Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
In my last statement to the House as chair of the Petitions Committee, I discussed the history of the Australian petitioning system from its origins in the 13th century in England to the establishment of the petitions committee in 2008 as well as briefly examining the wide range of effects that petitions can have. This week I would like to look at the role that members can play in regard to petitions under the petitioning system established in 2008.
But first I would like to point out that something rather unusual has occurred at my last two announcements as chair. In both announcements, there have not been any petitions for me to present, only ministerial responses.
This is not due to a lack of petitions. The committee certainly continues to receive them. As you know, Madam Speaker, there are two options for presenting petitions which the committee has found to meet requirements; they can be presented by me as chair, or by a member. All of the petitions that have been found to meet requirements at the last two meetings of the petitions committee were intended for presentation by members.
This brings me to an important point. Members have a variety of roles to play in regard to petitions, and perhaps the most significant is presenting these petitions to the House.
The circumstances in which members present petitions are varied. In some cases, members present petitions from their constituents, drawing the attention of the House and relevant minister to an issue raised by their constituents. In other cases, members might present petitions that have been prepared on issues about which they feel strongly. In other cases, members may present petitions with which they do not necessarily agree. The act of presenting a petition does not necessarily indicate members endorse its contents.
Members have a range of options for presenting petitions which are found to meet the requirements, for example during:
Otherwise, petitions can be presented by me as chair at this time. When members do present petitions, they are often kept informed of any response received from the minister, and this can help keep members informed of developments which are important to their constituents.
As you know, Madam Speaker, petitions must be certified by the Petitions Committee as meeting the requirements contained in the standing orders before they are presented. Often petitioners send their petitions directly to the committee secretariat. In other cases petitioners send them to their local member. I would like to take this opportunity to remind members that when they receive petitions they should submit them for consideration by the Petitions Committee before they are presented. If they are found to meet the requirements, these petitions are then returned to their members ready for presentation. Members are asked to indicate whether or not they would like to present the petitions when they are handed to the secretariat on behalf of petitioners for the committee's consideration.
Before petitions reach this point, members often play another very important role. Under the standing orders members cannot be signatories or principal petitioners. However, members' offices can assist petitioners to ensure that the draft petitions meet the requirements by pointing petitioners to the Petitions Committee website or the relevant section of the standing orders. I recommend that anyone seeking to petition the House consult the committee website, as it contains much useful information on the form petitions should take, including an explanation of the relevant standing orders and a petition template.
I also encourage my colleagues to contact the Petitions Committee secretariat when approached by petitioners, particularly before they begin to gather signatures. The secretariat can provide feedback to people organising petitions which can assist them to meet the requirements. In this way members can act as a conduit between the Petitions Committee and constituents organising petitions, helping to ensure that these constituents gain access to the full range of benefits that petitioning the House can bring.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's second report, entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2013, together with the minutes of the proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I am very pleased to be presenting the second report of the economics committee of the 44th Parliament as part of the committee's review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report 2013. This report follows a hearing with the Governor and other officials of the Reserve Bank on 7 March 2014 in Sydney. The RBA noted in its May 2014 Statement on monetary policy that 'overall economic activity picked up over the past six months, with the economy looking like it grew at close to its long-run average pace over this period'. The RBA also commented:
The outlook for Australia's trading partner growth is little changed since the February Statement.
It went on:
… growth of Australia's trading partners in year-average terms is forecast to be around its long-run average in 2014 and 2015.
Currently, RBA forecasts indicate that GDP growth in Australia will be slightly below trend, 2.75 per cent, over 2014 to 2015. This is anticipated to pick up over 2015 to 2016. Although the outlook for inflation appears to be a little higher than six months ago, it remains consistent with the medium-term target. Underlying inflation is forecast at 2.5 to 3.5 per cent to June 2015.
It is clear that the decline in investment by mining companies is set to continue. Other areas of demand, such as non-mining capital expenditure, could partly offset this downturn, but other sources of growth will also be needed. The labour market is likely to remain soft for a while due to the current period of below-trend growth, but it is notable that the indicators in this regard have recently become more positive.
As noted by the RBA in its May 2014 statement, the exchange rate remains a 'significant source of uncertainty' for economic and inflation forecasting. The Australian dollar is currently trading at about 10 per cent below its 2013 peak, but the Governor has reiterated his view that the dollar remains overvalued based on costs and productivity in Australia relative to those of other countries.
Demand for new housing appears to have remained strong, including First Home Owner Grants and loan approvals for new dwellings. The Governor commented that construction of new dwellings will probably rise strongly in the year ahead. As Australia has been undersupplied in recent years in terms of new dwellings, increases in residential construction activity are to be welcomed. In recent years, productivity growth has been somewhat sluggish in Australia. However, the Governor suggested that this is likely to improve with the ramping up of output growth in the resources sector. Other drivers of productivity growth are likely to be needed. The RBA board decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 2.5 per cent at its most recent meeting on 3 June. The Governor commented in relation to the board's decision that monetary policy was appropriately configured to foster sustainable growth in demand and inflation outcomes and that the most prudent course is likely to be a period of stability in interest rates.
Finally, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Glenn Stevens, and other representatives of the RBA for appearing before the committee on 7 March 2014. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I am pleased to speak to the committee's second report reviewing the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2013. I extend my thanks to the chair, along with the committee secretariat, and commend them for their assistance and hard work. I note the presence of the member for Rankin, who is on the committee. Back in March, when the committee's first report was tabled, I remarked upon the challenges that still confronted the world economy. Concerns were also expressed about the potential impact of the federal government's decisions on our domestic economy and, while the recent national account figures are welcome news, it is clear that the mining sector is still relied upon as the main driver for growth. The challenge remains: getting the non-mining sector to contribute more. The task here has certainly not been helped by the release of the Abbott government's first budget, which has dented consumer and business confidence. During our hearing in March, the RBA reflected on the strength of dwelling approvals, which in the three months leading to the hearing lumbered almost 50,000. According to the RBA, this was the highest three-month total in the history of that series. Yet, just over two months later and two weeks after one of the most poorly received federal budgets in recent memory, the value of homes in some of our biggest markets slumped massively—some falling by margins considered the largest since the GFC. This prompted AMP Capital's Chief Economist Shane Oliver to conclude that there was no doubt about the effect of the budget. He said:
In May we saw a sharp almost 7 per cent decline in consumer confidence … If 150,000 people lose their family tax benefits and there's the fear factor for everyone else, no doubt it will have an impact.
Why is this serious? Because many economists underscore the value of housing construction as a platform for growth in the non-mining sector, especially against the backdrop of a continuing downward drift in mining investment, yet the budget has impacted on the purchasing power of low and middle Australia, slashing family payments and other benefits, increasing fuel taxes and, down the track, introducing medical co-payments—all this in an environment where wages growth, according to the testimony of the RBA, remains at its lowest in over a decade. In fact, the RBA stated that wages growth is the lowest it has been since 1997. Added to this are subdued prospects for employment growth, with the RBA noting that it is not until 2015 that there will be sufficient growth for that growth to make inroads into the unemployment rate.
If we are looking to the non-mining sector to help sustain and improve growth, the government's fiscal strategy is shaping up as an obvious threat to this serious task of rebalancing. When in opposition, the coalition regularly stated that our fiscal challenges were not due to a problem with revenue but, rather, that we were confronted with an expenditure problem. Upon securing office and releasing their first budget, the coalition government now sets about lifting taxes or introducing new ones. Surprisingly, it turned its back on around $700 million of revenue from previously announced measures designed in part to address multinational profit shifting. This overall issue has attracted British Prime Minister David Cameron's attention, who has urged multilateral effort in addressing profit shifting. Indeed, during the hearings, the RBA's Deputy Governor remarked:
International tax rules have not kept pace with the change in the globalisation of business, and governments, as a result, are getting less tax revenue …
He then stated:
Given the fiscal positions that many governments find themselves in, it is obviously an area that people want to fix.
Unless, of course, you are this government, which rejected nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in revenue and then was forced to make this up elsewhere. Let us put this in perspective. The $700 million this government walked away from in MYEFO it made up for by cutting $500 million in healthcare investment in MYEFO. It is perverse. Efforts to tackle multinational profit shifting morph into shifting the revenue burden, heaving it onto low- and middle-income Australia.
One final area I want to record some concern about relates to the rise of shadow banking in China. Both the IMF and the RBA are keeping a close watch on this, so it is certainly prudent for this House to note their focus on this issue. During the hearings the RBA Governor expressed his belief that the asset quality in some of the shadow banking entities was likely to be poor. Further, reflecting on some of the loans made within that system, he stated:
In fact, it is virtually certain that some of those loans, if they have not gone bad yet, will go bad.
The question, according to Governor Stevens, is how quickly they can get on top of it and get ahead of it. I certainly believe that this is a matter that will need further examination within the scope of the existing work of the committee. I certainly welcome the chair's commitment to do this. I commend the report to the House.
The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Higgins wish to move a motion to enable it to be debated at a later date?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39 the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Does the honourable member for Higgins wish to move a motion for the matter to be referred to the Federation Chamber?
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) four out of five charities and not-for-profit organisations want to keep the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission (ACNC);
(b) accountability of charities is critical to maintaining public confidence, accountability and transparency in the not-for-profit sector; and
(c) the work of the ACNC under Commissioner Susan Pascoe has strengthened organisational governance and compliance and reduced reporting duplication for charities;
(2) expresses concern that the Minister for Social Services will abolish the ACNC; and
(3) calls on the Minister to:
(a) support a transparent and visible charities and not-for-profit sector; and
(b) heed the wishes of sector players and experts in this field and keep the ACNC.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
In 2006 the House of Representatives Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was asked by the then minister, the member for Berowra, to report on the harmonisation of legal systems. Recommendation 18 of that 2006 report brought down under the Howard government was:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with the not-for-profit sector and the States and Territories:
That was a unanimous report of the committee, a coalition dominated committee which included the shadow Prime Minister, I mean the Prime Minister's shadow, the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull. This was just one of five major inquiries over more than a decade that have recommended a charities commission—a charities commission which enjoys broad support across the sector.
More than a million people have viewed the ACNC's national charities register. The commission has registered almost a thousand charities, responded to more than 40,000 inquiries and resolved more than 200 complaints about charities. As Robert Fitzgerald, the Chair of the ACNC Advisory Board and the presiding commissioner on the Productivity Commission's 2010 inquiry, has noted, the choice for the Commonwealth parliament is about retaining well-developed, proportionate and appropriate regulation or returning to an ad hoc system of inefficient and non-transparent regulation. As he puts it:
Corporate Australia long ago rejected such a regime and begs the question as to why the not-for-profit sector should be burdened by such a cumbersome regime?
As Mr Fitzgerald has noted, the one-stop shop regulator at the Commonwealth level is an essential element in that strategy and has already demonstrated its effectiveness, including in negotiating outcomes with state authorities. It has been my pleasure to join Andrew Barr in the ACT and Gail Gago in South Australia, two jurisdictions which are working with the ACNC, to reduce the paperwork burden on Australian charities.
As Mr Fitzgerald has noted, many of the concerns that have been raised by critics have been dealt with by the ACNC itself. Religious institutions were concerned about the impact on small parishes. That has been addressed by providing for financial and governance exemptions for basic religious charities. Schools were concerned about duplicate reporting, and this has been addressed through an agreement that avoids such duplicate reporting. Charities incorporated as companies limited by guarantee wanted arrangements to ensure they did not have to annually report to both ASIC and the ACNC, and the arrangements to report once only have been put in place. Certain philanthropic funds did not want their details published, to avoid unsolicited requests, and the commissioner has exercised her discretion to ensure that non-disclosure of key information can occur.
The result is that the key beneficiaries of the repeal of the ACNC are really only those organisations who do not want independent public accountability or transparency but which seek to continue to receive large benefits from the Australian community. As the Queensland Law Society's submission into the Senate ACNC inquiry has noted, the two-stage process generates uncertainty for the sector and makes good administration by the current ACNC extremely difficult. The Queensland Law Society is particularly concerned that the explanatory memorandum and regulation impact statement are less than rigorous and do not meet the usual high standards and disciplines of Commonwealth legislative processes. It also points to multiple examples of factual mistakes in both the EM and the RIS.
I commend to the House Andreas Ortmann's summary of the submissions to the Senate ACNC inquiry, which points out that about nine-tenths of those submissions support the ACNC. That is true, too, of Pro Bono Australia survey of the sector, which finds four out of five charities support the ACNC, and of an open letter that was signed by more than 40 charities across the board. The government claims it has consulted, but organisations listed by this government as having been consulted have said, in one example, 'Governance Institute has not at any time been consulted by the Department of Social Services.' Justice Connect said that they have been mistakenly listed as having been consulted: 'We note the brief interaction we had with DSS representatives at an event which they confirmed we would not be consulted is clear evidence of this.'
Before I call the honourable member for Wannon, I would ask the seconder of the motion, the honourable member for Canberra, if she wishes to reserve her right to speak.
I reserve my right to speak.
I call the honourable member for Wannon.
The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission was established by the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor governments. I think I could end my speech there, really, because that just about says it all. Their record in producing regulatory burden for every sector of our economy knew no bounds. One of the jobs that the new Abbott government has is to clean up the regulatory nightmare that has been imposed on the Australian community over the last six years. Fixing up this regulatory mess is what this government is hell-bent on doing. We have started the process and started it well, but more needs to be done. When it came to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, it seemed that they wanted to have a purpose. The way they made a purpose was to find a problem where a problem did not exist and then place a solution upon it. That solution always involved asking: how can we regulate more? Is there any other area where we could regulate? Can we go to areas where there are no problems and can we place a regulation? That is exactly what occurred in this area.
The Abbott government, when we were in opposition, made it extremely clear. We opposed the legislation which set up this regulatory behemoth. We said we would get rid of it—and get rid of it we will. We have already started the process, in fact. It is being done in conjunction with a lot of other acts being repealed. We had regulation repeal day. I see my friend the member for Kooyong is in the chamber here today. He has led the charge to make sure that this red tape, which is slowly strangling every part of the Australian community, is reduced, that we stop this burden that we are placing on every aspect of our community.
He's a good man.
He is a good man. This is part of the process. It was an election commitment that we will honour, and it will also bring benefits. What are we going to replace it with? I am a bit of an advocate and a bit of a keen follower of horse racing. One of the things that you say when you look at these types of policies is that what the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments were all about was just saddling weight on every part of the community so that it was carrying 61, 62, 63 kilograms. What do we want to do? We want to make sure that we reduce that burden. We want everyone to have just a jockey on their back, steering them in the right direction but not weighing them down with 60 kilograms. We want everyone to carry about 49 or 50 kilograms. Weight-for-age is what we are looking for, and that is what we will do with this legislation. We are going to take the heavy burden off this sector and apply a light touch. We are going to establish a commission, which we hope that, in time, the sector will take responsibility for and take charge of. We will leave it up to the not-for-profit sector to chart their own destination. We will not say to the sector: 'We as government know best. We as government will lay down the rules for you. We as government will dictate what file you will place in what drawer.' We are the ones who will say to the sector: 'No. You do it yourself.'
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
As a my good friend the member for Herbert just said, give them the whip, give them the jockey's helmet, let them ride their horse and let them go in the direction they want to go. We understand that these sectors in Australia are mature, are adult, and do not need someone else whipping them and telling them what they should do and where they should go. We understand that this sector in particular, which does so much good for our society, should be in control of its own destination.
As the previous speaker noted, the not-for-profit sector is 'mature' and 'adult', and that is why it is vigorously opposed to the changes proposed by the government. In actual fact, last year, a Pro Bono survey found that 81 per cent of the 1,500 respondents were opposed to the government's suggestion for change to this sector. Recently, 54 major Australian charities signed a statement in regard to the attempt by this government to abolish the ACNC. They noted:
The launch of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission in 2012 was a major step forward in creating a regulatory environment that works for the not-for-profit sector rather than against it.
They went on to say that they extensively support it. If I had any doubts about why the ACNC should be retained, the paucity of argument from the Minister for Social Services has added to my position. He has come back to say that that was signed by only 54 individuals. He should look through those charities, which are from across the spectrum in this country. Father Riley, in my own electorate, who does so much for the homeless, was a notable signatory. He noted problems with the UK regulation. The UK example has no connection with what happens in Australia. The most laughable reason that the minister gave for the legislation, given the recent budget, was that it was an election commitment. That is the major reason he gave for proposing his legislation. Quite frankly, that is questionable. A Choice survey of 2008—for those people who are interested in consumer affairs et cetera—indicated very strong support for an organisation like the ACNC. It was an endorsement of the 1995 Industry Commission report, the 2001 Howard government inquiry into charity definition and many other international surveys leading up to the 2010 Productivity Commission report.
We should ask: why is the government trying to do this? I am very indebted to an article by Mike Seccombe in TheSaturday Paper of 29 March 2014, in which he indicated that the major people calling for this legislation are rather interesting—private administrators of charitable trusts—an industry with $3.2 billion in assets. He noted in the article that in 2009 these rather altruistic, kindly people managed to get legislative change in this country that meant that their fees were not to be on the percentage of capital but on income. That article further quoted Peter Winneke, who was responsible for the philanthropic services of the Myer Family Company. He surveyed these private companies that have come to control so many of these charitable trusts in this country. As I said, they are a major advocate for abolishing the ACNC. I wonder why. It is because they do not want oversight. They do not want the Australian people to know what is wrong with some charities. They do not want to give confidence to the broader non-profit sector.
Mr Winneke noted that in some cases they were getting up to 40 per cent of earnings of a trust siphoned off in fees. I notice that they are members of the Financial Services Council of Australia. Mr Seccombe looked up the 2011 to 2013 AEC donations and found that the Financial Services Council had a history of contributing to people on both sides of politics who just happen to be involved in this portfolio area and to members of relevant parliamentary committees in its field. The Financial Services Council, representing the body that wants the abolition of the ACNC, made an interesting donation in 2011-13 to the North Sydney Forum, which is run on behalf of the Treasurer of this country. While we are talking about charitable matters, that is the favourite charity of Australian Water Holdings.
We have seen significant support for this organisation. People who are supposedly regulated too much, people who are affected by this onerous red tape, are saying that they actually want this organisation to operate. We have seen two entities already—South Australia and the ACT—abolish their state alternatives to oversight this field because there is confidence in the recently established federal ACNC. It has been, as I said, at a very early stage able to give confidence to the sector. People do want to have confidence, because there are problems. I noticed as recently as 15 March this year the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, as covered by The Sydney Morning Herald— (Time expired)
I love the Labor Party! There has never been a layer of new or added red tape that they do not adopt wholly, solely and fully and use as a new base to grow that sector of regulation. We have heard all the talk about support for the ACNC, all coming from other levels of regulation. When Kevin Andrews first took this thing, he went around Australia. He came to Townsville and spoke to the people doing the work on the ground, the people delivering the work, the people filling out the forms, and explained to them what we were trying to achieve by getting rid of the ACNC. He had three forums in Townsville in one 24-hour period and there was not one dissenting hand. He asked them to put up their hand if they loved doing the paperwork, and no-one put their hand up. He asked who felt that the paperwork they were filling out was actually being read. It was horrendous the amount of work that they had to do.
An organisation in Townsville—I will not embarrass them by naming them—had taken over two similar failing organisations: one in Ingham and one in Ayr, about an hour each side of Townsville. They sent in their return to the federal organisation and got a letter back saying that they had received only one return. They said: 'Yes, it is one return. We have three branches, but we are the one organisation.' They were told: 'No. You must produce a return for all three organisations.' They said, 'But the return would be exactly the same for the other two,' and they were told: 'That does not matter. You must supply them for all three.' So they had to photocopy it and send away another two copies with changes to the heading. This is what we have to deal with. The problem people on the ground have is that they know that these returns are not being read. They know all the information is going into a great big stockpile and they simply cannot get through all the detail.
When I was in credit collection there was a story about a US finance company that for one 12-month period just approved absolutely everything. At the end of that period their delinquency rates were exactly the same as if they had applied all their credit scoring methods. This goes to prove that the great majority of people in every sector want to do the right thing.
No matter what happens, no matter what level of security, no matter what level of red tape we apply, there are going to be people in every industry who will come in motivated to do the wrong thing. Should we penalise as the member for Wannon said? Should we put 63 kilograms in the saddlebags of absolutely every organisation, knowing that one in every thousand is going to do the wrong thing, or should we bring them all down to 49 kilograms, let them ride hands and heels all the way through to the winning post and do the best for their people? How best can our organisations deliver services to the people? Is it by providing to federal government departments information that is never going to be read, or is it going to be by serving the people on the ground, who deserve the support and the services.
It's got to be freed up.
It has to be freed up. We have the member for Kooyong sitting right in front of me. He is working so hard to make sure that we get these things through and get rid of this red tape so that we can free people up to actually do what they want to do. No-one got into charity work, not-for-profit work, NGO work, supplying services to kids on the street or small business because they love red tape and want to fill out forms: 'I want to help some kids on the street by filling out a 47-page document! That's how I can best serve!'
You find that the people who are up against this are the people who are getting paid to help them comply. The people who want the ACNC and more red tape in this field are the people who are being paid or whose job description is to help people work out how this form complies, where this form goes, how to do it properly and all that sort of stuff. This is what we have to stop. What we have to do is make sure the money that these people raise gets to the customer, to the person on the ground. Filling out red tape is taking another person away from what they want to do, be it the P&F at your school, Queensland Youth Services, an aged-care facility or anywhere. If your audit process is good enough for the state government, it should be good enough for us. We can just push it through and make it easier for people to provide services on the street. (Time expired)
I rise today in support of the motion of the member for Fraser regarding the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and in particular for his call for the government to drop its ill-considered and unpopular plan to axe the commission. As the CEO of the Community Council for Australia, David Crosbie, put it:
Nobody wants to go back to the bad old days of having the Australian Tax Office regulating charities. It's a failed model from the past. It will not work.
Earlier this year a coalition of 40 of Australia's biggest and most respected charities along with legal experts, philanthropic organisations and arts communities joined together to warn the Abbott Liberal government that it would be a huge mistake to close down the newly formed Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. They argued that the commission was in fact doing exactly what it was set up to do: operate efficiently and effectively to help charities, donors and taxpayers alike.
The success of the commission should come as no surprise to those who have followed the extensive 15-year period of reviews and consultations to establish the independent national charities regulator. The charities and not-for-profits sector worked closely with government to get it right, so the Abbott government's plans to abolish the commission has understandably drawn strong reaction from the sector. According to a recent survey, four out of five charities support the work the commission is doing. In a separate survey, only six per cent of charities wanted responsibility for charities to be returned to the ATO. That is a massive 94 per cent endorsement of the current arrangements under the commission.
Indeed, some of Australia's most well established and respected charities felt so strongly about the issues that they took the very courageous step of publishing an open letter urging the Prime Minister to reconsider. Lifeline, ACOSS, Save the Children, the RSPCA, Youth Off The Streets, World Vision, St John's Ambulance Australia, the McGrath Foundation and Maroba Lodge, from my own electorate of Newcastle, are among those who signed the letter and called on the government to keep the commission. The organisations confirmed a number of points in their letter to the Prime Minister, including that they wanted to make it very clear to the Commonwealth government and wider Australian community that most charities across Australia valued the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and wanted to see it continue its impressive work. Significantly, this coalition of Australian charities agreed that the ACNC 'has done what few new regulators could ever achieve: it had gained widespread support across the sector it was regulating'. These are strong words that should be taken heed of.
The charities and not-for-profits sector plays a vital role in our community, contributing both economically and socially. The sector employs more than one million Australians, turns over $100 billion, involves almost five million volunteers and nurtures and supports our communities, including my community of Newcastle. According to the commission's charity register, the Newcastle electorate is home to more than 450 registered charities. That is 450 organisations, large and small, doing great things to support our local community. None are more or less important than the others, from the Dixon Park Surf Life Saving Club supporting our young nippers, to our homelessness support organisations, like the Samaritans; our disability service providers, like ConnectAbility; our aged-care facilities, like Maroba Lodge; or our local school P&C groups. Charities support our entire community, not just the vulnerable. They need the support of a strong, dedicated regulator, a job the commission is doing aptly.
Another important role the commission plays is to help reduce and eliminate scammers. Today, we are unfortunately exposed to so many scams. We need the commission to help protect registered charities and members of the public who donate their hard-earned money to worthy causes. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's Little Black Book of Scams details the situation well. Scammers will do anything to get our money. In the same way that ASIC provides investors with the confidence they need to buy shares in companies, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission provides donors with confidence that registered charities are actually performing charitable works.
Finally, this government is hiding behind an illusion of consultation in order to ram home an ideological agenda. The vital work of the ACNC must be maintained, for the benefits of charities, not-for-profits and the many, many communities they serve. (Time expired)
You really get the sense today that the Labor Party is going through the motions in this debate. The member for Fraser has left the chamber. He is not even interested enough in what is being said here today on his own motion. I suppose he is working on a revised edition of his book, Battlers and Billionaires. He is the doyen of university deregulation and Medicare co-payments. A copy of his book is now sitting on my shelf. Right next to Adam Smith, John Locke, Milton Friedman and von Mises is Dr Andrew Leigh, the doyen of Medicare co-payments, on the free marketeers shelf.
He is not interested enough in this motion, and I think it is understandable why. I understand why the member for Fraser wants to change the conversation and what people are talking about in relation to him, because his book certainly has got enough attention—it would be wrong of me not to mention it again. What an excellent work it is. We have not reached the chapter on charities yet. I am looking forward to reading what he says on charities in his book, because I am sure it is not what he said today.
The problem with what the Labor Party is saying here today is that the reality on the ground and the evidence that has been before the government for some time—when we were in opposition and now in government—are that this regulatory body is another example of overregulation that is impacting upon the sector. When you get charities like Anglicare and UnitingCare Australia—and UnitingCare Australia in particular gave a very insightful piece of evidence to the Senate committee—saying that they had problems with this regulator and that it was challenging their ability and the ability of many of their member charities to function, I think you have a serious problem. I quote from the UnitingCare report:
Based on the Commissioner's 45 minute estimate it will take the 57,500 organisations registered with the ACNC a total of 43,125 hours to complete the AIS. That is the equivalent of a year's work for nearly 25 full-time employees to meet this obligation.
That is the impact, according to UnitingCare. They go further and say:
Our analysis of the 2013 AIS is that the majority of the information it requests has already been provided to government—
that is the point made by the member for Herbert; once again there is more duplication from government—
by the majority of organisations registered with the ACNC.
The cost … of this duplication of effort is significant and critically many organisations can only meet the requirement by taking resources away from frontline service delivery.
A significant opportunity for the ACNC to reduce red tape from the beginning of its operations has been missed and the cost of doing so has fallen to the sector.
That was UnitingCare Australia.
What would they know!
'What would they know!' as the member for Herbert points out. This is our concern with this body. In the last parliament, the Labor Party, in its alliance with the Greens and the Independents of the time, rushed in pieces of legislation that were poorly thought out, without proper consultation with the sector. In this case we are talking about the best of our organisations in society: charities and institutions that help the most vulnerable. What was the Labor Party's plan for this vital sector and these institutions that do so much for so little? They do far more than government does, because they deliver services so efficiently. They take money from people and turn it into great outcomes for people in need. The Labor Party's solution was to put in a new regulatory body and to make the sector fill out more paperwork, to make it employ people to fill out paperwork for the federal government in Canberra—information that government already has at state and territory level. There is already plenty of regulation of charities and not-for-profit organisations, and there are plenty of requirements and burdens.
The member for Fraser got up in this House and said, 'Actually, this has been a recommendation of everybody. There has been a major report and everything else for years and years.' The idea was to bring in a regulatory body that would reduce regulation and reduce duplication, but the Labor Party just does not get it. Every time they try and do something they add regulation, they add a burden and they add duplication. Cost and time is taken out of a vital sector—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The parliamentary secretary reminds me that 21,000 new regulations were brought in under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. We are talking about a vital sector: the charitable sector. This is a good approach from the new government to get rid of this burden on the most vital of charities and organisations doing the most and giving their best. I commend the legislation that the government is presenting through red-tape repeal day. It will ensure that the regulatory burden on our charities and the not-for-profit sector is reduced so that they can get on with the vital work that they do.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that 100 per cent fly-in fly-out company workforce agreements in Central Queensland's coal mining belt are causing concern amongst residents and small business owners in small local mining towns; and
(2) encourages Parliament to discuss some of the recommendations in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia's report Cancer of the bush or salvation for our cities (13 February 2013) to determine if they are relevant to the ongoing issue now faced in mining towns in the electoral divisions of Capricornia, Dawson and Flynn.
Once again, the policy of 100 per cent fly-in fly-out workers, otherwise known as FIFO workers, in our mining industry is having a detrimental impact on small towns in Central Queensland. This region is the economic heart of the nation's coalmining sector. In Capricornia, the affected towns include Moranbah, Dysart, Middlemount and Nebo. Under 100 per cent FIFO, workers are flown in directly from Cairns, Brisbane and the Gold Coast to work on some of Central Queensland coalmines. Local people are locked out from applying, even though the mine is less than 30 minutes from where they live.
Today I urge the House of Representatives to recognise that 100 per cent FIFO agreements in the Central Queensland coalmining belt are causing concern amongst residents and small business owners in small mining towns and I urge parliament to discuss some of the recommendations in the 2013 report on FIFO titled Cancer of the bush or salvation for our cities? to determine if they are relevant to the ongoing issue now faced in mining towns in the electorates of Capricornia, Dawson and Flynn.
In Queensland, coal companies were granted permission by the previous state Labor government, under the leadership of Anna Bligh, to initially engage 100 per cent FIFO workforces. This policy has since been supported by the current state LNP government. As the federal member for Capricornia, my view is very different to my state government colleagues'. I say no to 100 per cent FIFO, because it is having a dire impact on morale, small business, schools, families and local towns. If local people cannot get work and live in local communities, they simply leave. The consequence is that small business suffers, schools lose resources and other services begin to dwindle.
Last week I visited Moranbah and was told that 100 per cent FIFO workers are bussed from the airport to an allocated mining camp, where some are told they are not allowed to leave or go into town where they could spend money locally. Many small business owners have reported huge falls in revenue. Motel owners in Moranbah and Nebo, normally sustained by mining staff or contractors staying in the town, also report huge drops in business. One owner claims to be operating at just 15 per cent occupancy and is likely to be out of business before the end of the year. Another motelier said he was operating at 20 per cent occupancy compared to a year ago, when he had a 95 per cent occupancy rate. Both attribute at least part of the slump to 100 per cent FIFO and the negative hype associated with it.
The exodus of local families being forced to seek work elsewhere has hit the housing sector. Real estate agents report that at least 200 rental properties are now vacant in Moranbah, leaving landlords struggling to meet repayments. I was told that a four-bedroom home that cost $1 million in 2011 would be lucky to attract $250,000 today. Of course people investing in property in these towns must always shoulder the financial risk of a fluctuating coal market. But 100 per cent FIFO work practices are being partly blamed by locals. I quote from one letter from a constituent whose job is to issue foreclosure notices in local mining towns:
Homes and vehicles are being repossessed by the banks. Businesses are closing and families are being torn apart. Suburbs are emptying as families have to uproot themselves and move elsewhere while looking for work.
Despite the state government's position, the Rockhampton Liberal National Party branch has called for the clause '100 per cent FIFO' to be removed from government agreements with mining companies where local people can be sourced from towns where the mine is based. In fairness, however, it must be acknowledged that mining companies do contribute to inland Queensland. BMA has advised it spends $1.3 billion annually in the greater Central Queensland region. Mining companies currently face a downturn in coal prices worldwide and as a result are adjusting their business practices to remain sustainable.
Earlier I referred to the 2013 parliamentary committee report which referred to FIFO as a cancer of the bush. Our Deputy Prime Minister is currently reviewing the 21-recommendation report. It should be noted that economic circumstances since the inquiry have changed. But this report did touch on several areas of taxation and called for a reassessment of tax exemptions that may apply to FIFO workers and mining companies that engage in FIFO or residential mining camps that are located near permanent towns. It also called for a review of zone tax offset arrangements to ensure that these are only claimable by permanent residents of remote mining towns and not by 100 per cent FIFO workers. The potential impact of 100 per cent FIFO on our local towns is an issue that must be taken seriously by all levels of government.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
And do you reserve your right to speak?
Yes.
In a rare exercise of bipartisanship I certainly support the sentiments of this motion. The circumstances that have been set out by the member really are quite alarming. I am from a Western Australian background. I cannot be totally opposed, obviously, to fly-in fly-out. There is no doubt that there is a real place for fly-in fly-out and indeed drive-in drive-out. Many Western Australians support a lifestyle that they greatly value through the use of fly-in fly-out. Indeed, as I am travelling up between the north and Perth, and indeed from Perth over here, I often sit next to people that are coming off their rosters and speak very positively. I am likewise aware that there is a large degree of social dislocation that can occur and that for every positive story there are probably some negative stories as well. As a Western Australian, I would be quite appalled to see 100 per cent fly-in fly-out developments in the minerals and resources sector. In my view, it is simply not acceptable when those mines are located near towns—towns that could benefit from the infusion of activity.
This is a very complex issue, and it is very much the responsibility of both state and federal government to drive the companies in the right direction and insist that measures be taken to help local business operate and gain benefit from fly-in fly-out. It obviously depends on the size of the town and how much you have to work with. A basic thing would be to ensure that if, for example, there is a construction camp—obviously you do not want to locate people permanently when the workforce requirements are only going to be for the construction phase—there is an obligation on that camp to access supplies through local business and to set up positive community relations. I am quite surprised that the mining companies are not taking this component far more seriously. If they want to use fly-in fly-out, they have a real obligation to be working with local communities to work out ways in which they can provide greater opportunities for local people to participate in the economic benefit that comes from having a camp within the area.
It is imperative that the state government drive a diversification agenda so that larger towns can provide the capacity for people to relocate there and have the sort of lifestyle and amenity that they would expect in the metropolitan area. When the mining towns in Western Australia were built in the sixties and seventies, they had pretty much an amenity that was not dissimilar to Perth's. From the eighties on, the general standard of amenity available in Perth increased quite dramatically, but the mining towns did not keep pace. In fact, they became rather sad and tired-looking and they became far less attractive places for people to relocate to because of that increasing difference in lifestyle. It is important that there be very focused measures to keep the amenity of those towns high, that there be resources put in by the state, federal and local governments, in partnership with the mining companies, to make those towns places people would want to bring their families to. We have intervened in a number of towns. For example, in Kalgoorlie a greened desert golf course was created with a tourism facility around which we built housing. Part of the rationale for that was that we needed to diversify. (Time expired)
I pay tribute to the member for Capricornia for bringing forward this motion on fly-in fly-out workers, with support from the member for Flynn and me. I thank the member for Perth for her comments in support of our concerns. In 2011, the then Bligh Labor government approved a BMA application for a 100 per cent fly-in fly-out operation at two new mines, at Caval Ridge and Daunia, both in the Central Queensland region. The only way you can work in either of those operations is to get on a plane from either Brisbane or Cairns and fly in for work.
I have heard directly from the member for Capricornia, and it has been recounted to me a few times by various organisations, of the case of a family that lived 15 minutes from a mine site out at Moranbah, and in order to retain his job the worker has to go to the Moranbah airport, fly down to Brisbane, get on another plane in Brisbane, fly back to Moranbah, get on a bus, drive past the family home and stay in the mining camp for a week. He is not allowed, in the time he is there, to go back and see his family. That local town has been devastated by that sort of practice. There is no confidence there and there are extreme fears for the future. Families which still have employment fear that their kids will be unlikely to get jobs there in the future. The decision of the former Labor government set a very dangerous precedent—it has established a new norm. I do acknowledge that the policy continues with the support of the state LNP government.
The economy of Mackay, which is in my electorate, has been very much geared towards servicing the mining sector. There are a lot of jobs in the region in the mining and mining services sectors, but more than 8,000 of those jobs have been lost in recent years. In Moranbah, there are something like 200 vacant rental properties. In Mackay, there are well over 1,000. Just last month Ergon Energy reported that there were almost 2½ thousand properties in Mackay with the power switched off at the owner's request. These are homes sitting vacant. These are not homes where the electricity has been cut off because people have unpaid bills; these are homes that are completely vacant. If you know the history of Mackay's vacancy rates, it is unbelievable that it has gone to that level so quickly. Literally thousands of families have left their homes in Mackay. The region has had to bear the brunt of this downturn in the mining sector.
We had to bear some pain through the boom, but we were making money then and we could deal with it. During the boom, there was an issue of homelessness because there were not enough properties. There were people living in tents, shipping containers and cars. Rents in Moranbah reached $4,000 a week, but they were being paid by people who could afford it because of their mining wages. This reverse has caused great hardship, and there is no upside. Again, I say that what is happening now sets a dangerous precedent. The business community has absolutely no confidence.
This is all the legacy of the decision, made by the previous state Labor government, to allow a 100 per cent fly-in fly-out workforce. When I hear the complaints coming from the local state Labor member, Mr Tim Mulherin—who was actually a cabinet minister in that government—attacking the decision, I think: 'Goodness me! Where were you in the cabinet room when that decision was made?' People like that should be apologising to the region for letting this happen.
I believe that a 100 per cent fly-in fly-out workforce is a cancer. Last year the Standing Committee on Regional Australia tabled a report, Cancer of the bush or salvation for our cities?, which looked at this issue of fly-in fly-out workforces. It will be interesting to see the government response, which is coming out very soon. I see the former minister here in the room. I hope he is going to explain why he did not give a response to that report during his time in government.
I was not the minister, you idiot. It was Simon Crean.
You were a minister. You were the minister for regional development for a while there—and there was no response from you. Most importantly, BMA is running roughshod over the communities that supported them. BMA do not need to retain this policy. They can drop it and do the right thing by the community by not having a 100 per cent fly in fly-out workforce. (Time expired)
I remind the member that his remarks should go through the chair—not to individual members of the chamber.
I will endeavour to be more diplomatic than the member for Dawson was. He is always adversarial in his approach. In this case that is a pity, because this motion does not necessarily have to be a partisan motion. It does not have to be a catalogue of partisan attacks. This motion goes to a debate that Australia has been having for a long time—the myths of Sunday Too Far Away and Clancy of the Overflow, which are about people living and working in Australia's very harsh interior, versus the reality, which is one of people living predominantly in coastal cities. Fly-in fly-out workers straddle those two extremes.
I was at Adelaide Airport this morning, as was the member for Perth. There were as many people in fluoro work gear heading out to work in the mines as there were people in suits and ties heading off to Melbourne, Canberra or Sydney. So it is obviously something that is having a big impact on our economy and a big impact on the way people live and work.
Only last week I was up in Moomba on a tour of the Santos gas plants with the member for Makin—thanks to Sam Crafter from Santos for organising that. It is quite clear that those plants do rely heavily on a fly-in fly-out workforce and will always do so. It is important that we do not demonise fly-in fly-out or drive-in drive-out workers. It is important that we recognise that people will want that choice—in particular, their families will want the choice of living in coastal cities. It is just one of those realities that we have to acknowledge and deal with. I think some of the previous speakers are just, to an extent, railing against the tide going in and out.
