to the industry, with a submission date of less than four weeks, that this is not a consultation process. This is a process designed to get an outcome, which, again, is an outcome for the government to try and pursue the watering down of the protections and the growth in reforms that Labor put in place for coastal shipping.
I know that there are many in the sector that have been confused by what the government's purpose is in circulating the letter. There are some who are indicating that they're simply not going to participate, because they see this as another round of the government's attack on those reforms and another attempt to get its legislation through the parliament. I hope that is not the case.
That being said, whilst we're supporting this legislation, I will move a second reading amendment.
Further to my amendment, which I will move at the end of this speech, I call on the Deputy Prime Minister to be honest with the Australian people and to tell us why the government has ruled out even discussing proposals that will in fact save Australian flagged vessels and save Australian shipping. What is the government doing to ensure Australian mariners and Australians who want to go to sea can get the training that they need here in this country and on Australian vessels? What is the government's policy on Australia's shipping and Australia's maritime industry? What is a middle ground for coastal trading when there are now 14 fewer Australian flagged vessels on our seas on this government's watch?
Labor does have a proud history of supporting the vital role that Australia's maritime industries play in securing our economic, environmental and national security needs. We remain committed to revitalising the industry and supporting maritime workers. With that, 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 this Government's record of undermining the Australian shipping industry; and
(2) reaffirms that Australia's economic, environmental and national security interests are best served by a viable and competitive shipping industry".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Clare: I am very happy to second it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat 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.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (12:16): Australia is a big island, with the sixth-longest coastline in the world. The only way to get here or leave here, or to import or export goods, is via air or sea. There is no bridge or tunnel to other nations. We are, as our national anthem reminds us, girt by sea. We inhabit a region with strong maritime cultures, our closest neighbours being Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, South-East Asia and the island nations of the Pacific.
As a wealthy nation with a vast coastline, surrounded by countries eager to trade, you would think the Australian merchant maritime fleet would be the envy of the world. You would think that a nation that has taken more than 200 years to develop would have itself developed a rich and diverse maritime sector producing the best maritime engineers and shipbuilders, sailors, officers, technicians and navigators, graduating from world-class maritime academies. I'm pleased to say that the AMC in my state does a world-class job. But, as the member for Ballarat notes, people are graduating from the college and unable to get the training they need in Australia to operate on ships. They have to go offshore. It's just incredible that, in Australia, an island nation, graduates of the Australian Maritime College in Tasmania have to go overseas to get the qualifications they need to go into the maritime industry. It is absolutely incredible.
Under this Liberal government, Australia's maritime fleet is a shadow of its former self. There were 13 Australian flagged ships left in Australia at last count, when I did my research; we are now down to 11 ships. There were 100 ships just 30 years ago; we are now down to a tenth of that. The Liberals have absolutely demolished this country's merchant maritime capabilities, and all because of their obsessive hatred of the maritime unions.
Labor is supporting the bill before the House today, the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019, as all it really seeks to do is tidy up some redundant legislation by repealing the entirety of the ANL Act, which applies to an entity that no longer exists. Whilst we support the bill, the member for Ballarat is seeking to attach an amendment to the bill calling the government to account for its absolutely appalling mishandling of Australia's shipping sector.
The legislation before this House today unfortunately does nothing to restore Australia's once proud shipping industry. It does nothing to unwind the damage done to our maritime fleet—a fleet that now barely exists. The extreme right-wing economic conservatives over there on that side may well shrug their shoulders and say, 'Well, why should Australia have a maritime fleet if it's cheaper to import and export goods on foreign vessels using foreign crews?' But that is a narrow and shallow perspective that does not take into account Australia's wider national interest.
Australia's overreliance on foreign vessels and foreign crews now exposes our nation and our people to threats of both national and economic security. We do not allow foreign soldiers to defend our shores simply because they're cheaper. We do not outsource our Royal Australian Navy to the cheapest bidder. We don't expect the Chinese to patrol our waters and then bill us for the service. How then is it acceptable, from a national security point of view, to have all our food, all our fuel and all our goods entering and exiting our nation on foreign vessels? How is it acceptable to those opposite to have foreign vessels with foreign crews plying domestic Australian routes as a matter of course instead of—as it used to be—a matter of exception and only under the strictest rules? If we are to be a secure nation, we must be a self-reliant nation. We need Australian ships and Australian crews on Australian domestic routes, and, ideally, Australian ships with Australian crews bringing fuel to Australia.
An Australian shipping industry is about so much more than just ships and crews. It's about shipbuilding, manufacturing, support services, components, IT, navigation services, education and training. It's about national security and national identity. It's about having assets that can be called upon to assist in times of national emergency, natural disaster and war. Professor Sam Bateman from the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security at the University of Wollongong, a former member of the Australian Navy, recounted this tale from the late 1990s: 'When Australia was assisting Timor-Leste in the fractious days following independence from Indonesia, the Australian government had to charter 27 cargo vessels to carry Australian troops and stores. All 27 vessels were foreign owned.' What an indictment. It is clear that to those opposite Australia has little hope of reclaiming its place on the high seas.
We need a national conversation about both rebuilding our own maritime sector for the 21st century and taking a global leadership role to ensure the international maritime sector meets minimum health and safety standards and rates of pay for foreign crews. It should be unthinkable in a civilised society such as ours to accept that ships are arriving in Australian harbours that are barely fit to be in service—that are likely to sink at sea and thereby doom the desperate, poorly paid men who crew them. We should be doing more to insist that every vessel that visits this nation meets minimum standards and is crewed by people earning proper rates of pay and living under UN-sanctioned conditions on board. There should be no more sly nods and winks and no more turning a blind eye by the authorities. This is a function that used to be done by unions, but those opposite have so hobbled unions that they are no longer able to carry out these inspections. If that's to remain the case, then it is those opposite who must bear the responsibility for what occurs and they must insist that more Australian Border Force investigators are appointed to carry out this important work.
The unpredictable nature of our region's geopolitics, as well as the instability and risks from beyond our region, shows just how irresponsible it is to rely on foreign ships and foreign crews. By doing so, we are openly exposing our vulnerabilities to the world. Regional disputes, including disputes that are occurring today, could well impact on our shipping and freight paths and even on our ability to utilise foreign ships when we need them. One example of this is, of course, fuel security. I have often been heard in this place talking about how fuel security under this government is at such a low. My voice has joined the chorus of concerned experts calling on this government to do something to ensure that Australia maintains the recommended level—the required level—of fuel reserves. It is required under international treaties that countries have at least the equivalent of 90 days of fuel in reserves. This is established with the International Energy Agency, and it's something most countries strive to comply with. These 90 days effectively act as a security blanket in case something goes wrong and supply is disrupted.
In August, it was widely reported in Australia and elsewhere that the government has been looking to the US for assistance in replenishing Australian stocks. Things are so bad. Articles throughout the year, based on the Department of the Environment and Energy's interim report on the liquid fuel security review, show that we now have less than 30 days of fuel reserves. We have one-third of what is required under international treaty. If this paltry supply of fuel is exhausted, everything is grounded. Everything grinds to a halt, including our defence assets. It is common knowledge that we are dependent upon fuel imported from regions like the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia—imports brought to our shores by foreign flagged, foreign owned, foreign crewed ships. We are the only import-dependent country in the IEA that is not satisfying our obligations to stockpile fuel to the required standard. Australia is in a vulnerable, high-risk position in which our reliance on other people's ships and crews makes us highly sensitive to disruption.
The fact is that this government, which makes so much of its national security credentials otherwise, simply seems not to care. They seem to have no interest in being proactive and building the contingencies and buffers against increasingly uncertain global energy conditions. One thing they could do is rebuild the Australian domestic shipping fleet. I am unyielding on this. I have spoken about it several times. Tasmanians are at the forefront of this. We have a number of crews who have been sacked from Australian owned vessels. The vessels go offshore and the crews are sacked while overseas. They're given tickets to come home on the plane, and then those ships are returning, sometimes under new owners, with foreign crews being paid as little as $2 an hour and doing the same work that those Australian crews used to do. It's just absolutely unacceptable.
There is no denying that we, as an island country, need a domestic maritime fleet underpinned with a strong legislative and regulatory framework. We need to protect our national interest. Our national interest has to come first. It has to come before the private interests of the shipowners. We need to put our national interest first. By relying on foreign crews on foreign ships, we are exposing ourselves to people and interests who may not share Australia's interest in security. Australian crews have to undergo security and background checks. They have to undergo certain levels of training. There are stringent conduct expectations.
We need to know that, when ships are freighting dangerous or valuable cargo, the cargo is managed, stored and shipped appropriately and securely. It's not good enough to sign a form and say, 'Yes, everything's good,' because, as we all know, the inspections are not being done to the requirements or to what is needed to ensure that these ships and what they transport are managed safely. We need to know who the people crewing these ships are. We need to protect our national interest and ensure that our ongoing ability to operate continues in the wake of disruption. We need Australian crewed, Australian owned ships.
I'll just come very briefly to the Jones Act in the US. The US is hardly, one would think, a socialist state that would have these sorts of things for no reason. The Jones Act requires that vessels operating on US domestic routes must be American owned and American crewed. The US are a highly privatised, highly corporatised nation, yet even they know that it is in their best interests to have American crewed, American owned vessels plying their own routes. If the Americans can do it, why don't we have the same rules here?
It beggars belief. I'm staggered by it. When I think of the national security implications of not having an Australian fleet and, frankly, the political benefit to the government of going out there and saying they're going to rebuild an Australian maritime fleet—with the jobs that would come with it and the national security implications that would flow from it, it's an absolute political goldmine for those opposite to do it—I shake my head.
I alluded earlier to the reports of Tasmanians being woken in the middle of the night and being told that their contracts had ended and they were being replaced by cheaper foreign crews. I want to see these days come to an end. The member for Ballarat rightly mentioned that we are down to about 11 vessels. Australian ships have about 0.5 per cent of Australian trade. We could double Australian trade and still have only one per cent. The state maritime shipping is in saddens me as much as it angers me. We are an island nation surrounded by sea. My state is surrounded by sea. We should have the biggest, richest and best maritime fleet in the world—that we can be proud of. It should be part of our national identity. Yet we have allowed it to wither away. I fully support the member for Ballarat's second reading amendment. This government must be held to account for the way it has absolutely destroyed and demolished Australia's maritime shipping industry.
In the brief seconds I have left I want to mention that Tasmania's Seafarers Memorial Day is on from 11 am on 20 October in Triabunna in my electorate. Unfortunately, I can't be there, because I'll be on a plane coming here. I wish them all the luck for the day.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (12:31): It gives me great pleasure to rise following the contributions from the member for Ballarat and the member for Lyons on the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019. As the member for Ballarat made very clear in her remarks, Labor does not oppose this legislation. As she clearly mapped out, this legislation is really tidying up historical errors in two pieces of legislation. The bill before us now will repeal the ANL Act and the ANL Guarantee Act 1994. Effectively it will remove the current restrictions on the protected names associated with the former government-owned shipping line—the Australian National Line. We all know that that shipping line was sold. In recent years it has become apparent that the continued existence of the ANL Act and the ANL Guarantee Act poses a statutory bar for the new owners who are continuing to use the ANL trademarks, IP and web addresses. The repeal of these two pieces of legislation makes sense. It will provide CMA CGM, the new, French owners, with the legal clarity and certainty that they are entitled to in order to conduct business. There is no opposition from the Labor bench here in that regard.
I wish to speak now to the amendment moved by Labor's shadow minister, the member for Ballarat. It highlights the extraordinarily shocking record that this government has in the Australian shipping industry. The deliberate and active undermining of this industry, its representative union and the workforce is literally gobsmacking and completely ignores the critical need for a strong, vibrant coastal shipping industry for this nation. I'm going to come to some of the reasons now.
I come from Newcastle. The port of Newcastle is a key part of our region. Indeed, the people of Newcastle have a very proud maritime history. The port of Newcastle has been in operation since I think the 19th century. It was around 220-odd years ago, I think, that that port first started to be used. The first exports of coal, of course, came from Newcastle, and coal remains the main staple of the Port of Newcastle. It has been a critical link in our national supply chain for a very long time—as I said, centuries. That port in Newcastle is managing movements of more than 4,600 ships a year.
Regretfully, the suite of policies that we have seen from this government and, indeed, from consecutive conservative governments has done nothing but undermine the viability of our shipping sector. It's not just the laws around manufacturing making our shipping industry less and less viable; it's the treatment of the workforce that is particularly astonishing and worrying. Just as the member for Lyons spoke about some of his constituents who were woken in the night to find out that they had no job, I too had men from Newcastle who were on the high seas—on their way to the China Sea, in fact, aboard the MV Mariloula—when they received an email on their ship in the dead of night saying BHP had cancelled the ship's contract and the entire crew had lost their jobs. This was just last February. This is not old news. It absolutely came out of the blue for those men on the ship.
I remember speaking with David Grant, a seafarer from Tighe's Hill, a community in my electorate of Newcastle. He said that the email was completely unexpected and it certainly didn't help that they were literally in the middle of the China Sea, with a terrible internet connection. So it was very hard for them to get any real information. It was very difficult for them to speak with their families at a time when they needed to reach out and try and reassure each other. Even worse was that those men had taken a two-year wage freeze because the company said they couldn't afford to pay them more. They took a two-year pay freeze in order to keep the company going and those ships running, and that's the recompense they were given. That's how they were repaid. They were sacked in the middle of the night via an email. These were men who had been working at sea for years. In Dave's case, he'd worked at sea for seven years. He wanted to continue doing so. Many of these men are generational workers. They are working in an industry in which their fathers, uncles and grandparents also worked. They're very, very proud maritime workers. They're highly skilled maritime workers. They've finessed their craft and are amongst the best in the world. That is the result of the terrific training that has previously taken place in Australia and of the strength of the MUA and the collective movement for maritime workers.
I know many on the government benches are terrified of the MUA. They speak often about the CFMEU and MUA merger and what that now means for Australia. But I think what often gets lost in all of that is an understanding that that is an organisation that is there to protect and represent the interests of those working men and women, and it has done a great job in doing so. You need a strong collective labour movement to combat shocking exploitation like the sacking of those men without any warning in the dead of night while they were out in the middle of the China Sea. It's not just that they were sacked. They also knew that they were going to be replaced by a foreign crew that would be paid as little as $2 an hour.
The policies of this government are completely implicated in these kinds of actions, because this government has continued to issue temporary licences for routes like the one that was being travelled by MV Mariloula and, indeed, MV Lowlands Brilliance and others that were clearly engaged in permanent work and have been doing so for year after year. This government allows those temporary licences to be issued for those routes and, in doing so, enables that kind of treatment of working men and women—where they can be sacked on the spot and replaced by foreign workers who are often in very vulnerable positions and at the mercy of exploitative practices from a range of foreign flagged vessels.
Again, the work of the MUA in Newcastle in particular—I want to give a very special shout-out to them— combined with that of the International Transport Workers Federation has been extraordinary in trying to call to account those foreign flagged ships and companies that are not treating their workers properly. I was very fortunate, as a candidate back in 2013, to work alongside the ITF when they boarded foreign flagged ships in Newcastle and did their inspections. There were ships where the crew had not been paid for three months. It was unclear whether they had enough rations in the coolroom to get to the next port safely. Without the intervention of an international labour movement, without the spotlight of the media being shone on those examples, I fear gravely for what would have happened to those men aboard that ship. They had no communications with their families. They hadn't been paid, and their food and water supplies were unlikely to last them to their next destination. I praised the MUA and the ITF for calling out those kinds of dodgy, shonky operators in the industry. That's the job of a labour movement. That is the noble cause of a labour movement, and it is so often overlooked by members opposite, who have a very blinkered view about trade unions in Australia. I want to put those examples on record to show why you need organised labour in this country.
I would also like to point out that it's not just this government's propensity to issue temporary licences for routes that are clearly permanent ones travelled by those vessels. There is a whole suite of other policies that are plagued by conservative governments, both federal and state, and this is playing into the decimation of the Australian shipping industry. I would like to highlight the fact that the New South Wales Berejiklian Liberal government have not seen fit to overturn what was very clearly one of the dodgiest secret deals ever done by a state government—when they were selling off our precious ports. They actually have a caveat at Newcastle now. When they privatised the Newcastle port, they did this secret little deal that protects Kembla and Botany from having effective competition from a container terminal there, to inflate prices for the other two ports. So they got good prices into the New South Wales government coffers, but it was totally at the expense of Newcastle. We now have an agreement where the government has imposed a cap on the number of containers that can leave the Port of Newcastle before incredibly onerous penalties will be applied. This is blatantly anticompetitive. Thankfully, the ACCC is taking this up as an issue, and it is a subject before the Federal Court now. I sincerely hope that the court finds that this, as the evidence before me would suggest, is the most dodgy of deals ever stitched up by a state Liberal government, in secret, behind closed doors. That agreement needs to be torn up, and the New South Wales state government needs to take their foot off the neck of our economy in Newcastle, so that we can have a port that is able to diversify its economic base there. It's critically important.
They also took their $12.7 million off the table for a passenger container terminal. We would have liked to have cruise ships calling into the Port of Newcastle. The people of Newcastle were very excited about having a cruise-ship passenger terminal there. We were making some inroads there. I see that they want to build one down in a part of Sydney where the locals actually don't want one. Well, they might want to think about relocating that money and those energies and—instead of trying to force the people of Sydney to take a cruise-passenger terminal that they don't want—taking that terminal up to Newcastle. They might want to put that $12.7 million, and a bit more, on the table so that such a terminal could be built in Newcastle.
We want jobs. We want Australian ships. We want Australian flagged ships back, traversing our nation's waters and our coastline. We want Australian men and women to have good, secure, well-paid jobs on those ships. My colleagues have articulated before that it makes good economic sense. It makes good sense from the point of view of our national security. It is absurd that the world's largest island state would have less than 11 national ships that we could still call part of our national fleet.
Labor had a terrific plan to rebuild a national strategic fleet for Australia. The government would do well to adopt our plan.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:46): This bill, the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019, is a sad reminder of the demise of Australian shipping in this country. I will go back to the origins of some aspects of the shipping industry, particularly post-World War II, in Australia. Immediately after the war, the Australian Shipping Board was established to operate an Australian national fleet. In 1956, the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission took over the Australian Shipping Board's operations. At the time there were some 42 vessels, mainly cargo ships and bulk carriers, that operated in our waters. In 1989, the Australian National Line was established, and that took over from the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission.
In 1998, the Australian government sold the Australian National Line—or, at least, it sold the business and the trading name—to the French company CMA CGM, and that was effectively the end of a national shipping fleet in this country. At the time of the sale, ANL operated 12 vessels. It had been reduced to a very small player in the shipping market. It was also argued at that time that ANL was no longer viable and had been operating at a financial loss. Of course, the value of a national shipping line is not solely determined by the profit-and-loss statement. That is a very narrow perspective on value.
In post-World War II years, shipbuilding underpinned the growth and economy of Whyalla in South Australia. It created jobs right across the local economy, from shipbuilding to home construction and community services. The demise of Whyalla shipbuilding—it ended in 1978—has had a major economic impact on Whyalla and the Spencer Gulf region of South Australia.
More broadly, a national shipping line creates Australian maritime jobs. Not only does that employ Australians, but also, importantly, those crews pay tax to the Australian government, unlike the crews of all the other vessels that are not Australian-owned that operate in our waters.
It also ensures that maritime skills are not lost. It is never in the national interest to become completely dependent on overseas countries for specific skill sets. We are already seeing that with so many other skills where Australia is becoming dependent—indeed, reliant—on skilled workers from overseas, either because industries in this country have closed down, or because we have stopped training people due to the cuts made to vocational education and training institutions in this country.
The associated issue with foreign shipping operators is that they have been known to employ unskilled workers on wages and conditions likened to slave labour. Slavery in the Western world was outlawed 100 years or so ago, but as a nation it seems we turn a blind eye to slavery and worker exploitation by outsourcing to overseas entities work that could be done by Australians. In doing so, Australia is complicit to that exploitation.
There is, of course, a national security value associated with operating a national shipping fleet, as other speakers on this side of the House have already pointed out. In times of conflict or natural disaster, it is reassuring to know that, as an island nation so dependent on overseas exports and imports, we have a national shipping capability. That's why, in the lead-up to the 18 May election, Labor committed to the establishment of a strategic fleet of Australian flagged vessels and to stopping the abuse of temporary licences—which this coalition government has been so willingly prepared to issue.
In the midst of so much instability in the Middle East—and every day we hear new stories about what is going on there—Australia has around three weeks of fuel reserves in stock, effectively leaving Australia dependent on overseas operators for both the supply and the transport of fuel. A fuel shortage would cripple Australia, and yet we do not even have the ability to guarantee the transport of fuel from overseas, because we have no national shipping fleet. It's more than just an embarrassment; it is actually a major national security issue. As I move around my electorate, it is one of the issues that is of most concern to people I speak with. Most people are prepared to accept government decisions on a whole range of matters, but they simply cannot understand how our national government can allow Australia to be left so vulnerable—and, quite frankly, I don't understand how we can leave ourselves so vulnerable.
It is not good enough to say that, in the event of an emergency or a crisis, we will lean on our allies. They may not be in a position to assist us—albeit that they might want to. Yet we have allowed ourselves to fall into that position. As has already been pointed out by others, even under our international obligations we're expected to have a minimum of around 90 days of fuel supply in this country. For years that has not been the case. This is not a new phenomenon that has happened in recent months or even recent years because of instability in the Middle East; this has been the case for several years, and as a nation we have done nothing about it—and it's high time that we did.
Associated with national security comes the value of surveillance of Australian territorial waters by Australian crews, who would have a patriotic interest not only in ensuring Australia remains safe but also that biosecurity for our country is not jeopardised in anyway way. I have no doubt that Australian crews, once they are on board a ship and operating in Australian waters, and even beyond, would always be vigilant with respect to ensuring that Australia is not in any way put at risk by any party or by any other entity. Along with biosecurity risks is also the risk of environmental damage that has occurred in the past, and which, in all cases that I am aware of, has been caused not by Australian operated vessels but by foreign operated and foreign crewed vessels. They don't have the same interest in caring for our country as Australian crews would have.
To those who say that the Australian National Line was not profitable and that it should have been sold off, my response is that it is near impossible to put a dollar value on the national security, the biosecurity, the environmental security and the skills security associated with operating a national shipping fleet. We don't put a dollar value on the costs of our national security agencies or our defence forces—nor should we. Likewise, we should not simply dismiss the dollar value of entities because of the book value at the end of the financial year. Likewise, Australia should not ignore the national security value of maintaining a shipping fleet, which has other benefits for the country than just the transport of cargo.
One of those benefits I'm going to refer to is related to the transport of livestock from this country to overseas destinations. It was only last month that this parliament passed legislation to appoint an Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. That appointment was made necessary because of the abuse of export animals that had occurred for many years in this country, particularly with respect to the exporting of sheep. We had the case of the Awassi Express in 2017, which was probably the latest issue that triggered the current public debate on live sheep exports.
We appointed an Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports in response to animal welfare issues which arose because those sheep were being transported by foreign owned and foreign crewed vessels. Had they been exported on Australian owned and Australian crewed vessels, it is highly unlikely that the sheep would have suffered, and the sheep would probably not have died—or at least not in the numbers they did—and we might not have had the need to appoint an Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. That position also comes at a cost, but I'm sure it's not being factored in when we talk about the cost of maintaining a shipping fleet in this country. It's a classic example of sometimes needing to look beyond the direct costs associated with a particular industry sector.
As other speakers have already pointed out, 99 per cent of all imports to and exports from Australia are transported by ship. It's also been said time and time again that Australia is an island nation—and that's absolutely true. But, more than that, it's an island nation that imports and exports a considerable amount of products every year. In fact, we have the fourth-largest shipping freight task in the world. Our whole economy depends on the exports from this country. We are one of the biggest exporters of minerals, gas and the like, not to mention the imports that we now have to bring in from overseas, literally on a daily basis. Yet Australia has no input into the transport of those goods, whether imports or exports. It's all managed by overseas entities.
I wonder how many other countries would allow themselves not only to be so vulnerable but to miss out on such an important industry sector. I doubt that other countries who had the same opportunity as Australia to develop an industry, based on shipping exports, would not have done so. Yet we in Australia are prepared to miss out on those opportunities because we simply look at the bottom line of a particular industry sector.
Of course, Labor supports this legislation in principle, although I speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Ballarat. But it certainly highlights the bigger issue here, and that is that we as an island nation have allowed ourselves to become so dependent on other countries for the import and export of our goods—goods which sustain our economy, goods which create opportunities for us to build our economy on and goods which we should always be in control of.
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (12:59): The ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019 repeals the ANL Act of 1956 and the ANL Guarantee Act 1994 to remove outdated legislation and unnecessary restrictions on business.
These two acts set out the arrangements relating to the former government shipping line ANL, Australian National Line, which was owned and operated by the Commonwealth during last century. In 1998 the Commonwealth sold the ANL shipping line. Following transition of the ANL shipping line to a private business, most provisions of the ANL Act ceased to have any legal or practical effect. The key exception is provisions in protecting the use of names such as ANL and Searoad.
Once the Commonwealth had sold the ANL shipping line, these protections should have been removed but were retained through an historical oversight. Recently, these protections have impeded a small number of maritime businesses seeking to undertake activities such as re-registering website names and registering trademarks, despite these businesses having used the names in good faith for many years. This bill repeals the ANL Act to correct that oversight by removing an unintended and unnecessary barrier impeding business operations and to honour the sale of ANL in good faith. This will allow these businesses to get on with their operations and to continue making important contributions to our national economy.
Like the remaining parts of the ANL Act, the ANL Guarantee Act became obsolete following the 1998 sale of ANL. The power for the Treasurer to guarantee loans made in respect of the former government business ANL has long ceased to have practical effect. Both acts should therefore be removed as unnecessary and outdated pieces of legislation.
I acknowledge and thank the Treasurer for his agreement to simultaneously repeal the guarantee act to support the efficient use of the parliament's time. Removing outdated and spent legislation is part of the Australian government's duty to ensure Australia's regulatory framework for our maritime industry remains fit for purpose and supports the efficient operation of our maritime businesses. I would like to thank honourable members for their constructive contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Ballarat be agreed to.
The House divided. [13:07]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Minister for International Development and the Pacific and Assistant Defence Minister) (13:17): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2019
Returned from Senate
Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (13:18): I rise to speak on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019. As I said on the previous bill, as an island nation we are heavily reliant on shipping for so much of our domestic and international freight task. Our shipping freight task is the fourth largest in the world, with one-tenth of global sea trade flowing through Australian ports. Shipping is crucial to our national security and our economic and environmental interests. We need strong national leadership both to support our industry and to ensure that Australian standards and conditions are maintained.
Under this government's watch, the number of Australian flagged vessels has fallen to just 14. In fact, that's the reported figure; we think it is actually much lower than that. That number is rapidly heading towards zero, with regular reports of operators removing Australian flagged vessels from service.
Given the every-increasing reliance on foreign flagged vessels to move freight around the Australian coast and to our island, it is more important than ever that the federal government plays an active role in maintaining functional international conventions, particularly when we know how vulnerable much of the environment around our great coastline is. We are custodians of the Great Barrier Reef, of the Great Australian Bight and of reefs that are of remarkable and World Heritage significance.
Despite the federal government's reluctance to work collaboratively with the international community on so many other fronts, it appears that on maritime pollution at least it does appear to be serious about working with the International Maritime Organization. While this is hardly grounds for praise, it is pleasing that this government is not completely throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the Prime Minister's new approach to international diplomacy when it comes to these global agencies.
Australia has a very long and proud history as a signatory and active member of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL. MARPOL includes regulations aimed at preventing both accidental pollution and pollution from routine vessel operations. Australia first gave effect to our obligations under the convention through the passage of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act back in 1983, the POPS act. Since then, numerous regulations of the Navigation Act 2012 have ensured that Australia meets our international obligations.
This bill implements Australia's obligations in relation to sulphur emissions from ships under annex VI of MARPOL. It ensures that the new fuel content requirements are legally enforceable in Australian waters, both for Australian vessels and for foreign flagged vessels. International shipping covered by this new cap carries 99 per cent of Australia's trade by volume. Further, as we become increasingly reliant on foreign flagged ships for our coastal shipping trade, international pollution agreements such as MARPOL become an increasingly critical component of how we manage our precious marine environment.
Annex VI requires that. from 1 January 2020. the sulphur content of fuel oil used on board commercial ships must not exceed 0.5 per cent per mass unless the vessel is fitted with an appropriate scrubber to reduce sulphur from its emissions to below the prescribed limits. This new limit represents a significant reduction for the current global sulphur limit of 3.5 per cent per mass, which has been in place since 2012. Annex VI also provides for vessels to use alternative fuels, including methanol and LPG. Critically, the agreement also prohibits the agreed carriage ban on fuel that does not comply with the new cap on the high seas from 1 March 2020. Any breaches of the carriage ban will be subject to the same penalties as the use of noncompliant fuel, thereby removing a potential incentive for ships to switch to the higher sulphur content fuel once steaming onto the high seas.
This legislation and the implementation of the MARPOL obligations are necessary to allow Australian authorities the power to enforce the convention in Australian waters. This legislation also better aligns other parts of the act with MARPOL by providing an exemption for naval and government vessels, and clarifies the definition of a number of key terms provided for in the current act.
As an island continent and as a trading nation, Australia cannot isolate itself from the impacts of marine pollution and any potential increases in the costs of marine fuel oil. While most large-scale transport providers have long-term fuel contracts in place and/or hedge against any fluctuations in the price of fuel, it is difficult to predict what impact, if any, the likely increase in the price of marine fuel will have on goods purchased in Australia.
I note the Deputy Prime Minister's second reading speech claims the high sulphur carriage ban in this bill before us today will not in itself increase the cost of shipping, as the January 2020 ban on high sulphur fuel has already been legislated. The Deputy Prime Minister has given us some assurances around that. But it is important to flag that this language is quite selective.
I note the lengthy consultations undertaken by AMSA were satisfactory to industry, who are supportive of the adoption of annex VI of MARPOL to ensure a global level playing field. However, there does remain a level of uncertainty in industry on price impacts on transport fuel flowing from this new cap on sulphur emissions. Industry has also expressed concern that the Australian government has not worked with the industry on how any price impacts can be managed, and I think that is something departmental officials might want to take on notice.
On the whole, the ongoing development of Annex VI of MARPOL is a good example of international cooperation to reduce emissions. Over time, MARPOL has reduced the cap on sulphur content of fuel used on board ships, with an initial cap of 4.5 per cent per mass enforced back in 1997. In October 2008, the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee agreed to reduce the maximum sulphur content to the current 3.5 per cent per mass from 2012 and to 0.5 per cent from 2020 onwards. The regulations include a provision requiring an assessment of the availability of low-sulphur fuel oil before the regulations took affect. The assessment was completed for the IMO back in July 2016 and found that the global refinery sector has the capacity to supply sufficient quantities of low-sulphur marine fuels. This process demonstrates the measured approach taken by the IMO and member states to dramatically reduce shipping emissions while ensuring the industry's viability. I understand the 77 parties to Annex VI of MARPOL represent almost 95 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage.
We know that sulphur pollution is responsible across the world for a range of deadly diseases. With shipping contributing 13 per cent sulphur dioxide and 15 per cent nitrous oxides to global emissions, this new cap is necessary to help combat global emissions, to stem the growth of sulphur emissions and to reduce acid rain. Successful implementation will have a meaningful impact on our air and marine environment as well as on the lives of people in port cities and on coastal communities. It is an important step in the ongoing international effort to reduce emissions and it fits with the IMO's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping. The IMO's emissions reduction strategy envisages total emissions should peak as soon as possible and aims to reduce total annual greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 per cent by 2050, compared with 2008, whilst also pursuing efforts to phase out emissions entirely. It is a responsible policy response. The IMO reports that shipping contributes some 2.2 per cent of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and that, with increased global trade, emissions could grow by up to 250 per cent by 2050. Regardless of the relatively small contribution to global emissions from the shipping industry, this trajectory is cause for sustained action, first to ensure that emissions peak and then to begin a rapid decrease.
For Australia to support a reduction in emissions and at the same time ensure the ongoing viability of shipping, we do need a federal government that is actively engaged overall in marine policy development. After six years of seeking to undermine Australian shipping, this government has, frankly, thrown its hands in the air when it comes to the Australian maritime industry. As I outlined just previously, rather than presenting a vision for Australian shipping, the Deputy Prime Minister has recently announced yet another round of consultation into coastal trading reforms. The consultation rules out big reforms while leaving the door open to undermine the protections that are in place for Australian flagged vessels in this country. While it notionally rules out opening the coast, it does leave open the possibility of achieving this by stealth through further exploitation of temporary licences.
Labor is very concerned about what is happening to Australian coastal shipping at the moment. We're very concerned about what is happening to our Australian maritime industry. We have a fantastic Australian Maritime College in Tasmania, but if the cadets coming through that college cannot get berths on Australian vessels to do their sea time then that training pathway is lost, and they too are potentially lost to an Australian industry and Australian jobs. For that reason, whilst Labor is supporting this bill, I foreshadow that I will be moving the second reading amendment circulated in my name stating that, whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the government's record of undermining the Australian shipping industry and reaffirms that the Australian maritime industry's environment, national security and economic interests are best served by a strong and competitive Australian shipping industry. 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 this Government's record of undermining the Australian shipping industry; and
(2) reaffirms that Australia's marine environment, national security and economic interests are best served by a strong and competitive Australian shipping industry'.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Bowen: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
National Rural Women's Coalition
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (13:30): This week the National Rural Women's Coalition have been here for their Canberra Muster. It was a great honour to meet with them and hear firsthand about the remarkable work they're undertaking throughout their communities. The National Rural Women's Coalition represents a broad range of women from our rural, regional and remote towns right across the country. They also take a leading role in ensuring they help as many women as possible to help achieve their goals. This week they brought 12 amazing women to Canberra for a four-day leadership experience. These women have been selected due to their commitment to the areas in which they live and work. They're delivering projects which they've designed and which will, in turn, assist locals in their areas. These volunteer projects included providing assistance to small business owners and delivering financial literacy programs, and, very interestingly, there is a group that helps young people get involved in beekeeping. These projects are based on the theme of 'strengthening communities through rural, regional and remote women's leadership and innovation'.
As part of the leadership experience, the women spent a day in Parliament House and met a variety of MPs from all parties. It was inspirational to hear about how they are improving their own communities. I commend the National Rural Women's Coalition for their important role in strengthening our regional communities through women's leadership. I also note that yesterday was the UN International Day of Rural Women.
Drought
Mr BROADBENT (Monash) (13:31): In the House only a few weeks ago I made the point that we who live in the coastlands of this Great South Land have great empathy for those suffering through this drought in parts of Australia. I made that point and went further, saying that, if the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the ministers of the cabinet were able to, they could put in even further funds and further effort, and we would be supportive of them doing exactly that. That has happened, and the government has got very strongly behind its drought proposals. The message has to be that we're doing everything we possibly can to support farming families, communities around those farms and the broader wellbeing of the farmers. The drought will end and the rain will come, but we need those farmers to be on-the-ground, living, breathing organisms, to make sure we have those farms in place for when the rain does come.
This nation depends on what they produce. We depend on it for our own food, and we export 80 per cent of it. We need them, we are investing in them and they are our future.
Economy
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (13:33): Let's take a look at the facts of the Australian economy: economic growth is the slowest it has been since the global financial crisis; wages have stagnated; 1.9 million Australians are looking for work or more work; and living standards and productivity are going backwards. Yet we constantly hear from those across the chamber that they are the economic maestros of our times. Well, I think that the Australian people beg to differ. People are struggling to cope with rising costs—rising costs of electricity, fuel, groceries, child care, and the list goes on.
The woeful state of our economy isn't a surprise to the Reserve Bank, which has lowered interest rates to a quarter of the lowest rate since the GFC; or to the International Monetary Fund, which has forecast Australia's economic growth to be only 1.7 per cent. Yet the Prime Minister and his government have put their hands in the air and said: 'Nothing to see here. Don't talk the economy down.' We're not talking the economy down, Prime Minister; we are stating the facts. Our country is in the midst of a drought from rain and a drought from economic policy from this Liberal Party. Regional areas like my seat, the seat of Paterson, are absolutely feeling it.
Great Southern Business Awards
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:34): I had the pleasure of attending the Albany Chamber of Commerce and Industry's annual Great Southern Business Awards on Saturday night. The event was held at the Albany Entertainment Centre, and I must say it was a glamorous and glitzy evening. It was wonderful to see more than 180 businesses and community leaders coming together to celebrate the success and achievements of our local businesses. The annual business awards are an opportunity to recognise businesses throughout the Great Southern and to share their success with others.
The star of the night was Susan McCabe from Busy Blue Bus Tours + Charters. Susan took home three awards, including Best Tourism Business, Business Leader of the Year and the prestigious Great Southern Business of the Year. Busy Blue Bus Tours + Charters was founded by Susan and her husband, James, in 2010 when their love of adventure and of their home in Albany inspired them to create a service that could share this beautiful region with the world. Over the years, demand for the quality transport and service James and Susan offer grew, and so did their business. They now operate a fleet of over 50 buses in Albany and Esperance and still have the same personalised, high standard of service as when they started. Congratulations and well done to Susan and her dedicated team.
Other award winners included Robert Quayle of Wilson Brewing Company, who took out Employer of the Year; Aarron Attwell of XESIV Digital, who won Young Business Person of the Year; and a great friend of mine MaryJane Gibbs, whose business, Waxiwraps, won the award for Best Home Based Business. I want to congratulate all nominees and award winners and give a big shout-out to Benita Cattalini and her team at the ACCI for staging the outstanding event.
Economy
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:36): The International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook has slashed Australia's growth forecasts, and this makes a mockery of Treasurer Josh Frydenberg's claims that the Morrison government has the right economic policy settings for our nation. Collapsing confidence and weak growth are the inevitable consequence of this coalition government, which has a political strategy, sure, but is missing an economic strategy. It is having devastating impacts across our nation, including in Darwin and Palmerston in my electorate in the Top End of the Northern Territory. Territorians are worried about the state of the economy, but the Prime Minister is continuing to pretend that there is not a problem. Delays to our $100 million city deal are a big problem. Kakadu funding that is out on the never-never is another big problem. Defence spending promises that continue to be revised down are another massive problem for our economy. The Prime Minister should know that cutting 25 per cent of the Commonwealth Public Service in my electorate is not helpful. There have been widespread calls, including from the Reserve Bank, that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer should start to fast-track infrastructure investment. There's plenty of that investment that's been promised for the Northern Territory, so they should just crack on with it.
Wheelchair Rugby League Australia
Mr YOUNG (Longman) (13:37): Today I would like to speak about Wheelchair Rugby League Australia, a not-for-profit organisation founded in 2010 that facilitates the premier wheelchair rugby league competitions across Australia. NRL wheelchair rugby league currently runs men's, women's and representative competitions. Many wheelchair rugby league players join these competitions straight from rehabilitation after life-changing accidents. This sport allows people of all ages to experience a team environment when they need it most and makes possible the transition from being a wheelchair user to being a wheelchair athlete who may one day represent their country or state. Their ultimate aim is to have wheelchair rugby league sit alongside men's and women's rugby league in its own right.
Last month Wheelchair Rugby League Australia head coach Brett Clark travelled to Brisbane to hold an NRL camp and skills clinic. The camp was hosted at the Morayfield Sport and Events Centre in my electorate of Longman, the venue for the upcoming Queensland versus England warm-up game to be held this Friday night, 18 October. The camp had an impressive turnout, with many keen athletes trialling out and/or giving the sport a try. Perhaps the most exciting aspect of this event is inclusion of able-bodied participants, meaning the breaking down of barriers between disabled and able-bodied people. I encourage all local disability services and business in the Longman area to support this great game as it grows in Queensland.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (13:39): Last week, 90 NDIS participants and disability carers met in Corangamite to voice their serious concerns about the scheme. I and my electorate acknowledge the value of the NDIS. It is groundbreaking. But it is not working for many people. Colin, a self-managed participant and pensioner, spoke about the failure of the agency to pay him back $1,200. After seven weeks, and two letters from my office, it took our NDIS forum and a call from a Geelong Advertiser journo before the agency finally reimbursed Colin. Up until July, Colin was reimbursed every week. But NDIA had centralised this process. Colin was fortunate; he was able to manage this shortfall. But for many others who are coming to the office, there is real desperation. Participants should not be waiting months to be reimbursed.
Kirrily is a single mother of three who cares for her teenage son, who has severe autism. She spoke about her inability to get respite outside the family home for her son, despite his right to receive it under his plan. She spoke about her desperate thoughts of relinquishing her son to the state. At one point, she was suicidal. NDIA is failing to ensure there is sufficient respite accommodation available to meet the requirements of each care plan. This government must act now. It must listen to these concerns and treat participants with respect.
Weatherstone, Ms Patricia
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (13:40): I rise today to pay tribute to a special member of our community in the Ryan electorate: Patricia Weatherstone, a passionate golfer, a former staff member in my office and an all-round wonderful lady. We all know that in this place we are nothing without our staff. Patricia, when she worked in my office, was the very model of a professional community servant. She was forever patient in assisting local residents. She cared deeply for them and their issues, and they, in turn, cared deeply for her.
On a personal level, working closely together with Patricia for many years was an absolute privilege. I treasured her wise counsel, her diligence and her loyalty, and I'm certain I would not be in this place without all of her hard work over those many years. I was very lucky to have Patricia by my side in my profession life for as long as I did. On many occasions, she was the glue that held our little office operation together.
Patricia is now enjoying some well-earned family time with her daughter, Lisa, and her first grandchild, Hunter. As disappointed as I am not to have her in the office, I am pleased she is enjoying that family time. Patricia, thank you for all of those years of service. Thank you for your guidance and friendship. I hope this small tribute in the national parliament demonstrates how valued and missed you are by me and the whole team.
Middle East
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (13:42): Last week, Turkey launched an unlawful attack on Kurdish held territory in north-east Syria. Since then, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been displaced from their homes and at least 30 people have been killed, including young children. The decision by the United States to withdraw troops from the border, giving President Erdogan a green light to invade, is set to trigger a further humanitarian and geopolitical disaster in a region that has already suffered an eight-year war. Add in US nuclear weapons and sanctions as bargaining chips, and the escape of ISIS prisoners, and we face a dreadful situation.
Despite all of this, the response from Canberra has been pitiful. Although Trump's decision has been condemned not only by the international community but also by his own political party, our government still cannot manage a single word of criticism. That's simply not good enough. Remember that Kurdish forces have been a crucial ally for the United States and the West in the battle against ISIS. They were also at a critical point in their long and bloody fight for self-determination and autonomy. But now they've been betrayed by the erratic US President, who again shows he has no regard for the consequences of his actions. The government must condemn Trump's decision, stand up to Turkey and make it clear that this illegal invasion is absolutely unacceptable.
Rare Voices Australia
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:43): I'm proud to announce that next month I will once again be embarking on a 100-kay walk around my electorate of Bennelong for charity. This year I'm partnering with Rare Voices Australia to raise money for rare-disease awareness, support and research. A rare disease is a life-threatening or chronically debilitating disorder or condition that is not common in the general population. While specific rare disease are by definition uncommon, there are, collectively, 6,000 to 8,000 identified rare diseases, with new disorders diagnosed frequently. Roughly six to eight per cent of the Australian population—well over 1.5 million—suffer from a rare disease. These diseases can have devastating consequences, but, sadly, our healthcare system is often inadequately resourced to diagnose and manage these conditions.
This is where Rare Voices Australia steps in. They are the peak national body for rare-disease advocacy. They work with key stakeholders including patients, key peak bodies, governments, researchers, clinicians and industry to promote rare disease diagnosis, access to treatments, data collection, coordinated care and access to services and coordinated research. I will be walking 100 kays around my electorate in three weeks over November, visiting almost every school, nursing home and shopping village in our community to raise funds for Rare Voices and the excellent work they do. I greatly look forward to my walk and hope to see as many people as possible joining me in supporting this important cause.
Morrison Government
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:45): We have 1.9 million Australians looking for a job or for more work on this government's watch. We have the worst wages growth on record. We have weak household consumption and retail spending and record household debt at almost double disposable income. Meanwhile, this government is doing nothing about improving the homegrown issues in our economy. Internationally—we read this morning—the IMF has downgraded Australia's estimated growth from 2.1 to 1.7. The OECD has slashed Australia's growth outlook by twice as much as the G20 average. We have the slowest economic growth in a decade and the government is doubling net debt.
Consumer confidence is now at a four-year low. Business investment is down 20 per cent since this government came to power six years ago. Meanwhile, the Morrison government is asleep at the wheel. I have no doubt that we will hear during question time today lots of talk about 'headwinds' and lots of talk about 'global issues'. But you don't fool the Australian public that easily. This is six years of a government that has failed on all of the economic indicators that we are seeing and hearing about in this place. Ordinary Australians, those quiet Australians that Mr Morrison likes to talk about, are hurting. They are hurting in communities all across this country, including the community that I proudly represent in the seat of Lalor. People deserve more than this. People deserve a government that will act.
Nicholls Electorate: Employment
Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (13:46): Today I rise in support of three local government councils in my electorate of Nicholls, and local businesses as well. The City of Greater Shepparton, the Campaspe Shire and the Moira Shire are working together for a designated area migration agreement. Business owners and managers, whether they are large or small employers or small businesses, across Nicholls are constantly raising with me the problem that they are having in securing employees. Last week, while speaking at an agribusiness forum in Bendigo, we were presented with similar scenarios right around regional Victoria.
These positions range from skilled jobs such as food technicians and engineers and healthcare professionals through to diesel mechanics, boilermakers, electricians, truck drivers and less skilled jobs like fruit picking and packing and abattoir workers. This is putting the handbrake on business growth and productivity, which affects everybody in the region.
Whilst the Warrnambool region already has a DAMA, these councils are working with the Department of Home Affairs to bring one to the Goulburn Valley. Two weeks ago, a survey was sent out across the region and they got a very clear picture of how big this problem is. Significant responses have already been submitted. The closing date for these submissions for businesses is 7 November. I strongly encourage all employers in the region to put their submissions in, to make sure that a DAMA will become a priority for the Goulburn Valley and so that we will get an opportunity to fill the skills gap that we currently have.
Petition: Cambodia
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (13:48): I hereby lodge this petition, subject to the approval of the Petitions Committee, of 1,400 Cambodian Australians pertaining to the grave human rights abuses that are being perpetrated on the Cambodian community. I do so today in the presence of a large group of Cambodian community leaders who have come a long way today to the parliament and to them I say: chum reap suor. Welcome to your parliament. It is a great privilege to represent so many of you in my community of Hotham.
Human rights and democracy in Cambodia are under grave attack. The Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has dissolved the Cambodian opposition party. He has banned senior opposition officials from politics for five years. The president of the CNRP faces up to 30 years in prison. The ruling party has been implicated in the assassination of protesters, including Dr Kem Lay, who was assassinated in the streets of Phnom Penh not long after addressing a big group of activists in my community of Hotham. His widow has now settled under refugee protection in my electorate.
Hun Sen has threatened to beat Australians who live in this country who demonstrated against his visit recently. On 9 November, Sam Rainsy will return to Cambodia as an act of protest. I want to say that the world, this parliament and Australia are watching his return. We demand that he be treated with respect, as any political leader should be in their country of origin.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The document will be forwarded to the petitions committee for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders.
Menzies Electorate: Community Events
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:50): The Doncaster Bowling Club in my electorate of Menzies will celebrate its 70th anniversary this year with a series of celebrations to mark this historic event. The club was founded in December 1949 by a group of local orchardists and businessmen including JJ Tully, who was the owner of the land upon which the clubhouse and bowling greens were built. The Doncaster Bowling Club is a busy organisation with many members from the local community. The club provides, especially for older residents in Menzies, a social outlet and the opportunity to be physically active, which we know is, importantly, good for our mental health as well as our physical activity. An open day and membership drive were held this past weekend, and the first 70th anniversary celebrations will be held on Friday 22 November with a platinum afternoon tea.
Another organisation in my electorate, the Doncaster RSL, is celebrating its centenary this year. Opened on 31 October 1919, the RSL has been at the heart of the local community ever since. I wish to especially congratulate the current president, Charles Collins, and all of the members of the committee. The RSL is active in the local community, with regular events including monthly meetings for veterans, legatees and cadets from the local Doncaster squadron of the Australian Air League. I wish both of these organisations a happy anniversary.
Economy
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney) (13:51): Of course we've all been looking with interest at the disturbing downgrading of the growth predictions by the IMF today, with the Australian growth forecast dropping from the modest 2.8 per cent that was predicted to a much sadder 1.7 per cent. We know that the most disadvantaged Australians will feel the impact of this slowing growth more than most, and I would like the House to turn its attention today particularly to unemployed young people. What we saw in Europe—in particular Greece and Spain, for example—during the global financial crisis was a generational hit on unemployed young people. In Greece, unemployment amongst young people went from 21.7 per cent in 2008 to 58.2 per cent in 2013. Now, in 2019, it's still almost 40 per cent. There are similar figures, of course, in Spain. In Australia, our young people are twice as likely as older Australians to be unemployed, at about 12.2 per cent unemployment. But some parts of Australia have levels similar to those of the countries that are doing worst in Europe: 23.3 per cent in Coffs Harbour, 25.7 per cent in outback Queensland and 17½ per cent in Bendigo. We must do better for young Australians.
Osteoporosis
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (13:53): I rise today to speak about osteoporosis. World Osteoporosis Day, 20 October, is dedicated to raising global awareness of the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. We must reduce the incidence of osteoporosis for positive long-term health outcomes. In Australia, it's estimated that 4.7 million people over the age of 50 suffer from poor bone health, and fractures occur every three minutes in this country—some 160,000 fractures a year—with a cost of $2.5 billion to the health system. In my electorate of Bass, an alarming 49 per cent of people over the age of 20 suffer poor bone health, and northern Tasmanian doctors and nurses deal with 4,000 fractures a year.
Given our ageing population, it is not surprising, but we must not accept this as the status quo, particularly when it comes to preventable disease. Prevention is indeed better than cure, and I know the Morrison government has been working closely with leaders in the health field to look at addressing this issue. I look forward to hearing soon about new initiatives in this area. We know effective treatments are available and can halve the risk of fracture. Additionally, early action can be taken through regular exercise, a bone-healthy diet and consultation with your doctor about risk factors. I encourage my community of all ages to look at what lifestyle changes they can make to avoid developing this chronic disease.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (13:54): One of the reasons that this country has a National Disability Insurance Scheme is the work of an excellent grassroots disability organisation called Every Australian Counts. Today Kirsten Dean and Lynn Foreman from Every Australian Counts have made the journey from Melbourne to visit the current minister and me in Canberra. Kirsten and Lynn brought with them more than 1,000 stories, which I hold in my hand. These are stories from Australians with disability who have contacted them in despair—all within the last month. When the government had an underspend of $4.6 billion in NDIS, there are a thousand stories here of the delays and the problems with the NDIS. These people are outraged that the government is pocketing $4.6 billion when genuine Australians with genuine needs needed these services.
There are a thousand stories, but I will just provide three of them for the information of the parliament. Nikki writes, 'My four year old who cannot walk has been waiting over nine months for a special-needs stroller to be approved and well over 12 months for a therapy bench to be approved. We have to carry her everywhere, which means that we don't leave the house very often.'
Dave wrote:
I received my budget for the year but it is taking so long to get stuff done or purchased. I won't be able to spend it before the year is up and they will probably reduce next year's budget.
Finally, Rebecca writes:
My son's plan was cut by $7,000. I put in a review and someone rang me six months after the review and informed me there are thousands of reviews and we would have to wait our turn. It was never our turn.
Moncrieff Electorate: Sea World
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (13:56): I rise to speak about a travel website's ban on ticket sales for Sea World in my electorate, which is shameful. Sea World CEO, Bikash Randhawa, has said it is 'activism gone mad'. Sea World has a long history of working with marine animals, with over 40 years experience in animal care, research and rescue, and a strong track record of assisting animals in need. It has also been leading the way to educate and raise awareness of scientific knowledge for future generations, and it plays a huge part in the Gold Coast's conservation efforts in its world-class facility. Sea World's marine science department has rescued more than 600 marine animals in the last five years and donates millions and millions of dollars to conservation and research. Despite this, TripAdvisor has caved in to pressure from activist groups, resulting in the dumping of ticket sales for all marine parks that keep dolphins and whales in captivity.
I believe this policy is a reaction to the opinions of a few rather than to accurate, science based information. To paint Sea World with the same brush as a Third World country that mistreats animals is unfair and misinformed. It is an insult to all of the good work that Sea World does. It is irresponsible and it potentially jeopardises tourism, which is critical to the Gold Coast's local economy. This decision to ban ticket sales to Sea World Gold Coast could damage conservation efforts on the coast and could potentially affect a business that employs more than 1,000 locals. I encourage the CEO of TripAdvisor to come to the Gold Coast and see the tremendous conservation work that Sea World does with animals, and to reconsider their decision to ban ticket sales. (Time expired)
Economy
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (13:58): In the last 24 hours, the International Monetary Fund has just downgraded Australia's growth rate to 1.7 per cent. That is a downgrading which is four times larger than those of other advanced economies. We have a growth rate now which is lower than Greece's. It's a headline figure, but it is telling a deeply troubling story—the story of people who are going to the supermarket faced with the most difficult decision: what they do not buy with the money they do not have. And all the while these two here, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, are doing nothing—absolutely nothing.
Today, St Vincent de Paul have released a report which further illuminates this story. In the suburb of Corio in my electorate, in the last three years, 11 per cent of households—more than one in 10—have had their electricity cut off because they could not afford to pay the bill, and these two here, sitting opposite, are doing nothing about it—absolutely nothing. We have a drought in this country. Tenterfield is going to run out of water by Christmas and these guys are doing nothing about it. We have growth which is anaemic, we have wages which are stagnant and we have a government which is absolutely impotent. You were elected on 18 May to govern Australia. Get over your smugness and do your job.
Environment
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:59): It's time the environmental debate was taken back from the extremists who sit on the other side of this chamber. The reality is that the coalition has a proud record of conserving and stewarding our environment for the next generation. What those on the other side do is align themselves with the extremists of groups like Extinction Rebellion—a group whose only objective is to overthrow the platform of this democracy and the commitment to the policies that this government took to the election. I know that the Marxist member for Melbourne has always been on their side, but it's time we called out the revolutionary behaviour on the other side. This can be seen in the words of Sam Knight, one of Extinction Rebellion's founders, who said: 'The challenge we now face is not just the climate; the problem is capitalism itself.' We're here to call them out. We're here to say that their conduct is disgraceful.
The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: It's in everyone's interest to point out that it is two o'clock.
The SPEAKER: It is past two o'clock. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why has the IMF slashed Australia's economic growth forecast to just 1.7 per cent this calendar year?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:01): I thank the member for his question. The revision by the IMF overnight reflects the uncertainty of the times in which we live. That uncertainty extends to the global environment, of course—which I'd hope the Leader of the Opposition would be familiar with. I certainly am; I have been for some time. We've been fashioning budgets for years now to deal with the increasing uncertainty there is in the global economic climate. He would also be familiar with the real impacts on the economy of the terrible drought that is now impacting on the Australian economy.
That is why, over successive budgets now, we have been putting in place the types of resilience measures that support our economy in times like this. The uncertainty of the times is reflected in what we have seen in the IMF's forecast revisions overnight, which obviously didn't just apply to Australia; they applied to a whole host of economies around the world. That is just a fact. But the truth remains that, while things are tough, Australia's economy is growing, second only to the United States, of all G7 nations.
There's a lot of work to do, but I can tell you what this time of uncertainty calls for. It calls for lower taxes, which is what we are doing. It calls for reducing the cost of doing business in this country by busting through regulations that hold projects back and by simplifying procedures in the industrial relations area to ensure that people can get employed. It requires us, as we are doing, to engage in reforms in our skills sector and to ensure that we are expanding our trade borders all around the world, as we have been doing over the last six years. It calls for us to invest $100 billion in infrastructure, as we are doing—and that's just on transport infrastructure, with almost $10 billion being invested just this year alone. And it calls on us to invest $200 billion out into the future on recapitalising our defence industries, as we heard yesterday out at Quickstep in south-western Sydney. Quickstep, an Australian company, is providing $250,000 worth of value-added into every Joint Strike Fighter that will be flown by every country around the world that purchases them.
They're the investment decisions that our government has taken to address these uncertain times. Those opposite think the answer is higher taxes, and they think higher taxes will have no impact on the economy. The Leader of the Opposition was asked today whether he thought Labor's $387 billion in higher taxes wouldn't have had an impact on the economy, and he said no. He said. 'No, I don't think they would.'
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: The answer was no in response to, specifically, the tax increases they had proposed when it comes to the housing tax and things of that nature. We're for lower taxes. We're for a stronger economy and a strong budget. (Time expired)
Economy
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister just stated that the downgrades in the IMF release apply to everyone. Why is the IMF's downgrade for Australia's growth four times worse than for other advanced economies?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:04): Mr Speaker, as you know—
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Treasurer, just pause for a second. The member for McEwen will withdraw that term.
Mr Rob Mitchell: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: I remind the member for McEwen—we've been through this—that members should be referred to by their correct titles. Both sides of the House agree that that has made a difference. We're not going to slip back into that. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr FRYDENBERG: The IMF today, in its global economic outlook report, has Australia's economic growth in 2019 at 1.7 per cent and in 2020 at 2.3 per cent. As the House knows, Australia is in its 29th consecutive year of economic growth. Employment growth in Australia is at 2.5 per cent. Do you know what it was when we came to government, when we inherited the fiscal mess from the Labor Party? It was at 0.7 per cent, less than one-third of what we have today. Economic participation—the number of people who are in work—is at a record high at over 66 per cent. Welfare dependency today is at a 30-year low. We now have—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Rankin on a point of order?
Dr Chalmers: Mr Speaker, it is on relevance. The question was: why is the IMF's downgrade for Australia four times worse than for other advanced economies?
The SPEAKER: I'm listening to the Treasurer. He's still being relevant to the question. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr FRYDENBERG: As I said, the IMF has Australia's economic growth at 1.7 per cent in 2019 and at 2.3 per cent in 2020. The Australian economy continues to grow. As the Prime Minister said, the Leader of the Opposition was asked today if his taxes would have hurt the Australian economy. I remind the House that his retiree tax—$57 billion; his family business tax—$27 billion; and his taxes on superannuation—$34 billion—
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat. Leader of the Opposition, this cannot, under the standing orders, be a point of order on relevance.
Mr Albanese: Well, it's a bad one then, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: A bad standing order? Well, you introduced it. The Leader of the Opposition can resume his seat. I'm listening to the Treasurer, and he might listen to me for a second. He does need to relate his material to the question.
Mr FRYDENBERG: The fact of the matter is the Australian economy continues to grow. As the Prime Minister has indicated, of the G7 countries, the IMF's projections of Australia's growth are second only to those of the United States.
Economy
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House why it is important for the Morrison government to maintain a strong budget discipline and deliver a balanced economic plan in the face of global uncertainty?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:08): A strong budget can never be taken for granted and the economy that supports that strong budget can never be taken for granted. It's a critical asset at the time of economic uncertainty that we see around the world today. You need the strong anchor of a strong budget not only to deal with the challenges of today but also to ensure that we have resilience for the challenges that will undoubtedly come in the years ahead as a result of the global economic outlook that we see.
As I remarked in response to an earlier question, the IMF revisions overnight just demonstrate that global uncertainty. They highlight again the need for policies that bring stability and certainty in our financial and economic management. Now is the time for our economic and financial management, which is about having cool and clear heads. It's not a time for Labor's policies, panic and crisis. When it comes to managing our fiscal environment in these times, we know what the consequences would be of Labor's policies. Recklessness, chaos, panic and crisis—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons is warned.
Mr MORRISON: Our government was re-elected on the basis of being clear-headed, being calm and being stable, and for introducing certain policies that support growth in our economy. Our policies understand these are very important challenges that we're facing globally, and are backed by the strong fiscal discipline which means we can invest in the policies that build that resilience—the tax cuts that we have delivered, the investments in infrastructure. Not only that, but we are bringing the budget back into balance this very year while at the same time delivering record spending on hospitals, on schools, on moving forward with disabilities and on addressing the challenges in aged care and mental health. That strong economic support that comes from a budget that enables us to face today's challenges is also needed there for the future.
I know that those opposite would engage again in Labor panic-spending to throw away the last six years, if they'd had the opportunity after the last election, and plunge the nation back and remove the certainty that comes with the discipline that a coalition government always brings. Our policy is to maintain the discipline, to keep our heads and to be cool and calm in the face of the uncertainty that is now presented to Australians in their own budgets, in the budget of the nation and in their own jobs. They can rely on us to keep our heads and remain calm and stable. Labor's policies are policies of panic and chaos.
Economy
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:11): My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister admit that since May the Reserve Bank has downgraded its growth forecast for Australia, the OECD has downgraded its growth forecast for Australia by twice as much as the G20 and the IMF has downgraded its growth forecast for Australia by four times more than other advanced economies? Why doesn't the government have a plan to turn the economy around?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:11): Our plan is very clear. We took it to the last election, and it was endorsed by the Australian people. That plan is anchored, first and foremost, not in the panicked and crisis policies of the Labor Party. If they had the opportunity, if they'd won the last election, they would be now taking a wrecking ball to the Australian economy with their higher taxes and their reckless spending. No, the Australian people chose stability and the certainty of keeping more of what they earn and ensuring that tax cuts would be delivered. That's exactly what we delivered as soon as we got back into this place. Labor resisted it and resisted it and resisted it, and then they folded as usual. They can't even keep their consistency in their opposition to good economic policy.
On top of that, we've invested in infrastructure and we continue to invest in infrastructure. We are investing in programs to cut the costs of doing business in this country by reducing the regulatory burden, whether it's on getting projects up and running or on making sure we can employ more people in small businesses and medium-sized businesses around the country. We're investing in and expanding our trade, we're investing in developing new industries and we're investing in ensuring that we're capturing the opportunity of rebuilding the capability of our defence forces. Those opposite, when they were faced with economic crisis, plundered the national security of our nation, taking defence spending to its lowest level since prior to the Second World War. So not only have we rebuilt the nation's finances but we are rebuilding the nation's defence capability.
We are rebuilding the confidence of Australians, because more Australians, as a proportion of our population, are in work today than at any other time in Australia's history. They voted for an economic plan that they know can prevail in the face of economic adversity. They rejected the higher taxes, the reckless higher spending and the reckless targets in the policies of the Labor Party on emissions reductions, and the jobs emergency that that would create, and they chose a coalition that knows how to manage our economy and our nation's finances.
National Security
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (14:14): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on why it is important for the Morrison government to implement its plan to keep Australians safe and secure in an increasingly uncertain global environment?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:14): I thank the member for Bass for her question. She knows, like I hope all members of this House know—I certainly know the government members know—that there is no greater responsibility for the Commonwealth than keeping Australians safe and secure.
Those challenges today are significant and they're great, in a time of great uncertainty globally and also within our region. That's why our government continues to take disciplined action, responsible action, careful action, measured and targeted action, to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect Australians and the national interest of Australians. We know the first of those is to ensure that you have a strong budget to be able to support the investment in these key capabilities but also to focus our efforts on strong and disciplined economic management to support that budget. I have already outlined to the House the plan that the Australian people backed at the last election and that we are now implementing.
You need to invest in these capabilities, and next year we will have brought defence spending to two per cent of GDP, back from the record lows under the Labor Party when they were in office, when it fell to the lowest levels since prior to the Second World War in 1938. When I was in the United States, it was a matter of great pride that I could say that, for the Australian people, the Australian Commonwealth was carrying its weight when it came to our national defence, with our two per cent commitment that we'll be achieving, when so many others don't, because, in our great alliance with the United States, we carry our weight. Under this government, we've ensured we are carrying our weight again by increasing our defence spending as a share of our economy to two per cent. But it's not just that. We're restoring investments in our border agencies, in our intelligence capabilities and in our law enforcement. We're carefully nurturing and developing the strategic relationships in our region, whether with China or the United States or Indonesia. And, for the first time, we've had a ministerial level meeting of the Quad—between India, Japan, the United States and Australia—which provides stability and balance in our region and which Labor, when they were in office, rejected and abandoned.
We, as always, will introduce the laws which protect our kids and protect our nation from those who have come and committed offences under our laws. We have exported those criminals out of this country, under the policies of this government, When those opposite were in office, they let them stay here and live in our community when they should not have—bikies and others and criminal gang members who stayed in Australia.
But, most of all, we have the will to protect Australia. We are not undecided or divided on this side on national security measures, and that's why Australians can rely— (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:17): I'd just like to inform the House that we have present in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon, up there in the front row, a delegation of former members. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to all of you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:17): My question is to the Treasurer. Why does the Treasurer pretend that global factors are the primary reason for our floundering economy, when the Reserve Bank, Deloitte Access Economics and others say Australia's weak economic growth is homegrown?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:18): There's no doubt we face some domestic challenges to our economy, not least of which is the No. 1 call on the budget, which is the drought—the terrible drought which I saw firsthand when I was with the member for Maranoa in Inverell, Warwick and Stanthorpe and which itself has taken at least a quarter of a percentage point straight off GDP, as well as requiring a significant call on the budget to provide income support, infrastructure support and the like.
But the member for Rankin will look for every single opportunity to talk down the Australian economy and every single opportunity to put at risk Australian jobs. The member for Rankin, just a matter of five months ago, was the co-author, the co-architect, with the member for McMahon, of $387 billion of higher taxes. When the Leader of the Opposition went on Sky TV today and was asked whether his tax impost on the Australian people would have an impact on the economy, he said no. But the reality is: from 1 July this year, Labor's retirees tax, Labor's superannuation tax and Labor's tax on family businesses would all have taken effect.
Could you imagine Labor dealing with these global economic challenges which the IMF today said are a synchronised slowdown in the global economy and the impact of drought and which are hurting not only communities but of course the budget? Could you imagine slugging retirees, homeowners, renters and people with money in superannuation with Labor's higher taxes? Don't look at what Labor say; look at what Labor do—and they can't manage the public's money.
Climate Change
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:20): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Bureau of Meteorology has said that the Murray-Darling Basin is in record drought and that the climate crisis is a significant factor. But your government is lifting levels of pollution, which is making global warming worse and threatening farmers and communities on the land even further. Prime Minister, if we've always been a land of droughts and flooding rains, why are you doing everything in your power to make these extreme events worse? Doesn't every tonne of thermal coal that you export and burn send another farmer to the wall? Prime Minister, what is more important: crops or coal?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:20): I thank the member for his question. I would refer him to the speech I gave to the United Nations recently, the National Statement for Australia, which set out very clearly the actions that Australia is taking and our record, in particular, in relation to renewable energy investments, which per capita are the highest of any country in the world today. I note the member for Melbourne shakes his head. I simply said that Australia's per capita investment in renewable energy is the highest in the world today, and he shook his head. If he's in denial of those facts, I'll leave that to him. What I know is what I set out in that national statement to the United Nations, which said very clearly that we will meet our Kyoto 2020 targets. Not only will we meet them, but we will beat them by 367 million tonnes. Not only that, but we will meet our 2030 commitments through the combination of measures that we've announced and the other factors that will contribute to that out to 2030.
We agree that there is a need to take action on climate change. That was not an issue of debate or division, I believe, between the major parties at the last election. The issue that was debated, the issue that was being contested, was the scale and the level of targets that could be responsibly set for Australia in the future and the impact that that would have on the Australian economy. At the election we were able to explain very clearly what the costs of our targets were and how we were going to meet them. The Labor Party at the last election were unable to do that and they were unable to spell out what the costs would be to jobs, and this was a key issue.
I note now that the Labor Party, since the election, cannot even settle on a policy on climate change. They cannot settle on what their policy is. We've got 28 per cent over here. We've got 45 per cent over there. We've got—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Melbourne on a point of order?
Mr Bandt: It's on relevance on two matters. One is that my question was about the government, not about others. Secondly, to be relevant, surely the Prime Minister must address the drought and the climate crisis at some point in the answer?
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the Prime Minister I will say that there is a narrower scope in the question with respect to alternative policies. But there was 45 seconds worth of question there. There were a number of questions and statements. As I've said before, I can't assist people with questions but the longer they are, the more scope there is for the answerer to deal with the material.
Mr MORRISON: Now I note that the Labor Party—and I'm sure the Greens would agree, because they joined together on this matter yesterday—are talking about what the member describes as a 'climate emergency'. I note that in response to a climate emergency the Leader of the Opposition is going to say that we will know Labor's response sometime between October 2021 and March 2022. He said in a doorstop interview today:
Obviously, the first chance that we have to be elected to office will be after the next election, sometime between October 2021 and March 2022, is when I expect it to be.
That's the window. So at that point in time … it will be much worse if the government doesn't actually have an energy policy.
He talked about that. So they will develop a comprehensive policy at that time. I would like to know what their policy is. If it's such an emergency, as they say, they should be able to say what their policy is. (Time expired)
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I'll hear from the Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr Porter: Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition used a clearly unparliamentary term loudly and directly heard by everyone.
The SPEAKER: Can I be blunt? I think I warned of this yesterday.
An honourable member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I know it's a different term, but it's called an escalation. I'm going to ask the Leader of the Opposition if he will withdraw.
Mr Albanese: For the dignity of the House, I will certainly withdraw.
The SPEAKER: I thank the leader—
Mr Albanese: But the Prime Minister was deliberately telling a mistruth. I was stating the date of the election—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. If the Leader of the Opposition believes he's been misrepresented, he has an opportunity after question time, under the standing orders, to take that matter up with the House. The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, there's nothing left on the clock.
Infrastructure
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (14:25): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House why it is important that the Morrison-McCormack government continues to deliver its $100 billion infrastructure investment pipeline, and will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the consequences of not building this critical infrastructure?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of The Nationals) (14:26): I thank the member for Cowper for his question. He understands the immense benefits that our $100 billion pipeline of investment in infrastructure over the next decade is going to have for the people of Cowper—indeed, for the people right across this nation. The age of infrastructure has well and truly arrived.
The member for Cowper knows that the Coffs Harbour Bypass—which he very staunchly advocated for, with Gurmesh Singh, the state member for Coffs Harbour—is going to get people to where they need to be sooner and safer. It's going to transform the way people travel around the North Coast of New South Wales and how freight travels between Sydney and Brisbane.
The government is transforming the transportation routes all over the country to achieve long-term objectives. However, these projects are not just about travel and delivery. They're also about jobs. They're about industries. They're about improving access to locations.
We've heard from the Prime Minister in question time today about small business. Our infrastructure pipeline of investment is going to help many small businesses right across the nation. We've talked today about trade. We know that one in five Australians, to have their job, rely on trade. Making sure we've got the Inland Rail and making sure we've got better access roads through the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative and other road-funding measures is going to improve getting product from farms to ports and therefore to our markets. And, of course, our program supports jobs. The Bruce Highway Upgrade Program will invest $10 billion in that wonderful 1,652-kilometre stretch of road between Brisbane and Cairns. There are 7,200 jobs throughout construction that are being supported and being engaged by this wonderful road project that we are investing in.
I'm asked about the consequence of not having this sort of investment. It's about jobs. Investments made through the 2019-20 budget—that wonderful blueprint and vision brought down right on this spot on 2 April by the Treasurer—are supporting more than 50,000 direct and indirect jobs. The Inland Rail project is stimulating local economies. As of August this year, there's been more than $33 million in contracts committed to more than 70 local businesses, and not just businesses directly providing ballast and other things for the Inland Rail. The owner of Andrews Auto Electrics in Parkes, Wayne Osbourne, said:
Even though there's been a downturn because of the drought in the rural sector, we've never been busier. We've put on two new apprentices in the last few months, as well as some more admin support.
That's how our $100 billion investment is helping rural and regional Australia and, indeed, helping right across this great nation. (Time expired)
Drought
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:29): My question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer a moment ago said that drought funding was the No. 1 call on the budget. That's not true, is it?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:29): It is true. Thank you.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin is warned. The member for Barton!
Ms Burney interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Barton is warned. The member for Fairfax has the call.
Economy
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (14:30): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain why lower taxes are important to growing a stronger economy? And, Treasurer, what are the consequences of any higher taxing policy alternatives?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:30): I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. He brings to this place his experience in small business—experience which is absolutely missing from those opposite. In his electorate, more than 20,000 small businesses will be able to access the extended instant asset write-off which was announced in this budget; more than 63,000 taxpayers will be getting tax relief as a result of our announcements and our tax package; and around 25,000 of them will get the full $1,080 in the income tax offset.
Our economy—with 5.3 per cent unemployment, with a record number of people in work and workforce participation at a record high, with inflation at 1.6 per cent, with a trade surplus, with a balanced budget—is by those objective indicators a good economy. Now, whose words are those? They are the words of Australia's longest-serving and most successful Treasurer, and the architect of 10 budget surpluses, Peter Costello. That is what he said today about the Australian economy.
Part of our economic plan is tax cuts. These are tax cuts that have been legislated through this parliament, which will abolish a whole tax bracket, the 37c in the dollar tax bracket, and create one big tax bracket between $45,000 and $200,000, and will see more than 90 per cent of Australian taxpayers pay a marginal rate of no more than 30c in the dollar.
There was a clear contrast in the tax policies that were put to the Australian people at the last election. We supported lower taxes and we're delivering lower taxes. The Labor Party took to the last election $387 billion of higher taxes which are still on their books. If Labor had got into government, from 1 July this year retirees would have been hit with Labor's retirees' tax. People with superannuation would have been hit by Labor's superannuation tax and family businesses would have been hit with Labor's family business tax. The reality is that the Labor Party will always be the party of higher taxes chasing higher spending. The coalition will always be the party of lower taxes and a stronger economy.
Ms Burney interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Barton has been warned.
Economy
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:33): My question is to the Prime Minister. When global factors help our economy, the Prime Minister takes credit. But, when global factors hinder our economy, the Prime Minister says it's not his fault. Why won't the Prime Minister be honest about the floundering economy and admit he doesn't have a plan to deal with it?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:33): From Wayne Swan's prodigy, they are rich words indeed. When the Australian government, this government, see the global conditions that face the economy—I'll tell you what we do. What we don't do is what the former Treasurer, Mr Swan, did—for whom the member previously worked—we would not go out there and assume those conditions would exist forever.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: I will ignore the interjections.
The SPEAKER: I'm just going to say to members on my left that I'm not going to ignore them. The member for Hunter seems to have forgotten yesterday. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: When Labor were budgeting and there were iron ore prices of $180, what they did in their budget was assume those good times and those resources prices would be there forever. And, on the basis of that, the Treasurer under Labor came to this dispatch box and said:
The four years of surpluses I announce tonight …
The difference between how Labor budgets and how Liberals budget is that, when times are good, we don't always assume they will be that way globally. We actually factor that in, with conservative forecasts. That is why in the last three years we have seen an improvement on the original budget outcome. Because of the conservative estimates that have been built into the budget, we have overachieved each and every year. The reason we do that is we do not take the global environment for granted. When the global environment takes a downturn, that equally has an impact, but in our budget we have been taking that prospect into account for many years. That was the budget we took to the election and that is the budget that is in surplus now.
When times are better, those opposite think they will go on forever, and you can never assume things will go on well forever under the Labor Party, because they know how to wreck the economy, and wreck the budget with reckless spending and policies of panic and crisis. We will take a calm, stable, methodical and measured approach to the nation's finances to ensure we can deliver now the essential services people rely on and to ensure we can be there to provide the resilience for those services in the future.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:36): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Australian Political Exchange Council's 23rd Delegation from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Small Business
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (14:37): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain to the House why it is important to grow and support our hardworking small business sector, and what are the consequences of alternative policies that would make life harder for this important part of our economy?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:37): I thank the member for Hughes for his question and acknowledge his background as a small-business person, particularly in the furniture sector and in manufacturing before he got to this place. In his electorate of Hughes, more than 14,000 small businesses will be able to access the instant asset write-off. That was extended to businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million, opening the way for more than 20,000 small and medium-sized businesses to access that scheme, and they employ more than one million people.
Small businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy. There are more than three million small businesses, employing more than seven million people. Since coming to government, more than 230,000 additional small businesses have been created, and we're committed to creating more than 250,000 other small businesses. But, in Labor's last year in office, 65,000 small businesses closed their doors. That is the contrast between this government, which creates jobs and small businesses, and the Labor Party, which has seen small businesses close.
The policies that we've put in place include lowering taxes, bringing the tax rate down to 25 per cent for small and medium-sized businesses; extending the instant asset write-off; helping to create a $2 billion securitisation fund to increase access to finance; ensuring that small businesses get paid on time, and that is critically important, obviously, to their cash flow; ensuring that the ABCC is a cop on the beat so those small businesses that work in the construction sector are not hit; and, of course, helping to create more than 80,000 new apprenticeships, which is critical for small businesses.
I'm asked if there are any alternative approaches. We know that Labor's higher taxes were going to hit small businesses right across the economy. The member for Rankin complains that we look at his transcripts too often; we know we must be doing the right thing. So we looked at his application for leadership, otherwise known as his 'light on the hill' speech, and we looked to see how many times he mentioned small business. How many times do you think? Zero. So then we looked at his first major speech as the shadow Treasurer, which was to—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: On relevance, Mr Speaker. He wasn't asked—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. On that point of order, the Treasurer is in order. He was asked about alternative policies.
Mr FRYDENBERG: The reality is the member for Rankin, who's in the shadow Treasurer position, is a great threat to small businesses across the economy. We have created small businesses; they closed their doors under Labor. If Labor ever got another chance, it would happen again.
Economy
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Australia's growth forecasts are being repeatedly slashed. Why can't the Prime Minister give a straight answer and admit this basic fact? Why does the Prime Minister have no plan to deal with the floundering economy he presides over?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:41): Again, in earlier answers to questions I acknowledged the revisions in the forecasts. As we go into MYEFO, the forecasts will be considered at that time, as they are in MYEFO and the budget on every single occasion. I know the Leader of the Opposition isn't terribly familiar with the processes of budgets, having never served in those portfolios when he was in government, but I'm sure he's becoming familiar with them now in his new role.
I'm asked about the government's plan. One of the things that occurred after 18 May this year was the huge sigh of relief from those whose jobs and whose investments and whose businesses depended on strong and capable financial and economic management. The sense of fear from the Australian people about the Australian economy, if it were to have fallen into the hands of the Labor Party, was absolutely palpable. So Australians were looking for a stable and secure plan, a plan that we had set out in the budget—a budget which, for the first time in 12 years, is coming back into surplus. The budget surplus has been established as a result of the hard work of Australians out there each and every day, of 1.4 million Australians coming into work, and of having the lowest level of welfare dependency. This is what our plan is delivering.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on point of order?
Mr Albanese: It goes to relevance. The question went to the growth forecast being repeatedly slashed—repeatedly.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is right, the question did go to that, but it also had a second question about what the government's plan was. The Prime Minister has the call. He's in order.
Mr MORRISON: I'm happy to talk about the plan that was endorsed by the Australian people and that was set out in the budget. It was for lower taxes, allowing Australians to keep more of what they earn. It's a plan that was opposed by the Labor Party at the last election—violently opposed by the Labor Party—who instead wanted to put forward $387 billion in higher taxes to impose on the Australian economy at the worst possible time. The global circumstances that Australia faces today were no mystery to the Australian government and to the Liberal and National parties, but they were obviously a complete mystery to the Labor Party, because they thought the best thing to do would be to apply $387 billion in higher taxes.
There are the investments in infrastructure, the investments in schools, the expanding of our trade capabilities and the reduction in business regulation, and making it easier to reduce regulation on how people can be employed. When do we have to wait to hear what Labor's policies are? As I was referring to in response to a previous question, the Leader of the Opposition has said that we will know about Labor's policies before the next election. So that's sometime between the end of 2021 and March 2022.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms Kearney interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The members on my left! The member for Cooper! The member for Cooper is warned.
Mr MORRISON: That's what I was referring to. So we won't know what their climate policy is, what their economic policies are or what their tax policies are. But the Australian people know what our policies are and they voted for them. We will keep implementing them, despite the opposition of Labor. (Time expired)
Infrastructure
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (14:44): My question is to the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important to have a balanced and disciplined economic plan and how this allows for investment in critical urban infrastructure projects? Is the minister aware of the consequences of alternative economic policy to this critical infrastructure?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (14:45): I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and for her outstanding advocacy for Western Sydney, and particularly her advocacy for more congestion-busting infrastructure in that fast-growing part of Australia.
A balanced and disciplined economic plan is critical to being able to invest in vital infrastructure, because without a strong economy we simply don't have the resources to build the infrastructure that our nation needs. We've introduced a $100 billion pipeline of infrastructure. This year alone—as members opposite refuse to even acknowledge—we're spending almost $10 billion on infrastructure around this country. That is, in fact, more than double the amount that was spent in Labor's last year in office, only six years ago.
This means that hundreds of projects are under construction right now, right across this great country, including in our big capital cities—things like the M1 up in Brisbane, WestConnex in Sydney, the Monash in Melbourne, the North-South Corridor in Adelaide, the METRONET over in Perth, and the Bridgewater Bridge, which will soon be under construction in Tasmania. This largest infrastructure pipeline in Australian history has been acknowledged, even by respected organisations—Macromonitor say that as a result of our plan we are now in the biggest-ever transport boom in the history of Australia. And we can only do this because we have a strong economy.
I'm asked about alternatives. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Labor Party maintains their policy of $387 billion of new taxes on the economy—that's taxes on investments, that's taxes on small businesses, that's taxes on property, that's taxes on your savings—and all this would do would be to take a wrecking ball to the overall economy. And if you have a wrecking ball in the economy, it means you have less money to be able to invest in infrastructure.
We have a 10-year pipeline of infrastructure projects. But if the Labor Party got into government and wrecked the economy, which projects would it be putting in jeopardy because it wouldn't have the finances to be able to pay for them? It would indeed put in jeopardy the Greater Western Sydney Airport project, which the member for Lindsay has so strongly supported. Would it put in jeopardy some of the other great projects—the Inland Rail project, or other projects? The fact of the matter is: if you don't have the money, because you can't manage the economy, then you can't build the infrastructure that we need.
MOTIONS
Economy
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:48): I seek leave to move:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the International Monetary Fund has slashed its growth forecast for the Australian economy for this year by almost 20 per cent;
(b) the downgrade to Australia's growth forecast by the International Monetary Fund is four times worse than the downgrade to advanced economies;
(c) the Government has consistently ignored growing evidence that the Australian economy is floundering, including:
(i) the slowest economic growth in a decade;
(ii) the worst wages growth on record;
(iii) a record 1.9 million Australians being unemployed or underemployed;
(iv) a decline in GDP per capita last year, with flat growth in the last quarter;
(v) record levels of household debt;
(vi) consumer confidence at a four-year low;
(vii) business confidence well below average; and
(viii) sluggish productivity growth;
(d) the International Monetary Fund has called on countries, including Australia, to provide fiscal support, saying "Monetary policy cannot be the only game in town and should be coupled with fiscal support where fiscal space is available"; and
(e) the Government has no plan to address Australia's floundering economy and continues to ignore calls from the Reserve Bank of Australia and the International Monetary Fund to provide fiscal support, including by investing in infrastructure; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to be straight with the Australian people about Australia's floundering economy and develop a plan to stimulate economic growth, including by bringing forward infrastructure investment across the nation including in regional and rural Australia.
Leave not granted.
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the International Monetary Fund has slashed its growth forecast for the Australian economy for this year by almost 20 per cent;
(b) the downgrade to Australia's growth forecast by the International Monetary Fund is four times worse than the downgrade to advanced economies;
(c) the Government has consistently ignored growing evidence that the Australian economy is floundering, including:
(i) the slowest economic growth in a decade;
(ii) the worst wages growth on record;
(iii) a record 1.9 million Australians being unemployed or underemployed;
(iv) a decline in GDP per capita last year, with flat growth in the last quarter;
(v) record levels of household debt;
(vi) consumer confidence at a four-year low;
(vii) business confidence well below average; and
(viii) sluggish productivity growth;
(d) the International Monetary Fund has called on countries, including Australia, to provide fiscal support, saying "Monetary policy cannot be the only game in town and should be coupled with fiscal support where fiscal space is available"; and
(e) the Government has no plan to address Australia's floundering economy and continues to ignore calls from the Reserve Bank of Australia and the International Monetary Fund to provide fiscal support, including by investing in infrastructure; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to be straight with the Australian people about Australia's floundering economy and develop a plan to stimulate economic growth, including by bringing forward infrastructure investment across the nation including in regional and rural Australia.
This arrogant government isn't even prepared to have a debate—
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:53): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no longer heard.
The House divided. [14:57]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (14:58): Is the motion seconded?
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:58): It is seconded. They've got no plan and no idea. The economy is floundering—
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:59): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Rankin be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:00]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (15:02): The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:02): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
The House divided. [15:03]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The House divided. [15:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (15:12): Could the PM explain the alternative policies to the government's stable and responsible approach to managing the nation's finances in the face of global economic uncertainty?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:12): I thank the member for his question, and I agree with him that the government is taking a responsible approach. We are taking the stable approach. We are ensuring that the way we manage the nation's finances is ensuring that we're able to address the very present needs that Australians have today, and those are to keep more of what they earn through lower taxes, which we have already legislated through parliament. We are investing in the $100 billion pipeline of infrastructure projects that support the growth of our economy.
I'm asked about what the alternative approach is, and you have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition that what Labor would do, and what Labor would have us do, is return to the failed and reckless spending of the Rudd-Swan government. What they think is the response to the circumstances that we face today, which they put in some strange alignment with the issues of the global financial crisis and bird flu and any number of things—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: Thanks, Mr Speaker. It goes to relevance. If the Prime Minister hadn't jagged—
The SPEAKER: No, the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. That is no point of order.
Mr MORRISON: Before I was interrupted, what I was saying—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: The reckless policies of the Labor Party under the Rudd-Swan government, which saw billions upon billions upon billions wasted on overpriced school halls and on pink batts, where people died in roofs as a result of the ill-considered, rushed and reckless spending policies of the Labor Party—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned. The member for Lyons will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Lyons then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: The thing about the Labor Party is: they never learn from their mistakes. They've never learnt from the mistakes of their fiscal recklessness that plunged the government's budget back into deficit and kept it there. And that's the reason they were six years in government and they didn't deliver one surplus, despite inheriting one.
Our government, having inherited deficits, will deliver the first surplus in 12 years, because we understand the importance of disciplined financial management. Our government will not return to the reckless spending of Rudd and Swan. We will never engage in their reckless spending—because Labor will take any excuse to spend more of your money and take more of your money off you, in order to indulge their habit of reckless spending. They never learnt from their mistakes. We were elected to implement Liberal policies and Nationals policies of stable and disciplined financial management, not to engage in the budget recklessness and the policies of panic and crisis of the Labor Party. The only budget they've ever seen is one they want to blow.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister's time has concluded.
Mr Morrison: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:16): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Peris, Ms Nova OAM: Official Portrait
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:16): Mr Speaker, earlier today you were present in the members' hall when we witnessed the unveiling of the quite magnificent portrait by Dr Jandamarra Cadd of Nova Peris, the first Indigenous woman to be elected to the Senate. Present were Ken Wyatt, the minister for Aboriginal affairs, as well as Linda Burney, Patrick Dodson and Malarndirri McCarthy, as well as Nova Peris's family.
It is indeed a magnificent portrait. It portrays her with bare feet, with her feet on the ground—a strong Indigenous woman.
We can be very proud, I think, as a nation, that we are starting to see Indigenous people in their rightful place in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Nova Peris gave a magnificent speech. It was a good occasion. I encourage all members, senators, staff, and, importantly, visitors to this great Parliament House to have a look at the portrait of Nova Peris, a great Australian, who represented Australia—and was a gold medallist—at the Olympic Games, the first Indigenous woman to do so. She was a gold medallist in the Commonwealth Games. She was a fine representative and a great spokesperson for her people. She is someone that all of us, regardless of where we come from politically, can be very proud of.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Economy
The SPEAKER (15:18): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's lack of a plan to turn our economy around.
I call upon all those honourable 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—
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (15:18): In recent months, there has been no shortage of indicators that the Australian economy, under those opposite, is struggling. But perhaps the most reliable indicator—the thing that really gives us in this place a sense of how badly the Australian economy is performing on their watch—is the amount of time that they dedicate in question time to talking about the Labor Party. There has not been, in the history of this Commonwealth, a third-term Australian government which has spent more time obsessing over its opponents than this one. How humiliating for those opposite—having come through the election in May, having won a third term and now being in their seventh year—to spend all of their time talking about the Labor Party. When the Australian people—Australian workers and families and pensioners—need a government focused on wages and growth and jobs, instead they've got a government focused on Labor, Labor, Labor. And that's not good enough.
The economy is floundering and people are struggling; the IMF is slashing its forecasts for Australian growth—all for one reason: those opposite don't have a plan to turn the economy around. The weakest growth in the last decade is an inevitable consequence of a government with a political strategy but not an economic policy. We saw the consequences of that last night when the IMF shaved one-fifth off the growth expectations for this country for this year. But it's not just the IMF. The OECD has downgraded its forecasts. The Reserve Bank has downgraded its forecast. All of them, since the election, have slashed their expectations for the pace of growth in this Australian economy.
The economy has deteriorated substantially since those opposite were re-elected in May—since they wandered around the country pretending that they were good at managing the economy, when the facts tell a very different story. What we're discovering now is that no amount of blame-shifting or finger-pointing or buck-passing can obscure these basic facts about the economy: since the GFC, the slowest growth in 10 years; the worst wages growth on record; declining productivity and living standards; record household debt; the worst business investment since the early 1990s recession. I can go on and on and on about this.
Amongst the many conclusions that we can draw about the underperformance of the Australian economy, one really jumped out at me today when I was listening to the so-called Treasurer in question time earlier on. There has never been in this country a bigger gap between the Treasurer's own stupendous self-regard and his actual performance in the role of Treasurer. There has never been a bigger gap between those things.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Dr CHALMERS: As the member for Moreton reminds me, the flattest tyre needs the most air. When you think of that saying, you think of the Treasurer of Australia. It's dawning on Treasurer Frydenberg now that all the skills that made him the Treasurer in the first place—all the networking, all the backbench stuff, all the pestering of journalists—doesn't matter a cracker when the economy is slowing as it is. He doesn't have a clue how to turn things around and that's why he doesn't have a plan to turn things around.
The IMF rang the alarm bells on the Australian economy, but those opposite are too out of touch to hear them. This is a government which is long on excuses but short on a plan, and in question time today we heard every excuse in the book. We heard that they anticipated this growth slowdown, despite the fact that the budget numbers in April were substantially higher than the outcomes that we are getting. We heard that it was all about global factors, despite the fact that the IMF's downgrade for Australia is four times bigger than its downgrade for the other advanced economies as a whole, and despite the fact that the Reserve Bank, Deloitte and others have said that our problems are homegrown, on the watch of those opposite.
We heard from the Treasurer, remarkably, that the drought is now apparently the No. 1 call on the Commonwealth budget. When you look at his own budget papers—and there's a neat little pie graph in there about where taxpayers' money is actually spent—I think the Treasurer saying that the drought all of a sudden is the No. 1 call on the budget would be news to the minister for social security. It would be news to the Minister for Health, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Defence. Really, it would be news to almost all of the ministers over there that, all of a sudden, drought is the No. 1 call on the Commonwealth budget. We heard all kinds of excuses from those opposite. They are long on excuses and they are short on a plan.
As I said at the outset, we know that the economy is struggling and we know that the government are struggling, because they spend all their time talking about us. Right on cue, in question time, there was the 'human highlighter', the Treasurer, the guy who sits around—he's now conceded that he sits around in his office reading my old transcripts and my old speeches; he's now admitted as much. The 'human highlighter', there he is, poring over these transcripts, making these B-grade memes while the economy flounders and people are struggling. While the economy is floundering and Australians are struggling—stagnant wages, record household debt—this guy, the Treasurer of Australia, spends his time with the little yellow highlighter out, poring over the transcripts of those of us on this side of the House.
In his private moments, I suspect he doesn't have many moments of reflection, but, if he does, perhaps he could reflect that maybe the reason why the Australian economy is performing so badly on his watch is that he spends all of his time focused on us here on this side of the parliament and none of his time focused on the Australian people and their economy and their country. That's what we need and expect from the Treasurer. We expect him and the Prime Minister to come clean on their role and to take responsibility, for once, for the fact that they are overseeing the slowest growth in 10 years and to take some responsibility for the fact that the challenges in our economy are primarily homegrown. There is some international turbulence, of course there is, but the fact that they don't have a plan to deal with our domestic challenges leaves Australia dangerously and unnecessarily exposed to some of that turbulence that we are seeing around the world.
As I said before, the Australian people want those opposite focused on wages. They want them focused on jobs and household debt. They want them focused on economic growth. Whatever they are doing right now is not working. We hear the Prime Minister and the Treasurer trying to retrofit whatever their most recent ideological obsession is as if all of a sudden that's part of some plan to turn the economy around. If that's their plan to turn the economy around, it's not working. All we're asking for, all we're proposing and suggesting in good faith, is that whatever is currently in the economy in terms of interest rate cuts and tax cuts, which we supported, is not currently enough to shift the needle on economic growth. The economy is badly underperforming.
The disappointing thing is that, with all of the things that have changed and deteriorated since the election, all the ways that the economy has gone down since the election, all of this data we've had about household debt and growth and wages and jobs, with 1.9 million Australians looking for work or for more work—all of that has changed; all of that has deteriorated, but the government's policies have not changed. All we're calling on those opposite to do is to take responsibility for it and to come up with a plan, because whatever they've been doing so far has been insufficient. They have proven that, when the economy is floundering, sitting on your hands, crossing your fingers and hoping for the best is not good enough for the Australian people. The Australian people deserve better than the kind of hands-off approach that they're getting from those opposite.
There is a lot of anxiety in the community. We know it. All of us see it at the mobile offices on Saturdays. We are all engaged with our communities, and people say to us that they're worried about their jobs. They're worried about their kids' jobs and they're worried about the fact that no matter how hard they work they just can't seem to keep up with the costs of child care, energy or private health insurance. We understand that. We feel that very deeply. Our responsibility in this building is to make the best decisions and the best judgements about the economic circumstances and to actually do something about them in the interests of the Australian people, in the interests of workers, pensioners, families and people right around Australia—not just in parts of Australia but in every single corner of Australia. That's where those opposite are really derelict in their duty to the Australian people. We all hope that the economy picks up, but hoping is not enough.
Ms Rowland: Hoping is not a strategy.
Dr CHALMERS: Hoping is not a strategy, as the member for Greenway says. It's not a strategy, and a strategy is what we need. We need less of the political games and less of the Prime Minister wandering into the New South Wales party convention and saying that his highest priority is to come up with legislation which is hard for Labor to support, as he did a few weeks ago.
Mr Perrett: Wedgislation.
Dr CHALMERS: Wedgislation, as the member for Moreton says. That shouldn't be the highest priority of a government when the economy is slowing, as it is, and people are struggling, as they are. So we call on the government to change course when it comes to the economy—not to throw the kitchen sink at this or jeopardise the surplus, but to do something responsible to fund a proper plan to turn this economy around. Whatever they are doing right now isn't working. We see that in the IMF numbers overnight, in the OECD, and in the Reserve Bank cutting rates to less than one per cent for the first time ever in the history of this country. It's time to change course. It's time to take responsibility. Those opposite should have a plan to deal with an economy which is floundering on their watch.
Mr EVANS (Brisbane—Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) (15:28): Well, dear oh dear! I think both sides of the chamber here can sense that there's something a little bit lacklustre about the opposition at the moment. I don't know whether it's because the opposition leader isn't performing the way they might have expected or whether it's because they don't seem to be able to land any new policy positions or indeed jettison any of their old policy positions, given how hopelessly divided they are. But, regardless of the reason, the evidence here is that, out of all of the topics they could have chosen to speak about today, the very best they could come up with was to talk the economy down. They are talking the economy down.
The economic brains trust of the Labor Party, such as it is, no longer officially includes Wayne Swan. He left, presumably on a high, after delivering Australia a record debt and precisely none of the four economic surpluses he announced on that fateful starry night. The brains trust probably no longer includes the member for McMahon now either. His star was waning after he invited the Australian people not to vote for the Labor Party if they didn't like all of their new and higher taxes, and we know that many people followed that advice.
Yet the legacy of Wayne Swan lives on, and the legacy of the member for McMahon lives on, embodied in the supposedly rising star of the member for Rankin over there. I think it was so relevant that the member for Rankin chose to speak, in his presentation just before this, on the topic of self-regard, because the member for Rankin was policy adviser and chief of staff to Wayne Swan. He was sitting at Swanny's knee, presumably giving him all of that helpful advice about how to blow the budget, and about the carbon tax, the mining tax, the school halls, the pink batts scheme and all of the other bright ideas they came out with in that period. The member for Rankin was also next to the member for McMahon in the lead-up to the last election, as Labor announced their retirement tax, their housing tax and their family business taxes. The member for Rankin said that he was proud of those policies and that he was pleased with them.
I don't want to give too much advice to the opposition on economic policy, but I did hear something very relevant on the weekend. It was when the Prime Minister noted that sometimes we can apply the 'George Costanza principle' to the economic advice and economic policies of Wayne Swan and the Labor Party. In other words, when the opposition; the Labor president, Wayne Swan; or his acolyte, the member for Rankin, is saying something, that is a pretty strong argument that you should do the opposite.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr EVANS: In contrast—and I'll take the interjections from those opposite—our government has a strong plan for our economy, which is well known and which was voted on and strongly endorsed by the Australian people at the recent election.
It's a remarkable achievement that Australia is now in its 29th consecutive year of annual economic growth. Despite the challenges in the world economy, our government is delivering more jobs, lower taxes, better funding for infrastructure and essential services, and a budget that is returning to surplus.
On jobs and growth, thanks to our government's steady economic management, the Australian economy is continuing to grow, with employment growth more than twice the OECD average and about 300,000 additional jobs created in 2018-19. Job-creating policies are a big part of our government's economic plan.
On infrastructure spending, we're delivering an unprecedented transport infrastructure investment pipeline of $100 billion over the next decade that'll bust congestion and create thousands of jobs as it helps to boost our economy. That infrastructure boom—this record spending—is also a big part of our economic plan. We're striking city and regional deals to build the future of our cities and regions. This includes the City Deal for South East Queensland, which encompasses the Brisbane electorate I represent.
We're delivering lower taxes to hardworking Australians by providing $158 billion in tax relief in this year's budget, on top of the $144 billion in tax cuts legislated in last year's Personal Income Tax Plan. These tax cuts are a big part of our economic plan, as is the tax relief that we've been providing to small and family businesses—and I would note that the speech just before by the member for Rankin did not once mention the importance of small businesses when it comes to Australia's economy. We're backing those small and family businesses—
Ms Kearney interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The member for Cooper!
Mr EVANS: through tax relief and by increasing and expanding access to the instant asset write-off. We're backing businesses to invest, grow and employ more workers. We're guaranteeing essential services, strengthening Medicare—
Ms Kearney interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Cooper is warned!
Mr EVANS: funding more hospitals services and providing more affordable medicines—again, all part of our economic plan. The strong economic plan that our government is delivering is continuing to deliver jobs, growth and prosperity.
I know those opposite wish—are pleading, in fact—that people around Australia and in this chamber stop thinking about and talking about their policies. My advice to those opposite is: if you want people to stop talking about your policies and criticising your policies, get some better policies. I'm going to ignore their pleas.
I want to consider for a moment the verdict delivered by the Australian people on the plan that Labor took to the last election. We know what was at the heart of that plan: retiree taxes, housing taxes and a plan to make every Australian pay more for electricity. In fact, we know a lot more after the election than we did before about what even those opposite think about the economic policies they have on offer. In the immortal words of the member for Corio, Labor's plan was all about 'handouts rather than hope'. As the member for Hunter astutely put it, 'Somewhere along the way Labor stopped talking to its blue-collar base.' We also now know that Labor had some quite hidden economic policies, involving cash stuffed into Aldi shopping bags and cardboard boxes.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr EVANS: Maybe, over the interjections, those opposite could clarify whether those bags of cash constitute their fiscal policies or their monetary policies.
But it gets even better. It now seems that the opposition have more policies than they know what to do with—their policy cup floweth over. Barely a week goes by when we don't hear another one of the members opposite come forward to make a headland speech proposing to drag their party in a bold new direction. I suspect the member for Rankin offers such a plan. The member for Hunter certainly has such a plan; he is calling for a 'sensible settlement' with the government. And their former leader, the member for Maribyrnong, has also helpfully added, in terms of his plan:
If Labor didn't change some of its points of view then that would be showing that we hadn't learned the lessons from the election.
All of these wannabe Labor leaders, including the member for Rankin opposite, have been running around the country delivering these headland speeches. No headland in Australia, it seems, will be safe whenever the opposition leader either is out of the country or turns his back.
In the meantime, the government is getting on with the job. We are implementing our economic plan. We are managing the economy. We are delivering record spending on infrastructure. We are delivering those city and regional deals. We are delivering record funding on essential services. And we are creating the jobs, the growth and the prosperity that this country desperately needs and is receiving. If the member for Rankin and those opposite say that they don't know about our government's plan then I suppose it just proves the point, fundamentally, that they're not paying attention to what's happening in this place. They're not paying attention to the results of the recent election.
Ms Murphy interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The member for Dunkley is warned.
Mr EVANS: They're not paying attention to what the Australian people have recently told them. They are only focused on their own woes, their own division and their own leadership jostling. That is one big reason why the opposition is so lacklustre in the parliament today, and this week. Quite frankly, Australia deserves better.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (15:38): I'm going to begin with a bit advice for the member for Brisbane: when you're debating, you're meant to argue against the argument that is being put by those opposite. You're not meant to make the argument for those people who have been arguing against you. You just spent the whole of your speech arguing about what Labor's been doing, exactly making the point made by the member for Rankin that your government has no plan whatsoever and that all you are interested in is going through Labor Party transcripts and arguing about what the Labor Party has done, rather than developing a plan for this nation. The second bit of advice for the member for Brisbane is: you wouldn't criticise the member for Rankin for being the former chief of staff to the former Treasurer when you were the former chief of staff to none other than Peter Dutton—the guru on leadership challenges in the Australian parliament. I don't think it helps your argument.
The Australian people are working the hardest that they ever have done, but they feel like they're going backwards. Australian farmers are dealing with one of the worst droughts in history. Australian workers are falling further behind, with their wages not keeping up with the pace of the cost of living. Small businesses have been devastated by the falls in consumption and the business confidence slumps that we've seen in recent times. Businesses simply aren't investing in growth anymore, because of the uncertainty that's being created by this government around energy policy and because of their lack of a plan for growth.
There is a malaise in productivity in this country, and, instead of talking about capital deepening, we are actually in a situation where we have capital shallowing in Australia. Pensioners and seniors are really struggling with low interest rates, the lowest that they've ever been, and dealing with high electricity prices. To put it as a sentence, Australia is in a bad way. Australia is in a bad way at the moment, and the Morrison government aren't listening and don't care. That's the thing that hurts the Australian people the most: they do not care. They won the election and went on holidays. They're asleep at the wheel and don't have a plan to assist the Australian public and the economy—to get out of the rut that they're in.
The Prime Minister said in question time: 'Everything's okay. Everything's all right. We should stay cool and calm.' Let me tell you, the young man that I met in Pagewood last week when I was doing a bit of doorknocking who just lost his job is not cool and calm at the moment. In fact, he's quite worried about how he's going to pay the rent and make ends meet. In Hillsdale last week, the member for Maribyrnong and I met with parents of children with profound disability who are dealing with NDIS problems because the Morrison government has underspent on the NDIS by $4 billion and has a cap on staff within this particular scheme. It's probably one of the most immoral policy stances that I've seen in my time in this parliament. Let me tell you, they're not cool and calm. They're not cool and calm at all. In fact, they're quite angry about the way that this government is managing a disability system that was put in place to help their kids, not make life worse for them. That anger turns to rage when they ring up the National Disability Insurance Agency and they're told by the staff over the phone, 'Don't you know that this is taxpayers' dollars that you're asking for?' What an insult to those parents who are dealing with kids with disabilities and trying to get help from the NDIS. Let me tell you that the retiree I spoke to in Maroubra who, because most of his savings are in cash, is struggling with low interest rates is not cool and calm. In fact, he's quite worried about his future and whether or not he is going to have to drop onto the age pension because he's not making his savings grow whatsoever.
These situations are not peculiar to my electorate; they are happening across the country. Yet this government does not have a plan to assist these Australians, all over this country, who are struggling. They're worried, they're frustrated and they have lost faith in this government to deal with the challenges of this economy. There's a Prime Minister who is not listening and who has no plan to fix the economy and turn things around. We saw that overnight, with the IMF again downgrading Australia's growth forecast. It is a warning to the Australian government to fix the issues with the Australian economy at the moment, to provide some stimulus, to get wages growing again and to get the economy growing again. But, once again, this Morrison government is not listening. It is asleep at the wheel.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (15:43): I feel compelled, after such eloquence, to make a contribution to this debate! I thank the member for Rankin for raising this critical issue, the member for Kingsford Smith for his eloquence and of course the member for Brisbane for being the only sensible one in this entire debate thus far. I made a new year's resolution that I was going to be a kinder, gentler person in this term of parliament and that I would deal with ideas, not people. But, seriously, is the member for Rankin, the former chief of staff to 'Swanny', the architect of the four surplus budgets—a tragedy that deserves its own orchestra—coming before us and lecturing us about the economy? He, of course, has a PhD. How does it feel to be not even in the top 10 economists on that side of the House? He has a PhD in Paul Keating, the man who gave us 'the recession we had to have' and who had our credit rating downgraded. Lucifer himself could not create the temptation that the member for Rankin creates every time he stands up and lectures this House about economic management! Then, of course, a speech that was meant to be entertaining just became like that low-level droning that you get when you go to the dentist. His best line actually came from repeating the interjection from the member for Moreton.
This is what Labor have left us. They can't even come up with a good attack point. No wonder that, when we took over in 2013, there was a $387 billion deficit, growth was at 0.7 per cent and we had the lowest level of workforce participation in a generation. If that was the best that they've got, no wonder that that was what we faced when we came into government. In comparison to that, we now have an economy with a AAA credit rating that has been taken off negative watch. We have balanced budgets that will be in surplus. Jobs are up and dependency is down. The number of free trade agreements is rising and taxes are going down. That's what has happened under the Morrison government; that's what has happened under the Liberal Party. Unlike those opposite, we believe that people deserve to keep more of what they earn. Those opposite believe that it's their money and they're just letting the people keep it.
The IMF report that was handed down overnight makes the point that global growth is going to go down and has been trending down for some time. It makes it clear that the reason for that is the trade war between China and the United States. Does it really surprise those opposite that Australia's growth rate is hit harder than that of other nations in the global economy, given our exposure to the Chinese economy, given that our export sector is so dependent upon the Chinese economy? What this government has been doing—and this is something that those opposite could never do in a lifetime—is diversifying who we trade with, through free trade agreements with other nations. We have been ensuring that the risks that the Australian economy face are actually turned down. But do they thank us? No. They wouldn't even understand what we've been doing.
This is the 28th year of economic expansion in Australia. Those opposite wouldn't know anything about that whatsoever. Our plan is to increase economic freedom. Our plan is to increase economic hope. Our plan is to increase economic opportunity. The plan of those opposite is simply to increase taxes. That's all they want to do.
We've created over a million new jobs and we are going to continue to create more jobs. We are going to put at the heart of this economy the people, not their mates in the trade union movement and not their mates in industry super. We are going to make sure that there is consumer protection for people buying financial products and buying goods and services. We are going to allow companies to compete. For small companies we are going to reduce the barriers to entry and allow those companies to be the most competitive small businesses in the world—whether it be through lower corporate taxes or the increased instant asset write-off. Labor's answer to all of this is to panic and, no doubt, to have a new round of subsidised pink batts.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (15:48): I've sat here and listened to the contributions from the member for Mackellar, the member for Brisbane and, during question time, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The one thing I noticed is that not once did any of them mention a single constituent. None of them mentioned a single person in their electorate. Instead, they talked about Labor. They're obsessed with Labor. Somebody mentioned the yeti. SpongeBob SquarePants might have also got a mention. Lucifer got a mention. Not a single person has spoken about their constituents and the impact that this government's lack of an economic plan is having on the real people we are here to represent. Every single member on that side is here to represent their constituents. Stand up and talk on their behalf. Stand up for them. Stand up for the people who come to your offices. I know that constituents come to your offices, because they come to my office and tell me the same thing. Stand up for the people who are having to choose between buying medicine and buying food. Stand up for the kids in schools that are now having to put on breakfast clubs. Stand up for the families. In one month, 6,000 families in my electorate alone accessed a food bank. Stand up for those people. But you won't. Instead, you want to come in here and say that we're causing panic and misrepresenting the economy.
The IMF has downgraded the economy; Deloitte Access Economics has talked about slow economic growth. The member for Rankin went through all those, but I also want to point to the Harvard review, which says:
Australia ranks as the 93rd most complex country in the Economic Complexity Index (ECI) ranking. Compared to a decade prior, Australia's economy has become less complex, worsening 22 positions in the ECI ranking.
As a result of this less complex economy, which is less complex than expected for our income level, the economy is projected to grow slowly—to grow slowly!—at a rate of 2.2 per cent annually over the next few years. It's clear from the evidence, not just anecdotally, not just from the people who are coming to our offices—the people who we are charged to represent, the people who we are charged to help, to assist, to stand up here and speak on behalf of. It's not just clear from that anecdotal evidence; it's clear from the evidence that's coming from the experts, from the economists. And it's also coming from the Reserve Bank: interest rates are at all-time lows of less than one per cent. Interest rates are at an all-time low, and what is this government doing? They're sitting on their hands and expecting the Reserve Bank to do all the heavy lifting without any fiscal policy to back it up.
Let me tell you the impact that this has—the real impact that all of this has—on the people of Cowan. There is mortgage stress. I've got families in my electorate who are suffering from mortgage stress. The income tax relief that they've been given and the lowering of the interest rates that they've been given have not improved their standard of living, because they are being used to pay down household debt. They're not lining up to buy big-screen TVs, they're not lining up to stimulate the retail sector and they're not lining up to stimulate the economy, because they are drowning in household debt. That is because their wages have not increased, and that is because this government will not do anything to stimulate the economy—because this government has given up on the Australian people, who they were elected to represent.
I'm really, really angry about this. I was thinking about this speech and thinking, 'Don't get angry; don't get angry,' but I've got to tell you that every time I'm out there at a shopping centre doing a 'meet your member', I have people lined up—lined up! They are people like Sue, who, as soon as she got the opportunity to sit down with me, broke down in tears. She broke down in tears! You're all shaking your heads over there on the other side, like this is some fairytale. Why don't you go out and talk to your constituents, because I'm pretty sure you've got a Sue in your electorate too. I'm pretty sure you've got a Sue in your electorate who's going through the same thing. Stand up and do your job! The election's over. Stop talking about us!
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (15:53): I have to admit, with all respect to the member for Rankin, I'm a bit perplexed about the topic that we're talking about today as a matter of public importance. The government's lack of a plan to turn our economy around? I'm not entirely sure where the member or those on the opposite side have been for the last three to six months, because, as far as I know, as far as I've been aware, we have been talking about an economic plan since the budget this year and since the election—the election at which the Morrison government was elected. The people voted. They had the economic plan put in front of them, and they voted to put the government in place.
Our plan, which has been articulated, at length, for the last six months—I'm not going to speak about Labor's plan, because, frankly, I don't know what it is—is about stimulating the economy and creating jobs. It's about making sure that the economy has all the settings for the creation of jobs. There is the reduction of income tax so that people can keep more of their hard-earned money and spend it in the way that they choose to. Our plan is to increase exports—to actively engage with more international partners so that we can increase our exports and benefit our economy. Our plan is to reduce red tape. Just like the member for Cowan, I go out and meet with members in my electorate as well, and many of those small and medium-sized business enterprises—which I will get back to soon—complain about the red tape. It is the red tape and the green tape that is killing them, in terms of creating jobs and in terms of their particular industries.
We are investing in skills and apprenticeships. We are spending $100 billion in infrastructure. We have outlined these initiatives, at length, for the last six months. So I do find it perplexing, and, quite frankly, I find it frustrating—I also understand why the Australian public are finding it increasingly frustrating—that in our political environment people are not listening or engaging with each other. We have put our plan out. We would have much more respect if, perhaps, we had from Labor a criticism of our plan, or an alternative plan suggested—but we don't. We get an MPI that says there is no plan. There is a plan; it's been out there for ages.
There is one part of the plan that I particularly want to focus on, because it is very important for the people in my electorate, who I engage with quite a lot, and that is with respect to what we are doing for small and medium-sized businesses. There are over three million small and medium-sized businesses in Australia. There are 356,000 in my state of Western Australia, with 26,000 of those in my electorate of Curtin. In fact, 99 per cent of the businesses in Western Australia are small to medium-sized businesses. Over 7.7 million Australians are employed by small to medium-sized businesses. In Western Australia—the state that the member for Cowan and I come from—647,000 people are employed in small and medium-sized businesses. They are the backbone of our economy, and this government gets that.
As part of our plan to stimulate the economy and keep our economy strong we have introduced a number of new initiatives. Two key initiatives are the increase in the instant asset write-off and the plan to reduce taxes on small to medium-sized businesses. In recent weeks I've visited a number of small businesses in my electorate. One of those businesses was a beautiful florist in Wembley, the Manic Botanic florist. The owner of that enterprise, Julie, had recently used the instant asset write-off to purchase a new fridge for storing flowers. Julie was delighted with the instant asset write-off. Similarly, my local cafe used the instant asset write-off to buy new machinery. This initiative is cutting red tape.
People in my electorate know the plan of this government; they voted for the plan of this government. Sure, like anybody else, they get concerned. They get more alarmed when they're continually told they need to get alarmed. But people in my electorate know that this government has got a plan, is delivering on that plan and that it's great for Australia.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (15:58): I just wanted to start by thanking the shadow Treasurer for this resolution. When you get to hump day, you need something to help you over, and I will never get bored of watching the other side choke on their own rage when you challenge them on the economy—because they're the born-to-rulers who always say that they're the best at managing the economy. How dare you challenge them on that!
There was no better expression of that choking on your own rage than the contribution from the member for Mackellar, that shouty contribution. It was a speech delivered in caps lock. The entire speech was delivered in caps lock, yelling at us the whole time, asking how we could conceivably even talk about the shadow Treasurer's matter of public importance, and going through what we've done. The reality is that when you look at what they're doing on that side of the House, they ain't doing much. Except for what the shadow Treasurer has pointed out: we're seeing all these downgrades, we're seeing all these bad stats, and we're seeing the RBA say, 'Do something; we can only do so much. The government has got to do something.' But what do we get out of the coalition? We have reviews aplenty—look at how many reviews we've got! They're busy little beavers—all these little reviews.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): I warn the member for Chifley on the use of props.
Mr HUSIC: Well, I've got to say, Deputy Speaker, this government is dependent on props. Their biggest prop is a review, because every time there's a problem there's a review that comes as a result of it. You can't have a plan for a plan. You can't have a review as an exercise in trying to demonstrate activity. What people need to see out in the real world is not another inquiry or review. Mind you, do you know who chipped them on this review obsession? Those great left-wing activists Jeff Kennett and Campbell Newman, who called on governments to wrest back control from the bureaucrats because the government's not doing its own job.
So growth has slowed down. Living standards are going backwards. The government keep talking about how many people are in work, but, when you ask people in work, 'Are you happy with how much you're working and how much you're getting for that?' what do they say? They're not. They are not getting wage increases at all. They're not getting the hours that they need. At the same time, businesses aren't expressing confidence at all. In fact, if you ask the CEOs if they're going to provide a pay increase, even Treasury said that 40 per cent of the CEOs interviewed would not provide a pay increase. What are those CEOs spending it on? They're not investing in business, because business investment is tanking. So the businesses don't have confidence. No-one's getting a wage increase. What's happening with consumer confidence? Consumer confidence is tanking as well.
We can certainly see the Treasurer is very active. He's very active at promoting himself, I might say. He has turned that into an art form. What we would love to see is him tapping some of that energy into something remotely looking like an economic plan—not a political plan or a media plan but a plan to actually help people get a pay increase, a plan that will see businesses invest, a plan that will result in higher consumer confidence and a plan that will see us get out of the mire that we find ourselves in because those opposite got elected and didn't have a plan. They can talk about 'The Plan', with a capital T and a capital P, as the member for Curtin kept going on about. When you ask them about that, what does it comprise? They can't even explain it.
Let me just tell you this: they work so hard against Labor, whatever we've put forward, but then they slowly walk their way towards what we're saying. Mark my words. We argued that the tax cuts should be brought forward. We argued for that. They said no; they wouldn't to do it. But they're walking towards it. We argued for infrastructure investment to be brought forward. They said, 'No, no, no, it can't happen.' The Treasurer is now out asking the states, 'What projects have you got that we can bring forward?' They don't have a plan of their own. They're completely dependent on us putting forward those ideas. The only other form of momentum from them is to attack us. The Australian public deserve better than a political plan and media spin. Get the economy moving. Do your job.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:03): I think what the Australian people would like to think is that some of the best ideas from both sides of this chamber could lead to a more confident Australian domestic economy. Today I want to talk about some of the international context that explains why we're in some fairly tough times; give a bit of detail about how the states are going; and, finally, explain the responsible measures that we in this government have taken to respond in real time, and how the best thing we can do to compare what the other side would have done in government is to look at how they fared in 2008-09, during the GFC. I'll look at some of the decisions that they made to give us some idea of exactly what they would have done, had they been in government, because the most instructive thing of all, of course, is to see how this lot acted when they had control of the economy.
First of all, I want to talk about the quiet reality that we have a Sino-American trade war. That's going to make it tough times for virtually every developed and developing economy. It's in that context, I think, that Australians voted on 18 May. Faced with two choices in a two-party democratic system, they went, ultimately, almost at the last minute of the election campaign, with the party they can most trust to make tough calls.
Politically, running a surplus budget is very important to Australians. Just like their households—they know that they have to run to a budget. They want to think that, federally, we can do the same thing, particularly in the context of Labor state governments that over time have basically spent down to the limits of the credit card, to the point where to spend an extra dollar would lead to a collapse in the credit rating. So states like Queensland just sit on that very familiar number—I see a head nodding on our side—of around $80 to $90 billion of state debt. Isn't it refreshing to know that, despite that chaos, there's a federal government that has brought the budget back into balance? We have done it through tough measures. We've done it with almost no cooperation from the other side over the last six years.