Cancer of the bush or salvation for our cities? is an important report. I think it makes some pretty persuasive arguments about the effect of fly-in fly-out workforces on housing and healthcare services in regional communities. It covers the impact on some of those communities of having large workforces there. They impact on the local housing market by driving rents up, they lead to large, isolated work camps—isolated from those regional communities—and they impact on access to healthcare services in those areas. Those are all important impacts. These regional communities are wearing all of the costs of those operations but are seemingly not getting as much of the benefit.
I think there are some interesting references to tax in the report. It would be sensible to look at the taxation laws and see what sort of effect they are having on encouraging fly-in fly-out workforces and whether that is in the national interest or in the region's interests. It is interesting to see the interaction between fringe benefits tax and zonal rebates, particularly in relation to things like living away from home allowances and the like.
That said, we do have to acknowledge that fly-in fly-out workers spend a lot of time away from home in very harsh and remote places. That obviously will have an impact on their families and their family lives. At the home end of that arrangement we see the impact in various country towns in my electorate of fly-in fly-out workers not being able to participate in the things that they would normally do—for example, with the footy team in their home town. They are not able to partake in the civic life of those towns. In all of this we have to balance the needs of regional communities with the needs of the nation—the need to develop the north and to develop the interior. But we have to do that with one eye on reality. The vast majority of those workers will always want the choice to fly in and fly out. Some will opt to live and work in regional Australia but predominantly most of those workers will want to exercise the choice to live in our large coastal cities.
I thank the member for Capricornia for bringing this motion on fly-in fly-out workers before the House. The towns in my electorate of Flynn that are directly affected by fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out workers include Mount Perry, Cracow, Moura, Biloela, Gladstone, Emerald, Blackwater, Bluff, Theodore, Capella, Springsure, Rolleston and Tieri, and Alpha on the Galilee Basin, just to the west of my electorate. I believe this is a local and state government issue and each town deserve to be addressed on an individual basis. At the end of the day, there needs to be a compromise between mining companies, employees, local government and the state and federal governments to strike a balance that would satisfy most stakeholders—although you will never satisfy everyone in this debate.
The make-up of each of these towns in Flynn is different in respect of the number of business houses in the town, the accommodation available—whether it be private, public or company owned; camps or motels and hotels—and the general liveability of the town. All these things have to be addressed—are there chemist shops and hairdressers and other businesses that look after the residents? Health services—rural doctors, allied health facilities et cetera—are big issues in these regional towns and they contribute to an area's liveability. Some towns have very good facilities but other towns will certainly be lacking some services. Education facilities are high on the agenda, and that can affect whether or not a person lives in a town. It is well known that older students are often forced to leave the family home, and it is a costly thing when you have to move from the country to the city. Airport facilities and airfares are another factor.
The township of Alpha in the Galilee Basin has said no to mine workers coming to town—they insist on 100 per cent fly-in fly-out. That is their preference, and it is their right to say so. The ratio of gas workers in Gladstone is about fifty-fifty locals to fly-in fly-out workers. The 11,500 workforce there will be reduced at the end of this year when construction finishes and production begins. There will be a drop-off to about 600 workers employed on the gas plants on Curtis Island. All these people will be housed in Gladstone on a permanent basis. Blackwater and Moura townships would like to see the demise of workers camps in close proximity to their towns, with workers taking up the available empty houses caused by the downturn in the residential sector.
Fly-in fly-out arrangements place a lot of pressure on families and increase stress when the main breadwinner is away from his or her family for long periods. Marriage break-up increases in these situations. How often do you hear the cry, 'I am not taking my children out of their school to go to some isolated mine out in the sticks.'? But it is no surprise that some who take the big step and move to a mining town on a permanent basis fall in love with their new abode and never leave. There are many people in my town who say, 'We love the place. We want to stop here and we want to work here, so we want our jobs to continue.' It does seem strange that some coalminers from Collinsville have to relocate to Cairns or the Gold Coast before they can be employed back in Collinsville. Maybe there are other reasons for this policy being introduced.
As I said at the start, every town needs to be judged on its own merits because every town in my electorate is different from all the other towns. There are 14 or 15 towns affected in my electorate and they all have different aspects that must be considered. For instance, Cracow, a goldmining town, has no businesses other than the pub, run by the famous boxer Fred Brophy. So that is a different sort of town again. (Time expired)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution to this very important debate on fly-in fly-out company workforce agreements. As the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government between 2007 and 2010, local communities, particularly those in Queensland and Western Australia but to a lesser extent those in other parts of Australia, raised this matter with me in a very consistent manner. There is no doubt that fly-in fly-out suits some people, being able to live where they have their base—be it in Perth or one of the other coastal cities—and gain a good living as a fly-in fly-out worker. It can assist companies, particularly when they are employing people for the short term. But there is also no doubt that it has a huge impact on communities and on individuals and families.
That is why the report tabled in February last year by the Standing Committee on Regional Australia, chaired by Tony Windsor, was so important. It is a significant report from someone who adorned this chamber as the member for New England, whose absence is a significant loss. Tony Windsor was a great thinker and a great advocate for regional Australia, not least of which was his New England community. The report highlighted the impact of fly-in fly-out work on local communities. Because of the lack of a stable and permanent workforce there is a lack of hard infrastructure in terms of transport and also a lack of social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. Local towns face a reduction in employment opportunities due to a lack of banking, pharmaceutical and other service industries.
The report recommended further research into the social and economic impacts of fly-in fly-out work on communities. There is no doubt that, anecdotally, there is a real concern about the impact of people being away from their spouse and children for a long period of time. There is also no doubt that, if it were possible, many people would choose to move permanently to the communities where they work. I recall opening a childcare centre in Karratha and asking how it was going. Not only was it full on day one but people who wanted to access child care had been on the waiting list for months in advance. People wanted to be able to live with their families in that local community.
That is one of the reasons the government established the Regional Infrastructure Fund to work on developing regional community infrastructure, which was underpinned by the work of Infrastructure Australia. The Windsor committee brought down important recommendations that should in my view be supported by the government. For example, the committee's report recommended that the National Housing Supply Council be tasked to develop and implement a strategy to address the lack of affordable housing in fly-in fly-out communities. It also recommended further analysis into the impact on health and educational opportunities in those communities.
This issue affects families and local communities. Nine months on from the election of the government, it would be timely for it to produce a response to this report. The opposition will respond constructively to any proposals which seek to balance the need for appropriate economic activity with the need to look after families and local communities.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 15 June is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day;
(b) elder abuse:
(i) includes physical, mental, emotional, financial, medical and neglect; and
(ii) occurs in all countries throughout the world; and
(c) Australians are living longer and around 14 per cent of the population are aged over 65; and
(2) calls on the federal, state and territory Governments to support initiatives which prevent, or raise awareness about, elderly abuse.
Yesterday, 15 June, was World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, a day designated by the United Nations for the world to voice its opposition to the abuse and suffering inflicted on older people around the world. That people around the world are living longer should be seen as progress. In Australia, over 14 per cent of the population are aged over 65 years, with that figure projected to double by the year 2060. A downside to living longer is that, as people age, they tend to become more dependent on others and more vulnerable. Their vulnerability underlies a very serious and widespread social problem that is rarely acknowledged or openly spoken about. The problem I refer to is elder abuse.
Elder abuse can be physical, sexual, financial, emotional, medical or simple neglect. It can occur within the family home or within institutional care facilities. It can even result in violent death, as has occurred in several cases in Australia in recent years. Elder abuse includes parents being pushed into an aged-care facility so that their children can take control of their home and other assets; parents being coaxed or pressured by family members into making financial decisions, including changing their wills, which they would have preferred not to have done; elderly people being seriously neglected in institutional care; elderly people being excessively sedated so that they are easier to care for; elderly people being scammed of their money by family and non-family members; and elderly people living in daily fear because their partner has dementia, or an adult child has a drug dependency problem, both of which can lead to erratic behaviour; and elderly people being targeted as easy victims by petty criminals and drug addicts. These are not isolated examples but common occurrences throughout the world.
Whilst the figures are difficult to ascertain, World Health Organization data indicates that between four and six per cent of older people are abused each year. Some reports suggest that the figure could be as high as 10 per cent, whilst a recent US study concluded that 1.5 to two million elderly Americans are abused every year. With 4.7 million Australians aged over 65 years, the figures suggest that each year over 200,000 elderly Australians are in some way abused. If that level of abuse were occurring in any other sector of society there would be an understandable public outcry for government intervention. Regrettably, rather than that being the case, public conversation about older people and longevity focuses on medical costs, aged care services and the diminishing ratio of working people to retirees.
One of the reasons why this issue is brushed aside so often is that about 90 per cent of the abuse is perpetrated by family members, with around two-thirds of the perpetrators being adult children of those abused. Out of pride or embarrassment, the abuse is not reported, either by the elderly or by other family members who become aware of it; in turn, it is never acted upon. Cultural practices can also be a barrier for victims.
As a society we have rightly taken a strong stance against child abuse and domestic violence by raising public awareness, openly talking about the issue and establishing support mechanisms for those abused. We have not acted similarly against elder abuse, and too many elderly people suffer in silence, often living in fear and with a loss of dignity. Here in Australia, other than some compulsory reporting requirements for physical and sexual abuse in residential care facilities, there is no legislation that specifically addresses elder abuse. Under criminal law there are no specific offences targeting abuses against the aged. There is no excuse for elder abuse nor for turning a blind eye to it. It is not okay. We all have a responsibility to step in and stop it wherever it occurs.
I am pleased to see that today in Adelaide there is a national World Elder Abuse Awareness Day conference. Amongst the several expert presenters speaking at the conference is Dr Alexandre Kalache, who is President of the International Longevity Centre in Brazil and who was in 1997 a founding member of the International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse. It was that network that led to the United Nations resolution. It is good to see that this issue is finally being spoken of openly and that some steps are being taken, but, as a society, we need to do a lot more.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I rise to associate myself with the comments made by the member for Makin and I thank him for his motion. Elder abuse has many facets. In our society in the past, our elders and those who were ageing were seen as the people to whom you went for advice, support and guidance. Over the last few decades that has changed. We see elements of abuse that are not acceptable. The whole financial construct of the abuse—the humbugging, seeking to take care of your parents and then taking their wealth to build your own—is problematic.
Elder abuse, as defined by Seniors Rights Victoria, is:
… any act which causes harm to an older person and is carried out by someone they know and trust such as family or friends.
That is normally the gamut of how you would consider it. It is even in terms of some of the unscrupulous behaviour of people who take advantage of and work on the fear that they create in the elderly about the safety of their environment and who extract from them commitments to financial arrangements, security systems et cetera. In days gone by, these elders were more able to be strong in their resolution as to their aspirations and dreams; but when you become frail you are at the mercy of others. The problem in our society is that when you become old there is a mindset of ageism and that mindset sees people categorised as 'not of value' and being set aside. I think that is a sad indictment, particularly when those who are vulnerable are subjected to financial, social, physical, sexual and psychological abuse and neglect from those who purport to love and care for them.
World Elder Abuse Awareness Day—the day that is bringing us together—is about working together to bring greater recognition of the mistreatment of older people wherever they live and to highlight the need for appropriate action. The United Nations notes that:
The global population of people aged 60 years and older will more than double, from 542 million in 1995 to about 1.2 billion in 2025. Around 4 to 6% of elderly people have experienced some form of maltreatment at home.
In my own electorate of Hasluck 18.6 per cent of residents are over the age of 60, which equates to just under 28,000 people according to the 2011 census.
There are some subtle elements of abuse as well. One of these is loneliness. You hear of somebody who passes away in a unit and nobody notices that they have not been around and when they are discovered dead in their bed people then ask: 'Where is the family? Where are the relatives who were part of that person's life? Where is the community?' That is a subtle abuse through neglect and through loneliness. Often when we doorknock, as most of us in this chamber do, we meet people who live in poverty and whose physical surrounds show and exemplify neglect. It is sad that at their time of life, when they have contributed to the building of a nation that we take for granted and enjoy, they are not the benefactors of what you would expect to be a good retirement or a good time in life. As we reach our senior years we expect to be able to spend that time in the twilight of our life enjoying family, friends and those around us. We do not need the type of abuse that we are seeing becoming increasingly prevalent.
In a previous role one of my responsibilities was to look at the extent of elder abuse within that jurisdiction, to look at how we addressed it and to look at what measures there were to protect people who were experiencing elder abuse. Sadly, as the member for Makin indicated, there is no legislation that protects them and there is no concerted effort. It is only through motions and debates such as this that we will continue to raise within the community's conscience the need to address the abuse of elders.
I am pleased to support the motion that has been moved by the member for Makin, which brings World Elder Abuse Awareness Day to the attention of the chamber. It is true that we have an ageing population and it is the case that there are tragic reminders from time to time about the isolation in which many elderly people find themselves. There was a time when I was the shadow minister for ageing and seniors—now many years ago—and when I had the opportunity to visit nursing homes and other facilities that look after elderly Australians right across the country. During that period, I was heartened by the hard and passionate work of the staff in those aged-care facilities—everyone from the doctors and nurses to the cleaners and those who maintained those facilities. The compassion they showed for elderly Australians was, indeed, inspirational.
We know too that for many elderly people their later years in life are extremely difficult. As the motion indicates, they suffer from physical, mental, emotional, financial and medical neglect from time to time. It is something that occurs throughout the world, and it is why this day is recognised internationally. Abuse of the elderly shocks our community. I come from a culture which respects and puts elderly people up on a pedestal. That is the case throughout Australia, but, unfortunately, we have a circumstance whereby some of our elderly are left very isolated. In my community there are more boarding houses than in any other electorate in Australia. These are lived in largely by people who do not have family support and do not have friends to call on. That is why it is important that governments continue to play a role in this issue.
The World Health Organisation defines elder abuse as:
a violation of Human Rights and a significant cause of injury, illness, lost productivity, isolation and despair.
That is why, since the mean spirited budget was handed down in May, the recent debate about carers is of such concern. Those who are carers in our community should receive the gratitude and support, not just of those they are caring for, but also of the community as a whole. That is because they are looking after their loved ones and they are treating them with the respect they deserve. In addition to that, of course, they are also saving the government money through that care, which reduces the pressures on our formal aged-care facilities. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our carers. I conclude by congratulating the member for Makin on this important initiative and say that World Elder Abuse Awareness Day is a day for all of us to re-affirm the respect that we have for older Australians.
I commend the member for Makin on this motion and appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of it. Elder abuse is a growing and insidious problem within our society and, sadly, around the world. Studies indicate that around five per cent of the elderly are victims of this sort of abuse, though the Australian Institute of Criminology states: 'there are likely to be high levels of under-reporting' of elder abuse. It is defined by the World Health Organisation as:
… a single or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an older person.
So we are not talking about random acts of violence by strangers perpetuated against the elderly, although that in itself is quite shocking. Far worse is the elder abuse we are discussing today, which takes place within a relationship where there is an expectation of trust—and that, sadly, is most common within a family relationship.
A Western Australian study on elder abuse conducted in 2002 found that the most commonly reported abusers were daughters, 22 per cent; sons, 21 per cent; spouses or de factos, 18 per cent; other relatives, 17per cent; and daughters- or sons-in-law, five per cent. It is distressing to think that anyone in a position of trust would abuse that position, but to imagine a loved one, a family member, actually taking advantage of someone in that way is truly appalling. It speaks volumes about the need for us as a society to espouse values such as compassion, caring and responsibility, particularly within the context of our families. We need to ensure that our children do not just learn independence, confidence and self-worth, but also the value of community, accountability and self-sacrifice. That is why it is so very important that we raise awareness of this issue: so that we can send a very clear message that elder abuse is not acceptable and will not be tolerated—just as we say no to domestic abuse on White Ribbon Day.
As this motion points out, elder abuse may be physical, sexual, psychological or financial, or may involve neglect. I want to take some time today to discuss the issue of financial abuse, because it is perhaps what some in the community still regard as a grey area. Bruises or ill health are more easily identified than the systematic appropriation of someone's assets. Financial exploitation includes fraud, forgery, forced property transfers and the improper use of legal guardianship arrangements or powers of attorney. The wrongful use of elderly people's assets ranges from a failure to hand over change from a shopping trip to the sale of a relative's home. Some instances involve inadvertent or poor management of funds; some come down to ethical dilemmas of unpaid care; and then there is the pressure of an increasing sense of entitlement from impatient younger relatives—particularly as people live longer lives.
A former Adult Guardian of Queensland, Paula Scully, was quoted in a 2006 research paper as saying that financial abuse was biggest problem confronting the Queensland Office of the Adult Guardian, which was established to help combat the abuse of adults with impaired capacity. She articulated the attitude she had witnessed:
Some people seem to think that it is perfectly all right to shift an elderly relative into a home and then just take over their assets on the basis that 'granny doesn't need this anymore and we are going to inherit anyhow', and I'm sure that at least some don't see this as any form of abuse at all. Well, it is.
Yes, it most definitely is. The extent of this problem is difficult to pinpoint, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence. During one three-year period, callers to the Elder Abuse Prevention Unit Queensland helpline claimed to have lost a total of $8.2 million. This motion calls for all state and territory governments to support initiatives that help prevent abuse. I am pleased that in Queensland the Elder Abuse Prevention Unit was established in 1997 and is funded by the Queensland government and auspiced by UnitingCare Community. They run the Elder Abuse Helpline; the number for Queensland residents is 1300 651 192.
I represent a large proportion of seniors within my electorate of McPherson. These are people who have contributed and continue to contribute to the community in so many positive ways. They deserve our respect, our attention, and our protection when appropriate. The idea of any elderly person being abused is indeed abhorrent.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House congratulates the Government for its continuation of Defence reform, specifically in respect of strategic force modernisation, enhanced national security, and regional stability, including:
(1) the acquisition of:
(a) an additional 58 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; and
(b) the eight P-8 Maritime Surveillance aircraft and commitment to the Triton Unmanned Aerial Vehicle; and
(2) a commitment to:
(a) enhancing Australia's overall Defence capability, close cooperation, and interoperability with regional partners; and
(b) provide certainty for Defence planning, capability and doctrine development.
I have great pleasure in bringing before the House this motion to highlight the government's defence reform agenda, which responds to evolving strategic circumstances in our region and beyond.
Our agenda spans three diverse areas, including a comprehensive first-principles review of all aspects of the department and in particular the Defence Materiel Organisation, a commitment to return the Defence budget to two per cent of gross domestic product within 10 years and the development of a new defence white paper—a document that will articulate a clear Australian national security strategy, including the all-important funding and planning dimensions. In turn, this will give defence industry in particular the certainty it requires.
Regrettably, far-sighted commitment to reform of this type has not always been the hallmark of federal policy. Too often, defence has been seen as a convenient means of achieving short-term savings, at the overall cost and risk of long-term defence preparedness. Labor's embrace of the defence of Australia doctrine during the 1980s and 1990s is a case in point. Under it, Australia's strategic outlook and commitment apparently stopped at the sea-air gap. Yet much of my 31-year career in the Defence Force was spent working in areas and thinking about military challenges well beyond the sea-air gap. The defence of Australia policy had the effect of landlocking our Army inside continental Australia—replete with the inherent withering of land force capability. This situation set back Australian strategic interests and influence a decade or more. I know it because I professionally lived through it. Not until after East Timor did Defence make sizeable steps to recover from this short-sighted introspection.
Perhaps just as bad, this period represents a graveyard of lost opportunities to prepare well and realistically for the future; even if only to use elements of our professional military to engage constructively and practically—as is their proven strength—within our immediate region. Labor's 2009 white paper falsely promised an economic grand bargain with Defence. The bargain went something like this: Defence had to find some $20 billion of savings in a 10-year period. The Labor government promised real growth of three per cent in the Defence budget to 2017-18, 2.2 per cent from 2017-18 to 2030 and a bit of a deal with indexation. The combined effect of those two inputs would fund the capability requirements for Force 2030. I notice the member for Hunter is in the chamber. His media release of 12 May 2009 also promised $43 billion of much-needed new initiatives from 2009 to 2019.
You were a key adviser; I always appreciated your efforts in that regard!
And I cheered on the efforts of the member for Hunter in that regard. But despite the heroic efforts of the member for Hunter, there was no grand bargain. The department, sadly, was used as an ATM whenever Senator Wong or the member for Lilley had a fiscal itch to scratch. From 2009-10 to 2016-17, instead of all these new initiatives, $16 billion was cut or deferred from the defence budget—$9.2 billion of that from the Defence Capability Plan. Defence now faces a deficit of $12 billion on current plans over the next decade, with an additional $18 billion required just to achieve the aspirations of Force 2030—119 key projects were left delayed, 43 were severely degraded and eight were cancelled. The sad truth is, Labor did not approve a complete 10-year defence DCP after 2009 because they did not want the Australian people to know they were using the defence department as an ATM.
In 2012-13 the lowest share of GDP was allocated to defence since 1938—at 1.56 per cent, the largest cut since the Korean conflict. Little wonder that the Australian Strategic Policy Institute referred to the defence budget as an 'unsustainable mess'. Little wonder that US President Obama publicly commended the Prime Minister's leadership on the defence budget just last week in Washington for restoring some much-needed common sense in this important public policy area.
Our budget last month is not only about getting the Australian economy back on track but getting defence back on track. The coalition is determined that the stop-start-stop cycle, which has so adversely affected defence planning and procurement in the past, will not resurface on our watch. This is why this motion focuses, in part, on returning and maintaining expenditure on defence consistently at two per cent of GDP. Yes, a professional military capability is expensive, but for good reason—our national future is the stake at risk. If we want quality, and we do, we must pay for it—and we will.
The best national security policy is surely one which is based on vigilance, flexibility and agility. Refreshingly, today's motion recognises, too, the unseeable nature of defence threats in both our region and the world at large. No strategic expert can divine or foresee the future absolutely. The very best that can be offered is to be consistently least wrong—or at least less wrong than one's adversaries. This observation reinforces the triumvirate of vigilance, flexibility and agility.
During the 1980s and 1990s, Labor's national security policy assumed Australia to be, more or less, immune from what transpired in the wider world, even at a time when the Berlin Wall was being torn down. All of us, I think, have grown up since then; the scales have fallen from the eyes of even the most myopic. Australia is not isolated from distant events; we cannot rely unduly on others to defend us. We must be prepared to continue, if necessary, to do more 'heavy lifting' where security is concerned, if, when, and wherever it is in our interests to do so. This motion is redolent with those sentiments.
In more recent times, Australian service men and women have risked their lives to support stabilisation operations in East Timor and the Solomon Islands, have fought two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue to undertake the hazardous constabulary operation against illegal people smuggling at sea and have supported multiple humanitarian missions, including those in Rwanda, Indonesia, PNG, Pakistan and the Philippines. From an Australian national security perspective this diversity has proven three things. First, international conflict and emergency can hail from anywhere, often very quickly, and without clear warning. Second, Australia, and Australians, have the resources, expertise and confidence to make very significant contributions not only regionally but globally. And, third, constructive engagement with other nations has itself the potential to contribute to future peace and stability. But none of these things is a guarantee or replacement for careful and cogent national defence planning and preparation. In the words of the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, 'Only the dead have seen the end of war.' For this reason, the coalition's defence reform agenda has focused deliberately and specifically on a first-principles review, a strategic white paper and the financial surety of a return to two per cent GDP within a decade.
My request to the member for Batman, the member for Hunter and their colleagues is: let's have a bipartisan approach on defence. As history has shown, the ALP in opposition always shifts to the left on defence and foreign policy. That has perhaps never been as evident in the Labor Party as it is now, with the member for Sydney and Senator Conroy leading Labor's national security team. But rather than make superficial political points, as the member for Sydney and Senator Conroy repeatedly do, why don't we agree on this vital area of national policy? Let's work together to strengthen practical cooperation and interoperability with our US alliance partners. Let's encourage the quicker conclusion of negotiations between ourselves and the United States on a legally-binding agreement to govern force posture initiatives. Instead of pandering to the left wing of the Labor Party and the Greens, let's build closer cooperation with regional partners, including Indonesia and Japan.
I call on the member for Batman, the member for Hunter and the many other sensible people in the opposition, like Senator Faulkner, the members for Holt and Bruce and others, not to let the Labor Party weaken on the defence budget and the US alliance. Let us take forward initiatives that reflect our national interests, that reflect this parliament's faith in, and determined commitment to, the men and women of the ADF—as well as to the hardworking public servants in the department, who make an invaluable contribution in so many policy and enabling areas. This House, I am sure, joins me in recognising the quality of their individual and collective contribution and sacrifice for Australian national security. I commend both their efforts and this motion to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Bass. I noticed that in his remarks he finished with a sober and reasonable plea for bipartisanship. But, sadly, that reasonable plea was not reflected in the first eight minutes of his remarks. I think the member for Bass and, indeed, the House, would do well when contemplating the important subject of defence and national security to make sure that we do so on the foundation of a decent and proper assessment of our recent history in defence policy rather than what was, I am afraid, a very partisan and one-eyed accounting by the member for Bass.
Let us remember that in May 2013 the former Labor government delivered the 2013 defence white paper, which outlined Labor's plan to build a strong Australian Defence Force capable of meeting this country's national security challenges. It was a plan that included major new capability commitments which we judged were crucial to Australia's defence and security need and maintained the ADF and its world-class defence capabilities.
In the 2013-14 budget the former Labor government provided defence with a record $114 billion across the forward estimates and funding guidance of over $220 billion over the subsequent six years from 2017-18 through to 2022-23. This side of the House is committed to increasing defence funding towards a target of two per cent of GDP. It was the Labor government that made a commitment to build defence spending towards two per cent, and it was the then opposition that followed with its own commitment to do the very same. The former Labor government had a comprehensive equipment modernisation program. From the release of the defence white paper 2009 until the 2013 election the Labor government had granted some 141 approvals, with a total value of some $21.1 billion. It was a time when Defence took delivery of a number of major new capabilities and systems, including C17 heavy-lift aircraft, the Super Hornet combat aircraft, Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles and, perhaps most spectacularly, our two large amphibious and sea-lift vessels, the landing helicopter docks. So, at the November 2013 Senate estimates hearing, we witnessed senior defence personnel confirming that defence capabilities had been significantly enhanced under the former government. Indeed, at a dinner hosted by ASPI and Boeing, the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, described Army today as being in the 'best shape ever'.
For six of the eleven budgets that the coalition handed down from 1996 to 2007, defence spending had fallen to the lowest level since 1938 as a percentage of GDP. The honourable member for Bass spoke about this being a period of a graveyard of lost opportunities and denounced the defence of Australia doctrine that then prevailed. But let me remind him that this was a doctrine that prevailed right through to 1999, and a succession of coalition defence ministers presided over the very shambles that he articulated. So you cannot criticise that doctrine nor defence spending in the 1990s without also having the Howard government share the blame for the sorry condition that the ADF found itself in when called upon to meet the challenges of operations in Timor Leste in 1999.
The coalition and, indeed, the Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon. David Johnston, have on numerous occasions described defence as an 'unsustainable mess'. While they determinedly denigrate Labor and the defence department, it is worth remembering that, at the 2013 election, the coalition promised to spend $113 billion over the forward estimates and Labor had promised to spend $114 billion. At the 2013 election, the coalition promised to increase spending to two per cent of GDP within the decade, but that followed a Labor commitment to increase defence spending to two per cent of GDP when financially responsible to do so. The coalition government today, and in recent days, is promising the same dollars, the same time frames and the same—or fewer—procurement plans as the former Labor government. This is a government that seeks to make a virtue of the fact that it is doing, in defence, precisely as Labor did. It is not a boon, in the terms described by the member for Bass, for Defence to have its budget remain largely unchanged by this government. This coalition government has made no progress on Defence or defence policies since the election. The delay of a new white paper and defence capability plan until at least April 2015 ensures that scenarios such as the so-called 'valley of death'—in relation to our shipbuilding industry; something that Labor had effectively solved—will now come to fruition. The government plans to spend half of its term writing a new white paper and conducting a first-principles review. The member for Bass was obviously put in the very awkward position this morning of being able to boast of nothing more than reviews and good intentions. There were no deeds for him to boast about.
Let us remember that this is a motion that talks about strategic force modernisation, enhanced national security and regional stability. The Defence White Paper 2009 was a watershed for defence and for the ADF. It was there and then that the government articulated that this nation would adopt a maritime strategy. From that flowed the capability requirements and plans for force modernisation with which those opposite struggle to comprehend and wrestle with. In recent years, the defence debate in Australia has all too often failed to comprehend the important implications of this country's maritime strategy, because it is that strategy that shapes the kind of forces we require and the operational concepts, the doctrine and the training that the ADF must undertake. In support of that strategy, there is an important area of military diplomacy.
The member for Bass called upon us to adopt a bipartisan approach with respect to the US alliance, Indonesia and the virtue of interoperability. One would think that he has discovered these virtues for the very first time. Let me reassure him that these are policy objectives long comprehended and long dealt with by Labor. Let us remember that, under Labor, the US alliance was strengthened. Under Labor, we saw cooperation with US marines in Darwin and strengthened alliance arrangements in terms of the operations of the US Air Force and the continuing assurance of interoperability through joint exercises such as RIMPAC and Talisman Saber. We continued to see the ADF involved in key defence cooperation programs with partners such as Indonesia and the nations of ASEAN, and we found that, under Labor, defence cooperation programs with other partners, such as Papua New Guinea, increased by 100 per cent and were put on a pathway to increase by some 500 per cent. That was a sphere of endeavour that Labor well understood. It well understood that based on the foundations in the 1980s of the Pacific Patrol Boat Program and our deep engagement with Pacific Island countries throughout our region.
The defence white paper 2013 set out the essentials of Australia's maritime strategy. At chapter 3.42, it states:
Controlling the sea and air approaches to our continent is the key to defending Australia, in order to deny them to an adversary and provide maximum freedom of action for our forces. This strategy is focused on the maritime domain, and aims to:
This is what the ADF is for, and those are the tasks it must accomplish. After establishing that strategic guidance, what flowed was a procurement program and a capability assessment which led to the dramatic changes we have seen and are continuing to see in the ADF's force structure, doctrine and capabilities, and in programs such as Future Submarine and Land 400. Land 400 is the project to replace armoured vehicles in Army and, as the member for Bass would well know, is a project absolutely critical to ensuring that our Army remains able to be a digital force able to operate in a high-threat, high-intensity environment. It is a project that is now under threat by this government; but under our government, it was a project that was a key flagship priority, a $10 billion plus program.
We saw the Royal Australian Navy taking on board a suite of new naval capability. We saw plans for the upgraded Anzac class frigates that now have a world-class anti-ship missile defence system. We saw Navy combat helicopters equipped with dipping sonar and air-launched torpedoes. In a whole range of areas we saw Army transform under Plan Beersheba and we saw Air Force take control of new aircraft with the Super Hornet. We saw Air 7000 defined by the Labor government to include P8 Poseidons and high-altitude, long-endurance UAVs. So there were a whole range of important achievements by the former government of which the member for Bass needs to take cognisance when he next seeks to come into this place and make a plea for bipartisanship. (Time expired)
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
by leave—on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I wish to make a statement on the appointment of the Independent Auditor of the Australian National Audit Office. The Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required under the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 to endorse the proposed appointment of any person to the office of Independent Auditor before that appointment can be recommended to the Governor-General. The committee is also obliged to report its decision to parliament. The Independent Auditor is a person appointed from the private sector on a part-time basis to serve as an external auditor to the Audit Office. I take this opportunity to advise the House that on 29 May the committee unanimously approved the appointment of Mr Peter van Dongen, the current national assurance managing partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report, entitled Report 443: Review of Auditor-General's Reports Nos. 23 and 25 (2012-13) and 32 (2012-13) to 9 (2013-14).
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—This report details the findings of the committee's examination of the following three Australian National Audit Office reports:
The cross-cutting theme of the committee's review of these three reports is the extent to which audited agencies have institutionalised agreed reforms arising from internal and external audit and reviews.
Audit report No. 53 assessed the effectiveness of agencies' arrangements for monitoring and implementing ANAO performance audit recommendations. The audit included an assessment of the ability of agencies to respond to recommendations from ANAO reports that have general application to the Commonwealth public service.
The agencies selected for audit were:
Audit report No. 53 provides tangible examples of good practice.
Indeed, the committee commends DEEWR for the professionalism and diligence it has shown in establishing and maintaining a better practice model. The DEEWR system exhibits the features of a better practice model and all Commonwealth agencies are encouraged to review their own systems in light of both DEEWR's example and the ANAO's findings.
With the two reports examining the Department of Defence's activities, the outcomes were somewhat different and the committee has made a number of specific recommendations. In Audit report No. 25, the committee recommended that:
The committee is very concerned that Audit report No. 6 found significant delays in keeping government advised on the progress and/or difficulties in projects. This is unacceptable and not consistent with good public administration. The committee made recommendations to the Department of Defence to:
The reform of capability development has been a concern for successive governments, and, in the committee's view, the ANAO audit has provided a valuable contribution to the reform process. The committee supports the selective use of follow-up audits and the value of the audit in this context which took a wider and deeper view of the extent to which reform had been achieved.
I would like to sincerely thank the committee members and agency representatives who appeared at public hearings for their cooperative approach to the committee's important task of scrutinising the spending of public money.
I commend the report to the House.
Does the member for Boothby wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, I present the committee's interim report of the inquiry into the development of Northern Australia.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—The committee has been tasked by the parliament to consider policies for developing parts of Australia that lie north of the Tropic of Capricorn, spanning Queensland, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory. The Alice Springs region, which is just below the Tropic of Capricorn, has also been included within the scope of the inquiry, because of the interest expressed from Central Australia in participating in the inquiry. More specifically the committee is tasked with examining the potential of, and the impediments to, economic growth, the role of regulation in stimulating investment, and social factors affecting this growth in the North. The inquiry will also identify the critical economic and social infrastructure that is needed to support long-term growth and investment in the region. The committee's inquiry is running in tandem with the government's commitment to produce a white paper on Northern Australia, within 12 months of the 2013 federal election.
This inquiry has generated a high level of community interest and created high expectations about the work of the committee. To date, the committee has received 287 submissions and 49 exhibits. The committee has undertaken an extensive program of travel, with more than 20 hearings and inspections, covering a large range of locations across Northern Australia. Mid-way through its hearing program, the committee's visit to the Upper Flinders District, Gulf Country and Weipa, originally scheduled for mid-April, was postponed due to severe weather conditions resulting from Cyclone Ita. The visit has been rescheduled for early July. The committee will also be holding additional hearings in Darwin and Brisbane, due to the high number of submissions received and interest in the inquiry from those areas.
The combination of these factors has meant that the committee will now be presenting its report to the parliament in the first week of September. So far, the committee has identified significant opportunities for the development of Northern Australia which include: the expansion of the resources sector, with a number of areas awaiting exploration or development; more intensive agriculture, expanded opportunities for horticulture, aquaculture, and more integrated production and processing of livestock; the growth of tourism, both domestic and international; increased education with provision of opportunities for international students; research on health and energy and food production in the tropics; the potential for a more northerly focus of Australia's defence forces, building on current assets in North Queensland and the Northern Territory; and significant opportunities to maximise development, by working with the traditional owners of the land and sea.
Major impediments to economic and social development identified include: the absence of economic infrastructure, particularly water, power and transport infrastructure, which in turn impacts upon opportunities for economic development and liveability; the cost of power and water, which impacts on the cost of doing business and living standards in a range of sectors; access to telecommunications; land tenure arrangements, which can affect security of investment and options for development; lengthy approvals processes, which can add to the time and cost of developments and impede outcomes; inconsistency of processes and requirements between jurisdictions across the region; high development costs, largely as a result of remoteness and the need to import most production elements; availability and affordability of insurance; the need to mitigate against weather risks; and the high cost of service delivery to small and dispersed populations.
Notwithstanding these impediments, the committee believes there is a way to sustainably develop the North. In the latter half of its inquiry, the committee will identify key development projects, strategies, and ways by which governments can stimulate economic development and remove impediments to growth.
In conclusion, I would like to thank all those who have provided submissions to the review so far, provided evidence at public hearings, and assisted the committee during its extensive inspection program. Finally, I thank my colleagues on the joint select committee for their support and the outstanding work they have been doing. I commend the report to the House.
Does the member for Leichhardt wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak in opposition to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. We oppose the bill because it does nothing either for environmental protection or for biodiversity conservation, a theme that people have come now to expect from this government—doing nothing for environmental protection or biodiversity conservation.
Over the weekend, or very late last week, the Prime Minister, during his whirlwind tour on climate change politics in Europe and North America, described himself as a conservationist. This was a tour on which I hope the Prime Minister received a reality check about where his policy stands, where it sits in the context of a very fast-moving set of international developments on climate change policy. While in Canada, the Prime Minister tried to verbal, frankly, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, countries with very highly developed carbon trading policies, as members of some new 'coalition of the unwilling' led by the Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister to seek to stymie international efforts to develop a strong, ambitious agreement around climate change at next year's Paris agreement. The New Zealand Prime Minister was very clear that he had not been consulted by the Australian Prime Minister on this so-called coalition of the unwilling. He was caught completely unawares, apparently, by the Prime Minister's statement in Canada. And the United Kingdom's response was to reiterate its strong commitment to taking strong and sensible action on climate change both domestically and as part of a growing coalition for change in the lead-in to the Paris negotiations next year.
But the Australian people judge prime ministers and all of us in this House on their actions, not on their words. No matter how many times the Prime Minister might describe himself as a conservationist, anyone who pays even cursory attention to this government's policies and this Prime Minister's actions knows that the contrary is true. Indeed, the Independent newspaper in the United Kingdom got it much more closely right than did the Prime Minister in his self-description. That newspaper, on 4 February this year, posed the question that has been on so many Australians' lips when it asked:
Is Tony Abbott's Australian administration the most hostile to his nation's environment in history?
That is a question that is on so many lips in Australia, particularly the lips of those Australians who hold our natural environment so dear.
This is not something of which the Prime Minister seems particularly ashamed—this growing reputation, not only domestically but internationally, that his administration, his government, is the most hostile to Australia's extraordinary natural environment in Australian history. The only words this Prime Minister can conjure for his environment minister is to quote the number of mining developments the minister has approved. Now, that is indeed a role of the environment minister under the existing legislation, and Australia is a jurisdiction that is resources based. But the environment minister must be more than an assistant minister for resources. The environment minister must be more than a minister who simply ticks off on mining developments. Surely this many months into the environment minister's tenure the Prime Minister could think of something that this government has done that actually involved protecting the environment, that actually involved conserving Australia's extraordinary biodiversity. But there is not a single achievement.
The only record this government has is a long, long record of winding back environmental protections. I am just going to mention a few to give some shape to the debate on this legislation. Notwithstanding a very clear commitment before the election from the environment minister and I think also now the Minister for Agriculture, that Landcare funding and Caring for our Country funding would be maintained in full by an incoming coalition government, we found through the budget that Landcare funding had been slashed by one-third. That is around $500 million lost by natural resource management bodies and Landcare organisations who for years have been doing extraordinary, expert work revegetating, cleaning up our waterways and dealing with the damage that has been done to Australia's environment over past decades and centuries. It is yet another broken promise from a government that has broken so many promises.