You can understand it is very important to Australians that, unlike those on that side, we on this side actually do what we say. When we talk about a balanced budget, we are absolutely determined to deliver it. Having said that, there are some important concepts around it. People are doing it tough. Australians know that's happening. If you have got a job, you hold onto it. Finding a job is hard work, but it can be done. Most of the jobs being created are full-time. That has been mostly due to the federal government policies of the last six years. We have been working assiduously to find every opportunity for Australians to leave welfare and get back into work. That's not an easy path. It's a path the other side abdicated during their 2007 to 2013 period. If you got on welfare, you stayed on welfare. That was the approach. We are not to going to brook that; we won't fall back into that habit. For every Australian of working age who is healthy enough to work, we will work to find them a job. It's going to be damn hard to do but we will find a way—for example, through the PaTH program, by helping youth leave school to find an opportunity. Even for the refugees coming to Australia, we are tailor-making arrangements so that when they land they have economic opportunities.
What would the other side do, were they to be in government? Back in the GFC era of '08, for a moment there was a blinding flash of light when both the government and the coalition agreed it was time to stimulate. You will remember: it had to be temporary and targeted. Remember, it was about who you targeted and it had to be timely. Congratulations to then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who acted fast. The first tranche of that stimulus was supported by both sides of parliament as we gave payments to pensioners. But in '09, as soon as Treasury indicated that the GFC was effectively over and that the dip in our GDP growth had already ended, even at that point, there was no temporary notion about Labor spending. What you need to know is: whenever you vote a Labor Party in, the only way out of the debt they create will be taxation by a subsequent government, who will have to make the hard calls. We on this side have been making them for six years; Labor has opposed them at every step. But I can tell you one thing, when Labor inherit a surplus, it is gone within 12 months and they just keep spending. They spend money and give it out to their mates, and it is mostly not in economic infrastructure; it is in social infrastructure. There is nothing wrong with social infrastructure but, ultimately, you need to have a proportion of economic spending. Given the choice, we could raise payments for everyone and convince ourselves that was an economic measure. I tell you what, you could raise every payment in this country but it won't get us out of the Sino-American trade war. The only way out of this is economic spending and economic infrastructure. I respect the opposition's point—do it faster and sooner.
Come to Queensland and talk to the Queensland Premier—get the Queensland government to approve the dams that are stacking up. Go out to Hughenden with $180 million ready for a dam, and they will go out and start looking around for a finch! That is the problem we have with Labor. But you don't see it in New South Wales; they're building. You have a coalition state government working with us and getting things moving. You can see cranes in the Sydney skyline that you don't see in Brisbane. If you want to know how this group would act if they had the economic tiller, just look at the GFC, where the money vanished in a year and had very little impact on average Australians.
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (16:08): We've heard from the experts and from my Labor colleagues about the bleak state of the Australian economy. But over in the government's ministerial wing all you hear is sunshine, lollypops and rainbows everywhere because, according to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, there is nothing to worry about. The best thing the Prime Minister can do is tell us to stop worrying, as if ignoring the facts will make them go away, as if acknowledging the advice of economists will cause an economic downturn. Prime Minister, the cause of an economic downturn in Australia will be your inaction.
The Morrison government has no economic plan. In the 46th Parliament, it has become clear what happens when a government talks about nothing but the previous government for seven years—nothing is what happens. The Morrison government still blames Labor when the economy isn't doing well. This is clearly a political strategy that has worked for them, but it is not an economic plan. Weak growth is the inevitable consequence of a government with a political strategy but no economic plan.
Even with the best advice coming from Treasury, the International Monetary Fund and the Reserve Bank, the Prime Minister chucks his briefing in the wastepaper basket and uses the same old talking points. These are talking points we now know are devoid of any economic plan for Australia, and have been since these guys came to power in 2013. To make it even worse, the outgoing head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics here in Canberra has explained that, by slashing ABS funding by 30 per cent over the last decade, the information we need about the health of our economy will no longer be available. Dr Kalisch has said our economic, labour market and population statistics will be the statistics at risk if there are further cuts to ABS funding over future years. So the Prime Minister, so desperate to keep Australians in the dark about the state of the Australian economy, is trying to make sure we don't even have the high-quality economic data that we need to assess Australian economic growth.
I had the opportunity to question the RBA governor when he appeared before the House Standing Committee on Economics in August. I asked him:
… what levers are available to boost employment and wage growth?
He said:
… the options are fairly clear. The first set of options is monetary policy stimulus, which is what we're doing, and, if needed, we're prepared to do more. As we've discussed, our second set of options are fiscal options. And the third set of options, which are my preferred ones, are creating an environment where businesses want to expand and hire people. That's the menu, and it's up to society, through the parliament, to choose from that menu.
'The options are fairly clear,' the Reserve Bank governor said. The first is monetary stimulus. Well, there isn't much more that the Reserve Bank can do when interest rates are below one per cent for the first time in Australian history. These are record lows. The second is fiscal options. We need to invest, Prime Minister. And the third is creating an environment where businesses want to expand and hire people. The Reserve Bank governor even called it a 'menu'. He couldn't have made it any clearer for the Treasurer and Prime Minister.
But, if that isn't clear enough, the Reserve Bank governor went further. He said, 'Increase wages.' The best way to do this is to increase the wages of public servants, one-third of the workforce that governments have direct control over, with flow-on effects for the wages of millions of Australians who haven't had a wage increase for years. The governor has said that infrastructure spending could help the economy. We all know the Morrison government want an imaginary budget surplus before they spend anything on infrastructure.
This Anti-Poverty Week, people on our side of the House have been talking about the life-changing impact that a properly funded Newstart allowance would have on the lives of over 700,000 Australians. But, if we talk about Newstart in purely economic terms, an increase to Newstart would also stimulate the economy. The Reserve Bank governor said it in the hearing in August. KPMG said it last week. The Business Council supports it. Deloitte said over a year ago that raising Newstart would deliver a prosperity dividend of $4 billion to the Australian economy and 12,000 extra jobs.
Clearly, none of these hard economic facts have swayed the Prime Minister to act to save the Australian economy, so I'll end with this: the latest statistics from the ABS show that we have a youth unemployment rate of almost 12 per cent. That's 295,000 young people who are actively searching for work but coming up short. In rural and regional areas, the rate is even higher. In Greece, the rate of youth unemployment is 33.8 per cent, and guess which economy is weaker than Greece, according to the IMF forecasts released last night? Australia. So I call on the government to step up and do its job.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (16:13): There we go. We've just had a succession of speakers from the other side talking down the Australian economy. I feel for the member for Rankin. The opposition budgetary plan that they brought forward to the last election was wholeheartedly rejected by the Australian public. I'd like to congratulate the Australian public for showing good common sense. They realised that the plan was to bring in taxes on their retirement savings, taking their franked dividend refunds away, to change the super rules and to change negative gearing on their investment properties. There were all these taxes that the opposition were going to bring in. That was their plan.
But what we have actually done is grow the pie. We have grown the economy. We've got over 1.4 million jobs over the last six years. In the figures last August, there were 34,700 more jobs. That's more people in employment. Economic growth figures show 1.4 per cent growth. We have also achieved, as previous speakers have outlined, getting people off income dependence on the government. We have the lowest number of people on income support, by about 200,000. We've grown the pie. Our revenue has increased even in the face of global headwinds.
We are a trading nation. Our biggest trading partner, China, is in the middle of a trade war with one of our biggest investors. Lots of economies are being affected by that, but we have still managed to grow the economic pie. That's not to say that people aren't under mortgage stress; they are. People have big mortgages these days. But we have grown employment. We have got many more people working. Even in my electorate, the small area labour market figures show a reduction in unemployment across the board, and I hope it will continue. A lot of small businesses that depend on mums and dads are going to have mums and dads in our electorate who are getting a tax refund because of our low- and middle-income tax offset.
Most people in my electorate don't earn $90,000. Most of them earn less than that. We have a much lower profile in total income compared to some of the metro electorates. These low- and middle-income tax offsets will be a great help to them. Getting $1,080 in their tax refund will be a big bonus. If both partners are working, that's over $2,000 that they can use to pay off their mortgage or put into other goods and services that they require for their family. I feel sorry for the member for Rankin. He was lumbered with trying to sell $387 billion worth of extra taxes on the economy.
We've also stimulated a lot of the small businesses, which are the biggest employers in my part of the country, with lower tax rates. Businesses with turnover under $50 million, which is just about every business in my electorate, are getting the ability to instantly write off assets of up to $30,000 that they purchased in one year. That will improve their cash flow.
One in five jobs come out of us being a trading nation. International trade grows jobs and grows employment. What have we done over this last 6½ years? We've got free trade agreements with China, Japan, Korea, Peru and Hong Kong, and we're negotiating with the EU. In particular we are still managing—even in the face of the drought—to grow agriculture, which is one of our big earners.
All through this period, we have defied what the other side are trying to get across in their narrative. They're trying to talk the economy down. They're not doing anyone any favours. But we have got the basics right. We have reduced the deficit down to zero this year, ahead of schedule, by increasing our tax takes from multinationals, who are now paying their fair share of tax. We have got many more people earning a wage, and so they're paying tax. And the biggest growth in employment has been in the small-business space, which is usually the engine of local economies in regional Australia. So hearing the other side talk down our achievements— (Time expired)
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Veterans
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel and Deputy Leader of the House) (16:18): by leave—I want to thank the House and recognise the largely bipartisan spirit which exists when it comes to veterans' issues in our nation.
Third annual statement on veterans and their families
I'd like to begin by acknowledging all those in this place who have served in the Australian Defence Force, and those listening by broadcast and the members here in the chamber today from the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program and say, quite simply, thank you for your service.
Following the federal election, I was honoured to be reappointed to the Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel portfolios—a responsibility I take very seriously. I have met with thousands of serving personnel, veterans, and their families. I have listened to their stories—what's working and what needs to improve. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has recognised that some veterans and their families do not have the best experience when they leave the Australian Defence Force. However, I do want to correct some of the ongoing myths surrounding service in the Australian Defence Force.
Not everyone who leaves the ADF is broken, busted and bad. For the vast majority of people, serving in the ADF is overwhelmingly a positive experience. It's good for the individual, it's good for our community and it's in our national interest. They leave the ADF and transition into civilian life successfully, having had a career that has set them up with the skills, the training and the attitude to succeed. This is clearly shown through the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Program which showcases the drive, entrepreneurship and leadership of our veterans.
Take Chris Mayfield OAM as an example. He's a third-generation professional soldier who transitioned in 2014, after 26 years of distinguished service. Last year, Chris won the award for Outstanding Contribution by an Individual to Veterans' Employment at the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Awards. He has been able to transfer his skill set to help Fortescue Metals Group set up a veterans' employment initiative to help other veterans transfer their skills to the sector. To date, Chris has influenced FMG to engage 92 veterans, and the feedback on the skills, attitudes and contributions of veterans has been outstanding. Chris has not only found himself a new career; he has also helped others to find new careers. It has been good for the individual and the community and it is in the national interest.
We are also very privileged to have more than 20 members and senators in this place who are veterans, and collectively we are all here for the same purpose: to put veterans and their families first. This government has achieved a lot—introducing and building a range of programs and services to support the health and wellbeing of veterans and their families.
Transition
Enlistment and basic training is an important part of the ADF; equally, the transition back into civilian life is important. Every year, more than 5,500 people leave the military, so improving the transition experience is vital.
The Defence post-transition survey indicates that 26 per cent of ADF members are looking for work prior to transition. At three months post-transition, this is down to 12 per cent. By 12 months, it is down to eight per cent. While the majority of personnel leaving the ADF are well prepared, it can be difficult for some.
That is why from January this year Defence has adopted a needs based approach to individualised transition. Regardless of time served, members can now access coaching—including career planning—full service documentation, skills recognition, resume preparation, job search programs and financial literacy education.
Former ADF members are able to access this support, including employment support, for up to 12 months after transition. All serving ADF members now have access to the two-day job search preparation program at any time during their career. For those personnel leaving for medical reasons with complex circumstances, Defence has introduced tailored assistance to gain civilian employment through the Transition for Employment Program. This tailored approach also includes early engagement and case management with DVA to ensure they're provided with the best support possible.
It's important for all of us to know that the traditional view of a veteran has changed in our nation. While it is true that some do choose to stay in the service for the majority of their life, the average career in the ADF is now around eight years, meaning some may be leaving at age 25 or under. This can come as an incredible shock to some and is why in January we launched the personalised career and employment program. This program is targeted at those categorised 'at risk' in the 18- to 24-year-old cohort who have served less than four years and are transitioning for administrative or medical reasons.
Finding a job in civilian life is a critical step to a successful transition and one we are investing in. I regularly see the professionalism, dedication, leadership, teamwork and ability of our ADF personnel to work in high-pressure environments. What employer wouldn't want those skills in their workplace? We all need to get the message out that employing a veteran is good for business.
Through the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Program we have introduced the veterans' employment toolkit. This provides information to veterans on how to translate skills—based on their Defence rank—prepare a resume and job application, prepare for interviews and adjust to the civilian workplace. As part of the program, the Prime Minister and I announced the veterans' employment commitment last November, inviting businesses to make a public commitment to the employment of our veterans. As of today, I'm pleased to announce that more than 150 organisations have signed this commitment, and almost 2,000 vacancies have been advertised on the government's jobactive website flagging Defence Force experience as desirable.
Recognising the important role played by ex-service organisations, the most recent budget also provided $16.2 million to support Soldier On, Team Rubicon and the Returned and Services League of Australia to deliver programs to assist veterans to find meaningful employment. The government is also building on the Veterans Employment Program by implementing a support for employment program, which will support veterans who have not secured employment 12 months after separating from the ADF.
Mental health and wellbeing
The mental health and wellbeing of all Australians is a priority for this government, and we've committed to meeting the mental health and wellbeing needs of those who've defended our nation, and their families. Mental health is a complex issue, but one that is everyone's business—families, friends, employers, community organisations, governments and the ex-service community.
In this year's budget, the government provided more than $11.5 billion to support more than 280,000 veterans and their families across Australia. This includes more than $230 million in funding to support the mental health needs of veterans and their families. This funding is uncapped—if there's a need, it will be met. All veterans are eligible to access mental health care for life for any mental health condition, and we have expanded the veteran-specific Lifeline, Open Arms—Veterans and Families Counselling, which provides professional mental health and wellbeing support to veterans and their families. These supports save lives. They are needs based, uncapped and available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to any veteran who has served a single day in the ADF.
Separate to treatment of any mental health conditions, we have made immediate income support available for those veterans with compensation claims for mental health conditions which are caused by their service. This is known as the veteran payment and includes access to whole-of-person rehabilitation for those with extra needs.
Building on current research commissioned by government into the benefits of assistance dogs for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), we are now providing psychiatric assistance dogs to eligible veterans. This is an area where a number of veterans have told me firsthand about the benefits of assistance dogs—this is real action that responds to the needs of our veterans. We have established an initial panel of providers of psychiatric assistance dogs, which will be further extended to an open approach to market, where other organisations will be able to apply to be part of the panel.
A lot has been achieved in treating mental health and supporting veterans as they transition; however, some veterans have and do slip through the cracks and become victims of the scourge that is suicide. When it comes to veteran suicide, the only acceptable number is zero. Mental health and suicide prevention are very complex issues, and one of my priorities when I was reappointed was to convene a Veteran Mental Health and Wellbeing Summit, bringing together experts from around Australia to plan the best way forward. The summit identified four priority areas—health care, transition, partnerships and engagement, and communication and education.
The summit was the first step in a broad consultation process we have been undertaking to help reshape the Veteran Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy and develop a National Action Plan to improve veterans' mental health and wellbeing and to prevent suicide. We are consulting closely with veterans and their families, and across government, peak bodies, ex-service organisations, researchers and service providers. Our discussions are taking place in parallel with the National Mental Health Commission's consultation on mental health, and the 10 year 'Towards Zero' National Action Plan being led by the Minister for Health. I intend to release that strategy and action plan by the end of this year.
DVA is also piloting two important suicide prevention initiatives to support our vulnerable veterans. The Veteran Suicide Prevention Pilot provides assertive outreach, follow-up care and practical support to veterans following their discharge from hospital for a suicide attempt, suicidal ideation or risk of suicide. Support coordinators work with individual veterans to develop a personalised safety plan, which links them to support provided by DVA and ex-service organisations.
Under our second pilot—the Coordinated Veterans' Care Mental Health Pilot—veterans receive coordinated care from their GP to help manage mild to moderate mental health concerns and pain, complemented by a self-help coaching app. This early intervention aims to promote better mental health outcomes for veterans, especially those who live where mental health services may be difficult to access. The community plays an important role in supporting veterans and their families, and this training will help to ensure there are caring and trained people available to provide that initial support when and where it is needed by our veterans.
At the election we committed to investing $30 million in a network of veteran wellbeing centres in partnership with ex-service organisations and state and territory governments. These centres will be located in six locations across the country—Nowra, Wodonga, Darwin, Townsville, Adelaide and Perth—providing local solutions to local communities. The centres will act as a one-stop shop for government and non-government services, including connections with local health services, community organisations, advocacy and wellbeing support. The wellbeing centres are part of the government's commitment to changing the focus of the veteran support system from an illness model to a wellbeing model, empowering our veterans during transition and into their new life beyond service.
In the last budget, the government provided an additional $4 million for a partnership between Open Arms and the Returned and Services League of Australia (RSL) to deliver a national program of mental health training to up to 7,000 people across Australia. I am pleased to report that Open Arms is also partnering with Defence and Phoenix Australia in three innovative clinical research programs. The government has extended the provisional access to medical treatment trial, allowing veterans to continue to have access to treatment for specified conditions before their claim is approved. This trial allows veterans to get the treatment they need faster, and reduces the risk of further deterioration of their condition.
Australians can be assured that this government is working with veterans and their families every day to improve services and support. I encourage anyone in the veteran community who is struggling with their mental health to engage with DVA and Open Arms on 1800011046. That's 1800011046.
Women and families
The contribution of women who serve in the ADF, but also the contribution and sacrifice of women whose partners serve, is immeasurable. Families are the primary support network for members throughout ADF service and beyond, and while we ask a lot of our defence personnel we also ask a lot of their families. It is important we recognise—and seek to better understand—the service and sacrifice of women and families, and actively seek to improve the support provided to them.
In 2016, the government established the Female Veterans and Veterans' Families Policy Forum, which provides a platform to generate ideas to address issues facing their communities; to co-design DVA policy and services; and to build networks. One of the issues raised at this forum was the inequity between former spouses and former de facto partners of veterans around the partner service pension. In the last budget we allocated $6.2 million over four years to remove this inequity, and I am proud the enabling legislation passed this parliament just a few weeks ago.
Another idea generated by the forum was to create a Council for Women and Families United by Defence Service, which was established last December. This council is chaired by Army veteran and current chief executive of BAE Systems Australia, Ms Gabby Costigan. Its role is to make a difference for veterans and their families by providing timely informed advice to the government, driving policy outcomes and advocating on behalf of women and families united by defence service.
Transformation of DVA
Under our government, DVA is changing for the better. DVA acknowledges that in the past some veterans have had difficulty dealing with the department, but it is changing to meet the needs of veterans of all ages and their families now and into the future. The government has committed nearly $500 million to date to improve DVA by building a better client experience, making it faster, simpler and easier for veterans and their families to access services whenever and wherever they need them.
DVA is listening to veterans and their families to understand how it can do things better, and involving them directly in those changes. DVA is now better connected with Defence, sharing data and enabling it to develop more robust policy based on evidence and respond more effectively to the needs of our veterans. This is why I support a question in the 2021 census regarding ADF service. The data would help DVA and ex-service organisations improve and better target services and support—particularly to the large proportion of veterans currently unknown to DVA.
DVA has consolidated its telephone numbers, making it easier for clients to speak to the right person at the first point of contact. DVA's partnership with the Department of Human Services is also providing more opportunities for veterans and their families to connect with DVA through the DHS mobile service centres and agent networks.
Under this government, DVA has developed and introduced an online service portal, MyService, which has streamlined processing for 40 of the most commonly claimed conditions, with some conditions instantly approved. I am advised around 100,000 veterans have signed up for MyService and this number continues to grow. MyService also enables DVA clients to apply for free mental health care, update their details and view digital versions of their veteran card with a list of accepted conditions online.
DVA is also continuing to digitise its files with more than 300,000 veteran files, or the equivalent of more than 8.6 kilometres of veteran records, already digitised, making it faster and easier to process claims.
Productivity Commission
DVA's transformation has been informed by a number of reviews into how services and support are delivered to veterans and their families. As a result of a recommendation of the Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, The constant battle, the government asked the Productivity Commission to initiate an inquiry into the veteran compensation and rehabilitation system. The Productivity Commission's final report, A better way to support veterans, was provided to the government on 27 June and tabled on 4 July. The government acknowledges this report is of great interest to the ex-service community, and since its release my office has received considerable feedback from individuals and organisations.
The report offers the government a unique opportunity to consider fundamental reform of the whole veterans support system to improve outcomes for veterans and their families. It is some 900 pages, has 69 recommendations and 26 findings. The key recommendations are far-reaching, proposing major changes to fundamental aspects of the current system of support to veterans and their families—across structures, governance, legislation, policy, delivery operations and services. I look forward to the government's response to this report in due course—which will include our response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report on its inquiry into transition from the ADF report, and the Veterans' Advocacy and Support Services Scoping Study report.
Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant
Australians are rightly proud of our current and former serving personnel and the government is committed to ensuring they are appropriately recognised, acknowledged and supported for their service to Australia. Last year the Prime Minister and I announced that the government would develop an Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant to be enacted in legislation, so the nation can recognise and acknowledge the unique nature of military service and support veterans and their families every day of the year. It is an important and historic step. The covenant includes an oath, a new veteran card, a veteran lapel pin and a reservist lapel pin. This legislation is currently before the parliament and we stand ready to distribute the veteran covenant and lapel pins to the veteran community promptly once it is enacted into law.
Commemorations
One of the key institutions that ensure our veterans' service is appropriately acknowledged is the Australian War Memorial—it embodies our nation's promise to never forget. It's a place for all generations of Australians to come to honour, to learn and to heal. The government has committed $498.7 million over nine years to a significant redevelopment of the memorial. This project will benefit veterans from more recent conflicts by greatly enhancing the memorial's capacity to tell their stories in the same way it tells the stories of the First and Second World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. The new galleries will expand how the memorial explores Australia's peacekeeping story and create, for the first time, a permanent display dedicated to showing what our nation does to prevent war in the first place.
Along with the memorial, my department delivers a range of domestic and overseas commemorative activities to ensure the service and sacrifice of our service personnel is appropriately acknowledged and commemorated by the Australian community. The centenary of the First World War armistice last November officially concluded the Anzac Centenary period and I was privileged to represent the government at events both here and overseas and I am proud of the way the commemorations were delivered during the centenary.
Since then there have been other significant commemorative events, including the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Binh Ba, the 75th anniversaries of the D-Day landings and the Cowra breakout, and the 20th anniversary of the deployment of the ADF contingent to International Force in East Timor, known as INTERFET,among others.
These commemorations offer Australians the opportunity to reflect on the service and sacrifice of our veterans and their families—as do exhibitions such as the Thank You for Your Service photographic exhibition, which I had the honour of launching in April at Sydney's Anzac Memorial, featuring the work of 2018 Press Gallery Journalist of the Year, Alex Ellinghausen. The exhibition showcased the diversity of current ADF members, veterans and their families.
Looking ahead, our attention turns to the Second World War, and last month we commemorated the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War, signalling the start of important commemorative events over the next five years. To mark this period in our history, the government has committed $10 million to the digitisation of Second World War service records held by the National Archives of Australia. The digitisation of service records from the First World War provided an invaluable resource for all Australians. Similarly, we will make the Second World War service records freely available to help educate current and future generations about the nearly one million Australians who served from 1939 to 1945.
DVA is also working on the second stage of the Anzac 360 virtual reality app series, which will focus on Australians during the Second World War in South-East Asia and the Pacific, with key stories including Hellfire Pass in Thailand and the Sandakan death marches in Borneo.
Delivering on our election commitment, the government is expanding the Saluting Their Service (STS) Commemorative Grants Program by providing an additional $10 million over four years, with a particular focus on commemorating the Second World War. I am pleased to advise that the scoping studies to develop a new interpretative centre in Papua New Guinea and to replace the existing interpretative centre at Sandakan Memorial Park in Malaysia are underway. The interpretative centres will explore the Australian experience of the Papuan and New Guinean campaigns and describe the experiences of those who suffered and died while in captivity at the Sandakan prisoner-of-war camp or on the death marches during the Second World War.
I can also advise that the scoping study for a new interpretative site at Lemnos commemorating the role of Australian nurses and doctors during the Gallipoli campaign, on the former site of an Australian field hospital, is well advanced.
Our forward commemorative program will include the continued delivery of the iconic Anzac Day dawn services in Turkey and France, combined with nationally broadcast commemorative service events for significant military anniversaries within Australia.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this government is committed to caring for those who have served our country and for their loved ones, and to ensuring the flame of remembrance continues to burn brightly in current and future generations of Australians. All Australians can be rightly proud that the government spends more than $11.5 billion a year to support our veterans and their families. Year on year, this government has increased this support, and importantly, has made accessing services and support easier and quicker.
While we have achieved a lot, there remains a significant amount of work ahead. I look forward to working closely with our veterans, with their families, with ex-service organisations, with my colleagues and with those opposite to put veterans and their families first and to further enhance services and support.
I present a copy of my ministerial statement.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (16:43): I rise today to speak on the third ministerial annual statement to parliament on veterans and their families. As the shadow minister, I'm pleased to have an opportunity to respond to this ministerial statement. At the outset, I want to join with the minister in recognising the sacrifices of those currently serving and those who have served before, and their families who support them, including those present in the chamber today who are members of the ADF Parliamentary Program. Just the other day I had the opportunity to address the members of that program on the challenges and vicissitudes of being an MP, and I want to thank them for the sage and insightful questions they put to me in relation to those experiences.
We must ensure that they know that we value the sacrifices that these serving personnel and their families and those who have already served have made, and that we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with them and their loved ones. To do this, governments and communities must ensure that veterans and their families are supported during their service, through transition to civilian life and beyond. While we might disagree from time to time in this chamber on the best means to achieve that end, wherever possible Labor want to work with the government and the minister in a bipartisan way to ensure our ex-service personnel get the best possible care and support. We want veterans to know that we value the sacrifice they've made and we want to help them in their transition to civilian life. But we must do better in this country, as even the minister has acknowledged in his ministerial statement.
When a veteran leaves the ADF, they do so with a wealth of practical and desirable skills. However, despite this, there are too many veterans struggling to find work upon their transition to civilian life. We must ensure veterans are well placed to move into employment post service and that industry understands the many benefits of employing a veteran. Labor believes that we can do better in this space and that we need to see programs better targeted and coordinated. In addition, Labor took a number of policies to the last election which were designed to ensure veterans' skills and experience are better valued and appreciated by the wider community.
There are still barriers to veterans' skills being properly recognised, and this hampers the transition from military to civilian life, causing roadblocks that fail to recognise the many skills, talents and abilities of our ADF members. This is not about charity at all; this is about ensuring veterans' experiences and skills are not lost to our local communities. They need to be valued and appreciated in the civilian employment market. Labor wants to see greater collaboration with state and territory governments and with peak civil professional bodies to achieve greater automatic recognition of the many skills and qualifications of our ex-ADF members. We believe this is a useful first step in ensuring that those working in the ADF can move into meaningful employment in civilian life and make that transition to civilian life.
There are other key elements of transition that are critical for veterans. They include mental health and wellbeing, an issue which has received a lot of publicity lately. It is a major focus of the government now, they say, and rightly so. The high number of veteran suicides is a national disgrace. This is an issue that has been the subject of many reviews in recent times, including the Transition and Wellbeing Research Program, part of an ongoing longitudinal study, and the Productivity Commission's inquiry into compensation and rehabilitation for veterans, which made strong recommendations. We've identified the issues. We know what the problems are. Yet we still see too little progress, so much so that the PM has admitted the system is broken and the government agencies are failing our most vulnerable veterans.
According to the Productivity Commission report released on 4 July, we spent $13.2 billion in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio in 2017-18—about $47,000 a year per Department of Veterans' Affairs client—and it is still not working properly. I welcome the PM's commitment to fix this, and Labor is willing to work with the government to address this terrible crisis. We welcome the minister's mental health and wellbeing roundtable in June and the proposed strategy and action plan, but we need to see more urgency.
I note the government is in its third term but still doesn't have an action plan and strategy, although I do welcome the minister's commitment to deliver one by the end of the year. The Productivity Commission's final report, A better way to support veterans, would be a good place to start. This is a damning report, released in July this year, which found veterans' compensation and rehabilitation systems are not fit for purpose. They're out of date, convoluted and hard to navigate and they don't serve the interests of veterans, their families and the wider Australian community. That's the finding of the Productivity Commission. There are a number of recommendations in that report that should be given serious consideration, such as moving to a simplified system and a lifetime wellbeing approach to supporting veterans and their families. Getting one single act of parliament to cover all veterans would be a good start as well.
I should note that, while the Productivity Commission review's final report had a number of worthwhile recommendations, it included others, such as abolishing gold cards as we know them now and outsourcing much of DVA's services to an independent veterans' services commission. This could be a prelude to possible privatisation. This should be ruled out, as should any changes to the gold card in terms of cutting entitlements to veterans. Many veterans who access services through DVA have expressed to me their concern over this. I'm calling on the minister to stand up for the veteran community and do the right thing in relation to these matters.
The health and welfare of our veterans is a high priority for Labor. We owe a duty of care, not just during the time these people serve but beyond their service. To that end, we have seen an extraordinary admission by the government in recent times that we don't know how many veterans there are. We need to have the best information available if we're going to provide the best possible care and support for our ex-service personnel. That's why before the last election Labor committed to improving recordkeeping, data collection and information sharing to address current gaps in the health of our serving personnel and veterans.
I note the calls from some state governments—and I've met with ministers at the state level as well to talk about these issues—to improve information sharing between Defence, DVA and other agencies, and for the next national census to include a question on military service, to better inform delivery of support services for veterans. I wish the minister well in his submission on the census question to the government's ERC. These recommendations are worthy of support. Our veterans need a system that works for them. It's time for action. I hope the minister is successful on the census question.
Of course, when an individual serves, in many ways their family serves with them. Serving families are routinely faced with the choice between packing up their lives to move with a loved one or spending significant time apart. Post-service lives are changed again as individuals and their loved ones reorient their lives. This is felt more acutely by those who are medically discharged, with family members often taking on a carer role.
What has become clear in conversations that I've had with veterans and the ex-service community is that military and veteran families are not always being heard when it comes to discussions of support and assistance. The critical role families play in supporting and caring for their loved ones can't be overstated. The nature of military life is unique, and families can also be deeply affected by military service. Labor have welcomed and supported the government's initiatives for supporting families, but we think developing a national family engagement and support strategy is critically important. This government doesn't have one, to its discredit. This is why Labor took to the last election a policy and funding to better engage and support families who have experienced suicide, suicidal ideation, post-traumatic stress disorder and major issues pre and post military service. This was a direct recommendation from the National Mental Health Commission's review into suicide and self-harm among our military personnel. It is important to give families a voice and a seat at the table when it comes to the support they need.
The fact is we need to better understand the impact that service and sacrifice by defence personnel and veterans has, including on their families and loved ones. We know service in the defence of our country touches the lives of many, not only those who serve and those who know them but also their family, friends and colleagues. It's important to acknowledge the unique nature of military service, as I have said, and the sacrifices made. This is something the Productivity Commission highlighted in its recent inquiry into veteran support systems, and it's something Labor fully supports.
The latest research, particularly from the Transition and Wellbeing Research Program report, shows that mental health issues during service are the best predictor of, and often a precursor to, mental health issues post service. This important longitudinal study highlighted the need for early intervention as well as ongoing monitoring of current veterans and further research into long-term trajectories as they return to civilian life. This is why Labor is also committed to improving access to mental health treatment and boosting research into veterans' mental health.
In the last election campaign Labor committed to developing seven veteran wellbeing centres across Australia—in Perth, Darwin, Townsville, Ipswich, Adelaide, Nowra and Wodonga. Labor understands the desire of many ex-service organisations to deliver coordinated support and services to fellow veterans and their loved ones locally. Veteran centres would provide a space for veterans services and advocacy organisations to coexist and provide greater holistic support to current and ex-service personnel and their loved ones. The government embraced such a policy with its six veteran wellbeing centres, although the details, I think, remain sketchy. Disappointingly—I can speak as a local MP—Ipswich, in my electorate, was left off the government's list of centres when they reneged on an earlier commitment, at the 2016 election, to deliver one. I understand there's been some interest in expanding the commitment to other locations—and I welcome that from the minister—including in South-East Queensland. The minister is open to this, and I look forward to working with him in this regard. I would strongly recommend that he consider additional centres for Ipswich and Brisbane, where RAAF Base Amberley and Gallipoli Barracks Enoggera are located.
In terms of other priorities in this space, the government should fast-track the veterans' covenant, to which the minister referred. This was another good Labor policy that the government was happy to adopt. It was first introduced into parliament before the last election, and in July, following the election, it was passed by the Senate. Yet we're still waiting to debate it back in the House after amendments. Labor supports the current enabling legislation, and we will work with the government to progress it. So I say to the minister: let's get on with it.
Similar in nature to the United Kingdom's Armed Forces Covenant, the veterans' covenant will acknowledge the unique nature of military service and formalise our solemn commitment to providing support and assistance to those who put their lives on the line in the service of our country, especially those who have been wounded or injured or who have become ill as a result of their service. This will ensure that our serving men and women know in no uncertain terms that we value their service and remain committed to looking after them.
Like the minister, I've attended many commemorations since I've been given the honour of serving in the shadow portfolio. I want to thank those who've welcomed me, but more particularly I want to thank those who've faithfully kept those commemorations going, whether in my home city of Ipswich, in Melbourne or in other places I've gone to. These are important ways to ensure that we send a message that we appreciate the service and sacrifice made by our many service men and women. For over a century, we have used these commemorations to remember those who've died in the service of our country, those whose service has changed them forever and those who've been affected through the generations.
We know that, in many ways, every community is given the opportunity to commemorate thanks to the work of ex-service organisations around the country. I thank the RSLs and the ESOs for the work they do. We can all go down to a local memorial and pay our respects on Anzac Day, Remembrance Day and Vietnam Veterans Day because of the work of volunteers in these many ex-service organisations. I want to thank them for allowing the wider community to make sure that we do not forget—that we always remember and we always pay tribute.
Remembrance Day, or Armistice Day, is coming up on 11 November. I encourage all members in this place, and the wider Australian community, to participate in a commemorative service on 11 November. We'll remember those in that war who sacrificed so much and paid the ultimate sacrifice. It's important that we take the time to remember and reflect. This is an important part of our commemoration activities. It's important that we consider how we keep alive the memories of the men and women who have served and who have died. Whilst we don't have with us now anyone who served in World War I in any capacity, it's critical to remember their experiences and their sacrifices, as well as of those who've served in subsequent conflicts.
With that in mind, Labor supported the government's Australian War Memorial redevelopment project, which will ensure that the memorial remains a solemn place of remembrance for future generations, especially in its mission to recognise and deepen our understanding of more recent conflicts like Afghanistan and Iraq and peacekeeping missions to the Solomon Islands and East Timor. The Australian War Memorial holds a very important place in the hearts of Australians. It's an important marker of the sacrifice our armed forces have made to keep our country safe. On that note, I want to thank Dr Brendan Nelson for his outstanding service as director. I hope the government employs someone of the same distinction and note in his place to serve the War Memorial in the same way that Dr Nelson has—with honour, with capacity and with vigour and commitment. Thank you, Dr Nelson, for what you've done.
The government should continue to ensure that our veterans are receiving first-class care and support. We should do everything we can to make sure our veterans do not fall through the cracks. The Productivity Commission review following on from last year's Senate inquiry into veteran suicide and several other reports on mental health, transition, suicide and self-harm all provide clear recommendations on how we can do better, and I would urge the government to get on with the job of implementing many of these important recommendations. We await the government's response to the PC review. However, we do not believe waiting for the recommendations should be a barrier to the government taking immediate action in some areas—low-hanging fruit, if you will—such as the impact that the veterans allied healthcare cuts the government recently instituted and the Medicare rebate freeze are having right now and will have on veterans. We'd urge the government to reconsider their position on these matters. There is ample evidence that both of these things could have an impact and will have an impact not just on veterans' physical health but on mental health as well, and they put in place referral barriers for veterans as well. The government should deal with these things immediately and reverse their position.
We clearly need to act also on the sad situation of the plight of homeless veterans and those in aged care. The recent royal commission report into aged care has revealed the sad plight of many veterans in the aged-care sector, particularly in residential care and in-home care. There wouldn't be a member of this chamber who wouldn't have had someone in the wider community in their electorate who's been on a waiting list for home care. But, in addition to that, there is the sad plight of those who've served who are waiting for home care. This is a terrible blight on the government, and they should fix this situation.
In conclusion, as the minister has done, I want to say thank you to all those who are serving and have served our nation and to those family members who support and have supported them. We have asked so much of you, and it's incumbent on this parliament to continue to ensure that we demonstrate our gratitude. Thank you very much. We will work as much as we can with the government in a bipartisan way. I thank the minister for the cooperation he's shown in briefing the opposition in relation to matters.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel and Deputy Leader of the House) (17:01): In respect of the third annual statement on veterans and their families, I move:
That the House take note of the document.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel and Deputy Leader of the House) (17:02): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) 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.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting.
CONDOLENCES
Fischer, Hon. Timothy Andrew (Tim), AC
Report from Federation Chamber
Order of the day returned from Federation Chamber for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death, on 22 August 2019, of the Honourable Timothy Andrew Fischer AC, a Member of this House for the Division of Farrer from 1984 to 2001, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) 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 this Government's record of undermining the Australian shipping industry; and
(2) reaffirms that Australia's marine environment, national security and economic interests are best served by a strong and competitive Australian shipping industry'.
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (17:06): This legislation seeks to amend the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to include further restrictions to enforce a global maximum sulphur cap of half a per cent by weight for ship fuel oil from 1 January 2020 and to ban the carriage of high-sulphur fuel without abatement technology from 1 March 2020. The industry further endorses the implementation of a 0.1 per cent sulphur emission control area for Australia, pursuant to similar moves by the International Maritime Organization. This represents an opportunity to lower our national emissions and support environmentally friendly policy.
To put the global issue into context, it is estimated that one ultra-large container ship emits the same amount of sulphur in one day of steaming as 50,000 cars emit in one year. In contributing to this debate, I'd like to inform the parliament of the role of the LNG Marine Fuel Institute in promoting the maritime industry's transition to the use of low-emissions liquefied natural gas, or LNG, as a marine and transport fuel, thereby reducing sulphur emissions, improving public health and creating jobs.
There is a growing global movement to replace the use of heavy fuel oil as the primary fuel for maritime shipping with the more environmentally friendly LNG, which is conveniently produced abundantly in Western Australia's north-west and in Queensland. Australian LNG has the potential to become the primary fuel for marine transportation. Currently, Australia is more than 90 per cent reliant on imported transport fuel oils, despite extensive domestic natural gas reserves in our nation. Australia is poised to lead the way, ahead of impending regulations, by establishing early adoption of LNG as a marine fuel and providing the Australasian maritime industry with an alternative, sustainable and cost-effective fuel source.
The use of LNG as a marine fuel is the first step towards helping Australia achieve energy independence. Our current reliance on imported fuels is a concerning and unsustainable model that undermines Australia's energy security. By promoting and facilitating the use of LNG as a marine transportation fuel, the federal government can partner with industry and help grow Australia's economy and create jobs while reducing pollution and emissions on a large scale.
By way of background, in 2016 the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, made a decision to enforce the global reduction of sulphur emissions to half a per cent by 1 January 2020. This deadline is fast approaching. The IMO mandated that the North Sea, Baltic and North American emission control areas have a stricter 0.1 per cent sulphur cap, and the Chinese domestic emission controls also mandated a 0.1 per cent sulphur cap from today.
This global emissions reduction regulation will work to reduce the impacts of sulphur, nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide; reduce airborne particulates; and reduce acid rain and ground-level ozone smog, as well as reducing cancer rates and respiratory diseases in port areas due to ship emissions, which have recently been linked to neurological conditions such as dementia. These benefits will in turn have a positive climate change impact and improve public health and water quality as well as increase jobs.
The amendments contained in this legislation are necessary to meet Australia's international obligations. Further amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 are required to permit ships with an exhaust gas cleaning system, called a scrubber, to continue using high-sulphur fuel from 1 January 2020.
The high-sulphur fuel carriage ban will be in place to discourage ships from burning high-sulphur fuel on the high seas, away from a country's jurisdictional waters, and to ensure a level playing field for international shipping. The carriage ban will not impose any additional costs on shipping companies or freight, as ships are already globally prohibited from burning noncompliant fuel from 1 January 2020. The majority of Australia's domestic fleet already use fuels that meet the 2020 sulphur standard and even the stricter, separate International Maritime Organization sanctioned 0.1 per cent in regional emission control areas. The industry is supportive of Australia legislating and consistently enforcing the sulphur cap to ensure a global level playing field.
IMO 2020 standards will come into effect on 1 January 2020, limiting fuel sulphur content to 0.5 per cent. This will force the shipping industry to change from heavy fuel oil, with typical sulphur oxide contents in the range of 2½ per cent, to other options.
The potential for using LNG as a marine fuel is huge. Ships visiting the major ports on the east coast of Australia are currently consuming in the order of 2.1 million tonnes of heavy fuel oil every year. LNG is safe to use, fully compliant with the IMO 2020 standards and readily available as a marine transport fuel. Australia needs to take advantage of its abundant natural resources and significant shipping market by building cost-competitive LNG fuel supply hubs to supply the LNG fuelled shipping market. Currently, countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and Japan have in the order of $10 billion invested and are forging ahead with the development of their LNG fuel supply hubs.
Reductions in air pollution from ships will help protect our natural and built world from the destructive effects of these emissions. Reducing sulphur, nitrogen and carbon dioxide, as well as particulate emissions from ships, ensures positive environmental outcomes now and into the future.
Promoting stricter IMO sanctioned emission control areas similar to those in the North Sea, the Baltic and North America will create a multibillion dollar domestic coastal shipping industry in the Southern Hemisphere, similar to that already established in the Northern Hemisphere, using Australian produced LNG as a marine fuel.
The main constituent of LNG is methane. It is lighter than air and boils at minus 161½ degrees Celsius. Since LNG evaporates, in case of collisions or grounding, the catastrophic effect of oil spills on Australia's pristine reefs and coastline will be eliminated. Australians, particularly those in coastal communities, will reap the tourism, health and environmental benefits of cleaner air through the restriction of sulphur emissions from ships in Australian waters.
Reducing emissions not only benefits the environment but also has an important, positive impact on public health, infrastructure development and jobs. According to studies in Europe, 50,000 premature deaths a year can be linked to air pollution from ships. To emphasise this further, a recent study in China found that at least 24,000 premature deaths per year in East Asia were related to air pollution from shipping. These diseases were most commonly in the form of cancers and heart and lung diseases. These preventable diseases not only impact health and social welfare but also limit resources in an already constrained public health system.
The LNG Marine Fuel Institute works with affiliated government and non-government bodies around the globe and regulatory bodies to advocate to government, to industry and to the public for the use of LNG as a marine fuel, ensuring stable and environmentally sustainable growth for the maritime sector. The institute brings together key agencies, federal, state and industry regulators, and businesses throughout Australasia. It has a partnership with the Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel in the Northern Hemisphere, working towards securing LNG as a marine fuel for the global maritime industry.
I acknowledge the exemplary work of the founding directors of the LNG Marine Fuels Institute, Captain Walter Purio, Richard Sandover, Tony Brooks—who is here with us today—Professor Stephen Smith, Rod Duke, Mary Hackett and Meg O'Neill, in raising public awareness of this issue and advocating for industry transformation. The national launch of the institute occurred on 21 June 2017 here in Parliament House, by the then environment minister, the member for Kooyong.
The institute is uniquely positioned as the only independent not-for-profit organisation in the Southern Hemisphere servicing the needs of the LNG marine fuel industry, working cooperatively to design best-practice use of, and creative solutions for, LNG as a marine fuel. This best practice will help position the use of Australian LNG as a marine fuel in a global context, ultimately benefiting all LNG stakeholders in the domestic and global LNG supply chains.
Renewable technologies are only part of the solution to power the nation in the medium term. The LNG fuels industry has the potential to power our nation's marine, road, rail and mining industries using our domestic gas reserves. The measurable benefits include energy independence and ensuring ongoing trade with countries with even more strict emission control areas and countries surrounding the North and Baltic seas, which will have a positive impact on Australia's exports, balance of payments and global reputation.
Reducing Australia's reliance on imported fuels is a strategic benefit, and LNG offers an economically viable solution through the development of new technologies to power industry. To achieve this, it is necessary to allocate adequate funding into research and development of future fuels technology. The barriers preventing the transition from heavy fuel oils to LNG include a lack of appropriate infrastructure, such as bunkering facilities and appropriate policy frameworks. We have the opportunity to encourage institutional investment in the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support this environmentally friendly industry. It should be a priority for the Commonwealth to implement an emissions control area covering Australian ports, as has already been done for ports in the USA, Canada, China and elsewhere.
The bill also proposes other minor administrative amendments to exempt naval and foreign government vessels from provisions of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act. These minor amendments do not impose any new regulatory burden on industry. Passage of this legislation through parliament is vital before 1 December 2019 to ensure Australia is ready to enforce the global sulphur cap from 1 January 2020.
It is exciting for Australia to be part of a growing global movement to replace the use of heavy fuel oil as the primary fuel for maritime shipping with a more environmentally friendly alternative in LNG, which is produced domestically. LNG is seen as a transition fuel to a low-carbon economy. It provides substantial environmental benefits over conventional fuels, in terms of improving air quality and for human health, which is particularly important in ports and coastal areas. LNG emits zero sulphur oxides, virtually zero particulate matter and significantly fewer nitrogen oxides. LNG is clean, posing no pollution risk to the environment in the ocean, and has no waste disposal or discharge issues. LNG as a marine fuel, in combination with efficiency measures developed for new ships, provides a way of meeting the IMO's decarbonisation target of a 40 per cent decrease by 2030 for international shipping. I commend this bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): I remind the House: the original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question before the chair now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (17:21): In Lilley, we have around 28 kilometres of coastline, and we are surrounded by waterways, from Kedron Brook to Cabbage Tree Creek to Nudgee Beach and the Sandgate and Brighton foreshores. We want these waterways to be cared for, and we want these waterways to be protected. Our glorious Moreton Bay has more coral than the Caribbean and the most southern population of dugongs, and it is easier to access than the Great Barrier Reef. Yet it stands at risk of being taken for granted.
The Healthy Land and WaterReport Card is an annual study of the health of South-East Queensland's waterways. The 2018 report cardfound that, overall, the waterways draining into Moreton Bay were in poor health, due to the high levels of mud and other pollutants that ultimately flow into the bay.
This bill, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019, is necessary to help combat emissions, stem the growth of sulphur emissions and reduce acid rain, and so I support it. But there is more work to be done to protect our waterways in Lilley, and I will continue to work with our local community groups and organisations to ensure that we achieve our goals together.
In Australia, we have ocean-exposed and high-energy sandy beaches stretching for over 10,000 kilometres, covering approximately 49 per cent of the coastline. In my electorate of Lilley, we have approximately 28 kilometres of that coastline—easily the best 28 kilometres!
Spilt oil can affect marine organisms via several pathways, such as the physical coating of organisms, the penetration and persistence of component petroleum hydrocarbons in the sediments, and the uptake of petroleum hydrocarbons by both plants and animals, leading to lethal and sublethal toxicity. Impacts to mobile species such as fish, sharks and marine mammals are most likely to occur due to the flow-on effects of impacts to their habitat and food sources. However, direct contact with oil can result in direct impacts to the animal, due to the toxic effects if ingested, damage to the lungs when inhaled at the surface, and damage to the skin and associated functions such as thermoregulation. Waterbirds are particularly susceptible to impacts from oil spills as, if the birds come into contact with the oil, the hydrophobic nature of hydrocarbons can cause reduced waterproofing in their plumage, and reduced insulation and buoyancy of the plumage if the animal comes into direct contact with spilt fuel. This may cause death due to hypothermia, starvation or exhaustion.
The international importance of the wetland areas within our Moreton Bay has been recognised, with parts of the bay and surrounds being designated as a Ramsar site in 1993. Covering more than 120,000 hectares, the Moreton Bay Ramsar site is extremely varied, ranging from perched freshwater lakes and sedge swamps on the offshore sand islands, to intertidal mudflats, marshes, sand flats, coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves next to the bay's islands and the mainland. This varied landscape enhances the bay's biological diversity, which includes an overlap of both tropical and temperate wildlife species. The site contains extensive intertidal areas that are valuable for supporting waterbirds and fauna of conservation significance as well as providing important nursery conditions for fish and crustaceans.
I would like to take this opportunity to note the good and dedicated work of the Sandgate Wildlife Network, who spend their volunteer hours caring for our waterways and wildlife. I would like to acknowledge the Ocean Crusaders. While they are based in the electorate of Bowman, they do come to the beaches at Brighton and Sandgate, when they can, to assist in protecting our waterways and looking after our wildlife. I thank them too.
I want to speak about pollution in Moreton Bay. Like I said earlier, the most recent report card—the report card of 2018—found that overall the waterways draining into Moreton Bay were poor in quality due to mud and other pollutants flowing into the bay. Professor Connolly believes that Moreton Bay will likely deteriorate in the years ahead due to pressures including urbanisation, increased and more intense weather events and strong population growth.
Lilley constituents are aware of the threats to our beautiful corner of the world, and they dedicate many hours of their time to preserving our environment. I'd like to acknowledge the Keep Sandgate Beautiful Association, the Nudgee Beach Environmental Education Centre, the Boondall Wetlands Environment Centre, the Northern Catchments Network and the Cabbage Tree Creek catchment coordinating network for their hours and hours of dedicated efforts to keep our beautiful corner of the earth as clean and as protected as they can.
Lilley's youngest citizens are also switched on to these dangers and to the issues of climate change and the threat it poses to our environment, our public health and our economy. They are taking some initiative and doing their part, even before they can vote. I congratulate the environmental clubs in schools, such as the Sandgate environment committee, based out of Sandgate District State High School, the Craigslea State High School environmental committee, Mount Alvernia College, Mary MacKillop College, Northside Christian College and Wavell State High School, all of whom are currently involved in the 2019 Brisbane City Council's Green Heart Schools Program. Like these Lilley volunteers, I recognise that protecting our environment is something we must act on every day, and today I am supporting this bill as part of our fight to protect what we love.
Australia is a proud signatory of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. We first gave effect to our obligations under the convention through the passage of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. Since then, numerous regulations and the Navigation Act 2012 have also ensured that Australia meets its international obligations. MARPOL provides for a global cap of 0.5 per cent on the sulphur content of fuel used on board ships. This cap will come into effect on 1 January 2020, as the member for Stirling detailed before me. The International Maritime Organization has also agreed to a ban on the carriage of fuel that does not comply with the new cap on the high seas from 1 March 2020.
This legislation gives effect to both of these new requirements and ensures that they're legally enforceable in Australian waters. Ships burn heavy sulphur fuel oil, which releases air pollutants. Shipping currently contributes approximately 13 per cent sulphur oxide and approximately 15 per cent nitrous oxide to global emissions. This new cap is necessary to help combat global emissions, stem the growth of sulphur emissions and reduce acid rain. Any breaches of the carriage ban as contained in this legislation will be subject to the same penalties as the use of non-compliant fuel, which will remove the incentive for ships to switch to the higher sulphur content fuel on the high seas. All international shipping is required to comply with the new fuel obligations contained within MARPOL. This legislation and the implementation of the MARPOL obligations are necessary to allow Australian authorities the power to enforce the convention in Australian waters.
As an island continent and trading nation, Australia cannot isolate itself from the impacts of marine pollution and any potential increases in the costs of marine fuel oil. International shipping covered by this new cap carries 99 per cent of Australia's trade by volume. Most large-scale transport providers have long-term fuel contracts in place and/or hedge against any fluctuations in the price of fuel. Given these arrangements, it is difficult to predict what impact, if any, the likely increase in the price of marine fuel will have on goods purchased in Australia. This legislation also better aligns the POPS Act with MARPOL by providing an exemption for naval and government vessels, and clarifies the definition of a number of key terms provided for in the current act.
Labor is a proud supporter of Australian shipping. During his time as minister and shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, the current Leader of the Opposition outlined a number of measures that would prevent further undercutting of the Australian flagged fleet.
Shipping is an important national strategic industry. Maintaining a domestic shipping industry is critical for an island nation. Ships are efficient, require no built infrastructure for navigation and are the least energy intensive of all freight transport nodes. Over 99 per cent of trade to and from Australia is carried by ship. Australia has the fourth-largest shipping freight task in the world. Australia is inherently and increasingly reliant on international shipping for our coastal trade, underlying the critical importance of international conventions to the protection of our coastline. With the expansion of Australia's commodity trade, international shipping is becoming busier. Cruise shipping is also growing rapidly, delivering more international tourists to Australia and around the coast.
Labor has a proud history of supporting the vital role Australian maritime industries play in securing our economic, environmental and national security interests. We had committed to revitalising the industry if we were successful at the May election. We would have stopped the abuse of temporary licences that has occurred under this government and in breach of the existing legislation, and ensured that the national interest was prioritised when it comes to licensing foreign ships to work in Australia. We would have worked towards creating a strategic fleet of Australian flagged vessels that could be called upon in areas of strategic importance to the Australian economy, such as the distribution of liquid fuel. Unlike this government, Labor supports Australian maritime workers and Australian flagged vessels. Australia needs a vibrant maritime industry that serves the nation's economic, environmental and national security interests, and we want to see that vibrant industry serve our shipping needs, create profit for industry, secure a strategic set of maritime skills, and provide jobs and opportunities for our young people.
I want to speak about the Moreton Bay oil spill—because it is solid bulk cargoes like oils and fuels that are occasionally spilt into the sea, coastal and inland waters in large volumes as a consequence of infrastructure and transportation failures. On 11 March 2009, in one of Australia's worst oil disasters, we saw the container ship Pacific Adventurer lose 31 containers overboard and leak approximately 270 tonnes of bunker oil into Moreton Bay, blackening beaches on Moreton and Bribie islands and along the Sunshine Coast. Fifty-six kilometres of beach from the coastline of Brisbane right through to the Sunshine Coast were affected by this oil spill. The oil slick damaged beaches, rocky reefs and wetlands on Moreton Island, and beaches and mangrove wetlands between Bribie Island and Coolum on the Sunshine Coast. Premier Anna Bligh declared the area a disaster zone. The captain of the Pacific Adventurer and the four companies involvedwere each charged with one count of discharging oil into the ocean. The captain faced additional charges of failing to notify authorities. The ship was sailing north from Port Kembla in New South Wales when it hit rough weather off the south-east coast of Queensland. More than 30 containers fell overboard, piercing the ship's fuel tanks and spilling 270,000 litres of oil into the ocean. Prosecutors alleged that each defendant was reckless, that the ship was not properly maintained and that ship lashings were faulty. Ultimately, the defendants were fined and convictions were recorded. The clean-up and compensation bill amounted to around $31 million. But what was the ultimate cost to the quality of our water in Moreton Bay; the health, life and vitality of the animals; and the flora and fauna that live there?
In conclusion, Queensland's streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries and open coastal waters are essential to maintaining the health of our environment and our quality of life. Preventing or reducing water pollution improves water quality, and it helps to underpin our healthy natural ecosystems that stand at risk. Moreton Bay contributes approximately $7.6 billion of value to the South-East Queensland economy each year. The bay indirectly employs thousands of people, and it provides countless social and lifestyle benefits to our community.
South-East Queensland's unique lifestyle depends on healthy waterways. This is why acting now is so important. More than 3.6 million people visited Moreton Bay in 2017, only slightly fewer than the combined 3.8 million who visited the southern Great Barrier Reef, the Whitsundays and Mackay. Community groups in Lilley already put so much thought, time and care into preserving our local waterways, and I thank them all for their service to our part of the world. This is a bill that helps protect Australian waterways and upholds our international obligations, but I look forward to doing more.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (17:34): I thank the member for Ballarat, the member for Lilley and, of course, the member for Stirling for their contributions to this debate. I have put myself in the unenviable position of being just in front of the member for Kingsford Smith, who no doubt will surpass anything I have to say in this chamber, especially on this critical topic.
I am, however, somewhat confused by what the member for Lilley said when she claimed that Labor are in favour of a domestic maritime fleet for Australia, because when they were in power they moved legislation that saw the number of maritime vessels under the Australian flag decimated. I can't understand how on one hand Labor can say that they're in favour of it but on the other hand introduce policies that see our fleet decline to virtually nothing.
I rise to speak, though, on this important bill, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019. The motivation behind this amendment bill is cleaner air and cleaner oceans. I am therefore proud to speak in support of this bill today. My electorate of Mackellar is home to some of Australia's most beautiful coastal gems, including Long Reef Aquatic Reserve and various pristine breaches that draw thousands of visitors every day. It is my duty to act and speak in a way which advocates for the health and sustainability of these places.
The people of the Northern Beaches of Sydney pride themselves on their clean beaches, their relaxed atmosphere and the care they take in looking after the community they live in. This wonderful community deserves a voice in this parliament, and it is only right and proper that I represent their views on environmental responsibility and environmental sustainability in this parliament on this day. This bill will have a direct impact on my constituents' home beaches, with their sandstone and whitewash and therefore is a matter of utmost importance to me. My electorate values environmental responsibility and sustainability very highly, and therefore I must express my complete support for this bill and the motivations lying behind it. Fresh air and thriving oceans must be high on Australia's list of priorities, because without these it will not be possible to survive. The vast majority of Australia's population can be found in coastal areas, and hence the health and cleanliness of our air and oceans has to be a focal point for discussion in this House.
It is clear that this bill serves to implement the maximum allowable sulphur content in ship fuel oil, which the International Maritime Organization will make universal come January 2020. By lowering the high sulphur content in ship fuel oil, this government is committing itself to a vision of environmental sustainability and caring for the majority of its population, who live along our beautiful coastline. This amendment bill is also necessary to fulfil our duty under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, to which Australia is a signatory. We must continue to uphold the values which we have signed up to, and we must continue to foster our great relationship with the prevention of pollution from ships convention in order to progress in reducing emissions into our great oceans and waterways.
This amendment bill also allows for the advancement of environmentally protective technology. This comes in the form of air-pollution cleaning systems, known as scrubbers or EGC systems. Such cleaning apparatus remove toxic and damaging components, such as sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides, from the air. If untreated, these harmful pollutants can cause high levels of air pollution and thus pose a large threat to our beautiful coastline and ocean based ecosystems. The bill provides that ships can only continue to use high-level sulphur fuel oil if the boat is fitted with a scrubber or EGC system, which means that the overall emissions from the boat are lowered to the equivalent of using 0.5 per cent sulphur content oil fuels; hence the bill supports increased air quality and the preservation of our ecosystems. From 1 January 2020, it is hoped that nearly all boats and ships will be held accountable for the levels of sulphur pollution and air pollution they emit.
Australia is a category B IMO Council member, hence we must align ourselves with initiatives that reduce ship pollution and ensure our maritime regulatory framework complies with global standards. It is important to iterate that 99 per cent of Australia's trade is carried by international shipping, by volume. That means that our country, an open and free country, a country that trades with other nations and shares the jewels of our great land, has one of the largest interests in international seaborne trade and therefore it is imperative that we continue to foster our relationships with the international maritime trade community and promote a progressive and up-to-date approach to trade regulations and frameworks, because that is what the Liberal Party have always done and that is what we will do here today.
It is also of great importance that Australia not isolate itself from the global trade community. As the sulphur cap is expected to be implemented globally on 1 January 2020, Australia will be impacted by the change whether or not we enforce the rule in our own regulations. It is very important to also consider that our largest trading partner, China, has already implemented the 0.5 per cent cap on sulphur content in fuel oils for all ports and sea territory since the beginning of 2019. We must follow; we must lead. If we do not pass the caps, it will make us look as though we do not care about the increasing rate of air pollution and increased emissions into our airspace over our water jurisdictions. We must be clear to those we trade with that we demand these changes. We must work with our global trade partners and therefore should recognise the benefits of this bill and how it will protect our great climate and those who inhabit it.
The underlying push behind this bill is that Australians will be the ultimate benefactors of this change. Our coastal communities and sea life will see major benefits and rewards that come with cleaner air and cleaner oceans. These benefits relate to both health and the environmental factors which increase the life of our planet and ensure our oceans can be utilised by future generations for millennia to come.
Ocean acidification is an important issue in today's world and it is an issue that we as a coastal population must take very seriously. Toxic and unhealthy emissions, such as sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide, can contribute to increased levels of ocean acidification, and thus present a danger to our marine ecosystems and ultimately to the temperature and cleanliness of our oceans.
This amendment bill aligns with the Morrison government's policy on protecting Australia's wildlife and protecting the environment in which its citizens live. Therefore, it is only logical that we follow along with this push to cut out unnecessary air pollution arising from high-sulphur-content fuel oils being burnt to propel boats in our waters. It is from this that I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the positives of this amendment bill greatly outweigh any drawbacks.
The notion of obligation is also a major necessity in the debate on this amendment bill. Australia is a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and therefore we must follow through with our agreement to the terms and conditions of the convention. This is the main international convention for addressing pollution from ships caused to the marine environment from both operational and accidental causes. The convention was first adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 1973 and came into force in Australia in 1988. It must be acknowledged by the House that we implement the terms of the convention through the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 and the Navigation Act of 2012.
The bill in front of us today primarily proposes amendments to these acts to implement amendments to annex VI of MARPOL in relation to the new sulphur requirements. The point here is that we have signed an agreement and we must view it as an obligation on our part to adjust our regulations and to replicate and enforce the regulations that have been put forward by the convention and the International Maritime Organization.
A key aspect of this amendment is whether the change will be welcomed by the bill's key stakeholders. In response to this, it is very pleasing to note that the Australian maritime industry has openly expressed its support for Australia proposing to legislate and enforce the implementation of the 2020 sulphur cap in order to maintain a level global playing field with other major trading partners. It is reassuring to know that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority will be the body responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the newly proposed sulphur regulatory regime being introduced on 1 January 2020. When noncompliance to the amended bill is found, appropriate action will be taken by AMSA. This action could include detaining a ship at port or even the commencement of legal proceedings. On top of this, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 already includes penalties, which the member for Lilley generously spoke of, for the use of fuel with sulphur content higher than the prescribed limit. It must be noted that the amendment bill will offer similar penalties for the carriage of high-sulphur fuel from 1 March 2020 onward.
With regard to identifying noncompliance, I support the process by which the AMSA propose to ensure that boats carry sulphur-compliant fuel. Port state control officers will conduct ship inspections in line with usual port state control practices, which means thorough inspections of incoming and exiting boats. This will result in adequate protection and reasonable rates of detection. This amendment does not introduce any new regulatory burdens on the industry. It needs to pass this House for Australia to be ready to enforce the sulphur cap, as proposed, on 1 January 2020.
It is said that to creep furtively is to prowl. This legislation does none of that. We are being very clear about what we as a parliament and as a government seek to achieve and wish to achieve. Therefore, it is right to conclude that this carriage ban aims to discourage ships from emitting unnecessary amounts of harmful fuels and toxins into our air by burning high-sulphur fuel oil. The key aims of this bill are to ensure that we will level the global playing field for international shipping and to protect our jurisdictional waters from air pollution. I speak in support of the bill today to show my backing for highlighting the importance of environmental sustainability and the great responsibility that we hold—as the government and as the parliament—for ensuring our citizens have fresh air to breathe for generations to come. We do not prowl into this debate; we stride proudly into it, and we will reduce pollution.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (17:47): Labor is a proud supporter of Australian shipping, and shipping is a vitally important strategic industry. Maintaining our domestic shipping industry is critical for an island nation like Australia. Over 99 per cent of trade to and from Australia is carried by ships, and the electorate of Kingsford Smith, which I represent, is home to one of the nation's largest container ports—a deepwater sea port at Port Botany, located in Botany Bay. Botany Bay also has a gas terminal and a fuel terminal. As a result, unfortunately, Botany Bay is one of the most polluted areas in Australia's capital cities, based on data from the National Pollution Inventory.
Of course, ships burn heavy sulphur fuel oil that releases air pollutants, and we know that shipping currently contributes approximately 13 per cent sulphur dioxide and approximately 15 per cent nitrous oxide to global emissions. This bill, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019 gives effect to new international requirements to cap the sulphur content of fuel used on board ships and ensures the requirements are legally enforceable in Australian waters. Australia first gave effect to obligations under MARPOL, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, with the passage of Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act in 1983. The Navigation Act 2012 also includes clauses that implement subsequent agreements reached through MARPOL.
A new global cap of 0.5 per cent sulphur content of fuel used on ships will come into effect on 1 January 2020. This new lower cap is enforced through that international convention. The prevention of pollution from ships act was amended in 2010 to prescribe the new sulphur limit in marine orders. In October 2018, the International Maritime Organization agreed that from 1 March 2020 ships will also be banned from carrying fuel with a higher sulphur content on the high seas. This legislation is necessary to ensure that Australian law and regulations reflect those new international requirements, and to enable the enforcement of the requirements in Australian waters.
This particular bill amends the primary legislation to allow ships to use noncompliant fuel from 1 January 2020, if they're fitted with a scrubber or other equivalent compliance methods to reduce sulphur from their emissions to below the prescribed limit, and implements the global carriage ban on high-sulphur fuel from 1 March 2020. This is necessary legislation for Australia, because it will help to combat global emissions that stem from the growth of sulphur emissions, and it will also help reduce the incidence of acid rain.
For the community that I represent, legislation like this is vitally important because, as I mentioned earlier, we have a very busy container shipping port with both oil fuels and gas being shipped into Botany Bay. As a result, as I mentioned earlier, Botany Bay is unfortunately one of the most polluted areas in the country. Botany Bay is not distant from residential housing; in fact, it is on the doorstep of it. Many people in our community in the electorate of Kingsford Smith live quite close to this important infrastructure. So it's vitally important that legislation like this, that improves the environment and makes sure that Australia meets international commitments, is passed by this parliament. That's why Labor is moving this amendment and supporting this legislation.
What will not help in the area of Botany Bay is the New South Wales Liberal government's proposal to build a massive cruise ship terminal in Yarra Bay. Yarra Bay is one of the most picturesque areas that is left on the northern side of Botany Bay. Most of the northern side of Botany Bay is taken up with heavy industry: you have Sydney Airport; you have the container port; you have the gas terminal; you have the Elgas Cavern there as well; and you have the Caltex fuel terminal and other container logistics support businesses that exist on the breakwall opposite Yarra Bay. When a lot of this infrastructure was built, it required the bay to be dredged. When the third runway was built back in the 1990s, Botany Bay was again dredged. When the Hutchison extension to the container terminal at Botany Bay was built, again, the bay was dredged. As I mentioned, heavy industry at Caltex and Elgas exists on the cusp of the bay as well.
When those dredging events occur, there is scientific evidence that they do harm to the marine life and, particularly, some endangered species that exist in the area—most notably the weedy sea dragon colony that exists around Bear Island and the pygmy pipehorse colony that exists in those waters as well. Yet the Liberal government is pushing ahead with another proposal that will require the dredging of the northern side of Botany Bay. That is why the community that I represent is strongly opposed to this proposal to build a cruise ship terminal in Yarra Bay. It would be devastating for many aspects of that local community. The local Aboriginal community of La Perouse, who have called those waters their home for tens of thousands of years, are opposed to this proposal because it would mean that the terminal would potentially be built in traditional fishing areas—areas where the Aboriginal people have been fishing for tens of thousands of years as a food source for the local community. That is why the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council has passed a resolution opposing this proposal.
I mentioned the dredging that would occur, which would be a disaster for the local environment. I have consulted with a number of scientists about this proposal and they tell me that the area around Yarra Bay is a seagrass sanctuary that is beginning to regenerate after recent dredging events. So why would you risk that regeneration with another proposal that will involve dredging of the bay? The Yarra Bay Sailing Club, which has been on that picturesque beach for decades and has been a nursery for many sailors throughout the country, would have its sailing course affected if this particular proposal goes ahead. And, of course, more cruise ships means more large pollutants into the local atmosphere—notwithstanding this legislation that we hopefully pass here today—and it will also mean increased traffic for the local community with transport in and out.
A cruise terminal doesn't make sense in Yarra Bay. The only reason that it is proposed is that the previous Prime Minister, the former member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, ruled out Garden Island as the venue for another cruise ship terminal in Sydney. The New South Wales government established a cruise industry reference group and they asked them to explore the alternatives to Circular Quay in Sydney for another cruise ship terminal. They came up with, as a priority, Garden Island. It makes perfect sense. With Garden Island, the infrastructure is there, and there is plenty of space for the Navy to coexist with these cruise ships were it to occur there. That was their recommendation to the government—that Garden Island be used for the cruise ship industry as well. It makes perfect sense.
If you're travelling on a cruise ship in and out of Sydney—with no disrespect to Botany Bay—you don't want to go to Yarra Bay, where you would get off the cruise ship and see, 'Welcome to Sydney; here's one of our largest cemeteries and here's our biggest container port and oil terminal.' You want to go into Sydney Harbour and see the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge and the like. That is why it made perfect sense for Garden Island to be the primary option. But then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ruled out Garden Island as an option for the cruise ship terminal—I suspect because it would have been in his backyard and would have destroyed his view from Point Piper—and the Morrison government is continuing with that decision.
So the New South Wales government have now decided, 'We'll put it in Yarra Bay and we'll destroy whatever semblance of beauty and originality there is left in Yarra Bay and the northern end of Botany Bay,' which is an historic place, I might add, and not only for the Aboriginal community. There's plenty of evidence that La Perouse set foot on that particular area of Botany Bay, as did Governor Bligh on coming to Australia.
It is well known that the cities of Newcastle and Wollongong would also love a cruise ship terminal in their harbours because of the economic benefits that that would bring to their community. I know that the member for Newcastle in the state parliament has campaigned for something like this. So we say to the New South Wales government: don't bring more pollution to Botany Bay; look at the alternatives of Garden Island, Newcastle and Wollongong for another cruise ship terminal.
Turning back to the bill, Australia is inherently and increasingly reliant on international shipping for our coastal trade, underlying the critical importance of international conventions to the protection of our coastline. With the expansion of Australia's commodity trade, international shipping is becoming busier; yet there are now only 14 flagged vessels operating domestically and internationally. Less than half of one per cent of Australia's seaborne trade is carried by Australian flagged ships. The high levels of use of temporary licences that have occurred on this government's watch has enabled foreign flagged ships to do the work of Australian maritime workers, and the government has done nothing to stop the abuse of temporary licences to ensure that the national interest is prioritised when licensing foreign ships to work in Australia. There has also been concern about the effects on the environment of internationally flagged ships—flag-of-convenience ships—and there have been cases, I understand, around the Great Barrier Reef where there's been damage caused by foreign flagged vessels. So it's not only the issues of Australia's sovereignty, the protection of the rights and working conditions of Australian workers, and the protection and promotion of Australian jobs in our shipping line but also the issue of protecting our environment.
Unlike this government, Labor support the Australian maritime workers and Australian flagged vessels and we've been consistent in our approach to that. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have wilfully undermined the policy settings put in place by the Labor government and have failed to offer an alternative vision for the Australian maritime sector. In 2015 the then Minister for Transport and Infrastructure introduced legislation which sought to rip up the Labor government reforms that aimed to protect Australian shipping. They've missed the opportunity to create a strategic fleet of Australian flagged vessels that could be called upon in key areas of importance to the Australian economy such as the importation and distribution of liquid fuels.
Australia needs a vibrant maritime industry that serves the nation's economic, environmental and national security interests. We want to see a vibrant industry that serves the nation's shipping needs, secures the strategic set of maritime skills, and provides jobs and opportunities for more Australians. If this government were fair dinkum about Australian jobs, they'd support Labor in our calls to establish a strategic fleet of Australian flagged vessels, manned and operated by Australian workers under Australian conditions with Australian environmental protections in place. If they were fair dinkum about Australian shipping, they'd support Labor's reforms in this area.
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (18:02): I rise to speak on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019—and I'm glad I don't have to say that 10 times fast! This bill is an important bill. The reduction of sulphur content in fuels is an important reform, and is not only one that industry has had to deal with but also one that has a significant impact on residents, especially in my electorate of Macnamara. If you go down to the iconic beachfront in Port Melbourne and you land in Station Pier, you might not only enjoy one of the great restaurants that we have on offer on Station Pier but you'll also see the iconic Spirit of Tasmania, the TT-Line fleet that connects the two finest parts of the country—and I see the shadow minister nodding away there at the front table. Station Pier is actually Melbourne's third-largest terminal. After Tullamarine and Avalon, it is the place where the greatest number of people land inside Melbourne and it is a real gateway for our city. But it is also a place where ships come, and, over time, they have emitted a significant amount of sulphur content into the air, and residents have come to see me about that.
I especially want to note in this chamber the work of the Beacon Cove Neighbourhood Association and their members, who have advocated for a reduction in sulphur content. One of the things, interestingly, with Station Pier is that there's been a differentiation between the amount of sulphur at Station Pier versus the amount of sulphur content that's allowed in Sydney Harbour. While we have been lagging behind on 3.5 per cent for quite some time, in Sydney they've enjoyed the low rate of 0.1 per cent in Sydney Harbour. Not to get too competitive with Sydney, but this is a significant difference in the amount of sulphur in the air, and residents certainly have noticed the difference. This change to bring us in line with the international obligations under MARPOL is a good step, and one that will be welcomed by the residents in my electorate. I commend the government for drafting this legislation and bringing it before the House.
I will finish with this one point. While 0.5 is a significant step forward and a significant improvement on a 3.5 per cent sulphur content, given there is still a difference between the level that is allowed in Sydney Harbour and the level that's allowed at Station Pier in and around the port, we continue to work with the government and with industry to move eventually towards aligning the sulphur content. I would like to acknowledge TT-Line, who over 2021 are bringing in two new Spirit ships—
Ms Collins: They're going to be late.
Mr BURNS: Oh, they're going to be late. Well, we won't hold our breath. Maybe I'll scratch that from Hansard! But eventually that change will actually have an effect on the air quality from the fuel as well—one that will be welcomed by residents. I also want to acknowledge the Port of Melbourne, which has been very good about communicating, liaising and speaking with me and residents about ways that they can make sure that the air quality is monitored.
Finally, the last point I want to make is that air quality is a crucial aspect for many residents. Given it is under the federal government's jurisdiction to legislate for the sulphur content on ships, it would be very helpful if the federal government also assisted in monitoring air quality around these areas to ensure that residents who are living in close proximity aren't exposed to these sorts of high rates of sulphur and other chemicals. But overall this is an important reform that will be welcomed by those in coastal electorates such as Macnamara, and I again want to thank all of those from the Beacon Cove residents association who have worked with me over many meetings and who have hosted me in their homes very graciously to work on behalf of other residents to improve air quality on our iconic Station Pier. I think that this is a good step, and we will keep the work up and keep working with the government on this reform.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport) (18:07): I'd like to start by thanking all the members in the House who have made a contribution to this debate this afternoon. From 1 January 2020 ships worldwide must use fuel that does not exceed 0.5 per cent sulphur by weight. This global sulphur standard has been adopted by the International Maritime Organization and is prescribed in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, also referred to as MARPOL, to which Australia is a signatory. This is a substantial reduction from the current 3.5 per cent limit on sulphur emissions for shipping globally and will have major environmental and health benefits. Sulphur dioxides are one of the major contributors to respiratory illnesses and increased rates of lung cancer. They also result in acid rain, which damages crops, livestock and infrastructure and contributes to ocean acidification.
The growth prospects for maritime global trade continue to be strong, so sulphur dioxide pollution from ships will continue to increase if no action is taken to restrict these emissions. The cumulative impacts of air pollution even away from the coast and ships add up and have economic costs. The Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 already legislates for new sulphur limits in 2020. However, further provisions are required to ensure consistency with global implementation of that sulphur cap. The Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Air Pollution) Bill 2019 amends the act to ensure that Australia has appropriate legislation arrangements in place to implement a new global sulphur standard on ship fuel from the year 2020.
The bill will primarily (1) allow ships to use high-sulphur fuel oil with sulphur content above 0.5 per cent by weight from 1 January 2020 if they are fitted with an exhaust gas cleaning system or equivalent compliance method to reduce those sulphur emissions below the prescribed limits and (2) implement a global carriage ban on high-sulphur fuel oil from 1 March 2020. These amendments are necessary to meet Australia's international obligations under MARPOL.
The bill also seeks to make other minor administrative amendments to the POTS act. They are to exempt naval and foreign government vessels from the provisions of the POTS act, in alignment with MARPOL, which is current practice, and to clarify obligations of fuel oil suppliers to provide greater certainty to the shipping industry.
The Australian government has consulted widely with the Australian maritime industry, fuel oil suppliers and ports over the last 18 months in preparation for the new sulphur regulatory regime. The majority of the Australian domestic fleet already uses fuel that meets the 2020 sulphur standards. The industry is supportive of Australia's legislation and consistently enforcing implementation of the 2020 sulphur cap to ensure a global level playing field. I add that five or 10 ships currently run on LNG and are refuelled at the liquefaction projects off the coast of Western Australia. I believe another 10 orders for LNG ships have been placed. Ship manufacturers are busy getting those ships underway.
A consistent global standard reduces inefficiencies for the international shipping industry in potentially having to comply with multiple local regulatory regimes. The Australian government remains committed to ensuring that the Australian maritime regulatory framework remains up-to-date and fit for purpose to protect our maritime environment, coastal communities and trade. I commend this bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport) (18:13): 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.
to which the following amendment was moved:
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".
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (18:14): It's my pleasure, in continuation, to conclude my comments on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019. I begin this evening by asking the government exactly what the costs of this bill are, because they're not contained inside the legislation. It is not outlined. Estimates are that, for gold-standard drug testing, you're looking at a cost of $550 to $950 per test. We're looking at a trial here, and there are significant costs, I would argue.
If you go to the leaked talking points that we all saw this week and you look under 'Welfare', you'll see a quote from the government that says, 'As such, the system must be targeted, sustainable and in line with the expectations of the taxpayers who fund it.' That's a direct quote, talking about welfare. Yet, if I go to the system that is the provision of Newstart, with mutual obligation and what that entails, we'd have to look at the costs and the efficacy of that system, because, of course, the minute you're in receipt of Newstart or youth allowance, you're expected to have a jobs plan and to attend jobactive.
So let's have a look at those costs. For jobactive, we are spending $1.5 billion a year. Let's look at the efficacy of that. Eighteen per cent of employers were using the predecessor to jobactive, Job Services Australia, but in 2018 that's dropped to four per cent. Four per cent of employers are using jobactive services to seek recruitment. On top of that, we've got reports of extraordinary churn happening inside this system, where jobactive services are receiving multiple payments for placing the same person into different jobs. Nearly 100,000 people had between three and six job placements each in three years. That churn means a payment to jobactive services every time someone's placed in employment, but clearly the employment's not permanent. That churn is continuing, raising the cost of these programs every year. Yet part of what we're talking about here is the efficacy of welfare and the idea that imposing drug testing is some kind of improvement in this system.
What other systems do we need to look at? We can look at Work for the Dole, which costs about $1.7 billion per annum, and the efficacy of that program. The highlight is a two per cent increased likelihood that people would move to employment, yet it's part of mutual obligation. I don't know that the Australian public quite understand that the days of people being in receipt of a Newstart allowance or one of its many predecessors, what we commonly call the dole—and obviously Work for the Dole is still a prevalent term, derogatory as it is—and sitting around the beach are over. They're not on holidays. They have mutual obligation requirements where they are required to be applying for jobs every week of every year. They are required to have a jobs plan. They are mandated at certain ages to attend Work for the Dole and do 25 hours a week, or we could go to CDP in rural communities, where they're required to do double the hours. These people are actively either getting themselves ready for work or working for that Newstart allowance.
Then we could go to one of the other parts of this program, PaTH, the internship program, at a cost of $840 million a year. In my electorate, that means kids are in receipt of Newstart and companies like Hungry Jack's are being paid money by the government to put people not in a real job but in a supposed internship at Hungry Jack's—in other words, very cheap labour for large companies and franchises all over this country. Those people are showing up and attending. That's mutual obligation.
For those who have this image of people on welfare doing nothing, I say: the exemptions around these programs are for single parents who are caring for a child under eight. They're exempt. Well, they're pretty busy during their days. People over 55 may be exempt if they apply to be exempt, but they're required to volunteer in the community. So can we just get this straight: there's no-one on Newstart sitting around and pulling on a bong in their garage. I'm going to say it out loud. So let's forget about the notion that this drug testing is being driven by anything other than putting one more layer on top of our social security system to punish the poor. I have to say this out loud.
Today, St Vincent de Paul have produced their second Households in the dark report. We heard the member for Corio earlier in the day during 90-second statements citing the figures for Corio. I was shocked and taken aback. We all knew that electricity prices were spiking, but the impact on our communities is extraordinary. We're talking about Logan City being one of these trial sites. Logan City is a lot like my community. It's an extraordinarily similar place in our country. I had a look at the figures today. Shocked as I was by the Corio figures, the raised disconnections across the last 10 years in the suburb of Werribee were the highest in Victoria, at 10,000 households. In Hoppers Crossing, it was 8,000 households. These are working families. These are people who are trying to live on the welfare support system. The completed disconnections for Werribee were 5,000 households. Five thousand households have had their electricity cut off in the last three years. In Hoppers Crossing it was 4,000 households. That's not even as bad as it gets. It can get even worse than that, because they also listed the repeated disconnections. This is households that have had their electricity cut off more than once. There were over 600 in Werribee and nearly 500 in Hoppers Crossing. These are real people with real lives, as are the people we're talking about that this government now wants to put through a drug-testing regime.
This government needs to get on with improving the economy. This is a distraction. This legislation is a dead cat that's come back for the third time because this government doesn't want to face up to the fact that it's got no answers and it's got no plan. I do not support this piece of legislation, because it flies in the face of the evidence. It goes against the advice of a long list of experts in the field. It is demeaning and humiliating. It is absolutely uncosted. It will not create one single job for the 1.9 million Australians who are looking for work or for more work. This government needs to get a plan and get this economy moving so our people can find a job and not have to rely on our welfare system.
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (18:22): I rise today in support of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019 for a number of reasons but, principally, because it's good legislation and, secondly, because my home town, the city of Mandurah, is one of three trial locations that will receive the benefit of this legislation. The three are Canterbury Bankstown in New South Wales—an area where I grew up, in fact—Logan in Queensland and Mandurah in Western Australia, which sits right at the heart of my electorate of Canning. This is a trial. It's really important to note that. We do have a drug problem in Mandurah and, from speaking with many locals, I know they are very keen for innovative solutions, and this is just one measure of many which I think will make for a better community in Canning.
But let's get back to first principles. This is not about punitive measures. This is not about denying people welfare or hurting disadvantaged people. This is actually about helping people get off welfare and into a job. That's really important because employment gives people meaning, gives people purpose and gives people dignity. At the heart of this legislation is a desire to see more Australians, especially those struggling with drug and alcohol addiction, get into work. That wouldn't just help them; it would help the communities in which they reside.
This government is about creating jobs. We've already created a record number of jobs—1.4 million—but the sad reality is that there are people who will always have a barrier before them so long as they're addicted to drugs and alcohol, and that's what this legislation seeks to help them with.
Evidence from the 2016 National Drugs Strategy Household Survey shows that the unemployed were 3.1 times more likely to use methamphetamines and 1.5 times more likely to use cannabis than the employed—and these are just straight-up facts. Further evidence released by the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Monash University shows that Newstart recipients have four times the relative risk of reporting alcohol and drug problems than people who are working. I cited locals in my community. We've done a number of surveys ourselves. There's also been national polling, and we have overwhelming support for this. People want to see Mandurah cleaned up. We're in the process of doing that.
The federal government's already been leading this. I'm very proud of the Peel Health Hub, which was opened late last year. We provided several million dollars towards that, and what it does is seek to prevent at-risk Australians aged 12 to 24 from getting on drugs and alcohol. We're already preventing that. This is designed to target another group of people who need help and help them get into the workforce. I shouldn't use the word 'target', but it is designed to apply to a certain group of people, and I think it's good in that sense.
Drug testing is not something that is unusual in Australia. My office was drug tested last year. We all took a drug test. We were all clean, obviously, but we wanted to show our local community that, like the City of Mandurah employees, like the many FIFO workers in our community, we also were prepared to take a drug test. A few businesses around Australia already do random drug testing with their employees. Fire and Rescue NSW, Department of Home Affairs, Sydney Airport, Qantas, BHP Billiton and, as I mentioned, the City of Mandurah already do random drug testing. I know the ADF does random drug testing—I did that overseas. This is not something that's unusual. It's actually designed to help people who really do need help.
What about the effectiveness of the trial? As I said, the government is looking for new ways to address the devastating impact of drugs, and that's why I think it's worth having a try. This is an Australian first. It might not work, but we've got to have a go. When it comes to helping people addicted to drugs, we need to be open minded and we need to try new things.
Another objection is whether there is any evidence to support drug testing of welfare recipients. Drug testing of certain welfare recipients has been legislated in around 15 states in the United States of America on either a fully rolled-out or trial basis. At this time, evaluation of the effectiveness of the drug testing of welfare recipients in other countries has generally not been conducted or is not available. That's why this measure is a trial—it is just a trial. I tell you, there are a lot of desperate people in Mandurah. I've spoken to family members who've lost children, who have children who are addicted. People are pretty open minded, and I think this is a good way to go.
People have said this is punitive and that somehow it would take people's welfare from them. It actually wouldn't at all. In fact, it would quarantine their income, which is a really important aspect. It does not change the amount of money they receive, only the way in which they receive their payments. The majority of a jobseeker's normal payment is quarantined to pay bills and purchase goods—about 80 per cent—and the remaining amount is paid into their regular bank account and can be accessed as cash. That's if they test positive the first time. Jobseekers who test positive to a second test will be supported by a local case manager to access treatment and support services. This is a really important part and something that I'm very glad to read in the legislation. A $10 million treatment fund will boost drug treatment capacity at trial sites, ensuring jobseekers can access the treatment they need.
As I said, this measure is not about punishing people; it is about assisting people to pursue treatment to address their substance abuse issues. Again, at the heart of this is the principle of mutual obligation. Taxpayers fund welfare, and we want to make sure money is being spent responsibly. We want to make sure that children whose parents are struggling with drug addiction are being fed and having their basic needs taken care of, and that's why quarantining 80 per cent of their income, so it can only be spent on the essentials, is a good thing.
To get back to what I was discussing before, in Mandurah we do have a crime and drug problem. Our community is changing, but I'm pretty confident that we have local support and that's why I have been very supportive of this legislation. I look forward to this bill passing into law and to this trial being rolled out. We will see what the results say at the end of it, but I look forward to this happening in Mandurah.
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (18:30): I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019. This week is Anti-Poverty Week and I am disgusted that, instead of discussing what we could be doing to address poverty in this country and to create jobs, we are discussing yet another attempt by this government to demonise and penalise social security recipients. This is not the first time that Labor have fought against the drug testing of Newstart recipients under this government; actually, it is the third time. We're proud to again stand with the vulnerable in our community, and with the experts and the doctors in opposition to this disgraceful excuse for a policy. Perhaps the worst part is that those opposite pretend it is about helping people—as the member for Canning has just done—but it is not.
This is a proposal in search of a problem. There is no evidence to suggest that people receiving social security are using drugs. In fact, a trial in New Zealand found that rates of drug use among social security recipients were less than one per cent, much lower than in the average population. I'm not sure how the government thinks Newstart recipients can even afford drugs. Newstart forces you to live $1,000 below the poverty line. It hardly pays for food or housing, let alone illicit drugs. Does it help people get off drugs? No, because that is not even the genuine aim of this policy. It isn't about genuinely supporting people to overcome drug addiction. This will just put pressure on already stretched services, pushing people with genuine problems who genuinely want help further down huge waiting lists for rehab and other support.
I want to talk about the mechanics of this bill because, as they say, the devil is in the detail—or lack thereof. And if you need any more proof that this proposal is all about ideology and has no substance, it is this: the government only started to put together any detail about this proposal when Labor started asking questions about it in the previous parliament. This is not about removing barriers to finding work, as the leaked talking points might tell you; it is a thought bubble from the darkest part of this conservative and cruel government. If passed, this bill will require 5,000 Newstart and youth allowance recipients in Canterbury-Bankstown, Mandurah and Logan to submit to random drug tests, and the trial will run for two years.
For two years, people in the outer suburbs of Sydney, Perth and Queensland will be the Morrison government's guinea pigs. If recipients refuse to participate in the trial, their application for social security will be denied and they will not be allowed to reapply for four weeks. So, potentially, they will have nothing to live on for four weeks. Recipients placed on the trial will have to submit to saliva, urine and hair follicle tests in a Centrelink office or at a nearby location on a random basis. The tests will be designed to detect cannabis, heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. If a person tests positive, they will be placed on income management through the BasicsCard. That means 80 per cent of their payment will be quarantined to pay bills and purchase goods, and only 20 per cent will be put into their bank account—because the government don't think that people on social security can manage their own money. Well, they can. They're very good at it, because the payments are so low that they have to be extremely clever to even get by. The government move to impose restrictive income management techniques such as these at every opportunity, but never in their blue-ribbon inner city electorates. They only demonise the poor.
If a person fails a drug test, a follow-up test will be conducted within 25 days. If the person fails a second test during the trial, they will be referred to a medical service for recommendations about treatment. If treatment is recommended, attendance will become mandatory as part of a person's job plan and as a condition of receiving social security. If the person doesn't attend treatment activities, they will be sanctioned, and that includes having their payment entirely suspended for up to four weeks. This step is the most shocking to me—that the government think that the best way to deal with people dealing with substance issues is to make them poorer, to make their life harder, to isolate them through poverty and to push them into crisis. The government think that it is acceptable to take away someone's only source of income, potentially forcing that person into homelessness or crime—because people will completely disengage with the social security system.
Perhaps that's what the government wants, but this is not an outcome that the government should pursue. This undermines all the objectives of our social security system, which began at Federation to provide a safety net for those unable to work. The social security system is designed to alleviate poverty and inequality and to enable people to keep a roof over their head while they are looking for work. Driving people into poverty does not create jobs and it undermines our egalitarian values. This process has been developed in the back rooms of Liberal ministers' offices without the advice or guidance of medical professionals or researchers.
But it gets worse. If a person disputes the results of their test, they can request a retest, and if that's positive the person must pay the cost of the retest. The cost will be deducted from their payment at a rate of up to 10 per cent of the payment. It is a social security measure that further impoverishes a social security recipient—classic conservative tactics. People in the trial will be subjected to random tests throughout a two-year period.
As I said, the detail is not really there either. The government have said that most of the operational arrangements for the trial will be contained in rules that will be made by the minister. Critical details of the trial have either not been decided or not made public. Who will be contracted to deliver the drug-testing services? We don't know, because the government has not made it public. If we are going to implement this system, how will Centrelink make sure the samples are genuine and how will this be observed? Is the government just going to add this responsibility to the already onerous responsibilities of our Centrelink staff? Will they be trained to administer these tests?
How much will testing cost? This is a significant point. In New Zealand the cost of the trial to implement a similar yet abandoned policy of drug testing was millions of dollars. I will repeat the stats I began with. This multimillion dollar trial found that less than one per cent of those tested were positive to using drugs. One per cent is far below the average population's drug use. Newstart recipients are not generally drug users. They are paying for rent and food and bills, not drugs, with their payment. How will people be selected to be part of the trial? What will happen if a person cannot participate in the drug trial due to, for example, legitimate health reasons, legitimate religious reasons or legitimate human rights reasons?
There is one thing I believe to be true, and that is that the social security system is fundamental to Australian society. It fosters cohesion and should ensure that people do not get left behind. It should not mean that people's rights are diminished.
One of the biggest concerns when it comes to this bill is with regard to treatment. If people do fail two tests and are referred to drug treatment or a rehabilitation service, what treatment services will people be connected to? Will extra funding be provided to these already stretched services? Fundamentally, we do not know, because the government refuse to tell us. They refuse to tell us because they know that drug and alcohol treatment services and rehabilitation clinics in the public system are already woefully underfunded and overstretched in Australia. The system has been neglected by this government.
Furthermore, just because someone uses drugs does not mean they need to be forced into rehabilitation. Ask the medical professionals who treat addiction and ask the people who deal with these issues. They will tell you that it is useless to pursue addiction treatment for someone who isn't ready to do something about their addiction. Also, it is even more useless to pursue addiction treatment for someone who is not addicted to drugs. Just because you fail a drugs test does not necessarily mean you are an addict; it could be that you a recreational drug user, like many thousands of Australians who choose to do this recreationally, despite drugs clearly being a risk to health and illegal to sell, buy and use in Australia.
If the government does plan to force these people into treatment for addiction, it will increase the burden on this sector and rob treatment places from those who really do want to address their drug issues. As it is, waiting lists are so long that many miss their moment when they want to access treatment and can't. Forcing people who are not addicted to drugs or who are not ready to address their addiction will only exacerbate this issue—and you can ask the experts if you don't believe me.
Concerns about this measure have been raised by health and welfare groups, including St Vincent's Health, the Royal Australian College of Physicians, ACOSS and Uniting Care. Not one single health or community group has supported this proposal. Key concerns about this proposal, previously expressed through the Senate inquiry process, include—I come back to the New Zealand trial—that it has been tried in several countries and there is no evidence to show it is effective. The member for Canning acknowledged this in his speech just now. As mentioned earlier, in a two-year trial in New Zealand, only 22 of 8,000 participants returned a positive test for illicit drug use, or refused to be tested—22 out of 8,000. Enough said. This detection rate of less than one per cent was much lower than the proportion of the general population estimated to be using illicit drugs.
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 can't access the addiction services because they are underfunded and unavailable. The alcohol and other drugs services sector estimates $1.2 billion a year in additional investment is needed to meet demand for services. Furthermore, there are many issues with drug-testing technology. How does this trial deal with this? Again, we just don't know, because the government doesn't care to figure it out. That's not the point; it's not about genuinely helping anyone. The government has not released the cost of the trial, as it involves tendering to a private provider to conduct the drug tests. Overseas experience suggests that this will be a significant cost to the budget, with no evidence to support its efficacy.
Addiction medicine specialists have raised serious concerns about the technical aspects of the trial. With lower-cost tests, there is a higher risk of false positives. For example, if a person is taking antidepressants, they could test positive for amphetamines. Reliable tests can be extremely costly and are likely to be unaffordable. For example, according to the Royal College of Physicians, a gold-standard urine test costs between $550 and $950 to administer. So how expensive is this going to be if we do it properly? This an incredibly expensive thing to undertake, and it pales in comparison to the actual rate of Newstart that people are actually receiving. The amount of literature, and the number of organisations, that show this approach will not work is overwhelming. The CEO of the Penington Institute, John Ryan, says the government would be better off making stronger investments there, rather than attacking the vulnerable. As someone who has dedicated most of my career to considering the Australian social security system, I emphatically agree with him.
The social security system is an investment in creating equal opportunity. Along with the right to decent wages, it has been fundamental to alleviating poverty and inequality in this country. Despite what the government would have you believe, we have the most tightly targeted social security system in the OECD, and each payment is designed to serve a particular objective. Like universal health care and public education, Australians should be proud of our social security system as a great enabler of equality and inclusion. But this government wants only to attack those who receive social security, and this bill is a great example of that. It will not create one job. It will not do anything to address our floundering economy.
In Anti-Poverty Week, we should be looking at increasing the woefully inadequate Newstart allowance. That actually would help people into work because, as many have noted, including the Business Council of Australia, Newstart is so low that it is actually preventing people from finding work, because they can't afford petrol for their car or bus fares, haircuts or new shoes, let alone the cost of retraining to get jobs. An increase in Newstart would help stimulate our economy, as confirmed by the RBA governor when I asked him about this on the economics committee. The RBA are calling for the government to take action to boost the economy, and this government is instead focusing on punitive measures to hurt jobseekers and single parents receiving Newstart.
Never before has Australia seen such a coalition of groups in support of raising Newstart. Obviously, there are organisations like ACOSS and other community peaks, who have been advocating for this for years, but also the Business Council, big banks and consulting firms, medical organisations—the list goes on. They all support an increase because they know it will stimulate the economy and they know it is fair. Instead we have a social services minister who says that an increase to Newstart will simply give more money to drug dealers. What an absolute disgrace! How out of touch and how irresponsible, frankly, as a minister to say something so misleading without any basis in fact, while people are suffering in dire poverty because of the government's refusal to accept that Newstart is too low.
Labor opposes this bill, and I encourage the government to utilise the potential of the social security system and to stop misleading people about it and about people receiving social security, both for the people who access it and for the economy. Raise the rate of Newstart and stop distracting from the issue with destructive and wasteful things like this ridiculous drug-testing trial. It is demeaning, it is wrong and we oppose this bill.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (18:45): If there's one thing this government's good at, it's punching down. When the economy is tanking, when nearly one in three young people either doesn't have a job or doesn't have enough hours of work, when pollution's rising and we're in a climate crisis, and when we're suffering through record drought, what does the government do? It turns around and attacks some of the most vulnerable in our society. It's exactly what you do when you've got no agenda to deal with some of the big problems that Australia is facing: the inequality crisis and the climate crisis. It's straight out of the old Margaret Thatcher Conservative playbook, of saying, 'If in doubt, punch down and hurt people who are least able to defend themselves.'
I subscribe to a very simple proposition: you don't lift people out of poverty by taking away their rights. At the moment, if you're on Newstart—if you haven't been kicked off it by this government—while you're looking for a job, you are living below the poverty line. In fact, you are living so far below the poverty line that it is a barrier to you finding work. You don't have the extra money to go and get a haircut for a job interview. You don't have the money to go and pay for things if your dentist or your doctor happens to charge you a gap and doesn't bulk-bill. You don't have the money to buy a new set of clothes or go and do that training course. In fact, you don't even have the money for the bare essentials.
We hear from Australian after Australian who is having trouble finding work under this government—because this government just isn't creating the jobs, and I'll come to that in a moment—that it is a struggle to stay alive and they have to miss bare essentials like food. If, at the moment, you are unlucky enough to be made redundant by your employer and find yourself without a job, in many instances you have to go without the bare essentials, like food, because this government is forcing you to live in poverty. And what do they do? Do they turn around and say, 'Well, maybe we can lift Newstart to lift people out of poverty,' as the Greens have been campaigning for for a very long time? No. They say, 'Let's turn around and blame the people who don't have jobs.'
I don't subscribe to the government's arguments. I don't subscribe to this idea that we have to be an uncaring society where people who are doing it tough have to be kicked and kicked and kicked again. But let's just take the government's logic for a moment. The government's logic is that people who are on welfare at the moment are some kind of work-shy people who should be looking for work and therefore should be subject to punitive treatment. That only holds if the jobs are there, and the jobs just aren't there.
One of the things that this government has failed to address—and it is going and kicking the victims, instead of looking in its own backyard at the problems that it has caused—is that, since the GFC, young people in Australia are in dire straits. As I said before, nearly one in three young people either doesn't have a job or doesn't have enough hours of work. Why is that? Well, underemployment amongst young people—people who've got an hour or two of work here or there, who might have a casual job or might be getting a bit of money doing Uber deliveries or might have a casual shift but who want more hours of work—is at high levels. Underemployment levels got higher after the GFC, and they have not come down under this government. So, when you add the youth unemployment rate to the youth underemployment rate, we have a pool of people in this country who don't have stable entry-level jobs to go into.
It is even tougher for you if you happen not to have gone on and got a tertiary degree or a TAFE or university qualification. If you happen to have left school and are looking for a job in this country, the entry-level jobs just aren't there for you. They got wiped out after the GFC, and this government has done nothing to bring them back.
Young people in Australia are at the moment facing an underemployment crisis. We are at the point in Australia where it is no longer enough to go to school, study and do all the right things, because the secure jobs aren't there. Under the employment stats that this government hide behind every time they boast about employment rising, if you work for an hour a week you're counted as employed. That's why looking at underemployment is so crucial; they are the people who have got an hour or two here and there but are crying out for more. It is going up, and it has stayed at persistently high levels under this government.
The government could, if it wanted to, say: 'Well, we have clearly got a problem with so many young people being unable to find the hours of work that they want in meaningful, secure employment. We've clearly got a problem with casualisation and insecure work getting out of control. Let's start some employment creation programs and start simulating the economy. Let's use the record-low interest rates that we've got at the moment to borrow to build housing for people who can't afford it or to build renewable energy to make sure that we avert the climate crisis. Let's give unemployed people a chance to get work on some of those projects.' The government boast about Snowy Hydro, which of course they opposed when it first came around. Well, where is the Snowy Hydro for the 21st century to deal with the climate crisis? Let's get ourselves towards 100 per cent renewables, let's use record-low interest rates to borrow to build affordable housing for everyone so that no one has to go homeless and let's create jobs for all these people. That's what the government could do if they wanted to. But, no, the government say, 'We're going to turn around and kick them.'
Coming back to what I said before, it is no wonder that young people at the moment are looking at the society that this government is creating for them and seeing that even if they do the right thing, even if they finish school and go on and get qualifications, it is no longer enough, because they won't get a good stable job in the way that people used to be able to before. If you want to try and get into the housing market, you will find that housing is at record highs and that you are most likely to be priced out. Then you will look at the future that the government wants you to have, where the record drought is going to become the new normal and where we may hit global warming tipping points as soon as 2030 unless we get at least two-thirds out of coal by then. If you're a young person at the moment, you read that in the newspapers and you think: 'Might this government turn around and do something to help me, like a job creation program, lifting me out of poverty, giving me a bit of hope that we're going to have a liveable future, because they're not going to let global warming get out of control?' No. What do the government do? They say: 'We are going to presume that you are a drug cheat. Just because you don't have a job—despite the fact that we haven't created any for you—we are going to treat you as a suspected criminal, and we are going to take away your rights.' Taking away people's rights has never lifted them out of poverty. Taking away people's rights is not the way to give them dignity. Taking away people's rights is not the way to give them hope.
I shouldn't have to need to go to this, but it is worth recalling that, even on the merit of it, no-one thinks this proposal is a good idea. No-one who works in this field thinks it's a good idea. They all say that once you start treating people like second-class citizens, quarantining their money and saying: 'You don't have the right to spend it yourself. We're going to treat you like a suspect every day, where you have your liberty infringed on, and we're going to subject you to random drug tests. And, if you do drugs, we are going to quarantine you and control your life'—no-one thinks that is a way of dealing with addiction or dealing with people's problems. In fact, you might as well rename this bill the 'Increase in Crime Rate Bill', because what you're going to do is stigmatise people and kick them while they're down, so much so that they're going to decide to disengage from the social security system altogether. And where are they going to get their money?
They're going to get it by breaking into people's houses and taking their TVs, computers and DVD players. That's how they're going to get it, because that is what you have to do if you're struggling with addiction and this government turns around and says, 'We are going to punish you even further.'
As I have said, none of this is about dealing with the issue of drugs. It is about a government deciding to punch down as a way of avoiding the challenges that are facing us as a country, and hoping that the public will fall for it. If you did want to deal with the issue of drugs, if that is what concerns you, then for goodness sake listen to the experts, who say that, when someone has an addiction problem, you treat it like a health issue.
I used to smoke cigarettes, and it took me about five goes to quit—not because I didn't want to; it's just that that's what addiction does. Even though you know it's wrong, you still go back and you want to have another cigarette and another cigarette. It often takes several goes and a fair bit of help to get off it. Other drugs of addiction are even worse, more powerful and more pernicious in their effects. Addiction takes away your ability to make a lot of rational decisions. It takes away your ability, in many instances—especially addiction to many of the harder drugs—to maintain your social relationships. In fact, you often end up hurting them, because they are the ones who are closest to you; they might be the ones you hit out at or that you go and steal money from.
That is what addiction does to you. Addiction eats away at your social connections and your ability to interact with the world. It makes it harder in many instances to get a job and to do all of those things. So, if that's what you are concerned about, the first thing you would say is, 'Well, what do the experts say is the best way to deal with addiction?' And they will say: it's to provide people with the support they need to get healthy again. They say: doing this stuff is the worst thing you can do, because you push people further and further away into isolation.
The government boast that they now have the lowest number of people on welfare. Well, I tell you what: people who get kicked off because they decide to disengage with the social security system because they don't want to be treated like second-class citizens and then turn to crime to make ends meet are the kind of people that the government is boasting about. 'Hey, isn't it great! We pushed up crime levels because we forced people out of the social security system and they don't appear on the stats anymore.' These are people. These are people who might have lost a job through no fault of their own and who might be looking for the next one and might be finding it hard.
If you happen to be in one of the areas of this trial, there are not always a lot of jobs, or good jobs, available for you, especially if you're coming in at entry level, especially if you're coming straight out of high school without any other qualifications. When we have unemployment and underemployment at record highs, when we have people disengaging more and more from the workforce at that level, these are the people who deserve our help and support. If we don't help them, we will be creating a lost generation of young people who have finished their schooling but who don't have entry level jobs to go into anymore because the GFC smashed them and the government hasn't done anything to rebuild them, and who then find themselves being pushed away from the social security system. If the government comes in and kicks them even further, at a time when they might need a bit of help to deal with an addiction issue, we are going to be creating a class of people who are excluded, and potentially permanently excluded, in this country.
So, if the government cared, it would be doing a whole bunch of things that are different to this. The department boasted during the Senate inquiry—I don't know if members know this—that it conducted no consultation before it announced where the trials were going to roll out. It will create problems there. They are going to be problems that the government won't care about but that people, especially young people, are going to have to live with. This bill is all about distracting from the government's problems by kicking people who are least able to support themselves.
We are a wealthy country. It should be within our wit to create meaningful, decent, secure jobs for everyone who wants them, to tackle the underemployment crisis and to say to people, 'If you have fallen between the cracks and you are finding it difficult either to get a job or to deal with an addiction issue, we are here to help you.' I prefer the open hand to someone who is in trouble; this government is giving them the closed fist. They are punching down because it is all that they know. I hope that this bill is defeated in the Senate.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (19:00): This is one of those bills that does get you a little bit worked up, and for a number of reasons. It's groundhog day for many of us in this place: we're standing up again to argue against a really bad bill, a bill that, if passed, will try to roll out drug testing for all people receiving Newstart and youth allowance. Whilst they say it's a trial, the government's real wish is to roll this out across Australia. Here is the reason why people, particularly on this side of the House, get pretty cranky that we're here again debating this: the government members, who aren't raising this with their ministers, are not listening to the evidence, they are not listening to the community, they are not listening to the experts, they are not listening to their health professionals and they are not listening to people who are active in this sector about how this policy will not work. It is costly, it is expensive and it will not solve the problem that they are trying to suggest it will.
It's become a real habit with this government that they like to create an alternative universe. They like to rewrite facts. We hear a lot in broader political commentary about living in a post-truth world. Well, that is this government and that is this bill, which is suggesting that drug testing people receiving Newstart and youth allowance will deter them from taking drugs. The government's rhetoric is cheap. First of all, one in four people currently receiving Newstart is over the age of 55. They are not drug addicts, they are not drug cheats and they are not the people that this government is trying to demonise. They, in many cases, are hardworking Australians who have found themselves unemployed at the age of 55 or older. It could be that they were made redundant in their workplace because of cutbacks and slowdowns as a result of our slowing economy. It could be because they retired from their current role through illness or through injury, or they may have retrained and are struggling to get work in a new area.
One person in my electorate I met with is a former nurse who lived in Woodend. She is on youth allowance. She's 61. She still has several years to work before she sees herself as graduating to the pension. She did retrain. She got her security licence. She said, 'I will work where I can get work'. So she's a first aider and a security officer at Melbourne Park. But, of course, it is casual work, like so many jobs today, so some weeks she'll get full-time work and other weeks she might be lucky to get five to 10 hours. That's not enough for this government or for Centrelink. She's still required to actively look for more hours of work, and is constantly being chased and asked: has she looked for work this week, and where has she looked for work? This is somebody who is doing her very best to keep active. She is working. She's not just part of the statistic of one in four people who is currently unemployed and on Newstart. She's also part of the statistic of one in five who are currently working but can't get enough hours. To say to this active person in my community—who's working every shift she can get, as she takes it regardless, and who's also volunteering for an animal welfare agency caring for animals that are brought in, many of which are struck on our roads in regional Victoria—that she is now someone who the government could consider to be on drugs and should be drug tested is just so insulting. This is what this privileged government is aiming to do—to divide and wedge our society and to suggest that people who are on Newstart or youth allowance are subhuman, are not like the rest of us, are leaners and are a burden on our society and our economy.
That could not be further from the truth. The fact that one in five people on Newstart are working but can't get enough hours is another area that this government is just purely choosing to ignore. Again, these are workers. They're not drug takers. They're not people who've dropped out of our society. These are workers, but they can't get enough hours. Rather than working on fixing our economy or on fixing our employment system, which is seeing more people forced into insecure work, this government again seeks to distract by putting forward this bill.
I've made my comments on this quite open and clear in my electorate. I am opposed to this bill. I'm opposed to mandatory drug testing for people receiving payments. Whether it be a trial, whether it be mandatory, whether it be selective or random drug testing, it should not exist. The only comments that I've got opposed to my position on Facebook have been from a couple of local small-business owners who I know to be members of the Liberal Party. Their comments have been, 'I don't want my workers turning up to work on drugs; why should someone receiving a government payment be on drugs?' It's very similar to the rhetoric that we hear from government members and ministers. I say to those people in my community that that is a really gross misunderstanding of the drug addiction and drug abuse that we have.
In Bendigo, we do not have the drug rehabilitation services required for the people who are seeking help. That's for people who are already putting their hands up to seek help with drug and alcohol addiction. In the entire Loddon Mallee region, which is not just the Bendigo electorate but the electorates to the north, there are only four rehab beds. If any of these areas were in this drug-testing trial, they would not have the services and the support for anyone who did test positive, not to mention that our region can't help the people already seeking help. They're put on a long waiting list. It's again another area where this government is just lacking in any decent policy. The funding cuts to health and frontline services are really hurting the regions.
The knock-on effect of a policy like this when we don't have the resources is that it forces more people into poverty. This government demonstrates again in this bill that it has absolutely no respect for people who are actively seeking work. The whole experience for people on Newstart has become one where they feel like they're a criminal when all that has happened is they can't find work. I do know a lot of people who've dropped out of the welfare system, which the government boasts about having at its lowest numbers. The reason why they have is the punitive nature of it. This is why so many of our farmers have chosen not to take up the farm household assistance allowance, which is linked to the Newstart rate. It's the way in which this government has demonised anybody receiving some kind of payment or allowance. It's wrong. We should be helping all Australians who receive a payment. It's because it gives them the basic means to live and engage.
We should be lifting the rate of Newstart. It is below the poverty level. We should be lifting the rate of youth allowance; it is also below the poverty level. It locks people into survival mode. People who are on Newstart can't afford basic rent. They can't afford to get the bond together. They can't afford that first month of rent. They may get some rent assistance once they're renting, but in regional areas, where rents are supposed to be lower, real estate agents tell me that they are less likely to rent—in fact, in some cases they don't at all—to people on Newstart because they know that the rent will be at least 60 per cent to 70 per cent of their allowance and they know that they will fall behind in their rent payments. Many people on Newstart are couch surfing.
A woman who came to see me and speak to me openly about her experience is in her 60s and is couch surfing, because she's now been unemployed since her husband passed away over two years ago. She was on a carers payment. That ended once he passed away. They also lost his disability pension, of course, because he had passed away. She was struggling to get back into her career and struggling to find work, and it became a vicious cycle. She had to sell her home. She struggled to find a place to rent and she struggled to survive, because Newstart was so low. She was now living at her daughter's friend's house and trying to get hours together to work. This is someone who is skilled and someone who is a professional, but is facing age barriers—that discrimination that starts to creep in, once you hit your 50s and 60s, around work and employment and starting that work again. She said to me straight out: 'I feel like the government sees me as a criminal, when what I did was to take time out of work to care for my dying husband. I'm now trying to get back into work and I find myself locked in poverty.'
I also think about the comments from Bendigo Foodshare in relation to this bill. A few weeks ago I went out to thank the amazing volunteers at Bendigo Foodshare. Some of them are there as part of their obligations towards Newstart. Some of them are there as volunteers—older people who enjoy volunteering for Foodshare. Foodshare provide emergency relief to people throughout our community, and they see the face of the people struggling on Newstart and youth allowance. One of them said: 'Look, we turn up every day. I'm on Newstart. I turn up every day. I am at an age where I can declare my volunteer work as part of my obligations, and I'm really proud of what I do. We come together. We make sure that nobody in our region goes hungry.' When the Prime Minister announced he was going to roll out this drug-testing trial, he said: 'What have I done to ever upset the Prime Minister? Why is the Prime Minister targeting me? I'm contributing. I'm a big part of making sure that people in Bendigo don't go hungry.' And he's not alone. Here is this team of people volunteering and helping out those in need in our community. Yet the government's rhetoric does not recognise the amazing contribution these people are making. It instead seeks to demonise them.
I urge the government to drop this bill. It didn't work in New Zealand. It didn't work in Canada. It has not worked anywhere. All the experts are saying, 'This will not work,' whether they're in the social welfare space, whether they're in the job agency space or whether they're in the health space. Please listen to the broader community and to the experts on this and do not proceed with this legislation.
There's a time in this place when politics can get in the way of policy, and it does happen a lot at the moment. But this is probably one of the grossest examples of that, where the government's meanness and trickiness really shines through. We have a Prime Minister who loved this idea when he was the Minister for Social Services, loved this idea when he was the Treasurer and now loves this idea as the Prime Minister. He is somebody who has no compassion, respect, understanding or empathy for people who are unemployed and who are looking for work. He has no respect at all. If he did, he would not be introducing this bill. If the Prime Minister and this government were serious about supporting people with drug addiction, they would invest in frontline services, they would ensure that regions like my region, the Loddon Mallee, had more than four rehab beds, they would ensure that people got help the day they sought help and did not go on a six- to 12-month waiting list, and they would ensure that programs for people who come out of rehab were continued and not scrapped because of funding cuts by this government.
This is a bad bill, and it should be voted down in the Senate. I support the amendment that was moved by our side. I hope that the government considers that, but it should wake up and show some respect and compassion for some of the most vulnerable people in our community. (Time expired)
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (19:15): I see that there are very few speakers from the government side standing up to defend the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019. It's easy to come to the conclusion that this is yet another example of the government trying to find someone to beat up and trying to divide the community by having a common enemy that people can unite against. In this case the government are picking on people who are unemployed.
I'm going to do something else in this speech. Prime Minister Turnbull said when he first announced this that it was about love. I'm going to take the government at their word for a minute—that this really is for them an attempt to get people off drugs and into work—and then I'm going to try to persuade them that this is a really stupid way to do that. It's a really stupid way to do that. I'm going to be really nice about it as I call you a little bit stupid. Sorry about that. It is very difficult, because this really is a stupid idea.
This is the third attempt to introduce a trial to drug test welfare recipients—not pensioners, which is the other group of welfare recipients that the government talks about, but just Newstart and youth allowance recipients. This is the third attempt to introduce it. It was absolutely rejected twice. It has been reviewed, probed, analysed and overwhelmingly rejected by anybody who has any expertise in working with drug addicts, the unemployed or young people. It has been overwhelmingly rejected. Every single submission to the Senate committee was against this, except for two submissions from the department. It's like the entire world, those who know very much about this field, says that this is a bad idea, and the department, which admits it did not consult, says it's a good idea.
It's very rare that a government goes completely off on its own. It's very rare that a government totally ignores the overwhelming consensus of experts and makes the decision to follow a path that nobody except itself thinks is a good one. Yet that is what this government has done.
The government says that it's about getting people back into work and off drugs. I want to start there. If the government were serious about tackling drug addiction, it might want to keep in mind that currently 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 want to access addiction services but can't because the services are underfunded. If the government were serious about getting people off drugs, perhaps the place to start would be with those 200,000 to 500,000 people who are trying to access services but can't because the services don't exist.
In Western Sydney I have people tell me about the desperate need for drug and alcohol services for young people, which are quite different to services for adults. They're not there in a sufficient quantity to serve the needs of Western Sydney now. There are young people who want those services but can't get them. If you want to get people off drugs, surely the place to start is by properly funding the services that help people who step up to do that. You don't go around testing to see if there are a few more who aren't ready to seek help and then try to punish them into it. Surely that's a wee bit nonsensical.
The second thing is getting people into jobs. There are over 700,000 people unemployed and many more underemployed. Every day I have people desperate for work come into my office. They have a great range of skills but have a little bit missing—they might come from another country and their qualifications are not recognised here or are not quite right or they can't get experience.
A young woman who came to see me recently has been on Newstart for 14 years. She has a degree and is desperate to work but has never been able to get that first job. I get people coming into my office all the time who are desperate to work. Desperate is the only way to describe it. What about those people? What about the young people who want apprenticeships and can't get one because the government has decimated TAFE and the number of apprenticeships has dramatically dropped? I lost 1,500 apprentices in Parramatta alone in the first six years of this government. What about starting with people who are almost ready to work—whose attitude is right, whose skills are really good and who want to work? What about starting with them?
Why, when the unemployment rate is so high, would any sensible government who is thinking about the need to get people into work say, 'Let's see if we can find people who really don't want to work, who are sitting in their garage smoking pot. Let's start there'? That's absurd. As a previous employer, I can tell you that that's not the person I want you to send to me. I want you to send me someone who wants to work, who has worked, who's fallen out of the workforce—maybe because they're 50 or 55 and became retrenched—a person with experience or a young person who has been working for the community establishing community organisations.
There are many, many people out there who are doing great stuff, but they just can't get their foot in the door. Start with them. Why not start with drug addicts that want to get clean but can't because the services don't exist? Why not start with people who really want to work and have done everything they can to get themselves ready—they've done degrees; they've studied at TAFE; they've volunteered; and they've done everything they possibly can to get a job and can't get one. Start there.