Very early on in its tenure, the new government came into this place to delist with no notice, as I recall, the Murray-below-Darling area, an area that had been listed as a threatened ecological community following expert scientific advice from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. An application had been before the committee for some years and had been the subject of public consultation, particularly in the basin communities. The government came into this place with no notice and simply delisted it, on the back of a pretty baseless scare campaign stoked by the coalition in the Murray-Darling Basin communities.
This followed a decision of the new government to roll back the management plans of the world's largest system of marine reserves. It is proper that the largest system of marine reserves in the world be in Australia, an island nation with extraordinary ocean environmental assets, from the Great Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea to the Southern Ocean and the Indian Ocean on the west and the Pacific Ocean on the east. This was an extraordinary piece of work that was, again, done over a very extended period of time with stakeholders, with communities. But, again, it elicited nothing more than a baseless scare campaign from the coalition. Communities on the coast of Queensland, for example, were told that their recreational fishing activities would be interrupted by these reserves, notwithstanding that the reserves in Queensland are hundreds of kilometres off the coast. But for this government it was yet another great notch on the belt for environmental protection.
This government has also been very clear about its views on clean energy. We saw the Prime Minister in his stetson over the weekend in Houston, talking about the importance of affordable and reliable energy. No-one can disagree with the importance of affordable and reliable energy for households and for businesses in Australia or frankly anywhere else in the world. But you will never hear this Prime Minister use the words 'clean energy'. You will never hear this Prime Minister have a third pillar to Australia's energy policy that Australia's energy should be not only reliable and affordable for households and for businesses but also, as far as possible, clean. Instead, all we have seen from this government in its short tenure so far is attack after attack on Australia's clean energy sector. It is nothing short of a series of broken promises.
The Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment were not willing and did not have the courage to go to the Australian people before the election and say, 'We don't support clean energy. We don't support the development of renewable energy in Australia. We want to tear down the renewable energy target. We want to abolish Australia's renewable energy agency.' They were not courageous enough to say that before the election. What they did say, including in the election campaign, was that the renewable energy target—the large-scale generation target of 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020—was a completely bipartisan position, extending the bipartisan nature of renewable energy policy in this country to four elections.
For four elections the two major parties in Australia have had the same policy on the renewable energy target. And so it was in September 2013 when, during the election campaign, this minister's parliamentary secretary reiterated the coalition's support for the renewable energy target at a Clean Energy Council conference during the actual campaign. What we have seen since is the Prime Minister and other ministers crab-walk away from that commitment—yet another broken promise by this government that has broken so many promises.
This morning, we see in the newspaper that the backbench is no longer feeling at all constrained about its attacks on the clean energy policies of Australia; no longer feeling at all constrained about talking down this environment minister. They are quite happy to go on the record and contradict the environment minister and his statements on clean energy, to contradict a clearly stated election policy of the coalition made in September 2013.
In addition to that, we have seen over the last couple of days—just to start to round out the debacle around clean energy policy under this government, the solar roofs debacle. Yet again, someone, presumably a cabinet minister or someone in the finance part of the government—has leaked to the newspapers over the weekend against the environment minister, saying that he had no authority to go out and talk to the Australian community about their solar roofs policy. The so-called 'one million solar roofs policy' was going to cost $500 million. People had puzzled for months over where that money was coming from, after MYEFO, after the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. People wondered whether maybe ARENA, the Australian Rnewable Energy Agency, was going to have to stump up the half a billion dollars because the Minister for the Environment kept reiterating, time and time again, that the 'one million solar roof households policy' was still government policy.
Over the weekend we had someone apologising for doing the Minister for the Environment over in the ERC and in cabinet. They said, 'Well, the minister had no authority to go out and talk to the people about this,' that this was a 2010 election commitment that they were not bound to implement after the 2013 election. The problem is that that ignores the fact that this minister had talked incessantly about this policy between 2010 and 2013. Indeed, he had talked incessantly about it after the September 2013 election campaign. So instead of $600 million supporting Australian low-income households to get PV solar panels on their roofs; instead of supporting solar towns and solar schools, also to be able to put PV solar on their roofs; instead of that $600 million of commitments made time and time again by this minister, what do we get? We get $2 million; instead of $600 million we got $2 million.
Less than one per cent.
I cannot work it out. I think it is about 0.3 per cent. So we lost 99.97 per cent of the election commitment that he made, hand on heart. This so-called supporter of clean energy lost 9.97 per cent of his election commitment in the Expenditure Review Committee.
Just to round this out: the government, when in opposition, assured the Australian community that the Renewable Energy Agency was a bipartisan supported body. The important work that this agency does in supporting emerging renewable energy technology—solar thermal technology, wave technology and geothermal technology—the important work that ARENA has done, was supported by the coalition, as it was by the Labor Party. It was something where they put their hands on the hearts and said to the Australian people that it would not change if there were a change of government. This is yet another broken promise, because what did we find out? In MYEFO in December—the midyear economic and fiscal outlook—the Treasurer cut more than $400 million from ARENA's budget.
We puzzled: how were they going to deliver their solar roofs commitment? The clear answer to that was that they were not going to deliver the solar roofs commitment. But then in the budget, not only did they take money from ARENA they announced that the promise they had made to the Australian people about ARENA was going to be broken, and they were simply going to abolish the body altogether.
Not happy just with changing all these policies and breaking all these promises this government has also started to shut down community voices. We have seen them shut down strong, independent voices in the climate policy area. They have abolished the Climate Commission, which I am happy to say is able to continue its important work supported by Australians putting in money to the new Climate Council. We have seen this government attempt to abolish the Climate Change Authority, thus far unsuccessfully, because this government would not want strong, independent and objective advice from a group of experts on climate policy when it can make up its own in its ministerial offices.
Perhaps most egregiously, they have shut down community voices. They have completely stripped funding from the Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices. This is an organisation that does not provide legal support to the very big environmental NGOs. They can afford their own lawyers. The EDOs are there to provide pro bono legal advice and legal representation to small community groups to communities who have decided that they want to have a voice about a development in their area—near their houses, near their children's schools and near their workplaces. The EDOs have been there for 20 years, supported by the Keating government, supported for the whole duration of the Howard government and supported through the Rudd and Gillard governments. But this government cannot support them because they have a fundamental integral problem with there being strong independent voices in the debate other than their own.
Before I come to the specific impacts of this bill, I want to highlight how this government has sought to delist, to remove, 74,000 hectares from the Tasmanian World Heritage area. This is a prominent issue right now given that the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO is meeting over the course of this fortnight. This places Australia in refined company indeed. In the more than 40-year history of the World Heritage system, there have been only two such applications—one by Oman and one by Tanzania. This is an extraordinary application for this government to make. Happily, it got short shrift from the World Heritage Committee secretariat, which has provided a draft report to the committee that rejects the government's application outright.
It is an application built on a falsity. It is an application built on some notion that these 74,000 hectares are degraded and not worthy of World Heritage listing. I have been there—I have been to the Upper Florentine areas in particular—and they are pristine. They are typical of the extraordinary wilderness you see in Tasmania, particularly on the western side of the state. They were the subject of strong, independent, expert advice to this government and to the World Heritage Committee. While Senator Colbeck might have some happy snaps which he claims show otherwise, I know which side of the debate our party will fall on. We will defend the listing of those 74,000 hectares.
Against that background, this bill is the crowning glory for a government intent on winding back Commonwealth environmental protection. It effectively just hands it all over. They are seeking to make the biggest structural change to environmental protection in Australia for 30 years. In the Franklin dam case the High Court, after the decision of the Hawke government to protect the Gordon and Franklin areas, affirmed the Commonwealth's role in protecting matters of national environmental significance. The court affirmed that the national government, the Commonwealth government of Australia, had a role in protecting certain aspects of Australia's natural environment and its biodiversity. From that decision and what followed under that government, Australia's environment became a national and international issue. Under the legal framework that followed the Franklin dam case, we saw the listing of that part of Tasmania. Subsequently, that listing of Tasmania's wilderness area was expanded. In addition, we saw World Heritage listing of Kakadu in the Northern Territory, the Daintree Wet Tropics in Far North Queensland and other areas as well.
Following that, it must be stated, the current legislation was put in place by a Liberal minister—a South Australian, Robert Hill, a longstanding senator for the coalition and a one-time leader of the coalition in the Senate. He was a coalition senator who genuinely cared deeply about the environment. There are many things that you can argue about in the EPBC Act framework. There are many things that people who love Australia's natural environment would like to improve or change about this legislation. But it has a number of very good characteristics—and it was put in place by the Howard government. This bill, though, seeks to just throw over that legacy of the last 30 years. Whether it is the legacy of the Hawke and Keating governments, which achieved World Heritage listing for parts of Tasmania, for the Daintree, for Kakadu and for other areas, or whether it is the coalition's own legacy—the legacy of its own environment minister, Robert Hill, who put this framework in place—this government cares not a jot. This government cares not a jot and is willing to throw the whole thing overboard.
We thought that they were just going to hand over the Commonwealth's environmental protection powers under the act to the state and territory governments, but we find, having looked at the legislation, that they also intend to hand such powers over to local councils. I am a big supporter of the role of local government in Australia, as is everyone on this side of the House. But there are question marks over the capacity of some local councils—and, frankly, some state and territory governments—to handle the scale of application that comes before the Commonwealth under the EPBC Act.
The scope of this handover is extraordinary. What this government is doing is handing over responsibility for Australia's World Heritage areas—the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu, the Daintree, the Tasmanian wilderness area, Ningaloo and many others—to the state governments and to local councils. This could see local councils along the Queensland coast having legal responsibility for the protection of one of the seven natural wonders of the world. You could see World Heritage areas handed over. You could see nuclear matters handed over. You could see local councils having responsibility for considering applications for uranium mines or for other nuclear issues which are currently under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth government. You could see the handover of the water trigger for coal seam gas applications and large coalmine applications that might impact on Australia's water resources.
This government has not—not that I have seen at least—even tried to pretend that this bill will advance in any way the protection of Australia's natural environment. I have not heard one comment from the Minister for the Environment, the Prime Minister or anyone else saying that this is about improving the protection of Australia's natural environment. The only thing they say is that this is a response to lobbying from the business community. The business community is completely entitled to have a view about this, but there must within this debate—even on the side of the government—surely be some consideration of whether or not this is actually good for Australia's natural environment. Frankly, it is not.
The Labor Party is on the record from when we were in government under Prime Minister Gillard as having looked at these questions and been very concerned about the level of duplication in environmental approval processes at state and Commonwealth levels. That is quite clearly on the record. Our government had a very strong record under the Seamless National Economy reforms of removing duplication of regulation wherever possible—in the areas of health and safety, food regulation and so many others. I think it was 16 or 17 areas—the shadow Treasurer, who is here, will remember—but certainly 15 to 20 areas of very important regulation were streamlined under the Labor government, so our record is quite clear. But our view after working through a process—talking with state governments, the business community, the environmental NGOs and the Australian community more broadly—was that it was not appropriate to hand over approval powers to state and territory governments. Certainly that would have been our view if we were asked to hand them over to local councils.
We are still more than willing to look at ways in which state and territory governments, on the one hand, and the Commonwealth can look at removing duplication of assessment processes because, at the end of the day, it is the assessment process that takes the time and involves the expenditure of substantial sums of money by proponent companies seeking a development. It is the assessment, not the approval, that involves the time and money.
There are opportunities in a sensible discussion to look at ways in which you could have one environmental impact assessment process, one EIS, agreed with terms of reference that reflect the Commonwealth requirements and the state and territory requirements. There are circumstances in which you could agree to having one public consultation process instead of two. These are the things that take the time; these are the things that take the money from proponent companies. We are more than willing to continue to look at that. But at the end of the day we take as a matter of principle the view that matters of national environmental significance—which is the scope of matters covered by this legislation—must remain the province of a national government. That is not a party-political perspective. Whether it is a national coalition or national Labor government and whether they are state Labor or state Liberal governments, our view is the same: the Commonwealth should have responsibility for matters of national environmental significance, for a whole range of reasons that I have tried to outline.
I will refer to one more illustration of the problem involved in this legislation, and that is the question of downstream impacts. Some applications will involve impacts that cross state boundaries. There can be downstream impacts particularly sometimes dealing with water resources. The Great Artesian Basin, for example, is not conveniently located in one jurisdiction and the Murray-Darling Basin is not conveniently located in one state or one territory. Under existing legislation the minister must have regard to downstream impacts—something which a state minister simply cannot do. This is just one illustration of the impracticality, from an environmental protection and biodiversity conservation point of view, of this legislation.
I will finish by referring to the timing of the debate on this bill in this parliament. As I have indicated before, the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO is meeting this fortnight and dealing with two very important matters that concern Australia. The first is the status of the Great Barrier Reef as a World Heritage property. The other, which I referred to earlier, is whether or not the 74,000 hectares in the Tasmanian wilderness area should be kept on the register or delisted. Draft reports for both matters have been provided by the secretariat of the World Heritage Committee to committee members. We do not know what the final decision will be, obviously, as they are independent members of that committee, but the draft reports give some indication at least of the thinking of UNESCO.
In relation to the Great Barrier Reef, this is a very serious matter. I think we can all agree that the Great Barrier Reef not only is one of the seven natural wonders of the world but underpins literally billions of dollars of economic activity in the Queensland area and the work of 60,000 employees, largely in the tourism industry. This is an incredibly important matter for Australia from an environmental, social and economic perspective. The possibility that the reef would be put on the 'in danger' list would have very serious ramifications for Queensland's tourism industry, as much as it would reflect the very serious state of crisis that the reef finds itself in environmentally. The draft report provided by the secretariat to World Heritage Committee members refers expressly to this bill, to the idea that the Commonwealth's environmental protection powers would simply be handed over to the Queensland government. The secretariat's report provides that the draft recommendation to the committee considers:
… the transfer of decision-making powers from the Federal Level to the State Level … premature—
and should be postponed to allow further consideration. This is a draft report and the committee may well take a view that is different from that. But what is concerning is that I have not heard a jot about this from the environment minister. I have not heard a single response from the government about the interaction between this parliamentary debate and what is happening at an international level at the UNESCO meeting, particularly in light of the very clear recommendation from the World Heritage Committee. For all the reasons I have outlined, the opposition will not be supporting this legislation.
In speaking to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, may I say from the outset that this bill is part of the government's wider program of deregulation and red tape reduction. It seeks to amend the EPBC Act 1999 to allow states and territories to be accredited for approval decisions, where states and territories can demonstrate that they will maintain the high environmental standards required by the EPBC Act. Memoranda of understanding will be signed with states and territories establishing a single system for environmental approvals under the EPBC Act. No longer will a separate Commonwealth assessment and approval under the EPBC Act be required where an accredited state approval is in place.
This bill also introduces a range of technical amendments to ensure the process can operate effectively and efficiently, providing much-needed certainty to industry. Although this bill is specifically targeted at developments which are likely to have a significant impact on water resources, the broader principle of removing the two-tier approvals system applies. In effect, it will create a single point for environmental approvals. It is designed to remove the duplication of federal and state approvals processes, which currently involves multiple layers of bureaucracy, creating uncertainty and delays. Delays to large projects of economic significance are adversely impacting industry, diminishing Australia's international competitiveness and holding back economic growth.
In commercial terms, securing private sector investment in development projects is the sustainable way to create economic growth, rather than relying on government spending. It is typically the case that securing the necessary planning approvals for major development projects can take more than six years, at the very least, which represents more than two federal election cycles. By contrast, the approvals processes in many emerging nations in our region are considerably timelier, placing Australia at a competitive disadvantage in attracting private investment capital for major projects. In addition, there is the element of increased holding costs, planning consultants' costs and the opportunity cost of delays. Australia now faces increasing competition for investment capital from emerging economies in Asia, Africa and South America. Therefore, government must implement reforms to create a more efficient planning approvals system to enable Australian industry to maintain its strategic competitive advantage.
In the 15 years that the EPBC Act 1999 has been in operation, a number of multimillion dollar projects have been delayed, costing the Australian economy billions of dollars in lost opportunity. One such example is the Ocean Reef Marina development in my electorate of Moore, which has encountered several years of delays in negotiating the highly complex planning approvals process. Delays are costly in terms of the opportunity cost of forgone revenue and amenity, as well as holding costs. It is estimated that the project will generate $800 million of investment that includes a mix of residential, commercial and retail uses, as well as provision of moorings for 850 recreational boats. The local community is overwhelmingly supportive of the concept plan.
The marina proposal covers 91 hectares in total, with 57.8 hectares of land based development and 33.6 hectares of development off the coast or on reclaimed land. Unfortunately, the marina project is required to be assessed under a two-tier system of state and federal approvals processes, which has considerably delayed progress since 2004. The project was determined a controlled action under the EPBC Act on 13 July 2009 due to potential impacts on listed threatened species and communities and listed migratory species. While the project was a controlled action, it was not possible to determine the appropriate assessment approach under the EPBC Act until the Western Australian government had decided on its assessment approach under state legislation. Similarly, the complex and bureaucratic approvals process must deal with issues relating to the Marmion Marine Park, Bush Forever, and Carnaby's black cockatoo.
At the state level, in July 2013 the City of Joondalup submitted a Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission, together with technical information, including detailed studies on the environment, water quality, landscape, traffic and transport. The amendment is required to rezone the area from parks and recreation purpose to urban, to create additional waterways zones and to create new parks and recreation reserved lands.
In May 2014 the City of Joondalup referred the marine based components of the development to the Environmental Protection Authority for assessment under the state Environmental Protection Act 1986. The referral is in line with the Western Australian Planning Commission's referral of the land based components to the EPA as part of the initiation of a Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment to enable the development. The city's referral, under section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act, is based on detailed environmental studies. It is difficult to accurately predict time frames for this complex project; however, the concurrent review of both the environmental components and the MRS amendment will allow for consideration of the social, economic and environmental factors via a holistic planning and environmental assessment process.
The environmental and planning assessment processes are consistent with the memorandum of understanding that the City of Joondalup signed with the state government in 2012. The planning process is ongoing, and it would greatly streamline the Ocean Reef Marina project if the approvals process could be managed by the Western Australian state government with minimal federal involvement.
A second example of a major project within the Moore electorate affected by delays is the Neerabup Industrial Area. It is a 1,000-hectare site which represents the second largest industrial complex in the Perth metropolitan area, second only to the Kwinana Industrial Area. When fully developed the industrial area is expected to create 20,000 new direct jobs, which are forecast to add $7.9 billion to gross state product and generate a further 24,000 jobs off site, for a total economic impact of $13.3 billion. Although there has been some significant investment since 2008, including the $436 million Newgen gas-fired power station and the $110 million Wesbeam manufacturing plant, development in the industrial area has been delayed due to the same bureaucratic two-tiered environmental approvals process and the need to provide infrastructure such as road access, scheme water and telecommunications.
An application was lodged by the West Australian land authority, LandCorp, under the EPBC Act in June 2012. It was determined a controlled action on 10 July 2012 due to potential impacts on listed threatened species, namely the Carnaby's black cockatoo and the forest red-tailed black cockatoo. The clearing of 202 hectares of bushland is required to enable the construction. On 11 October 2012 the delegate of the minister determined that the proposed action would be assessed through preliminary documentation and requested further information, including how the proponent proposed to mitigate impacts prior to and during construction and proposed environmental offsets. The planning approvals process for the Neerabup Industrial Area is ongoing and progress has been very slow. The process has taken more than a decade, which has delayed economic development and impacted on the employment self-sufficiency of the wider region, which is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia.
In both cases there is significant merit for the environmental approvals processes to occur at a more decentralised level, with the state government being accredited to issue the necessary approvals, as distinct from the case being determined centrally. Local decisions are best made locally with the benefit of specific local knowledge. Similarly, there is merit in removing the two-tiered system of both federal and state involvement in the assessment and determination process. One level of government is sufficient.
This bill is part of the government's wider commitment to deregulation and red-tape reduction. Currently, the cost of compliance with government legislation and regulation continues to be a major impediment for business across Australia. If our domestic industry is to be competitive then the administrative burden of excessive bureaucracy must be lifted. Business leaders have raised concerns that their operations are being restricted by an increasingly complex multitiered regulatory system that is often so complex and technical that it is necessary to engage specialist consultants to achieve compliance. Those affected range from small businesses to large corporations engaged in multimillion-dollar projects. The cost of compliance, coupled with additional holding costs imposed by delays, has a detrimental effect on the financial viability of both business operations and key economic development projects.
The coalition government has introduced legislation in this parliament to repeal approximately 10,000 items of legislation and regulations equating to some 50,000 pages of text removed from the statute books. The repeals are wide-ranging across all ministerial portfolios, including the departments of the Attorney-General, civil aviation, defence, education, employment, environment, finance, and foreign affairs and trade. The estimated cost saving to the economy is in the order of $719 million per annum.
An efficient system of planning approvals is required to maintain the productivity and competitiveness of the Australian economy in the face of intensifying competition from emerging economies in our region. Industry needs more certainty and clarity when submitting planning applications for development approval. Competition for project finance within the market can be intense. In order to attract investment capital, it is desirable to reduce the element of risk. The government is committed to reforming the planning and environmental approvals system to make our economy more competitive.
The issue of affordability of land for housing and commercial purposes is very topical on the national agenda. The available supply of land zoned for development is directly impacted by the efficiency of the planning and environmental approvals process. Therefore, it must be a priority for government to reform the current system to make it more responsive in the interests of promoting greater land affordability for all Australians.
In summary, this bill is designed to replace the current two-tiered system of duplication of federal and state approvals processes, which currently adds multiple layers of bureaucracy, creating uncertainty and delay. It seeks to amend the EPBC Act to allow states and territories to be accredited for approvals decisions, where states and territories can demonstrate that they will maintain the high environmental standards required by the EPBC Act. In effect, it creates a one-stop shop for environmental approvals, which in turn promotes productivity, competitiveness and economic development. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. Most people in this country want our precious environment protected. People look at icons such as the forests in Tasmania, the Great Barrier Reef and our waterways and they want them protected, not only for future generations but also for the livelihoods of the many people who depend on them. People also know that the federal government, with strong federal protections, is very often the best place to protect the environment, because you do not need to look very far to see that state governments can be very quickly captured by developers, by mining interests or by logging interests, with the environment coming a poor second. For example, if we did not have the federal government able to step in and protect the environment, then the Franklin would have been dammed. You do not have to look much further than the New South Wales state government and what is going on at the moment in ICAC with the current and previous governments to understand at a state level just how closely interconnected ministers and decision makers are with the interests of those who would threaten the environment. It is for that reason that most people would support the idea of there being strong national protections for the and would support decisions about enforcing those protections being made at a national level. Unfortunately, what we have seen under the previous Labor government and under this government is an attack on that principle. Towards the end of the last government, as the shadow minister suggested, the possibility was floated that some of the decisions about protecting iconic places should be shifted to state governments. The Greens stood side by side with the community to fight that proposal off, but it is now coming back again on steroids from this government. This government is perhaps the most hostile government towards the environment, and this Prime Minister is the most hostile prime minister towards the environment, that this country has ever seen.
This bill would allow not just state governments but also, in some instances, even local governments to determine the level of protection afforded to some of the most precious places in this country, including places that are World Heritage listed. This bill puts the fox in charge of the hen house. It gives away the administration of, for example, federal protection for water from significant impacts of coal or coal seam gas—the water trigger. It gives away that protection to state governments who, as we have seen, cannot make coal seam gas roll out quickly enough. It allows state processes to be accredited to take the place of federal approvals, but also allows those processes to be in guidelines, plans or policies—that is, not even enshrined in laws. So the protections now will not just be devolved from the federal to the state governments, but the state governments will not even have to put those protections in legislation. In short, this bill makes former Prime Minister John Howard's environmental legislation even weaker and takes away the Minister for the Environment's main job, which is supposedly to protect the environment—not that we have seen a lot of evidence of that.
This government has launched itself down the environmentally reckless path of handing responsibility for these places to state and territory governments. They have already embarked on it, even before this bill, by signing draft approval bilateral agreements with the New South Wales and Queensland governments to see these critical national responsibilities palmed off to Premiers Newman and O'Farrell—and they are well known for their staunch protection of the environment! They hope to have agreements finalised with all states and territories by September 2014. If this plan proceeds, the federal government could not protect World Heritage areas from big mines nor threatened species from being sent to extinction by state governments approving major developments in key habitats. It would mean that the federal government could not have stopped the Franklin River being dammed; nor could it have stopped oil rigs in the Great Barrier Reef. This so-called one-stop shop for business sells out our environment and overturns 30 years of gradually increasing and greatly needed Commonwealth involvement in environmental protection. If it proceeds, it will put Premier Denis Napthine in my home state of Victoria in sole control of whether to put cattle in the Alpine National Park; it will put Premier Campbell Newman in Queensland in sole control of the world heritage great Barrier Reef; and it will put Premier Mike Baird in New South Wales in sole control of whether to send koalas to extinction.
The draft bilateral agreements say there will be a reserve call-in power for the federal government to step back in, but this test is higher than the current protections the act gives and, with staff being slashed from the department—and from assessment in particular—the likelihood of call-ins is remote. The EPBC Act, the main legislation that is being amended, already only applies to the worst proposals which have the biggest impact on the environment and already affects only a sliver of projects, and this bill proposes to lessen it further.
As I have alluded to, this bill rolls back crucial federal water protections from coal and coal seam gas that were established in the last parliament, where the Greens worked together with rural Independents and the government to make sure that state and territory governments did not have the final say over the proposals which are potentially damaging to our water resources. This bill hands off that water trigger, which was designed to create federal protection for our water resources in response to legitimate and strong community concern, to state or territory governments to administer. But the federal government stepped in because the states had done such an atrocious job of letting coal seam gas run rampant. This now allows those very same state and territory governments to have the final say. As I have said, we are putting the fox in charge of the hen house, but we are now adding water to the long list of other nationally significant matters that the states will be in charge of—matters such as the World Heritage Tasmanian forests and the Great Barrier Reef and, crucially, nationally listed threatened species. In my home state of Victoria, we are on the verge of making our faunal emblem—the Leadbeater's Possum—extinct, because state governments of various stripes over many years have seen it as a greater priority to destroy forests in which these species live for short-term gain and for very little economic return—in fact it has to be subsidised—and in return we will wipe out our faunal emblem. The federal protections are the one last hope; we are going to see threatened species handed holus-bolus over to state governments. This will also apply to our Ramsar wetlands; we sign up to an international convention to protect our wetlands and then we allow not only state governments but also potentially even local governments to have the final say over them.
Crucially, nuclear actions are also covered by this legislation. I cannot believe that this government proposes that we should allow a local council to have the final say over whether protections enshrined in federal law relating to nuclear activity are going to be met! But when this government says the country is open for business, they mean it. You can have any kind of business, anywhere you like, and if there are any federal protections—just go and have a chat with the local council and you can sign yourself out of them. Deputy Speaker, these environmental protections that you see in our legislation—and people would think, 'well, good; we have got some protections there, protecting our World Heritage listed places'—will not be worth the paper they are written on—because all a developer has to do is go and sign up a local government or a state government, and they can contract out of those protections: everything from threatened species to nuclear actions.
In addition, we have seen the gutting of the national water project—on top of what is an environmental disaster of a budget. The water trigger question is crucial; there is a reason that so much time was spent in the last parliament debating it. People are, rightly, worried that we do not yet know what the impact of coal seam gas mining, or coalmining, or fracking, is on our water tables. But we are proceeding as if everything is going to be fine. What you are seeing, Deputy Speaker, is that right around the country, people—not just those in the inner city who might have voted for me but also people in rural areas who might otherwise have voted for another party—saying, 'Well, hang on: something is fundamentally wrong if we are allowing coal seam gas mining and fracking right next to, or in, our water tables, and we don't know the effect of it'. In the last parliament, we spent a lot of time working out how to deal with that, and we put in place the water trigger that I have referred to. That gives a minimum of protection to those communities, and to everyone who relies on our water tables and on our aquifers. It gives a minimum of protection before coal seam gas mining and coalmining can take place. The Greens would like to see it go a lot further; but we do not want to see it go backwards—and the community does not want the protections to go backwards. I think the community is increasingly horrified at the attacks that this government is perpetrating not just on people but also on the environment.
It is not just state and local governments; the bill allows the minister to accredit any agency to make a decision under this act. So decisions on impacts could be made by bodies which are wholly unqualified and under-resourced. It is very clear from this bill that the government does not care which agency makes the decision—state, local or any other. The government is washing their hands of their responsibility to protect internationally significant environmental icons.
These accredited processes can be enshrined in policy or in guidelines, rather than in legislation, which, potentially, makes them even unenforceable. If this bill passes and these processes are not even required to be in state laws, we can have absolutely no confidence that federal environmental standards will be maintained. It is no surprise when you think about who backs and who bankrolls the party sitting in government, but the government seemingly do not understand the concept of conflict of interest. They are ignoring 30 years of environmental reform, and the vast track records of states as environmental vandals—and all the while claiming that environmental standards will be maintained. Amazingly—because they do not understand the concept of conflict of interest—the government is proposing to hand off powers to approve development where the state government itself is the proponent. So, despite the statement by the minister, Greg Hunt, in an interview on 13 September 2013 on ABC Radio in which he reiterated that the government would keep powers where states were 'likely to have a significant conflict of interest', they have now gone back on that as well: another backflip from the Minister for the Environment, and from this government. The state government will say, 'we want to build this project'—and the state government will be in charge of determining whether that project does or does not meet the environmental protections in federal legislation. The state government will be able to write its own ticket to proceed. And there is nothing the federal government can do about it, because the state will be the only one determining whether or not that project is able to go ahead. Anyone who has watched what state governments do in their approach to development will shirk from this bill in horror.
We will not be supporting this bill. I am pleased it is going to be defeated, at least in this Senate, and I hope it will be defeated in the next Senate.
I rise to endorse the government's approach to creating one-stop shops for environmental approvals. I note that the member for Melbourne and the previous shadow minister seemed to miss the whole point of this bill; they could benefit from a close reading of it, because it was the Labor-Greens government who had already proposed that we go to one-stop shops and that we have bilateral agreements. If it was good enough for the previous government to come up with this idea and to work towards these goals, then it is certainly good enough for the government to follow through and ensure that the job gets done, that it gets done properly and that we reduce the duplication and unnecessary waste between layers of government in getting approvals.
Of course, if it was up to the member for Melbourne, there would not be any approvals. He would seek to stop all major economic activity, and that is the well stated and understood policy of the Australian Greens. The rest of us have to have a system where we have legislation that is strong in protecting the environment but allows for the proper conduct of economic activity and business. It is the case today that there is too much duplication between state and federal levels, in terms of environmental approvals, for no environmental benefit. The shadow minister in particular, who is a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment—of which I am the chair—would benefit from coming to our current hearing into green tape and one-stop shops. In fact we have a hearing on this Friday, which I would invite the shadow minister to attend, because when you hear from industry groups and other organisations—and we are still conducting our inquiry—it is good to hear the direct feedback and the experiences of people putting forward major economic activity at state and federal level and the duplication and the waste that they go through for what you have to say is very little environmental benefit at all.
In examining the provisions of this bill it is very significant that there will not be a weakening in environmental standards. The member for Melbourne seems to be very concerned about it and just says, ergo, any state government is an environmental vandal—just because he says so! Yet we know that that is not the case. State and territory regimes in relation to environmental protection have very strident protections—in some cases, too strident. In some cases they are appropriate and in many cases they are doing what the Commonwealth does as well. So it is not the case just to say that states will be bad for the environment and the Commonwealth will be good for the environment. It is not a logical argument and it does not make a lot of sense; it is quite a lot of hyperbole and hysteria from the member for Melbourne. In fact, by working very closely with the states and territories the Commonwealth can ensure that high standards under the EPBC Act are maintained.
When you look at the provisions of this bill, particularly if we have concerns about the water trigger, the government is moving an amendment here to make sure that the latest science and independent science is examined. The amendment that is being proposed by the minister—to have an independent scientific committee on coal seam gas and large coalmining development—is a good one. It ensures that comprehensive environmental assessments can continue and they include that robust and independent science. That should allay the fears of the member for Melbourne if he is being genuine in the claim that he actually wants to see good environmental legislation. Having an independent scientific committee will ensure that the latest science is delivered through to the states to make sure that the best protections are maintained.
It simply is not the case that local councils can approve nuclear facilities under these proposed amendments. It is absolute hysteria again from the member for Melbourne to make that suggestion. We have seen a lot of scare campaigns on nuclear science. The member for Melbourne lectures us regularly in this House about listening to science. Even though he knows nothing about science himself, he is a self-appointed scientific expert when it comes to climate change. But we are not allowed to look at nuclear science, of course, and the great benefits of nuclear science, because he does not agree with it. Simply because he does not agree with the science he wants to be a nuclear sceptic. But he will lecture us at other junctures about climate science at his own leisure. The injection into this debate about councils having the ability to approve nuclear facilities is completely unwelcome. It is completely untrue.
This bill is providing a series of technical amendments to facilitate the implementation of bilateral agreements and provide for the highest possible standards. It will give the certainty that proponents need about the practical operation of bilateral agreements. It removes the need for proponents to make referrals to the Commonwealth. But at the same time it can also then take into account changes in state jurisdictions' legislation and policy plans for the environment, recognising that they are regularly updated in accordance with the latest science, which is something member for Melbourne should welcome in relation to the flexibility that these technical amendments provide. That is, there will not need to be a stalling of the process between the Commonwealth and states when new science and environmental standards are incorporated by states. If they are consistent with the protections under the EPBC Act then that flexibility will allow for easier delivery of such standards and an improved policy and accreditation process through these technicalities rather than constant delay and uncertainty for business.
It is important to provide ongoing certainty to the community about the operation of these bilateral agreements. It is important that the minister in particular has gone out of his way to ensure that environmental protections are maintained under the EPBC Act and that the latest science is included in relation to decisions made under any bilateral agreements. The bill demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to implementing genuine reform. It is good that the previous government started this. If you listened to the shadow minister's speech you would have thought that this was some crazy notion of the Abbott government. Of course we know that the previous Labor-Greens government was also looking at this very closely, improving one-stop shops and bilateral agreements with states to deliver environmental decision making. That is welcome. Their role in opposition is not to oppose just for the sake of it every single thing that comes through this chamber, and the shadow minister really gave a speech that was along those lines.
This is a good bill. It makes good improvements, allowing for the Commonwealth to facilitate bilateral agreements with the states which will enable better cooperation between the Commonwealth and states, and deliver better outcomes for the environment and for business. So I implore the Labor Party and the Greens to stop simply opposing for the sake of opposing and recognise that they had looked at this work as well; that this is good for relations between the Commonwealth and the states; that this will be good for business and economic activity and also environmental standards, delivering more flexibility in relation to her standards between the states and the Commonwealth; and that, with the latest science being incorporated into many things like the water trigger, this will produce a better outcome.
The member for Melbourne also expressed his concerns about the water trigger, saying how much detailed work and what a long process he went through. Unfortunately for him, those of us who were here in the last parliament remember the process in relation to the water trigger amendment and the obscene haste with which the former government changed its position at one minute to midnight, after it had been against the water trigger. Let us be very clear: the former government knew the water trigger was not a good idea and they knew it would lead to duplicate processes for minimum environmental benefit. The last government was holding out against the Independents on this. There was a last-minute reversal where the water trigger was adopted at the very last second, even though the former government really did not want to accept the water trigger. Every one of us here in that parliament remembers that. I think the Australian community should remember that.
It is important to note that this bill provides significant protection with its assessment and accreditation processes and the important referral to the independent scientific panel so the latest science and the independent advice about coal seam gas and the water science that is available will be available for decision makers. You cannot do better than that. As the member for Melbourne regularly implores us, we should listen to the science. This bill will make the necessary amendments to ensure that these bilateral agreements can be delivered between the states and the Commonwealth, and I strongly recommend the bill to the House.
It is a pleasure to rise to oppose the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, which—as my colleague and namesake, the shadow minister has pointed out—has nothing to do with protecting the environment or conserving biodiversity. This bill does nothing for either of those things. It amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to facilitate the Australian government delegating environmental approval powers to state and local governments.
Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, coming from Queensland, as do you, I strongly oppose this move. I do not want Campbell Newman, Jeff Seeney or the Queensland Coordinator-General having the power to approve developments in the Great Barrier Reef. This bill, along with the bilateral agreements being developed, will mean that World Heritage sites, nuclear activity—such as uranium mining—and species protected under international treaties will be put in the hands of state governments, including the Newman government.
Labor oppose this bill, because we believe the national government is responsible for matters of national environmental significance. The Australian government has the responsibility for protecting Australia's precious environment, and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, in particular, accounts for matters of national environmental significance. The Abbott government, unfortunately, has no interest in protecting Australia's environment for the future. I was as surprised as anyone to hear the Prime Minister refer to himself as a conservationist, in recent days, given that the track record appears to point to the opposite conclusion. Since coming to government, Mr Abbott and Mr Hunt have made bad decision upon bad decision that have hurt our environment. This bill is the furthest they have gone in terms of putting our environment at risk of irreparable damage by leaving decisions of national environmental significance to state premiers and their ministers and, in the case of Queensland, to unelected persons as well.
The Newman government is an example of why state governments should not be trusted with managing our environment. Last week, the Queensland parliament considered rushed changes to the environmental approvals laws of the state which are complementary to the changes in this bill. The Newman government has attached the changes to a bill about a much less controversial topic. As my state colleague the member for Mackay said in that debate:
There is no need for the legislative changes to give the Queensland government power to issue federal environmental approvals—
to be attached to that much less controversial bill. He continues:
These changes could have been in a stand-alone bill and scrutinised in its own committee inquiry. The attachment of the legislative changes to give effect to the Abbott-Newman deal to hand federal environmental approvals to the state is sneaky and underhanded. The rush to effect these legislative changes is unnecessary.
That was what he had to say in respect of the complementary legislation in the Queensland parliament last week. During the same debate, my colleague the state member for South Brisbane said:
The EPBC Act is the most important piece of environmental legislation in Australia. The matters of national environmental significance that the EPBC Act protects are: matters of World Heritage, national heritage, wetlands of international importance … threatened species and communities … migratory species, protection of the environment from nuclear actions, the marine environment, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the protection of water resources from CSG and mining.
It is particularly important to note what the member for South Brisbane said in relation to the Newman government's record when it comes to the environment:
We are privileged to live alongside some of the greatest natural wonders in the world … Sadly, the Newman government has proved it cannot be trusted to protect our natural environment. The Newman government has systematically stripped away vital environmental protections, leaving our precious natural heritage at risk.