But what do we get from this government? A really, really weird solution—and that's putting it mildly—to a problem that's made up, a problem that the government's going to look for to see if it can solve it. And, in order to find that problem—this small number of people who may be ripping off the taxpayer by sitting in their garage and smoking pot—the government are going to drug-test 5,000 people, supposedly randomly selected, though I don't believe that because I've read about the algorithms. They're going to drug-test 5,000 people in three locations to see whether or not these people—many of whom are desperate for work, and 25 per cent of whom will already be working—have in the last week or the last two weeks had a bit of pot on the side. If they did, I assure you, they didn't buy it with Newstart. I assure you that they did not spend taxpayers' money buying drugs—unless it was alcohol, which is a far bigger problem but isn't included in this. So, again, the biggest drug issue, which is alcohol, isn't covered.
Drug addicts who actually want to get clean, and come forward looking for treatment, can't get it. But the government's not interested in fixing that. There are people who desperately want to work in areas where there are skills shortages, such as aged care and child care, and in areas where we need more workers, and they almost have the qualifications, but is the government interested? No, they aren't interested. Alcohol is a major problem, but is the government interested? No, they aren't interested. Instead, they'll spend enormous amounts of money—look at what these drug tests actually cost; if you really want them done properly, without the false negatives and all the rest of it, it is actually really expensive—and randomly test 5,000 people and find a few that, presumably, they can then talk about in the media to turn people against them. It's really hard to believe it's about anything other than that, because it doesn't make any sense.
I'm going to share this speech quite widely in my community, because I think people need to know exactly what's happening here. I am going to explain some of the detail of this because, when you listen to what's actually going to happen to these people on Newstart, it's quite interesting, particularly when you realise that one-quarter of Newstart recipients are over the age of 55. The number of people over the age of 55 has surged by 45 per cent in the last six years. The fastest-growing group is people over 55. I'm sure a lot of them are sitting at home smoking pot in their garage and need to be found out! I will try to pull myself together, but it is quite absurd.
We also know from the government's own figures that there are 19 job applicants for every job. So there are 19 people on Newstart or youth allowance for every single job. Yet this government is saying that the reason that these people aren't working is that they're on drugs. Well, I don't think there are 700,000 drug addicts out there. No doubt there are a small number. No doubt in any area you will find a small number of people who really don't want to work, who do other things and take their Newstart. By all means, they shouldn't do that, but that's not where you start when you have a problem of the size that we have in this country. It really is not where you start.
We also have a situation where, in the last few days, we've seen the IMF downgrade the growth forecast. We have had the Reserve Bank downgrade the growth forecast. We have an economy in trouble. We need to grow jobs. Is the government doing anything about that? If you want to get people off Newstart, perhaps the place to start is stimulating the economy and making sure that the number of jobs that we have grows. There are a range of areas to do that in. You could take the caps off for the NDIS, for example, because we know we're going to need a couple of hundred thousand workers in that field in the next decade, if we get that right. We know with the ageing population we are going to need thousands more aged-care workers. Try and get that right. Get people into jobs, because there are jobs that need doing that are currently sitting vacant. We have skills shortages in a whole range of areas. In virtually every technical trade, we have skills shortages. In regional areas, you can wait months to get a basic bit of painting done. You can wait months to see a doctor in regional areas. Do something about that. Do something that addresses the jobs that we need to be done. Make sure that people are trained to do them. Take some of those 700,000 people and the extra 300,000-odd that are underemployed and create the jobs for them. Do it in a real way, not by supposedly punishing this mythical person that you've made up and you're going to randomly drug test 5,000 people to find. This is absurd.
Let's look at what it actually will do. It will require 5,000 Newstart and youth allowance recipients in Canterbury-Bankstown—down the road from me—Mandurah and Logan to submit to random drug tests. The trial will run for two years. If a person does not agree to participate in the trial, their application for social security will be denied and they will not be able to reapply for four weeks. That will help! If they actually are a drug addict, that will really help! People will be required to submit to saliva, urine and hair follicle tests in a Centrelink office or nearby location. The tests will be designed to detect cannabis, heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. If a person fails a drug test they will be placed on income management through the basics card—80 per cent of their payment will be quarantined to pay bills and purchase goods, and 20 per cent will be paid to their bank account. A follow-up test will be conducted within 25 days. If the person fails a second test during the trial they will be referred to a contracted medical service for recommendations about treatment.
Now, for a start, if a person fails a drug test, it doesn't mean they're a drug addict. Many of us in this area know people who take drugs recreationally. I don't, by the way. I don't take Panadol; I don't take anything at all. But I know people who do and I have worked in industries where some of these drugs were actually quite common. A person who fails a drug test is not necessarily a drug addict. Even if they are a drug addict, pushing them into drug treatment, if they're not ready, will not work. Everybody who works with drug addicts says this will not work for that reason. It's the wrong approach. It makes no sense whatsoever.
If treatment is recommended, attendance will become part of the person's job plan and a condition of receiving social security. That means, unless the government increases the funding substantially to current drug treatment centres, including in Western Sydney, those people are going to push out other people who are trying to get in. So instead of 200,000 people trying to get drug treatment and being unable to do so, there will be 200,001 people, because it will push someone out. Someone who wants treatment will be pushed out, and someone who isn't ready will be pushed in. It will not work. Every expert says so, but, again, the government knows better.
If a person fails to attend mandated treatment, they will be sanctioned. This will include having their payment entirely suspended for up to four weeks. This is really quite amazing. If a person disputes the results of a test, they can request a retest. But if the retest is positive, the person must pay for the cost of the retest. From what I know about the cost of these treatments, that's probably about four to five weeks of Newstart, which they won't be on because they will have been suspended! This is absurd. Please think this through in a real way. Please think this through.
Every single expert in the field of drug addiction and drug treatment or in a field working with young people says this won't work. The only people who say this will work are the government. I strongly suggest that the government reconsider this. Have a look at what the experts have said. It's been reviewed more times than you can count. It's been tried three times and failed. There are reports, submissions and material everywhere on this that tell you why this won't work. Just listen. Just listen for a minute, and you will change your mind.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ) (19:30): It being 7.30, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Telecommunications
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (19:30): Mobile phone reception matters a lot in a bushfire. Messages and phone calls go flying back and forth as people make decisions about what to do, when to go and who else they need to make sure has left. In the bushfire-prone areas of the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, we know this because, nearly every spring or summer, some part of my electorate experiences it. Here we are several weeks into another fire season. In fact, 17 October marks the sixth anniversary of the Winmalee and Mount Victoria bushfires that destroyed 200 homes, mine included. But there are anniversaries for fires just about every month in our area, whether it's in December, when the Warrimoo bushfires of 2001 and 2014 occurred, or August, when last year we saw fires in Bilpin and Maraylya.
That helps explain why there is disbelief at the government's failure to keep its promise to install mobile phone towers in Mount Tomah and Yellow Rock and its apparent unwillingness to show any interest at all in fixing mobile blackspots right across the area. We are often considered too close to Sydney to be regional or rural, but that is no comfort when the mobile signal drops out. When I think about the Morrison government's—and the Turnbull and Abbott governments'—performance in delivering the Mobile Black Spot Program, I feel despair that the government can so willingly agree to relocate the promised Mount Tomah tower to another area outside the electorate and that it can accept the enormous delays that occur when the telcos are unwilling to negotiate efficiently with landowners in order to locate a tower on their land or even when it's state owned land. Things like this have caused years of delay in my area alone. When I was last in St Albans, there was still no mobile reception even though the tower was promised in 2016.
What I say to the government is: put aside your politicking in making decisions about where the next round of sites go. Prioritise bushfire-prone regions where loss of life is a real danger. The Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, located within a World Heritage area, are among the most fire-prone areas on the planet, and people who live there need the certainty that a phone will work, not like the experience that Bilpin and surrounds had a few weeks ago when power was off at both the mobile phone tower and the exchange.
We know that things are not going to get better for us as far as bushfires are concerned. The 1,000 people who gathered at Springwood recently for the student climate change rally know that. Before those who would rather bury their heads in the sand say, 'We've always had bushfires; we shouldn't worry about them,' it is time to accept the science and listen to the scientists. Dale Dominey-Howes, who is a professor of hazards and disaster risk sciences at the University of Sydney, says:
It's the first time Australia has seen such strong fires this early in the bushfire season … what we are seeing now is absolutely not business as usual.
And although these bushfires are not directly attributable to climate change, our rapidly warming climate, driven by human activities, is exacerbating every risk factor for more frequent and intense bushfires.
Firefighters know it. The New South Wales Rural Fire Service commissioner, Shane Fitzsimmons, said five years ago that climate change was having an impact on every level of fire management. He said there is 'a shrinking window of opportunity to carry out back-burning and other hazard reduction', and he said:
If our window of opportunity continues to shrink, in order to get those really important pre-season activities underway then, yes, there's a broader argument that needs to be had around matters of climate change and its effect on fire management and fire seasons.
Greg Mullins, the second-longest-serving fire and rescue commissioner in New South Wales and now a councillor with the Climate Council, says we need governments to 'take climate change seriously, rather than making jokes about it in parliament with lumps of coal'.
So let's stop pretending that it is going to go away. It is not. The community I so proudly represent lives with this every day, especially in the long months of spring and summer. I say to those of you who haven't done it yet: clean your gutters and get your fire plan ready; have a conversation with the family about when to go, where to go and what you'd like to take—although, as so many of us have learnt and the recent tragedy in northern New South Wales reminds us, it's not the stuff that matters; it's the people.
Braddon Electorate: Burnie Agricultural Show
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (19:35): Agricultural shows have always played an important role in my electorate of Braddon. For a few years now, the numbers attending some rural shows have been on the decline. The volunteers needed to run these shows have disappeared and the battle for some shows to remain relevant to a new generation has diminished. Tonight, however, I want to talk about a good-news story. Tonight I want to talk about a shining light in the agricultural show society. Tonight I want to acknowledge the outstanding work of the Burnie Agricultural and Pastoral Society and the work they've done to ensure that their show will be around for many years to come.
On 4 and 5 October the Burnie Show celebrated its 100th show. It is a remarkable and noteworthy achievement and I congratulate everyone who has played a part over the years on reaching such a milestone. But what's more important and more impressive is that their 100th show was their first show in their new location at the agriplex. Confronted with ongoing challenges and barriers at their old show location, the Burnie Show committee took a leap of faith and backed themselves in. Instead of being limited by a showground which was too small, where the sheds were full and there was no capacity to grow, they decided to sell their land to the Wivenhoe showgrounds and buy a 40-hectare site in Romaine near Burnie. This was a high-risk venture. But, as they say, the greater the risk, the greater the reward. And it has certainly been the case in this instance.
The show was a success, with patrons flocking to the new showground in their thousands. More people visited the Burnie Show this year than the population of Burnie itself. What's more, the committee have money left over from the sale to build permanent structures on their land. This entrepreneurial committee is planning to build four permanent sheds to house animal and crafts exhibits and to build permanent toilets. And, as if that's not enough, they also have a long-term vision to build an Olympic sized equestrian stadium which can be used all year round. Not only will that be an amazing facility for the region; it will also provide ongoing cash flow for the organisation. The success of the Burnie Show demonstrates that all is not lost, and that there is a way forward for agricultural shows all over the nation. Yes, there might be some slight need for a change in focus, but it is possible.
The ongoing viability of Australia's agricultural shows is important to the Morrison government. At a time when there is an increasing divide between the city and the bush, agricultural shows play a very important role in bridging that gap. As a farmer myself, I'm dismayed that many kids in the city don't know where their food comes from. In a recent national survey, it was found that one-third of Australian children struggled to identify fruit and vegetables. Ninety-two per cent didn't know that bananas grew on plants. Many of our kids think that cotton socks come from animals and yoghurt grows on trees. It's a disgrace. That's why our rural shows are important and that's why our government is delivering on an election commitment to boost agricultural shows and the advice that they provide. Eligible shows' societies could receive grants of up to $500,000 under the agricultural shows program. This is a $20 million investment that will reinvigorate showgrounds around the nation, help boost regional communities, increase local employment and drive people to purchase from our local businesses.
Tonight I want to congratulate the Burnie Agricultural and Pastoral Society. I want to congratulate their president, Carol Jackson, and the entire committee. I thank you tonight in this place for your great leadership and I look forward to catching up with you at an even bigger and brighter Burnie Show this time next year.
Kingsford Smith Electorate: Environment
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (19:39): On Monday evening, I attended a community meeting with hundreds of locals at the Matraville RSL club, regarding a proposal by Orora paper mills and SUEZ to build a new plant at their site at Matraville. It's a new power plant. The proposal involves Orora and SUEZ transporting waste that cannot be recycled, and which otherwise would go into landfill, into our community in trucks to be burnt at Orora's facility at Matraville. That burning would generate heat that would generate steam to run a turbine to generate electricity to run the plant. The proponents describe this as 'cogeneration', but it's a tricky and sneaky use of the term, because the definition of 'cogeneration' is the utilisation of waste heat, usually from the production of electricity, to run a turbine and produce further energy. This proposal would involve bringing fuel into the site and burning it, and locals are rightfully describing it more accurately as an incinerator. This plant, or this incinerator, will be located at the rear of the Orora site, literally within 100 metres of local residents' homes. There will be a large stack—some people say it will be up to 65 metres high—that will be visible throughout most of Matraville.
Residents are justifiably concerned about the health and environmental effects of having this incinerator next door to their homes. For decades, these residents put up with the stench that came from the paper mills next door to them. Admittedly, Orora fixed that problem and improved that smell many years ago. But the residents also put up with noise from Port Botany, and recently Orora sold off an area to the rear of their site to a developer, who has spent two years coating people's homes in dust and dirt while they move dirt around on the site as part of their excavation process. The local residents are justifiably fed up with what's gone on at the Orora paper site in their community. And now Orora wants to build this incinerator right next door to them.
A similar proposal was put forward in Eastern Creek in 2015 by Next Generation Pty Ltd; they proposed to build an energy-from-waste facility at Eastern Creek. The New South Wales department of planning refused that proposal. They refused it because it was inconsistent with the New South Wales EPA's energy-from-waste policy statement, particularly regarding the air-quality impact and the risk to human health, which the proponent admitted was unknown from this particular proposal. It then went to the Independent Planning Commission for final determination in April 2018. They also refused it, on the grounds of environmental and health effects. That Eastern Creek proposal was more than a kilometre from people's homes, but this proposal by Orora in Matraville is literally a stone's throw from people's homes. Is it any wonder that local residents are strongly opposed to this proposal?
Botany Bay is the most polluted area of any capital city in the country, according to the National Pollutant Inventory, and residents of Botany and surrounding areas have lived with polluted air from the airport, from Port Botany, from the Caltex terminal, from the Elgas terminal, from Orica and from Qenos. And now Orora wants to build an incinerator in that community as well. It's not on. I am strongly opposed to this proposal, and I will fight it on behalf of the community that I am proud to represent. We don't need more pollution in the Botany Bay and Matraville area. We need to look to clean up the atmosphere in our community, and a proposal like this will not help.
I will give Orora and SUEZ credit. They have been consultative. They came to brief me about the proposal, they've been doorknocking residents in the local area, and they held this public meeting the other day. But Orora and SUEZ should heed the advice and the warnings of the local community, who expressed their anger about this proposal at that community meeting on Monday night. They believe it is a bridge too far. I believe it is a bridge too far, because of the health, environmental and pollution effects on our local community, and I call on Orora and SUEZ to drop this ridiculous proposal.
Syria
Biosecurity
Mr PASIN (Barker) (19:44): I rise to speak about the deeply concerning situation developing in Syria. The unilateral actions of the Erdogan regime in northern Syria are causing significant civilian suffering. Media reports indicate that at least 60 civilians have lost their lives and more than 150,000 people are displaced. The most affected are, of course, the Kurdish people. More than 30 million Kurds inhabit the mountainous regions straddling the borders of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Armenia. They make up the fourth-largest ethnic group in the Middle East. The Kurds represent many of the values that we have been fighting for in the Middle East. They are a multi-faith, pluralist, pro-Western people. While the majority are Sunni Muslims, there are Christian Kurds, there are Shia Kurds, there are Jewish Kurds and, indeed, there are Kurds of no faith.
Kurdish military forces have been an important part of our offensive against ISIS. Kurdish forces have held back, and regained territory from, ISIS in northern Syria since 2013, with the largest pocket of territory held by ISIS in Syria falling to the Syrian democratic forces in March of this year. While it was a great win for the US led coalition, ISIS sleeper cells remain a threat and we should never become complacent. ISIS is still a serious threat to regional peace and security despite their territorial defeat.
The Kurdish people who have fought for the same values as Australians now find themselves in Turkey's direct firing line in northern Syria. While I recognise that Turkey may well have legitimate domestic security concerns in the region, action of this nature will have grave consequences for regional security and undermine the gains made by the international coalition in its fight against ISIS.
Reports that ISIS supporters have recently escaped from a Syrian holding camp amid the conflict are of grave concern. I have deep concern for the region and for our Kurdish allies who find themselves in this terrible situation. I stand in solidarity with the Kurdish people and pray for an end to this current conflict. While the Australian government remains in close contact with our US, European, Middle Eastern and other allies and security partners, some have already indicated imposing trade sanctions against Turkey.
I encourage the leaders of our government to continue to work with our coalition allies to pressure Turkey to withdraw forces from Syria and avoid escalation or opportunistic actions that cause further instability and, of course, deep humanitarian suffering.
Another issue of concern internationally is, of course, African swine fever. African swine fever is potentially the largest commercial animal disease event the world has ever seen. It's crippling pork industries internationally, as we've lost approximately a quarter of the world's pig population. While it has not entered Australia's shores, a lot of work is being done to tighten our borders to protect our pork producers and our global reputation as a supplier of clean, green food. The electorate of Barker represents the third-largest number of sow producers in this country by division. This is a real issue that I'm worried about. Our biosecurity efforts have been boosted and we have implemented changes to make sure that visitors bringing in undeclared, high-risk items are sent home and unable to return for three years.
While African swine fever is not a threat to human public health or food safety, it's highly contagious for pigs and there is simply no cure. The disease entered eastern Europe in 2007. It is thought to have spread through food waste fed to pigs. It has killed over 30,000 animals within weeks. Our Australian domestic industries estimate 2.5 million pigs, across 2,700 producers, employing 36,000 people. Our government and industry are working together to mitigate the risks, but we all need to play our part.
I implore everyone to do the right thing when travelling or shopping online internationally. Don't bring in products that are high risk, and ensure your friends and family do the same. This is a risk that is not worth taking and one that I ask you to consider carefully.
Parliament
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (19:49): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to raise issues that I hope are of importance to all of us here in this chamber—issues around how our democracy operates and the not-very-high esteem that those of us in this place are held in by members of the public, and issues that go to whether we can build the trust we need to tackle the big issues of the future: climate change, insecure employment, the effects of new technology and a rapidly changing global environment.
Today I and a number of other members of this chamber attended the launch of a very important piece of research from the Museum of Australian Democracy. The research was conducted with the assistance of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in the previous parliament, and it is research that, as a member of the current Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I found both important and very relevant. The museum surveyed members of the 45th Parliament on their views of the state of our democracy. They got a good response to the survey: 98 out of a possible 226 MPs took part. Their findings showed that 38 per cent of the parliamentarians who took part have concerns about the way democracy is operating. They're most concerned about short-termism—that is, the challenge of a three-year electoral cycle—along with integrity and media misrepresentation. The researchers also surveyed members of the public about their views of democracy and found that 59 per cent of them have concerns about how our democracy is operating. They're most concerned about adversarial politics, poor leadership and the poor behaviour of politicians. So this work demonstrates concern both across the community and in here about the state of our democracy.
As a new member of parliament, I've been struck by the dual perceptions our communities have of us MPs. I find that when I'm in my electorate, attending sporting events or talking with people at RSLs or at the shopping centre, people's perception of the role and the capability of a local politician is actually pretty high. It's certainly not uniform, but in the main the feedback from people I speak with is that they appreciate being able to talk with their representatives and having their concerns listened to and taken on board. But, if you ask those same people what they think about politicians in general and how this place operates, you get an entirely different answer. That's when I hear the frustration about politicians all being in it for their own gain, not being honest and upfront with the community and behaving in ways that would not be tolerated in any other business or community organisation in our country. I'm sure that many members in this House have had similar experiences and similar feedback.
Why does this matter? A strong democracy relies on people having a degree of respect and understanding for the work that we do in this place. If we want to convince people that we have the ability to make changes for the better in our community and in their lives, they have to believe that those of us here have the ability to deliver. If I go back to the statistics and say to you that 59 per cent of people currently have concerns about the way we are operating, it's clear that there is work that all of us need to be doing. If we want a strong democracy into the future, if we don't want people to turn away from our democracy and flirt with the systems that are run by strongmen or autocratic leaders and big money, then we have to be able to address these issues.
I take heart from the fact that many of the people in this House responded to the survey. It shows that there is an interest in this House in these issues. I take heart from the fact that it shows that there are many of us in this place who realise that we have a trust deficit, that the local politician that people talk to at their sporting events is not the person that they see in this chamber, that the work they see us doing is not respected and that that's something that should concern all of us. I hope that it means that there is a group of us in here who are committed to working to strengthen our democracy and who are considering how we create the connections with our community that will allow us to make positive change. That's certainly something that I'm trying to bring a focus to in my work in this place—through my work on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, through my work in this chamber and through my work when I have contact with my constituents and other people. I'm pleased, as I said, that other people in this House share that concern, and I hope it's a project where together we can work on improving trust in our democracy and improving trust in all of us here.
Queensland: Water
Queensland: Energy
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (19:54): I rise today to express my concerns about the disturbing actions of my state government, the Queensland state government. The Queensland state government does not seem to understand the importance of water security, the cost of living and those dreadful electricity prices that we face. Securing water at a time of devastating drought is quite feasible. We need reliable, affordable power to pump the water where it is needed. This should be a priority for the Queensland government—but I think that's falling on deaf ears.
Firstly, just recently, the Queensland Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, decided to permanently reduce the capacity of SunWater's Paradise Dam, in my electorate, by 60 per cent. The state government said that it would release 105,000 megalitres from the Paradise Dam and let it wash through the city of Bundaberg into the open sea. This was a knee-jerk reaction. However, I understand there was a safety issue involved in this plan to release the 105,000 megalitres of water. I do not deny that SunWater has to take safety into consideration, and safety is paramount in these situations. However, there also needs to be a plan implemented at the same time as this water is rushing down through the cane fields of Bundaberg, because 105,000 megalitres is equivalent to 32,000 Olympic swimming pools. That's how much is being washed out to sea.
After the 105,000 megalitres have washed out, they will assess the damage caused to this new dam, which was only built in 2005 but has had two severe floods, in 2011 and 2013. The damage will be assessed, and it may be that the dam will be lowered even further. But such a report needs to be done as soon as possible. The farmers in the Bundaberg district and in the upper reaches of the Burnett need water security, because their livelihood—their fields of citrus, sugarcane, macadamia nuts et cetera—is at risk.
So I applaud the situation, but do I urge the state government to get on, make a decision quickly and come up with a plan that doesn't take the water away from our farmers, because we're trying to urge farmers to increase their production in that area, and, of course, water is the main thing for that.
Secondly, the Rookwood Weir project has just become farcical. The Queensland government have said, unclearly at this stage, that they want to reduce the weir size from 76,000 megalitres to 54,000 megalitres. I feel that this whole project won't pass the test of viability. I think they should come clean and tell us what they want to do. We as the federal government have put in $176 million to match their $176 million. Now they say that they've under-engineered the dam and it doesn't stack up. They'll need more concrete, more this and more that, so they would prefer to take it down in size instead of increasing the engineering for the dam to keep it at 76,000 megalitres.
To top it all off, the Callide B coal-fired power station was to go through to 2038. In the Queensland state government's wisdom, they have said that, to meet their 2030 targets of 50 per cent renewable energy, they have decided to reduce the life of that power station by 10 years. This is a very modern power station. We as a government can't afford to be knocking down coal-fired power stations with no replacement. Otherwise, we will end up in the same situation as South Australia and Victoria, where there's nothing to replace the coal-fired power stations that have been knocked down.
House adjourned at 20 : 00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Porter: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to native title, and for related purposes. (Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019)
Mr Dutton: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the combatting of money laundering and financing of terrorism and to the Australian Federal Police, and for related purposes. (Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019)
Mr Littleproud: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Farm Household Support Act 2014, and for related purposes. (Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019)
Mr Hunt: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006, and for related purposes. (Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Enhancing Australia’s Anti-Doping Capability) Bill 2019)
Mr Hunt: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006, and for related purposes. (Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Sport Integrity Australia) Bill 2019)
Mr Dutton: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, and for related purposes. (Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Assistance and Access Amendments Review) Bill 2019
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hogan) took the chair at 10:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Bean Electorate: Canberra Raiders
White, Jim and Maria
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean) (10:00): It's not always easy being Green, but today I pay rise to pay tribute to the Canberra Raiders—the Green Machine—the broader Raiders community, their dedicated fans and our capital region. Like so many Canberrans, I attended the wonderful and hard-fought match against the Rabbitohs. It was our biggest home game in history, and we're all so proud of the team and the way they worked so hard for the win. I had my family in tow on the night and I was lucky enough to watch the game with diehard fan Corina of ACT Boccia fame. Check her out on Facebook; it's well worth your time. My commiserations go to the member for Grayndler.
We were so proud, right across the capital region, in the week leading up to the grand final. How the region got behind the Green Machine. We had green coffee, green sausages from Lindbeck's butchery in Queanbeyan, green beer, and we even had some green donuts from South Point in our electorate office. A thousand fans waved goodbye to the bus with the players on it up to Sydney. Then on Sunday I think about half of Canberra and most of Queanbeyan headed up the Hume on the pilgrimage, hoping for a historic win, all heading to the first grand final for the Raiders since 1994. Those fans not in the stadium like me tuned in to what would be an epic grand final.
Much has been said and written about how that match played out. I don't need to add any commentary here. But I do want to say how proud the people of our region, and of Bean in particular, were of the Canberra Raiders and the way they've conducted themselves. It's critical to be graceful in victory and loss. Special congratulations to Jack on winning the Clive Churchill Medal. We were all shattered, but after finishing our debates on the six again rule, we'll be there again in 2020.
I also rise to acknowledge the extraordinary service to the long-distance running community in the Australian capital region of two constituents of Bean: Jim and Maria White. Jim and Maria have been the bedrock of the running communities for decades, organising groups and clubs, assisting with the organisation of events and being relentless competitors in such events. Jim has competed in dozens of marathons and half marathons across the region, but his real pet event is the Canberra Times Run Fun. Jim is getting ready to compete in his 42nd Canberra Times Run Fun, an event that's only 44 years old. Maria is a relative slacker in only turning up for her 36th fun run. My one fun run is rather pathetic in comparison. They've been an inspiration and support for hundreds of runners and walkers across our region and may they long continue.
FIRST Global Challenge
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (10:03): I rise to congratulate and wish a wad of luck to the robotics program team from St Peters Lutheran College in my electorate of Ryan. They're competing in October in an international robotics competition in Dubai called the FIRST Global Challenge, and they're representing Team Australia. FIRST Global Challenge is an international robotics competition where participating teams are composed of students aged 14 to 18 years. They've got a common goal of increasing their knowledge of science, technology, engineering and maths so they can become the next generation of scientific leaders who will work together to solve some of the world's most pressing problems. They've tackled problems such as food security and access to clean water, as well as finding better medicines and securing cyberspace.
Teams of high school students from more than 175 nations across the world are participating in this competition. Each team gets the chance to create a robot to compete in a very specific challenge that occurs in the competition each year. Every challenge is relevant to a real-world issue, and this year's competition is entitled Ocean Opportunities. It involves engineering robots to remove rubbish in our oceans, something that's important to this government as it is important to the next generation. The competition is being held in Dubai from 24 to 27 October. Team Australia, always affectionately known as the Pineapples, have represented Australia in the competition ever since its creation in 2017. In their previous efforts in the competition, the St Peter's robotics team have been honoured to receive a silver for international unity in Washington DC in 2017, and a silver award for creativity and innovation in Mexico in 2018. The St Peter's team is comprised of five students, three of whom are from the sister college to St Peter's, Grace Lutheran College. Over the years, Team Australia have graciously received sponsorship from organisations such as UQ, Siemens, Array Technologies, Telstra and Bunnings, to name a few of the companies who recognise their commitment to and passion for robotics.
I had the great pleasure of meeting a number of the members of Team Australia. The team is a strong believer in unity over all else, and by working together as a team and being a team within the global community they will perform to the very best of their abilities. I'm so very proud of these local students, just as I am proud of a great local school, St Peter's. I wish them all the very best of luck in the competition. Win, lose or draw, I know that they'll represent my electorate of Ryan, our local community and Australia incredibly well.
NBN Co
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (10:06): Labor took a number of commitments on the NBN to the last election. One of them was an enforceable service guarantee, and this is why. One of my constituents had been keen to get the NBN and, on checking the rollout map, it turned out that the other eight houses in the street were ready for connection and his was not. Despite many attempts by him and my office, we just can't get a clear answer as to why. Originally, my constituent's NBN connection was slated for August 2018. Then it was pushed out to August 2019, and then there was this odd situation with all of his neighbours connecting while his house was in an NBN black hole.
We contacted NBN Co, which provided this unhelpful response: 'Although our rollout map indicates your address is in a service available area, your address is currently service unavailable.' Weird. So my office made enquiries to NBN Co on his behalf—no response. Ten days later, my office called the NBN area manager for clarification, and we received a response stating that the constituent's home was, indeed, NBN ready. My staff asked for clarification on the installation date—no response. So then I wrote to the minister and—surprise—a couple of days later the area manager explained to us that the rollout map is often not updated. In other words, it's wrong. Two weeks after the original email was sent, NBN Co finally responded, referring back to the area manager's message that it's available.
Because of the confusion, my office checked again two weeks later and asked for an update—no response. We asked again for an update two weeks after that—again, no answer. But it looked good, so the constituent went ahead and tried to get a connection. Last week he contacted my office; he'd lodged a ticket with NBN Co, who had responded with: 'At this stage our systems are indicating that our delivery partners require further additional work to provide a more robust and improved connection to your premises. Because of the sudden and changeable nature of these additional works and the limitations of the information provided to us in the contact centres, we cannot provide further technical details on these additional works.' Here's the best bit—wait for it: 'Please note these works may not necessarily be required within your street or at your premises.' In other words, this is the problem—unless it's not. Unbelievable.
Then we were advised by NBN Co that the case was closed and the rollout map indicated that his home would be ready for installation not now, as the area manager had said, but in July 2020. The day after that, I finally received a response from the minister's office, who advised that my constituent's NBN connection was ready, and all he had to do was install a lead-in cable to the property—which incidentally, he'd done in January. Magically, at the beginning of this week, the rollout map now shows his property is ready for connection. I have a headache, my staff has a headache and the constituent has a headache, but he doesn't have the NBN and, quite frankly, I'm not sure he ever will.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr YOUNG (Longman) (10:09): To build a better world, a better Australia, we need to break down the barriers, cut the red tape and create connected and cohesive communities for people of all abilities. We must work to improve the lives of all Australians living with a disability, because they have so many talents, passions, goals, ambitions and dreams to share with the world. We need to celebrate their talents, help them to achieve their dreams, meet their needs and encourage them to let their voices to be heard in their community, because we want to hear from them. To do this we need to help people with disability to learn, build and develop the skills they need to be independent and to go about their daily lives with ease, retain and find employment, help them get access to the vital services they need, and empower them to engage and make a difference within their community so that they can lead happy, healthy, active and fulfilling lives. Improving the lives of all Australians living with disability has never been more critical.
For many Australians with disability and those who care for them, daily life is not always easy. Meeting the needs of someone with a disability can put families under a great deal of emotional and financial stress. This is why we need to ensure the National Disability Insurance Scheme, or NDIS, continues to give Australians with disability the resources and services they need to greatly enhance and improve their overall quality of life. I understand this, as one of my employees is hearing impaired. She's completely deaf in one ear and can hear only a little bit out of her left ear and wears a hearing aid for that ear. This does not impact her ability to do her job, pursue her passions or get involved in her local community. In fact, she is one of my finest workers.
Across Australia there are now over 300,000 participants supported by the NDIS to help them reach their goals. As of 30 June 2019 the Longman electorate had 1,477 NDIS participants. We also have 281 providers in the electorate, who work tirelessly every day to ensure that the needs and goals of their clients are met. Last Tuesday we were privileged to have the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and Minister for the NDIS, Stuart Robert, visit the Morayfield health hub to chat with a group of local NDIS clients during an NDIS roundtable meeting. We were able to gain valuable insight into the scheme through the eyes of the NDIS participants. We also heard about some of the wonderful talents the clients have, including a gentleman and NDIS participant who could take the most amazing photographs, and he had in fact received some awards.
Finding out the needs of individuals across the Longman electorate and meeting those in need is one of the many reasons why I got into politics, so I was proud to be able to hear the stories and listen to the needs of the NDIS clients at this meeting firsthand. That's what we need to do as a government. We need to meet and support the needs of all Australians. We need to keep fighting for better futures and work to transform the lives of all Australians living with disability so they can dream big, live a fulfilling life and pursue their passions.
Assange, Mr Julian
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (10:12): Australians are proud of the fact that our society is democratic, that we are committed to justice for all and that every citizen should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, but that's simply not the case for Australian citizen Julian Assange. In essence, Assange reported on war crimes in Iraq, and normally when an Australian citizen speaks out about war crimes they would be seen as patriotic and treated as a hero. But this hasn't happened to Assange. Instead, he's facing 175 years in a US jail—effectively a death sentence—simply for reporting war crimes. Compounding this injustice is that the war crimes were committed by soldiers from the very country that now wants to jail him, the United States of America.
So I rise today to ask all federal parliamentarians: are we really going to betray this Australian citizen in this way? Yes, Julian Assange is a controversial man. But he's also an Australian and he deserves to be treated like any other Australian. Remember: Assange was not in the US when he provided evidence of US war crimes in Iraq, so he can't possibly have broken their laws. But there he is, languishing in Belmarsh prison, where he's been in isolation since August, despite the fact that two independent medical experts have determined he's suffering from serious psychological and physical ill health, consistent with psychological torture.
If Assange is indeed extradited to the US, he faces serious human rights violations, including exposure to torture and a dodgy trial. This has serious implications for freedom of speech and freedom of the press here in Australia, because if we allow a foreign country to charge an Australian citizen for revealing war crimes then no Australian journalist or publisher can ever be confident that the same thing won't happen to them. I wonder what we'd all be saying if China were seeking to extradite an Australian reporter in order to imprison them for their work. Surely our response to the US should be the same as how we'd respond to China.
Assange has suffered enough and so has his family. It's time to end this geopolitical madness. The man's an Australian. He's not an American, and he wasn't in the US when he spoke out about the war crimes. Put simply, he must be allowed to return to Australia. To assist parliamentarians, I seek leave to table a fact sheet on Julian Assange dispelling many of the myths surrounding him and his legal situation. I also seek leave to table the report of the UN special rapporteur on torture, Professor Nils Melzer, which outlines Assange's status as a victim of psychological torture after being assessed under the Istanbul Protocol.
Leave granted.
Goldstein Electorate: Sailing Clubs
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (10:15): The month of October marks the official new season for boating on the shores of the great Port Phillip Bay. At the Royal Brighton Yacht Club, the 2019-20 sailing season is open and ready to rumble. This year's opening ceremony theme was country and western. For the first time, they were joined by the Brighton Icebergers for a relay race. I'd like to acknowledge the committee members of Brighton for their enduring public service: Commodore Paul Pascoe; Vice Commodore Peter Strain; Rear Commodore Peter Coleman; Honorary Treasurer Peter Demura; Club Captain Brett Heath; and general committee members Cath Hurley, Jim Leckey, Marnie Irving, Niesje Hees and Paul Jenkins.
Last Saturday, Beaumaris Motor Yacht Squadron held the annual Sail Past Ceremony, a milestone event this year with the club celebrating its 60th anniversary. Graeme Disney, as always, was on hand to bless the fleet, followed by live music and entertainment. I'd like to give my best wishes to the Beaumaris office bearers: Commodore David Bell; Vice Commodore Les Sabo; Rear Commodore Michael Busuttil; Finance Director Hein Preller; Fishing Director Brendan Hocking; Site Director Shane Benedict; Club Secretary Simon Bartaby; Social Director John Giuliano; Immediate Past Commodore Ross Popplewell; and the hard-working staff, Club Manager Anthony Heyde and Club Caterer Armin Pfister.
We're only just coming up to the start of the sailing season for some other clubs. In particular, on Sunday 27th, the Black Rock Yacht Club will be celebrating their 100th anniversary at this year's opening ceremony. Guests will be treated to some full-bodied blues from 6 pm courtesy of The Brewers. I'd like to pass on best wishes to the committee for the season: Commodore Lara Blasse; Vice Commodore John Sammons; Rear Commodores Mark Jackson and Nik Wallis; Immediate Past Commodore Gary Lokum; Secretary Annabel Russell; Treasurer Gary McLennan; Sailing Captain Andre Blasse; and general committee members Mike Flavell, Brian Long and Graeme Ainley.
Of course, all of these critical yacht clubs are an important part of the Goldstein community as is the Sandringham Yacht Club. At their opening day, the club's 10th anniversary celebrations continued, with the Andy Healey Trio providing entertainment. Awards for the best-dressed boats went to Lebrok, owned by Theo Korbel; Estella Grace, owned by Stephan Morrison-Jack; and Strong Willed owned by Will Fearn. Club members and visitors will be in good hands this summer under the leadership of Commodore Ashley Trebilcock; Vice Commodore Garry Anderson; Rear Commodore Sue Bowes; and club captains Daniel Edwards, Simon Hemingway and David Suda. The Treasurer, Scott Sampson, will also be there to help, as will general committee members Jack Fullerton, Cathryn Furey, Kevin Hibberson, Michael Kostos and Phil Simpfendorfer.
Each one of these clubs plays a critical role in the Goldstein community as part of the social fabric that takes advantage of our greatest natural asset, Port Phillip, and we wish them well for the 2019-20 sailing season.
St Clare's Catholic High School
Chifley Electorate: Firefighters
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (10:18): We recently celebrated a terrific milestone in our area: the 25th anniversary of St Clare's Catholic High School Hassall Grove. Founded in 1994, the school began with just 100 students but has now grown to become a fixture of our local community, with a cohort of over 500 students. As Hassall Grove has grown over the years, St Clare's has adapted to serve the growing needs of the community, with the school also commencing its first senior cohort this year. As part of the school's celebration, I was really pleased to attend a special mass to mark the feast of St Clare, who is the school's patron. The mass was also attended by the Most Reverend Vincent Long Van Nguyen, Bishop of Parramatta, who delivered the homily.
I would like to thank the broader school community, along with their new principal, Kevin Jones, for their commitment to our local area. I want to wish them all the best not just for the 25 years that they've just completed but for the next 25 years as they educate the next generation of local community leaders.
I'd like to take this chance to acknowledge some of the brave men and women from Chifley who recently travelled to fight bushfires raging in the Grafton region, 600 kilometres north of Sydney. Some of these fires have been burning since early September. While rain may have eased some conditions, there remain ongoing blazes and long-lasting damage from these terrible fires. From the Cumberland Zone fire brigade, which includes the Chifley electorate, over 150 firefighters made their way north to battle these terrible blazes. Firefighters from the Plumpton Rural Fire Brigade fought the Kaloe Mountain Trail fire, which I'm told grew to over 24,000 hectares in size, with a perimeter in excess of 300 kilometres, which is simply stunning. The courageous actions of these firefighters helped prevent the fire spreading to surrounding forests, with crews working night and day to keep the fires under control.
I just want to acknowledge the work and commitment of Plumpton rural firefighters Phil Cook, Daniel Anderson, Alan Barnes, John Foster and John Pryde, along with Eastern Creek firefighters Natalie Milligan, Matt Scott, Peter Anderson, Matthew and Michael Taylor, Alan Whitehead, Trevor Haskins, Michael O'Donovan, Yass Nijaat and Najee Sader, along with all those who travelled to the affected regions to assist local fire crews. You've made our area proud. I thank all those volunteers and people who commit to help out in the most difficult and trying of circumstances. My contribution today is in part a reflection of our local community's gratitude for what you do. We want you to know that, while you don't expect gratitude, we extend it to you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): I note the member for Chifley's remarks and thank the firefighters also, because they are in my community.
Cordingley, Ms Toyah
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (10:21): Next week marks the first anniversary of the brutal and horrific murder of 24-year-old Cairns woman Toyah Cordingley. Sadly, her killer or killers have not been caught, despite the biggest murder investigation Far North Queensland has seen. In fact, it's one of the largest police investigations since the kidnap and murder of Daniel Morcombe, with nearly 1,200 calls about the case made to Crime Stoppers. Ms Cordingley's murder on 21 October 2018, at Wangetti Beach, shocked my community to its core, and the effects are still being felt today. When she was murdered, Toyah was doing what thousands of other people do every day: walking her dog on one of our magnificent beaches.
On Saturday 19 October her family, friends, loved ones and perfect strangers will gather to remember the life that was so senselessly taken far too soon. Of course, they'll be wearing yellow, Toyah's favourite colour. They will meet at Ellis Beach before making their way down to Wangetti Beach for a short ceremony before unveiling a memorial monument in the southern car park. I've absolutely no doubt it will be a very emotional day for many people. Her murder is still very raw for many people in my community.
In the days and weeks following Toyah's murder, it became very clear that my community would never give up until the person or persons responsible were brought to justice. Thousands of bumper stickers were produced, and numerous banners, signs and billboards were erected on major thoroughfares, calling for information. It was a sustained community effort to keep the case in the spotlight, led by my friend Prong Trimble. The bumper stickers featuring Toyah's smiling face and sunflowers can be seen on vehicles across Far North Queensland and Australia, including on my own vehicle. Each and every day when I drive to and from work, I pass a couple of the huge billboards erected on the Captain Cook Highway urging people with information to contact the police. It's a daily reminder of how much Toyah's senseless murder touched my community, myself included.
Toyah's life and love of animals have been remembered in numerous ways. The federal government recently announced funding towards a Paws and Claws animal shelter at Port Douglas. Toyah volunteered countless hours for Paws and Claws. It was one of her great passions. Management of Paws and Claws, led by Michael Kerr, had no hesitation in dedicating an area of the new shelter to Toyah's memory. A mural of Toyah in a field of sunflowers will be painted on the wall in the dedicated puppy area so she can always look over and protect her animals. It will be known as Toyah's Puppy Nursery.
Toyah's murder touched so many people, but one thing has become very apparent: we will never give up until her killer or killers are brought to justice. May she rest in peace.
Gorton Young Leaders Workshop
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (10:24): I rise to speak about the Gorton Young Leaders Workshop, a new initiative I established to help develop the young people of Gorton into the leaders of the future. I want to help young people from Gorton reach their full potential because I want the leaders of the future to come from Gorton as well as anywhere else. Therefore I believe it's of vital importance to identify, encourage and support young people who demonstrate a commitment to active public leadership.
It's now been 10 years since I started the Gorton Young Leaders Awards: an annual event since 2009. Every year, I've been impressed by the contribution, the philanthropy, the volunteerism, the generosity and the leadership of the young people in receipt of those awards. However, this year, I wanted to not just acknowledge the achievements of young people but also play an active role in developing them. That is where the idea for the Gorton Young Leaders Workshop came from.
Earlier this month, a select group of six young people from Gorton aged between 15 and 21 took part in a daylong workshop that focused on leadership and policymaking. The participants were Nathan Guinan, who was instrumental in setting up this workshop after undertaking work experience in my office; Srishti Bali; Khalil El-Samad; Alex Wall; Yohanna Mequwanint; and Hala El-Samad. What impresses most about these young people is their commitment and drive to creating change to make our community a better place. I look forward to charting their progress in the years ahead and I'll be watching as they become local leaders of the future.
This was just the first of what I hope will be many Gorton Young Leaders Workshop as I work with a range of young people throughout our community to identify and encourage future participants. What I do know is that young people in Gorton sometimes face a whole host of serious challenges when trying to reach their full potential. Gorton is not an affluent area. Employment opportunities for young people are not always sufficient, and many young people come from families where English is not their first language. Sometimes they do have particular barriers to progress. Even just undertaking further education can be a challenge for Gorton residents, with some young people that I'm aware of spending more than four hours a day on a return trip to a university.
Despite these challenges, I see great potential in our young people. I want to ensure that they have all the opportunities that their counterparts elsewhere have and that they richly deserve. It is with immense pride that I'm helping the young people of Gorton today so they can be the country's leaders of tomorrow.
Regional and Rural Health Care
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (10:27): I want to speak about a subject that I am particularly passionate about: regional and rural health care. This subject impacts millions of people who live outside urban areas. In my electorate of Mallee we have the worst ratio of GPs to population in Victoria. While Melbourne has one GP to 900 people, in Mallee we do not experience such parity. In the Swan Hill region, for example, the ratio is one GP to 6,289 people; and, in Horsham, one GP to 3,400.
These ratios provide evidence that we must have a regional and rural lens on healthcare reform. As a proud Nationals MP, I will fight until a working model is implemented. I understand these numbers simply identify the problem we face in getting GPs to rural and regional areas. However, I argue that the answer is not an answer that might have served 50 years ago.
General practice, and the culture of general practice, has changed. Young medical graduates today are a different demographic. There are many more women who choose to mix family responsibilities with work and life balance, and they are looking for a supportive work environment. I recognise this through stakeholder engagement and the realities of rural circumstances.
We need integrated medical networks made up of GPs, allied health and primary health teams. Nurse practitioners must play a larger role in a highly skilled team, because they have so much to give in rural and regional communities. It is common knowledge that the Medicare Benefits Schedule is being reviewed. This is important for the viability and sustainability of our healthcare system. It's important that nurse practitioners are able to work and be paid for their vast skills.
I had the pleasure of visiting Mallee Track Health and Community Service in Ouyen last week. This healthcare service while struggling with current funding limitations nonetheless gives a model to build on. Block funding mixed with MBS payments helps a single-employer model provide a mix of aged care, urgency care, GPs, and primary and allied health in on-site and outreach work in communities, with a reach as far as Murrayville. This integrated model provides a lens to consider options for healthcare delivery in all regions across Australia. I assert that a person's health should not be dependent on their postcode.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): In accordance with standing order 139, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
COMMITTEES
Treaties Committee
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (10:30): I rise to speak about the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties's Report 186 on the Indonesia and Hong Kong free trade agreements. Labor welcomes progress made to safeguard Australian jobs and economic growth. I want to acknowledge the members of the JSCOT. In this JSCOT report on the Indonesia and Hong Kong free trade agreements, Labor particularly welcomes the recommendations that the government conduct independent modelling of all proposed trade agreements and pursue the termination of the existing bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between Australia and Indonesia.
Importantly, the report confirms that there is no waiver of labour market testing for contractual service supplies in either the Indonesia or the Hong Kong agreement. While Labor does not support the inclusion of the investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, provisions in trade agreements, the report highlights that the ISDS provisions in IA-CEPA, the Indonesian agreement, include safeguards equivalent to the best Australia has agreed to date. Moreover, the ISDS provisions in this agreement are superior to those currently in force under the BIT, the bilateral investment treaty with Indonesia. The report has found that IA-CEPA would reduce tariffs imposed by Indonesia, facilitate cooperation to address non-tariff barriers, ease restrictions on Australia's participation in Indonesia's services sector and improve protections for Australian investment in Indonesia.
In the case of the Hong Kong FTA, Labor welcomes the committee's acknowledgement of concerns about the political situation in Hong Kong and its view that the treaty's ratification would strengthen Hong Kong's unique status under the one country, two systems arrangement and provide greater certainty for Australian business.
As set out by my colleague Peter Khalil, the Deputy Chair of JSCOT, when presenting this report in the House this week, Labor is pleased that the body of the report stresses the importance of improving consultation mechanisms to be more inclusive of civil society, the union movement and businesses. The Labor members of the committee argued that any future agreement with Indonesia for the entry of temporary foreign workers should: one, be negotiated as a treaty-level agreement so that it would come back to JSCOT for further consideration; and two, include a commitment to labour-market testing to preference Australian jobs and also skills tests to ensure that any temporary foreign workers meet the same standards as Australian workers.
In light of these concerns, Labor will continue to push for the expertise of industry, unions and community groups in the course of trade negotiations. But I note that the report concludes that these agreements are ultimately in Australia's national interest. The economic gains to be made for Australians are major. Deepened economic cooperation with one of our closest and most important neighbours is clearly in Australia's national interest, and this is obvious in light of the fact that Indonesia will be larger than the UK and France economically by 2030 in PPP terms. Indonesia is predicted to be the fourth-largest economy in the world by 2050, which will make it half the size of the US economy in PPP terms and roughly four times the size of the Australian economy by then. In that light, it's extraordinary that Indonesia accounts for two per cent of our exports.
Northern Australia is particularly well placed to reap the benefits of expanding our trade and investment portfolio in Indonesia, and vice versa. There are huge opportunities for northern Australian retail and hospitality suppliers to better integrate the Indonesian tourism supply chains. Under IA-CEPA, there are real opportunities for northern Australian education and VET providers to work in the Indonesian education sector. There are opportunities for Australian cattle, dairy, vegetable, wheat, sugar and steel exporters and mining services firms, among other sectors.
But these economic gains are also a means to an end, and the longer term end is the intergenerational effort of deepening the people-to-people links and strategic trust between Indonesia and Australia, because our freedom, wealth and security are inseparable from Indonesia's. As the representative of Australia's northern capital of Darwin and a long-time friend and student of Indonesia, I'll continue to do my part to deepen our ties. I truly believe the Australian Labor Party will continue to play a major role in this long-term endeavour, as that has been the historic and enduring position of the Australian labour movement from the time it first supported Indonesia's independence.
I was very proud to be appointed recently by the member for Grayndler, the Leader of the Opposition, as the chair of federal Labor's Indo-Pacific trade task force. We've got stuck in to work that is truly in the national interest. It was fantastic to be able to travel to Jakarta to meet with the Indonesian foreign affairs minister with the opposition leader and also the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Penny Wong. We had a great roundtable facilitated by the Australian embassy in Jakarta. I'd like to thank the ambassador and staff and all the participants of that event. We learnt a great deal.
Then, self-funded, I travelled through Indonesia to West Timor, which is one of the close neighbours of Darwin and the Northern Territory, where I met with the deputy governor. There's a lot we can do, particularly from northern Australia, with NTT, Nusa Tenggara Timor, that very eastern province of Indonesia. We talked about increasing connectivity and the opportunities for Australian businesses to partner with businesses in NTT.
It's important to lead. It doesn't matter whether you're in opposition or in government, it's incumbent on all of us to be active leaders in bringing our two countries together. The future for our two countries is in deeper engagement. We need to deepen our economic, cultural, people-to-people and business-to-business links with Indonesia. I strongly believe that, and it's self-evident that geography doesn't change, so our strengthened ties with Indonesia are incredibly important. I would suggest that it behoves us all to continue to think about Indonesia as an absolute economic, strategic partner.
I'm glad that, even though the opposition isn't in total agreement with what the government members of the JSCOT report concluded, there are some very strong recommendations in it that are going to be very important for our future economic ties. The recommendation to conduct independent modelling on all proposed trade agreements was a very important one. So too was the recommendation to pursue the termination of the existing BIT—bilateral investment treaty—between Australia and Indonesia, because it contained very poor ISDS protections.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave it there, but before I finish I want to emphasise the importance of our relationship with Indonesia and the contribution that this report has made to our deliberations in relation to the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, in particular, and in relation to the treaty with Hong Kong.
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (10:40): As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and a proud supporter of Australian businesses, I rise to support the findings as outlined in the report, specifically the establishment of comprehensive trade agreements between the government of Australia and the government of Indonesia; and between the government of Australia and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. I'd like to take this opportunity to recognise the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, for his work on these agreements, and I'd also like to acknowledge and recognise the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the member for Wentworth.
As we know, free trade agreements provide enormous benefits to Australian businesses and to each and every Australian, and the benefits of the free trade agreements with Indonesia and Hong Kong are clear. They include the reduction of tariffs on a range of things. In relation to the Indonesian free trade agreement, we will see a reduction of tariffs on Australian agricultural and industrial goods going to Indonesia, including frozen beef, sheepmeat, feed grains, sugar, dairy, citrus and vegetables, and also hot and cold rolled steel coil and copper cathodes. This free trade agreement is particularly important for our agricultural sector. In fact, the CEO of the National Farmers Federation told the Treaties Committee:
Indonesia is a critically important neighbour and, with a population of over 250 million people, a growing market for Australian exporters … The parliament must act to ensure farmers could benefit as soon as possible.
The CEO of the NFF, Mr Mahar, further highlighted that the agreement would:
… create new opportunities for Australian exporters to partner with Indonesian businesses both to supply Indonesian customers with even more quality Australian agricultural produce and export more broadly with the region.
These sentiments were echoed by Don Mackay, chair of the Red Meat Advisory Council, who said:
The benefits of ratifying IA-CEPA and securing more trade certainty with a key export market are unsurpassed – particularly at a time of global trade disruption.
But the agricultural industry is not the only industry that will benefit from the free trade agreement with Indonesia. The agreement also provides certainty for Australian investors and service industry suppliers by guaranteeing levels of Australian ownership, with the strongest services commitments Indonesia has made in a trade agreement. I note that in the services space the free trade agreement covers work training, university education, mining, hospitals, in-hospital services, tourism and transport. Just to give you a few examples of what it will deliver, Mr Deputy Speaker, majority Australian owned suppliers of technical and vocational education and training can provide services in Indonesia, and majority Australian owned businesses can operate railway and road transport infrastructure. In the tourism sector, wholly Australian owned three-star to five-star hotels and resorts can be established anywhere in Indonesia.
Similarly, the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement ensures that Australia's existing duty free access is locked in. Australian goods exporters will continue to have tariff-free entry into the future, despite Hong Kong's legal right, under the World Trade Organization, to introduce tariffs on a range of products. Australia's exports to Hong Kong are dominated by gold, with gold exports worth $7 billion in 2018, accounting for nearly 70 per cent of Australia's total exports to Hong Kong. The FTA with Hong Kong locks in duty-free access for gold and other resources, including iron ore, coal and petroleum. The wine annex, something of great interest to my home state of South Australia, provides new commitments to improve transparency of regulations and labelling requirements for wine, which will reduce uncertainty and lower the costs of doing business. This is great news for Australian wine producers, including in my fine home state of South Australia. The food products annex aims to facilitate trade in all food products, including by promoting the use of international standards, and providing a mechanism to enhance collaboration between regulators. It will also facilitate speedy resolution if consignments of perishables are delayed at the border. The agreement also binds Hong Kong to maintain its open market settings for Australian services suppliers.
I could go into a range of other amazing benefits that this will provide to Australian businesses and service providers, whether through education in our universities or vocational education and training, but I'll just finish by noting the great benefits that free trade agreements provide to businesses. We know that more Australian businesses are exporting now, with over 53,000 businesses, including 46,000 small and medium-sized businesses, exporting in 2017-18. That is up 18½ per cent on 2013-14 figures. We know that one in five Australians are employed in trade related jobs, with more than 240,000 of those jobs created in the last five years. We are working to ensure that around 90 per cent of Australia's trade is covered by FTAs by 2022 because there are such significant benefits to our economy by increasing the trade we can do with other nations.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (10:46): I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak on report 186 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which deals with two preferential trade agreements, the first with Hong Kong and the second with Indonesia. I'll say something brief about each agreement in a minute, but I want to begin by making the point that we do need to be able to have a more detailed, constructive, and critical conversation about trade in this place and in the public domain.
For a trading nation like Australia it shouldn't be the case that our national conversation about trade is relatively shallow and basic. At the moment, in many cases it's reduced to not much more than cheerleading for any and all trade agreements as they come along. You would think, at the very least, we could acknowledge that every trade agreement involves negotiation and that no trade agreement achieves all the things we would like.
We should remember that while trade agreements may deliver an aggregate economic benefit, that benefit can be uneven: it can include gains and losses; it can create a substitution effect; and, in a relatively developed high-wage country like Australia, it can cost jobs. That's a matter of fact; it's a matter of common sense. It's happened in the past and it will happen again; it shouldn't produce howls of outrage to say that. The World Bank-commissioned analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership showed that the TPP would cost 38,000 full-time jobs in Australia while adding something like 0.5 per cent to GDP over 10 years.
One of the major shortcomings with our approach to trade at present is that we have no way of assessing on an independent basis the likely benefit of the agreements we settle. We don't commission independent analysis of an agreement in prospect, and we can't therefore assess whether its outcomes match our expectations in the short, medium or long term. I am glad that the JSCOT has again, with these agreements—as we did on a number of occasions in the 45th Parliament—recommended that the government institute the practice of commissioning such independent economic analysis. It's worth noting that it was a recommendation in the submission to the JSCOT from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
It's also a matter of fact that modern trade and investment agreements involve matters that are well outside the core trade-related subject matter of tariff reduction and increased access quotas. They include arrangements in relation to the power of multinational companies to challenge government policy through questionable international tribunals. As we saw with the Phillip Morris action, these challenges are costly, time consuming and reform delaying, and have the potential to massively undermine vital policy in the public interest for the sake of preserving corporate profit. They include, in Australia's case, arrangements that shape our approach to temporary foreign labour. In the past, these have been lopsided concessions on Australia's part. In other words, we've given away that access without some matching opportunity. And what is most serious about this is that we've done so by abandoning the core principles of labour market testing and actual skills testing in key trades like electrical and plumbing.
Modern trade agreements include arrangements that are the opposite of a free market philosophy, if that's your bag, in so much as they extend the intellectual property rights of big pharmaceutical companies. Indeed, if the United States had remained in the TPP, Australia was prepared to extend the monopoly rights for biologic medicines from five to eight years. That would likely have cost the PBS hundreds of millions of dollars or else delayed affordable access to these important medicines. All these extraneous matters, non-core trade matters, are, and should be, matters of concern to the Australian public. There's a strong argument in each case that these arrangements are not in the national interest. At the very least we need to have that conversation. We need to be able to have that argument.
The Hong Kong agreement essentially formalises, or locks in, the existing free trade tariff arrangements between our countries. It doesn't represent an expansion of access. It does help to retire the old bilateral investment treaty, and that's welcome to the extent that it was the old BIT that Philip Morris used when they sued the Australian government. They used an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. And we must remember that their action was not lost on the substance of the claim; it was lost because the tribunal determined that Philip Morris weren't, in effect, a Hong Kong company and so they couldn't have the benefit of that mechanism. We'll never know whether they might have succeeded if not for that technical issue. Clearly, they had legal advice that suggested they could use ISDS to knock out Australia's incredibly important and successful plain-packaging laws, which have helped reduce smoking, reduce the deaths that come with smoking and reduce the enormous costs to our health system.
The Indonesia agreement does include some substantial trade gains, including for grain producers and providers of educational services. That is welcome. It is welcome that we draw closer in our engagement with Indonesia, but there are non-trade aspects of the Indonesian agreement that deserve scrutiny. And while we recognise the benefits that may come with trade agreements, let's not run scared from the fact that there are legitimate concerns about both the substance of these trade deals and the process by which they have been settled. Let's remember that trade and investment agreements these days cover a lot more than tariffs and quotas alone.