She then went over the following list:
They overturned Labor's 23-year ban on uranium mining in Queensland. They ended the moratorium on shale oil mining and refinement … They extended sandmining on North Stradbroke Island up to 2035 … They introduced legislation … to repeal wild rivers declarations. They scrapped a world-class coastal management policy. They encouraged interstate companies to dump waste in South-East Queensland landfills. They stripped away statutory protection for native vegetation … They have made it harder for community groups to appeal environmental approvals.
As my colleague said:
The fact that the Abbott government has looked at this record and still decided to hand over its powers to the Newman government is a shocking indictment of its own environmental credentials.
As you can see from what the member for South Brisbane had to say, there is cause for concern about handing over powers to the Newman government when it comes to the environment. She is not the only person who is worried about their record. The Friends of the Earth in Brisbane wrote to me with particular concerns about handing over powers with respect to uranium, but with concerns also more generally about the bill and the handover of powers. The Newman government's record on the environment has been slammed by its own Auditor-General, who, in a report tabled in April, has said that the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection:
… is exposing the state to liability and the environment to harm unnecessarily.
We cannot trust the Newman government, given its track record. That is particularly so when it comes to the Great Barrier Reef. It is one of the great wonders of our natural world. Like lots of Queenslanders, as a child I visited the reef on a number of occasions. I want others to be able to have the same experience. I fear that with the Newman government in charge people will not be able to have that same experience. I am not alone in my concern.
I congratulate WWF-Australia and the Australian Marine Conservation Society for their joint campaign Fight for the Reef. They and many of my constituents are greatly concerned about the way that developments are affecting the reef. The campaign is presently focused on the UNESCO World Heritage Committee's upcoming decision about the reef. The committee has commenced its meeting from 15 to 25 June, which is being held in Doha. It is considering a draft decision that explicitly warns Australia that the changes to be made by the bill that we are debating today are premature. It also states that the committee is concerned about dredging and dumping near the reef. The relevant provisions of the draft decision that the committee is considering are as follows:
The World Heritage Committee … Requests the State Party to ensure the full completion of the independent review of the institutional and management arrangements for the property, as recommended by the 2012 reactive monitoring mission, as a key input to the LTPSD—
Long Term Plan for Sustainable Development—
and considers that the transfer of decision-making power from Federal to State levels, before the vision, framework with desired outcomes and targets, and governance requirements to deliver the LTPSD have been adopted, is premature, and should be postponed to allow further consideration …
Those are not my words; they are those of the UNESCO World Heritage committee, and we ought to consider them. The committee also expressly recorded its concern about the government approval for dumping three million cubic metres of dredge material inside the property, which is very near the reef, prior to having undertaken a comprehensive assessment of alternative, potentially less impacting, development and disposal options.
The draft decision is crucial. The committee has put Australia on notice. We need to do better when it comes to the reef. Specifically, the committee has warned us that if there is not substantial progress on the key issues they have identified, they may include the reef on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Newman government claims that tourism is one of the pillars of the Queensland economy. If the reef is listed as World Heritage in Danger that will be a blow to tourism. Just today TheCairns Post published an article that said:
TOURISM leaders say the Far North's reputation as a top holiday destination—
(Time expired)
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Last week, we saw the most outlandish justification for the government's budget of broken promises yet. The latest justification for the government's swingeing cuts to health and education, their attack on the pension and the Americanisation of our higher education system is that they are necessary to restore fairness to Australian society. That is what the Treasurer recently told the Sydney Institute—that the budget of broken promises was necessary because we have too many 'leaners' and not enough 'lifters' and that:
This year the Australian government will spend on average over $6,000 on welfare for every man, woman and child in the country.
He then asked a question you do not often hear from Liberal treasurers:
Is this fair?
Given they are new to this whole 'fairness' caper, it is no surprise that the Treasurer missed the point.
When you actually look at where the Treasurer's $6,000 in welfare goes, the largest recipients by far are our veterans, our seniors and our carers. That is right: the Treasurer seems to think that those who have worked until retirement age, people who look after those with disability and people who have served our country in war are 'leaners' and that it is not fair for society to support them. These are people who have worked harder than most for our way of life and deserve better than the Treasurer's cheap contempt.
The facts just do not support this government's fairness fantasy. Contrary to the Treasurer's insulting 'leaner' rhetoric, the Melbourne institute research shows that welfare dependency has decreased over the last 12 years. The number of households primarily dependent on welfare payments has decreased by almost 30 per cent since 2001. No matter how the Abbott government try to sell it, the Australian people just are not buying their budget of broken promises. They did not vote for it and they do not want it.
Last week I had the pleasure of hosting four representatives from the Shoalhaven Paper Mill in my office to speak about the ongoing production of passport and secure document paper in Nowra, smack bang in the middle of my electorate of Gilmore. The secure document and passport paper manufacturing industry supports around 100 jobs locally in a region of chronic unemployment and business underinvestment. This is an important specialist industry. The world-class security paper and watermark paper that they produce is entirely unique to our local mill, and any moves to take this production overseas would, I believe, present unacceptable security risks to Australia.
In addition to lobbying this government to continue production in Nowra, I have also signed the Australian pulp and paper pledge, making the promise to use only Australian made and produced paper products in my electorate office wherever possible. This pledge is especially relevant as some copy paper production actually occurs in Nowra during periods of peak production. This mill also produces brightly coloured paper which is packed by disability employer Flagstaff into consumer packs.
In the Shoalhaven Paper Mill we have a great local industry and right now we need to support it in as many ways as possible. This is why it is only right that our community puts its support behind our local mill and we keep up the good fight for passport and secure document production to continue in Nowra. It is especially good at working with the community. It sponsors a number of community medals and works extremely hard for our community.
It is with enormous pleasure that I stand today as the current member for Lalor to congratulate one of our former representatives, the Hon. Barry Jones, on being awarded the Companion of the Order of Australia in 2014. Barry has received this honour for eminent service to the community as a leading intellectual in Australian public life.
Once an Australian quiz champion, Barry's political career started in the Victorian parliament as the member for Melbourne from 1972 to 1977. He served the people of Lalor in the Australian parliament from 1977 to 1998 and is best known for his contribution as science minister for the Hawke government from 1983 to 1990. Barry also presided over the growth of organisations such as CSIRO and the creation of the Australia prize for scientific research. Barry was a very well-respected, hardworking representative for Lalor. With the State Research Farm and aerospace facilities in our electorate, it was well suited to have the science minister as our representative.
In 1993, Barry was honoured as an Officer of the Order of Australia for his services to the promotion of science, the arts and film, writing and Australian politics. It is fitting that a person who has contributed so much to society has now been recognised as a Companion of the Order of Australia. On behalf of the people of Lalor, I congratulate Barry Jones.
The 2014 Telstra Queensland Business Award finalists were announced on 23 May, and it gives me great pleasure to share with the House that six of the finalists are located in the Brisbane electorate. One business has been nominated in the start-up category. That was Cornerstone Recruitment in the valley, which specialises in long-term health recruitment, growing from inception in a home spare room in 2012 to eight full-time staff.
Three businesses were selected for the small business award category. One was Carbon Media, another valley business. It launched in 2006 and is an Indigenous owned company that was commissioned by Sesame Street to produce a film for the show's 'letters and numbers' segment. One was Conexus Consulting. It is Brisbane based and provides safety and leadership solutions for large Australian and international organisations. And one was Elysium Hair and Beauty. It has been transformed from a struggling salon in 2008 to one regarded by its peers as the best in Queensland.
Two local businesses were selected in the medium business award category. One was Di Bella Coffee, which is located at Bowen Hills. It began in 2002 and now employs 70 people and produces 2.6 million cups of coffee every single week. The other was Reload Media, based in Milton. It began in 2008 and is now one of Australia's fastest growing digital marketing agencies. I want to congratulate these inspiring new businesses and wish them all the very best in the final deliberations in the days ahead.
In another example of the Abbott government's misunderstanding of its own budget, in question time on 2 June in response to a question about the trade support loans for apprentices Minister McFarlane said:
There is no doubt that the loans are interest free.
He then went on to say:
The loans … are indexed annually with CPI.
The department's website and the budget papers also make it clear that the loans will be indexed to the consumer price index.
Apprentices deserve to be told the truth about how much any loans they take out will rise by each year and how much the indexing will add to their debt. They should also be told the truth about how much the cost of their courses will increase by as a result of budget cuts to TAFE funding by the Abbott government. Cutting $5,500 of direct funding to apprentices and replacing it with more expensive TAFE fees, for which apprentices are then expected to take out a compounding interest debt, is another direct attack on the young people of Australia by a Prime Minister who has shown that he is out of touch with Australians and that he simply cannot be trusted.
I had the privilege recently of joining the Active Elders Association in Ascot Park in my electorate recently for an afternoon tea and service to celebrate their new facilities. The Active Elders Association began with the assistance of the Lions Club of Edwardstown, another of the active service clubs in my electorate. I have seen the hard work of Edwardstown Lions Club at a number of community centres, such as Glandore, for the Christmas carols evening, and the Camden Community Centre.
Since 1968, the Active Elders have been providing the community with a vital service for the needs of the over-50s. Active Elders is an award-winning group, and has won community event of the year awards, citizen of the year awards, and outstanding community service awards. The group was recently successful in winning a grant from Marion City Council—I know there are a number of councils here today for various meetings—and, combined with their own fundraising dollars, they have managed to extend their building and install a new kitchen. One of their many community activities is their collection and shredding of newspapers to raise funds. They are a very hard-working group.
Younger generations such as those from the nearby Ascot Park Primary School visit twice yearly for a serious indoor bowls challenge, which is one of the many great activities they have at their facilities. I would like to acknowledge President Ron Baker, Treasurer Jan Hedger and the committee members of Active Elders Association Ascot Park for their dedicated service to the people of Hindmarsh.
Those of us who are regularly in parliament house would know that the place simply could not function without the work of our cleaners. They are the first in in the morning and they are generally the last to leave in the afternoon. If you look at the pay rates of people who work in this place you will see the Prime Minister and the Treasurer near the top of the pay tree and the cleaners down the bottom. Against this, you have to ask yourself this: where is the morality of a government decision that slashes the wage rates of some of the lowest paid workers in this place by between $175 and $225 a week? What makes it worse is the sneaky way in which it was done. It was buried within over 500 pages of regulation repeals on the great big repeal day. It was not the subject of any press release, because the government did not have the guts to put their name to it.
When the workplace relations minister was asked why he was getting rid of Clean Start, he said, 'We will leave it to the industrial ombudsman.' Memo to the workplace relations minister: we did that. When the ombudsman last looked at the pay rates of cleaners he found that over 40 per cent of them were not even being paid the minimum award wage. You have to ask yourself what values drive this government, because if they include slashing the wages of the lowest-paid workers, it is simply not good enough.
I rise to speak about opportunities for young people in Dobell. I pay tribute to the hard work of Maggie MacFie and her team at YouthConnections.com.au for their commitment to opportunities for the youth of Dobell. YouthConnections.com.au's stated vision is:
Every young person can achieve a purposeful future.
I share this vision. That is why I am proud to be part of a government delivering funding for a number of new initiatives that provide more opportunities for young Australians to participate in education or employment. This government will be investing a record $64.5 billion in schools over the next four years. This government will also introduce new trade support loans from 1 July. These loans will encourage more young people to take up a trade and complete their qualification, will ease the financial burden and will help increase apprenticeship completion rates. This government is delivering new Work for the Dole arrangements, which will help young people improve their chances of getting a job while giving back to the community that supports them.
Members of the chaotic, divided and dysfunctional former government will sneak around in their electorates piously pointing the finger about changes to the Youth Connections program, but these same members refuse to acknowledge that it was their chaotic government that put organisations such as YouthConnections.com.au in this position. The previous Labor government did not provide any further funding or budget allocation for the program to continue beyond this year. I am committed to fighting for local youth and helping them to be able to participate in training and employment.
Today is International Cleaners Day. It is a day on which we acknowledge and remember the hard workers who are quite often forgotten. They are the hidden workforce. Today, on International Cleaners Day, this government needs to be reminded of these workers, the people who keep this building and other government buildings clean.
This government needs to be reminded of people like Chris Wagland and Carlos Pavez. This government has repealed the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines, which means that cleaners like Chris and Carlos face losing more than $172 a week, if the next contractor proceeds to drop their wages from the Clean Start principles down to the award. Chris works hard. She has worked in government buildings for the last 30 years. Carlos works hard. He has worked in government buildings for the last 35 years. They are the hardest workers but the lowest paid, yet this mean government wants to take away from them the little respect and dignity they won through the Clean Start campaign. On this day we call on the government to remember the cleaners. We call on it to reverse its decision and make sure that it restores the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines so that these hard-working people are paid a liveable wage, that they are paid, and respected, like all of us in this building should be. They are the hardest working but the lowest paid. It is time this government remembered them, particularly on International Cleaners Day.
Being from Queensland, Deputy Speaker Vasta, you would be well aware that we have a G20 summit in Brisbane later this year. As part of that we also have a Y20 summit. Five youth delegates will be representing Australia at the Y20 summit. Recently, I invited one of the five delegates, Jonathan Pavetto, to Page to talk to some of the student youth leaders in my electorate. Jonathan was happy enough to come along and we had a great turnout. We had over 80 student leaders from Page come to listen to Jonathan and, more importantly, for Jonathan to listen to them. We had representatives from as far north in my electorate as Woodenbong and as far south as South Grafton, which are hundreds of kilometres apart, and from as far east as Ballina and out west past Kyogle. There were students from Casino and Lismore as well.
Jonathan commented, to me and to the many students who turned up, on the students' engagement. They gave some great suggestions—their vision and their dreams of what they want the world to be as they mature into young adults. They were very engaged. Jonathan thanked them. He is going to take to the Y20 summit their views and their opinions of the world and what they want to see happen. To the student leaders and teachers who came, I say, 'Thank you for the time you took and for the great contribution you made that day.' Also, I thank Jonathan for coming along to hear the views of the youth of Page.
I welcome local government councillors to the parliament. Amongst them is Councillor Henry Meskauskas who was a lead advocate for two CCTV projects in the Maitland area. The former government fully funded those projects last year to a tune of more than $180,000. The projects went through a robust selection process and were fully funded in the budget. Unfortunately, the Abbott government on election withdrew the funding and reallocated those grants to other electorates.
The member for Paterson, opposite, says that Maitland City Council and, indeed, the member for Hunter, should have reapplied under the new program. There is a difficulty with that. I learned only late last week that only certain local government areas or electorates are eligible to apply for the funding. What are the criteria: crime in the local area—no; the ability of a council to fund the project—no. The criterion is: you must have been one of the coalition promises made during the election campaign.
So we have money ripped away from communities after a robust process and the recommendations of the Attorney-General's Department. Money has been ripped out and put into coalition electorates instead. The criterion is: you must be an electorate which comes under the heading, 'Friends of the Abbott Government'. These things should be based on need, not on political partisanship.
I would like to make a brief comment on the circumstances in Iraq at the moment. As we have seen, there has been rampaging through Iraq, a terrible force of evil, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, with jihadists—dangerous, evil people; brutal to the extreme—and mass executions. What we have seen has truly been a blight on humanity in the world.
When faced with such evil, we have to look to the Iraqi government and say that we wish them all the best and we have to look for opportunities whereby we can support them to try to turn back these people. It is a terrible situation. Everyone throughout the world should be concerned. The jihadist movements need to be stopped and need to be dealt with as quickly and as effectively as possible.
What also concerns me is that there are likely to be Australians who have signed up to be part of such an evil organisation, and I certainly commend the government on their attempts to stop people leaving this country by cancelling passports to stop their involvement. I would also say that where such people have dual citizenship, they are exactly the sort of people from whom we should remove Australian citizenship. We do not want them in this country in the future.
Debate is raging in Canberra after ACT Liberal Senator Zed Seselja released a thought bubble advocating a new greenfield development to the west of the Murrumbidgee River in Tuggeranong. Senator Seselja and I rarely see eye to eye, but we do agree on the need for something to be done to revitalise the Tuggeranong Town Centre. However, I do not believe developing West Tuggeranong is the answer. A new West Tuggeranong development is a long-term project that will be costly, have a significant environmental impact, and would likely involve the development of a new group centre that may take business away from the Tuggeranong Town Centre.
What the Tuggeranong Town Centre needs is a viable short- to medium-term solution, and there are plenty of options. Urban infill is a more efficient way to bring people to the town centre. This is already occurring with the exciting South Quay development, and more infill developments in and around the town centre and in existing Tuggeranong suburbs are a smart idea. To address the significant amount of empty office space in the heart of Tuggeranong, I have also proposed a 'Postcode 2900' development to turn empty commercial space into residential space. The ACT government has already announced measures to make these sorts of conversions possible. The ACT government has also announced a CIT for Tuggeranong, providing a substantial boost to the local economy. I have asked the ACT government that instead of considering a new build on the outskirts of the town centre, CIT should occupy existing buildings in and around the heart of the town centre.
West Tuggeranong is an expensive pipe dream. We need a solution now. I urge Senator Seselja to join me in advocating for realistic short- to medium-term solutions based on best-practice urban design principles of infill and density. (Time expired)
Families are important, and the relationship of fathers with their sons is sometimes the most underestimated and undervalued bond. I speak about this today because of a conversation I had last week with a good friend of mine, Glenn Mitchell. For those in the House that do not know Glenn, he is a passionate mental health and suicide awareness advocate due to his own life experiences. Glenn used to be a regular voice on Perth ABC radio and TV as a sports commentator.
Glenn was telling me that he has made a pact with his young son, a pact that every Thursday morning before school, every week, they will go and have breakfast together at their local cafe—just the two of them. They can talk about anything at all—bullies at school, homework, relationships, sport, anything, and it will happen for as long as his son wants to. It could be 10 years from now, 30 years from now or could continue every week for the rest of their lives.
Open communication between fathers and sons is incredibly important and it is a bond that we all must work at. Glenn's initiative is one of many that fathers employ to connect with their sons, and today I want to encourage all fathers in this House and across Hasluck to make an effort to connect on a personal level with their sons, to make the time, start the conversation and talk. Talk about anything. It could be about what you got up to today, how the Dockers thumped Richmond in the footy over the weekend, about a trip away that you want to take together or even about a recent movie you have watched.
Today I wear the scarf of South Adelaide Panthers Football Club, not the Australian Rules football team but the soccer team based at O'Sullivan Beach. I was very pleased to visit and to open the new women's changing rooms at South Adelaide at the weekend. The women's changing rooms also include umpire changing rooms and, for the first time, provide women's soccer players at South Adelaide the opportunity to have their own changing rooms. Previously, they were changing in the gym, or perhaps having to change in the back of their cars or indeed in the storeroom. This new development really provides the opportunity for women's soccer to flourish at the club.
I have to pay tribute to all those who have worked very, very hard to ensure this construction was made, particularly to Peter Herd, Steve Cox, Paul Wilkinson and Harvey Jolley on the complex grants committee, and also to the chairman of South Adelaide Panthers, Phil Reed, and the secretary of South Adelaide Panthers, Tracey Wesson. It was great to be there with Mayor of the City of Onkaparinga, Lorraine Rosenberg; the City of Onkaparinga made a significant contribution to this development, as did the state government. It was great to have the state member for Reynell, Katrine Hildyard, there as well. This was a significant development for the club—everyone worked very hard to put this together. I wish the Panthers, and also the Pink Panthers—the women's side—the best of luck for the upcoming season.
Within every community there are people who take the stand and lead for change. Today I would like to mention one of Logan's incredible individuals, Kathleen de Leon. In 2013 Kathleen created a Facebook page with the intention of promoting positivity and igniting pride in the Logan community. Her page, entitled Gotta Love Logan, has climbed to more than 1,800 'likes' as well as receiving notable coverage nationwide in the media.
With the platform of social media, Kathleen has been able to create an avenue where the individuals of Logan can reminisce about their memories, discuss upcoming events and share their ideas. In effect, Gotta Love Logan has not only brought together like-minded people in this community but has also developed them into a force that is sure to induce an even brighter future. Kathleen believes that, within the negativity that often surrounds the city of Logan due to its history, the positive stories are often lost. Thus, she exaggerates the importance of recognising the majority who actively contribute to the vibrant community.
Kathleen and her followers regularly post images of the areas past and present in an attempt to create a future where Logan is rid of the negative perceptions. It is my pleasure to have individuals in our community who are as proud of our thriving community as I am. Thank you to everyone involved in this campaign—and you've gotta love Logan!
This past week the Abbott government reached a new low for Australia's international standing and reputation. Earlier this year the foreign minister questioned the illegality of Israeli settlements, a position that is untenable in international law and practice. Now the Attorney-General has changed the Australian government position referencing the status of East Jerusalem from 'occupied' to 'disputed'. The Prime Minister and foreign minister have sought to defend this as a mere clarification of terminology, but it is not. The term 'occupied' carries with it very specific meanings and responsibilities under international humanitarian law. It is a fact, not an opinion, that East Jerusalem is occupied. The Attorney General's position is a complete nonsense as well as being at odds with the view of the entire international community aside from Israel itself. Professor Ben Saul of Sydney university has written:
Australia's new view is starkly at odds with the true status of east Jerusalem under international law. It also corrodes the international rule of law and violates Australia's international law obligations.
He goes on to describe the Attorney General's views as 'astonishingly ignorant and foolish.'
This is an issue of incredible importance and sensitivity to the rest of the world. We have seen this week the reaction from Arab states, which may impose import bans on Australian goods. It does beg the question as to what internal processes this government followed to change what has been a bipartisan Australian position for decades. Did the government take advice from DFAT? Did they ignore advice? Did they arrogantly believe there would be no repercussions?
It is time for this government to start acting like the adults they profess to be, to admit they have been mistaken and to restore Australia's adherence to international law.
Last week I was pleased to be able to welcome the Treasurer to Reid when we visited the ANZAC Research Institute at Concord Hospital to see firsthand the groundbreaking research that is being conducted at this facility. Our visit highlighted the remarkable world-class research that we are undertaking in Australia and the importance of appropriately supporting research centres like this. The incredible facility was established in 1998, with research commencing in 2000. The aim of the institute is to provide excellence and leadership in health and medical research and to improve the future health standards of our community. The ANZAC Research Institute has ageing as its unifying research theme and is the only major independent research institute—and that is hard to say—with ageing as a primary focus. I would like to thank Dr Tim Sinclair, the general manager of Concord Hospital; Dr Teresa Anderso; and of course Alice King—you cannot go anywhere at Concord Hospital without Alice being there.
On behalf of my community I would also like to thank all of the staff at the ANZAC Research Institute for the remarkable world-leading research that they are undertaking. I would particularly like to mention Professor Derek Hart—whom I had the honour of introducing the Treasurer to—and his team for the remarkable research that is being undertaken in the area of dendritic cells. I am immensely proud that this research institute is located within my electorate and I commend the work of all of the researchers at this institute to the House.
I rise to my feet to congratulate not principally the San Antonio Spurs for winning this year's NBA championship, but I do want to recognise that in this fantastic result Australia has every reason to be proud. Today we have two great ambassadors of our country on that NBA team—one was Aron Baynes, who is a fantastic achiever in the Boomers, and the other is a proud representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia, Patty Mills. In his final game today—the game that clinched it for San Antonio—Patty Mills was outstanding, scoring close to 20 points and making a demonstrable impact on the team's fortunes. He got a series of threes; he was terrific—as the member for Gellibrand, a specialist in that, rightly points out—and served the nation and served it proudly. Rightly, he has been able to achieve something that a lot of Australians have not been able to savour on the world stage. He is a tremendous role model not only for young Australians but in particular for people from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background. I think it is important on this special day that we congratulate Patty, congratulate San Antonio and congratulate the next lot of young Australians who will be able to appear on the world stage.
As many of my colleagues would know, I took over as chair of the Friends of Mining and Resources initiative. The resources industry is a key interest of mine, with the Durack electorate accounting for 84.6 per cent of Western Australia's resources sector. I recently had the pleasure of welcoming Shell Australia to host this initiative and to update members on the Shell Prelude FLNG project and how they plan to use this project to generate new wealth, new energy and a new generation of jobs in Australia.
This particular project will boost Western Australia's economy and value-add through an increase in demand for local goods and services. Its $45 billion estimated contribution to Australia's GDP over 25 years will certainly be welcome. This is particularly important for Australia's future growth, as Prelude is estimated to generate $12 billion in total tax revenues. I look forward to witnessing this project's development and its positive effect on Durack and Australia. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order No. 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
Madam Speaker, I rise on indulgence to acknowledge the passing of Sir Jack Brabham AO OBE. Sir Jack was an Australian legend. He was indeed one of a kind. He served in the Royal Australian Air Force before becoming a giant of motor racing. He won the Formula One World Championship in 1959. He was first Australian to win that particular title, which he won again in 1960. In 1966 he won his third world championship, driving a car that he had built himself. Nobody had ever won a championship in their own car before and nobody has done it since. He also took out the constructors championship in 1966 and in 1967.
Sir Jack was always willing to have a go and was named Australian of the Year in 1966 and a National Treasure in 2012 and was the first driver in history to be knighted for his services to motorsport. He was respected and admired for his spirit and for his great skill as an engineer and, at all times, he was the quintessential gentleman, charming and patient to a fault with his fans.
He was a champion driver, an engineer and, more recently, a champion for macular degeneration awareness. To his wife, Margaret, and to his sons the government extends its deepest sympathies.
I join with the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the life of Australian sporting hero Sir Jack Brabham. A flight mechanic in the RAAF, Jack retained a lifelong love of engine design, construction and repair, and once said that driving was the relaxing part of the world of Formula One.
Jack began his career in racing purely as a designer and builder of so-called midget cars, because he believed drivers were all lunatics. But in 1948, as a fill-in driver—in only his third race—he won his first speedcar event, the beginning of his journey to the pinnacle of Formula One greatness. Jack won back-to-back world Formula One championships, in 1959 and again in 1960. However, his most remarkable victory came in 1966 when he won the championship in a car that he had built himself, a sporting feat that will never be repeated.
Jack Brabham's success became part of the collective Australian psyche. He was truly the Don Bradman of the racing circuit, with an iconic modesty and a wry sense of humour and none of the fist pumping and self-congratulation of modern sport. We will not see his like again. All of us in the Labor Party offer our heartfelt condolences to Lady Margaret, Jack's sons, Geoff, Gary and David, and his grandchildren. May he rest in peace.
I ask members to rise in their places as a mark of respect.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the House.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the Prime Minister's recent visit to the United States and his comments about Iraq, can the Prime Minister provide an update to the House about the situation in Iraq?
I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. There is a serious and deteriorating situation in Iraq. A radical Islamist group—a group so extreme that it is a splinter group from al-Qaeda—originating in Syria, has now made major advances across wide swathes of Iraq.
This is a very concerning development. It seems that this group has proceeded through Iraq with maximum violence and terror to the civilian population and has behaved with extraordinary brutality towards surrendering Iraqi soldiers and policemen. There are reports that the Iraqi security forces have rallied somewhat, but at the moment those reports are sketchy.
This is a very, very concerning situation. As things stand, it is a humanitarian disaster for the people of those sections of Iraq which have now fallen under the control of this group. Should the control of this group be consolidated we are faced with the situation of a terrorist state—a terrorist state with considerable sway over parts of a quite sophisticated country. It is not only a humanitarian disaster for the people of those sections of Iraq but also a security disaster for the Middle East and for the wider world.
As you would expect, there was discussion between myself, and members of my party, and senior figures in the United States. It is, as you would expect, the sort of thing that is natural between two very, very close allies. The United States is weighing its options. It is considering the situation, and consultations between Australia and the United States will continue. This is a serious situation. No-one should underestimate the difficulty that this development poses to the people of Iraq, to the people of the Middle East and ultimately to the people of the whole world.
My question is also to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please explain how the government is delivering on its plan to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia?
I thank the member for Petrie for his question. He is right: the government has said we are in the business of building a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. In particular, pre-election, the government said that we would stop the boats, we would scrap the carbon tax, we would build the roads of the 21st century and we would get the budget back under control. That is what we said we would do and since the election we have been purposefully setting about doing just that.
For almost six months, there have been no successful people-smuggling ventures—
Opposition members interjecting—
The members for Lingiari and Rankin will desist.
to arrive in Australia. Within the next month or so the carbon tax should be abolished and that will save the average Australian household some $550 a year. This is the best thing we can do right now to reduce cost-of-living pressures on Australian families. Very soon, work will be underway on the major roads that the government committed to, pre-election, and, thanks to the recent budget, we are now back on track for sustainable surpluses. I regret to say that the former government gave us the six biggest deficits—
Which you doubled!
The member for Lingiari will desist.
in Australia's history. The former government gave us debt and deficit stretching out as far as the eye can see. The policies of the former government would have given us $123 billion in cumulative deficits over the next four years and debt peaking at $667 billion. Because of the position the former government left our country in right now the Australian people, through the Commonwealth budget, are spending a billion dollars on interest alone every month.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs will desist.
We are spending $1 billion dollars in interest alone every month. That is $1 billion dollars in dead money because of the spending spree of the former government. Thanks to this budget we will be in a situation that is very close to balanced by 2017-18 and gross debt will be $300 billion less than would have been the case under members opposite. It is not easy to repair the fiscal disaster—the debt-and-deficit disaster—that we have inherited from members opposite. We never said it would be easy. We did say it would be done and done it will be under this government.
I acknowledge the hardworking cleaners who are visiting parliament today to mark International Cleaners Day. Cleaners around Australia, including those who work in this building, will lose thousands of dollars because the Prime Minister is scrapping the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines. Prime Minister, why is it fair to cut the conditions of some of Australia's lowest-paid cleaners when, in fact, the government in its budget is giving millionaires $50,000 to have a baby?
I do acknowledge the work that the cleaners of our country do and I particularly acknowledge the work that the cleaners around this building do, including Lucia, Anna, Maria and the other hardworking cleaners that do such an extraordinary job in cleaning our own offices. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that no cleaner's pay is reduced. Every cleaner continues to be paid under the relevant industrial instrument, and no cleaner in this country can be employed at other than the award or above. No-one can be employed at other than the award or above and the Leader of the Opposition should not go around this country scaring people. But that is the tragic pass to which members opposite have come: all they can do is scare. They have no solutions, just complaints, and the people of Australia are entitled to better from the Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that Wyong Shire Council in my electorate faces a bill of close to $5 million this year, growing to $10 million in coming years, because of Labor's carbon tax. Will the minister outline how axing this tax will assist local governments to deliver better roads and essential services?
I thank the honourable member for Dobell for her question. When local government is assembling in Canberra for their national convention—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will desist.
it is particularly relevant that we should talk about the impact of the carbon tax on councils right across the country. The example of Wyong council, sadly, is repeated right across the nation. The carbon tax is impacting on councils, and therefore raising the cost of rates, right across the nation. At every level the councils are hit with the carbon tax, in everything they do. There are a number of indirect costs, such as higher electricity costs, as a direct result of the carbon tax. Indeed, as I understand from Treasury modelling of Wyong council's costs, electricity costs are between $3.4 million and $4.2 million higher as a result of Labor's carbon tax.
Then, of course, because Labor's plans increase the carbon tax every year, in just 15 days time all of those costs will go up. They will keep going up and up and up if Labor have their way. They want an increasing carbon tax to add more burden and more pain to Australia's ratepayers. It affects directly, also, those councils like Wyong that have a significant garbage disposal facility.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The Buttonderry Waste Management Facility in that region is already having to pay the carbon tax because of the emissions it generates. As a result—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will desist.
waste management rates in Wyong are $22 higher, already, than they ought to be, as a result of Labor's carbon tax. And they will keep going up.
Every time the council goes out to grade a road, or to build a new road, or even to mow the grass on the median strip, Labor's carbon tax is there adding to the costs of all those people who are involved. All those people are affected.
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. In order to be relevant, the minister has to indicate what the increased price of his new petrol tax hike will be.
There is no point of order. It is a wide-ranging question.
I appreciate that the honourable member is embarrassed about the way in which Labor is imposing unnecessary costs on the ratepayers of Australia.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton will desist.
If Labor had its way we would be debating in the parliament today legislation to spread the carbon tax's net to also cover road transport fuels, adding more and more to the imposition of costs that councils have to bear. The reality is we have been elected with a mandate to get rid of this tax, to get rid of this imposition on rates, to get rid of this cost on ratepayers. Labor should recognise that mandate, join us in the Senate to make sure that this tax is repealed and let local government get on with its job.
My question is to the Prime Minister. A cleaner earning $40,000 a year with two children will lose more than $5,000 a year because of this Prime Minister's unfair budget. On top of this, cleaners around Australia will lose thousands of dollars because the Prime Minister is scrapping the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines. Can the Prime Minister explain to the hardworking cleaners of Australia why this is fair?
The assertions in the Leader of the Opposition's question are simply untrue. They are simply false. The assertions claimed by the Leader of the Opposition are simply untrue. He can chatter away across the dispatch box, but all of the talk—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question and will desist.
All of the interjections from the Leader of the Opposition, who just cannot control himself sitting there, do not make his assertions true. No cleaner can be paid at other than the award or above. That is the simple truth. No cleaner in this country can be paid at other than the award or above. That is the truth, and nothing that this government has said changes that.
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I did not ask the Prime Minister about the award. I was just quoting his own budget back at him and how it takes money from cleaners.
There is no point of order.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does President Obama favour an emissions trading scheme? If so, why? Did you tell President Obama the increase in excise indexation was really a carbon tax? Why is the government taxing Australians on carbon when Australians voted against it? Why do Queensland and Western Australia wear the burden of the nation for carbon tax?
Question time is supposed to be for a single question. That seems to be a multiple number. But, nonetheless, the Prime Minister has the call.
I do thank the member for his question. I do look forward to working with him on the abolition of the carbon tax, and I do look forward to his support for the abolition of the carbon tax when the Senate changes in just a couple of weeks time. I want to assure the member that we will abolish the carbon tax, because I share his concerns about the impact of the carbon tax on the people of this country, particularly the impact of the carbon tax upon the people of Western Australia and Queensland. We will rescue them from this toxic tax. We will. We will absolutely rescue them from this carbon tax. We said we would scrap the carbon tax before the election. Even members opposite said that they were going to terminate the carbon tax. It is just that they said one thing before the election and did the opposite after the election—as always. So I am happy to say that the Leader—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If that does not violate the standing order on irony, nothing does.
I would remind the Manager of Opposition Business that the standing orders relating to irony only relate to questions, not to answers.
Let me conclude by assuring the member who asked the question that when it comes to the carbon tax it seems that he and I are on precisely the same page.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of fixing the budget? What have international organisations said about the budget in the past week?
I thank the honourable member for Banks for his question. It is the first sensible question from the member—from a member for Banks for a long time. You are a lot better than Daryl Melham. You are far more articulate. That is a very sensible question, and I say it is because, of course—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
He is a lot better than Daryl Melham, I will tell you, Joel. He has principles, this one. Now, I liked Daryl, but he went weak at the end. He went so weak with Labor. Fixing the budget is hugely important for Australia because, at the end of the day, we always have to fix up the Labor Party's problems, and they left us with $667 billion of debt. That means, if we do not address this issue, within 10 years we will have to spend $3 billion a month repaying the interest on Labor's debt. Seventy per cent of that goes to people living overseas because that is the group that we have had to borrow money from. So 70 per cent of that money goes to people overseas. As a result of our budget, we have reduced the potential debt by over $300 billion, and that is a significant step forward. However, there is so much more to be done, because, with all the measures that we have announced in the budget, we still do not get the budget back to surplus in the next four years. We still do not pay off Labor's debt over the next 10 years—the debt they racked up in just six years. We will not pay that off. With all the measures in the budget, we still do not get there. But the budget is a credible document that delivers. It delivers us savings that are absolutely necessary. Labor has no alternative.
The head of the OECD has praised Australia for its budget. Angel Gurria said:
… they are dealing very directly and decisively with the budget deficit.
He said:
We're always saying you should at least keep it balanced. This is a more sustainable, more durable type of solution.
He said that that means going for 80 per cent cuts and one-fifth tax increases.
The OECD currently employs the former assistant treasurer of the Labor Party. Maybe he provided advice to Angel Gurria. And the OECD currently employs the former chief of staff to the member for Lilley. Maybe he provided that advice to Angel Gurria. I would say to you that it is common sense. The only way a government can live on a sustainable basis is to live within its means, today.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why he and the Treasurer think it is fair to cut support from pensioners on around $20,000 a year while at the same time giving $50,000 a year to wealthy Australians who have a baby?
You're wrong. You are factually wrong.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
There will be silence. The Prime Minister has the call. The member for McMahon has asked his question and will desist.
Let me make two observations in response to the shadow Treasurer's question. First of all he is simply wrong when he talks about pensioners. Pensions go up every six months. They go up every six months; they went up in March by about $14 for a single pensioner. They will go up by roughly the same amount later in the year. Every six months pensions will increase.
Yes, in 2017 the rate of indexation will be by CPI rather than by CPI or male total average weekly earnings. But what is wrong with indexing by the very index that members opposite, when they were in government, applied to family tax benefit? If it is wrong to index pensions by CPI, why did members opposite index the family tax benefit by CPI? How can it be wrong to index pensions by CPI, and right to index family tax benefit by CPI? Because that is exactly what members opposite did.
We will fairly index pensions, and pensions will go up every six months. Members opposite should stop scaring the pensioners of Australia. They really should stop scaring the pensioners of Australia. As for paid parental leave, I am very proud to believe that, for the first time, the women of Australia should have access to a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme. I am very proud that we are responsible for what will be a watershed economic and social policy advance, because, unlike members opposite, we think that paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement. It is a workplace entitlement, not a welfare entitlement. We took it to the 2010 election, we took it to the 2013 election and we will deliver it.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline what last week's employment figures tell us about the state of the economy?
I thank the honourable member for Solomon for her question. It was very timely that I was in Darwin as the unemployment numbers came out, which recognised that the Northern Territory now has unemployment at 3.3 per cent.
It depends where you are.
That is in the Northern Territory.
The member for Lingiari is warned.
I know you do not go back there much, but it is in the Northern Territory. It is 3.3 per cent and—
Opposition members interjecting—
There is too much noise on my left.
The unemployment rate is 5.8 per cent in Australia.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The member for Lingiari is warned.
We see that 5.8 per cent unemployment rate in Australia as encouraging, because the legacy left by the Labor Party was that unemployment would rise to 6¼ per cent. In fact, the good news—Prime Minister, you might not have heard this—is that the number of full-time jobs created since the beginning of the year is now over 100,000. There have been 100,000 full-time jobs created since the beginning of this year. This completely refutes all of the commentary from the Labor Party at the beginning of the year about job losses. In fact, the member for McMahon still has up on his website, 'Tony Abbott refuses to fight for Aussie jobs.' Let me tell you, Tony Abbott has delivered 100,000 full-time jobs since the beginning of this year in partnership with Australian employers.
There is still much work to be done if we are not to reach the Labor Party forecast of 6¼ per cent unemployment. That is why we have to get our budget through. We have to provide certainty and stability when it comes to the fiscal management of this country. We need to form that in partnership with monetary policy that is sustainable and, in doing so, roll out the reforms with the taxation white paper, the reform of the federation and reform of competition laws that are going to improve productivity growth. If we do all of that the jobs will come. The new jobs, the full-time jobs, the well-paid jobs will come. Our formula for the economy is working, because we are not expecting to get to the 6¼ per cent unemployment rate that was the legacy of Labor.
But it takes hard decisions in this building to get to that point. Just as those hard decisions repair our own balance sheet on behalf of the Australian people, then business can get on with the job of creating the jobs for everyday Australians that deliver the household prosperity they expect.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald today said that his inclination was to vote against the Prime Minister's unfair and unaffordable paid parental leave scheme. If even the Prime Minister's own colleagues will not support this unfair paid parental leave scheme, why should Australia?
The principle that the Leader of the Opposition is apparently supporting is that public servants should get a better deal than the people of Australia. The principle the Leader of the Opposition is apparently supporting is that his staff should get a paid parental leave scheme that pays them at their real wage but the people of Australia should not. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question and he will hear the answer.
The Leader of the Opposition is saying that his staff should get a better scheme than the people of Australia. That is the real unfairness. What I am saying, what this government is saying, is that everyone should get access to paid parental leave at their wage, because this should be a workplace entitlement. I would have thought that members opposite, if they were fair dinkum about doing the right thing by the workers of Australia, would want to see people who were on parental leave paid at their real wage. If you get paid at your real wage when you go on holiday, if you get paid at your real wage when you get sick pay, if you get paid at your real wage when you take long-service leave, then surely you should get paid at your real wage on paid parental leave. The best way to ensure that this is properly funded is to make sure that the biggest companies in Australia pay it. I am very happy to get questions from the Leader of the Opposition on this subject; I really am, because this is an important social and economic reform and it will be delivered by this government.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the relationship between Australia and the United States is strengthening?
I thank the member for Deakin for his question and I am pleased to report to both sides of the House that the Prime Minister's visit to the United States was an unqualified success and reaffirmed the excellent state of the bilateral relationship and the mutual commitment to the alliance.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will desist.
The Prime Minister and President Obama successfully concluded the Force Posture Agreement, which will govern arrangements for the US military presence in Australia, including the marines rotating through Darwin. The Prime Minister also announced that Australia will establish a consulate in Houston within 12 months to strengthen our business and investment links, particularly in the energy and resources sector. Further, the Prime Minister co-authored an opinion piece with President Obama in the Los Angeles Times, which was republished in the Australian, on economic and security issues. For the benefit of the House, I table that opinion piece.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin has been warned.
In his meeting with President Obama the Prime Minister discussed a broad range of matters, including international and regional security issues and trade and economic issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, where trade minister Andrew Robb is doing such great work. They discussed the G20, and they discussed climate change. At the press conference following their meeting, President Obama said, 'We don't have a better friend in the world, as well as the Asia-Pacific region, than Australia'. Therefore, it was deeply disappointing to note that the success of the visit has caused obvious dismay among the ranks of the opposition, who were seeking to actively undermine the Prime Minister's visit and who were predicting conflict between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. Labor was publicly wishing and hoping for the meeting between the two leaders to fail. That is tantamount to actively undermining Australia's national interest, because there is no more important personal relationship for this nation than the one between the Prime Minister of Australia and the President of the United States. Labor was desperately hoping that the cause of this confected conflict would be climate change, should it be raised. What hypocrites. I recall a meeting in 2007 when US President Bush visited Australia and met with then Labor leader Kevin Rudd.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin will remove himself for one hour under 94(a).
The member for Rankin then left the chamber—
Reporting of that meeting shows that President Bush was shocked that climate change was not even raised, with a White House source saying, 'The Labor leader did not utter the words climate change'. What hypocrisy. Fortunately our strategic and economic relationship stands above the pettiness and lack of judgement of the Labor Party. (Time expired)
I advise the House that we have many mayors and councillors visiting Parliament House this week. Whilst we will not be acknowledging them individually, we do make those who are here today most welcome.
We also have with us the Croatian ambassador, whom we make most welcome. And particularly, coming into the chamber now, on the floor of the House, we have with us a delegation from the Republic of Poland, led by the Speaker of the Polish Senate, His Excellency Speaker Borusewicz.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why he and the Treasurer believe it is fair to axe the seniors supplement and rip more than $800 from the pockets of around 300,000 Australian seniors whilst at the same time giving $50,000 to wealthy Australians to have a baby?
Honourable members interjecting—
There is too much noise on my right as well. The opposition has asked its question: I expect silence for the answer.
I can only assume that should the current opposition ever come back into government that they would change the public service rules to prevent public servants from being paid at their wage when they take paid parental leave.
The only conclusion we can draw from the repeated attacks by the opposition on the government's policy to ensure that the rest of the population get the same benefits that public servants get is that they want to take these benefits away from public servants. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn.
This government's position is absolutely crystal clear: if it is right for public servants to go on paid parental leave at their wage, it is right for the workers of Australia to go on paid parental leave at their wage. And as for pensioners: if the member were fair dinkum about looking after pensioners she would vote to abolish the carbon tax. That is what she would do! If members opposite were fair dinkum about helping the families, the pensioners and the households of Australia they would do what they said they would do before the election and terminate the carbon tax.
Of course, they love the carbon tax. They love the fact that the households of Australia are $550 a year worse off as a result of their carbon tax. This government will save the people of Australia from this carbon tax and deliver $550 a year that the people of Australia absolutely deserve.
Opposition members interjecting—
We will have silence on my left, including the member for Wakefield!
My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of the reform of our higher education sector? And what support has the government received for these reforms?
I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question because he, like the rest of the government, wants to spread opportunity in higher education to 80,000 more young Australians over the next few years—at least 80,000 more—in stark contrast to the opposition. He, like most members of the government, want to give our universities the opportunity to excel and to compete with their Asian counterparts, who are coming at them all the time, in terms of quality and capacity to attract international students.
Support for these reforms are coming from some likely sources but also some unlikely sources. We have had a lot of support from the Group of Eight universities and the Regional Universities Network. We have had support from business leaders such as Michael Cheney in Western Australia, who strongly supported these reforms when he was in Canberra last sitting week. There is support from peak bodies, like the Australian Council for Private Education and Training. And, of course, there is support from our old china plate, the member for Fraser, who continues to write and say excellent things about the government's higher education reform agenda, which is about spreading opportunity.
But I was surprised at some unlikely sources that over the weekend supported our government's reforms. I would like to quote from the Financial Review, where one person is saying:
The extension of funding of sub-bachelor program's to TAFE SA and other registered higher education providers provides an opportunity for TAFE SA to access Commonwealth funding for its diploma and advanced diploma courses on an equal footing diploma courses on an equal footing with universities.
It is a very sensible statement, and I was most surprised that it came from Gail Gago, the South Australian higher education minister in the state Labor government in South Australia.
This is an unusual and rare sensible statement from the South Australian Labor government. But when they do say something sensible we should praise them for it, because they are quite right: we want to spread the benefit of higher education to at least 80,000 more students—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is warned!
in TAFEs and private providers around Australia. And support is coming from the South Australian Labor government. No wonder the member for Port Adelaide left during my answer, because he would be embarrassed about that!
But this support stands in stark contrast to Australia's No. 1 whinger, the Leader of the Opposition, who wrings his hands and who is the national complaints desk for every complaint in Australia. But there is a question that he has to answer: where is the money coming from?
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, on relevance. The question specifically referred to who was supporting the reforms from the minister opposite. There is no way he could include the Leader of the Opposition as a supporter of what he is doing to higher education.
There is no point of order.
In the time left available to me, let me make it very clear: we recognise that Australia's No. 1 whinger does not support expanding opportunity to more Australians around the country. We know that this lightweight Leader of the Opposition does not support our reforms, but they will be passed and they will benefit Australians.
Thank you, and I would say to the minister that it would be helpful to refer to people by their correct titles.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week, the Treasurer told Australians that the Abbott budget was 'fair' and that welfare spending was unsustainable. Today, the Melbourne Institute revealed that over the last decade there has been a 4.5 per cent reduction in the number of working-age people receiving welfare payments. Now that the government's claims of a welfare crisis have been exposed as false, why do the Prime Minister and his Treasurer still believe it is fair to cut pensions and family tax benefits?
Again, members of the opposition are spreading untruths. It is as simple as that. The member who asked the question has said something about pensions which is simply untrue, because pensions will go up every six months of every year. Back in March, the single pension increased by $14 a fortnight. The married rate increased by, I think, $11 for each member of a married couple. Increases of this order will take place later this year, twice next year and twice the year after that. Every six months the pension goes up. What has happened is that the government will, over time, somewhat reduce the rate of growth—the reason being that we do need to address the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite left us.
This is the problem. The problem is that we are paying $1 billion a month in interest—that is $1 billion in dead money—because of the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite left us. We have a plan to fix this; all Labor has is a complaint. Once upon a time, we had serious people in the Labor Party. When the Labor Party was led by people like Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, they had some serious answers for our country. They were prepared to take some tough decisions to reform our nation and to help set up the prosperity of the future. I regret to say: how a mighty party has fallen. This government will do what is necessary to put our future on a sound and sustainable basis—because that is exactly what the people of Australia elected us to do. We will not shirk the task.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister explain how the government is increasing support for medical research—research like the excellent work of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research in my electorate? What support has the government received for these reforms?
I thank the member for Brisbane for her question and acknowledge the significant support she provides to the QIMR and many other medical research bodies within the electorate of Brisbane. It is true that, right around the country, we are blessed with a number of institutes and universities that house the best researchers in the world. Over the course of the last 12 months, we have provided about $750 million as a country to medical research. It is incredibly important that we increase that investment.
In 2011 the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley, sought to take $400 million out of medical research. With young researchers around the country, we fought against that change and we made sure that we kept money in medical research. In the most recent budget, we said that we wanted to set up a $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund. It is incredibly important—not just so that we can employ those young researchers to try to find better ways to deal with diseases and to find world-leading medicines but also so that we can export that expertise. It is of incredible medical benefit to our country, but the economic benefit is significant as well, including in states like South Australia, where the Prime Minister and I were only a couple of weeks ago. We talked to the young researchers at SAHMRI about how by 2022-23, out of this medical research fund, we can provide an additional $1 billion a year for medical research.
It is important, as was pointed out by Simon McKeon. People will know that Simon McKeon was engaged by the Rudd and Gillard governments to do a report on medical research. He came up with the solution. In his report he very tellingly said that the cost of health care at the moment is unsustainable. The person—the independent expert—commissioned by the Labor Party came back to the Labor Party, while they were in government, and said that the way we were spending in health was unsustainable. Simon McKeon spoke at the National Press Club only last week. He said:
… I think quite correctly, that if we don't do anything to our broader health system, it is unsustainable … I think it's going to be a good thing if 20-odd million Australians feel that they're actually directly part of the research effort by that payment … It would be a tragedy if this fund did not happen, simply because the funding mechanism was not agreed to in Parliament.
As the Prime Minister said before, former Prime Minister Hawke had the guts to stand up and say that we needed a co-payment in the PBS—a policy that the Labor Party supported for 50 years. Mr Hawke said at the time that the Medicare system was unsustainable without an equal co-payment being applied to the MBS. This government in this budget not only boosts the money for medical research but also provides support for a sustainable health system—and we stand by it. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week the Treasurer told Australians that the Abbott budget was fair. Today the Melbourne Institute revealed that, over the past decade, the share of incomes provided by government benefits has dropped from 25.4 per cent to 21.3 per cent. Now that the government's claims of a welfare crisis have been exposed as false, why does the Prime Minister and his Treasurer still believe it is fair to cut pensions and to cut family tax benefits?
Every time members opposite make untrue statements, it is an opportunity for the government to repeat the truth. The truth is that pensions go up now, they will continue to go up in the future and they will always go up. They will always go up under this government. What will not continue to go up under this government is debt and deficit. The reason we needed to make the changes we have made in this budget is that, as things were—with the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite had bequeathed this nation—so much that we cherish, so much that we value and so much that makes us special as a country was becoming unsustainable. It was simply becoming unsustainable.
When you are borrowing $1 billion every single month just to pay the interest on Labor's borrowings, you have to make some tough decisions. That is what this government was elected to do. We have not shirked the tough decisions. We have done precisely what the people of Australia asked us to do—put this country back onto a sustainable path to a surplus.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister explain how the pension will continue to rise every six months?
I thank the member for Boothby for his question and recognise his strong and constant representation of the people in the southern suburbs of Adelaide since 1996. Part of that strong and constant representation has been for the pensioners in the electorate of Boothby. Can I inform both the member for Boothby and the members of the House that the pension will continue to rise twice a year under the Abbott government. Indeed, just three months ago, in March, the pension increased by $15.70 a fortnight for single pensioners and by $11.90 a fortnight for each member of a pensioner couple. And indeed, in three months hence, in September, the pensions will continue to go up again.
What about 2017?
I hear an interjection from another member from Adelaide—
The member for Wakefield has been warned, I would remind him.
saying, 'What about 2017?' Well, I can inform him that in 2017 the pension will increase twice. Why don't you ask me another question? Come on in! Ask me another question!
Honourable members interjecting—
There is too much noise on my left and right.
Pensioners are better off under this government because their pensions will continue to increase. Not only that—
Honourable members interjecting—
Madam Speaker, I can't even hear myself!
Mr Champion interjecting—
I can't hear the answer. The rabble noise will cease. The minister has the call and the answer will be listened to. I remind the member for Wakefield: one more utterance and he will leave the chamber.
Not only that; this government will maintain the energy supplement, which pays up to $361 per annum for single pensioners—
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand is warned!
and $546 per annum for pensioner couples. We will in fact keep the pensioner supplement, which currently is up to $1,635.40 for singles and $2,464.80 for pensioner couples—and that, too, will increase in September this year.
If the Labor Party were not just feigning indignation, as they are in this chamber, then they could do something to help pensioners in Australia. What they could do is get out of the way and allow the repeal of the carbon tax, which would mean $550 on average to households in Australia. What nonsense is coming from the Labor Party.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister believe that it is fair for carers to lose $80 a week because of his budget cuts while, at the same time, wealthy Australians will receive $50,000 to have a baby?
Yet again there are assertions in the question which are simply untrue. I ask the member who has asked the question to demonstrate where her claim is justified, because there are no changes to carers as a result of the budget. We made commitments to carers, pre-election, and those commitments will be kept. They will be kept because this is a government which keeps its commitments. One of our commitments was to a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting or he will be warned.
I say to the member who asked me the question: why does she think that her staff should have access to paid parental leave at their wage and not the rest of the people?
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: you have previously ruled, consistent with Practice, that questions to private members can only occur within very specific requirements under the standing orders. Ministers cannot do that in their answers.
The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is using a rhetorical question, not an actual question.
Opposition members interjecting—
And if you can't work that out you'd better do some syntax.
I can understand why members opposite are touchy about this, because what they want is fundamentally unfair. They want one standard for public servants and a worse standard for the people of Australia.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is warned!
I think there should be one fair standard for all the people of Australia. If you go on paid parental leave you should be paid at your wage.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith has asked her question.
The caterwauling from members opposite, the barrage of interjections from the Leader of the Opposition and others, demonstrate just how touchy they are, just how hypersensitive they are on this point. Why does the Leader of the Opposition think that his staff should be paid paid parental leave at their wage and not the rest of the people of Australia? If it is fair for public servants it is fair for the people of Australia.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith has been warned!
That is why we took this commitment to the 2010 election, we took it to the 2013 election and we will deliver on it, because the people of Australia deserve a fair system of paid parental leave.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
Can I make a point of order?
No.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the repatriation of illegal maritime arrivals? What factors have led to this success under Operation Sovereign Borders and how does the government's policy impact on the budget?
I thank the member for Wannon for his question. I can update the House that since we last met—surprise!—there have been no further arrivals to Australia illegally by boat, which means this week we are now approaching six months without any successful people-smuggling ventures. That is almost six months.
How many months since you voted with the Greens?
The member for Corio!
How many months since you voted with the Greens?
The member for Corio is warned!
That contrasts with the same period of time under the previous government, when 12½ thousand people turned up illegally by boat to this country. That does not surprise me, because at the election, in the forward estimates, they forecast 15,600 people to turn up over this term of parliament. That is how many they were forecasting. That is over 600 boats. They went to the last election promising 600 additional boats.
How many over there voted with the Greens?
The member for Corio has been warned. One more utterance and he will leave.
No wonder the people of Australia threw them out. I can also inform the House that not only have Operation Sovereign Borders policies been effective in respect of stopping vessels coming to Australia, but in addition we have had people deciding to go back. We have passed a critical threshold, where more people now under this government, since the commencement of Operation Sovereign Borders, have actually gone back than have come into Australia. More have gone back than have come into Australia under the policies of this government. There have been 1,111 arrivals that occurred in the first couple of months, but there have been 1,162 departures, be it voluntary or involuntary. That compares to over 50,000 people who turned up over the six years of the previous government and 1,600 or thereabouts departures.
How many over there voted with the Greens?
The member for Corio will remove himself for one hour under 94(a).
The member for Corio then left the chamber.
I can understand that the member is sensitive. He is very sensitive to this government's record, because he should know—even though he is in denial—that the reason these results are being achieved is that the policies they said would never work are working. The policies they said would never work—whether it was turn-backs or temporary protection visas or any of these policies—are working. As a result, people are deciding not to come, and people who have come are deciding to go home under these policies. Interestingly, for those on bridging visas in the community since September last year 392 people have decided to go home. That compares to just 117 who had been on bridging visas for two years and decided to go home. What it says is that, when we came to government we said there would be no permanent visas for those waiting in the community for a visa. As a result, 392 already have decided to go home. That is more than three times what was occurring under the previous government. And they continue to oppose temporary protection visas.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Earlier in question time the Prime Minister said, 'I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that no cleaner's pay is reduced.' Will the Prime Minister stand up again and guarantee that no cleaner will have their pay reduced as a result of his changes to the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines, and how is anything less fair?
This government has not reduced the pay of any cleaner full stop, end of story. This government has not reduced the pay of any cleaner.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition, who cannot help interjecting, should stop telling untruths. He should stop telling untruths. And let me repeat yet again quite slowly for the Leader of the Opposition: no cleaner in this country—
Weasel words!
The member for Moreton is warned!
can be employed other than under an industrial award or agreement. No cleaner can be employed other than on the basis of the award or better. That is the simple truth now, it was the simple truth yesterday and it will be the simple truth tomorrow. The trouble with this Leader of the Opposition is that he is always trying to distort the truth. He is always trying to promote a scare. This is a Leader of the Opposition who has no solutions, just complaints.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer the minister to the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal's report—
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left.
I will start again, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer the minister to the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal's report that states and confirms that gas prices would be as much as 9.2 per cent lower if the carbon tax were repealed. Why must the carbon tax be repealed and who is standing in the way?
Opposition members interjecting—
Before the minister begins his answer, we will have silence so that we can hear the answer. The minister has the call.
I particularly want to thank the member for Reid, who has a deep belief in the importance of fairness to his constituents. On that front, we have heard a great deal today from the very pious Leader of the Opposition and his team about fairness—an enormous amount about fairness. Well, we will offer you $550 a year worth of a fairness, and it is up to you to decide whether you want to share with the Australian people $550 a year worth of fairness.
There have been some very interesting developments in relation to the carbon tax of late.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition shall desist.
Only three days ago the ACT regulator announced that if the carbon tax were repealed there would be two tariffs, one without the carbon tax and one with. Take the carbon tax away and electricity bills will drop by 11.6 per cent. I just want to repeat that for the House: in the ACT, electricity bills will drop by 11.6 per cent without a carbon tax. As the member for Reid points out, the New South Wales IPART regulator made an assessment about the difference between gas prices with and without a carbon tax—nothing hypothetical here, regulated prices, two tariffs, one with a carbon tax and one without. What is the difference? Up to 9.2 per cent lower prices for families without a carbon tax. It is not just New South Wales and it is not just the ACT; in Queensland, the Competition Authority also made an assessment. They made a regulatory determination that there would be a certain price with the carbon tax, take the carbon tax away and there would be a regulated decrease of, on average, eight per cent for Australian families living in Queensland—in other words, real reductions in the cost of living, on average, of $550 a year as determined by the regulators.
The member asked, 'Who is standing in the way of repealing the carbon tax?' Until yesterday we had thought that it was the opposition, because, although they said before the election that they would terminate the carbon tax, afterwards they voted to keep it. Our friend the member for Port Adelaide sat there on Australian Agenda and—I just want to quote this—told the Australian people, 'We do support the abolition of the carbon tax.' Well, next week you will have the chance to vote for the abolition of the carbon tax in this House, in this place. So the message is very clear: if you believe in fairness, vote to abolish the carbon tax; and, if you believe in saving Australian families $550, get out of the way.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Today we learned that the poorest 4½ million Australians control only one per cent of the nation's wealth—less than our nine richest Australians. Will the Prime Minister now abandon his unfair budget cuts where the burden is most felt by 4½ million of Australia's lowest paid? How is this unfair budget in any way in the interest of the working poor of this country?
That happened when you were in government.
The Treasurer will desist.
I certainly want to see a more egalitarian society. Of course I want to see a more egalitarian society; we all want to see a more egalitarian society—
Opposition members interjecting—
The question has been asked. The Prime Minister has the call. Your Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. Do him the courtesy of listening to the answer.
This government has been in power for hardly nine months. Members opposite were in power for six years prior to that.
Six years.
The Treasurer will desist.
The social problems that the Leader of the Opposition has discerned are problems that were created by his own government. That is the problem. This Leader of the Opposition has no plan for the future; he simply has a complaint.
This government does have a plan. We have a plan for a stronger economy and the way to get a stronger economy is to get a stronger budget. This is a fundamentally fair budget. It is a budget where everyone is playing his or her part. Yes, the top three per cent of taxpayers will face a deficit levy. They will pay, as they should. Members of parliament will pay because there will be a pay freeze. Motorists will pay through fuel indexation excise. Everyone is doing his or her bit. This is a budget for our country. This is a budget for the long-term benefit of our country. This is the kind of budget that only a strong and committed government could deliver, but this is the budget that the Australian people elected us to bring down. We said we would fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster—
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left.
and that is precisely what we are doing.
My question is to the Minister for Communications. Will the minister explain how the cost-benefit analysis of major projects like the NBN contributes to stronger public finances? Does the minister have any examples of support for the government's approach?
I thank the honourable member for his question. As we learn every day through the budget debate, the funds available to governments from taxpayers are limited but the proposals for spending them are unlimited. It is the job of responsible governments such as ours to carefully weigh every item of expenditure and ensure that taxpayers are getting value. This is nowhere more important than in major infrastructure projects like the National Broadband Network.
It is remarkable that when Labor was elected in 2007 their policy was that every major infrastructure project would be subject to a cost-benefit analysis, and then when it came to the NBN no such analysis was undertaken. Indeed, the former minister for communications, Senator Conroy, said at the time—rejecting the need for any such analysis, preferring the analysis of a beer coaster—'We don't need any more studies, any more cost-benefit analyses, to know that this is an infrastructure investment this country is crying out for.' Stephen Colbert would be proud of that. That is 'truthiness' if you have ever seen it. The then finance minister Tanner said, 'We just formed the view that this is the outcome we are going to achieve come hell or high water.'
We are used to the member for Fraser every now and then breaking out of the re-education camp and coming forth with some common sense. We know that he supports cost-benefit analyses, which, of course, is the government's commitment: every infrastructure project over $100 million will be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. But who would have imagined that we would see shortly a conversion worthy of Paul on the road to Damascus and Constantine at the Milvian Bridge: Shorten at the Hong Ho Vietnamese restaurant? It is an extraordinary conversion; an amazing conversion. As I was getting to sleep reading the Senate Notice Paper the other night, I noticed amendments proposed by those opposite to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill—
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The members for Chifley and Grayndler will desist.
Astonishingly, the amendment requires Infrastructure Australia to undertake and publish a formal cost-benefit analysis. And who has this been moved by? Senator Conroy! Madam Speaker, has the logical acid from the member for Fraser—
Government members interjecting—
The minister will resume his seat.
On a point of order, Madam Speaker, that of relevance. Does this mean that the minister is going to support these amendments? Are you going to vote for them?
Has the acid logic of the member for Fraser seeped through the Conrovian crust? Is it re-adjusting the synapses? Are we going to see a flash of light from the senator? (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports for 2013-14 entitled Audit report No. 37, Management of services delivered by Job Services Australia: Department of Employment; Audit report No. 38, Establishment and administration of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority: National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority; Audit report No. 39, Compliance Effectiveness Methodology: Australian Taxation Office; and Audit report No. 40, The Trials of Intensive Service Delivery: Department of Human Services.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
I inform the House that I have received a copy of a resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly of Queensland on 4 June 2014, relating to lowering the cost of living for Queenslanders.
The resolution read as follows—
That this Parliament acknowledges the opportunity to further lower the cost of living for all Queenslanders, especially seniors and pensioners by:
(1) calling on the Federal Government to immediately restore funding for concessions; and
(2) calling on the Australian Labor Party state and federal Members and Senators to pledge their support to repeal the carbon tax, renewable energy target and other green schemes, which would immediately reduce the cost of electricity.
Further, that the Speaker, on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, relay this request to both houses of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Prior to the interruption of the debate, I was addressing the House about my opposition to the bill. From my perspective as a Queenslander, my primary concern is that I cannot imagine anybody in their right mind wanting to make it easier for the Newman government to have control over our natural resources. I could not imagine supporting a bill that facilitates delegating approvals for environmental matters to the Newman government. As I said before, matters of national environmental significance should remain matters for the Australian government and for the country as a whole to consider. I was particularly speaking about the Great Barrier Reef, one of the great natural wonders of the world and a place where I spent a lot of time as a child. I hope that many others have the same opportunity, but the Newman government's track record, when it comes to environmental protection, is very poor.
A number of people have raised concerns about handing over environmental approval powers to the Newman government. Friends of the Earth Brisbane have written to me raising concerns about this issue, along with others. As I said earlier, the Cairns Post only today printed an article, beginning:
Tourism leaders say the Far North's reputation as a top holiday destination will take a dive if the Great Barrier Reef loses its World Heritage status.
I am not sure if the pun was intended. The article went on to quote Tony Baker, the managing director of the Quicksilver Group—which is one of Cairns' long-established tourism operators—as saying the:
… decision to list the Reef as "in danger" would harm the Far North's reputation.
Of course, he was speaking there of the risk that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee would proceed to list the reef as 'World Heritage in danger'. We know that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee is currently meeting and that it will consider a draft decision expressing concerns about the very subject matter of this bill—the transfer of delegation arrangements from the federal to the state government—being premature and about dumping and dredging, among other things. The Queensland environment minister has gone to Doha to try to argue a case against listing the World Heritage area of the Great Barrier Reef as 'World Heritage in danger'.
We are right to be concerned about that, because as Tony Baker told the Cairns Post:
"I think from our perspective it would be disappointing," he said. "I certainly hope the state and federal governments have done enough to ensure this doesn't happen.
"As a company and an industry, we're working very hard to ensure the health of the reef is maintained as best as it can be."
Given that the Queensland government asserts that the tourism industry is one of the four pillars of the Queensland economy, people are right to have grave concerns about the threat to tourism in the event that there is a listing of the Great Barrier Reef as a World Heritage in danger site.
There is a lot of concern in the community about how the UNESCO World Heritage Committee is going to look upon the work that has been done in Australia, and particularly in Queensland, on the reef. The state and industry are hoping that a Queensland government report card on the reef will assist. The report card relates to the reef's water quality and protection plan. Queensland's environment minister is travelling to Doha in the hope of persuading the committee that a reduction in pesticide run-off meets their concerns. I do not intend to diminish or dismiss the work that has been done to reduce pesticide run-off—I congratulate everybody concerned—but that by itself is not enough. On Friday the Fight for the Reef campaign representatives released a new and independent score card that showed the Australian and Queensland governments had gone backwards in addressing the World Heritage Committee's major concerns about the Great Barrier Reef.
The scorecard analysed how the government's track record stacked up against recommendations that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee had made 12 months ago. Particularly of concern to UNESCO—and you can see it from the draft decision that has been published in respect of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee's considerations—is the government's decision to allow dredging and dumping in the vicinity of the Great Barrier Reef. That is of great concern for obvious reasons when you are talking about a beautiful pristine marine park and coral reefs. Accordingly, when the scorecard was released on Friday, WWF Australia CEO, Dermot O'Gorman, said:
The federal government's decision to allow the dumping of three million cubic metres of dredge spoil in the Reef's waters off Abbot Point means it has failed its international responsibility to protect the Reef.
He then went on to criticise the changes that are the subject of this bill, saying:
Since this decision—
and he was talking about the dredging and dumping decision—
the Australian Government has moved quickly to transfer environmental approval powers to the Queensland Government despite that Government's poor environmental track record.
And, of course, that is a reference to this bill, to the bill that was before the Queensland parliament last week and to the bilateral agreement. He said:
The World Heritage Committee wants a long term plan and concrete action to protect the Reef and instead the Australian Government is washing its hands of responsibility for this national icon. It's a huge concern in the lead up to Doha.
Of course, this statement was made last week He continued:
Our assessment shows the Australian and Queensland Governments have failed to make "good progress or complete" a single one of UNESCO's requests.
Great Barrier Reef Campaign Director with the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Felicity Wishart, said at the same time that the budget cuts announced since January also flew in the face of the World Heritage Committee's recommendations. She said:
At a time when UNESCO is advising Australia to increase investment to protect the Reef the Federal Government has cut funding to the Environment Department and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
The Queensland and Australian Governments are risking the Reef's World Heritage status. The Reef provides 63,000 jobs and $6 billion to the Queensland economy. A decision to protect the Reef is a decision to protect our tourism industry and the Queensland economy.
As I have said, the Newman government has made a point of saying that the tourism industry is one of the four pillars of that economy. The campaign representatives are:
… calling on the Australian and Queensland governments to address the most serious concerns of the World Heritage Committee to avoid a possible listing as 'in danger' in 2015.
The state environment minister has said that the concerns about dredging and dumping are really coming from green groups, but that is obviously not the case, given that UNESCO itself has in its draft decision specifically raised the concern about dredging and dumping. It is crystal clear that the last thing this parliament should be doing is facilitating the delegation of power to state governments.
We have gone a long way off the reservation, haven't we, with the Labor party coming in and making statements like that which we have just heard from the member for Griffith. It was not very long ago in this place when the member for Watson, as the then environment minister, was talking about exactly what we doing here today—that is, handing over the Commonwealth approval process and assessment process to state governments and allowing for the streamlining of green tape for major job-creating projects right around this nation. That was taken off the agenda as we neared the election—for the simple reason that Green preferences are needed by Labor around the nation, and they did not want to upset their mates.
I would like to point to another backflip. We have just heard—and I am sure we are going to continue to hear this throughout the course of this debate from Labor members; certainly from the Greens members—condemnation of the Abbot Point expansion project. I have to say that there was no condemnation by Labor of this project before the election; in fact, the local Labor candidate who ran in my seat—where Abbot Point is located—actually publicly supported the project, and came out and said that the Labor government would approve this, that it would go through the appropriate mechanisms and would then be approved. Now, after the election, we find out the truth: Labor would never have supported the Abbot Point expansion project—a project that is going to create thousands of new jobs and is going to be an economic boost for the town of Bowen and for the region of Mackay and the Whitsundays, which right now so desperately need access to new jobs. Other than the repeal of the carbon tax, there is no more important legislation that could be before the parliament to get things kick-started again throughout the economy than the legislation before us: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. This bill sets up a one-stop shop for all environmental assessment.
There is a lot of argy-bargy and a lot of point-scoring on this—and some stupid statements; for example, that we are relinquishing our responsibilities, and that we are somehow abdicating ourselves from the process of managing icons like the Great Barrier Reef. But the real criticism there is that somehow, state government bureaucrats are not able to do assessments properly. That is the implied criticism: that somehow we do not trust state government department of environment bureaucrats—the public servants who sit there and go through these assessments. They have all the same credentials as the federal environment department public servants—but somehow we do not trust the state government public servants to go through and do these assessments properly. That is a slight on those public servants in Queensland, and in all of the other states, who actually do a good job and who do those assessments properly. What the Labor Party is saying by not wanting us to go down this path is basically that it does not trust the judgement of those public servants in Queensland and elsewhere to do these assessments.
I am going to reflect on Abbot Point, which is a major project and which has come up against the green war-machine for a lot of criticism and a lot of bagging. But there have also been a lot of lies about it. One thing I can say that is absolute fact is that this project went through the wringer—completely—for months and months; in fact the assessment processes that it had to go through blew out to years. First it went through the state processes: all of the environmental impact statements they had to go through, and the back and forth with the department wanting them to make sure that all the questions were answered. Then there was the consultation process, where all of the green groups jumped on and said what they thought was wrong and tried to nitpick it to death. It then went back for further adjustment and finally, when it was right, they got the approval. That took a hell of a long time—months and months and months. Then it had to go through the federal process all over again, and the same thing happened: back and forth between the department until the department was happy with what was before it, then out for public submission and then all the green groups jumped on it again and again tried to nitpick it to death. There is a clear strategy about that, too. This is actual factual information—I am not gilding the lily by saying that there is actually an articulated campaign, a documented campaign, that radical environmental groups in Australia run against these sorts of job-creating projects like Abbot Point. It was set out in Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom by a group calling for the ending of the Australian coal boom. The document was successful over the internet and it talks about the strategies they employ in delaying projects so that it nobbles investor confidence in them, drags out the costs of these projects and eventually kills them off.
We should as a government streamline the process to make sure there is only one assessment that goes through. Surely a state government public servant who is charged with assessing applications against state government environmental plans that are fairly complex documents would be able to do the same assessment at the same time against the federal government posture of his plans. It is not a very difficult task when you put it like that. The person who is responsible at the state level for assessments there could easily do the federal government's assessments. It would be streamlining it and it would be putting, I suppose, a handbrake on those attempts by the green movement to constantly delay job-creating projects, particularly in northern Australia. That is what we saw with Abbot Point and that is what we continue to see after the fact at Abbot Point even after it has had the tick-off from both the state and federal governments, even though there was such a delay. We had delay after delay after delay from the succession of environment ministers under the previous Labor government. I think approval was originally supposed to come down in early 2013. Actually, I think it was December 2012. Then it was going to be sometime in early 2013. Then it got shifted to July 2013. They could not make a decision before the election, because again that would have affected the green groups out there, so it was shifted until after the election. Finally we made the call when we came to government that, based on all of the sound advice that was provided to us, all of the expert advice, this project could go ahead.
But it could have happened a lot quicker if there had simply been a one-stop shop where all of these environmental assessments were done. After the fact, the environmental movement have not stopped. They have continued to try and nobble this application by taking it to court. I believe there are three different court cases being waged by people. I am not a lawyer, and thank God for that to a degree, but I do not understand how people like the Mackay Conservation Group—which has never done a conservation activity in its life, mind you; its sole boasting right is about how it has stopped developments from going ahead—can take job-creating projects like Abbot Point to court to try to have stopped. But what is their legal status? I do not understand how they have any legal status, and they should not have any legal status to be able to do that. Who do they speak on behalf of? Their membership base is very limited. There are a minority group in the Mackay community, even, let alone Australia, and yet they claim to stand up in court for the environment, for the Great Barrier Reef and for the Australian people! Who gave them that right? Who elected them? Who gave them that authority? It bewilders me. I think governments are going to have to look in the long-term at this continual legal appeal approach to disrupting and delaying job-creating projects right across this nation. We are going to have to get serious on that front.
I go back to the bill. It is the way forward. If we want new jobs, if we want new opportunities, we are going to have to have a streamlined approach. That is not just George Christensen saying that as the member for Dawson or as a member of the Liberal-National coalition government; that was actually the assessment of the Productivity Commission. They did two major reports, one into the non-financial impediments to the resource sector; and the other one on how to fast-track the approvals processes for major projects within Australia. Both of those reports highlighted the need for a streamlined assessment process—a one-stop shop—which is what this bill is delivering. And you know what? Both of those Productivity Commission reports were asked to be delivered by the former Labor government. So I asked the question of the Productivity Commission: 'What can we do to get the mining sector firing again? What can we do to help fast-track major projects that are being undertaken in this country?' The umpire, the Productivity Commission, came back and said that you must fast-track them. You must set up a single assessment point, and you can do that by getting state governments to assess against the federal regulations and rules. And yet today we have Labor member after Labor member disagreeing with the umpire's call. It is not the coalition's call; it is something that has come from the Productivity Commission—the agency charged in Australia with ensuring that our policy framework as a government and as a nation is conducive to the best economic outcomes for the nation. Yet, Labor is going to argue against it. That says a lot about the Australian Labor Party today, which is wedded to the Greens, as we saw under the last government, and which is still clinging on to the carbon tax—at least here in the parliament it is. It does not want us to remove the carbon tax. It is effectively blocking the removal of the carbon tax in the Senate.
At the same time, it is going out there now—and I see the shadow environment minister has gone out—saying that the Labor Party has turned a new leaf and is thinking of jettisoning its policy for an emissions trading scheme. That is a big shift. It is thankful. I congratulate the Labor Party on moving away from these punitive measures to try and change the temperature of the globe; but it could take some real action by voting with the government to get rid of the carbon tax and restoring confidence in the economy by supporting this bill and streamlining these processes.
If this system had been in place I am sure that right now we would not be dealing with court cases against the major job-creating project at Abbot Point that so many people in my community desperately want to see go ahead. The little town of Bowen is on its knees. It is nearly dead. There are so many businesses that have had to shut down. People have gone out the back door and are shifting, because there is no movement in the economy. They are all waiting for this Abbot Point expansion to go ahead. If this system had been in place a number of years ago, we would not be talking about it in court, the jobs would be created, the jobs would be there, that town would be pumping again and the economy would be restored. Abbot Point would be going ahead with all of the environmental safeguards in place, because it would have been through an assessment process that had looked at both the state guidelines and the federal guidelines and made sure that the project complied with both of them. That is what we are talking about. It is not something radical. It is not something that is going to harm the environment. It is something that is simply going to get rid of the useless green-tape and time-consuming approach that we currently have with environmental assessment in Australia. I would say to the opposition: listen to the Productivity Commission. You asked them for an answer. They gave you one. Support this bill.
I rise today to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. This bill seeks to amend the EPBC Act to facilitate the delegation of environmental approval powers to state and local governments. The bill, along with the bilateral agreements being developed, means that particular activities relating to environmental consents could potentially be placed in the hands of state governments and on some occasions local governments. I have grave concerns about both of these issues and I will detail them throughout this speech. Potentially, it could include issues like World Heritage listed properties, activities like uranium mining or even approvals under the water trigger amendment. These could be given to the control of state governments. We have heard many speakers on this side talk about why that would be a concern.
This bill paves the way for the Prime Minister and his environment minister to irresponsibly hand over those environmental approvals to the states and local councils. The bill would allow the states and local councils to approve developments in some of Australia's most precious environmental ecosystems, which could undoubtedly have disastrous effects on local environments and important tourist attractions. It is a real concern. We looked at those state governments who have no regard for environmental protections. As it is, in my home state of New South Wales we have a state government that has no concern about environmental protections. In fact, it is an environmental vandal.