There is a lot of huffing and puffing about the economic benefits of preferential trade agreements, and that's easy to do when you don't have independent economic analysis, but the government is very quiet about investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms, and it's deathly silent about the concessions it has been making in relation to temporary foreign labour access and skills assessments. In the main, I think it is fair to say that most Australians would not know a lot about ISDS arrangements. When they come to know about them, they're understandably concerned, and they should be, because ISDS allows foreign multinationals to sue the Australian government in questionable international tribunal processes. I don't know what 'negative globalism' means—it strikes me as a bit of opportunistic gobbledegook—but if you were concerned about negative globalism and protecting Australia's sovereign capacity to make laws in the public interest and the circumstances in which we make those laws, you would have a big concern about ISDS.
This government has added to the unholy mess of ISDS mechanisms by putting new arrangements in place with countries like Japan, for the first time, and additional replacement arrangements with numerous countries. Many are inconsistent with one another; some explicitly protect tobacco control, and some explicitly protect measures like the PBS. Others don't. Some mention health and the environment. Others don't. Why? How can we claim we're putting in place the best ISDS mechanisms when every mechanism we sign up to is different from the last?
In relation to the expansion of temporary foreign labour in Australia, make no mistake: this government has been using trade arrangements to undermine Australian jobs and working conditions. It has, on a number of occasions, included in trade agreements provisions that allow contractual service providers to bring workers in without recourse to labour market testing, and those service providers cover something like 65 per cent of all professions in Australia. That is a matter of concern.
In chapter 12 of the Indonesian treaty there's a provision for a future agreement on labour market access, and I moved, in the JSCOT process, a recommendation that said:
… the future resolution of an agreement with Indonesia on the movement of natural persons … only occur on the basis that any temporary foreign labour arrangements include the application of labour market testing and actual skills testing in relevant areas like electrical trades …
That wasn't supported in the JSCOT process. The government doesn't have to respond to that recommendation, because it didn't get up. That means, unfortunately, the legitimate concerns and the legitimate anxieties of working people remain unaddressed.
We know that this government, which is making a big noise about reducing permanent migration, is at the same time looking to expand temporary migration in order to meet its own budget forecasts. The government is steadily building a very significant cohort of temporary foreign workers in this country—and we know that those people are often subject to exploitation and that they're commonly employed on substandard pay and conditions—at a time when it is running the vocational and education systems in this country into the ground. What are going to be the consequences of that approach? We are living those consequences: stagnant real wages, falling standards of living, record underemployment, stalled productivity, and weak and falling economic growth. A lot of people are asking what the government is going to do to address those things. If you are asking that question, you have missed the point. This coalition government has created those circumstances and is continuing to push all the buttons and pull all the levers that will continue to make it worse.
I will always support, and Labor will always support and has always supported, fair and free trade, especially where it can be advanced cooperatively on an even and multilateral basis, where it ensures that economic activity does not come at the expense of our common wealth and our wellbeing in the form of workers' rights and our health and our environment. But, if we are to pursue trade on that basis, we need a much more constructive, detailed and critical engagement on this government's trade agenda, rather than what we've got now, because what we've got now is just the senseless cheerleading of each and every trade agreement that is rushed down the chute.
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (10:56): I welcome this opportunity to address the JSCOT report into the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement. This is in the context of the Morrison government's continuing pursuit of our very ambitious export growth agenda. Australian businesses that export, on average, hire 23 per cent more staff. They pay 11 per cent higher wages and have labour productivity rates that are 13 per cent higher than those of nonexporters. That's why trade contributes to our economy, creates jobs—higher paying jobs—and adds to our capacity to pay for the essential services that Australians demand and rely upon. Therefore, I welcome the findings of JSCOT in this report that the parliament should proceed as soon as possible to implement the Indonesia and Hong Kong free trade agreements. That's why the government is certainly progressing in that regard and is keen to ratify those agreements as soon as possible.
The Indonesia-Australia agreement, once implemented, will mean that over 99 per cent of Australia's good exports will enter Indonesia duty-free and under preferential arrangements. Frozen beef and sheepmeat, for example, will have their tariffs halved, with them being eliminated entirely after five years. Removing all remaining tariffs on dairy exports is so important for our ailing dairy industry. And there are opportunities in the vocational education, mining and related services, and tourism sectors, amongst others.
The Hong Kong-Australia Free Trade Agreement provides a comprehensive, ambitious agreement to govern the trade and investment relationship, including modern e-commerce rules governing free data flows across borders; guaranteeing access for service suppliers into key sectors such as finance, education, transport, tourism and professional services; and guaranteeing tariffs will be bound at zero per cent.
What is industry across Australia saying about this? The National Farmers' Federation stresses that the only way we can really provide greater certainty for our agricultural exporters is by signing free trade agreements. The dairy industry is certainly celebrating the Indonesian agreement in terms of job prospects and growth in existing exports. The grain industry, similarly, particularly focuses on Indonesia's stockfeed manufacturing market. The list goes on. In terms of food and agriculture value chains, the Australian Food and Grocery Council certainly celebrates the fact that more jobs and more impact in rural and regional Australia as a result will flow from the agreement. AUSVEG similarly talks about Indonesia being so important to us—because they're a close neighbour, quite obviously, but, most particularly, because they're expected to be the world's fifth-largest economy by 2030—particularly relating to opportunities in carrots and potatoes in their case.
I mention these examples because the government is implementing what industry is calling for in the interests of economic growth. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry talks about the Hong Kong agreement providing so much more market access for our insurance, banking and fintech industries, as well as reducing red tape, which is certainly what our government's all about. And of course the Business Council focuses on not only the agricultural opportunities that I've mentioned, but those in education and vocational education as well.
Today in Canberra, we have the 10-year strategic plan for the red meat industry being released. The chair of the Red Meat Advisory Council, Don Mackay, has talked about Indonesia being such an important partner for us in the live cattle trade, in the beef industry, and the fact that this agreement will secure more trade certainty for red meat products. This is the same situation with the Hong Kong agreement. I appreciate the fact that Hong Kong provides us with so much potential, given that out of my home city of Toowoomba we have a weekly freighter flight from the Wellcamp Airport that goes directly into Hong Kong, flown by Cathay Pacific. This flight, amongst other things, takes meat products from our own Oakey Beef Exports—a significant exporter and certainly the largest employer in the township of Oakey, outside Toowoomba.
This is about fair dinkum outcomes. This is about building on the advantages and efforts that we have in place already. That's why the National Farmers Federation CEO, Tony Mahar, says that lower tariffs and expanded quotas for a whole range of products—and, again, he talks about dairy, beef and sheepmeat, but also sugar—are so important. Let's remember that it's the NFF that's been in Parliament House this week celebrating its 40th anniversary, such is the significance of that organisation.
With regard to education, the Group of Eight universities talks about advantages. My colleagues referred to the Australian grape and wine industry, and of course the same goes for the minerals sector in our economy.
I've referred to my own experience in the Darling Downs. Ours is a dairy, grains, cotton and beef production area. As I mentioned, that weekly freighter flight from Wellcamp Airport straight into Hong Kong promises so much for future export growth and more jobs that don't exist at present in our economy. In my own case, prior to politics I had a significant background in the cotton industry and direct exports into Indonesia, having spent many years in Jakarta, Yogyakarta and other places, such as Bandung. We have a cotton industry trade that doesn't progress as much anymore, but this means—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 11:03 to 11:17
Debate adjourned.
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 TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (11:18): I have had the privilege of taking part in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, visiting Middle East operations, including in Iraq. It was a profound experience. Like many MPs with a Defence Force facility in their electorate—in my case, Glenbrook air headquarters and RAAF Base Richmond—I have got to appreciate the work that is done by serving personnel locally. I also gained deeper insight into the strategic role of my local facilities a couple of years ago after spending a week at sister base Amberley.
But the immersion into the Middle East operations earlier this month, at a time when the situation is developing apace, was incredibly valuable. There were many highlights. There is something quite surreal about flying in a KC-30 and watching planes refuelling just off your wing, in midair. The calmness with which the pilots and operator go through their processes, which involve a very small spout connecting with a very small hose in midair, is quite a sight to see. I want to especially mention Squadron Leader Chris for giving up his time to host us. The E-7 Squadron leader also gave us access to the Wedgetail, and we were duly impressed by its capabilities as a very powerful eye in the sky.
It was a personal delight for me to catch up with a young man from my electorate, Jordan, who is one of many from the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury who are working in the Middle East. In fact, wherever I turned, whether it was inspecting the firefighting facilities or walking to breakfast in the mess, connections with Richmond RAAF Base and Glenbrook were strong. My favourite sight one morning was seeing someone heading towards me in a T-shirt that said, 'New York, Paris, London, south Windsor'. I pulled him aside and said, 'You have to be from Hawkesbury,' which of course he was. A Richmond Hercules flew us to and from Iraq, its crew kindly giving us the chance to view the incoming approach and landing from the cockpit.
On the ground in Camp Taji in Iraq, we saw firsthand the efforts of Australian Defence Force personnel to help build capacity in the Iraqi military, to help stabilise that country. Since 2015, the Australian Army has maintained a training team at the base, designated Task Group Taji. The New Zealand Defence Force also contributes personnel and both were kind enough to include us in their activities. It is a veritable United Nations within Taji, with representatives from all over the world—and a big shout out to the Fijians. We visited the training school where the coalition is doing much less teaching and much more mentoring of Iraqi trainers these days, who are now delivering most of the program. The message we got from the Iraqis is that assistance from Australia has been greatly appreciated and the school remains ambitious to keep building on its facilities and expand the training experiences it offers students. I was also grateful to have conversations with Iraqi translators, who are working for the Australian and New Zealand forces, and they shared some of the challenges of their lives and their hopes, as Iraq rebuilds after many difficult years, and of course there is a very long way to go.
Throughout it all, the professionalism of our troops to maintain their readiness and continue training was evident everywhere we went. I want to thank the quick reaction force platoon commander, who included us in exercises with the Australian and New Zealand soldiers. The bruises may be fading but my memories of those activities won't. Thanks also to the training team unit major, who, like so many others I can't begin to name, shared his experiences as he showed us the base, including a virtual men's shed, where Australian blokes and women can potter in their downtime.
At Australia's Middle East base, where we were put through our paces to prepare for the trip to Iraq, the RSO training, I'm pleased that not only have they managed to teach me how to pack a wound and tie a tourniquet but it turns out I'm not as bad a shot as I thought I might be. All this occurred under the leadership of Headquarters Joint Task Force 633 commander Rear Admiral Hill and the Chief Warrant Officer Matt Hurley, who allowed us into the workings of this home away from home for so many Australian Defence Force personnel. Our visit liaison officer Sonia Leon Sepulveda and Flying Officer Olivia Quattroto made sure we knew where to eat, that we were where we needed to be when we needed to be there, and they went out of their way to help us get our heads around a very different routine and way of life. Major James McGarrigle and Major M, our military advisors and security escorts—the most awesome pair—helped us unravel not only what Australia's defence personnel are doing but also what some of the really big challenging issues are on the ground in the Middle East and what the implications are for Australia.
My overriding take away aside from those fading bruises is the huge personal sacrifices that individuals make when they deploy. It's not just the long hours focused on their job and the 24/7 work environment, even when they're off duty; it is the enormous amount of time they are spending away from family and friends. They're in a really stimulating work environment and I think one of the biggest challenges is for the family and friends who are back in Australia—the challenge that it all presents for maintaining relationships and really the huge thing we ask of people who stay back home. I also appreciated the sense of family that being in the Defence Force confers, especially when you are deployed away from home. They are a bunch who look out for each other. They have a strong sense of purpose and readily welcome people into their ranks, even politicians. I was very proud to be one of their number for a short while.
The ADF visit also highlights for me the debt we owe people when they leave the force. I think there is much we can do in this parliament to ensure that once people have completed their service they are treated in an appropriate way as they move into the civilian world.
The parliamentary program is a really important program for members of parliament to have access to. I thank the ADF for the effort they put into it to deepen our knowledge. I would certainly encourage all members to take part, whether they have a Defence Force facility in their community or not—perhaps more so if they don't, because this parliament makes decisions that impact on the lives of these personnel. In every budget, in every decision we make about foreign policy there are implications for our defence forces. So I really urge people to take the opportunity to go inside and understand just a little bit of what it's like, what some of the challenges are and what some of the opportunities are for people who serve. Once again, thank you to the ADF for the enormous effort you make to ensure that we have a safe and fascinating time as we get to know your world.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) (11:25): It's really good to be able to rise today to speak on the address-in-reply. It was very humbling to have been returned as the member for Petrie for the third time. I appreciate the people putting their faith in me at the 2019 election as their choice as the best candidate to represent the Moreton Bay and Brisbane regions within the Petrie electorate.
The region isn't just my home and the place in which my wife and I have decided to bring up our children; it's much more than that. It's the memories I have of growing up on the outskirts of the fast paced city of Brisbane. I grew up in Toolang Street and Talgai Street, Bracken Ridge. I have fond memories, including with my mate Ivan Astori, of playing street cricket together out the front of our house; racing go karts, as we called them, down Benaroon Street in Bracken Ridge—it was nicknamed 'the killer hill' because, as a child, it was so steep—and exploring the creek down near the Bracken Ridge Tavern, which now has a housing estate, Springer Hill. We used to run around there exploring the creek. I got a bad cut on my foot from running around there as a 12-year-old, and you can still see the scar. I learnt judo at the Bracken Ridge Scout Hall. I remember walking through McPherson Park with Ivan when I was seven, and we went past the scout hall. We started judo together, and I went on to do judo for 25 years. Judo taught me a lot of great things and I met a lot of great mates there growing up in Bracken Ridge and learning judo. I spent weekends by the water, cherishing special moments with my father when we'd go out fishing and crabbing in the bay off Clontarf and Scarborough in dad's tinny, and we'd go camping up Saltwater Creek and mud-crabbing before it became a green zone. There was an old horse farm up there on Mango Hill. Dad and I would go camping up there for the whole weekend. I'd come back covered in mosquito and sand fly bites. They are great memories of growing up in the electorate that I represent. Now I'm making new memories with my own children down on the water, enjoying water sports and so forth.
We have great community spirit in the Petrie electorate. It's in suburbs in the Brisbane city council area like Fitzgibbon, Bald Hills, Aspley and Bridgeman Downs and in the more northerly parts of my electorate, up in Deception Bay and Burpengary East; North Lakes, of course, a very fast growing suburb; Mango Hill and Griffin; and, of course, all of the Redcliffe peninsula. That's to name just a few suburbs in Petrie. It's a very diverse electorate. I enjoy getting out and meeting the people.
It's in part thanks to the community spirit that I'm standing here again following the 2019 election. I pride myself on being a hardworking member and representative of the people. I like to represent them here, to bring their feedback and what they're telling me to this place. In order for me to achieve that goal, I have to acknowledge the work of my very dedicated team and passionate army of volunteers who make up Team Petrie, Help Luke Howarth or Help Our Liberal-National Party Team. They're the ones who stood beside me whilst I was campaigning, at prepoll volunteering hours, doorknocking, helping out in the office, making calls—everything that's involved with campaigning.
There are a few people I will name. I want to acknowledge my parents, Ron and Denise Howarth. I spoke about them in my first speech in this place. I'm very fortunate; they're wonderful parents. They helped me and my younger sister, Gemeah, a lot. My dad pretty well put up every sign site I had in the Petrie electorate. I think it took him weeks to do it along with Barry Keam, a Bracken Ridge local—who is actually in the parliament today. It's a shame he couldn't be up here to hear this speech, but he is in my office at the moment, I think. I want to thank Dad for everything that he's done for me and for the great financial education that many people in my electorate don't get from their fathers. My father taught me a great work ethic. Dad went to school till he was 10; he left school after year 5 and then started work, as you did back then. He went from job to job; ran his own businesses and was a good father to me; he taught me a lot. My mum was brilliant as well. She helped me a lot and really cared for me. I want to thank them.
There are so many people to thank. Of course there are my wife, Louise, and my three sons, who are always keen to help. I don't take their help for granted. I always say to them: 'I'm going to do the best I can. I'll take one term at a time.' They always encourage me and get out and help me. They're a brilliant family. Thanks to my sons and wife.
I want to thank Troy and Cathy from North Lakes; and Kerri-Anne Dooley in Redcliffe, who did a great job for me as well; Alyanne and David; Josh Robsen; Alan Brady; Jake Scott; Scott Lammi; Geoff Godfrey; Bill; Ron Bright; Rhona Scott; Alex Croft; Daniel Edmonds; Louise Nelson; Tracy Davis; Rae Frawley; and Kay Thomas as well as Kara Thomas, who did a fantastic job helping me all the time.
Thank you to my FDC team: Chris, Jasmine, Robert and Rodney. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker McVeigh, you need a great FDC. Thank you to my coordinators for different areas: Rae and Jeff, Ryan and Louise, Troy and Kathy, and Brendon and Doug.
I also want to thank my electorate office team, for which I am very fortunate: Sue Quinn, widely known as one of the hardest-working staff in this House; Sherilee McDougall; Zuzanna Kamusinski; Susanne Cloake; and Lisa Attwood. All of these people did a great job for me, and I want to thank them very much. It's impossible to name everyone—there are so many people who helped me—but I just wanted to acknowledge a few people that I thought of.
I want to thank everyone who donated to my campaign—who want to help. And you know why they donate? For no other reason than that they appreciate the values that we bring as a member but also as a party: lower taxes, smaller government, reward for effort, looking after the environment, respecting the family—those sort of things.
What was clear is the number of people who simply didn't want a Shorten Labor government at this last election. They really didn't want a higher-taxing agenda. People came out to me from all over the place—people who had never voted for the coalition before—and they said, 'I've always voted Labor, Luke, but I'm voting for you this time.' It was quite unique. I want to thank those people for putting their trust in me and I will continue to do my best. I never take people's trust for granted; I always work hard and take every election one by one. Thank you again to those people.
What I really enjoy about being an MP is getting out and meeting people. I love the campaigning. You meet so many different people when you are out doorknocking, talking to people on the phone or meeting people at coffee shops or the many mobile offices that I do. The new member for Lilley dropped into one of my mobile offices at Bald Hills, and it was good to meet her for the first time there. In saying that, I try to work with fellow federal MPs, state MPs or councillors regardless of their party to deliver more for the people of my electorate, because that's why we are here: to work for the people. And so I'll continue to do that as well.
As much as I would love to be in every single suburb speaking to every single constituent every day of the week, that's not always possible, so, when the people of Petrie elected me for a third time, I've always made the commitment to myself that I'd put them first. As a newly appointed Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services, I'm taking that role really seriously and trying to work in a bipartisan way to help people right around the country, but I can assure the people of Petrie that I'll be spending plenty of time in the electorate and also putting their needs as No. 1.
We have a fantastic electorate. When I was first elected, I thought: what's important to the people of Petrie? New jobseekers, I thought, needed skills to help them land work, so I started the Job Seeker Boot Camp. As a former small business owner—I had a small team of about 15 or 20 people—I got to know what employers look for when hiring, so I was able to start the Job Seeker Boot Camp that I run at least three times a year. I invite all the unemployed along, and I get employers with more than five people to say, 'Look, this is what we actually look for when hiring.' There are common themes there. It's often about attitude and making sure that you've got a great attitude. It's making sure, as well, that you are drug and alcohol free, which is really important. It's making sure that you care about the work that you're doing.
This Job Seeker Boot Camp has been extremely successful because there are people there who have applied for literally hundreds of jobs and never got a response from businesses, so it encourages them and gives them a bit of an understanding of what employers want. Did you know that most jobs are found in Australia through networking and word of mouth? I can bet that any MP in this place, if they're looking for an electoral officer, will often say to their team, 'Do you know anyone who would be good for this role?' It's the same in the workplace in the private sector. They go to other team members and say, 'Do you know anyone for this role?' So I speak to the jobseekers at the Job Seeker Boot Camp about networking and perhaps getting out and meeting new people.
Infrastructure and facilities are so incredibly important, not just for a healthy lifestyle, like sporting facilities, but so people can be productive when they're moving around the electorate. Encouraging children, when I am out as a federal MP, is important when I'm in schools, or even at kindergartens or high schools or unis, and encouraging youth who will leaving school that they can be their best. It's also important to encourage adults, despite their circumstances about where they are in life now, to move to the next point and not be dependent on government, not be dependent on government crumbs whether it's Newstart or whatever it is for the rest of their life, and to get out of the financial situation that they're in now. I think we need to do a better job with financial education. In many cases, if you're in the private sector, often the private sector will do checks and things, but in social housing state governments often put you in there for life. There are no checks. There are no inspections. There is no encouragement. They are just left there to fend for themselves.
Speaking as a federal MP about the Constitution and about civic education is important. The engagement of people is so important, getting people to engage with the work that we're trying to do as a government, or the work that councillors or state MPs are trying to do, so they understand how to participate and how to get more done locally.
I love meeting volunteers, whether it's volunteers who help in the environment or at arts or music festivals. In former parliaments here, I was the House chair of the Standing Committee on Communications and Arts. We did some great inquiries into the film and TV industry as well as the music industry. Events like Rocking 4 The Homeless in my electorate where people want to help people who are homeless, organisations like Lions who run the Recycle for Sight in my electorate and help internationally, and Rotary who are very involved with international exchange students, come to mind. It's the women's Zonta groups who, in particular, have run great campaigns about violence and that domestic violence is never acceptable. My father, Ron, always taught me, and I've taught my three sons: you don't hit women. It's that simple. You treat people well. It's a biblical principle as well, the old golden rule: treat other people as you want to be treated. I want to thank Zonta for the work that they do in their campaigns.
It's the Quota women, as well, who have been reading in schools. So many children don't have parents who read to them every night. Kids love it when the Quota women come in and just read a book to them—or their federal member comes in and reads to them!
There are plenty of Men's Sheds, whether at Bridgeman Downs, Clontarf, Redcliffe or Burpengary East, that do a great job. It's where men can connect with each other, just be mates and teach and mentor one another. There are churches. I have to say that churches do a great job in our community. They've had a bad reputation, some of them, in the past with royal commissions and so forth, but I look at the Catholic parish in Bracken Ridge and the work they do with refugees, and the Aspley parish and the work that Aspley Care does in helping people in financial need. Baptist churches do homeless and community support and youth work, and they help people grow in their spiritual faith and become better citizens. The Uniting Church at Redcliffe and the Citipointe Church at Clontarf—what amazing leadership they have! I've been there recently and I just see the joy that people have in going there. I want to thank that leadership for the work they do. Downpour Church is at North Lakes, and I met with the pastor out there. He's a good bloke—down-to-earth. They're helping youth in North Lakes. There is the Anglican Church in Redcliffe and also the Church of Christ in Zillmere. That is just out of my electorate, but I went down there. They do some good work as well. I want to thank them all for the work that they do.
There are other faiths, like the Bald Hills mosque in my electorate. I went there after the Christchurch attack. I met people on the way out and just shook hands with them and said g'day. I've been there a few times now, and they're good people. They're raising their families and running small businesses. Some are health professionals; one of the doctors who attends that mosque lives in Mango Hill along with his wife and daughters. He's a fantastic man. They became citizens the other night—all five of them, the whole family. I had the pleasure of being at their citizenship ceremony.
The Sikh faith community meets at Taigum, on the border with Bracken Ridge. I've been to their centre. There are plenty of ethnic groups in the electorate. We're all Australians, as we know, and these people have embraced Australian values; I've seen it at the citizenship ceremonies. Pilipinos and Indians have a big presence in my electorate, and there are also the Brisbane Chinese Association and the Brisbane Malayalee Association. And there are so many South Africans in North Lakes—great people!
I love the Pacific Islanders. When I was 21 I had the chance to spend three weeks in Samoa. When I went there, it was a real culture shock: everyone just slept in the same room, we were killing pigs and there were chickens on the bus. It was fantastic—really good. But now I've developed a taste for taro, and so I love to go to the Deception Bay Island Tastee shop and just have an island feed.
Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, in particular, have a large number of people in Deception Bay. I want to thank them for the work that they do and the contribution that they make to Australia. And I want to thank my good friend Ramone Close. I've got to know him and he's a great man; I met him through Peninsula Power. He and his partner, Jemar, are expecting their first child.
It's a real privilege to be the federal member; I never take it for granted. It was humbling to be re-elected for a third time. I could probably speak for a couple of hours about the material I've got here, but I don't have time and only have a couple of minutes to go. So I will wrap up by saying that my commitment to the electorate is that I will continue to work hard and do my best.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 11 : 43 to 11 : 54
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (11:54): I would like to congratulate all of those who have taken up chairing roles in this new parliament. I offer my congratulations to the Speaker, the deputy speakers and the Speaker's panel. At the recent election, I was very privileged to be re-elected as the member for Kingston for my fifth term in this parliament. During the campaign, we had a significant opportunity to have conversations with local constituents about issues that affect them. Not only was this at election time; I've prided myself on being the member for Kingston that people see all year round, every year, not just at election time. I am very pleased to say the results in the seat of Kingston reinforce my work as a local member, but importantly the issues I am passionate about also resonate with my local constituents.
It would be dishonest of me to say that I wasn't disappointed by the election result. Labor had a broad agenda, touching on many, many important issues to my electorate. Without the election of a Labor government, there are many policies that will not be able to be implemented that would have supported my electorate, whether that be funding for schools, making sure that every school no matter what the postcode gets the resources it needs to ensure that every child gets the best opportunities to succeed. Local hospitals, particularly public hospitals, will not get the funding they so desperately need. In South Australia, we've seen what that lack of funding is doing and we are seeing the most extraordinary ramping scenarios, where ambulances have patients in the back just sitting at emergency departments because there is no space for them. In the area of early education, it is incredibly disappointing that we will not see a scenario under this government of two years of funded preschool, a really important policy that Labor took to the election.
The election result was disappointing, but the now Labor opposition must think carefully about what our policies are. All of our policies are up for review, but there were some important principles and values that were fought at the election that resonated very clearly in my electorate. These involved funding for schools and hospitals, and an agenda to bring down energy prices and to address the cost of living. Before the election, Kingston had a redistribution, so over the last year and a half it was wonderful to get to know better the residents of Flagstaff Hill, Aberfoyle Park, Chandlers Hill and Darlington. Along with the existing suburbs of the seat of Kingston, it was a great pleasure to talk about the issues that affected them.
Speaking with these families, whether in the new suburbs or the existing suburbs of Kingston, I pledged that I will continue to do what I have always done in this place—work hard for them, make sure they have a voice in Canberra, make sure that their issues are put on the table not only with the federal government but also with all levels of government. I will work hard to ensure the government doesn't forget to deliver, deliver on decent government services for them, whether that be health, education or importantly essential services that we rely on, often delivered by Centrelink—whether that is family payments, the pension or the NDIS. We need a government that delivers support for those that need it when they need it, not delayed 12 months. I'll continue to fight for them in this place to make sure that they get the services that they deserve and need.
Also in this place, I will make sure I am fighting for the infrastructure and investment needed in our community. Unfortunately, this government has not invested infrastructure money in the seat of Kingston, despite me highlighting many, many projects that could benefit from that investment. So I'll continue to lobby for investment in infrastructure in our electorate.
Of course, my priority has always been fighting for jobs and decent wages for my community and right around the country. We need to have a government that is firmly focused on jobs. Unfortunately I don't believe this government are. They are saying there is no issue when it comes to underemployment, casualisation and instability of work hours. Well, if you listen to my electorate and many, many workers in my electorate, this is an issue and it does need to be addressed. So I will continue to fight for all of these issues and continue to listen and consult with my electorate. And I will raise new issues in this place as they emerge, raise them with the government and continually make sure that your voice is heard.
Despite the coalition being re-elected at this election, I think their attitude towards the southern suburbs of Adelaide was on display when many, many polling booths in my electorate did not have a Liberal representative on them. This is a seat, the seat of Kingston, that had been held by Liberal members in the past and was considered a marginal seat, yet at this election the Liberal Party did not show up in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. I want to put on record the fact that I was disappointed about the disdain that the Liberal Party showed for the seat of Kingston and the southern suburbs of Adelaide.
I'd also like to point out that during the election period the Liberals committed zero dollars in local election commitments to the southern suburbs of Adelaide. Compare that to Labor, who funded many projects. I fought for these commitments for the electorate after extensive consultation. These projects included the expansion of services at the Noarlunga Hospital, our local hospital, which deserves investment. They included the completion of the coastal trail at Witton Bluff and Hallett Cove. This would connect the southern coastline with a walking and cycling trail, a project that would attract significant tourism and jobs. They included construction of female changing facilities at the Happy Valley Football Club. This is a local club that does great things at supporting women in sport, and currently there are five women's and girls' teams who don't have the facilities to support their growth.
The projects included the construction of a nature place space at the Seaford Rise disability unit. This would provide physical, cognitive, social and emotional benefits for students with an intellectual disability. And of course Labor committed to a sensory learning area at the Hackham West R-7 School. Finally, we committed additional education equipment for the Lonsdale Heights Playgroup, a volunteer-run playgroup that is attended by some vulnerable children and families that rely on second-hand toys at the moment. So the investment there would have gone a long way.
In total, Labor made $8 million worth of local commitments in addition, of course, to the national commitments that would have benefited my community. But from the Liberals, not one single cent. I urge the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party in the next budget—in fact, they could do it before; they could do in it MYEFO—to match these commitments. I've undertaken significant consultation with the community. The Liberal Party shouldn't just govern for those that voted for them. They should think about those that didn't vote for them as well, because that's what a responsible government that actually governs for the many not the few does, and match these $8 million worth of commitments. I will be watching in the MYEFO, in the budget, to see if this will happen. But of course we have a government that is more interested in playing politics than governing, so I'm not holding my breath. I will continue to fight, to lobby and to encourage the government in a forceful way to invest in my community in Kingston.
As I said, our campaign in the seat of Kingston was very much a grassroots campaign. We had over 300 people help my campaign in some way. As I said, the Liberal Party couldn't even find people to come and stand at polling booths. There are many, many people in our community who I would like to thank. I would like to thank particularly my campaign team, who worked so very hard over a long period. In particular I mention Emmanuel Cusack, the campaign manager; Jennifer Allison, the deputy campaign manager; Jason Byrne; Gemma Paech; Nathan Fiedler; Charlie Wenk; Arabella Wauchope; and the Douglas-Byrne family—Kylie, Alistair, Laura, Lachie and Cameron. They say that if you stick together as a family you go a long way. I tell you what, this family went above and beyond helping us in our campaign, and I'd like to sincerely thank them.
We had many, many volunteers, as I said. Over 300 people helped out during my campaign in some way. I can't name everyone, but I'd like to thank Alex Dalton, Alison Taylor, Angela Zefi, Bob Ansell, Camilla Howard-Luck, Christina Barrington-Kerr, Grace Nankivell, Jim Phillips, John Gauci, Jonette Thorsteinsen, Katherine Baldock, Lucy Fordham, Mark McEwen, Matt Priest, Naomi Piper, Phil and Jo Giles, Sam Chapman, Shirley Smith and Vic Phillis. They were some of the people who put an enormous amount of time and energy into coming up to help us. Without them the campaign would not have got to so many doors, talked to so many people and had such a grassroots effect.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, I have been so lucky over my almost 12 years in parliament to have some of the best staff ever supporting me in the job I do. Election night, I have to say, was an emotional night, because we did receive strong support in the seat of Kingston but didn't get there in forming government. But what I said on election night still stands today. My staff—my former staff and my current staff—turn up to work every day not just to support the Labor Party and not just to support me in the job I do but because they care deeply about our community. Every day in our electorate office they help people who need help the most. They often help people at a time when they're frustrated and have given up on government. They often help people in very dire situations where those individuals, community members, don't have anywhere else to turn. So I would like to sincerely thank the staff, who not only worked on my election campaign but come in every day to help those in our community who need that support. I'd like to thank Ethne Lange, Jemma Slevec, Michael Picton, Michelle Wilby and Sarah Huy, who worked in my electorate office and in my office in Adelaide. I also recognise the immense support I got from Kate Hanns and Owen Torpy, who have supported me in my shadow ministerial role.
My staff, who put in an enormous amount of effort and care, are themselves supported by their partners. I'd like to give a collective shout-out to their partners, who often get roped in against their will to help out on my campaign, because the staff are so dedicated encourage them to do just that.
I also recognise I've had new staff come on board since the election, and their commitment to and care for our community have impressed me amazingly. I think the previous speaker said that a role in the electorate office is a pretty unique one, and I'd like to recognise all those who work in electorate offices and the work they do. There isn't a really clear job description for electorate office staff. They have to be across everything and be jacks-of-all-trades, and I'd like to recognise that.
The Labor Party is a collective movement and a collective party, so there are many people I would like to thank and recognise. I do want to give a shout-out to Reggie Martin, the South Australian state secretary, and the team at party office. They did an amazing job during the election and continually gave me a lot of support. I would also like to recognise Noah Carroll, the national secretary of the ALP, and the whole team at the national secretariat, who worked really hard on this campaign. I'd like to thank them. I'd like to thank some of my union colleagues. The Labor Party has never shied way from being a party that sticks up for working people, and the union movement is absolutely part of that. I would like to thank in particular Josh Peak and Sonia Romeo at the South Australian branch of the SDA; John Camillo and the whole team at the AMWU South Australian branch; Nick Townsend and his team at the CWU; Ian Smith at the TWU; along with the whole South Australian and national union movement. They've particularly supported me and helped me in my campaign.
I'd like to also recognise and congratulate my South Australian colleagues on their re-election: Alex Gallacher in the Senate, Mark Butler, Nick Champion, Steve Georganas and Tony Zappia; and also acknowledge Marielle Smith, a newly elected senator for South Australia, who joins the team in the Senate with Alex Gallacher, Penny Wong and Don Farrell. I'd also like to acknowledge the enormous work of the Labor caucus at the last election and in particular recognise our former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, and his office for the support that they gave me during the election. And I recognise the work that our former Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Tanya Plibersek, the member for Sydney, did as well. I'd also like to congratulate the member for Grayndler on his election as the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Corio on his election as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. They make a formidable team along with our frontbench and our backbench. I know that Labor will be a strong opposition, and we will be working every day towards Labor being in government in 2022. For people in my electorate and right across the country, I truly believe that their interests are best served by a Labor government. I look forward to being part of the team that will hold this government to account, highlight their failings for working people around this country and make sure that we have a strong policy offering for the election in 2022.
Finally I'd like to thank my family: my husband, Tim, my son Percy—they got dragged along to many things as well—and, of course, my new son, Oscar. During the election period I was travelling around heavily pregnant with Oscar, so he got dragged everywhere but did a good job of not complaining too much when I hadn't eaten or drunk enough water because I was quite busy on the campaign trail. So, while he might not have consciously been aware, he was very tolerant at the time. I thank my family, my mum and dad and my parents-in-law, Les and Judy Rishworth and Wendy and David Walker, for providing a huge amount of support for me and Tim so that I can do this job. I do this job because I believe so much in making a difference. I believe that my community deserves the best from government.
In closing, I would like to thank the people of Kingston for electing me for a fifth term in parliament. I feel honoured and humbled by the trust that you continue to place in me, and I can honestly say that every waking moment, when I'm not thinking about feeding my infant son, is thinking about you and thinking about how I can make our community and our country a better place. My last message to you is that I will not let you down in my fifth term. I will continue to fight for you and continue to give you a voice. I'm so privileged and proud that you have put me back in this place.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Assistant Minister for Children and Families) (12:14): Almost six years ago, in December 2013, I had the immense honour of standing up to deliver my maiden speech to federal parliament as the newly elected member for Capricornia. It was a profound moment in my life and also signified a major change for the communities in my electorate. Our region was for many years a Labor Party stronghold, with no conservative representative holding the seat for more than a single term since the late 1950s. It is an amazing privilege to be able to return to the parliament and rise in the new 46th Parliament of Australia, having once again been elected, for a third term, as the region's federal representative.
As I reflect on the recent election campaign, and the hard work and determination by all those committed volunteers, friends, family and staff who supported me, I am eternally grateful. I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to my family, Jessica, Tim and Kirstin; my parents, Bill and Gloria Martin; our incredible LNP supporters and volunteers; and all our dedicated booth workers, including my campaign manager, Matthew Solley; treasurer, John Rodgers; and secretary, Julie Murphy. Of course, I also thank my dedicated staff: Douglas Rodgers, Louise Busby, Rebeckah Auld, Alana Cook, Christina McNeill, Jack McDougall, Dana Andersen, Kylie Jackson, Nicole Neale, Christopher Lawson, Victoria Mencshelyi, Anna Howard, Doug Wyllie and Lucy Busby. My wonderful staff work tirelessly year after year. Their commitment to our constituents is very caring and very professional. I also give a huge thankyou to all of those who financially contributed to my campaign and helped out in any way that they could.
I thank my federal parliamentary colleagues and federal cabinet ministers—Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, Member for Maranoa David Littleproud, Member for Dawson George Christensen and Senator Bridget McKenzie—for their unwavering support, and I give a special thankyou to Senator Matthew Canavan and his team for their unwavering friendship and support. I wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to the 'quiet Australians' who voted for me: the small-business owners, the mums and dads, the coalminers, the retirees—people who were genuinely worried about a future under Labor.
It was such an honour to serve as the Assistant Minister for Children and Families in the 45th Parliament of Australia, so I'm thrilled to be continuing in that role during this term of government.
Since becoming Capricornia's federal MP, I have worked tirelessly to secure major investment in real job-creating infrastructure. We have committed federal funding for the Rockhampton Ring Road, Walkerston Bypass, Mackay Ring Road, numerous community projects and, of course, Rookwood Weir, a project that took years of campaigning to make it a reality. Water is a priority in Central Queensland. Projects like Rookwood Weir, near Rockhampton, must go ahead to create long-term jobs. It is estimated that Rookwood Weir will deliver between 200 and 400 jobs through the two years of construction, while delivering an agricultural boom worth $1 billion per annum and over 2,000 permanent jobs once construction is completed.
I have been buoyed by the willingness of this coalition government to front up with the money that projects like this will require. Through the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund, millions have been committed to ensuring our dry continent can continue to be not only habitable but productive. While the Rookwood Weir project was one of the first to receive capital funding from the fund, dozens of other projects around the country received funding for the completion of feasibility studies. Many of these projects—like the Urannah Dam, set high in the hills west of Mackay, in the upper reaches of the Burdekin catchment—have since completed their feasibility studies and are now attracting capital investment.
I was proud during the recent election to join the Deputy Prime Minister and my colleague the member for Dawson in announcing $10 million for the final business case and crucial early works. With the election out of the way, I am confident we will soon see action on this major industry-enabling infrastructure, as long as the state Labor government can understand the message sent on 18 May and stop dragging their feet on these water projects. Rookwood Weir and Urannah Dam are must-do projects for Central Queensland, and I believe the state government must do everything it can to see them underway as soon as possible. A considerable amount of time and effort was put into developing the case for projects like these, both locally and in Canberra, and I have to thank our local media, especially the editor of The Morning Bulletin, Frazer Pearce, for getting behind us in our bid to make Rookwood Weir a reality. Each of us in this place owes some debt to our local media, and their devotion to what our local communities need is one of the things that keeps each of us accountable to the people we represent.
At times, what our region has needed most has not been projects of concrete and steel but essential services to ensure regional families are fairly treated within our court system. I strongly lobbied the previous Attorney-General George Brandis to have a Federal Circuit Court judge permanently located at what is the hub of the Central Queensland region, Rockhampton. This new court circuit services our whole region by providing a physical presence on a rotational basis in Rockhampton, Emerald, Mackay and Gladstone, making the Federal Court far more accessible for those who need it.
Another service that is needed more every year is improved rehabilitation services for those struggling with addiction. Substance addiction is a terrible scourge, and many in this place will have seen what a devastating impact it can have on families and whole communities. Central Queensland, like anywhere, has its struggle with substances, both legal and contraband. I am committed to delivering services that make a real difference for our community, which is why I was so proud to deliver a two-year program to be based in Rockhampton. This two-year scheme, delivered by Healthy Options Australia, is a non-residential 12-week program focused on breaking the insidious cycle of drug addiction. Rehabilitation services are crucial to ensuring that people battling substance abuse have the support that they need to get their lives back on track, and I am proud to be part of a government which is taking real action on this issue.
It is through my delivery—real delivery—every day that we have to 'reawaken' the Capricornia region. I have secured funding for transformative local infrastructure that is either completed, underway or in the pipeline. Funding for projects in the western regions includes $5 million going to Signature Onfarm beef for a processing facility and creating more jobs, with $25 million in additional NAIF funding; $325,000 to the Collinsville QCWA for a new community hall; $230,000 to the Clermont kindergarten for a physical and environmental upgrade; and $105,000 to Queensland healthcare services to increase services in Clermont. On the Capricorn Coast, there is $10 million for the Livingstone Shire Council for the Yeppoon foreshore precinct and CBD revitalisation; $20 million for Keppel Bay Sailing Club for a 1,000 seat convention centre; $64 million for upgrades on the Rocky-Yeppoon Road; and $165 million towards the Shoalwater Bay military training facility. In Rockhampton, there is $25 million for the Rockhampton levee bank; $5 million for the Rockhampton Airport upgrade; $7 million for the Rockhampton Hospital car park; and $10 million for the Rockhampton Art Gallery. To the north, in Sarina and South Mackay, there is almost $10 million to Central Queensland University for a world-class sporting precinct in Ooralea; $250,000 to Linked Group Services for an off-grid showcase; and funding for a satellite headspace in Sarina. In Walkerston and the Pioneer Valley, there is $80 million for the Walkerston bypass; $653,708 for West Tigers leagues club for an undercover bowls green; $300,000 for Palmyra Dragway for track upgrades and repairs after Cyclone Debbie; and $50,000 for the Finch Hatton emergency airstrip.
As mentioned earlier, in August last year, I was appointed as the Assistant Minister for Children and Families, and I am so pleased that I am remaining in this portfolio. This government is firmly committed to ensuring that every Australian family and every Australian child are given the support that they need to be safe and to prosper. Of course, some major challenges exist in this portfolio, but I am excited to be given an opportunity to enhance and build on the significant achievements that this government has delivered in this space. In January this year, I launched the Fourth Action Plan of the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children. The national framework provides a long-term national approach to improving the way that we, as a nation, care for Australia's children and keep them safe. The Fourth Action Plan has a strong focus on improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children who are at risk of entering, or are in contact with, child protection services. With Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children currently 10 times more likely to be in out-of-home care compared with non-Indigenous children, this focus is very important.
Also outlined in the fourth action plan is improved data development and better information sharing between the Commonwealth, the states and territories. This includes measuring permanency outcomes for children in out-of-home care and new national indicators to monitor compliance with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle. Funding has been committed for the start-up costs for a national child protection information system, and seven of 10 sites have been announced for the $35 million Stronger Places, Stronger People initiative. This program takes an innovative and place based approach with communities, one that harnesses local knowledge and which has the aim of smashing the cycle of childhood poverty.
Stronger Places, Stronger People is something that I'm particularly excited about, and I'm looking forward to seeing what this innovation can deliver. Currently, there are more than 45,800 Australian children in out-of-home care. This is simply not good enough. Every Australian child deserves a loving, permanent and stable home, and in my role I'll do everything I can to make a positive difference in this space.
This is a government that is taking action against the horror of domestic and family violence. In April we announced a $328 million package to reduce violence against women and children, and to keep them safe. This is the fourth action plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, and this $328 million figure is the largest-ever Commonwealth investment on this issue. To stop violence against women we need to counter the culture of disrespect towards women, and that's why, as part of this package, we're investing so heavily in prevention, with more than $68 million to stop violence before it even begins. Clearly, this issue remains a huge challenge but it's great to see that eliminating violence against women and children is one of this government's top priorities.
Deputy Speaker Bird, you may recall I mentioned earlier that Capricornia has traditionally been a Labor-held electorate. That appears to have changed. From being held on a 12.5 per cent margin by the ALP at the 2007 election, the seat is now held on an 11.5 per cent margin, this time by the LNP. The same has been replicated across a number of other regional Queensland electorates. Those who call this region home surveyed their options and came to the conclusion that Labor simply didn't represent them anymore.
I will always stand up for our region and for the jobs that our families rely on. I always have and always will stand up for our mining sector, and I won't apologise to the vegan-soy-latte-sipping activists who reside in capital cities and who are disconnected from the people in regional Queensland and the challenges they face. Our capital cities simply won't exist without the tremendous wealth and resources that regions like Central Queensland create, and the time has come for our region to stand up to the self-absorbed patronising that we see from the south.
Speaking of patronising from the south, it would be very remiss of me not to add a huge and well-deserved thank you to the sterling contribution of former Tasmanian senator Bob Brown, whose efforts in lecturing throughout the coalfields of the Bowen and Galilee basins did not go unnoticed. Much more than that, the former senator's arrogance helped galvanise our region. Central Queenslanders were already growing tired of the hopelessly inept Labor state government's approach towards our primary industries, deliberately slowing down approvals for mining projects—including for Adani's Carmichael mine—and the development-blocking vegetation management legislation. This had many in Central Queensland feeling uncertain about their futures.
Enter Bob Brown and his merry contingent of misinformed climate crusaders. What we saw was a great surge of support on the ground from the industries that feed us, clothe us, power our homes and pay our bills. Scenes in Clermont, ground zero for the Galilee Basin argument, were more like an inner-city day of action than a weekend in a true-blue country town. I believe that there would have been more Central Queenslanders who, in their own minds, may not necessarily fully support expanding coal mining into the Galilee Basin; however, they stood up and said no to the policy puritans from the south. This event sparked a surge against political correctness and against the demeaning virtue signalling of so many who live their comfortable lives which are so removed from our primary industries.
Central Queenslanders know which side their bread is buttered on, and they know what it is that makes our nation one of the wealthiest on the planet. It is our natural resources and agriculture sector, and everyday, hardworking people who put their shoulders to the wheel to produce them. This election result belongs to them because they are the ones brave enough and tough enough to do what it takes to build this nation to fulfil its potential. The forgotten people, the battlers, the quiet Australians: I salute you and I will continue to work hard every day for you.
Capricornia has a great future, and I am proud to be part of a government which continues to deliver for our region. Thank you, Capricornia.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (12:30): I wish to sincerely thank the wonderful people of Kingsford Smith for bestowing upon me the great honour and privilege of continuing to represent our wonderful community here in the Commonwealth parliament for the next three years.
When people talk about the community of Kingsford Smith they often mention the natural beauty of our area: the magnificent coastline from Clovelly all the way down to La Perouse and the historic Botany Bay, or Kamay, as it's known in the Bidjigal language, to the south of the electorate. There are the majestic Malabar Headland and the beautiful walking track around that wonderful natural beauty and our sensational parks, like Sir Joseph Banks Park in Botany or Fred Hollows Reserve in Randwick, that provide much-needed green space for the residents of our community.
While all of these natural wonders are certainly a great feature of our area, I often say to people that the best thing about the community of Kingsford Smith is the people, that we look after each other and we care for each other. That was again on display last weekend as our community came together, unfortunately, to recognise those from our community who lost their lives in the Bali bombings 17 years ago. The community of Kingsford Smith was hurt probably more than any other, with 20 people from our community passing away in that terrible tragedy. I attended two services on the weekend where the community came together to let the families and friends of those who perished in that unfortunate tragedy know that they will never be forgotten and that we are here for each other and we care for each other. It's a great symbol of the community that exists in Kingsford Smith, which I am so proud to represent.
Kingsford Smith is a multicultural community. Our population is enriched by migrants from all over the world who have come to our area to make it their home. They make a wonderful contribution to our area. We are very, very proud of our Indigenous heritage, with the Bidjigal people at La Perouse, who've inhabited the shore and waters around Kamay and the coastline of our area for tens of thousands of years. I thank the Aboriginal community for the great contribution that they make to nurturing our natural environment and to the culture and the people of Kingsford Smith. That's reflected in wonderful Indigenous events in our community, events like the Blak markets that occur regularly at Bare Island; IndigiGrow, a program at La Perouse Public School which teaches young people about the benefits of bush tucker and Indigenous horticulture; the Koojay Corroboree that happens every year at Coogee Beach; and, of course, the wonderful work of the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council. I'm very proud to represent that Indigenous heritage here in the Commonwealth parliament.
Our people are passionate about protecting our natural environment and particularly about ocean conservation. We live on the water, and so much of our recreation is enjoyed around our magnificent beaches and coastline. There is historic Botany Bay and the enormous natural heritage and conservation value of Botany Bay and the wonderful green spaces that we have in our area at places like the environment park at Randwick. This of course is reflected in events like the Eco Living Expo, which is put on by Randwick council every year and gets bigger and bigger. Members of our community come together to learn to how to care for our natural environment and how to change their lifestyle to ensure not only that we reduce our carbon footprint but also that we live more sustainably in our local community.
The community of Kingsford Smith believe in the science of climate change and are frustrated by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's approach to climate change and their lack of strong action on climate change. It was something that came up regularly during the election campaign. I met with local representatives of climate action groups in my electorate office on several occasions to let them know about Labor's commitment to taking stronger action on climate change, that we believe in the science. Labor understand that if this generation of decision-makers don't take strong action on climate change then it will be our kids who will suffer in the future and will have the pay for the cost of our inaction. There was a lot of support for Labor's stronger approach to climate change at the last election—our programs to boost renewable energy, reduce carbon emissions and, importantly, restore the marine reserves that were cut by the Turnbull government. On behalf of the people of Kingsford Smith, I will be an advocate for stronger action on climate change in this Commonwealth parliament and in our wider community.
Cost-of-living increases have been a huge burden for many living in the community of Kingsford Smith. We all know that Australia has one of the highest levels of household debt of any nation in the OECD. Living expenses in Kingsford Smith tend to be higher than in other areas because of the high cost of housing. Kingsford Smith's proximity to the city, to the magnificent coastline but also to important economic infrastructure like the airport and the port mean that it is a popular area to live. The population has been growing, but the cost of housing has been increasing rapidly. This is putting a lot of pressure on families, on small businesses and on pensioners in our community who are struggling to make ends meet.
When you add the costs of child care, insurance, education and transport, it makes for a dim picture for many living in our community. This is a community like the rest of Australia that has been weighed down by sluggish wage growth. Their incomes haven't been keeping pace with the cost of living and they are feeling the pressure. Our community is buoyed by a strong services sector, particularly in the restaurant, catering and hospitality sector, which employs so many people. But the people working in that sector have been weighed down again by cuts to their minimum penalty rates. This government stood by and did nothing, whilst the people of Kingsford Smith working in the services sector had their incomes cut. In fact, this government actively opposed Labor's attempts in this parliament to restore the cuts to penalty rates that were undertaken by the Fair Work Commission some years ago. The Liberal Party supported cuts to penalty rates, whereas my Labor colleagues and I have been trying to overturn those disastrous cuts to the incomes of people in our community that have made life harder and reduced their living standards.
Like any other Australian community, the people of Kingsford Smith believe in access to health care and they support and are strong believers in the viability of Medicare. In years gone by, Labor received a lot of support when the Liberal Party proposed to make cuts to Medicare through co-payments and the like. The Prince of Wales Hospital, the principal hospital in my community, has suffered from cuts over the course of this Liberal government. We are now undertaking another battle because the New South Wales Liberal government is proposing to close the paediatric cardiac service at the Sydney Children's Hospital. It is a vital service for people in our community and wider Sydney. The New South Wales Liberal Premier Gladys Berejiklian, at the last New South Wales election back in March, promised in writing to our community that there would be no cuts to the paediatric cardiac service at the Sydney Children's Hospital.
Since the election, after they lost the seat of Coogee to the Labor Party, what we have seen is the New South Wales Liberal government actually proceed with this cut to the paediatric cardiac service at the Sydney Children's Hospital. I've had several meetings and I've attended rallies with surgeons, with nurses, with other allied health staff and, importantly, with the parents of children whose lives have been saved at the Sydney Children's Hospital by the very service that this Liberal government proposes to cut. It is a disgrace. I and many members of my community are fighting this cut to health services in our area. We have a growing population in Kingsford Smith. We need better health services, not cuts to health services, which is exactly what we're getting from the combination of a Liberal federal and state government.
Education is vitally important to the future of our children. I visit a lot of schools in my community, and when I was a senator I visited them across New South Wales. Something that really alarms me is the disparity in resources that you see when you visit different schools. When you visit some public schools you see that those schools are struggling in terms of resources. Then you go to some of the private schools throughout New South Wales and the wider country and you see they have some of the most magnificent playing fields, swimming pools, artistic performance centres and the like. It is not fair that some schools do not have the same resources or access to those resources as others.
Labor's policy at the last election proposed to ensure that there was a fairer allocation of funding for schools in this country based, importantly, on the needs of the student. Labor's proposal was for additional funding for all schools, but importantly for those schools that needed it the most. We were proposing millions of dollars of additional funding for Kingsford Smith schools to ensure that we could employ more teachers and to ensure that students had access to better resources and more support, particularly if those students had a disability, were Indigenous or were falling behind in their literacy and numeracy and needed support to get their level back up.
Also, we all know that TAFE has been decimated by the combination of a Liberal federal and state government. We've seen that in cuts to programs at the Randwick TAFE. You, yourself, Acting Deputy Speaker Bird, have come to our community and visited Randwick TAFE in the past and have seen what a devastating impact the cuts have had on our community. Of course, Labor, at the last election, was proposing to support TAFE and ensure that it provided access to people at affordable prices to get a vocational education, because we know that the cuts to TAFE funding undertaken by this Liberal government have ensured that state governments have put the cost of TAFE up and that some of the course fees have increased by factors of 100 per cent and over. That just means that there are 150,000 fewer apprentices in Australia since this government was elected, and that says everything about this government's commitment to vocational training.
The combination of a Liberal state and federal government has been a disaster for our community in a number of areas. I've mentioned the cuts to health that have already been undertaken at the Sydney Children's Hospital and the Prince of Wales Hospital. We've also had to deal with this light rail debacle, which has gone on in our community for a number of years now. It's a program that is now a billion dollars over budget and years late and from the first day of operation will be at capacity, it will be full, with no room for growth at all, not to mention the effects that it has had on households throughout the community and, importantly, small businesses. Many of those small businesses along Anzac Parade simply couldn't cope because of the disruption to their businesses and have closed down. We've seen marriage break-ups and we've seen mental health issues, all because of this Liberal government's inability to manage a routine infrastructure project.
Now they want to heap on our community a cruise ship terminal at Yarra Bay. This is opposed by the local Aboriginal community. It will ensure that their traditional fishing areas that they use for food are disrupted and affected. It will be a disaster for the natural environment, particularly if they have to dredge Botany Bay on the northern side for the third time in recent history. It will have an effect on Bare Island and the weedy sea dragon and the pygmy pipehorse—protected species that exist in those areas. The seagrass in Botany Bay has just started to come back after dredging having been done in the past. That will again be affected. It will be an environmental disaster for Botany Bay. It will affect recreational fishers, and there are many people in our community that fish off the breakwall at Yarra Bay and Molineaux Point. This project will have a direct effect on the ability of people to undertake recreational fishing in our community. It would be a disaster for the dive industry, which is an important employer of people in our area. It will have a disastrous effect on the community through increasing traffic on local roads and the noise associated with it—and we get enough noise from the port and from other heavy industry that exists in the area, including the airport. It's something that is vehemently opposed by our community and it's something that I will fight my hardest against in this place.
I want to finish by congratulating the new Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, on his position and his election as the Leader of the Labor Party. I thank him for bestowing upon me the great honour of being an assistant shadow minister in the area of financial services and the republic. I also congratulate and thank Bill Shorten on the wonderful job that he did as the Leader of the Labor Party over the course of the last six years. It was a pleasure to have been a member of his shadow ministry for a number of those years.
On the first day of the 46th Parliament in July, when we all came back to parliament, the first thing that we did was take an oath. The first words that we utter in this place are an oath. We swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. We do that because we are required to do that under the Australian Constitution. I would much prefer to swear an oath of allegiance to the people of Australia, who elected us—specifically the people of Kingsford Smith. I would much prefer to swear allegiance to the people of Australia and to swear to serve them diligently and faithfully in this place. Instead, we swear allegiance to a foreigner in another country. It is outdated. It perfectly highlights the archaic nature of our Constitution not only in this area but also in the area of Indigenous recognition in our Constitution.
We all know that, for a number of years, the Uluru statement has united the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in Australia. It represents their wish about how they can work with Australian governments to improve the living standards of Indigenous people in this country. We should get on with the task of reforming our Constitution to recognise the contribution of Indigenous Australians and to enshrine the principles of the Uluru Statement from the Heart in our Constitution. I commit, on behalf of our community, to work with the government to achieve that. But we also should be looking longer term, and that includes looking at finally having an Australian as our head of state. I recognise Mr Falinski and I thank him for his contribution to this important debate. We've known each other for many, many years and, since our days in Young Labor and Young Liberals, we've worked together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that one day we have an Australian as our head of state. I am very, very proud to have been given this honour by Anthony Albanese, the Leader of the Labor Party, to work with the Australian people and people like Mr Falinski to ensure that we make this a reality in our lifetime.
I want to thank all of the wonderful volunteers that contributed to our campaign in Kingsford Smith. I say to you: I simply would not be here without your support, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. All of the hours that you spent in helping with letterboxing, with doorknocking, with prepoll and with other aspects of the campaign, including election day, made it possible for me to have the strong result that we had in Kingsford Smith, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I thank my staff, my very dedicated and talented staff, for their hard work—Leigh Heaney, Ben Leeson, Lachlan McGrath, Clare Cullen, Alexi Cassis, Lorena White and Dylan Parker—and for their dedication and service not only to me but to our wider community and the Labor Party.
In conclusion, I again thank the wonderful people of Kingsford Smith. I'm very, very proud to be your local member and I look forward to working with you to make our community a better place to live in over the course of the next three years and beyond.
Debate adjourned.
Proceedings suspended fr om 12:50 to 16:00
CONDOLENCES
Fischer, Hon. Timothy Andrew (Tim), AC
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death, on 22 August 2019, of the Honourable Timothy Andrew Fischer AC, a Member of this House for the Division of Farrer from 1984 to 2001, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Mr GEE (Calare—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (16:00): I rise to pay tribute to the boy from Boree Creek today. I speak of course of Tim Fischer, a man who served his country in so many ways. He was born in the Riverina and hailed from Boree Creek, with all of its 212 residents. Tim was an example that a kid from the country, and a small country town, can achieve anything. Whenever I speak to school groups who come to parliament from our country communities in the central west, one of the things that I tell them is that it doesn't matter where you're from; you can go and achieve in life whatever you want—and Tim was the embodiment of this ideal.
I first met him when he came to Yeoval in 2014 to open the Banjo Paterson Museum. He loved the work of Paterson. He loved Australia. He loved its poetry and its people. That day he told the crowd about Paterson's contribution to poetry, journalism and also the war effort. The crowd were absolutely enthralled with what he had to say. He was one of those people that folks just wanted to be near. They wanted to come and have a chat to him about poetry, about Banjo, about trains.
His life was a life of service in so many ways. We know that he was conscripted to serve in Vietnam in 1966. True to that ideal of service, he elected to go to officer training school. He served with the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, between July 1966 and March 1969. Of course, he was wounded at that famous engagement of Coral-Balmoral in 1968. At the time, he referred to his conscription as 'the great door opener', such was his dedication to service in whatever capacity—and that's what he looked upon it as: an opportunity to serve his country, to serve his community, and he did it with distinction.