If we look to some of the changes that could happen, we could firstly look to Queensland, where we could have Premier Campbell Newman potentially approving dredging and dumping in the Great Barrier Reef. That is terrifying. We could have Western Australia Premier Colin Barnett in charge of the Ningaloo reef. Remember that this is the man responsible for the shark cull in Western Australia. That he may potentially have final oversight over some very important issues really is an issue of huge concern to people in my electorate. We could also look to Tasmania, where Premier Hodgman and his government could be in charge of Tasmania's iconic World Heritage listed forests. This is again a rather frightening idea. Most alarmingly for my electorate, in New South Wales, is that we could have Premier Mike Baird and the North Coast National Party having total and final control of approvals for all coal seam gas mining applications. I see this element of the legislation as the most terrifying. It is one that many people have raised with me. This legislation is very important to the constituents of Richmond in terms of the effects that it will have on the future approvals of coal seam gas mining developments.
The North Coast state National Party have demonstrated time and time again their pro-CSG agenda and a total disregard for the community and our opposition to harmful coal seam gas mining and unconventional gas mining on the North Coast. Time after time, state National Party MPs like Don Page, Thomas George, Geoff Provest have refused to listen to our community and to oppose the rollout of the unconventional gas industry on the North Coast. We are seeing the National Party ridiculing those who oppose coal seam gas mining. This past weekend, the New South Wales Nationals had their conference at Queanbeyan. One of the things that were brought up were comments made by the Deputy Premier and National's leader, Andrew Stoner, who is also the Minister for the North Coast—which is quite ironic—about the protesters at the recent blockade. Mr Stoner was reported as having said of those at the blockade:
It broke my heart that some of those professional bludgers thought they had a win.
How appalling is that! The comment was reported in a tweet by Jenna Cairney, Deputy Editor of The Land newspaper. In another tweet by Ms Cairney, Mr Stoner was reported to have said:
Mark my word we were prepared to go head to head with that protest group.
I think that is really a reflection of what we see from the New South Wales Nationals. There has been widespread condemnation of the Deputy Premier's comments. Of course, what he was referring to at Bentley is the site near Lismore, where exploration for unconventional mining was due to start last month; but, because of massive community opposition, they were forced into a backdown in relation to that. Today, we are hearing that a review of the suspension of Metgasco's licence is due by 25 June, so this is causing more concern on the North Coast. The community's view is very clear. We had thousands of people out at Bentley, protesting Metgasco's licence for that area. It really is quite offensive to have the Deputy Premier making these comments. As I say, it has been widely recognised.
The fact is that the New South Wales state government and the North Coast National Party cannot be trusted when it comes to significant environmental approvals. They cannot be trusted. They have demonstrated that they are not interested in protecting the unique environment of the North Coast from harmful CSG mining. That is one of the many reasons I do not support the handing of environmental powers to the states.
As I have said many times before in this House, Liberal-National governments at many levels tend to be environmental vandals, in contrast to us in the Labor Party. We have a strong history of protecting the environment. This was seen in our amendment to the EPBC Act in 2013 in relation to the water trigger. The water trigger as part of the amendment to the EPBC Act meant that for the first time water resources could be considered as a matter of national environmental significance in relation to environmental approvals. The intention of the amendment of the process relating to water was specifically in relation to coal seam gas and large coalmining developments of national significance. It has become known as the water trigger. It means that coal seam gas and large coalmining developments require federal assessment approval if they are likely to have a significant impact on a water resource. So to hand full approval power for large and potentially harmful coal seam gas mining projects back to a state government which is essentially an environmental vandal is, quite frankly, reprehensible.
Looking to the New South Wales government, I would like to respond to some of the comments of the member for Gippsland. He will be very interested in this. Remember that this is a government that after winning office in 2011 renewed all the current licences. That is right: they renewed all the current licences when it came to CSG mining projects. The Liberal-National Party own these licences, but the people of the North Coast are fully aware of the National Party spin and deception. The people of the North Coast know that handing over environmental approvals, including the water trigger, to the states is, indeed, irresponsible madness. That is what they are saying—that it is irresponsible madness.
Even worse, in some cases the federal government would be handing environmental approvals over to councils. I would like to refer to a local example. The majority of our councils on the North Coast—such as Tweed, Byron, Lismore, Ballina and Kyogle—are opposed to harmful coal seam gas mining. They have made that very clear and have stood with their communities. But if we turn to the Richmond Valley Council—where the town of Bentley is—they are very pro-CSG. So it would be really concerning if you had a councils like that and a National Party mayor such as they have in Ernie Bennett out there ticking off on coal seam gas mining. If Mayor Ernie Bennett was responsible for the licence in Bentley, there would be a big tick for that one. He is totally opposed to all the other councils on the North Coast and how they feel about that. I will get to more information about the councils later on.
The risk of contaminating our water resources is not the only concern involved in handing environmental approvals back to the New South Wales state government. A further example of risk is in the Kings Forest development in my electorate of Richmond. This development comprises 4,500 lots on 880 hectares on the Tweed Coast and runs right through known koala habitat. Upon its completion, Kings Forest will include housing for around 15,000 people and related public infrastructure. Many fantastic local conservation groups, such as Team Koala, have called for a dog ban, speed limits, corridors and overpasses in the housing development to protect koalas living there. This development has been referred to the federal environment minister for approval under the EPBC Act, having already been approved by the New South Wales state government. It goes without saying that for an important and endangered species like our precious koala an extra layer of approval and oversight is essential for their protection.
We are waiting for a decision on this. I have raised this in the House many times. The people in my electorate are very concerned about the outcome of the determination by the minister because they are concerned about having in place adequate protection for the koalas in Kings Forest. So I again call on the Liberal-National Party government and the environment minister to act to protect those koalas in their final development consent in relation to Kings Forest.
Federal oversight through the EPBC Act is also necessary as each state and local government surely has a different perspective on environmental issues. This is exactly why national oversight is required. This bill lacks clarity and it lacks cohesive structure to ensure adequate environmental protection at a national level. When it comes to the environment, some states simply do not have any priorities. As I said, when you look at the New South Wales state government's record on CSG mining in my community and their lack of regard for our precious environment, how can they be trusted on anything else of national environmental significance? The fact is that, of course, they cannot be trusted on matters of environmental significance. They just cannot.
This bill goes further than just handing approval powers over to the state governments. It provides the avenue to accredit local government and shire councils to undertake critical assessment and approval processes. This would effectively put local government in charge of the environmental responsibilities of some of Australia's major natural assets. It is simply quite unfair for the federal government to expect local government and shire councils to take on the environmental work of much larger departments that handle this work with often thousands of experts and scientists at their disposal. It is unreasonable to expect shire councils, who do not have at their disposal all of those adequate departmental resources, to make decisions of an environmental nature that are potentially of national significance. The environmental risks associated with this move are quite astounding. It should never be the burden of local government to take on the work that is essentially the responsibility of a state or federal government. That level of pressure would be unduly unfair on our local councils and the resources they have. As I said earlier, we have a perfect example in my electorate where having a pro-CSG mayor and council is just devastating. So I have grave concerns across a whole range of levels about these powers being delegated to local councils
In conclusion, since 2011 it has been abundantly clear to the people in my electorate of Richmond that the state government of New South Wales that we currently have, the Liberal-National Party government, is not the best custodian of our unique environment. In many cases they have been all too happy to sell off land, subdivide where they want and pollute whatever resources we have, whether that is koala habitats, water resources or precious forests. These are the people who have allowed shooting in our national parks as well. I have said many times that they are environmental vandals. We keep seeing examples of that time and time again. No doubt they will be held to account next March when we have our state election, because people have a lot of worries about the extent of that environmental vandalism. Indeed, for us, the issue of coal seam gas mining will be one of the major issues. That is why I do not believe these powers should be delegated to the state governments.
I would also like to take the opportunity to commend the many great groups in my electorate that work very hard to raise these environmental concerns. We have heard speakers from the other side of the House condemning those groups. I want to congratulate a lot of those groups. These people put a lot of time, effort and energy into making sure these concerns across a whole variety of different developments are raised. I have mentioned Kings Forest before and I have mentioned in the House before the community fight to preserve Lot 490 at Kingscliff, which is a pristine piece of coastal land. That is a major concern there. Also, I commend the people in relation to opposing the West Byron development, which again is a major over development within our area.
The people in my area really understand about getting the balance right. They understand how important it is to preserve our unique and beautiful natural environment. The reason people move to what is essentially the best address in Australia, the Far North Coast of New South Wales, is that they appreciate our beautiful diversity, our hinterland, our beaches and our remarkable villages and towns. It is an absolutely stunning part of Australia—the best indeed. People are working very hard to preserve that and preserve their beautiful surrounds and the quality of life in the area they have chosen to live in. That is why people are so passionate and concerned about this.
I would like to congratulate all of those groups that work incredibly hard to maintain their position across a whole range of different environmental issues. We have never seen such a strong example of that as the thousands who came together at Bentley to stop the exploration licence. At its peak we had thousands of people there and thousands more were prepared to come out. They were camping out the weekend just before the licence was suspended. I say that it is a real concern that in the coming two weeks we are going to have a review of that. I can assure the House you will see the same situation, with thousands of people out there defending our community's right to stop inappropriate and over scaled harmful exploration and coal seam gas mining.
I believe the federal government ultimately has a responsibility to protect Australia's precious environment, and the EPBC Act in particular accounts for this. By delegating all of these responsibilities, the Abbott government is showing that it has no interest in protecting Australia's environment for the future. I understand that there may be a need to look at streamlining; that is fine. In some ways streamlining may be effective, but complete delegation of all these powers to the states—who, as we have said, are environmental vandals—is very irresponsible and reprehensible. The end result of it could be potentially dire for some of our most environmentally significant areas right throughout the country. They could be devastated because of this decision.
It is for these reasons that I do not support this bill. I think the consequences could be dire. People in my electorate have certainly raised with me the fact that they do not want this to happen. They do not want those powers delegated, particularly to our state governments, but also to our councils. I think it is wrong that this government has taken this plan of action. I think it will be devastating for our environment, and the repercussions will be very widespread.
I too rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. I might just make some comments about the speech of the previous speaker, the member for Richmond. What we have just heard is base political activity. The member for Richmond was not speaking for the people of her electorate. You might be interested to know that the member for Richmond has probably the lowest primary vote of any member in this place—33.5 per cent. The Greens in the seat of Richmond had a vote of 17.6 per cent. So the member for Richmond was actually appealing to the 17.6 per cent of people in her electorate who voted Greens, and not to the 50 per cent of people who did not.
In the last election she ran a vicious anti-CSG campaign, in an electorate that I might add has no CSG. There is CSG in adjoining electorates, but the member will not dispute the fact that there is no CSG in Richmond. She is appealing to 17 per cent of people. I agree with the member for Richmond that it is a beautiful part of the world. But she is appealing to the people who go up there, clear their half acre of rainforest and then make sure that absolutely no-one else can do the same thing. They want to be the last house built in Richmond. It is the greatest area of nimbyism in New South Wales. You only have to look to Tasmania to see what Greens preferences have done to the resource-rich state of Tasmania. It choked it. That matter needed to be addressed.
The fact is that those licences were given out willy-nilly by the Labor Party. I know there are people from my electorate listening today. I might say that there has been a lot in the news about the Leard State Forest and the Pilliga. The reason we have extractive industries in those areas goes back to Bob Carr and his relationship with the Greens. He was so hell-bent on shutting down the timber industry and taking out the sustainable industries of the Pilliga and closing down the sawmills at Gwabegar, Baradine and Gunnedah and places like that, he was so hell-bent on closing down the timber industry in order to get Greens preferences that he allowed extractive industries in there. If the people of the Pilliga now have an issue dealing with extractive industries, they can thank Bob Carr. In fact, my state colleagues have gone from having a policy-free zone on extractive industries, when they came to power 3½ years ago, to now having the strongest environmental laws anywhere in Australia, if not the world, to control these industries.
Turning to the bill, what we have here now is a one-stop shop. I say to the people from my electorate listening to this speech that this is not a dilution of the environmental laws. This is a simplification, a streamlining, a remove of green tape, so that processes can get underway. This is not just for extractive industries. This also concerns the land management laws in the state. At the moment we have a real issue in parts of my electorate with the federal environment laws, with the threatened species act, and with the state laws. It is very confusing for landholders to undertake proper management of their land. Indeed, in about a half an hour the mayor of Walgett will be in this building to meet with various ministers to talk about the fact that the Walgett Shire is only 20 per cent developed. Green tape has choked up the good farmers of the Walgett area with regard to developing their properties, which would not only maintain the environmental efficacy of the region but also maintain its productivity.
The assessment and approvals process will be simplified, but in no way are the standards of the physical assessments being diminished. The federal government will be entering into bilateral agreements with state and territory governments across the country under national environmental law. It may not be widely known but there have been provisions for a one-shop stop in the EPBC Act since its inception. The coalition is taking this opportunity to increase productivity while maintaining environmental approvals—contrary to the scaremongering we have heard in this chamber today from the member for Melbourne and other members, who rely on scaring and misinformation rather than dealing with the facts.
The Commonwealth government will remain accountable for its obligations under the EPBC Act and will have an ongoing role in ensuring that the commitments reached by other bodies under the bilateral agreements are met. As a part of the process for establishing the one-stop shop the state and territory governments must demonstrate their ability to meet the high standards set out by the EPBC Act. In some cases, if the existing assessment process has not been of a high enough standard, it will be strengthened. That is a key point. In some cases, this bill will actually strengthen the environmental legislation that protects our landscape, and that is a very, very important point. Those opposite and others who are on this bandwagon will try to play this as some sort of dilution of the environmental laws. It is actually a strengthening of the environmental laws, but it is also a streamlining.
I would now like to speak for a moment about the water trigger. Water resources will continue to be included as an item of national environmental significance under the one-stop shop. There are no changes to the environmental standards under the EPBC Act. Under this legislation the minister will be able to accredit state and territory processes for approving projects involving the water trigger. However, the important thing is that the minister will make this accreditation only if those high standards are maintained. I would like to point out that, unfortunately, as we are seeing now and have seen previously, this water trigger has been used in this place for political purposes. Very rarely have environmental laws been the friends of the farmers, and I would say that also to the people who are listening to this in my electorate at the moment. The environmental laws have the ability to be extremely detrimental to farming operations. So while we need to maintain the high standards, we need to maintain the water trigger and we need to make sure that farmers do not get caught up in the web of environmental green tape any more than they already are. As a former farmer I understand the importance of water in our regional communities; I absolutely do. However, I will not use water as a political football, as some people in this place choose to do. I believe that having the right assessments and high environmental standards are essential in a project that may affect water as a matter of national significance.
I have always supported the establishment of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development. I believe that this independent group of experts in the field is the one that should make the recommendations as to any project put forward. The coalition now seeks to make available to the states and territories the advice from the committee. This sharing of information and access to scientific advice is a useful step to help ensure that the right decisions are being made throughout the approvals process. Independent science is an essential part of this process.
Under this legislation there will be greater transparency about decisions being made and access to information. There will be greater community involvement, which I believe will be welcomed by my community. There will be state and territory audits and transitional and five-yearly reviews of the bilateral agreements and the reporting mechanism. The minister will be checking to ensure that the standards are maintained and that the high standards for environmental assessments remain. Under this legislation the minister still holds the power under the EPBC Act to cancel or suspend an agreement. That is a very important point. The minister has not abrogated his obligations as the final arbiter. But in cases where the streamlining of the state and federal processes can be done under the highest standards that will be the process. The minister still holds the power under the act to cancel or suspend an agreement.
I have said many times that further environmental legislation that interferes with agricultural practices is not in the best interests of the farmers in my region. And I will close on that point. There is information going around regional Australia at the moment that is designed to misinform and scare farmers with regard to their relationship with extractive industrie. It is important to note that, thanks to this legislation and the work of my colleagues in New South Wales, we now have strong environmental legislation that protects our environment. But the only result that the groups that are driving this will be happy with will be the complete removal of extractive industries. And you have to remember: in New South Wales, if you go back to the Hansard in New South Wales and look at speeches made by the Greens back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was the Greens who were advocating for coal seam gas industries as a clean alternative to coal. And Bob Carr complied, with the help of Bob Devis, to make those changes. That is history. We now have to deal with the situation that Labor has placed us in, and this legislation will strengthen our environmental oversights but also reduce the strangling green tape that many people in Australia deal with on a daily basis.
It is interesting that we are debating the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 when simultaneously the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment is inquiring into this very issue under the reference 'Streamlining environmental regulation, 'green-tape', and one stop shops'. The committee has not concluded its inquiry or presented any recommendations or findings. One might have thought that it would be appropriate that, given that there is a standing committee of the House inquiring into this matter, we might await the committee's findings before we proceeded to change the rules relating to who carries out assessments.
In fact, why did the minister give the green light to the committee to proceed down the path of an inquiry if he was going to bring in legislation simultaneously that effectively makes the inquiry a waste of time? If nothing else, it is irresponsible of the government, which is being irresponsible with taxpayers' funds. Hopefully, this legislation will not get through the Senate right now and therefore it might have to come back either amended or to be debated at a later time when the committee has concluded its work and brought some recommendations back to the House. That would seem to me to be the logical time to debate these matters.
It is interesting that, this week, I understand, the World Heritage Committee is meeting in Doha as part of its 38th session. It, too, says that it believes that decisions in respect of referring assessment powers to other levels of government—I am using my own language here—are premature and should be postponed to allow further consideration.
The legislation clearly exposes the Abbott government's lack of commitment to the environment, contrary to what speakers on the government side have said. Neither has the minister shown any such commitment. Since coming to office, the Abbott government has sought to dismantle every environmental protection measure that was in place, including measures put in place by previous coalition governments. Its motive for doing so has been that it wants 'to eliminate green tape, streamline processes, avoid duplication and speed up the approval times'. The government claims that that, in turn, will make development projects costs much lower, will make projects become viable and will enable Australian developers to compete with their overseas counterparts. If only those claims were true.
The government goes on to talk about how green tape is stifling investment and Australia's future. Can I just point members opposite to what has happened in this country over the last 20 years or so under both coalition and Labor governments? There was no lack of project developments across the country. Indeed, it has been claimed that this country has benefited from the boom in development projects—mainly mineral and gas projects and mining more broadly. If all the regulations that we have in place are so bad for this country, how did all of those projects come to be? The truth is that those regulations were all put in place for a good reason, and that is to ensure that we protect the natural environment whilst at the same time we allow projects to be developed responsibly in this country. In making them responsible, the proponents benefit from them and so does the broader community.
One might be persuaded by the government's arguments about the need to remove green tape if their environmental credentials were sound. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. This legislation is merely one of several measures the Abbott government is taking to relegate the environment to the point of making it irrelevant. The reality is that this government does not simply want to streamline decision making, avoid duplication and reduce development costs; it wants to eliminate environmental obligations altogether. And whilst environmental obligations may exist in law under this legislation, in reality they will be emasculated.
I will outline what is wrong with this legislation. Firstly, in delegating environmental assessment to the state governments the process is immediately flawed. State governments have a vested economic interest in every development in their state, so immediately their primary interest will be in approving developments. By cutting funding to the states, as the Abbott government has done in its 2014-15 budget, the states are now even more desperate to generate funds from developments and are even less likely not to back any developments that they are asked to assess. That is why the Commonwealth, which does not have a vested interest in the individual projects of the states and which would be seen as an independent assessing authority, should continue to provide the environmental assessments that are necessary.
Secondly, the states have made cuts to their own budgets with respect to environmental funding. Indeed, I understand that the cuts to environmental budgets by some state governments have been very severe. I understand why they are doing that; it is because they have had their own funds cut by the federal government, so they, too, have to make cuts. And yet, right now, at a time when they are making cuts to their own environmental departments, they are being asked to do more with much less funding.
The inevitable outcome is that short cuts will be taken in the assessment process, that mistakes will be made—not deliberately, but they will be made simply because short cuts will be taken and there will be fewer resources to carry out the processes—and, in turn, the assessment processes will become not only less reliable but, frankly, more open to challenge. I see them as being more open to challenge both by proponents who want to do things even more cheaply and by others who have an interest in the outcome of that development. It is only logical that if you have fewer staff employed in a department, they will have less time to do more work. That in turn means that their ability to carry out the job they have been asked to do will be put under pressure.
It is often said that developers ultimately have to bear the costs of environmental impact assessments. It may well be true that they will bear the cost one way or another. The states, however, still have the responsibility to scrutinise those assessments once they are in hand and to ensure that they comply with all requirements. That scrutiny also requires resources and time. Just as importantly, the states will inevitably still be held accountable, and possibly open to challenge, if they have not conducted the process thoroughly. So they are being asked to conduct the process thoroughly in order not to be held liable, perhaps, in a court, but at the same time they have fewer resources with which to do it. I am not sure that too many of the states would be jumping up and down about this transfer of responsibility.
It is inevitable, given all of these applications, that conditions will be applied. The problem with conditions is that unless they are monitored—and monitored properly—they become useless. Again, a scantly funded state environment department is unlikely to devote sufficient resources to the inspectorial work once an application has been approved. What makes it even more complicated and more difficult is that many environmental impacts do not arise, or are not detected, until many years later. The responsibility to assess and monitor projects is not just a one-off responsibility for these departments; it continues for many years. Because it happens over a period of years it is often difficult to pinpoint what the cause of a specific environmental problem was. Just as concerning is that poorly funded state environment departments are very unlikely to launch what they know are going to be difficult, complex and costly legal proceedings against well-resourced developers, often multinational, if a breach does arise. So there are a whole range of reasons why this legislation should be of concern.
I will go to the delegation of responsibility to local government. Again the question is: does local government have the necessary expertise and resources to thoroughly undertake the assessment processes required? Even if they do now, this year's budget freezes grants to local government for the next three years, costing local governments some $920 million. As with state governments, they will be making cuts. Where are those cuts likely to be made? They will probably make them in areas where they think they can do so without getting too much resistance from local communities. That means that if they have an environment department, that will probably be one of the first areas cut.
To take away environmental protections from the community, as the Abbott government has done by withdrawing funding from community environmental organisations, including environmental defenders offices, highlights how little regard this government has for the environment. Indeed, when you look at all of their decisions collectively you clearly see a clever, cynical attack on the environment. Who will be the major beneficiaries of this legislation? The winners will predominantly be big mining companies—85 per cent of whom, I understand, are foreign owned and most of whom are taking far more from Australia than they give back. Now they want to take even more. The government boasts about having approved some $400 billion of development investments in this country since it came to office. I do not know what the figures are, but I suspect most of that $400 billion is for mining developments.
The harder the government tries to shut down the voices of communities who want to raise environmental concerns, the more determined, I believe, those communities will become. That is what we are seeing with coal-seam gas objectors around Australia, particularly in New South Wales. It makes more sense to have open, transparent and inclusive processes. It makes more sense to bring affected communities into the discussions. These communities often include people with extensive expertise, whose opinions and knowledge should not be ignored. As a member of this House's committee on the environment, I have spoken to countless people with extensive environmental expertise, expertise that has been useful in the past and will be useful in the future. We should listen to these experts when they identify environmental problems, and their expertise should be utilised in finding solutions to those problems. But the Abbott government simply does not value the natural environment, the biodiversity within it or the expertise of the people within our communities.
I will close on this note: the environment, and the biodiversity within it, sustains our health and wellbeing. It underpins our economy, especially primary production. Australia and the rest of the world have experienced significant and unsustainable loss of biodiversity over the years. More than 50 species of Australian animals are believed to have become extinct in the past 200 years and many others are functionally extinct. The environment and its biodiversity are already under serious threat from climate change. The Australian government has an obligation to the people of Australia and it has an obligation to give effect to international conventions to which we are a signatory, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The EPBC Act is the instrument by which the federal government exercises its environmental responsibilities. The EPBC Act is the Australian government's principal piece of environmental legislation. It is designed to protect the national environmental assets of this country. To delegate powers from within that act, when it was specifically designed to put those powers into the hands of the federal government, is irresponsible indeed.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. Firstly, the coalition is absolutely committed to environment protection and economic responsibility. We do this in a win-win scenario. I absolutely reject the premise used by the opposition that the coalition does not care about our environment and that this bill is a retrograde mechanism to harm the states and the environment. This bill is not about negatively affecting the promotion of conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources. It will serve to ensure an efficient, timely and effective process for assessment and approval actions and, importantly, to minimise unnecessary duplication in bureaucracy at state and federal levels.
What the bill proposes is that states and territories commit to the agreement with the Commonwealth to ensure that objectives of the EPBC Act are met and environmental standards are fully and completely maintained, and in some instances further increased, whilst actively allowing faster approvals and a simpler process which will deliver benefits for all. Importantly, the coalition firmly believes that a single entry point at state level for approval can maintain environmental standards and allow businesses to get on with things.
The coalition is a staunch advocate, and rightly so, of a one-stop shop for environmental approvals so that only one environmental approval that covers both Commonwealth and state requirements is needed for an action. The Commonwealth, state and territory governments are committed to working together to achieve this. Crucially, the Commonwealth will maintain an important role and remain accountable for its obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, including international treaties. The Commonwealth will retain an approval role for actions in Commonwealth waters, on Commonwealth land or by Commonwealth agencies and, lastly, the Commonwealth will have an ongoing role in ensuring that commitments under bilateral agreements are met.
Before I proceed, allow me to put some things into context. The current situation we find ourselves in is a direct result of the former government's hasty arrangements with the former Independent member for New England in a resulting minority government. These hasty arrangements of a supposed one-stop shop were permitted for all arrangements but strictly excluded what was known as 'water trigger' projects, those such as coal seam gas and coal mining believed to have adverse impacts on water resources. Consequently, organisations wanting to undertake such projects were subjected to lengthy assessment and approval processes at state, territory and Commonwealth levels. This meant businesses would grapple with a multitude of overlapping regulatory burdens which was immensely time consuming, involving jumping through hoops and processes which could go on for weeks and months, sometimes years. For a business that has no certainty and contracts with pending results for weeks and months on end, that can be disastrous.
The opposition's argument thus far has been the logic that regulatory burden enables better environmental control. No, it enables the control of businesses being buried with red tape and strangled with paperwork, but the impact on the environment is disputable. The coalition understands the need for scrutiny and accountability for environmental protection by ensuring all projects carried out by organisations meet environmental standards. Because the coalition has Australian businesses and jobs at the forefront of decision-making processes, the coalition absolutely understands the urgency for reducing red tape and having a streamlined regulatory and administrative process in a unified framework, whilst allowing all other stakeholders to get on with their role. State and territory governments have responsibility for land and water management in Australia. This is not new and has been in place for some time now.
One of the key achievements of this bill is enabling the removal of the duplication across jurisdictions and creating an efficient, effective process. When fully implemented, this bill will allow for a true one-stop shop for environmental approvals that has a single entry point at the state level for approvals. This is achieved through three parts: (1) signing a memorandum of understanding on key principles and confirming cooperation; (2) updating on bilateral agreements for those already in place; and (3) agreement on bilateral approvals within 12 months. Eliminating duplication means Australian businesses can expedite their operations whilst the Commonwealth not only maintains but strengthens environmental standards.
It will strengthen environmental standards because, prior to entering a bilateral agreement, states and territories must demonstrate that their environmental assessment and approval processes meet the high standards set up by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The states and territories are accountable for matters that would produce adverse outcomes for the environment. Having a one-stop shop also means there is more transparency and access to information on the environment, and stakeholders can review it as necessary. Should there be any issues or disputes, an escalated resolution process will be on hand. Finally, the environment minister will retain the ability to further assess or approve a project.
The suggestion that this bill will give too much power back to states and territories is a woeful and even insulting premise. The state and territory governments are perfectly able to make informed environmental impact assessments for such projects and should have the autonomy to proceed as they see fit. This bill will abolish the metaphorical hand-holding by the Commonwealth which only serves to create a bloated bureaucracy and inefficiency. If we backtrack two years, the one-stop-shop reform was actually introduced by the Labor Party, devised by the Gillard government, in early 2012 with the mechanism in operation by March 2013. The idea was to allow key decision making to be the responsibility of the most appropriate level of government, through the states and territories. Unfortunately, by December 2012 the former government changed their minds. Now Labor still stand opposed to an agreement that was first devised by them and that their state counterparts had all signed up to. It is a little confusing.
The coalition understands that for major resource projects concerning coal seam gas and large coalmining it is crucial to have measures in place that would not minimise standards or lessen environmental sustainability. However, the overwhelming duplication in question has not actually produced quantifiable environmental benefits or outcomes. Again, the streamlining, the creation of a one-stop shop and the removal of the unnecessary deadweight regulatory burden are completely sensible—in fact, it would be illogical not to do so. It is possible to produce and allow robust environment assessments of these actions, delivered through a single assessment and approval process that benefits everyone. Importantly, this is good news and a relief for Australia's international investment reputation.
I understand environmental concerns surrounding coal seam gas mining and coalmining development projects, but it is important to highlight that this can be done without the purported disastrous consequences to the environment, while still creating jobs and economic benefits. The coalition is committed to ensuring that the states have access to the necessary information before making important decisions in relation to these water trigger projects so that environmental standards are upheld against high standards. To ensure state and territory bodies can seek the correct advice before approving projects, the coalition will increase the role of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development to provide their expert opinion.
The coalition absolutely notes the legitimate concerns of electorates with coal seam gas mining and coalmining, but there should be common sense when we are enforcing regulation. Again, it will allow the states and territories to make appropriate decisions in their respective areas, where they are across the issues on the suitability of such projects. This reinforces the coalition's commitment to streamlined processes, smaller governments and the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy, which businesses and the community simply do not need.
Simplifying and streamlining approvals is the way forward that will end the unnecessary red tape, which does nothing except waste time and taxpayer money. Jumping the same hurdles over and over is counterproductive. Giving businesses certainty as to the requirements and time frames of prospective proposals prior to undertaking this process will streamline this important process and contribute enormously to employment and economic prosperity.
This bill will recognise that states and territories have set up their processes in ways that work best for them in their respective state or territory. Furthermore, the new provision to provide ongoing certainty to the community about the operation of the agreement is important for businesses and governments alike. It is actually possible to have economic development alongside environmental protection. Members opposite would have you believe otherwise, because they honestly seem to think that regulatory burden, red tape and excessive statutory control will lead to cleaner air, greener grass and bluer skies. It does not. It will not. What it will do is strangle businesses and resources and prevent benefits from flowing on to important constituents and stakeholders.
Labor would have you think that their key achievement in environmental reform was the political masterminding of the abhorrent carbon tax with the Australian Greens, which has become the world's most notoriously expensive program, with no results. The only genuine impact is that consumers pay through the roof in utility bills, businesses lose market share and foreign investment withers away as Australia has reduced investor opportunities and loss of economic potential.
The coalition has taken an important major step in reform through the reduction of governmental red tape and multiple regulatory obstacles facing businesses. We are allowing the states and territories to have the autonomy to approve projects with stringent criteria set to a national regulatory framework. This framework will be enforced and will ensure that the environment will not only be protected but even strengthened and that businesses can also have a fair go. We are safeguarding both the environment and Australia's economic prosperity.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill will deliver better standards, faster processes and streamlined regulation, which are all part of the coalition's commitment to a wider environmental regulatory reform policy agenda and our key audit of existing environmental regulation.
I rise today to oppose the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, which is before the House. This bill amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to facilitate the delegation of environmental approval powers to state and local governments. The delegations allowed within this bill include World Heritage listed sites, nuclear activities and approvals under the water trigger amendment.
Divesting the Commonwealth government of its responsibility to protect environmental areas of national significance is not good policy. It is not good for the health and wellbeing of our planet and it is certainly not good for future generations. In practice, this bill will allow state and local governments to determine the level of protection we afford to nationally significant environmental and heritage sites across Australia. It hands over the power to approve developments in some of Australia's most iconic and sensitive natural areas—including the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park and Fraser Island—to the cash strapped states and local governments. Handing Commonwealth power to the states would endanger some of our most sensitive natural areas and threaten biodiversity protection across Australia.
Only the Commonwealth has the mandate and capacity to consider the needs of the whole of Australia when approving projects that could affect the environment. A state government has no motivation to put the national interest before its own state interest when approving development within its own state. This bill puts major environmental decisions in the hands of the current 'everything is for sale' state governments. We will have Campbell Newman, Premier of Queensland, waving in the ships to dredge and dump on the Great Barrier Reef. He will probably try and find a way to sell the reef while he is at it. Colin Barnett, Premier of Western Australia, a strong supporter of the controversial shark culls in WA, will now be in charge of the Ningaloo Reef. We will have Will Hodgman, Premier of Tasmania, axe and saw in hand, overseeing Tasmania's iconic World Heritage listed forests. These are premiers and state governments who have already proven that they do not have the capacity to make sound environmental conservation decisions. We most definitely should not be giving them more approval power to make decisions about our environment and sites of national significance.
These are state governments who are under significant budgetary pressure following the actions of this Abbott Liberal government. State governments have not held back from criticising this government for the cuts it has made to their own budgets—$80 billion of cuts to health and education, and many other cuts, including to concessional programs for seniors. New South Wales Premier Mike Baird, for example, has warned that New South Wales 'cannot absorb these cuts'.
With the federal government backing away from funding the states, governments across the country are looking for other ways to raise revenue and are selling our assets. In my electorate of Newcastle, the New South Wales Liberal government has recently sold our port, our greatest public asset, to the highest bidder as an immediate revenue-raising measure. And just last week the New South Wales Liberals opted to privatise New South Wales electricity networks. The Abbott Liberal government is actually encouraging them to sell more assets by offering financial incentives to do so. State governments—who have a selling, planning and development onus, rather than a conservation focus—should not be making development decisions that could affect areas of natural environmental significance. This responsibility should remain with the Commonwealth.
This bill goes to something beyond the current pro-development, 'for sale' state governments that view the environment as nothing more than a resource to be exploited. It provides the ability for these same state governments to accredit local government to undertake critical assessment and approval processes. Allowing the states to approve anything, anywhere, without limitation is worrying enough, without further diluting accountability by putting local government in charge of Australia's major natural assets. Do not get me wrong, the Cairns Regional Council should have input into any proposal to develop within their council boundaries; however, they have neither the resources nor the capability—nor should they—to be making major environmental decisions about the Great Barrier Reef. Similarly, the Shire of Exmouth council should have a say in what happens in and around Ningaloo Reef within their boundaries; but, again, they should not be the determining body. Shires and councils play an important role as stewards and custodians of our natural environmental treasures and areas of environmental significance; however, to suggest that they are the appropriate body for the management of major developmental approvals is misguided. It is the federal government's responsibility to oversee and protect areas of national significance. Major developments impacting on areas of national significance should go through a robust process at a federal level that is consistent, not through the inconsistency of town halls across the nation.
Another of Labor's concerns with the divestment of approval power is the lack of quality and consistency in processes between the different states and territories. It has been identified in the past as an issue. Without national oversight, the consistency and quality of processes would likely deteriorate further. Labor does support the streamlining of environmental assessment processes for major projects, but final approval on matters of national environmental significance absolutely should remain with the national government. As part of an investment into streamlining processes, in 2012, when in government, Labor did in fact start the process of negotiating with states and territories to establish agreements to reduce regulatory double up. However, throughout these negotiations and investigations, it became clear that some states could not be trusted with Australia's unique environment. It was clear that a national oversight—with national processes and approvals over the entire country, not just within state boundaries—would ensure the best environmental results.
This bill itself specifically mentions the current inconsistencies across states and territories but does not actually do anything to address these inconsistencies. It acknowledges different systems and standards in each state but ignores any issues that this might present. Rather than create simplicity and certainty for applicants through the cutting of so-called green tape, this bill will actually create additional levels of bureaucracy, more complexity and increased uncertainty for industries, which will ultimately undermine investor confidence. The stated intention of this policy is to reduce regulatory burden, where in fact the policy does the opposite: requiring business to now deal with up to eight separate state or territory jurisdictions, each with their own set of conditions. The conditions to be met for a development application in New South Wales may vary greatly to the conditions in Queensland or Victoria. Applications that involve cross-state boundaries may further confuse the process, and that is before you even start to deal with the intricacies of the 560 individual shire and council processes if this bill were to progress.
Australian environmental groups have banded together against this bill in record numbers. They believe that the threat to our nation's environmental heritage is so great that they have formed what is perhaps the biggest environmental alliance in our country's history. The Places You Love alliance is a group of organisations who are leading protectors and conservationists in Australia and, in some cases, the world. Representing more than 1.5 million Australians through their membership, the 41 groups within the alliance include the World Wildlife Fund, the Humane Society International, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace, the National Parks Australia Council, and the Climate and Health Alliance, as well as some smaller but no less dedicated groups such as the ACT Conservation Society, the Australasian Bat Society, BirdLife Australia, Environs Kimberley, Environment Tasmania and the Wilderness Society. Every state and territory is represented in the alliance and their view is clear: do not hand assessment and approval powers for matters of national environmental significance to state and territory governments. The alliance of environmental experts firmly believes that state and territory governments do not have the capacity to make approval decisions and would be severely conflicted in making any decisions due to their reliance on royalties and other income from large development projects.
Aside from headline sites like the Great Barrier Reef, there are a number of less known, but no less important, areas of environmental significance that would be affected if this bill were to go forward. My electorate of Newcastle is home to a site of international environmental significance, the Ramsar-listed Hunter wetlands. The Hunter wetlands is one of 65 Ramsar sites in Australia that cover more than 8.3 million hectares. The fact that the Hunter site exists today is itself an inspiring story of conservation. Until the mid-1980s the site had been used as a rubbish dumping ground, railways and even sporting grounds, leaving only fragmented patches of remnant wetlands of what was the massive Hunter Wetlands Estuary system, known as the Hexham Swamp. Through the determination and persistence of the local community and a number of far-sighted organisations, the former dump has been transformed into a vibrant wetland ecosystem that is today bursting with life. The site has been protected under the Ramsar convention on the protection of wise use of wetlands since 2002, and has received numerous national and international awards. A major highlight was in 2005 when they received the International Ramsar Convention Award for Education. Building on this award, Labor invested further in the Hunter wetlands and in 2011 funded and opened a new $2.5 million education facility at the centre. The Hunter wetlands and the 64 other Ramsar sites need environmental protection at the federal level, not a state or local government council level. Their collective futures are important to the nation's future. This argument is shared by conservation groups.
Humane Society International are so concerned about the possible effects on Ramsar sites under this bill that they have written to the secretariat of the Ramsar convention at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, in Switzerland. Their major concern for the sites is that this bill weakens the capacity for Australia to fulfil its protection obligations under the Ramsar convention by moving the onus of conservation and wise use of wetlands from an agency focused on environmental conservation, that is, the environment minister, to state agencies who have a more localised planning and economy based approach to natural resource management and who also have less obligations to conservation through their state legislature. These Ramsar sites must continue to be protected at a federal level.
Labor opposes this bill because we believe the national government is responsible for matters of national environmental significance. We continue to support streamlining environmental assessment processes for major projects, but final approval on matters of national environmental significance should remain with the national government. The Australian government has a responsibility to protect Australia's precious environment, and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in particular accounts for matters of national environmental significance.
The Abbott government has no interest in protecting Australia's environment for the future. We have seen this through the Prime Minister claiming, 'We have quite enough national parks' in relation to the Tasmanian forests and, when elected, one of the first things this government did was approve dredging in the Great Barrier Reef, a decision that I note is currently subject to much discussion at the UNESCO World Heritage committee that is meeting as we speak in Doha. I note that that committee took particular note of the decision about dredging in the Great Barrier Reef, suggesting that it was certainly very premature and should have waited for the outcomes and findings of their investigations. Since coming to government the Prime Minister and the Minister for Environment have made bad decision upon bad decision about our environment, but this is the furthest they have gone in terms of putting our environment at risk of irreparable damage by leaving decisions of national environmental significance to the state premiers.
I rise today to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. Essentially, this bill will ensure that one of the government's key environmental commitments at the last election to create a one-stop shop for environmental approvals will be implemented efficiently. In reality, this bill is required to be passed because of Labor's addiction to red tape and bureaucracy.
We on this side of the House are committed to freeing local small businesses and economy-boosting organisations from red tape and bureaucracy. That is why we are creating the one-stop shop for environmental approvals. All too often I hear stories from businesspeople who are frustrated by the hoops they have to jump through, the hundreds of forms they have to fill out and the number of government bodies they have to speak to in order to get environmental approvals for development and business activities. Do not get me wrong, I want to place on the record that I think environmental approvals are essential and required to assist in the conservation of our great natural beauty. But when that effort to protect our environment is duplicated on a state and federal level, the compliance and administrative burden on our businesses and community are not only unnecessary it also delays and adds costs onto projects. The original EPBC Act was intended to streamline approval processes, and the coalition government is now delivering this for our community. This legislation will ensure that the high environmental standards under our existing national environmental law will be maintained while delivering benefits for business and the community.
I want to quote the Minister for the Environment from his second reading speech on this bill as I think it goes to the heart of what this issue is all about. He said:
When the policy is fully implemented, state and territory governments will, for the first time, be able to make a single approval decision that accounts for both state matters and matters of national environmental significance. This will dramatically simplify environmental approvals and remove unnecessary bureaucracy, while maintaining the high standards set out in the EPBC Act.
Our environmental credentials are strong, and in fact our environmental credentials will be strengthened by this legislation. The one-stop shop will promote greater sharing of environmental information between businesses, governments and community thus reducing the need to duplicate the provision and collation of information. Red tape is not this government's friend. We were not elected to tie up investment nor were we elected to reduce the effectiveness of our existing environmental standards. We were elected to make it easier to do business in our nation. As the Prime Minister has stated before, 'Australia is open for business.'
One way we can encourage investment and development in our nation—hamstrung by the Rudd-Gillard governments over the past six years—is to open up our doors and make it more efficient and effective for businesses to deal with government. The role of government should not be to stifle those who want to provide jobs and investment but to make it as efficient as possible to do just that—provide jobs and stimulate the economy. We need to unlock the potential of this nation. Lower costs, faster approvals and more certainty for investors are all ways that businesses will benefit from the one-stop shop for environmental approvals. Faster approvals will be a real, measurable benefit from this legislation. Typically, delays for approvals are between 30 to 40 days or even longer! This is simply unacceptable. Progress should not have to wait for next month.
Those on the other side have been talking about the so-called 'water trigger amendments' that this legislation proposes. I would advise those on the other side that they should take the time to read the bill and understand the EPBC Act. If they did this, they would know that with these amendments there will be no change to the environmental standards currently required under the act. All that will change is that, instead of businesses having to deal with state and federal governments, with separate approval processes for projects with the water trigger, they will now only have to deal with state and territory governments.
On that point, I want to respond to the member for Newcastle, who in her speech made comment about the capacity of states and territories and particularly the agencies that administer the relevant legislation within those jurisdictions, who in fact also have to take into account the Commonwealth legislation. All of the public servants that I have ever interacted with who have responsibility within this field of operation have been highly competent and highly considered in the decisions they make and in the processes they require those who are proponents to developments to go through. At no stage have I ever seen them relinquish their capacity nor diminish their responsibility in ensuring that the environment is a high priority in the consideration. And I think that we should never underestimate that at the state and territory levels we have people who are highly capable of making the same decisions that are required of any Commonwealth structure that addresses the requirements of the act.
In essence, the minister can accredit state and territory processes to approve projects that involve the water trigger, and I know my colleagues within my own jurisdiction would be very mindful of both the responsibility of the state minister for the environment and of course that of our federal minister. Currently, this is different from how all other matters of national environmental significance are treated; now, as a result of this legislation, it will be treated in the same way. This is a real example of how this government is committed to consistency, efficiency and effective environmental management.
Again, the difference between this government and the previous one is stark when it comes to consultation. Gone are the days when policies of national significance were designed on the back of napkins on the Prime Minister's plane. We have worked and continue to work collaboratively with states and territories to ensure that high environmental standards are maintained across the nation. This government believes that we should not overstep our bounds. Australia is a federation and, within this model, as framed in our Constitution, the state and territory governments will work with the Commonwealth to implement the one-stop-shop. Indeed, the responsibility of land and water management rests with the state and territory governments, and that is where it should stay. Those who have listened to me speak in the House before know of my commitment to preserving our natural environment as well as my strong dislike for red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy. I used to work in the bureaucracy; I know how it works. This legislation will rid the community of layers upon layers of red tape that clogs up the time of the public service. Why should we request information that has already been requested? Why should we duplicate the work that someone else is already doing on the state and territory level? It does not make any economic sense or time sense to replicate work that has already been done and should be available. It does make sense to enable those who have that process of ticking off and approving not to have to go back and seek a second process that requires additional work and additional resources.
However, that is exactly what the previous Labor governments have done time and time again. I say that this is symptomatic of Labor. However, I note that in April 2012 Prime Minister Gillard committed to fast-tracking the development of approval of bilateral agreements with the states and territories, with final agreements to be in place by March 2013. This arose out of the states and territories making a representation that there was a need to streamline the process to enable development to occur without impacting on the environment in a detrimental way. But surprise, surprise—the Gillard government backflipped on this commitment and abandoned the reforms. And now they are still opposed to the bilateral agreements. What happened? Did those opposite get a whiff of efficiency and sensible economic reform and get a little bit scared? This is even despite the fact that every state Labor government has signed up to achieve this important reform. We on this side of the house are doing what we said we would do through legislation: we are reducing the unnecessary red tape while maintaining environmental standards.
Overall, I have faith in the local community, faith that those people on the ground will continue to be equally vigilant and that government will ensure that our environment is protected for many years to come. The member for Newcastle referred to the Places You Love Alliance. I think they become an active voice in ensuring that those places that all Australians love are looked after and protected, and that the consideration that needs to be given in the tiers of government is enforced through the relevant legislation. But that does not prevent us from looking at efficiencies by having one-stop shops to which proponents of development can go, follow a process and seek the approvals required.
I am proud to support this bill and look forward to working with the Minister for the Environment to achieve real environmental outcomes while working efficiently and effectively for the local community and industry. And certainly I think that within our period of time as this bill takes effect we will see the gains made from that. We will certainly see that the protection that is accorded to many of our national iconic sites and those that are of importance to the communities in which they live continue to be protected and to be valued by those who live within those communities.
I would also say that there are another set of eyes that need to be focused on the environment, those of all of us in this chamber. We have a role as members of our electorates in representing constituents to ensure that we also are advocates within that process to protect those environmental areas that are important to the people who live within our electorates, who live within the state or, more importantly, who live within this nation. The environment is something that, once lost, cannot be regained in its pristine form, and certainly there is an impact when man does not follow a process that considers the interrelationship between development and that of the environment.
I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. I note that today is 16 June. I know, Deputy Speaker Kelly, you are aware of this date. I know also that you are a mad-keen literature fan and would know that today is Bloomsday. It is also my brother Simon's birthday, so happy birthday to my brother.
It is also the day that the Queensland government officially declared the Galilee Basin State Development Area. The SDA is designed to facilitate rail corridors between proposed new mines in the Galilee Basin and the Abbot Point coal terminal, right on the Great Barrier Reef. This basically gives power to the state government to compulsorily acquire properties to build rail lines under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act, irrespective of whether the farmers on that route object to that.
This point illustrates perfectly some of the problems that come with being a federation. When Australia's Constitution was drafted, the environment was not considered a significant national issue, so the government was not given any explicit power in the Constitution to make laws about environmental matters. The attitude of the time was, 'Conquer, clear and carve up into productive, economic farming units.' Even though we were an urban country at the time the Constitution was written, and are now, there has been a gradual progression when it comes to environmental law.
As a result of this constitutional silence, there has been some confusion over the years about the division of responsibility for environmental protection between states, the federal government, local governments and local communities. Many of the ad hoc national laws in relation to the environment have been introduced to give effect to Australian obligations, triggered by over 90 international environmental agreements that the government has ratified. These agreements or treaties cover topics such as World Heritage areas, which are important for Queensland, because we have the Great Barrier Reef, but also for Tasmania and many other areas.
I note the member for Franklin is sitting at the dispatch box. She would be very passionate and aware of the history, in terms of environmental protection afforded Tasmania under those treaties. I think she might have had an F111 fly over at one stage—just to work out what was going on—a few years back, under Prime Minister Hawke. Other topics are climate change, marine pollution, the recording of pollutants, the remediation of land and biodiversity management, particularly preventing the extinction of species.
In an attempt to clarify confusion between state and federal environmental powers and to make sure that Australia complies with its international obligations, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill was introduced to take on responsibility for developments that had the potential to impact upon matters of national environmental significance. It is very important that everyone in Australia understands that this parliament is concerned by the EPBC with the matters of national environmental significance.
The EPBC was introduced in 1999 as a piece of fundamental environmental legislation for Australia by the Howard government. I commend them for it. Australian state and territory governments undertook shared responsibility for protecting our natural resources. After more than 10 years with the current legislation, negotiations began about the readiness to negotiate the transfer of environmental approval powers. At COAG, in December 2012, Prime Minister Gillard made the right decision to delay that transfer, indicating that more work needed to be done to progress such bilateral agreements. Obviously we need to get it right. When we do not get it right, species disappear, habitats are destroyed and we breach our international treaty obligations.
One reason cited by Prime Minister Gillard for the government's hesitation was the need to ensure that high environmental standards would be consistently maintained across all jurisdictions. We would hate to have nine applications and nine sets of red tape that only confuse businesses. Now, without proper consultation and recognition of the severe consequences that come with handing over the decision-making power to state and territory governments, the Abbott government will remove federal protection of our native flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places, such as the Great Barrier Reef, effectively taking a step back to the bad old days.
My major concern about this amendment is that the states and territories are overly dependent on royalty revenues from the extractive sector, the mining sector. So the proposed bilateral agreements could mean the business sector would face an even more complex regulatory environment, due to the significant variations in different states' environmental regulation frameworks. The one-stop shop model that was behind this legislation in the first place, that the Abbott government is putting forward, will harm the natural environment. It gives powers to states and territories that will see reduced protection for our nationally threatened species—our World Heritage regions, wetlands, migratory species and Commonwealth marine parks, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in my home state of Queensland.
Throughout the 1960s the Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland advocated oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef, the largest living structure on the planet and one of the most complex ecosystems. In 1973 the Whitlam government passed the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, which gave the Commonwealth authority over the states in matters concerning seas surrounding Australia. This legislation was used to block the Bjelke-Petersen government's plans to allow oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. Whilst the Queensland and New South Wales governments challenged this legislation in the High Court, the court found that the Commonwealth powers were constitutionally valid. In 1975 the Whitlam government created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and created an authority to manage it for future generations. That organisation continues to perform this function today. By 1983 the marine park had been progressively expanded, becoming the largest marine park in the world. What a great legacy for a government—a Labor government, of course.
I am sad to say that the day after the LNP government was elected in Queensland—in March, two years ago—the Deputy Premier announced that he wanted to see the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park contract, become smaller. He did not mention it in the lead-up to the election, but it is part of that LNP tradition. I will quickly list some of the other things the LNP government has done—there are 21 items. They removed laws to protect urban areas from mining. They axed future conservation areas. They bulldozed tree-clearing laws and released millions of litres of contaminated mine water. They cancelled every renewable energy project. They limited rights in terms of appropriate development. They commenced logging in state reserves, expanded oil shale extraction and production, opened up national parks to grazing and partnered with the mining industry. They introduced pay-to-damage laws. They affected bats. They removed riparian vegetation protection and sacked hundreds of public servants, especially in the environment department. They defunded the Environmental Defenders Office. They axed wild-river protections, abolished the waste levy, cut funds to koala organisations, gutted the coastal protection laws, recommenced uranium mining and extended sand mining. They fired up dormant coal-fired power stations and removed the need for local councils to account for sea-level rises in their planning laws. That is just a snapshot of what the state government of Queensland has done.
Obviously handing approval powers to the states, like Queensland, will not lead to more efficient or effective processes. The already stretched resources of state governments, particularly where they have had public servants sacked—especially the more experienced ones with the corporate knowledge—will mean that the approval process will be convoluted, unpredictable and unreliable. Earlier this month the Newman government in Queensland announced that five so-called megaports would be allowed along the state's coast under its blueprint for dredging programs near the reef. Abbot Point, near Bowen in the state's north, one of the world's biggest coal terminals, was declared a Port Development Priority Area under the Queensland Ports Strategy, along with Gladstone, Hay Point, Mackay and Townsville.
A recent report by UNESCO found that the Newman government cannot be trusted with the protection and management of our greatest natural asset, the Great Barrier Reef—great consequences for tourism! The UNESCO report raised significant concerns with the health and management of the Great Barrier Reef and has recommended it be considered for listing as World Heritage in danger at its next session. UNESCO will make a ruling at the World Heritage Committee meeting in Doha, and I hope that this warning will be a wake-up call for the current governments at both a national and state level. The first thing the Newman government should do is take back responsibility for enforcing, monitoring and reporting on water quality in the Great Barrier Reef catchment, which it abandoned soon after coming to government—providing a licence to pollute, effectively.
Some environmental groups have noted that the changes to the EPBC Act would lead to a culture of litigation in the environmental movement, creating a situation in which developments are caught up in an increasing number of lawsuits as communities go through other avenues to protect their wildlife and land, whereas the EPBC Act was all about making it simpler.
The situation on the Great Barrier Reef is telling. According to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, 50 per cent of the coral on the Great Barrier Reef has been lost since 1960. We all know that state governments have a direct stake in major developments, particularly when it comes to the money they will receive from mining royalties—especially in a budget where the federal government has cut off much of their funding; $80 billion was cut overnight in the budget a few weeks back. Without federal intervention there would be oil rigs on the Great Barrier Reef and a dam on the Franklin River. With half of the Great Barrier Reef's coral lost already, we are on the cliff of an unprecedented and massive port and shipping expansion that could turn the reef into an industrial highway for supertankers. In fact, it could be an increase of 480 extra ships a year if the Carmichael mine reaches full production; not just a few more ships—we are talking about a projected 7,000 supertankers passing through the reef every year. As I said, the Newman government has just granted approval for the Galilee Basin coalmine despite serious environmental concerns raised by experts appointed by the Commonwealth. The $16.5 billion Carmichael project would add to that in terms of producing about 60 million tonnes of coal a year—a mine covering 200 square kilometres. It is incredible.
The EPBC Act was put in place to protect matters of environmental significance and the federal government should have oversight of this. They should protect matters of national interest so we can fulfil our World Heritage, Ramsar and other international obligations. When it comes to international obligations, the Australian public do not have confidence, sadly, in our state governments—be they Labor or Liberal or anything in between. One reason for this is that it should not be one state alone that decides whether a matter that is of national—or international—significance should be protected. This is why the EPBC Act was put in place in the first place, after the Tasmanian dam case.
Given the evidence of how state laws and state capacities are not adequate to fulfil national and international environmental obligations, environmental groups, environmental lawyers and the Australian public do not have confidence that this process should go ahead. In fact, in a recent Queensland Audit Office report—this is a Queensland government entity—regarding mining and waste-resource industries in Queensland and how effectively they are being managed by the department of environment in Queensland, there was the following statement:
EHP (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection) is not fully effective in its supervision, monitoring and enforcement of environmental conditions and is exposing the state to liability and the environment to harm unnecessarily.
That is from the Queensland government's own audit report into how effective it can be as the police officer on the beat. This is from the Queensland Audit Office. It actually reports to the Queensland government. This shows that the state government is unable to protect our national natural resources effectively.
I, like the rest of the Labor Party, oppose the bilateral agreement's implementation in its current form and the hand-down of powers to states through the EPBC Act amendments presented to the House. I would ask the LNP members who are able to, to vote according to their conscience—particularly the Queensland members of parliament with the Great Barrier Reef at their doorstep, such as the member for Herbert. I am sure he will be able to be a freethinking individual and make a decision that benefits his community, which is heavily reliant on tourism. He will know that we should be doing all we can to protect the Great Barrier Reef—to protect the reefs off Magnetic Island and the tourism connected with that. I would ask the LNP—all of the LNP, but particularly those Queensland LNP members—to consider their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren and do likewise. Just say no: you know it makes sense. LNP members are able to make an individual decision any time they want when it comes to a piece of policy. I have only seen two or three of them actually have the guts to cross the floor when it came to a piece of policy.
How many Labor members have crossed the floor, big man? How many?
The Labor Party is bound by caucus rules. You would have to be an idiot not to know that the Labor Party is bound by caucus rules, but Exhibit A speaks up.
The reality is the environmental protection legislation before the chamber does not protect the environment. It undermines the very piece of legislation that John Howard and other environment ministers were proud of. I can speak with some authority about what goes on in Queensland, and the reality is we do not have a state that is effective when it comes to policing its own environmental laws. It has no chance of making the right decision when it is bound to the profits from royalties from the mining industry.
There is no question at all that the lack of harmonisation and the duplication of federal, state and local environmental approvals processes adds complexity, cost, frustration and a lack of certainty right across the country. The intent of this legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilaterial Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, is to maintain the high environmental standards under national environmental law while delivering benefits for the community and business through a single approvals entry point at the state level. The provisions for a one-stop shop have actually existed since the EPBC Act was introduced. The Commonwealth will remain accountable for its obligations, including international treaties, under the EPBC Act and has an ongoing role with commitments under bilateral agreements. The Commonwealth will also retain an approval role for its actions in Commonwealth waters and Commonwealth land or by Commonwealth agencies.
I note that the states and territories have to demonstrate to the minister that their environmental assessment and approvals processes meet the high standards in the EPBC Act. When people think about the management of the Australian environment, they often underestimate the commitment of coalition governments. I have confidence in the state governments, particularly the Western Australia government. It was the Sir Charles Court-led Liberal government of Western Australia that from 1974 to 1983 took major steps towards the conservation of the natural heritage of the state, more than doubling the amount of land set aside in national parks to 4.5 million hectares.
Sir Charles was also the first to call a halt to the indiscriminate clearing of agricultural land, which until his time had actually been a requirement of landholders acquiring freehold or leasehold title. His Liberal government took the brave but necessary decision to enforce clearing bans in the Collie River catchment in my electorate because they had identified the growing and ominous threat of salinity. Salinity in the Collie catchment is still an area of grave concern. The Wellington Dam, a 156-gigalitre water asset held by the state government, remains stranded with a total dissolved salt level of over 1,000 parts per million. This is twice the potable drinking water standard, and some critical and possibly lateral thinking is required to achieve the best productive use of this water resource.
Sir Charles also identified the impending threat of Phytophthora dieback in WA's native forests. His government took the tough decision of quarantining three-quarters of a million hectares of jarrah forest from logging to protect this valuable and iconic natural asset. The history of environmental care and protection by the Liberal Party in Western Australia is a long and detailed one—which is why I have that level of confidence—and it is still going on. The current Liberal led government in Western Australia has invested in a range of conservation programs, significantly adding reservations created as part of the state's Kimberley Science and Conservation Strategy.
Another area of considerable focus has been in marine conservation. The WA state government created a new reserve in Camden Sound to protect the internationally renowned whale breeding area there and formalised the 124,000 hectare Ngari Capes Marine Park off the south west of Western Australia in the state marine zone within three nautical miles of the coast off the electorate of Forrest. The proclamation of the Ngari Capes Marine Park in 2012 was a highlight of marine conservation in the region. Unlike the Commonwealth marine planning process that was occurring concurrently under federal Labor, the state process was inclusive and scientifically valid.
The state of Western Australia has a great record in environmental conservation. Practices have evolved over the years. Having federal oversight in the 1930s to 1970s would not have stopped the overclearing that occurred throughout the WA Wheatbelt, leading to the salinity and acidity issues that exist today, because, in fact, both state and federal governments supported it. But, as our knowledge base grew and the consequences became known, both levels of government have supported action. I do note that where there was an active timber industry, especially in the South West and in the Forrest electorate, forests were valued and retained. Where they were not harvested and managed to retain a future resource, forests generally disappeared. Those who love the iconic jarrah and karri forests of the South West can in part thank the timber industry for their ongoing existence.
It is with this recognition of the history of the ecology in Western Australia that I support the bill before the House today. I also note that, at a federal level, it was a federal coalition who appointed the first minister for the environment and, of course, it was the Howard government who introduced the EPBC Act in 1999. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill recognises that the states and territories are actually the land managers defined in our Commonwealth Constitution. It also recognises that in those states and territories they have the knowledge, the skills and the on-ground experience to make good decisions for local ecosystems and local communities through this legislation, administering both state and federal acts in a one-stop shop process.
There remains an important role for the Commonwealth: that of oversight, but only where it is empowered by Commonwealth legislation to do so. There are times and conditions where circumstances will demand a federal response. Under the system proposed by the Minister for the Environment in this bill, there is ample opportunity for the Commonwealth to engage with state environment departments throughout the assessment process. This is an opportunity for improved interaction and communication between state and federal bodies, with a greater potential for an efficient, effective process and better outcomes. Of course, in areas of Commonwealth legislation jurisdiction the federal government retains the power and the right to intercede in a more direct manner. This is completely appropriate as well. There may be times ahead where the Commonwealth government needs to call in the assessment and/or the approval of a project. Working in concordance but with the power to disagree in individual cases will be the fallback that is needed to make this system work based on scientific evidence.
The minister has the power under the EPBC Act to suspend or cancel an agreement. This is part of the comprehensive assurance framework. The transparency around decisions and access to information ensure that the broader community can be part of the monitoring process for the one-stop shop. State and territory audits, transitional and five-yearly review of bilateral agreements and reporting mechanisms are further parts of this, as is an escalated dispute resolution process to resolve any issues.
This legislation is part of the answer to the issues of streamlined but safe approvals. I hope it will see an end to approvals taking five to seven years, as has happened in my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia to mineral sandminers. That is just one example, but it is repeated again and again. Having an outcome take so long, putting investments, jobs and the economy of the region at risk, clearly demonstrates why this legislation is a step in the right direction. The need for a complementary and more unified process is highlighted by the approvals process as it exists in my Forrest electorate. The process in my electorate can generally be described in most applications by using two words: 'possums' and 'cockatoos'. These two vulnerable species—the western ringtail possum and Carnaby's black cockatoo—are the focus for endangered species in my area. This is especially the case along the coastal plain leading to the edge of the scarp. These species are picked up by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act federally, which can significantly slow down the approvals process.
However, the experts on the western ringtail possum and Carnaby's black cockatoo are in the state Department of Environment and Conservation. So it makes sense—it is common sense—that that department should lead both the research and the response to the ringtail possum and the Carnaby's black cockatoo. The one-stop shop will promote the sharing of environmental information and data between business, governments and, importantly, the community. I believe that the government and the minister are both to be commended on this initiative.
As I said, this is certainly a step in the right direction for harmonisation to reduce the levels of complexity, the cost, the frustration and the lack of certainty that exists across the country.
I would like to let the member for Richmond know that she owes me when she does get to the chamber! I would like to make a couple of points in relation to this. The first is that I support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Biolateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. I will tell you why. A couple of issues have arisen in Townsville. One is with respect to the delay of a major development of a residential estate. The cause for the delay has always been the black-throated finch. They spent about $5,000 getting the approvals from the local government. They spent about $50,000 getting approvals from the state government. They were up to about $1.6 million still trying to get approvals from the federal government during the last parliament, when we at last saw some movement on that. So when you look at what has to be done with the three levels of government you see the complications arise.
The other issue arose in relation to a sandmining lease down at Cungulla. Friends of mine have bought a sandmining lease between two operating sand mines, and with exactly the same purpose. Two small-business men bought this lease with their superannuation. The sandmining lease had on it a poplar gum. The poplar gum was the only known food source of the bare-rumped sheathtail bat. Yes, the bare-rumped sheathtail bat! No-one has ever seen one in north Queensland but they had to prove that this thing could not come back because it was the only known food source for it. It was like trying to disprove a potential alien landing site.
These guys were held up by the federal end of the legislation for over 12 years, even though they were between two existing businesses doing exactly the same thing. That is why we have to have this legislation. It is not about the federal government abnegating or moving away from imposing federal laws; it is about giving ordinary business people opportunities to have simple processes and a one-stop shop. You still have to pass federal legislation, and all the things that the federal legislation does, but you only have to do it in one place; you do not have to keep going back, finding things more and more complicated. That is why I support this legislation. I think the minister, Greg Hunt, has done a fantastic job in getting this thing done.
We have cause for concern when we do not have the right people in the right jobs. A uranium mine is being discussed around Townsville. We have to make sure that it is still going to be looked at and that it is going to be taken very seriously. It still has to pass federal legislation; it is just that it is a one-stop shop. That is what members opposite seem not to understand. I was holding the fort, so I thank the House.
I thank the member for Herbert for getting up on his scrapers and doing his bit while we got our acts together. I am not sure I agree with everything he said, but that is beside the point. I am pleased that he was able to do the right thing.
This Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 will, among other things, allow states and territories to be accredited for approval decisions on large coalmining and coal seam gas developments that are likely to have a significant impact on water resources; ensure that all states and territories are able to be declared, under the EPBC Act for the purpose of requesting advice from the independent expert scientific committee; clarify that proponents do not need to make referrals to the Commonwealth for actions that are covered by an approved bilateral agreement and, significantly—these are described by some as minor miscellaneous amendments—allow approved bilateral agreements to include approvals made by any person or organisation authorised by the state or territory, such as local governments, rather than only entities that meet the EPBC Act definition of the 'state' or an 'agency of the state'. The bill further clarifies that approval of bilateral agreements could apply to projects that had been approved before the minister accredits the state or territory process as long as the action was approved in accordance with the relevant accredited process, clarifies that the minister can take into account all matters that the minister considers relevant when deciding whether to accredit a management arrangement or authorisation process; and ensures that bilateral agreements can make reference to the most current version of the instruments and policy documents.
I will come back to those in a moment but I would like to say in summary that, while on the face of it allowing state and territory governments to be a one-stop shop and do the business sounds attractive, in its substance, when you examine it, it has real difficulties. I say this as someone who has had the luxury, in a way, of observing the interaction between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory government over a generation, of seeing how the former Northern Territory CPL governments have interacted with the Commonwealth on environmental issues, specifically in the first instance of the declaration of Uluru National Park. I remember very vividly the campaign that was waged by the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory opposing the declaration of the national park, which subsequently became a World Heritage area. What drove him was not what was best for the community or best for the nation, but his own political self-interest. What worries me about these proposals is that the political self-interest of individuals may override the best interests of the nation. I said earlier that one of the more minor miscellaneous amendments was clarifying that the minister can take into account all matters that the minister considers relevant when deciding whether to accredit a management arrangement or authorisation process.
There have been a couple of issues recently in the Northern Territory which raise serious concerns about the capacity of ministers to do the right thing by the community. I want to refer to a proposal around the Sherwin Creek iron ore project, where the Northern Territory minister, through either ministerial approval or delegation to the Department of Mines, authorised the bulk sampling of 200,000 tonnes of ore that was exported to China and 200,000 tonnes of ore stockpiled on Stylo Station, owned by the CLP candidate in the last federal election, Mrs Tina McFarlane. This was done without informing the NT Environment Protection Agency. When the EPA examined the Sherwin iron ore project, it said that it was inappropriate and in contravention of the principles of ecologically sustainable development. Further, it said that such a decision could create a precedent for the quality of environmental management on mine sites when the government continues to be challenged by legacy mines that require costly remediation. I am talking about the Mount Todd mine, just north of Katherine, and Redbank. It further said that the Roper Highway must be upgraded to an appropriate standard, preferably a dual-laned, fully sealed road to at least secondary highway standard, before approval by the Department of Transport to proceed beyond one million tonnes per annum ore transport and that the proponent must contribute proportionally to the upgrade.
I ask you to consider what I have just said. The current Northern Territory minister—of a government we are proposing through this legislation be given an authority over environmental matters and to act on behalf of the Commonwealth—gave an approval to a mining company to extract 400,000 tonnes of ore without any environmental or transport approval. Let me talk about that transport approval for a moment: the Roper Highway is a single-lane public road, which now has multiple ore road trains travelling along it. There was a report on ABC television last week explaining how dreadfully dangerous it is. The mining company has not put one red cent into expanding or developing this road—nor has the Northern Territory government. They are putting people's lives in danger. On the one hand, we have the potential environmental disaster of allowing a mine like this to proceed without any environmental safeguards in place and, on the other hand, we have the real possibility of fatalities on that road—an important public road—because of the commercial interests of a mining company that has not invested one dollar in helping to mitigate the risk of transporting ore along this public road. The Northern Territory government irresponsibly has done absolutely nothing to ensure this public road is properly dealt with.
We know that when the EPBC Act was first passed in 1999, it was legislation to avoid the mistakes of past governments over the previous century. Here we have a current mistake. Just look at the history of the Northern Territory since the first overlanders—and may I say many of the carpetbaggers that followed in the footsteps of John McDouall Stuart and others—to see the environmental and cultural damage that has occurred in the name of investment and jobs without appropriate consideration of environmental standards or environmental management.
What is required is to have processes in place for evaluating the environmental impacts of development proposals, consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. This legislation refers specifically to the idea of coalmining and to the use of water. I understand also that the Northern Territory government is currently receiving submissions into fracking across several regions of the Territory. I believe that the period for making submissions has been extended, given the large number of antifracking submissions that have been received. Only last weekend, I was at the Burunga Festival—a great festival—south of Katherine. The topics of fracking in the Katherine region and the processes for the Northern Territory government to approve drilling were raised by a number of community groups; by individuals—both from the pastoral industry, who have a very efficient beef cattle export industry, and also from the community; and by people who you would associate with the environmental movement. There was a broad cross-section of support. In Alice Springs, there is a similar community group beginning to activate to oppose fracking in the southern part of the Territory. The Arid Lands Environment Centre, a community based environmental group, is taking the lead on the issue. In spite of the fact that, as a result of both the Northern Territory government's budget and the Commonwealth government's budget, they will lose $100,000 of funding.
People are asking very basic questions of not only the Northern Territory government but also the Commonwealth government, in terms of this fracking process. How many millions of litres of water per frack? How many fracks per well? How many wells are proposed across the regions of the Territory? I have heard that it could be up to 60,000 wells. Where will the water come from? What chemicals will be blasted into the hole with the water to frack a well? What are the health risks? We obviously need to consider the toxic effects. What are the impacts on flora and fauna? Will there be waste-water ponds at the wells? What evaporation process will take place? What residue gases will end up in the atmosphere? What is the process for sealing the wells? When will all of this be done? These are questions that the community want answered. Yet, to date, they are not getting answers.
I mentioned attitudes of government and, potentially, considerations of ministers. We know that there has been a lot of speculation around issues to do with water in the Top End. During the lead-up to the last election, one large farm in the Northern Territory—again, owned by a CLP candidate; the then CLP candidate—was given a licence for 5,000 megalitres of water. When asked in a recent interview on the ABC what this water would be used for—what she intended to grow and how she intended to use it—her response was that she did not know. This is a supposedly responsible Northern Territory government making water allocations—based on what? Yet we are asked in this place to cede to the Northern Territory government the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Commonwealth when we know full well that the current Northern Territory government are acting irresponsibly, and in their own political interest, and appearing—at least from my perspective—to be rorting the system to help their mates. Most recently, a CLP fundraiser—someone who has never grown a thing in his life except perhaps his hair!—received 21,000 megalitres in the Daly region: eight times more than our serious farmers are using now. This is a person who has never grown anything. He is a CLP donor, who has subsequently resigned from the CLP because he is a magistrate. What does that tell you about the way in which the CLP is operating in the Northern Territory in terms of the allocation of water?
We in this place have a right to be concerned. If the current government wants to provide the capacity for state and territory governments to act on its behalf, we need to have the confidence that they will act responsibly. I have absolutely no doubt that the responsible departmental officials in the Northern Territory will operate as they should—very professionally—and provide appropriate advice. But it is clear that, in the context of the Northern Territory, advice does not matter, and science matters even less.
A number of people have been arguing that the Northern Territory government should have a dam on the Daly River. We know that when the Northern Territory Chief Minister was asked about such a dam, he did not have a response which was anywhere near appropriate. We need to understand that if we are to look after, in this case, the fragile environments of Northern Australia, we need to be very careful about the responsibilities we give to state and territory governments to act on our behalf. The current Northern Territory government and previous CLP governments have shown that they have acted irresponsibly—not in the best interests of the environment but in their own political interests; and not in the best interests of either the Northern Territory community and its people or the Australian nation. So I question very seriously the proposals that are now before us in this bill—particularly that element that, ostensibly, allows the Northern Territory minister to take political considerations into account in any decisions which are made.
I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. This is a bill that cannot be supported by anyone who takes seriously the regulatory role of the national government in respect of the environment we all share and the environmental values and biodiversity which we have a responsibility to protect for future generations. This bill represents another instalment of this government's 'anything goes' approach to development and big business, and follows the pattern set in their capitulations to big polluters on the issue of climate change, and to big miners on the issue of a fair share for all Australians of the profits derived from the resources that belong to all Australians.
Essentially, this government wants to scuttle out of the way and let the brute and unequal forces of the market do as they will. It wants to take issues of the greatest environmental importance and sensitivity, and have them determined by state and local governments, removing some key protections when it comes to World Heritage, endangered species and water resources, and failing even to ensure that this devolution of environmental protection authority will result in consistent processes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. That change, in particular, is not just bad for the environment but bad too for the certainty of development prospects and proposals.
This goes to the fundamental difference between Labor and the coalition. We understand that representative government derives its authority and owes its duty to the people, not to corporations, and we understand that representative government is obliged to act on the people's behalf in protecting community values, assets and resources against what can be the contrary interests of large companies. Those opposite believe that government simply needs to get out of the way, to vacate the field and hold open the gate in the onrush of market forces and profit motives. There should be little wonder whose interest that approach suits best.
In Western Australia we do not need to be too creative in imagining the kind of shortcuts and process failures that might be involved through the proposed derogation of the Commonwealth's environmental responsibility. We have seen the Western Australian EPA get itself into terrible knots over the environmental assessment of the proposed Kimberley gas hub at James Price Point, a situation where four of the five board members involved in that critical decision had to withdraw through conflicts of interest, having already participated in aspects of the determination, and where the chairperson nevertheless saw fit to deliver the final determination and approvals alone. Thankfully, in August last year the Supreme Court of Western Australia said the approvals were unlawful and invalid.
Is that the kind of process we are now going to see for all manner of critical environmental assessments around this country—from the Kimberley to the Great Barrier Reef, from the Tasmanian forests to the Coral Sea? Is that the kind of process people in my electorate can expect in relation to the proposed bisection of the Beeliar wetlands by Roe Highway stage 8? Are we going to see WA's flawed environmental assessment process determine the fate of a rare and fragile wetland whose ecosystem is of great environmental, Indigenous and community significance and which supports migratory birds protected under treaty?
The Labor government introduced special protections in relation to coal seam gas development in recognition of the legitimate concerns that exist around the contamination of groundwater. We introduced a water trigger and we ensured that coal seam gas and large-scale coal extraction developments could not be the subject of an approval bilateral. That protection is taken away with this bill, and I know, having received a great deal of correspondence from my constituents and from people around Australia on this issue over the last year, that this is a step that will be widely condemned. It has to be recognised that there is a checks-and-balances aspect to the existing system that should not be weakened in the manner that is proposed. There is a place for approval bilaterals in certain circumstances and upon proper constraint, but the approach taken here is moving towards a blanket and dangerous abdication of federal responsibility. Common sense tells you that the precautionary principle should apply and that community expectation in the area of coal seam gas development, in particular, is that the highest standards of scrutiny and regulation be maintained.
I suspect that every member in this place would both acknowledge and be proud of the fact that Australia is a continent of environmental treasures. Most of us would have some kind of personal connection to a piece of coast, forest or a wetland in our home state, if not in our electorates. In WA for me personally there are many, many places like that, and I have spoken in this place about a range of natural wonders on land and in the ocean in remote parts of Western Australia and right in the heart of my electorate of Fremantle. It may be that some members are not aware that the entire south-west of Western Australia comprises an ancient granite slab known as the Yilgarn Shield, and that this dry continental plateau, with its poor soils and heat and low to moderate rainfall, is nevertheless home to an utterly remarkable range of diversity of life. Indeed, the south-west botanical province is one of only 34 recognised international biodiversity hotspots. More than half the region's 12,000 plant species are not found anywhere else in the world. Within the Fitzgerald River National Park, which includes 70 kilometres of unbroken coastal reserve and is classed as a UNESCO biosphere, there are 1,900 unique plant species, 300 more than exist in all of Britain.
The vast reaches of Western Australia, north and south, are not barren ground, even when they seem low and dry and lightly populated by humans. On the contrary, right across this continent are examples of natural beauty and biodiversity that can be put at risk by inappropriate development. That is not to say that economic activity or resource development is inherently damaging to our environment. Indeed, an effective system of environmental planning and regulation will generally provide outcomes that protect the environment, enable development and ensure a balance between economic activities like mining and tourism or fishing and other kinds of recreational ocean use. The EPBC Act properly constituted and administered with the appropriate resources has been the bedrock of a system in which the protection of critical environmental values are paramount but through which economic activity is enabled through a careful and consistent process Australia wide.
I would just like to say a couple of things on the topic of 'green tape'. In short, I would suggest that anyone who thinks 'green tape' is a clever way of reducing the issue of environmental protection to something trivial and annoying, something that people might want to get rid of, should think again. If you explain to someone that 'green tape' is a shorthand way of describing the high-quality and high-standard environmental assessment and protection of our oceans, forests, rivers, wetlands, reefs and endangered species, and then ask them if they believe the government should provide less of the stuff, they will ask you whether you have taken leave of your senses. If you had a box of 'green tape' with you at that point, they would ask you for some. They would probably suggest the tape should be wider. They would probably tell you to get bigger rolls of the tape and more of it, and that it should be as sticky and strong as 21st century tape technology allows. So if those opposite think that the weakening of environmental protection contained in this bill—or in other reforms—will be welcomed by the Australian community because it amounts to so-called 'green-tape' reduction, think again.