That service continued upon his return to Australia. At just 24, he was elected to serve in the New South Wales parliament. He then made the transition to federal politics 13 years later, in 1984. This began a 17-year commitment to the people of Farrer, to the National Party and to the Australian parliament. His achievements were well documented. He was truly a man of the people. Some of the things he achieved are well known. Some were spoken of at his recent funeral. One incident occurred in 1986, when a desperate Laotian refugee pulled a hunting rifle at the immigration office in Albury, quite near to his office, creating a siege situation. Tim walked in alone, defused the situation, without a lot of concern for his own safety, spoke to the man and reappeared with the rifle in one hand and his arm around the shoulder of the young man. He was a man of the people. After that incident, it was widely reported that he travelled to Thailand in an attempt to get the man's family out of the refugee camp in which they were stuck.
He was a patient man. He was a kind man. He wasn't without fallibility—none of us are—but he always stayed very close to his community and the needs of the community. All of us in this place could probably heed the way that he dealt with his constituents—the way he engaged with them; the way he made sure they were looked after in every way possible. He responded personally through his correspondence to them, he addressed their concerns, and they loved him for it. When Tim took the leadership of the National Party, we as a party were at a low ebb. I think it's now widely recognised that at the time he ascended to the leadership position he was able to give the National Party a clear and distinct image because of the ideals that he personified. In some ways you could call it differentiation. He certainly had that. People related to it because they could see that he was human, that he was one of them; he wasn't just another politician.
Perhaps his greatest challenge came after the devastating Port Arthur massacre, in 1996, when he and John Howard decided to bring all the states together and make sure, through the National Firearms Agreement, that something like that would never happen in this country again. In some ways, John Howard had the easy part of trying to get that reform through, because he had a city constituency. Tim Fischer had to deal with the folks in the bush. It was very difficult for him, but he did it because he knew it was the right thing. John Howard recalled his support, saying:
He never tried to talk me out of it but he made it plain how difficult it was going to be in certain parts of the bush.
He chose to do what was right—despite, I think, an effigy of him being burnt by the gun lobbyists—and he persevered.
Tim continued to serve his country until 2001, when he ultimately finished his service in the parliament, having resigned from the ministry in 1999. That year, Charles Sturt University awarded him an honorary doctorate, and the citation captured much about his personality. It read:
Tim's life has been about dogged adherence to goals. It has also been about risk-taking, grabbing opportunities and perseverance.
I could add that to me his service was all about his humanity and his dedication not just to the people of his electorate but to the people of his country.
Farewell, Tim Fischer. You left an indelible mark on politics. I celebrate your contribution to the National Party, the Australian parliament and our nation. I extend the condolences of the Calare electorate to Tim's family.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:08): It's not often that a Labor Party MP gets a call from a former National Party leader, but when Tim Fischer picked up the phone a couple of years ago I was delighted to take his call. Tim was calling to speak about research that I'd done, with Christine Neill at Wilfrid Laurier University, on the impact of the firearms buyback on Australian gun homicide and suicide rates. We had found that over the decade before the Port Arthur massacre Australia had averaged one gun massacre every year—that is, one mass shooting in which there were five or more victims. We found that in the decade afterwards there wasn't a single gun massacre.
Looking at homicide and suicide rates, we found that there was a significant drop. When there aren't guns in the home, domestic disputes are less likely to turn deadly. When teenagers don't have access to a gun they're more likely to resolve their disputes with fists rather than with deadly force. When we combined the homicide and suicide effects, we estimated that the Howard-Fischer reforms saved some 200 lives a year. That means that there are more than 4,000 Australians alive today as a result of those reforms.
We often look back at reform and think that it was easy—everything looks obvious with hindsight. But at the time it was anything but. The member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, and then member for Oxley, now senator, Pauline Hanson both opposed the National Firearms Agreement. While the then Labor leader, Kim Beazley, gave his full support it was clear that Tim Fischer would fight a tough battle in the rural electorates in order to persuade them that this was the correct call.
He recalled a particularly vocal meeting about guns in Gympie in Queensland, on a Sunday afternoon. He said:
… as we pulled up, you could see on the branch of a tree an akubra wearing image of my good self with a hangman's knot. And it was a fierce meeting until a young lady, school prefect, stood up about half way through the meeting and laid it on the line in a way that just completely flipped the meeting in support of a sensible harmonised approach on gun laws … At Gympie it would've been fairly hot … what I did not wear was a gun vest or any form of protection.
He had come to the issue in 1986, when a young man armed with a hunting rifle stormed the immigration department's regional office in Albury, right above Tim Fischer's electorate office. As Tony Wright tells the story, the 29-year-old man with a gun was a member of a refugee family from Laos. Tim Fischer was a Vietnam veteran and he knew something about the Lao community that had settled in Albury. The police advised Mr Fischer not to go in. He ignored them, walked in and spoke to the man for some hours.
Eventually, he reappeared, according to Tony Wright, rifle in one hand and a big arm slung over the shoulders of the young man. He had discovered that the young man's mother, grandmother and brother were stuck in a refugee camp in Thailand, and had made a bargain. Tim Fischer had agreed that he would fly, at his own cost, to Thailand to the refugee camp to see if he could get the family reunited. Tony Wright accompanied him to the camp in Nong Khai. They found the people and spoke to them about their plight. He made the case to the United Nations and Australian immigration officials, but was unsuccessful. The young man who had taken a gun into the immigration department office in Albury moved towns, established a restaurant and saved his money. Ultimately, he was able to get on with his life.
Tim Fischer's bravery in that moment, literally putting himself at risk, reflected his political bravery in facing down the far Right over the issue of gun control in Australia. He saw, in retrospect, that the Port Arthur massacre was Australia's equivalent of the US Sandy Hook massacre. He told Vox in an interview in 2017:
There has to be some leadership. The debate has to be taken into the public square, as John Howard and I did 21 years ago. We managed to get the right legislation through, and the results speak for themselves.
… … …
It was very hard work persuading people to surrender their guns. But it was the correct call. I took the argument to the public square, and the Australian people chose to step back from laissez-faire dysfunctionality, which now exists in the USA.
… … …
I made the correct call and gained majority support, even in country electorates. I defended farmers, hunters, and Olympic shooters having the right kind of weapon as they go about their work, recreation, and sport. I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti automatics and semiautomatics dominating the suburbs.
Many of the two-thirds of a million weapons that were handed back were .22 rifles that had been sitting in the backs of closets, left unused but still a danger to a depressed teenager or in the presence of an angry spouse. The result was to reduce Australia's gun stock by about a fifth, providing fair compensation for those weapons that were handed back.
I note that, in the US Democratic presidential primaries, Beto O'Rourke has been calling for a gun buyback in the United States—a much more modest form of gun buyback but one which would learn the Australian lesson. Additionally, it would be splendid if there were more US conservatives with the political courage of Tim Fischer who were willing to bear the political cost of making tough decisions in the national interest. In the 1998 election, the National Party did go backwards, did suffer electoral losses to One Nation, but history has judged those decisions kindly. It's recognised the hard work that Tim Fischer did.
When the member for Bennelong, John Alexander, and I set up Parliamentary Friends of Gun Control, we did so with the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, a foundation established by Walter Mikac after losing his wife, Nanette, and his two young daughters in the Port Arthur massacre—an almost unimaginable loss. At that event, Walter spoke, and Tim Fischer spoke as well. He spoke about the United States experience, about the importance of staying strong to Australia's gun reforms. There will be periodic attempts to water down the National Firearms Agreement. But I'm pleased that many of those on the coalition side see this as a proud legacy of theirs.
All Australians should admire Tim Fischer for his moral courage on the issue of gun control. Of course, we on this side of the House disagreed with him on many matters. But, in honouring his legacy, this is something of which all Australians can be rightly proud.
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (16:16): I would like to record my deep sadness at the death of the Hon. Tim Fischer AC on 22 August 2019 and pass on my sincere condolences to his wife, Judy, and sons, Harrison and Dominic, for their very, very great loss.
The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have outlined Mr Fischer's incredible contribution to this place and to the nation as Deputy Prime Minister of Australia; as Leader of the National Party for many years; as the Minister for Trade—most famously, I think, taking his akubra and our Aussie spirit overseas to visit so many countries and friends and trading partners; and also as the member for Farrer. His public service also encompassed serving two tours of Vietnam during the Vietnam War and serving as a state member of the New South Wales parliament as the youngest ever elected Country Party MP in New South Wales. After his service to this place, he also served our nation through his roles at Tourism Australia and the Royal Flying Doctor Service and as Ambassador to the Holy See.
Today I would like to briefly relate two personal experiences with Mr Fischer that I believe, in a small way, demonstrate the great intellect and passion he had for the National Party, his party; for the coalition between the National Party and the Liberal Party; for policy; as well as his care for others and his great enthusiasm for life, which so many people have reflected on in their memories of him.
Some years ago now, while studying at Flinders University, which is in the heart of my electorate, I contacted Mr Fischer to seek an interview with him about the Liberal-National Party coalition, the histories of our party and his experiences as leader. I hadn't met Mr Fischer before and so I wasn't sure whether I would get a response or not. He responded, as I think he probably did with every interview request, almost immediately and generously agreed to an interview. He let me know that he'd soon be travelling to Adelaide and so suggested that we could conduct the interview at the end of the meeting that he was having. So we did. We chatted for probably about 30 minutes, at which stage Mr Fischer said, 'Look, I've got to get to the airport, but why don't we continue the interview in the taxi on the way to the airport?' So I said, 'Fantastic—that would be great, thank you.' We then got to the airport and he was still chatting, so he said, 'Look, why don't you come in and keep interviewing me in the lounge while I'm waiting for my plane?'
Some two hours later I had extensive interview material from Mr Fischer across not just the importance and history of the Liberal-National party coalition and government and his experience but also the future of our parties, how we could keep them strong and what we could do. It's lucky that the interview was conducted in the age of digital voice recorders, because if it had been on tape I probably would have run out, such was the amount of information that he was able to give me. He was so incredibly thoughtful, passionate and enthusiastic. It was an absolute privilege to be able to speak with him.
I just wanted to mention that because he was a staunch coalitionist. He was a great leader of the National Party and he was so at a very challenging time for the party. The National Party had recently, just before Tim Fischer became its leader, gone through the challenges of the Joh for Canberra campaign and a split in the National Party. They were still very much piecing the party back together, and he played a huge role in that. This was in 1990, when we were still deep in opposition and wouldn't come to government for another six years. His leadership in keeping the coalition relationship strong through that very challenging time was a very significant one. We saw evidence of that when we came to government and he became Deputy Prime Minister and worked so closely with the Hon. John Howard to lead both our parties.
The other personal experience with Mr Fischer I wanted to contribute today occurred more recently. In March this year, I contacted him on behalf of one of my wonderful young students in my electorate of Boothby, Fletcher Luscombe. Fletcher and his dad, Adam, who's an incredible community volunteer and contributor, came to see me to talk about Fletcher's research project for his year 11 and 12 studies. Fletcher was very keen to talk to whoever he could about gun reform, as a focus of his research project looking into the leadership that was needed on that issue, the relationships that had to be managed, how they formulated the policy, how they came to the outcome and how they communicated what they were doing to the public, because, as we know and others have reflected, it was an incredibly controversial policy change for the Liberal Party and the National Party to make and to manage with many of their core voters and constituents. Once again I emailed Mr Fischer. He responded almost immediately and said that he would be delighted to assist Fletcher with his studies and with an interview. He suggested that he could be interviewed within the next 48 hours. We made that happen. Mr Fischer emailed me to let me know that. I emailed him back and thanked him most sincerely, and he took the time to wish me the very best of luck for the election and the federal budget—my correspondence with him happened in March.
He was always thinking of others. He was always incredibly enthusiastic about his interactions, his contribution and his experiences. It was quite infectious. I think anyone who had the privilege of speaking with, interviewing or knowing Mr Fischer couldn't help but be inspired by his enthusiasm for life. With the benefit of hindsight, he must have been very ill when he was helping Fletcher, which demonstrates what an absolutely remarkable Australian he was—how caring, kind, compassionate and very generous he was.
I reiterate my very sincere condolences to his family. We have lost a great Australian, but the incredible work that he did, the incredible person that he was and the memory of him will live on forever in this nation.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (16:24): I rise in the chamber today in deep appreciation of the life of the Hon. Tim Fischer, Companion of the Order of Australia. Tim, so well-known as the 'Boy from Boree Creek', lived with his wife, Judy Brewer, and their sons, Harrison and Dominic, on Grossotto, Judy's beautiful farm, ringed by the Mudgegonga Hills in my electorate of Indi for about two decades in the last parts of his life.
I offer my deepest sympathy to Judy, to Harrison and Dominic, and to all of Tim's family, and I join with many thousands of people across my electorate, across Australia and indeed around the world who celebrated the extraordinary life of this extraordinary man and who mourn his loss.
Much has been said about Tim, but I want to focus on just one of his many contributions to public life and that's his influence on agriculture. Tim was a farmer and, like so many farmers, he was curious, committed, observant and a careful custodian of the land. He also took passionate interest in agriculture, and agricultural research and development, to the international stage where his knowledge and wisdom benefited many people in many places.
It was from this interest that Tim became chair of the Crawford Fund from 2001 to 2006 and more recently its patron. The Crawford Fund highlights to Australia and the world the extraordinary value and benefits of robust, inquisitive agricultural research. It advances this value and our awareness of it here and overseas where it supports training for scientists and farmers in developing countries. As it happens, Tim's brother, Tony Fischer, is the coordinator of the Crawford Fund's committee in the Australian Capital Territory.
The world's population is estimated to increase by two billion to 9.7 billion people in the next three decades. Food production will need to expand up to 70 per cent if we're to feed everyone. With limited new arable land available for crop production, dwindling water resources and a rapidly changing climate, science and technology will be critical for global food and nutrition security. Key to success will be increasing yields from crop varieties that produce more from less and our capacity to incorporate these into more sustainable farming systems better adapted to a warming climate.
In 1993 the international Convention on Biological Diversity raised concerns about the conservation of the world's vital crop heritage. The convention led to a global plan of action and the creation of an endowment fund to support crop preservation. The Crop Trust was formed in 2004, and Tim Fischer joined the trust in 2013 serving first as vice-chair of its executive board until 2017. He was then elected board chair and re-elected for a second term in 2018 but stepped down in April this year for, of course, obvious health reasons. At the time of his appointment to the trust, Tim said:
Making sure that diversity does not go extinct is a global obligation, but it is also personal. Biodiversity preservation means food security for our future and our children’s children. It also means building more resilient food systems now, for the families across the globe facing food insecurity and hunger.
The Crop Trust is perhaps best known for managing the Global Seed Vault—or 'Doomsday vault' as it's sometimes called—on the remote Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, 1,300 kilometres north of the Arctic Circle. The vault is a long-term seed storage facility built into the permafrost and dense rock so that it has the best chance of withstanding the worst imaginable natural or man-made disasters. These conditions ensure that the seed samples, which many of the world's nations deposit there, will remain frozen even without energy supply. The seed vault represents the world's largest collection of crop diversity. It has the capacity to hold the seeds of 4.5 million varieties of different food crops. It currently holds one million varieties including cowpea, chickpea, rice, oats, wheat, barley, lettuce, eggplant, sorghum, millet, corn and potato.
Australia is an important partner in the seed vault and contributes seed samples from its gene banks. The vault preserves what the trust describes as a '10,000-year agricultural legacy we can't leave to chance'. Sir Peter Crane, chair of the Crop Trust Executive Board, said of Tim when he learnt of his death in August this year:
Tim was a remarkable leader and unique personality—full of wisdom and also good cheer. The Crop Trust benefitted enormously from his passionate support. We have lost a good and true friend.
There is no more important work than producing food to feed us and fibre to clothe us. Whether at Boree Creek or Mudgegonga, or indeed on Svalbard in Norway, Tim Fischer made an exceptional contribution to agriculture and its development.
For the past 15 years, one person who came to know Tim and Judy well was my friend and constituent Joan Simms from Beechworth. Joan met Tim for the first time in 1979 when she was working in the New South Wales Premier's Department and Tim was the member for Sturt in the New South Wales parliament. But it was when each of them migrated to Victoria's north-east that they discovered a deep shared interest in the lives and contributions of two great Australians to our country's then infant democracy. These were the great war general Sir John Monash and the High Court justice and first Australian-born Governor-General Sir Isaac Isaacs, who grew up in Yackandandah and Beechworth in my electorate of Indi.
As Joan remarked to me today: 'Of all his qualities and values, I think it's Tim's ordinariness which connected him and his family to folk from all walks of life. It's true to say we all admired his honesty, persistence, selflessness, dedication and the depth of his interest in so many things. But for me the stand-out was this: at all times Tim acted only for what was best, for the common good, in building our community and our nationhood.'
There is no finer expression of Tim's work for the common good, after his long career in public service, than his leadership of the Crop Trust. Tim Fischer served us and the country and the world he loved with distinction, wisdom, courage and imagination. May he rest in peace.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (16:31): It's an absolute privilege to speak in support of the condolence motion for Tim Fischer. I had the pleasure of knowing and working with Tim not as a member—his departure coincided with my arrival—but as a staff member in this place, during the time I was working for Alexander Downer. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Zimmerman, that you were working in this House at the same time with the great Tim Fischer. We interacted a great deal, in particular because my then employer, Alexander Downer, was the foreign minister and Tim Fischer was the trade minister. The two of them made an odd couple, the very urbane Alexander Downer and the very earthy man from Boree Creek with his hat.
Tim traded on that, of course. He was anything but unsophisticated. He presented in the simplest manner, but he was the most thoughtful and erudite of individuals. But, above all else, he was extraordinarily capable and decent. He brought many qualities to this place. I think that in 20, 30 or 40 years time he will be viewed as one of the most loved, admired and respected people who have served in the new Parliament House in its first half-century-plus of operation. It was an absolute joy and a privilege. He always greeted us by name. The fact that he knew the staff and paid respect to the staff, I think, was simply evidence of the way he treated everybody in his life and in his electorate.
There are many achievements. I only want to speak of two. One is his service in Vietnam alongside other brave soldiers of the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment—1RAR—between July 1966 and March 1969 as a second lieutenant. As Tim would often reflect, too many of these brave soldiers would never return. He was himself wounded in the Battle of Coral-Balmoral. He brought recognition of that to this place, but he also brought the sense of dedication, service and humility of the Australian digger to this place. He was a proud representative, but never an ostentatious one, of the veterans' community. There are many members in the parliament who have served, and in particular within the current staff of the parliament, whether it's attendants or whether it's people in all sorts of different roles. Tim honoured every one of them for their service and honoured every one of them through his service.
The second thing, which in a way is a curious juxtaposition, is, following the tragedy of Port Arthur, what could not have been the easiest of paths to take, he stood up for gun control in Australia. This came at enormous personal cost. Many in the rural Australian constituency felt that this was taking away a long-held right to access to guns for work on farms and elsewhere, and Tim worked through this problem. He was absolutely committed to supporting John Howard in that endeavour. It was an achievement of the government and an achievement of the parliament, but, above all else, it was an achievement of John Howard and Tim Fischer together.
When we look for leadership from those who are elected to this place, we find it in that example. It is one of the finest exemplars of real leadership. Real leadership is where somebody identifies something which is in the national interest or an interest above and beyond their own, but, at their own cost, nevertheless they pursue the higher goal. That is what he chose to do, and many lives, I believe, have been saved in Australia because of the decisions of that time. It was the worst of national tragedies. It was the best of national responses by the people, by all of those who were emergency service workers and by our great and wonderful medical community, but it was perhaps most embodied in the nation-changing developments that came and could only have been facilitated by Tim Fischer taking the stand he did and working with then Prime Minister John Howard.
To Tim's family, I want to thank you for lending him to us for quite an extended period of time, but he left here early to be with that family and to return that service to them. And, all of those who knew Tim, whilst we mourn him, celebrate him.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Assistant Minister for Road Safety and Freight Transport) (16:37): I thank the Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to acknowledge the contributions of the Hon. Tim Fischer to our nation. I had the pleasure of knowing Tim Fischer. In fact, before I came to this place, he appointed me chair of what was then referred to as the area consultative committees. They were an organisation that preceded the RDAs, or regional development authorities, that we have now, and I think the ACCs arrived just after the OLMA committees. So my relationship with him goes back some time, and I'm grateful for the invitation that he extended to me to be part of the Central Queensland group, chairing the subcommittee of the then ACC. I then went on to chair the south-west region that went from Toowoomba out to Birdsville.
Next year will be my 10th year in this place, and there have been many condolence motions in this amazing chamber, and people have reflected on many of those. I have not spoken on many condolence motions, but I felt it necessary to come and pay my respects to Tim because he is a man I had great affection for and knew personally—a man who deserved all the praise from a number of commentators on both sides of this House and from the journalistic gallery, the fourth estate. His contribution to this place honours his family, his wife, Judy, and the two boys.
Without going over a lot of what has already been said, Tim's contribution to this country is unmatchable. As a politician, you try and take the best from people and model yourself on others. What resonates most with me is that Tim had a saying that people can smell bulldust coming a mile away. Just being your authentic self was a characteristic that would endear you to the Australian people. I try and do that. Sometimes it gets me into trouble, but nevertheless Fischer did it beautifully. He often was referred to as 'awkward', 'quirky', 'rustic' and many other descriptors, but he just kept on coming.
He started his political career after serving some time in the Army. He spent a considerable time, 13 years, in the New South Wales state parliament and after that made his way into the federal arena. After serving on the backbench, he made his way to the frontbench and then became the leader of the party. Whether or not you were a National Party member, a train enthusiast, an avid bushwalker or a person who lived in regional Queensland, you might have come across Tim Fischer. He was respectfully known as 'Two-Minute Tim' because of his busy schedule—in a regional precinct, he would often just drop in to touch as many people in a community as he could as he travelled through, be it at the pub, the CWA or if he just saw a group of cars. He would drop in, say g'day and give his best, just to let the community know that he had gone through. His name 'Two-Minute Tim' was in respect of the time that he would spend with different groups, just to let them know that he was there and he had touched them.
The other thing Tim had going for him was the workload that he got through. That military training, that military discipline, the work ethic, the code that's instilled in you in the military that you don't let the person next to you down—he brought all those qualities to parliament. He brought those qualities to this place when he represented his constituents. If we, as members of this House, can take those qualities away with us, I can assure you they will serve us well.
Tim, after he finished here, went on to do a number of things, but the most notable was his contribution to Rome, as our Ambassador to the Holy See. Many times I insisted that people in my electorate who were travelling to Rome should drop in at the Vatican and ask for Tim. I said that he would always be up for a personal tour and to look after them. I caught up with him some years later. Whilst he was complimentary about the fact that he got to meet some beautiful people from regional Queensland, he said, 'You kept me busy over there!' But the people returned with only good messages from their personal tours with Tim. If he could not, for whatever reason, give the personal tour, he ensured that one of his staff made those people who had travelled across this planet to the other side of the world feel that they were the most important people. That was the quality of the bloke. He was a man of incredible integrity.
In closing, I acknowledge Judy and the boys, Harrison and Dominic. Thank you for the sacrifice you made, of the time that you would have spent with Tim, so that Tim could spend that time with his community, with the party, with the parliament and with the Australian people. It is you who made a sacrifice. I acknowledge that contribution. Thank you. Vale, Tim Fischer.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the Federation Chamber.
Mr BUCHHOLZ: I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
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—
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:44): It was a great pleasure to listen to the Governor-General when he opened this parliament in July this year. I have been reflecting upon his speech, and of course he was talking about what happened on 18 May: the return of a Morrison government, the return of the Liberal-led coalition government. The Governor-General said in the speech:
They voted for a government that understands Australians are focused on raising their families, running their businesses, working hard, volunteering, and caring for their family and friends.
I hear those words from the Governor-General and I know that's what this government is focused on and I thank him for those words. May 18 was a stand-out day not only for the coalition but also for Australia. The number of people who perhaps doubted that we might win the election, and win the election in our own right, were many. But, I must say, since that time it is amazing the number of people who have come up to me and said, 'Thank goodness you won.' A sense of relief washed over the nation on 18 May when people realised that they'd maybe had a near-death experience of an opposition that was promising to ramp up taxes. Of course we are facing economic headwinds at the moment, and there has been enough things said about it in the main chamber. We are facing economic headwinds, and had we faced that huge hike in taxation, which they had intended to place upon the nation, we would be in a far less viable position today.
This election is the first election where I represent new parts of South Australia to Grey. Previously, I represented 92 per cent of South Australia. I now represent 92.4 per cent. We sadly lost a seat out of South Australia, and that is a bit of a long-term marker on our population growth. We have been growing, but not as fast as the other states. When you lose a seat to one of 11, it means quite significant boundary changes. So I welcome the communities of Clare, Balaklava, Mallala, Two Wells, Roseworthy, Port Wakefield and all those others in between. You bring to me new industries that I have to strife to understand as quickly as I can, one being irrigated horticulture down on the Adelaide plains. I point out that Two Wells is around about 32 kilometres from the CBD of Adelaide, so the electorate of Grey now stretches from 32 kilometres from the CBD of Adelaide to the Northern Territory, to Queensland, to New South Wales and to Western Australia. It is an enormously diverse seat. It is an incredible privilege to represent it. It is a quite taxing regime for me to try and get my head around all the separate industries that lie within it so I have a good working knowledge. I'll be working hard to fully understand—or understand as best I can—the irrigated horticulture industry. I have had the opportunity to visit a few businesses down there already, including Perfection Fresh tomatoes, a wonderful, huge facility not so far out of Adelaide, and I have been to visit Days Eggs and the Clare Valley. I've had some wineries to represent before, but not as big and as successful as the wineries that sit within the Clare and Gilbert valleys—the Clare Valley in particular. There are wonderful labels there, some household names, and some people who are very big exporters and employers. It's a great industry. I had the great privilege of attending Peter Barry's Jim Barry Wines 60th anniversary not so long ago—a celebration dinner. I look forward to increasing that knowledge of the industry and the people within it.
The Governor-General's address gives me an opportunity to talk about the wonderful things that are happening in Grey as a result of government policies and what we are intending to do in the near future. I cannot talk about Grey and not talk about drought. I'm pleased to report that it does not affect all of the Grey area or all of the population—most of the area, it must be said, but not the population in the productive areas. The southern areas are actually experiencing quite good seasonal conditions and in fact had some very good seasonal conditions last year. But we have had 19, I think, drought community grants go out in Grey, so that's 19 affected council areas. I have 27 councils in the electorate of Grey. Nineteen have been granted $1 million each to bring on community works and to engage locals to undertake that work. There was the sparky I talked to in Wudinna, who had two apprentices. He said, 'I can afford to keep them on now as a result of the work I've got to do in the community coming from the drought community grants.' That's a really good outcome.
Of course, we've put $3.9 billion into the drought future fund. At the moment we're dealing with changes to farm household assistance in the House, which will allow people to benefit from farm household assistance when they meet the other qualifications for four out of 10 years. That's a significant advance on where we've been previously. So there is increasing support as well for farmer-specific programs.
One of the things we committed to in the lead-up to the election was to make sure that the South Australian section of the South Australian Dog Fence was brought up to standard. We have about 2,150 kilometres of the dog fence in South Australia. If you like, it's what separates the cattle country and the dogs of the north from the sheep industry. The sheep industry in South Australia cannot survive without an adequate dog fence, and 1,600 kilometres of it are over 100 years old. I was very pleased, firstly, to host the agriculture minister, David Littleproud, over in Jamestown for the show last year to get the ball rolling. One way or another, leading up to the election we made the commitment of $10 million from the Commonwealth. The state government matched that commitment of $10 million and the growers are putting up $5 million. That $25 million will replace 1,600 kilometres of the dog fence, which will serve South Australia for the next 80 years at least. We're really looking forward to that.
And that's what you can do when you manage the economy properly and the government has money to spend on important infrastructure. I must say that it's been a pleasure to work as closely as I possibly can with GFG Alliance's Liberty Onesteel and Sanjeev Gupta in Whyalla. I welcome his presence in Australia as a visionary who is prepared to have a go. That sits very well with the Australian character, to have a go. We believe that those who have a go should get a go. Certainly, Sanjeev Gupta is giving a real go to the people who live in Whyalla—there is a new spring in their step, if you like.
We have a long way to go, but in the first instance the contracts he has signed or is negotiating, and the things we continue to speak about with him, plan to lift the production of the plant from around 1.2 million tonnes a year to 1.8 million tonnes a year. There is a string of investments associated with that. But, not to shoot too low, our good friend Mr Gupta is actually doing a feasibility study on producing 10 million tonnes of steel in Whyalla a year. It's worth reflecting that Whyalla has about 40 per cent of the Australian steel industry. In fact it has all of Australia's structural steel industry. I would say very strongly that this country needs to make structural steel. We couldn't imagine, with the instability that sits within the world, that we would sit on a continent that cannot produce its own steel, considering the fact that we have copious quantities of iron and copious quantities of coal, which are the main ingredients for making steel. So that's a very good outcome and we will continue to work with Mr Gupta.
Over the gulf, Nystar in Port Pirie has been taken over by its major shareholder, Trafigura. I think this is a really good outcome; Trafigura have more resources to make sure that they can handle the debt portfolio that sat with Nystar. Of course, the new plant over there is in the stages of being commissioned at the moment. There have been a few teething problems, but that is not unusual for a new smelter. It ensures the longevity of the plant in Port Pirie, which has sat there for more than 100 years already. I think it will be there for at least the next 50 on the strength of that $600 million investment there.
Our fishing and aquaculture industries continue to be major contributors to our economy. I often say that in Port Lincoln and the electorate of Grey we have the biggest fishing fleet in the southern hemisphere. Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, if you happen to get across to South Australia and you happen to get to Port Lincoln, let me tell you to go out to the marina and have a look at this magnificent fleet when it is in port. These are fishermen who really care for their kit and it's a sight to behold, whether it's the 39 prawn boats that work on the Spencer Gulf fishery, the tenders that work in the tuna industry or those that actually go out and catch the southern bluefin tuna. This is tuna that they bring in at around 11 or 12 kilograms and in six months turn into 22- or 25-kilogram tuna. We are working on an international quota, and we can only quota the tuna as we catch them; if we can double the weight of the tuna after we catch them, you can see the value in that. So these are very good industries. There are oysters, mussels, southern rock lobster and abalone. It's a great place to visit, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas; I suggest you do it. If you like, I can line up for you to swim with the sharks, as I did for the minister at the time, Minister Greg Hunt.
In Grey, one of the things my constituents always tell me is 'You have to do up this road', 'Got to do up that road', 'Our roads are in a mess'. I have to say I think our road network has been improving over the years, but it takes time. At the moment, this Commonwealth government has committed $480 million—from the $100 billion infrastructure package—into Grey for new major road infrastructure. Bear in mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, these figures are, by and large, matched by a 20 per cent contribution from the state of South Australia. So we're putting up $160 million for the duplication of the Joy Baluch AM Bridge at Port Augusta. Currently it is a bottleneck and a high safety risk, with all of the emergency services in Port Augusta living on one side of the gulf, and many people living on the other side. From time to time, there is an interruption of the bridge. It is a 35-kilometre alternative trip around the top of the gulf. This is a great safety valve. The traffic loads are continuing to rise as the minerals, the resources of the north, are being developed and bankrolling South Australia. So that's a great investment.
Down at Port Wakefield, it's one of the main road intersections in South Australia, where traffic peels off for the Yorke Peninsula and then the rest of it keeps going north and west to Port Augusta then maybe Darwin or maybe Perth, depending on which way they are going. We are spending $72 million—there will be a state contribution as well—for a flyover, an overpass, in Port Wakefield and dual lanes through the town and around the town. Currently, dual lanes come all the way up to the town and then stop, meaning that it is a major bottleneck. It will be fixed.
We are putting $45 million into the Horrocks Highway. This is the road that leads up to Clare, to the wonderful tourism assets of the Clare Valley. So that is a very good outcome. I am looking forward to work starting on that in the first quarter of next year, as I am to the work starting on the bridge and in Port Wakefield.
On Eyre Peninsula, the Eyre Highway, we have committed $100 million. Of that $100 million, $25.6 will be allocated to lower Eyre Peninsula to deal with the closure of the more-than-100-year-old narrow-gauge railway, which had reached its use-by date. Of course, there will be extra grain traffic coming onto some of the roads, and we will be seeking some money there to make sure we get wide shouldering, levelling out of roads, fixing up intersections, more passing lanes and, particularly coming into Port Lincoln, a slow-down lane as you come down the hill into the port. Those things are happening.
We've allocated $50 million for the Barrier Highway, and I'm very pleased to acknowledge $64 million will be for the beginning of duplication work on the Augusta Highway, which sits to the north of Port Wakefield, which I have spoken about before. It carries around 4,000 to 5,000 vehicle movements a day—and that number is increasing. We will start work on duplicating that highway. The $64 million won't take us the 200 kilometres all the way to Port Augusta; I understand that. But we'll start down the bottom and we will see how far we go. Then the member for Grey will be rattling on the Treasurer's door and making sure we get the rest of the money to finish off the job. Because I'm a great one, Mr Deputy Speaker, for getting started on the job! I often quote Yogi Berra, a US baseball player who became a commentator. He is famous for such quotes as, 'It ain't over till its over,' and, 'It's just like deja vu all over again.' My favourite quote from Yogi Berra is, 'When you come to a fork in the road, take it.' I think that's a philosophy for life—when it comes to the point of decision, for goodness sake, let's make a decision. So I'm in favour of the $64 million going into the duplication of Augusta Highway, because we've made a decision that we're going to get on with the job and make it start. Let's bring that on.
I thank the brave and resilient citizens of Kimba—my home town—and of Hawker and Quorn, who are currently participating in a ballot to decide where the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility might go. I'm looking forward to it going ahead in my electorate. I've always been a supporter of it. I tried to nominate my own farm but ran foul of some regulations; in fact, I think I'd have to give up my seat if that ever actually happened. Both communities may reject it, and if they don't want it then so they should reject it. But I've always said it's a great opportunity for a small country town somewhere in Australia: 45 jobs and a $31 million package to help them to adapt, to build community infrastructure to deal with the changes. That's a good opportunity and I thank them for their tolerance. I've already voted and I'm looking forward to the rest of the citizens getting on and doing it.
In Grey we have the NBN 99 per cent enabled. That's a pretty good outcome. If you live in Grey you can get on the NBN.
The NDIS rollout is going well. Sure, there are some teething issues. We always knew there would be a shortage of qualified staff because this is ramping up so fast. But I thank the minister for his diligence in this area. We are sorting out the issues as we go. It's generally going pretty well.
I gave a speech on energy in the House yesterday. I had Minister Taylor in the electorate recently and we visited two of the proposed pumped hydro sites, one at Goat Hill, near Port Augusta, and the other one down at Baroota, near Port Pirie. There's another one in the Middleback Range, which is the property of GFG Alliance. It's a disused mine site. All of those are great possibilities for firming up the abundant supply of renewable energy in South Australia.
We've had the Mobile Black Spot Program. Thirty-nine projects either have been completed or have funding coming down the pipeline in round 4—39 in Grey. I say on mobile phone black spots that it won't matter how many we get; there'll always be gaps. It's that kind of technology. But we really are filling in the gaps. Thirty-nine is a very good performance considering that it is only this side of politics that has ever put any money into mobile phone reception in Australia. It's a good outcome, and I thank the coalition government for bringing back the programs from the Howard government that were dismissed. I might point out while I'm on that—because a little bit of history never hurts—that when the Labor Party came to power there was a $2 billion telecommunications regional and rural fund. The idea was that it was going to produce an income ad infinitum, forever, to deal with communication issues in rural and regional Australia. Of course that got hoovered up in about the first eight months, never to be seen again.
In the lead-up to the May election I managed to get a commitment of $12 million for the rebuilding of the accident and emergency entrance at the Whyalla hospital. There are all these things that we can do, Mr Deputy Speaker. There's huge expenditure going on in regional Australia.
I missed out on headspace. We are delivering three new headspace centres. We already have one in Port Augusta, delivered under the previous government. Now we have one up and operating in Whyalla and one opening in Port Lincoln soon. And we have a 'flying headspace' out of Port Augusta, which the Royal Flying Doctor Service will be operating for us. In fact, it's happening at the moment; it's already working. I was talking to one of the nurses the last time I was up in Marree. These are fabulous outcomes. This is a government investing in mental health for young people in some of the most difficult to access areas of Australia. I hope to get some more headspace centres in future. I have said publicly that I really think we need one in Port Pirie as well, and I will keep working with the Minister for Health to try to bring about that outcome.
But all of these things can only be paid for if you run the economy and budget well and you're not borrowing money all the time. It was a great outcome this year to see, when the final figures in the budget were announced, a very, very tiny deficit. It was far less than one per cent, for all intents and purposes a balanced budget. In the next 12 months, the next budget, we will be looking at a surplus, and I am absolutely confident the Treasurer will deliver it.
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (17:05): I rise to comment on the address-in-reply to the speech that was given by the Governor-General earlier this year in opening the 46th Parliament. I particularly noted a comment where His Excellency said:
We are one of the world's oldest democracies; our freedom has produced a cohesive society that makes us the most successful immigrant and multicultural nation on earth.
That's very true. I am very proud that Australia, in my view, is the most successful multicultural nation in the world. As the member for Lalor would agree, we certainly have one of the most successful multicultural states in the world, in Victoria, very well led by Premier Daniel Andrews—a state that celebrates multiculturalism and diversity. We're two very proud members for electorates in that fine state.
It is an honour to be here representing Holt in this 46th parliament. Can I say that because I haven't had the opportunity to formally thank the people of Holt and those living in the City of Casey for the honour of representing them and being their representative in this 46th parliament. It is an incredibly diverse constituency with a lot of young families. It's very car dependent and it's one of the fastest growing areas in Australia. It is a great area to represent.
We obviously know what happened on election night. It was a disappointing night for the Labor Party. The voters obviously spoke with a loud, clear voice. The Labor Party will listen to the Australian people and learn lessons from the result. We are going through that process now in a careful and methodical way. But it's been raised with me that 48.5 per cent of the Australian people did vote for the Labor Party, and I would take issue with some of the commentary that I have seen from people, not necessarily within the Labor Party but other commentators, and I would remind them that that percentage of people did in fact vote for the Labor Party at the federal election.
As the federal member for Holt, I can say that last year—I think the member for Lalor would empathise with this—we had a fairly substantial redistribution. The very character and nature of my seat changed. The suburb of Endeavour Hills, which had been part of Holt for 28 years, went into the federal seat of Bruce. Areas like Doveton, Endeavour Hills, Hallam and Narre Warren came out of Holt. That was a significant loss of over 40,000 voters. But I was rewarded by getting new areas and very different areas to those areas that I just mentioned. I'm quite excited, having been down there on the weekend and been there post the redistribution. It's a very different constituency in that portion of the electorate, because it fronts Western Port Bay. It's the first time in Holt's history, since the seat was formulated, that it actually has a coastal element to it.
With that coming into the constituency it offers fresh perspectives on the seat. It changes the character of the seat quite substantially. The areas of Blind Bight, Botanic Ridge, Cannons Creek, Clyde, Devon Meadows, Junction Village, Pearcedale, Tooradin and Warneet—most of the places that I have just mentioned are coastal elements of the constituency. They are in a World Heritage Area. They're in an area that is unique for its flora and fauna, and they also have great people. I was at the Warneet sailing club on the weekend. We're talking about a very inclusive community, a welcoming community, a community that wants to share this very unique coastal landscape with the rest of the people of Victoria. It's the home of the weedy sea dragon, one of the rarest and most beautiful creatures on the planet. It's great to be part of that now and for that to be part of Holt.
You'll be hearing a lot more from me about great places like Moonlit Sanctuary; I note a lot of celebrities go there, and it's run very well by Michael Johnson and the Johnson family. Again, it is a very unique part of the world. Tooradin is an amazingly spectacular part of Victoria, with a very rich history. It is part of the Healesville to Phillip Island Nature Link. As I said, there is just so much diversity. Why am I talking about this? Because it is a very significant area. It's got great people that are real social entrepreneurs, and I look forward to telling you more about them in my time here in the 46th Parliament, talking about how I can assist them and about projects of significance to these people, and lobbying on their behalf.
Having said that, I want to talk about seats like Holt that are categorised as outer suburban seats. Australia's outer suburbs are home to five million people, and in just 15 years another 2.5 million people will call the outer suburbs home. My electorate of Holt is home to some of the fastest growing areas in Australia—Cranbourne East and Clyde. There is an increasing need for much-needed social infrastructure in these rapidly growing suburbs. As the member for Lalor would know, that need has been identified very successfully by the Andrews government, with the issue being very capably led by the member for Cranbourne, Pauline Richards, who was elected at the last state election. The state government has realised that there needs to be significant reinvestment in these amazing growth corridors. That's why you see roads being widened, sky rail being put in, an additional rail line being put in between Dandenong and Cranbourne, hospitals built and enlarged, schools being built. It shows what a proactive government can do. Those significant reinvestments in what I call the social infrastructure are one of the reasons why Daniel Andrews and the Labor government were re-elected so substantially.
Those investments are what the people in the outer suburbs are looking for, but that's not what the people in the outer suburbs have been receiving from the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. There's nothing that I've heard in the rhetoric of the Prime Minister that gives me any level of reassurance, in my constituency and that of the member of Lalor, who is here with me, that that style of reinvestment by the Daniel Andrews state government is going to be made. That's bad. It is bad because, for example, the Casey Hospital, which is just outside my constituency, in the federal electorate of La Trobe, doesn't have an MRI machine. We have a catchment area of probably 300,000 to a million people, but that doesn't warrant the installation of an MRI. The federal government haven't spoken to the state government. The state government has built a seven-storey wing at the Casey Hospital. You can see it from one end of my constituency to the other. It's that big, you could probably see it from the International Space Station. It is a significant investment by a state government that is committed to providing these services.
Prior to the election, when then opposition leader Bill Shorten came down to Victoria, we were going to invest $22.9 million into the City of Casey because of the rapid expansion of the population and because there needs to be more investment. We needed to expand the emergency department and create another, I think, 22 beds for a mental health ward to expand the provision of mental health services in the region. Even though there is significant investment by the state government, the population growth is so great. In relation to partnership, we hear a lot about the activities of the Morrison government and COAG and how they're working together with the states, but I haven't heard of an MRI machine going into the City of Casey. I haven't heard of additional, much-needed infrastructure spends—new schools, new roads outside of the Monash Freeway, new rail. I've heard none of that whatsoever. I've heard a lot of criticism, but I haven't seen the co-investment that Mr Morrison speaks about. That's absolutely significant and what that means, for example, for the roads.
Again, prior to the last election, had we been successful, a Shorten-led Labor government would have invested $75 million in partnership with the Andrews Labor government on two major roads in my constituency. One's Thompsons Road—we were going to assist with the duplication of the roadway between Dandenong-Frankston Road and Berwick-Cranbourne Road. I was there for the announcement with other members of parliament and state members of parliament with Daniel Andrews and Bill Shorten prior to the election. That's not going to happen.
There's also another very significant stretch of road: Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road between Thompsons Road and South Gippsland Highway. I had the misfortune of having to drive back after a function at Warneet last weekend, and one may as well have been in the city. We're talking about an area that's about 47 kilometres outside of the CBD, and one may as well have been in the CBD, because the traffic just banked up almost from Thompsons Road to South Gippsland Highway. The space is available, but we can't just leave everything for the state government. I would say the state government in the seat of Cranbourne has probably invested close to a billion dollars in terms of infrastructure—it could well be over that. Now, if you look at what the federal government was investing—a couple of million versus $1 billion perhaps—that clearly indicates to me what their priorities are; they just don't prioritise it. I think I will be reminding the people who were stuck on that roadway about the fact that, had we been elected, we would have had that significant co-investment, working hand in hand with the Andrews Labor government. But that's not going to happen. I'm waiting, and I hope that the Morrison government will in fact do that: match the spending that the state Labor government puts in.
The other thing I wanted to turn my attention to was the issue of jobs and wages in the south-eastern region. We know that we've had something close to about 29 years of unimpeded and uninterrupted economic growth. The interesting thing is that we have not had 28 years of unimpeded, uninterrupted real wage growth and real wage increases to match cost of living increases. In fact what we've had, as a consequence of the previous government, the Turnbull government—sorry, the Abbott-Turnbull government—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
Mr BYRNE: I keep on losing track, Member for Lalor; I've got to remember the holy trinity: the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. We've had cuts to penalty rates. In our area, because we have so many young families, our young families require penalty rates just to keep their heads above water. As governments, we encourage people to go and live the Australian dream, to buy their property, to raise their kids in the outer suburbs and to lead the life. Because it's a very car-dependent constituency, because it is so far out, we have again significant investment in public transport, but it doesn't match the fact that we have many, many workers in the construction and trade industry who can't catch a train to go to their job; they've got to use a car. That's why you've got to have a government that matches that aspiration by providing the roads for them to travel on so they can do their jobs and—they might be married, they may have a partner; they may have kids and they might be working in retail—don't have their penalty rates cut. They can send their kids to the schools that they want to, even government schools. They can pay the mortgage.
This is something that I think Mr Morrison should reflect on: when he talks about how well the economy is going, what I am hearing consistently from people and major employers connected with the manufacturing network down in the south-eastern suburbs is a suppression of demand, a grave concern that we're in something like a retail recession. We're actually in a period of time where the economy is not travelling well. So, we have the government saying, 'We're getting into surplus.' 'This is really great' and 'You've never had it so good.' Come down and say that to the people in the south-east—the ones that are struggling because they've had their penalty rates cut when they're working at Myers at the Fountain Gate shopping centre. Or talk to those mums getting their kids off to school who are struggling to pay school fees, to pay for school uniforms or to pay for travel when petrol goes up to $1.75 a litre.
One of the things that I think should be noted here, given that you've got massive car dependency and a lot of people who need cars, is that, when petrol goes up, as it did recently, to $1.75 per litre, it's almost like a mini interest rate rise. And that's probably not familiar to people who make pronouncements about the economy going so well. What would they know about a Tuesday morning when the price of a litre of petrol eventually cycles down from $1.75 to $1.29 and you have mums and dads and tradies queuing up for anything up to half an hour to get their fuel tanks filled? Does that seem to be factored in? That isn't discussed. Consider energy costs, for example. The government's been talking about the work that it's been doing on dropping energy costs. That's interesting because I recently heard of a constituent whose energy bill went from $600 per quarter to $2,000. It went up just like that. Then, when he shopped around, like the government told him to do, it dropped from $2,000 to $1,700 in that quarter with no guarantee that there weren't going to be further price rises.
So I'm hearing rhetoric about jobs, about the roads going so well that apparently you can drive on roads that are really congested, and about people being able to pay their bills, yet the great social service providers, like the Cranbourne Information & Support Service, have people knocking down their doors to come and see them. And these are not just people who are on welfare or pensions; these are people we'd regard as being middle Australia. They're going to the Cranbourne Information & Support Service for vouchers to pay for food, to help them with school clothes and to help them get past having all these bills coming in. So tell me: how can the economy be going incredibly well when we have increased levels of concern expressed and when we have people from Cranbourne Information & Support Service, like Leanne Petrides, who's been the director for a number of years, saying that they haven't seen it this bad? Something must be going wrong. The economy that is supposedly going so well, Member for Lalor, can't be. Something must be going wrong. I think it is quite clear that cost-of-living pressures are not being matched by increases in disposable income for people in the south-eastern suburbs, particularly when that's exacerbated by a cut in penalty rates. I will come back to this in future addresses, Member for Lalor, because I don't think the problem's going to be solved, notwithstanding my drawing the House's attention to it.
I do want to talk about a very exceptional community in my constituency, which is not a huge community. I want to talk about the Oromo community and its impact on the world stage and the contribution that Australian Oromos have made to a peace process. I bring your attention to a recent Nobel Peace Prize that has been awarded. One of the most hopeful changes that I've seen in the 21st century has happened in Ethiopia recently. Nearly three decades of authoritarian rule have been overturned. The Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front has come under intense challenge, but there's been a change and it's a change without violence. It was done by a protest, almost like an Arab Spring, to some extent, in Africa, but it's not reported on much. In the face of popular protests and in desperation, the regime felt compelled to hand over the reins of government last year to a young and dynamic gentleman who became the Prime Minister: Abiy Ahmed from the Oromo Democratic Party. According to democracy expert Larry Diamond, since coming to power in April 2018, Ahmed has released political prisoners, loosened media controls and implemented a wave of other reforms, including appointing one of the most respected opposition figures to head the country's electoral commission in advance of the elections due in 2020.
In Africa, entrenched authoritarianism exists amongst nation states, but, with 100 million people, Ethiopia is the second most populous country in Africa and it's become a peaceful multiparty democracy. The implications for the continent are enormous. The Ethiopian Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed Ali, was awarded the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation and, in particular, for his decisive initiative to solve the border conflict with neighbouring Eritrea. There were three people in the course of the dark days of this, before they transitioned—Biftu Gutama, Sinke Wesho and Abdeta Hanna—who would lobby me consistently. Congratulations to them. We've seen one of the most peaceful transitions of power in the 21st century. It's they and the people of Ethiopia who should be commended.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (17:25): Serving the people of Leichhardt for more than two decades has been one of the greatest privileges of my life. It is a role that I have undertaken with passion, energy and unwavering commitment, although I have to say I have sometimes ruffled a few feathers. I've always prided myself on listening, acting and delivering for our community. This past election was one of the toughest I have contested but was certainly one of the most important in a generation. Far North Queenslanders flatly refused the high-taxing and divisive politics of those opposite. Now that the election has been run and won, it is time to get on with delivering the projects that I announced during the campaign. I'd like to take the time to speak about each of them and the importance they have for my community.
First is the Captain Cook Highway. The Morrison government will invest $370 million to bust congestion along the Captain Cook Highway so that those, like me, living on the northern beaches can get home to our loved ones faster, safer and sooner. It will dramatically improve the way of life for thousands of residents. The funding for this game-changing project was announced in this year's federal budget. The project, linking the Cairns CBD with the Smithfield bypass, will see significant upgrades to three major roundabouts along the Captain Cook Highway. It will also include additional inbound and outbound lanes between Airport Avenue and Yorkeys Knob roundabout. The project will include significant intersection upgrades at Arnold Street, Whitfield Street, Tom McDonald Drive and Airport Avenue. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank Advance Cairns for their leadership and their unwavering support and advocacy for this project.
Another one is the southern access corridor stage 5, which is for work on the Bruce Highway. Far North Queensland continues to benefit from the largest infrastructure spend in the nation's history. The $180 million project involves a grade separation upgrade at the Bruce Highway and Foster Road intersection in Cairns. This project will build on existing commitments made along the Cairns southern access highway, including upgrades between Edmonton and Gordonvale, Robert Road and Foster Road, and Kate Street and Aumuller Street. The total Bruce Highway package across the five stages is in excess of $1 billion.
The federal government will invest $190 million also towards Peninsula Developmental Road stage 2 to ensure the sealing works along this bucket-list road continue. The Peninsula Developmental Road has been listed as part of the federal government's $3.5 billion Roads of Strategic Importance program. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, when I came into this place in 1996 there wasn't one kilometre of bitumen along the 450-odd kilometres of Peninsula Developmental Road, and it was shut generally for three or four months of the year during the wet season. We now have about 200 kilometres to see the road totally sealed, basically, from Weipa to Cairns. It will have a very significant impact on the livability and on the economy of people living along that very, very critical, soon-to-be-bitumen spine.
The federal government is also investing in other roads. There is another $50 million to improve an iconic tourism route between tropical North Queensland and the Northern Territory. Funding will go towards sealing an unsealed section of the Gulf Savannah road. That is another very, very important road. The Queensland section of the Gulf Savannah road takes in 313 kilometres, and almost 60 per cent of the road is already sealed. Again, like the Peninsula Development Road, we're seeing the start of the bitumen rolling out, as we are also on the Hann Highway, which will basically give us a sealed inland route from Cairns right through to Melbourne, taking us off the main Bruce Highway. It will make a huge difference, cutting the time from Cairns to Melbourne very significantly. This is very much visionary stuff that's been needed for a long time, and it's being rolled out under our government. There are also flood mitigation and a range of other things that will be achieved.
It was great to have my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, and Senator Matt Canavan in Cairns during the campaign for the amazing announcement there, where we announced that we would be investing up to $10 million to ensure the Lakeland Irrigation Area Project was shovel ready. This is another critical project. This investment will ensure that the final engineering and scoping works on this region-defining project are being completed. The project has the potential to unlock over 8,000 hectares of irrigated land and could create more than a thousand jobs during construction, not to mention many local jobs that would be created with the expansion of the region's economy. We know that unlocking the potential of our regional communities goes hand in hand with water security. This will see a small town, the community of Lakeland, grow into a significant regional town, which is something we should be very excited about.
During the campaign I flew to Pormpuraaw, an Aboriginal community on the west coast, and announced that the government will be delivering a historic $105 million investment into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils to fund remote Indigenous housing so that the control of this actually stays in the hands of the communities themselves rather than going through the bureaucracy of the state government where, with the previous NPARIH scheme, a lot of the money was certainly squandered, where we see million-dollar houses being built for individual couples, which is crazy. Under the new rules no more than $500,000 can be spent per house, but the houses can be designed and built within the communities by the communities, giving job opportunities et cetera. We're finding that under that type of program there's a lot of competition for those houses. It's great to see. It also gives a significant amount of empowerment to those communities and a sense of ownership of what they're creating. We're encouraging the state government to match that funding, which they're required to do, and we'd like to see that money also go into the councils so that it can be administered through those councils.
We're also backing traditional owners by investing $5 million in the ongoing construction of seawalls. These ones will be in the Torres Strait, supporting the local communities. They are basically going to be in the central islands within the community there. They are going to be a partnership with the GBK, which is the local PBC or traditional owner group, and My Pathway. The new partnership will maximise the employment and support Torres Strait Islander businesses to deliver the project, again giving significant ownership of the project to the community themselves and having them contributing significantly to dealing with this challenge.
The federal government's $20 million investment ensured the future not only of the Mossman Mill but the entire town and region. The Mossman Mill transition project will unlock economic opportunities in the Mossman community and surrounding Far North Queensland, especially for canegrowers and all those industries which support the existing mill operations. The project will transform not only the mill but also the region through technology and innovation. The project will build on the 560 jobs that the mill already supports and is expected to create an estimated 86 new long-term jobs, which is a major boost for the city. I would like to congratulate Far Northern Milling for their foresight and ingenuity, along with Advance Cairns, the chamber of commerce and the Douglas Shire Council for their advocacy to ensure this project becomes a reality. I would like to, if I could, single out the chair of Far Northern Milling, Maryann Salvetti, for the amazing work she did in putting this whole concept together. What we're going to see now is a mill that will still produce sugar, which mills do, but it's going to transfer into a real biofactory so we're going to see a whole range of products that are going to come out of that which are going to be manufactured using the sugar as a base product.
The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, also announced $60 million for the Cairns University Hospital. Once completed, it will take enormous pressure off Cairns Hospital's waiting lists and our clinical services. The federal government's investment means that James Cook University can purchase land to deliver world-class medical research through the new Cairns Tropical Enterprise Centre in the Cairns University Hospital precinct. It will enable research and education, and it will enable staff at Cairns Hospital to be relocated to the new facility, freeing up space for about 150 beds in the hospital for patients and clinical services. So, again, a very exciting project.
Another one that's very close to me is the federal funding to invest another $1.3 million to facilitate the second stage of development of the COUCH health services precinct in Manunda. The federal government have funded the purchase of land next to the COUCH Wellness Centre to support the future construction of much-needed short-term accommodation facilities for Far North Queensland patients visiting Cairns for treatment for cancer and other illnesses. That additional funding comes on top of a commitment that I achieved at the last election, the 2016 election, for a $1.5 million investment towards the construction of the COUCH Wellness Centre, which was opened in May this year. Cairns COUCH was founded in 2006 by the late Charlie Woodward and his beautiful wife, Pip, and I worked very closely with the Woodward family to secure $8.3 million initially—this was back in 2007—in federal funding that led to the establishment of the Liz Plummer Cancer Care Centre. The latest investment completes the trifecta of funding that I've fought extremely hard for COUCH. The work they are doing is simply amazing.
Another great one that we announced during the election was that visitors in Far North Queensland will soon be able to walk or cycle the stunning new coastal and hinterland route from Palm Cove to Port Douglas thanks to an $8 million investment from our government. The Wangetti Trail, once complete, will become one of the country's leading adventure-based ecotourism experiences. Funding from the project is part of the government's $50 million national Tourism Icons Package announced in this year's federal budget. The Wangetti Trail was designed by world-renowned trail designer and Cairns local Glenn Jacobs and is a one-of-a-kind experience, attracting hikers and cyclists from Australia and the globe. The Wangetti Trail is expected to create around 150 jobs and will be a significant boost to tourism. This incredible new nature based experience, once up and running, will be a major tourism drawcard for our region. I'd like to thank my colleague Senator Birmingham who braved the elements during the announcement up on Rex Lookout. Soon after we announced the Wangetti Trail—and this is about forward thinking and planning—we then went on to announce another $3.5 million for the relocation and establishment of the Ellis Beach Surf Life Saving Club. That's on the southern end of the trail, which means that the surf club will have the opportunity to capture a lot of those visitors through their restaurant and accommodation they can create there, which will give them a really strong economic base into the future. So we're tying up the ends to make sure that we capture all the economic opportunities.
Another one that I've been working on since I came into this place in 1996 was getting a microgrid or mains-equivalent power north of the Daintree River, and through this election we're one step closer to that via a renewable energy microgrid. We identified a region north of the Daintree River as a site for a standalone environmentally friendly power system. We put our money where our mouth is. We've committed $990,000 worth to the Daintree renewable energy grid, which will take the 100 per cent renewable project to sub already within 12 months. This proposed microgrid will store energy generated by new and existing solar panels, by converting it into hydrogen, which will be stored, generating reliable power and reducing world heritage reliance on diesel fuel generated power, with consumption currently estimated at around five or six million litres a year. This project will also have a battery storage capacity—the first of its kind in this country. I think the grant will support the investigation of new ownership and funding models in the deployment of the microgrid. It is a very, very exciting project and one I would say keep a very close eye on.
We also put $4 million in to create more opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to complete year 12 through AFL Cape York House in Cairns. I had the privilege of announcing the additional funding at the official opening of the federally funded AFL Cape York Girls House at Redlynch. The extra $4 million will ensure that the AFL Cape York boys and girls houses continue their great work in providing educational support, training and opportunities for students from some of our most remote communities.
We also put $2 million into Cairns Hockey, which is another very, very exciting one. This is going into an Aspire to be Deadly program there, supporting young women making positive life choices and broadening their opportunities. It is a very unique program very successfully run through Cairns Hockey. It has our young Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal women engaging with Indigenous ambassadors, providing mentoring support as well as connection to their own culture and tradition. I congratulate Cairns Hockey on the fabulous job that they have done in that area.
These projects that I have outlined are big-ticket items, and I am proud to have delivered those into the area. However, there are several more projects that I announced during the campaign that, while the amount of money is not quite as great, I think are equally significant. Why? Because these are community based projects and ones that make a real difference in people's lives and projects that will further enhance our community. One was $418,000 towards the Cairns Cycling Club for an upgrade in that area, which is going to make a huge difference. All of these sporting ones, of course, go towards a vision that I have of establishing Cairns as the fourth tropical sports conditioning centre in the world, after Hong Kong, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. This goes a long way to providing the infrastructure that's necessary for us to be able to play in this field.
A million dollars went to the Cairns Men's Shed. The Men's Shed are renting part of a property that is owned by the Scouts Association, and the Men's Shed have done a huge amount of work there. This gives the Men's Shed—a wonderful organisation—the opportunity to acquire that property and to be able to have it as a permanent base. There was $500,000 towards the Paws and Claws animal shelter in Port Douglas, another very, very worthy project. There was $500,000 towards Cairns Basketball. There were also smaller amounts. Importantly the Cairns Men's Shed got $12,000, and $110,000 went towards the Port Douglas Cairns AFL. This went into a club up there, the Crocs up at Port Douglas. As you drive out to the airport, you'll see the Duntroon oval with the white picket fence. Well, we are going to transport that fence up to the Crocs oval in Port Douglas. Aesthetically, it is absolutely beautiful, but what is going to be particularly important about it that it is going to be made out of recycled plastics and it will represent literally millions of pieces of discarded plastic around the oval—so a very, very significant piece. These organisations, as I say, are many of the great organisations in my community, and they make a real difference to people's lives, irrespective of age, race or gender. The local groups of course are the lifeblood of our communities and it is important that we support them wherever possible.
Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to publicly thank and place on the record the work of my amazing staff. They worked tirelessly through the election campaign to ensure that I had the opportunity to deliver the projects that I've just mentioned. I just want to place their names on the record. My lasting gratitude and my thanks to Tamara Srhoj, Adam Davies, Samuel Batt, Natasha Sambo, Rosie Korman, Megan Carey and Tanya Yates, from up in the Torres Strait. I'm sure all members would agree we are only as good as the staff that we have working with us. They are the ones that really have our backs and they're the ones that really make us look good. So I say thank you again very much indeed for a job well done.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (17:45): I want to thank the people of the electorate of Solomon—the great people of Darwin and Palmerston—for their continued faith in me, for re-electing me as their representative in this House for the second time. Of course I thank my family, whom I love so much, for all their unwavering support: my wife, Kate, our daughter, Sally, and our son, Frank, or Frankie—our children are relatively young—seven and 5½—who put up with a lot with me being away. Kate does an amazing job with the family and I am very grateful for everything they do, and for their love and support.
I want to thank the campaign team, who did an incredible job. I thought we ran a fantastic campaign. I won't go into that much detail about the campaign except to say I'm very proud of the campaign we ran and proud of the team and their efforts. I thank all the volunteers and everyone who, in some way—big or small—helped us to secure the seats of Solomon and Lingiari, and an NT Senate position for Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. I also want to thank my amazing staff. In the 2016 election I had no staff, but a great campaign team. I want to thank my staff for continuing to give great service to the people of Darwin and Palmerston, and the Territory more broadly.
I want to thank my Labor colleagues and our shadow ministers. I particularly thank our former leader Bill Shorten and our former deputy leader Tanya Plibersek, who responded to our requests for stimulus for the Northern Territory, and I thank those who made those decisions to back the Northern Territory. They understand that in the Territory we have to overcome severe infrastructure and service deficits. I also want to thank our new leader, Anthony Albanese, for his commitment towards developing north Australia and for visiting the Territory as one of his first acts as opposition leader.
I want to thank the members of the broader Labor movement in the Northern Territory who worked for the election of a Labor government. We were unsuccessful, but they worked hard to help us to secure a better future for Territorians. I'll continue to work hard to hold the Morrison government to account on the commitments and promises it made to the Territory during the campaign—it must be said that they were all too few—and I'll continue to advocate for the proposals that Labor put forward, which were good policies. I think we put forward a great suite of policies that were going to be so fantastic for the Territory, and I think my re-election and Warren Snowden's re-election show that the ideas and the policies that we had for the Territory were supported overwhelmingly by Territorians.
I also want to quickly acknowledge the other candidates who stood for election. It does take a lot of courage and commitment to stand for parliament, and I acknowledge all of the work that they put in. In particular, I want to recognise Mrs Kathy Ganley, the Country Liberal candidate, but also the other candidates—Tim, Raj, Lorraine and Sue—who all worked hard. We disagreed at times on policy issues, sometimes robustly, during the campaign but I want to acknowledge their strongly held beliefs and their work towards getting the support of the electorate. I hope that we can all work together for the good of the Territory in the coming years. For my part, I will continue to work very closely with my Territory Labor colleagues—Warren Snowden, the member for Lingiari, and Senator Malarndirri McCarthy—as well as with the new Country Liberals senator, Dr Sam McMahon. I've already been able to spend some time with Dr McMahon talking about what the Territory needs and trying to get her support for getting some interest in the Territory from the current federal government.
I'll of course continue to represent all my constituents, whether they voted for me or not, to the best of my ability over this term of parliament and into the future. In my first speech in the House of Reps I spoke about where I came from and my love for the Territory. Now, three years on, in this new parliament I want to outline a bit about where we are, where I see our place in the world and what is going on around us in the Indo-Pacific region. I want to talk about the very serious need for us to plan and act in order not only to realise all the opportunities but to prepare ourselves as a nation for the intensity that will be part of the Indo-Pacific, this part of the globe, in the coming years.
From Darwin and Palmerston, the capital of northern Australia, we have a particular view of the world—the view north into the Arafura Sea and beyond. I have significant experience—in some countries more than in others—and a deep interest in the Indo-Pacific, and I am very proud that Labor leader Anthony Albanese has given me the responsibility of leading Labor's regional trade taskforce. I'll be working to encourage our neighbours, like Indonesia, to do more business with us, particularly with Territory and northern businesses but also with businesses around our country.
The massive markets to our north are vital to the future of the Territory. Our close proximity is obviously an advantage. But the big Australian markets to our south also need to be developed so that Territory producers of excellence can find more business partners in the south as well as in rapidly growing countries to our north. Darwin is obviously an important strategic location for our nation in the Indo-Pacific region. I'll continue to work on getting the Morrison government to fully recognise the importance of our strategic location, both for trade and for defence.
We're very conscious of our place in the world. Remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that within the living memory of some Territorians we have been attacked from our north. We are very aware of the crucial importance of the northern capital of Australia, Darwin-Palmerston, and of greater Darwin and the Territory, to the defence of Australia. I'll be urging the government to live up to its commitment to invest in our defence infrastructure in the north. We need it for our defence and also because it is important not as a prime motivator but as an important job generator for our wonderful Territorians. For example, Labor went to the election proposing a shiplift for both military and civilian ship maintenance, and the federal government has been making rumblings about supporting this project. The NT government have confirmed that they will go ahead with the project, even without the $300 million of real money that federal Labor was committed to. As I've said to the Treasurer and to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and to the Prime Minister, we need a commitment of real dollars for this nation-building project. That would be far better and far more productive than a NAIF loan if that were ever to eventuate.
As I mentioned, I have a strong interest in Australia's bilateral relationship with Indonesia. As Paul Keating put it, our strategic bread is entirely buttered in the Indonesian archipelago. Indonesia has had and still has challenges, but I think it's fair to characterise Indonesia today as a vibrant democracy that fiercely values its independence. Indonesia has been a unique and important influence in my life. Not only did I learn the language whilst I was with the Australian Army stationed in Perth but, during Exercise Kangaroo '95 in the Northern Territory, I jumped out of a perfectly good Royal Australian Air Force Hercules aircraft with Indonesian paratroopers. And, at times, whilst travelling through Indonesia, I have met and conversed with TNI, Indonesian National Armed Forces, personnel about a number of things, including access to the East Timor border for the restoration of East Timor's independence. It was great to join the defence minister, Senator Reynolds, recently for the 20th anniversary of the INTERFET going into East Timor, restoring order with international partners, and it is great that East Timor—Timor-Leste—and Indonesia enjoy great relationships, as do we with both nations.
Clearly, Indonesia is critical not only to Australia's security but also to its economic prosperity. Labor has been the party with the vision to understand the enduring importance of Indonesia to Australia's national interest and to regional and global stability and prosperity. We are proud of the role that Labor has played to foster and positively influence Indonesia's development during a challenging journey of reform in recent decades. Paul Keating, for example, built the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, APEC, into a body guiding the overall development of free trade and practical economic cooperation in the region, with Indonesia an important member. Last term, I was honoured to lead an ALP international delegation to Jakarta, where we met with all the major political parties, former President SBY and former foreign minister Marty Natalegawa. That was a great opportunity to meet with so many important stakeholders in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta. Australia's respect for Indonesia and our commitment to strengthening the relationship were central messages that I conveyed during that visit.
I think we need to commit to ensuring that our words and our actions in the future demonstrate that Australia respects the Republic of Indonesia. Don't get me wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker: we must talk straight, as we have done, but we must consult. There are so many areas where we could strengthen cooperation within Indonesia for our mutual benefit, from business, countering transnational crime, defence cooperation, humanitarian and disaster relief, and sporting and cultural exchanges, just to mention a few. Paul Keating's first overseas trip as Prime Minister was to Indonesia in April 1992, and it was very heartening to see Labor leader Anthony Albanese visit Indonesia as his first overseas visit as Labor leader to discuss our important partnership. I was very proud to join him and our shadow foreign minister, Senator Penny Wong, on that visit.
In terms of our national defence, the reality is that we need to be more self-reliant, with a larger, more capable ADF, Australian Defence Force, that is able to participate in more contingencies simultaneously.
Paul Dibb, the respected defence analyst, has said that China's military presence in the South China Sea has brought its capacity to project military power 1,400 kilometres closer to Australia's northern approaches. He says that Australia's strategic geography as a pivot between the Pacific and Indian oceans is now assuming much more strategic relevance, and this means we have to revisit the disposition of our forces and their capabilities in the north and west of Australia. We need national leaders with vision, who understand our region, our challenges and our rightful role as guardians and protectors of our people and our continent. We need leaders with vision that see our role in forging more cooperative and respectful protection of our region.
As we come to the current statement of Australia's defence policy, the 2016 Defence white paper, much of what is set out in that policy document is largely sound and valid. It states that the Australian government's highest priority is to be the safety and security of the Australian people and the defence of our territory and our interests. Of course, that is paramount for us all. The white paper identifies the strategic changes facing us as a nation, and sets out a program of regeneration and re-equipping of the Australian Defence Force, together with the required projected costings and budgets.
What are these strategic challenges? We're well aware that we're in uncertain times. There are a number of strategic challenges facing us as a nation. I was very pleased last week to join with an ASPI event on the Quad, where strategic thinkers from Japan, Indonesia, the United States and Australia gather to talk about some of these strategic challenges. Many of those are detailed in the white paper, and there has been an acknowledgement in recent times that some of the uncertainties and challenges in our region have sped up.
But, regardless, I think that with the timetable for different strategic challenges we all need to understand that there are a number of areas of significant concern to us, whether they're in the rules based order or in future tensions through trade wars, or strategic competition or in the South China Sea, which most of our exports must travel through. The United States will continue to be our most important strategic partner, that's true, but we also need to think about our current strategy and where we're placing ourselves for the future. That's why I say again that we need to make sure we've got our settings correct.
Federal Labor, in the lead-up to the last election, committed to a force posture review. Modern warfare requires the coordination of land, sea and air; intelligence and electronic warfare; and cyber and space capabilities so that the ADF, as a joint force, can apply more force more rapidly and more effectively when it's required. The white paper said that more emphasis will need to be given to this joint force. What is now apparent, three years on, is that this is what the ADF must be: a joint force, able to apply and deploy its various capabilities as the situation demands. As we heard at Forces Command last week, the Army is becoming increasingly good at teaming and reteaming. We need to do that as an Australian Defence Force. We need to do that as a nation. Our industrial capacity, severely weakened by the current government's goading of the vehicle manufacturing industry to leave our shores, has left a gap. We need to ensure that we have the right industrial settings for the defence of Australia, for more self-reliance. The Northern Territory—Darwin and Palmerston—plays a massively important role. I'll continue to make sure that our electorate does its part.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:05): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Rick Wilson. I'm pleased to see you in the chair during my contribution to the address in reply to the Governor-General's speech. My first job, of course, is to thank the people of Hughes, who put their trust in me to represent them in this place in Canberra to stand up for their interests. I'm very pleased that they returned me with an increased margin. So I again represent those people without fear or favour to make sure that I stand up for their interests in this place.
During the election campaign it was very important to stand up for their interests, because we truly dodged a bullet as a nation. If the result had gone the other way, what would have happened to those self-funded retirees, people that had worked hard all their life, that had invested under the rules of the day and that were going to have their franking credits simply stolen? I was privileged to be part of the economics committee that heard some of the evidence in this. What came across loud and clear was that members of the Labor Party and the Greens simply didn't understand the principle. They thought it was their money. They didn't understand that if you are a shareholder of a company you own that company, just like you do if you're a sole trader or if you have a business investment in a partnership. And the profits that that business or partnership or sole trader makes belong to the owner of the business. Then those profits are taxed at the applicable marginal tax rate. That was a concept completely devoid of the Labor Party's understanding. They went after those self-funded retirees at this last election, and we then had the Shadow Treasurer telling them, 'If you don't like it, don't vote for us.' Well, they did that in droves.
The other bullet that this nation dodged was about negative gearing: again trying to drive a wedge of class warfare through and again a simple misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the basic economics. Negative gearing is not some type of tricky tax stunt. It is a simple principle: the costs of your interest are an expense of earning an income and therefore they are deductible when you work out what your pre-tax income is and what you pay the tax upon. Again, it was a concept the Labor Party simply couldn't understand, which would have decimated the investment and housing industry throughout our cities. I hate to think what would have happened.
But truly the real bullet that we dodged as a nation was that we didn't get Labor's 45 per cent economy-wide emissions reduction target. For years we've argued in this place about renewable energy targets, but what we've been talking about is really only renewable electricity targets. The electricity sector only makes up one-third of our emissions, so where Labor just didn't want to take our electricity sector emissions at the 45 per cent; they wanted to do that reduction in every other sector of the economy. Stationary energy: people that use gas in their own home for heating and cooking. How did the Labor Party plan to reduce that by 45 per cent? Trucking across the nation: that sector had to reduce its CO2 emissions, which means reduce the use of petrol and diesel by 45 per cent. How is that going to happen without decimating, mainly, many rural areas and without decimating our trucking industry?
What about our aviation industry? Airlines like Qantas and Virgin? Qantas, for instance, emits more CO2 as a company than does the Liddell coal-fired power station. How is a business like Qantas going to reduce their emissions by 45 per cent under what the opposition took to the election, unless they are simply going to take planes out of the sky? If you take planes out of the sky, what do you do to all the tourist industries and businesses that rely on the tourist sector around the nation? This is the bullet that we dodged.
Then, of course, there's the agricultural industry. The agricultural industry makes up 14 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. How is that industry meant to reduce its emissions by 45 per cent other than by a mass cull of our dairy cattle, of our beef cattle, of our sheep and of our pigs? A mass cull would have been required to get to that 45 per cent target. That's the bullet we dodged.
The other concern was how close Labor came to pulling this off, because they went to this election with this huge economy-changing policy and yet they refused to say what were the costs and what were the benefits. They were asked time and time again what the costs were, and they told us, 'Don't worry about it.' What was the cost to electricity? How many jobs could be lost? What would it do to how competitive our nation would be? Just forget about it.
But what it really came to also is what were the benefits? What were Labor going to achieve by their 45 per cent emissions reduction target? Nothing. They were going to achieve exactly nothing. Because we know that—the Chief Scientist of Australia, Professor Alan Finkel, has told us and he's made it very clear—it doesn't matter if the entire Australian nation goes down a giant sinkhole, if we close down every industry in the country and cull every single beast, it will make no difference to the temperature. But then Labor say, 'Hang on, what about all nations working together?' Okay, let's have a look at that. We know under the Paris agreement if every single nation meets their obligations by 2030—a big if—and if we assume the modelling about how adjusting CO2 changes the temperatures is correct, the peer-reviewed research in this says the change in temperature will be one-twentieth of one degree, that is 0.05 of a degree Celsius, by the year 2100. That's if every nation does what they're supposed to do.
There was interesting commentary by Bjorn Lomborg only this week. He looked at what happens if every rich developed nation in the world, including Australia, went to zero CO2 emissions not in 2050 but by tomorrow and they then kept their emissions at zero out to the year 2100, the end of the century. Do you know what the change in temperature would be? Again assuming those models are right, it was 0.39 of a degree Celsius. While countries like India and China continue to lift their people out of poverty and continue to need energy to develop their economies and give the people that live in those countries the opportunity for the type of lifestyle that we enjoy in the West, emissions are going to rise and nothing we do in Australia will have any effect.
The other one we heard during the election campaign was the great 'Stop Adani' march. We had the wonderful Bob Brown—we must actually try and strike some Liberal Party or National Party medal for Bob Brown's efforts!—going up there to North Queensland, lecturing those North Queenslanders about how they should live their lives, what businesses they should have and how he knew better than the Indians that were trying to develop it. What a lot of people don't understand is that India already mines more coal than Australia. India mines around 600 million tonnes of coal per annum; Australia mines only 400 million tonnes. When I say only 400 million tonnes, that is a substantial amount. But what India are planning—and their energy secretary said this only last month—is that they need to lift their production of domestic coal from 600 million tonnes to a billion tonnes. One thousand million tonnes: that is what India are targeting; another 400 million tonnes of production annually. This is equal to Australia's entire production of coal, both thermal coal and metallurgical coal. So we truly, truly did dodge a bullet.
We would have thought that after that, Labor would have learnt their lesson. They would have said, 'Look, we understand that we got this wrong.' And there was a glimpse of hope. For a while there we had the member for Hunter saying: 'We should adopt the coalition's emission targets. Let's drop that 45 per cent emissions target.' There was a glimmer of hope there for a few days. But yesterday we saw that glimmer of hope being diminished. Labor Party joined those climate crazies—those people gluing themselves to the roads; causing protests; dressing up in the most outlandish, ridiculous costumes we have seen; dancing in the streets as though they are drug affected. Labor signed up with those people; Labor joined those climate crazies by declaring a so-called climate emergency.
These Extinction Rebellion people are a menace. They are a menace to society. They are a menace to logic and reason and progress, because the policies that they want, which the Labor Party is now supporting, will bring devastating austerity to the people who can afford it the least in our society. One thing really concerns me about this. We all do what we can to try and win votes for our respective sides, but we've got to do it in a responsible manner. Out there in our society at the moment we have young women and their partners deciding that they are not going to have children because they have swallowed this nonsense that there's a climate emergency. We've even heard stories or reports of women having abortions because of their fear of this climate emergency. What are these couples and these women going to think in 20 to 25 years, when they are in their late 40s or 50s or 60s, and they realise that they cast aside the opportunity to have children because they listened to the lies and the untruths spread by some politicians? There will be a day of reckoning for those who are propagandising this emergency.
Let's have a look at some of the many, many facts that we know are completely false. Firstly, one thing we love to hear from the alarmist camp is that there is a consensus. The claim that there is a 97 per cent consensus is a complete and utter fraud. And it should be offensive to people's reason because it tells us: 'Don't worry about thinking, leave the thinking to others. You just go along with what everyone says.' Only last month, to show what a fraud this is, we had a global network of 500 scientists and professionals write to the UN with a message that said clearly, 'There is no climate emergency.' In their letter they said that the warming is natural as well as having anthropogenic causes. They said the warming is far slower than predicted; that climate policies rely on inadequate models; CO2 is a plant food, the basis of all life; global warming has not increased natural disasters. And they concluded: 'There is no emergency. There is no cause for panic and alarm.' That is 500 of the world's leading scientists and professionals.
Secondly, one of the most important ways of measuring how we are progressing and how we are being affected by the climate is the number of deaths that occur annually from climate related catastrophes, whether they be floods, droughts, storms, fires or extreme temperatures. Data on this is kept by the United Nations international disaster database, which goes back with reasonable quality data to the 1930s and, as time goes on, the data becomes more accurate. What it shows is that in the 1930s there were 450,000 people a year who lost their lives from climate related deaths. By 1950 that had reduced to a quarter of a million—that's still an enormous death rate. By the 1970s it had reduced to 50,000 deaths annually from climate related incidents. Since this century started it has been under 25,000, and that reduction has happened despite the tripling of the world's population.
But last year, 2018, we saw the lowest number of deaths from climate related disasters ever recorded: 6,200. That is not because the extreme weather is getting less extreme, it's because we've learned how to use fossil fuels and learned how free markets protect humanity from this extreme weather. This is something that the other side of the argument do not acknowledge and do not recognise.
Thirdly, there has been in recent years a global greening. There are actually more trees on the planet today than when I was at school. I remember being told at school about how deforestation was terrible and how we were going to run out of trees. Well, the peer reviewed science, in an article titled 'Global land change from 1982 to 2016', published in Nature recently on 18 August 2018 said:
We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—
That's the prevailing view—
tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 …
So there are 2.24 million square kilometres, an area the size of New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria combined, of additional trees on the planet than when I was leaving school and university. That is the peer reviewed science.
What about when it comes to extreme weather? We like to hear from members of the opposition, the climate alarmist movement and the lunatics who glue themselves to the road—sometimes that can be all three—that extreme weather is getting worse. Again, let's have a look at what the peer reviewed science says. Printed in Environmental Hazards was a paper entitled 'Normalised insurance losses from Australian natural disasters: 1966 to 2017', published on 24 April this year. It states, and I quote directly from the science:
Despite broad agreement in the scientific literature and assessments by the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that there is little evidence that insurance or economic losses arising from natural disasters are becoming more costly because of anthropogenic climate change … the topic remains highly politicised …
So here we have confirmation of what the IPCC says, that there is little evidence that insurance or economic losses from natural disasters are rising. They looked at the evidence and their conclusion was:
When aggregated by season, there is no trend in normalised losses from weather-related perils; in other words, after we normalise for changes we know to have taken place, no residual signal remains to be explained by changes in the occurrence of extreme weather events, regardless of cause.
That is the peer reviewed science, and yet we have these alarmists continuing to deny the science.
It's also interesting to see what they say about tropical cyclones, because we hear from the Greens and the alarmists that tropical cyclones are made worse because we're burning coal in our coal-fired power stations. Again, the peer reviewed science says:
For tropical cyclone, the clear reduction—
Reduction, that means less—
in losses observed over time … is consistent with declining numbers of landfalling cyclones observed since the late 1800s on the eastern seaboard …
We are getting fewer cyclones, not more. The damage insurance loss from cyclones is less, and not more, and yet we hear the exact opposite time after time.
I could go on, but the last one I'll do is drought. We love to hear people from the Labor Party and from the Greens and from the people who glue themselves to the road say that droughts are caused by climate change. One of Australia's leading climate scientists, Professor Pitman, said recently:
This may not be what you expect to hear but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought. Now, that may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented but there is no reason a priori why climate change should make the landscape more arid.
He continued:
If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there's no trend in data. There is no drying trend.
So the fundamental problem is we don't understand what causes drought and, more interestingly, we don't know what stops a drought. This is the peer reviewed science. I'd encourage members of the Labor Party not to engage with the Extinction Rebellion people but to study and learn the science and not engage in a scare campaign.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (18:25): I'm pleased to make a contribution to this debate on the address-in-reply. I was here for much of the contribution of the member for Hughes, and let me say this: there is no more urgent task facing Australia's government than to take action on climate change. There is no more urgent change—
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr GILES: You can shout all you like.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr GILES: Your contributions are utterly unworthy.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rick Wilson ): Order! Member for Hughes, he did the courtesy of listening to you.
Mr GILES: They are utterly unworthy and destructive, not just of what happens in this place but of the future of all of us. In the Labor Party, we take very seriously the science—
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr GILES: the overwhelming scientific consensus, and no amount of shouting by you can get away from that. You make the same speeches over and over again.
Mr Craig Kelly: You don't read the science.
Mr GILES: You make the same speeches, the same ignorant and ill-considered speeches over and over again. Let's be very clear, we on this side of the House are committed to doing what the government has said it would do, which is to take action on the basis of the science, Member for Hughes, and consistent—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the member that his comments should be directed through the chair.
Mr GILES: I can also address the member for Hughes, who's addressing me, who's been interjecting consistently, Chair.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I've called him to order.
Mr GILES: Through you, Chair, can I say that we are also acting consistently with the obligations Australia entered into through the government headed by Tony Abbott in making international agreements. Members of this government keep talking after that extraordinary speech by the Prime Minister about negative globalism. What we actually need is constructive international engagement. What we need to do is keep our word on the promise we made to the international community and the promise we made to the future. We on this side of the House will do that. We will also recognise something that the government has to do, and that is, under its series of quite extraordinary and comprehensive failures when it comes to energy policy—16 policies and prices going up—more fundamentally, emissions continue to go up under this government. Emissions continue to rise because, fundamentally, there is no policy certainty. That is something that industry is telling us.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr GILES: The thing is, Member for Hughes, you have a view, which I understand. You put it to this place time and time again, but it's not the view the government formally espouses, and the government should keep its word. The government of course should do more than that. I was proud to join my Labor colleagues in supporting in the House yesterday recognition of what most Australians want our government to recognise, that we are experiencing a climate emergency, and this is a call for action. This is a call for urgent action which we must respond to. This is a matter that my constituents have urged me to take seriously, and I do. I urge government members to do just the same.
Can I go back to 18 May and say to the electors of Scullin, thank you. Thank you for giving me the opportunity again to speak for you in this place. It is an extraordinary privilege and a great honour. I think all of us who are here, particularly when we contribute to this debate, ordinarily reflect on the privilege and the opportunity we have to serve. I think that, for all of us, this is an extremely humbling moment. Of course, I had hoped to be serving as part of a Shorten Labor government, and that is not the case. That disappoints me personally, but I know it is devastating for so many of the people I represent. I want to say to them here that the struggle in the federal Labor team continues for a more equal country, a good society and a kinder and more inclusive politics. We're now committed on this side of the House to doing much more than simply holding the government to account—although, of course, we must. We are also committed to remaking the case for change, listening more closely electorate and more broadly to the country and applying our enduring Labor values to the challenges of tomorrow.
I know—and this wounds me, and I think the member for Bendigo would agree with me in saying this—we are very proud to be here, but we know the things that we want for our community can only be delivered through a Labor government. Every day I commit myself to doing all I can to see that change, to secure the election of an Albanese Labor government to restore those sort of values that the people for Scullin want and need.
I'd also like to acknowledge that many people in my electorate did not vote for me, no doubt for a variety of reasons. I say to them: I hope that we can continue dialogue. I hope that you will see me as someone who listens to your concerns, even if I do not always act in accordance with them. I take seriously my responsibility to represent everyone in the electorate, and I will do my best to do so.
I'd like to thank, beyond the electorate, a large number of people in particular for their support over the term and through the election campaign. I thank my staff, of course, and I think all of us in this place know that we are nothing without the efforts of our staff to support us, but, more importantly, to support the communities we represent. I feel incredibly lucky to work with people like Lori Faraone, Sally-Ann Delaney and Jim Tilkeridis, Nick Kagorski, Alice Smith, Alexander Column, Jonathan Garry and, more recently, Lachlan Poulter. I'm in awe of the contribution you make to the cause of Labor and to the communities that we represent. It is, again, a great privilege to work with you, and I was humbled by your determination to do everything you could through the election campaign to secure a strong result for Labor in Scullin and around the country.
Election campaigns, of course, are fuelled by people, particularly on our side of the House. I'd like to acknowledge some of the many hundreds of people who made a contribution to Labor's effort in the seat of Scullin. I'd like to speak in this place of the contributions of just a few who made efforts above and beyond the call of duty to seek the change of government that they so strongly believed in and strong Labor representation in the seat of Scullin. I think of Trish Mackin; David Cannavo; Lisa Simons; John Fry; Joe Petrucci; Gurpreet Singh; Arman Mehzinan; Maureen Corrigan; Joe Caruso; John Paddinathon; Sasha Nakovski; Nessie Sayer; Logie Thrownatman; Samille Damir, who chaired my campaign committee so well; Suechtun Onall; Robb Sonza; Decara Mosegrove; Lani Sprag; Ray Fordan; Anthony Marcuzzi; Jim Bannan; Imran Khan; Helen Said; Pam MacLeod and Sure Sharmad. I think also the Labour Whittlesea councillors who I worked closely with through the campaign and beyond: Lawrie Cox, then the mayor; Stevan Kozmevski; Sam Alessi; and Kris Pavlidis for all their efforts and their advice. It's a great pleasure to work with fantastic state Labor colleagues: Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change Lily D'Ambrosio, Bronwyn Halfpenny and Danielle Green. Working with them in the service of the communities that make up Melbourne's north is always a pleasure, but to have their experience and enthusiasm for campaigning is a great thing. I acknowledge the support of a number of trade unions, in particular my own, the Australian Services Union, and United Voice, which supported me very strongly in the campaign, and I am indebted to them.
All of us are here at a great cost to those closest to us, and perhaps we don't recognise that in this place as often as we should. I am very conscious of the challenges of life at home this week, when there is a lot happening in my family and I am away. So I'd like to say thank you so much to Jill, my wife, and to Daniel and Alice, our wonderful children, for putting up with this role that I have and supporting me in it. It is wonderful to enjoy your support and humbling to see the sacrifices you put up with and the many inconveniences you suffer while I am here and elsewhere working, hopefully, for a better nation.
Before the last election, there was a very significant redistribution in the state of Victoria, and that significantly changed the Scullin electorate. I now represent new elements of the suburb of Bundoora and also some part of the suburb of Mernda that I had not previously. I'm indebted to the conversations I had with residents in both of those communities, perhaps particularly in those bits of Mernda, a very new part of Melbourne with new families arriving and seeking to make their lives. I'm indebted for the insights they shared about the challenges they faced and the opportunities they saw in their communities. It's a particular privilege to represent these people for the first time.
On the other hand, there are many suburbs I no longer represent after five and a bit years. I think anyone in this circumstance feels somewhat wistful. I say to people in Diamond Creek, in Plenty, in Apollo Parkways, in Wattle Glen, in Yarrambat and in Hurstbridge: thank you for giving me the chance to speak for you in this place for two terms. It was a great privilege and I learned a lot from you. I'm devastated that I won't be the local member when the Hurstbridge to Diamond Creek Trail extension is finally opened—amongst many other things—but I'm hopeful I can continue my connection to those beautiful communities in the shire of Nillumbik in Melbourne's green wedge. I think also of those bits of Watsonia North and Bundoora in the city of Banyule that I have previously represented that I won't anymore. I was particularly touched by a couple of residents there who expressed to me their disappointment that they will no longer be Scullin electors. It's those things that really bring home the privilege it is to have been a local representative.
I was also pleased to spend much of the election working alongside my Labor colleagues Rob Mitchell, Ged Kearney—and what an extraordinary result Ged Kearney had—and our new colleague, the new member for Jagajaga, Kate Thwaites. In recognising Kate's election to this House and congratulating her, I acknowledge that this House is a very different place without the former member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, a giant of Australian politics as well as Labor politics and a great mentor and friend to me. I know I miss her. I know a number of people on all sides of the House miss her dearly and acknowledge her contribution, her passion, her depth of energy and her commitment to always seeking the right answer, however difficult it might be.
It was a privilege in the last parliament to be shadow assistant minister in the education team, and I'd like to thank Tanya Plibersek and Bill Shorten for giving me the opportunity to work as the shadow assistant minister for schools and particularly for giving me the opportunity to engage closely with policies designed to better support students with disabilities. It's my great regret that policy effort and the conversations I had around the country will not produce a change in policy over the life of this parliament, but I know the education team will continue to work, and I remain hopeful that perhaps we can see a greater measure of bipartisanship on this most important area of building a more inclusive approach to schools and education, ensuring really that everyone gets every chance to succeed in school and in life.
In the last parliament, I also served as Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I see my friend the member for Bennelong is here. He, like a few of us, had to reflect on some of the constitutional challenges that arose in the last parliament.
The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters will also have very a critical role in this parliament, and I think it is important that all of us, as we go through the difficult and often rancorous policy debates—appropriately part of our role in this building—think about how we can work together to raise the standard of our politics and our political institutions. Our ideas and our ideologies are nothing if we can't convince the Australian public that formal politics matters, and we have some work to do in that regard. Of all the things I hope for over the life of this parliament, most of all I hope we can find more ways to work together in rebuilding trust in our politics.
Of the local issues that were significant in the election, I'd like to touch on two in particular. Firstly, I am pleased that work on the O'Herns Road interchange with the Hume Freeway is finally underway. It's something I have been campaigning for since before I was elected. It's too late, but it's a project that is vitally important to people in the growing areas north of Cooper Street in Epping North and Wollert. I'm pleased to finally see these works underway. I'm disappointed, however, that we're not going to see realised the commitment Labor made under the then shadow minister for infrastructure and cities, the now leader of the Labor Party, to investigate rail to Wollert. Better public transport options are absolutely critical in the northern suburbs to better connect residents of the Scullin electorate to work opportunities, which, in Melbourne, are overwhelmingly concentrated in and around the CBD. These growing areas need much, much better public transport options. I note also that it would be good to see some congestion-busting in the northern suburbs under this government, rather than plans principally located in the south-eastern suburbs. It would also be good to see more consultation with local government and affected communities, rather than after the fact, as has been the case with some proposals in connection to the South Morang train station.
Earlier, I touched on my deep regret that the people of Scullin are hurting because of the failure of people like me to convince Australians to support the Labor team. I think about the loss in schools and early years and early youth workers and I think about the pensioners dental scheme. These are things that really matter to people in my electorate, and I am committed to working my way through all of these issues over the life of this parliament in the team. A lot of the challenges continue. Across Melbourne's north, people are grappling with the cost of congestion, the cost to our economy of the drag in productivity, and the cost to people's lives and health. It's absolutely shocking that, of moneys earmarked in the urban congestion fund, despite the triumphalism of the minister, not a cent was spent that was allocated out of that fund in the last budget, with one exception: the $11 million for advertising was all spent. That seems to symbolise a government that is all about marketing and not about delivery.
I am pleased to have been appointed to the shadow ministry with three portfolios, and I'll touch briefly on each as I finish. The portfolio of cities and urban infrastructure was previously held by the leader and is critically important to this country—the most urbanised nation in the world. I think it is an area where we can reach across the aisle, as we have seen some measure of consensus in recognising the national imperative of having a cities policy. Again, I acknowledge the leadership that the member for Bennelong has shown in this place, but there is so much more to do particularly to realise the potential of city deals as genuine partnerships around shared objectives. Too few of the deals announced do that. Too little work has gone into doing what we have long aspired to do on this side of politics: to ensure that we have separated the infrastructure cycle from the political cycle. Long-term city partnerships around shared objectives are a critical way of doing this.
Being appointed shadow minister for multicultural affairs is particularly pleasing, as I represent a very multicultural community. I am concerned that too many Australians—and they tell me this—do not feel fully included in Australian society because of their faith and because of racism. We're not doing enough to support them. Recent research by Deloitte, commissioned by SBS, shows us the great cost of our failure to harness our diversity. I think it's a great challenge, and it should be a great national mission, to build a renewed sense of what it means to be Australian which gives everyone equal space, which recognises the unique nature of our society, our First People and our access through their generosity to the oldest continuing culture in the world, and then to successive waves of migration, but also to recognise that we haven't done enough to fully harness everyone's capacity to contribute for themselves into our society. Like a voice and like completing our Constitution, making the most of our multiculturalism is all of our unfinished business.
I am also very pleased to support Senator Keneally in her role in the immigration and citizenship portfolios for many of the reasons I have set out in terms of multiculturalism. But there is so much more to do in a society where more than 200,000 people are waiting on their citizenship and where we face ridiculous delays over visa processing—things that really matter in a country like ours. We can and should do so much better by appropriately valuing everyone's capacity and by recognising that we need a genuine debate about immigration in this country and a mature debate about population, without the rhetoric, without the dog whistling.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (18:45): I am honoured to have once again received a vote of confidence from the people of Bennelong and been returned to this parliament with an increased majority. The 45th Parliament was a turbulent time for the voters of Bennelong, with three elections in four years thanks to an interpretation of section 44, which I have some very strong views on. Despite this turmoil, voters saw fit to return the Liberals in Bennelong for the fifth time since 2010. It was truly a humbling experience to receive this vote of support.
Our local result was hugely impressive. We received 56.91 per cent, a 2.1 per cent increase over our by-election result. For context, John Howard got 54.22 per cent in the last election that he won, when Bennelong included parts of Hunters Hill and none of Parramatta. In that context, this was a great result. Even more impressively, we managed to get 50.82 per cent of first preferences, which is more than in 2016, when we almost got 60 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.
This of course was not a solo effort—far from it. I was just one of hundreds in our team who came out to volunteer for our campaign. They were quite simply the reason why we were able to get such a great result. Much as I would like to, obviously I cannot name everybody here, but I would like to single out a few people who helped above and beyond. Firstly, local stalwart Craig Chung was given the most important job and pulled it off with aplomb. Craig was in charge of manning all of the booths, and it was to his credit that we got every booth overstaffed at times. It was a huge effort. Thank you, Craig. John Bathgate also played a critical role in getting booths manned. John was in charge of manning prepoll, a larger-than-usual job with three polling booths running for three weeks. He did a terrific job, and the results were really worthwhile.
Bennelong is Australia's capital of innovation, so it is only fair that the millennia-old secret to perpetual motion should be uncovered here by none other than the peripatetic David Hayman, who bounced back from working his guts out at the state election to run all the activities that took place at Eastwood over the whole campaign, including prepolling, which required his unbounded energy. The FEC committee was wonderful as our campaign committee. Headed up by local legend Peter Graham OAM, the whole team facilitated open and friendly meetings where decisions were made quickly and harmoniously—always a key to a great campaign. Thanks to Peter for steering the ship judiciously, as well as to Janine Orban for balancing the books, Natalie Hissey—what a star—for keeping everyone up to date and running non-stop, Sarkis for your connections and advice, and James Wallace, who organised a cracking party. Everybody likes a party!
We were also lucky to have sage advice and wisdom from someone who has been here before, namely the former member for Eden-Monaro, Peter Hendy, who has witnessed his fair share of campaigns at all levels and is a vital edition to the Bennelong team. I know he's going to have a tilt for the Senate that is opening up, and I wish him well in that fight.
Most of the people listed above captained booths, but there were couple of dozen others who also performed this vital role. Captaining a booth is a real commitment in time and effort. People see you standing out in the sun all day, but we know that it takes even more than this—collecting kits, setting up booths in the pre-dawn light and, then, when it is all done, packing it all up again and often heading off to scrutinise the vote, then getting the kit back to the campaign team in the coming days. I now know how gruelling all of this is, and I would like to thank everyone who put in this effort from the bottom of my heart.
Returning to individual campaigners, there's a remarkable local family whose help was invaluable, the Lanes: brother, and councillor, Jordan, and twin sisters Kendal and Madison ran one prepoll as well as helping in the office and being up to helping with absolutely everything. It's endlessly helpful people like this that get things done and campaigns won.
Andy Yin was a person who came to us offering to help with our translations. Andy, you were invaluable. Together with Cheryl, he ran our WeChat accounts and oversaw the large amounts of work we did with our Chinese community.
My dear friend Hugh Lee once again was a great help in this campaign, as he has been in every campaign and, indeed, in everyday life. His counsel and friendship are ever valuable, and I'm hugely thankful to Hugh for welcoming me to his local community with such heartfelt kindness.
I would also like to thank Dr Anthony Ching, my dentist, for being a fantastic asset in Eastwood, helping to put on events and reach out to the local community that I would struggle to reach—not because I don't share their ideals, hopes and aspirations, but simply because I don't speak their language. Thank you for all of your efforts, Anthony.
To my dear friend Lieutenant Colonel Paul Kim—he is just a great asset, a great friend in the Korean community. A hero of the Korean army, his help in all of my campaigns has been invaluable, and his friendship is something of just enormous value. He is a great asset to the Liberal Party in Bennelong, and this goes right back to John Howard's time.
Elizabeth Hamilton came to us offering to help and ended up playing a vital role running the special team of voting with a friend. This is a job that requires a certain sort of person: dedicated, organised and deeply caring— attributes that Elizabeth has in spades.
Our most dedicated campaigner, this year and every year, in every campaign, is the great Michael Zakka.
An honourable member: Hear, hear!
Mr ALEXANDER: You're familiar with Michael. Out and about at every train station and every street stall, Michael was always there with a happy face and infectious enthusiasm. Thank you my friend Michael. I'll see you soon.
I also would like to thank the good people at headquarters, both in Sydney and nationally. They ran a tight ship and provided the support we needed when we needed it. Thanks to Chris, Luke, Cam and the whole team.
Closer to home, I must thank those in my office—it is a joy to go to work every day—Frances, Brendan, Daniel, Tim and Jonathon. So much of the work of this campaign was done by my team, and elections are easier to win because of the hard work that you put in to help me serve the electorate every day. The office would descend into chaos if it weren't for Frances, her steady hand and calm guidance at times. Daniel is the sole reason hundreds of people in Bennelong have got through issues with Centrelink and other departments. Brendan's return from a devastating illness has been inspirational. Tim somehow juggled a thesis and an election with style. And Johnathon, who is my senior adviser, although he is very much younger than me: what a great man and a great friend.
Most importantly, I would like to thank my family, from cousins to a friend called Stad and his wife, Rosemary, the mother of our children. It's a modern family. My daughters, Emily and Georgia, braved train stations and were absolutely heroic on election day and were magnificent at the party. My daughters do know how to party, so the DNA is there! Deb, like all political partners, has to put up with tiredness and crankiness from her partner. I'm sorry, Deb.
Before I finish thanking people, I have one final person to thank, and that's not the person who you might think I would thank. Thank you to the opposition's candidate, Dr Brian Owler. The quality of the campaign is usually determined by the interaction between the candidates. Politeness leads to happy volunteers and aggression leads to animosity throughout the entirety of both camps which, in turn, leads to a very unhappy campaign. We might not agree on all things, but we agree on many things. Brian was always a gentleman on the campaign and our interactions were more than civil and respectful. I consider Brian a friend. The result was a pleasant and happy campaign, and for that I'm very thankful to you, Brian.
It's great to receive a new mandate, because there is plenty going on locally: campaigns to help schools, students, shops, small businesses and families all loom large on the Bennelong horizon. The Bennelong Schools STEM Challenge will be on us again very soon. Educating our future generations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics holds the key to our growth and prosperity as a nation. STEM has received a great deal of attention in recent years, and rightly so; STEM affects almost every aspect of our lives, whether it's the food we eat, the clothes we wear, how we get to work or how we relax. STEM is indispensable to all these facets of our lives and many others. For our economy, STEM is the engine that will power our growth into the future. It is essential to so many of the growing sectors of our economy, such as health, education, finance, mining and manufacturing.
For the last two years, we have hosted the Bennelong Schools STEM Challenge in conjunction with the Re-Engineering Australia Foundation and our friends at Medtronic. Last year's event was a stunning success and featured dozens of schoolchildren using 3D software to design medical centres for the surface of Mars. It was an excellent opportunity for schoolchildren, many of whom were only in years 5 and 6, to show off their extraordinary talents and problem-solving abilities. The event will be on again this year, and we can't wait to see what our schools have in store for us.
The Bennelong Cup is another one of our fantastic initiatives that we run for the students in Bennelong. This table tennis tournament for local students and schools will be on again this year, its 10th consecutive year, which is an outstanding achievement. Back in 2010, I arranged for table tennis tables to be given free to every school in the electorate, thanks to the sponsorship of Hyundai. But after all these years and the rough-and-tumble world of schools—particularly the boys schools, which are particularly rough on these tables!—some of them were looking a little bit worse for wear. Hyundai have come in to replace those which can't be repaired and to repair those which can be repaired. This has been rolling over the last few months, and I'm hopeful we'll get the most out of the schools at the time of the cup.
The Bennelong Cup seems like a bit of fun, but it's underscored by a very important message: Bennelong is one of the most multicultural electorates in the country, with large numbers of families from China, Korea, Armenia, Italy, India and many more places. While this gives us a very rich cultural tapestry to our streets and shops, it often leads to segregation in our classrooms, and particularly in our playgrounds. A simple, fun sport like table tennis can bridge this divide. Not everybody likes to play cricket or can play football, but everybody can play table tennis, and playing sport together creates friendships that cross the cultural divides. The Bennelong Cup looks like it's about sport, but it's actually much more important: it's about community cohesion and making friends.
The Bennelong Village Businesses campaign continues to go from strength to strength. Back when I first became an MP there was a real lethargy about our local shops. The global financial crisis was upon us; some were reducing hours and some were even closing as the economy slowed, which was preventing people from shopping. What was more galling was the fact that what little money was being spent was going to the chain retailers and shopping malls even though there were cheaper and better quality wares just down the road. Surveys showed that only 40 per cent of residents said they shopped at a local business, despite the brilliant local shops and facilities, and we had to do something to turn that number around. The Bennelong Village Businesses campaign was designed to raise awareness of the local shops, to encourage shopping locally and to build community spirit up again. Over the last nine years we've been able to reach out to shopping villages multiple times, plugging them to the local residents—not only for their wares but also to promote the huge number of benefits that come from shopping locally.
There are also big things afoot on the national front. Three more years in government, a firm mandate and the Labor Party in disarray, not to mention our new leadership, means that this Prime Minister will be here for the length of the parliament at least. The future is looking bright. There is one thing, though, that needs urgent attention, which we need to tackle in this parliament. Australia is undergoing rapid change. Population growth, urbanisation, the ageing of the population and the transformation of the economy towards service and knowledge based industries are causing profound changes in the urban and regional landscape. The outcome of these changes will depend on how they are managed. In recent decades there has been no plan for how to accommodate the growth in our cities and population. Managing these challenges requires a national vision. We need a national plan of settlement. We must set out a vision for our cities and regions for the next 50 years and beyond. It must take account of the fact that Australia's cities and regions are not sustainable in their current form and will become less sustainable as the population grows and ages. Achieving the required economic, social and environmental outcomes for the sustainability of our cities and regions will require a high level of integrated planning. This is not achievable without the coherent vision which comes from master-planning land use and facilitating infrastructure.
The successful development of both cities and regions is intrinsically linked. Regional development needs to be seen as part of a broader pattern of national development, with cities, towns and regions being developed as part of an integrated whole. Greater connectivity is an essential element of this joint development. Having well-connected cities and regions means that opportunities can be distributed across a wider population. High-speed rail can bring distant communities into close proximity to each other. This in turn would enable a more dispersed pattern of settlement and the creation of polycentric cities without the attendant vices of urban sprawl.
Value capture must be a part of the conception of any infrastructure project to equitably capitalise on taxpayer funds invested. It should be incorporated organically into its planning and development. Suitable value-capture mechanisms should be identified and applied from the outset. Ideally this should involve coordination between different levels of government and project developers to ensure a maximum return on investment. The potential for value capture to contribute to the development of infrastructure has been discussed in two inquiries that I have already chaired, and I will certainly appear in the next one.
More locally, there is one thing that we can do in this building that would increase the dwindling faith people have in politics. Before I conclude, I would like to put in a plug for bipartisanship. As we all know, we are all a lot friendlier off camera than the casual observer of question time could believe. The shouting at question time, the point scoring and the emphasis on style—if you can call it that—over substance all turn off voters. When we focus on fighting each other rather than helping Australians, let's face it: we don't look good. The past shows us how this can be done. Menzies, who founded this party 75 years ago today, and Arthur Calwell used to dine regularly. They would work things out. They would set aside their politics for the sake of all Australians. This was bipartisanship, where the national interest was put above the fight for the best zinger at question time. If we had these ideals again, imagine what we could get done.
So there's a lot going on and a lot still to do, but if I can have a hand in getting these things done, it will be worthy of the good people who I mentioned at the top of my speech who put so much effort into getting me here.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (19:04): This is my first opportunity in parliament to thank the people of Whitlam, who have generously returned me to this parliament for a fourth term. It's a great honour. It's a tradition in the speech in reply to the Governor-General's address to say a few things about the campaign that was, to reflect upon the people who made a great contribution throughout the campaign, and to make some observations about the things that you'd like to do over the course of the next three years. I intend to follow that tradition.
I'd like to think the reason the great people of Whitlam have returned me to this place once again is that I stand up for the issues which are of concern to them. First and foremost are the day-to-day issues which affect the family home, their personal economy and their health and wellbeing. I know that people in my electorate are desperately concerned about the future of their children—their school education, their university education, the future of vocational education through technical and further education—and I want to assure them that I'll be fighting on these issues, that I'll be fighting for a quality education at every level. Whether it's early childhood or primary or secondary education and whether they decide to go to university, TAFE or neither, I'll fight for them to have access to a system of great lifelong learning, because we know that's going to be the thing that makes the difference between opportunity and lack of opportunity for people in my electorate and elsewhere.
I know the people in my electorate are desperately concerned about the future of health care. I was very happy through the course of the election to secure a commitment of $130 million for the redevelopment of a hospital in Shellharbour in my electorate. I was very pleased that Labor promised it and that the government matched that promise. I'd like to see that we ensure that that money is well invested. The existing hospital grounds and the existing hospital are not fit for purpose to meet the growing needs of one of the fastest-growing communities in New South Wales outside of the Sydney CBD. I argue that the money available from the Commonwealth put together with the money available and already committed from the state, together with monies that may be available from the sale of lands and existing assets, should be pooled together and used to build a purpose-built site that can grow and meet the needs of a growing community. I'll be urging the health minister to work with his state counterpart to do exactly that.
I know that the people of the Illawarra and Southern Highlands are desperately concerned about the region's infrastructure. The region's population is outpacing the infrastructure developing within the region, whether it's community infrastructure such as access to sporting grounds and bike paths, access to schools and education facilities or the stuff we normally think of, such as roads like the Princes Highway. The Princes Highway is the great lifeline that joins Sydney through the Illawarra and the South Coast to the Victorian border and on, and it is desperately in need of an upgrade south of the Illawarra. Money has been committed from both Labor, throughout the campaign, and the government. We call on the government to bring forward that investment to create the jobs and opportunities that are needed now, not, as the government plans to do, after the next election. Further north, road infrastructure such as the Picton Road and Appin Road is desperately in need of upgrading. Picton Road in particular is not in my electorate, but many people from my electorate travel the route on a daily basis going to and from work. It's a dangerous road, one of the more dangerous roads in New South Wales. It is in desperate need of upgrades such as dividing barriers between the eastbound and westbound flows of traffic, and there are a number of black-spot areas which are in need of upgrade. Appin Road is a critical piece of road infrastructure. It is the artery which joins the Illawarra to the growing western suburbs of Sydney and is in need of an upgrade. I'll be campaigning for that.
Rail is critically important in a regional centre, for both freight and passenger movement. We need to see more money invested in the passenger link between Sydney and the Illawarra and the Southern Highlands, and we need to see investment in the long promised but not yet delivered Maldon-Dombarton rail link. I wish that the government had matched Labor's commitment to invest in the Maldon-Dombarton rail link to get that project moving.
We're also deeply concerned throughout my electorate about cost-of-living issues, with pressures on family budgets, particularly through those lumpy expenses such as power bills—electricity and gas—and fuel bills, and, increasingly, insurance bills and school education expenses. We want to see measures in place which will put downward pressure on these bills. We had some propositions around health insurance. We think more can be done from a governmental level. The government obviously has some big levers to pull. They must sign off on every increase in private health insurance. They're subsidising about one-third of the cost of private health insurance. It's a big expense, galloping well ahead of inflation and certainly well ahead of wages. We're calling on the government to do more to address health inflation and, particularly, private health insurance increases.
We're concerned about the environment. Yes, it's true that I come from a coalmining district, but the people who work in the mines, who live on the verges of the mines and who live down on the coast and up in the highlands care about our environment. We want to see more done to protect our beautiful coastal regions, as well as the hinterland and the Southern Highlands—some of the best farming land in southern New South Wales. We want to see more done to protect the local environment but more action on climate change to ensure that future generations can enjoy the kind of climate and environment that I grew up in throughout the Illawarra.
Twenty-seven new members have been elected to this place. I want to congratulate each and every one of them—and I see Josh Burns here—for winning the faith of their electorate and having the great honour to represent their electorate in this place. When I was elected, I was given a number; it's No. 1,036. It's not as honourable as winning a place in the Australian cricket team where you get a number on your cap, but I hold that number dearly. It's a reminder to me of the great responsibility I have in this place. Only 1,036 people before me have held office as a member of parliament. It's a reminder each and every day of the deep responsibility I have to ensure we do not waste a day in delivering a service to our community and to our nation. I'll endeavour to use every day of my time here in this parliament to hold faith to that commitment.
It's a great honour to represent my fantastic region, and we talk about the region more broadly—Wollongong, the Illawarra, the South Coast and the Southern Highlands. I'm delighted that I and Sharon Bird, the member for Cunningham, have been joined by Fiona Phillips, the member for Gilmore, who is one of those 27 new members who have joined the parliament as representatives of the Australian Labor Party. We ran a fantastic campaign. We worked closely together as a team to ensure that, wherever the boundaries may exist on the map, they don't exist when it comes to providing a unified voice on what is needed throughout the region for the good of the economy, the environment and the people that we represent. That's why in the election campaign we did something very, very different—something we hadn't done before. We put together a plan for the entire region, with $1.2 billion worth of new investments in health, education, infrastructure and services, which would have made a material difference to the people we represent. It is true that, when you don't occupy the treasury bench, you don't have direct access to the Treasury and, therefore, putting in place those commitments is very, very difficult indeed, but it's not impossible. And we commit to our electorates that we will, to the greatest extent possible, deliver on those commitments where we can. And if we can't, there's another election to fight in 2022, and I'll have more to say about that in a moment.
I'd also like to acknowledge the great support that I have had from my volunteer army throughout the course of the campaign. In excess of 240 volunteers gave up their time to assist during the course of the campaign. Your electorate's a bit further north than mine is, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, so it wasn't quite a winter election for you, but I can tell you that on some of those cold mornings throughout the Southern Highlands of New South Wales it was a bit brisk and it did test the mettle of our volunteers. But 240 of them turned out to support the cause and to support me, and I am deeply honoured, touched and moved by their contribution to my campaign and to our campaign as Labor representatives.
I'd like to thank my staff. Some of them moved on after the election but they warrant a mention. Jane Mulligan has worked with me for many, many years, since I entered this place in 2010. Here's a shout-out to you, Jane. Thanks for all the work you did. Allyson Dutton, my office manager, has made a fantastic contribution to my office over many, many years—thank you! To Ben Mofardin, who does a fantastic job on a daily basis answering the constituent issues, the bread-and-butter work of an electorate office: thank you, Ben. Jarrod Dellapina joined my staff during the campaign and has now well and truly got his feet under the desk, but he has been a long-term volunteer while working as a long-term casual for Coles. It's great to have Jarrod on board. Simon Anderson, who was working as my media adviser for a number of months and throughout the campaign and has now gone off to work for government, was very loyal and did a fantastic job. Charlie Gonzalez, Linda Campbell, Maree Edwards and our volunteer corps: thank you so much for all the effort you put in throughout the campaign.
With lots of volunteers it's always dangerous when you select a few, but I think some went above and beyond the call of duty and loyalty. I'd like to give a shout-out to Warren Glase, Graham McLaughlin and his wife Linda, Phil Yeo and Mike Bowern from the Southern Highlands team for their efforts during the course of the campaign. They did an absolutely outstanding job, and not just for my campaign. We had about two weeks off, I think, between the New South Wales election campaign and the federal campaign, when you look at the prepoll—something I'll say more about in a moment.
Down in the Illawarra we had a great team. A big shout-out to Les Dawes, Robin Harvey, John Williamson, Tom Ward, Charlie Gibbs and Bob Turner for all of their efforts. They did a great job.
I'd like to thank my state colleagues Anna Watson and Paul Scully for their support throughout the campaign. A special thanks to our councillors. I've already mentioned Graham McLaughlin up in the Southern Highlands, but Ann Martin, Vicky King, Rob Petreski, Mayor Marianne Saliba, Moira Hamilton and John Murray provided a lot of support. They're great people to go and consult with when you're thinking about investing in community and local projects. Thank you for your ongoing support and during the campaign.
I want to give a shout-out to a very special bloke and a very special woman, Eli and Annie Harris. Eli turned 79 years of age during the campaign. A heart condition and several health challenges did not stop him from turning up—rain, hail or shine, day in, day out—every single day during prepolling on the Warilla prepoll booths. You're a very special man, Eli, and I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. Annie, I don't know how you put up with the bugger, but God bless you, Annie. You're both champions in my eyes. Thank you so much for the loyalty and support that you gave me and all your hard work.
I mentioned prepolling and I want to say something more about it. Voting is one of the most important responsibilities of an Australian citizen and shouldn't be seen as something which is an inconvenience, a pain in the neck or something we just tick off and move on from, because democracy dies a little if that's our attitude to it. Voting is both a democratic right and a democratic responsibility. Throughout the campaign I would often pick up a paper and see countries across the globe—from Russia to Saudi Arabia and many other countries—where people are actually protesting and fighting for the right to vote or their democratic rights or the right to speak freely. It is a salient reminder for all of us who are involved in the democratic process that this is not something we should take lightly.
Prepoll voting has existed in Australian federal elections for as long as voting has been compulsory. Permitting early voting was an important trade-off for the introduction of compulsory voting to ensure that shift workers, particularly, or people who work on a weekend—those people who were unable to attend on a polling day—could cast a vote and ensure that they were enfranchised. Data from the Australian Electoral Commission shows that prepoll voting as a percentage of the total vote has quadrupled, from 8.22 per cent in 2007 to a staggering 32.41 per cent at this election.
While early voting has traditionally been associated with casting a postal ballot, these now account for only a small minority of the total early votes. The problem that I see with prepolling—and I think it's important—is that it's not in the idea, it's in the execution. I'd have to ask the question: when did we have a national debate in this country where we said, 'Instead of having one polling day, we are effectively going to have 15 polling days'? That is what has turned out to happen; effectively, we're having 15 polling days in this country. Close to a third of the population is voting on a day other than the designated polling day. I want us to think about that for a moment; it completely changes the way democracy occurs in this country.
Whether it's the way that people participate on polling day and around polling booths and the turnout for the community events—whether those are the school cake stall or the Lions Club sausage sizzle—I strongly believe that there are not many things which you have to do as a collective or a community these days. We don't have to come together to watch a movie and we don't have to come together to go shopping; there are so many things that can be done from your lounge room. In a participatory democracy, coming together as a community on polling day should matter. It should not be seen as an inconvenience, it should be seen as an expression of our citizenship.
So I think we need to have a debate on the incidence of prepoll. If one-third of the population is polling on a day other than the official polling day then we have completely reshaped the way election campaigns are conducted and completely reshaped the way that the election conversation occurs. And, if we're going to do that, it should be done through a public debate and discussion. It should not just happen by an administrative action or by accident.
I know that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is inquiring into the conduct of this election. I implore them to look at this issue. This should not just be confined to a debate within a committee. It's an issue that should be debated on the floor of the House. We have not had a national discussion about having 15 polling days, and we should. And if that's where we land, then that will be a decision of the Australian parliament and hopefully a reflection of the will of the Australian people. I, for one, don't agree with it. But if I'm wrong, it should be as the result of a proper parliamentary debate and not a slow slide into a transition of our polling practices.
There are so many other things that I have ambition to deal with. I've talked about some things that some people may say are less important, whether it's the administration of our voting or thanking our volunteers. I actually think those are fundamental. Over the course of the next three years I'll be committing to injecting myself into the critical economic debates which are at the core of everything that we need to do. They are the enablers of households and the enablers of communities, but they're also the enablers of what we aspire to do for this nation. I don't think we're on the right track, but these are debates for another day.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (19:24): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:24