On that point, I want to recognise the enormous community engagement in the Places You Love campaign, whose slogan says it all: 'Protect the laws that protect the places you love.' In addition to the 1.5 million Australians who have joined the campaign to protest against this government's dismantling of environmental protection, there is a cavalcade of groups who are similarly committed to arguing against the changes that this bill contains. For the record, and as an indication of the strength of the opposition to these measures, I will list those organisations: ACT Conservation Council, Arid Lands Environment Centre Australasian Bat Society, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Australian Rainforest Conservation Society, Bat Conservation and Rescue Queensland Inc., Birds SA, BirdLife Australia, Cairns and Far North Environment Centre, Climate and Health Alliance, Colong Foundation for Wilderness, Conservation Council of South Australia, Conservation Council of Western Australia, EDO Victoria, Environment Centre NT, Environs Kimberley, Environment Tasmania, Environment Victoria, Friends of the Earth Melbourne, Greenpeace Australia, Hope Australia, Humane Society International, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Invasive Species Council, National Parks Association of the ACT, National Parks Association of NSW, National Parks Australia Council, Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Queensland Conservation Council, Queensland National Parks Association, Rainforest Rescue, Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Tasmanian Conservation Trust, Tasmanian National Parks Association, The Nature Conservation Society of South Australia, Total Environment Centre, Victorian National Parks Association, The Wilderness Society, Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, and WWF Australia. I thank all of these organisations for the fine work they do in protecting and advocating for Australia's unique environment.
The national government rightly has a specific role in assessing development proposals whose potential impacts include matters of national importance or relate to conservation outcomes that are guaranteed by international agreements. The national government is rightly placed to determine proposals which, in many cases, involve clear conflicts of interest for the states and territories, whose revenue is dependent on development royalties. The provision of consistent, high-level and high-standard environmental protection and biodiversity conservation is the responsibility of the Australian federal government, and the proposed slashing of the protections that have served such a valuable purpose is irresponsible and will likely have consequences that we, our children and their children may well seriously regret.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 is the latest instalment in a series of breathtaking and relentless attacks on a whole range of attempts to protect Australia's beautiful, unique and fragile environments—a progress which was achieved with the blood, sweat and tears of many who love this land we call Australia. The rollcall of Commonwealth regression in environmental matters by this government is a long one. There is the proposed repeal of the carbon price legislation and its proposed replacement by what is called a 'direct action program'. There was the designation 26 March as 'repeal day' for the purpose of repealing more than 1,000 'redundant' federal laws and some 9,500 regulations, including measures relating to the agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines approval process, the regulation of ozone depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases, permit and levy processes for sea installations, the repealing of section 255A of the Water Act—which relates to the assessment of mining operations in the Murray Darling Basin—the review of the Renewable Energy Target and the proposed abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
There is also the attempt to have 70,000 hectares of Tasmanian World Heritage forest delisted by the World Heritage Committee. There is the refusal of the government to include climate change or the environment on the agenda for the G20 meeting in Brisbane, despite strong urgings from the USA and the EU. There was the recently announced review of the Howard government's Water Act in relation to the Murray Darling Basin, the approval of extensive dumping of sediments in the Great Barrier Reef in connection with a major expansion of port facilities at Abbot Point in Queensland to allow exploitation of the Galilee Basin coal deposits. There was the abandonment of the management plans for Commonwealth designated marine parks, thereby removing protections from fishing and sanctuary zones within these parks. There was the termination of the National Wildlife Corridors Plan and the termination of funding for the national system of the environmental defender's offices, which was established back in 1995. There was the termination of the grants funding scheme for environmental non-government organisations, which was established as far back as 1973, thereby threatening the continued existence of many small environmental organisations and a number of state conservation councils.
Further, there is the proposed extinguishment of a number of national bodies addressing environmental matters, including the Climate Commission, the National Water Commission and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. There is the introduction of legislation to repeal the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program. There is the reduction of funding for Landcare by $484 million, and there was the referral by the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, to the Australian Law Reform Commission of a reference to inquire into the incursion into freedoms—for example, property rights—by particular types of laws, including environmental laws.
This is the most sustained, concerted attack on the environment. But, in a field which is crowded with contenders, I think there is a case that this is the worst piece of environmental legislation that this government has introduced, because it turns back the clock on some 40 years of Commonwealth involvement in environmental protection. We should not mince words about this. Under the approach proposed by this bill, Fraser Island would have been mined, the Franklin River would have been dammed and the Daintree River would have been logged. We might have even seen the Great Barrier Reef explored for oil. In each case, state governments were prepared to see outstanding natural assets of national significance—arguably of global significance—trashed for economic advantage.
Rob Fowler, who is the adjunct professor at the law school at the University of South Australia, has set out something of the history of Commonwealth involvement in environmental matters. He says:
Since the dawning of environmental awareness in early 1970's, the Commonwealth government has steadily increased its involvement in environmental matters, through legislation, policies and programmes that have largely been developed on a cooperative basis with the states and territories.
He goes on to say:
…the recently elected Commonwealth government appears to be intent on dismantling much of this Commonwealth fabric, masking its apparently ideological retreat from involvement in environmental protection behind an oft-repeated mantra of "red tape/green tape reduction". The pinnacle of this assault is the government's "one stop shop" programme. I want to suggest to you that this seemingly technical exercise involving odd instruments called bilateral agreements, which might not be expected to attract the attention of the ordinary person in the street, is in fact a matter of the most profound importance and concern in terms of the future protection of the Australian environment.
I believe he is absolutely correct.
I point out that this is not some Rudd-Gillard government legacy which is being trampled over; it is a Howard government one. This is an act of 1999 which is being gutted by the most hostile national government to the environment in nearly 50 years of national government involvement in environmental questions.
I want to draw to the attention of the House the objects section of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, section 3A. Subsections (c) and (d) refer to:
(c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;
(d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making …
When we look at that background, we can see that the present legislation is of real concern. The Places You Love alliance has pointed out that this is not so much a one-stop-shop proposal as an eight-stop-shop proposal. It is an approach that will create uncertainty for business and undermine investor confidence. It will result in eight separate and different outcomes. There will be bilateral agreements between the federal government and each individual state and territory, relying on their inadequate and completely different legislative and regulatory regimes. The accreditation of state or territory laws that do not meet minimum requirements will put at risk matters of national environmental significance and may well breach our international obligations. While the stated intention of this policy is to reduce regulatory burden, the policy does the opposite, increasing regulatory obligations for business and increasing risk for all.
The alliance also make the point that state and territory governments frequently do not assess development proposals with the national interest in mind and that conflicts of interest occur because states are reliant on royalties and other income from large development projects and, in some cases, are the actual proponents of those projects. They further point out that the states do not have the capacity to adequately assess projects that relate to matters of national environmental significance. The eight-stop-shop model is neither efficient nor effective. It creates unreasonable risk for government, business and, most importantly, the environment and the community. When they have spoken with MPs around the parliament they have made the point that you can talk about red tape but you need to look at things like the health benefits of environmental legislation and regulation. For example, the United States Clean Air Act amendments resulted in benefits which exceeded the compliance costs by a factor of 30 to one and the European Union has calculated that the annual benefit to the European Union of environmental regulation is some 50 million euros per annum.
The Places You Love alliance, comprising more than 35 environment groups, commissioned a report by the Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices. One of the things that report examined was the various state environmental legislation arrangements to look at and assess the adequacy of threatened species and planning laws in Australian jurisdictions. Their analysis found that no state or territory meets all the core requirements of best practice threatened species legislation, that while the laws in some jurisdictions look good on paper they are not effectively implemented, that a number of important legislative tools available for managing and protecting threatened species are simply not used—for example, interim conservation orders and management plans are not utilised in Victoria; no critical habitats have been listed and no interim protection orders have been declared in Tasmania; and no essential habitat declarations have been made in the Northern Territory—and that many of the provisions referred to are often discretionary. Critical tools such as recovery plans and threat abatement plans are not mandatory. Time frames for action and performance indicators are largely absent and effective implementation is hampered by a lack of data and knowledge about the range and status of biodiversity across Australia. Their conclusion is that the state laws are simply not up to the task of protecting matters of national environmental significance.
They also make important points about the state of biodiversity in Australia. With almost 1,200 plant species and 343 species of animals considered endangered or vulnerable, the rate of species extinction in Australia is amongst the worst on the planet. The Commonwealth State of the environment 2011 report showed that the highest numbers of threatened species occur in more densely populated areas, particularly the east coast and the south-west coast of Western Australia, and that this significant rate of decline is particularly noticeable with mammals. Since European settlement, 18 species of endemic mammals have become extinct and about 100 species of vascular plants have become extinct as well. When we look at this situation overall we can see that it is a grim one, and we certainly do not want to see legislation which will make it worse, which is what this legislation will do.
I will return to some comments from Rob Fowler concerning the campaign against the Commonwealth's involvement in environmental approvals by the resources sector. He said:
There is nothing new in the current campaign … The mining industry railed against the application of the EPIP Act to its activities constantly from the time of its adoption in 1974, especially after the Fraser Government took the unexpected step of using the Act to prohibit the export of mineral sands extracted from Fraser Island. It was joined in this opposition for many years by the forestry industry, culminating in proposals in the early 1990's to introduce so-called "resource security" legislation.
He said:
The current 'green tape' propaganda is simply the latest stanza in an enduring campaign against Commonwealth involvement in environmental approvals by the resources sector … Underlying this campaign is a far larger issue with respect to the future of those involved in the fossil fuel industry in Australia. The coal oil and gas industries have a great deal at stake in the face of the growing pressure to shift Australia's energy generation from fossil fuels to renewables in response to the challenge of climate change. They have found a willing ear in the current coalition government, and it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the question of what is an appropriate role for the Commonwealth in environmental approvals has been captured by a much larger contest involving the future choice between fossil fuels and renewable energy in Australia. In short, the coalition government has become the handmaiden of the fossil fuel industry and is vigorously promoting its cause.
I conclude with the words of Ross Garnaut, in his John Freebairn lecture delivered in Melbourne on 20 May:
Big business has never been so directly influential with government, and senses that it might be a winner which takes all on environmental matters.
I urge the House to reject this legislation.
I concur with every comment made by the member for Wills. I think the final quote he shared with the House really sums it up. This government is the handmaiden of big business. When it comes to the environment I believe it stands condemned for its lack of commitment to the protection of our environment to ensure that the most valuable asset we have is preserved.
Unfortunately, future generations of Australians are going to see that our environment is considerably diminished. The legislation that we have before us today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, is one of the vehicles that will lead to our environment being diminished, because this government is the handmaiden of big business, of the fossil fuel industry and of the development sector in this country. When we hand the planning powers to the states and local governments it is like giving control of the blood bank to Dracula.
I am a member who has been a councillor and a member of state parliament, and I know how those levels of government evaluate and consider various pieces of legislation and developments. When I was a member in the state government I was very fortunate because at that particular time Bob Carr was the Premier of New South Wales, and he had a real commitment to the environment. But, unfortunately, his commitment is not shared by the current government.
For the record, this legislation amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to facilitate the delegation of environmental approval powers to the states and local governments. That is what I was alluding to earlier—the simple fact that the states and local governments will be in a position where they can make decisions about developments they are involved in. I really feel this is the wrong way to go. It even includes World Heritage listed properties, nuclear activities and approvals under the water trigger amendment. It is not good enough. It is not ensuring that our environment will be protected into the future.
In the last parliament I, along with the member for Wills and many on the other side of this House, was on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts. We conducted an inquiry into Australia's biodiversity in a changing climate. We learnt of the many challenges that our environment faces. We learnt of the many challenges that come before government and the need for the federal government to have a strong voice. During the consultation period, when we were receiving evidence, we had groups come along to us and talk about his very aspect. They said that this is something the Commonwealth must not do. We must not hand responsibility over to the state governments. Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I believe that your predecessor was a member of that committee, and he made an enormous contribution towards the report we handed down.
We cannot let the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment abrogate their responsibility and just hand decisions to the state governments about what should and should not be preserved. There is not a state that I would confidently trust to oversee decisions relating to our precious environment. The states do not have the same thorough processes for looking at the adequacy of assessments of threatened species. They do not have the same commitment to that issue.
Within Shortland electorate there are many pristine areas that have a number of threatened species. When I was a councillor we looked at issues around threatened species, and we looked at them under the Commonwealth legislation. I did a similar thing as a member of state parliament. The Commonwealth legislation was taken into account. If there is no overarching umbrella that details the way threatened species need to be protected and looked after, then it is really putting a threat to those species. The extinction rate is frightening, particularly on the east coast of Australia, which has the highest concentration of population.
I urge the government to rethink its action in relation to this legislation, because it is bad legislation. It is going down the wrong path. In Queensland it is quite frightening to think what Premier Newman has planned for the Great Barrier Reef. The draft strategic assessment underlines concerns expressed by the committee in relation to 'serious decline in the condition of the Great Barrier Reef, including in coral recruitment and reef building across extensive parts of the property' and states that 'a business-as-usual approach to managing the property is not an option'. One of our most valuable environmental assets within this country is the Great Barrier Reef. It is a great tourist attraction; it is a source of biodiversity; and it is a source of great pride to us as a nation. The actions of this legislation will be to hand the protection and the preservation of our reef over to the state government and, even more frightening, to some of the local councils within that area.
The report indicated that climate change remains the most significant threat to the long-term health of the reef, and that was highlighted very effectively when the committee was undertaking its inquiry. It concluded that the loss of resilience is not attributed to any one single cause but to the effect of cumulative impacts and of management not keeping pace with these. The proposed dumping of dredged materials from the Abbot Point development is also noted with concern. This is of particular concern because it was approved despite an indication that less impacting disposal alternatives may exist.
That is false.
We are handing the approval of such projects over to the state government.
Your government gave 33 preliminary approvals on Abbot Point.
The minister should hang his head in shame. He should be ashamed of the fact that he has no commitment to the environment, that he has no commitment to protect the valuable resources that are placed in his hands. We all know that he constantly gets rolled in cabinet, and we also know that he speaks out of school without getting the permission of his Prime Minister. So he really is just a puppet of the Prime Minister, a puppet of the minerals and development industry and he has absolutely no commitment to the environment. I am constantly being contacted by constituents who tell me how disappointed they are in the Minister for the Environment. They thought he had a bit of backbone. They thought he would get in there and fight to preserve the environment. But unfortunately he does not seem to have the commitment to the environment that we as Australians expect from our Minister for the Environment. Instead, he is happy to abrogate his responsibility, to hand the decision making over to the states and to local government. In many cases they are the very bodies, the very organisations, that are putting forward the proposal for development. It is not good enough. As an Australian government, as a federal government, we should be ensuring that we protect our assets. We should not be handing over World Heritage listings to governments like the Newman government in Queensland, and we should not be allowing World Heritage listing to be wound back in Tasmania.
This Minister for the Environment should be standing up for the environment. Instead, he is abrogating his responsibility. The bill goes beyond pro-development state governments; it provides the ability for the same governments to accredit local governments to undertake critical assessment and approval processes. I hang my head. I am ashamed to be part of a parliament that is prepared to allow this to happen to our environment by allowing the states to approve anything, anywhere, without limitations. That is worrying enough without diluting further accountability by putting local government in charge of Australia's major national resources.
I would be quite happy for Lake Macquarie council to make decisions about my local environment area—at the moment. But there have been times when that council has made decisions that were not in the best interests of the environment, and there is nothing to say that in the future that will not continue to happen. This legislation creates a definite degree of uncertainty. This legislation, far from streamlining the approvals process, actually dilutes it, fragments it, makes it very convoluted. Giving each state the right to approve projects means that throughout the nation we are going to have different approval processes in different states. This is very worrying indeed. I am concerned with the whole process and the lack of quality and consistency of processes between the states. And it will not get any better. This bill is going to make things worse than they already are.
Going back to the Great Barrier Reef, increased attention is needed to complete the required work on reviewing governance of the property and the transfer of decision-making powers from the federal to the state level. It appears premature, until the governance requirements to implement their LTPSD have been considered. It is crucial that the mission recommendations regarding institutional management arrangements in R11 are completed and the eventual governance of the property carries the confidence of the stakeholders. Given the range of significant threats affecting property and conflicting information about the effectiveness of recent decisions and draft policies, the inscription of the Great Barrier Reef onto the list of world heritage endangered sites at the 39th session in 2015 seems imminent.
This government and this Minister for the Environment will go down in history as environmental vandals. They are abrogating any responsibility they have to preserve threatened species and they are abrogating any responsibilities that they have to our environment. They stand condemned and future generations of Australians will judge them accordingly.
I also rise to speak in opposition to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. As previous speakers have noted, this bill amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to facilitate the delegation of environmental approval powers to state and local governments. This delegation would include World Heritage sites, wetlands of international importance, migratory species, endangered species in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, nuclear activities and approvals under the water trigger amendment.
I think it is worth highlighting for the record the initial purpose of the substantive act, which is aimed at assisting a cooperative implementation of Australia's international environmental responsibilities—responsibilities that, I note, this government does not seek to walk away from, formally—to provide for ecologically sustainable development through the protection of the environment. Such a focus is, regrettably, absent in the legislation before the House. This is focused on the Commonwealth interest in the nine matters of national environmental significance that are set out in the act.
The act provides that projects which are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance—a controlled action—are subject to an assessment and an approval process by the Commonwealth environment minister. Project proponents must refer their proposals to the minister, who will then decide whether the proposal is a controlled action within the terms of the act. Where this is the case, the minister must choose how the impacts of the proposed action are to be assessed. This is how the Commonwealth performs its vital role in ensuring that Australia's obligations under international environmental treaties are met.
In respect of this bill, the minister baldly asserted:
State and territory governments … have processes in place for evaluating the environmental impacts of development proposals consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, …
The minister offered no evidence then, and no evidence has been offered subsequently in this debate, to substantiate this assertion. I suspect this is so because there is none.
Queensland has legislated changes!
Queensland has, yes. There has been some work done in exploring this issue lately and, of course, there is the current reference to the House environment committee. Proponents are yet to offer much in the way of persuasive evidence about the costs of so-called green tape.
There is a pattern here. The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee's March 2013 report found:
While the committee heard claims that the Commonwealth approval process was causing inefficiency, that processes between the Commonwealth and the states and territories were duplicated, and that project proponents were labouring underneath the weight of uncertainty, there was no substantive evidence presented to support these claims.
Admittedly, the minister is part of a government that has a curious relationship with evidence. Where there is evidence of climate change, it ignores it. Where there is no evidence of state and territory, and now local governments, of having appropriate processes in place—I have to state for the minister's benefit—it pretends that these exist.
I suspect that this minister, in his heart of hearts, knows this but, like the Minister for Industry, it seems that he is held hostage by others in the government. One need only note the untimely execution of the coalition's much vaunted 'one million solar panels policy' the subject of so much sad commentary this week.
There is some precedent for the coalition not wanting to debate ideas that contrast with its own. I note that when this present act was originally debated in this place in 1999, it was done so on the same day as the GST tax package. Debate for both was gagged and rammed through the parliament. There was, as was pointed out then, a deal with the Australian Democrats. This was done with undue haste then, and we are seeing a similar devil-may-care attitude by those opposite now.
The premise of this bill is that the Commonwealth should take a back seat on matters pertaining to the environment. This is an outdated view. There is a well-established precedent for the Commonwealth to take a leadership role when it comes to the environment. You could say that it is part of our 'knitting', in the terms of our Prime Minister. Since the Tasmanian dams case in 1983, Australians have expected, and continue to expect, the Commonwealth government to stand up for the environment against the behaviour of state and territory governments when actions are detrimental to our natural heritage. There has been a settlement with the Australian people about this. It is a settlement system that does allow for development and protects the environment.
This is always a tricky equation, especially as it is so hard to quantify environmental impacts and so to strike appropriate balances in every case. Since successive High Court decisions in the evolution of our system over the years—our system of federation—the nature of state and local governments today is that they have vastly reduced options for raising revenue independently. No doubt this is a matter being discussed at the Australian Local Government Association conference down the road as we speak. This makes these governments more readily inclined to approve projects for easy access to cash without taking the longer term view of the impact on the environment.
As then Prime Minister Paul Keating said at a premiers conference in 1990, 'Never stand between a state premier and a bucket of money.' It seems that the current government does not have the courage or the convictions of Keating to look such premiers in the eye and tell them 'no' or, at least, not without putting in place proper protections.
But this was your policy! Julia Gillard brought it in!
I think it was a very different policy, and we will go to the history in a minute, Minister! I look forward to hearing that, and I wish the minister was as assertive around the cabinet table as he has been today in this debate!
The environment should, of course, be seen as more than just a blockage to accessing buckets of money. State and local governments and the community in general have an important role to play in the decision-making process when it comes to projects affecting the environment. But final decisions for matters of national significance—matters going to our international obligations—should rest with the Commonwealth government. We only have one Great Barrier Reef, one Daintree rainforest and one Kakadu. The list of such places goes on for now, but once they are gone they are gone forever.
These landmarks should not be subject to the budgetary whims of state and local governments—or indeed any vested interest. It is worth noting that state and, particularly, local governments do not always have the resources or, in the case of various coalition state governments, the will to conduct thorough assessments of environmental impacts. There are obvious conflicts of interests in the many instances where a state government is also a project proponent. We have seen evidence of that sort of conflict of interest with the Western Australian government's shark cull and with the Victorian government's cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park.
Of course state governments have their own environmental departments, but, when these same governments are advancing a certain position, their department's advice is often under question. So an uncompromised Commonwealth government taking a dispassionate decision—away from the instant concerns—is no bad thing. Under this government's changes Premier Newman will be able to approve dredging and dumping on the Great Barrier Reef; Premier Barnett, of shark cull fame, will have the final say over the Ningaloo Reef; and Premier Hodgman will be in charge of Tasmania's iconic World Heritage listed forests. Talk about putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank!
I note recent comments from UNESCO, in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, about these proposed changes:
The GBRMPA draft SA—
'SA' stands for 'strategic assessment'—
underlines concerns expressed by the Committee regarding serious decline in the condition of the GBR, including in coral recruitment and reef building across extensive parts of the property, and that a business as usual approach to managing the property is not an option.
It further indicates that climate change remains the most significant threat to the long-term health of the reef. The SA concludes that the loss of resilience is not attributable to any single cause but to the effect of cumulative impacts and that management is not keeping pace with these.
In relation to the Abbot Point expansion, also in Queensland, UNESCO stated:
The proposed dumping of dredged material from the proposed Abbot Point development is also noted with concern. Indeed, this was approved, despite an indication that less impacting disposal alternatives may exist …
Increased attention is needed to complete the required work on reviewing governance of the property and the transfer of decision-making powers from the Federal Level to the State Level appears premature until the governance requirements to implement the LTPSD—
that is, the long-term plan for sustainable development—
have been considered.
UNESCO's concerns should be heeded. They should be treated with the utmost seriousness.
In government, Labor sought to work with state and territory governments to streamline this process while maintaining our commitment to meeting environmental safeguards. Throughout these negotiations it became clear that some states could not be trusted with Australia's unique environment. Labor remains in favour of streamlining environmental approval processes for major projects—but only where final approvals on matters of national environmental significance remain with the Commonwealth government. The Australian government has a responsibility to protect Australia's precious environment. The EPBC Act, in particular, accounts for matters of national environmental significance and our international obligations. But the Abbott government has no interest in protecting Australia's environment for the future.
Since coming to government, the minister and our recently self-described 'conservationist' Prime Minister have made bad decision upon bad decision, hurting our environment. These bad decisions have generally been based on no evidence. This is a government that does not mean what is says. On the one hand, the act binds the Australian government to various world treaties to protect the environment. On the other hand, this amendment bill installs a mechanism to effectively undermine these commitments. This amendment bill puts our environment at risk of irreparable damage by proposing to leave decisions of national environmental significance to state premiers.
I agree with the Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices that a real priority for an environment minister in the Australian government should be a mature examination of how environmental laws can respond to the pressing concerns of this century—challenges such as biodiversity loss, land use change and climate change responses—and fulfil our national and international obligations while getting the balance right and ensuring that we maintain Australia's high quality of life. As an aside, I note that the environmental defenders offices around Australia have had massive funding cuts—$10 million—another symbol of this government's threadbare environmental credentials.
Going back to the challenge that we should be facing, our environmental management challenge of the 21st century: streamlining can and should be a part of this where we are certain we have the balance right between removing barriers to economic growth and protecting our natural environment. I emphasise the words 'where we are certain', because all too often there will not be a second chance to get things right. Now is the time to carefully consider the evidence, not to reflexively lower environmental standards and roll back protections.
I am delighted to respond to the comments of the various members of this House in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. Let me begin by addressing, front and centre, the claims made by many members of the opposition with regard to the very notion of one-stop shops. This was a proposal which we discussed publicly throughout the early part of 2012. The then government, led by then Prime Minister Gillard, responded in the April 2012 Council of Australian Governments meeting by making the creation of one-stop shops the central platform of that COAG meeting. The fundamental reform, trumpeted across the nation by the Labor Party when they were in government—led by Prime Minister Gillard, supported by the now Leader of the Opposition—was a one-stop shop process.
Lest there be any doubt whatsoever, I will read from the communique of the 13 April 2012 meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. The communique said:
First Ministers reaffirmed COAG's commitment to high environmental standards, while reducing duplication and double-handling of assessment and approval processes. To achieve these commitments, our governments will work together to … fast-track the development of bilateral arrangements for accreditation of state assessment and approval processes, with the frameworks to be agreed by December 2012 and agreements finalised by March 2013.
Let me explain to the House what this means. It means that in the Council of Australian Governments, with unanimous support from state and territory governments of both persuasions, under the leadership of the then Labor Prime Minister, the Labor Party, at both federal level and at state level, committed themselves to one-stop shops. They demanded that these reforms be approved, both the reforms relating to state assessments and those relating to state approvals. In other words, precisely the reforms we are undertaking now were outlined as being fundamental—were outlined as being able to be done with higher environmental standards and were outlined as being absolutely necessary—by the then ALP government.
We hear today that this is in some way a derogation from the long history of bipartisan support for federal environmental laws. That is not just false; it is a blind eye to what has clearly and absolutely been ALP policy for some considerable time. There is a degree of passing hypocrisy which might just perhaps cause some on the other side to reflect about the course of events over the last two years, when they championed the one-stop shop, when they called for the one-stop shop, when they demanded the one-stop shop and when they denounced anybody who would oppose the one-stop shop. And now they pretend that that history never occurred. They have airbrushed the last two years of Australian parliamentary history. That, in short, is simply unacceptable—and it is not exactly especially mature for a political party to imagine that a Council of Australian Governments communique does not exist and that the history of support for one-stop shops does not exist.
Let me also deal with some of the other arguments made by the ALP during the course of this debate. The ALP also claimed that in some way this derogates from federal standards—wrong, false, untrue and incorrect. There is no change to federal standards. Indeed, agreements have been negotiated with a series of states and territories which will lift standards. Queensland, for example, is actually legislating better standards in response to these agreements. In addition to that, we also hear that the bill in some way changes the position in relation to local councils. Let me be absolutely clear: the act which Labor itself has championed already allows for that accreditation under certain circumstances. What we are doing is ensuring that no process will be accredited unless the highest environmental standards are achieved and maintained. In other words, we are establishing a standards based process.
Then there is a claim that matters of national environmental significance must remain the province of the national government regardless of which government is in place at the state or territory level. It is very interesting: each and every state has signed a memorandum of understanding. Each and every state has already signed an assessment agreement or is progressing an assessment agreement. That means that the Labor state of South Australia, the former Labor government in Tasmania, and the territory government here in the ACT have all committed to the one-stop shop process and have all actually signed it. When in government, the federal ALP supported it. Around the country, state ALPs support it. They are standing in the way of their own state and territory governments.
From there what we see is that state processes can be enshrined in policies and guidelines rather than legislation. They make a complaint. But what we are doing here is making it absolutely clear that those approaches must meet the national standards required under the EPBC Act. These are powers and provisions which have existed since the day the EPBC Act came into force. The ability to allow for state assessments and for state approvals has always been contained within the legislation. Indeed—guess what?—the ALP helped develop some of those in relation to individual states and territories. They ignore their own history of supporting this one-stop shop. They ignore their own history of enacting one-stop shops.
I also want to make this point: there has been a question in relation to the timing of the long-term plan for sustainable development with regard to the Reef 2050 Plan. I have committed, and I will recommit, that the final agreement with Queensland will not be signed until after the draft long-term plan for sustainable development has been released for public comment. That clearly fulfils our international obligations. There has been much said during the course of this debate which is neither fair, nor accurate, nor reflective of the history which has been the ALP's history for the last two years.
Against that background let me make these general comments. We are maintaining the water trigger in federal legislation. It was not there previously. It is there now. We are committed to maintaining it. We are maintaining it. But what we are doing is ensuring that there is not duplication. The same standards that apply to all matters of national environmental significance will apply here. To pretend otherwise is false, untrue and incorrect. The purpose of these amendments is to allow for full and complete one-stop shops. The water trigger will remain. It will simply be subject to the ordinary considerations of all of the other matters of national environmental significance. In order to do that we have been consulting with the community.
I want to note that the member for Page will be moving an amendment later on today, something which he has discussed with me, which we have discussed with the community. That is, the water trigger amendments which he proposes come from community consultation. They have my full support. Most particularly, they mandate that states will have to seek the advice of the independent expert scientific committee and that the federal minister will be able to seek advice on any matter under consideration by states over the course of the period between now and the completion of all bioregional assessments. The member for Page has been exceptionally active in raising the concerns of his community. We have worked together on these amendments. These amendments, I think, should bring additional comfort to rural communities. I would hope that all members in the House can support the amendments, which he will produce with the full support of the government.
Having said that, this bill is about ensuring that there is one standard for all matters of national environmental significance, that the task proposed and started by the previous government is completed and that there should be no situation where anybody in this House on the government or the opposition side can do other than support a process which all of the state Labor governments support and which the previous federal Labor government supported. For those reasons, I thank the speakers to this legislation and I commend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 to the House.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after 8 pm.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the material that we have received back from the Senate. I want to acknowledge the support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014 received this morning in the other place.
Members and senators have shown their support for action to help arrest this country's unemployment and youth unemployment rates. This bill gives effect to the job commitment bonus, which will provide an incentive for young long-term unemployed people to take a job and keep that job, and by doing so escape the spiral of long-term unemployment. The job commitment bonus provides a bonus of $2½ thousand to young people who have kept a job and stayed off welfare for 12 months. An additional $4,000 will be payable if they remain employed and off welfare for a further 12 months—that is, 24 months in total.
The bill also enables the Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program, which enables long-term unemployed to gain assistance to move to take up a job. Assistance of up to $6,000 is available for job seekers to move to a regional area or up to $3,000 to move to a metropolitan area. Families with dependent children will be provided with up to an extra $3,000. The government notes the opposition's amendments to the bill, which will retain the status quo in relation to non-payment periods. The government will agree to these amendments.
Once again, I would like to thank members and senators for recognising the value of employment and the social, economic and health benefits that employment can bring. This bill will provide incentives to assist long-term unemployed people, young and old alike, to take up employment and stay in employment. I certainly commend this bill to the House.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak in support of the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 and in saying that indicate to the House that the Labor opposition has determined to support this bill in full. This is a very technical and complex bill which has a number of schedules to it but which makes important amendments to update and housekeep, if you like, the Migration Act. It is on that basis that we are supporting this legislation. I do intend to go through the individual elements of the bill, but suffice to say that we do support it in full.
There are six schedules to the bill, each dealing with a different aspect of the Migration Act. The first schedule of the bill Labor supports. It seeks to amend sections 48, 48A and 501E of the act. Currently under the legislation persons who have had a visa rejected are blocked from seeking to apply for another visa, in order to prevent them from playing the system in a way that allows them to stay in Australia. The first part of schedule 1 seeks to make clear that persons who may have had a visa cancelled in the past, when they were in Australia on a separate occasion, do not have that history weighing upon them when they then seek to come to Australia on a different visa or when they are in Australia and seek to have a visa renewed. Obviously, that history does not form part of the behaviour in the present which would seek to play the system and allow them to stay in Australia. That is an important amendment which clarifies a particular provision.
The second part of schedule 1 seeks to clarify the decision of Kim v Minister for Immigration. In this decision there seemed to be an ambiguity about the effectiveness of a visa application that had been refused in circumstances where the person on whose behalf the application was made was unaware that it was being made on their behalf. The circumstance that we are talking about here is that of a family member, who may be a juvenile or may have some mental impairment, who would not be aware whether or not a visa application has been made on their behalf. In this case, a person in such a situation was able to argue that, because they were unaware of the visa application that had been made on their behalf and had ultimately failed, this ought not to be held against them in circumstances where they then seek to apply for a new visa. The problem with that is that it treats different family members differently based on their level of awareness and has, as an underpinning assumption, the possibility that parents may seek to apply for visas on behalf of their children or dependants other than in those children or dependants' interests. That is not going to be the case.
We accept that the basic assumption that parents will act in their children's interest ought to be maintained and that when decisions are made in relation to a family group about whether a visa is accepted or not the consequences of an adverse decision ought to apply consistently to the entire family. To not amend the act so as to clarify the case of Kim v Minister for Immigration and Citizenshipwould lead to that differential outcome in relation to a decision made about a family who seek a visa on behalf of each member of the family. Schedule 1, therefore, will give rise to clarity in relation to that circumstance and we support it.
Schedule 2 deals with a situation where persons who apply for a bridging visa are able to avoid a circumstance where they are lawfully able to be removed from the country. The circumstance here is that a person may have exhausted various options under the Migration Act in terms of pursuing visas and, having exhausted those options, they are in a situation where it is now lawful for them to be removed from the country. In that circumstance, if the person applies for a bridging visa they are able to avoid that consequence. The intent of schedule 2 is to remove that as an option for a person in those circumstances.
To understand that, it is important to explain the point of a bridging visa. By and large, bridging visas are put in place to bridge a person over to the point of pursuing a substantive visa. The obvious example is where somebody seeks a permanent protection visa and they are issued a bridging visa until their refugee status determination can be made. Bridging visas are used to allow people to remain in the country until the substantive visa application is determined. There are some circumstances where a bridging visa will be issued without it necessarily connecting to a substantive visa—for example, a student who may have overstayed their visa and, when challenged about that, makes the point that they are going to leave the country in a week's time. In those circumstances, the normal course would be that such a person would be issued a bridging visa until the time of their flight, because that is the sensible thing to do. In circumstances where you could be removed from the country, bridging visas being applied for in the absence of any substantive application are able to avoid that removal. That is not the intent of the legislation. A rolling set of applications for bridging visas which do not lead to any substantive applications are ultimately playing the system. This schedule will remove that avenue for a person in that circumstance.
It is important to note that this amendment does not impinge on an individual's right to apply for any substantive visa. Further, to address potential concerns regarding Australia's human rights obligations, a provision has been added to the amendment after subsection 198(5) that will ensure that, despite the powers outlined in the amendment, protection visa applicants will not be considered for removal until either the visa application has been refused or the application has been finally determined. For these reasons, we support schedule 2.
Schedule 3 proposes amendments to section 262 to put in place debt recovery provisions to people who have been detained for people-smuggling or illegal foreign fishing activities. Under the current provisions of the act, a person is not liable for costs arising from their detention and removal when they are no longer detained because of section 250, because they were granted a visa or because they were not in Immigration detention at the time of their conviction. The amendments empower the Australian government to recover detention debts from people smugglers and illegal foreign fishers. This does not apply to asylum seekers, and that is a very important point for this House to understand. For that reason, these amendments are consistent with Labor's policy to combat the scourge of people-smuggling and illegal foreign fishing by providing a further financial disincentive to engage in such activities.
Schedule 4 deals with the role of authorised recipients as defined under the act. This schedule seeks to amend section 379G in order to clarify the role of authorised recipients. Authorised recipients are authorised by a person in an immigration matter to receive legal documents associated with that matter. An authorised recipient may be a family member or they could be somebody who has a better fluency in English. There are a whole range of reasons why people may be appointed as authorised recipients by a person engaged in a matter.
There appeared to be some commentary in the case of MZZDJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protectionwhich suggested that authorised recipients may have a broader role than simply the receipt of documents. This amendment will make clear that that is not the case and that authorised recipients, having been appointed as such, only have the role of being a recipient of legal documents and cannot act in any other form of agency in the context of an immigration matter. This is important because to not do this runs the risk of allowing authorised recipients to assume a broader role than was contemplated under the legislation. When you think that we have a system of regulated migration agents, it would ultimately undermine that scheme of regulation if you allowed persons who are simply appointed to receive documents to assume some greater role. It is an important amendment which makes sense.
There is a second amendment within schedule 4 which seeks to deal with the case SZJDS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship by making it clear that an imperfect application in relation to the substantive immigration matter will not of itself invalidate the appointment that a person involved in that matter may have made in relation to an authorised recipient. The case to which I have just referred suggested that, if you do not get the substantive application correct, then that voids the appointment of the authorised recipient; that can then have the obvious consequence that a lot of notice might then be given around the fact that you got the application wrong in the first instance and so cannot validly be provided to you, because your authorised recipient is no longer authorised. That is obviously an absurd outcome which the amendment seeks to deal with. We support the amendment.
Schedule 5 is perhaps the most substantively important schedule within this bill. This seeks to insert a new section 51A of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 that will provide administrative access to and use of material and information obtained under a search warrant issued under the Crimes Act 1914. It will also insert a new section, 488AA, into the Migration Act, which mirrors the provision in the Australian Citizenship Act, to provide administrative access to and use of material and information obtained under a similar search warrant. There are often circumstances in which the Department of Immigration will have been the main driver of a case which is seeking to investigate a person who may have been involved in large scale breaches of the Migration Act. In doing so they use as their partner the Australian Federal Police who is the holder of the search warrant. Circumstances are arising where raids that are made by the Australian Federal Police in pursuit of such a warrant gain information which not only applies to the person who is the subject of the warrant but also provides a whole lot of information on other people who may be in breach of their visas and may be in circumstances where, had that information been known, they would not have been provided with visas and not given access to Australia. This will allow that information to be used, whereas at the moment we have the almost ridiculous situation where there are certain people within the Department of Immigration who are involved in that investigative and prosecutorial activity who are unable to release that information to other parts of the Department of Immigration, who, if they had that information, would then be able to act accordingly and cancel visas or act in some other administrative way. This will allow that information to be shared, and that is a very important measure in the context of maintaining the integrity of the Migration Act.
Finally, schedule 6 deals with the code of procedure within the Migration Act, currently in section 57, which codifies common law procedural fairness. At present section 57 only applies to applications that are made onshore, whereas for determinations made outside of Australia the common law definition of procedural fairness is applied. There is an obvious inconsistency in that: we are applying common law procedural fairness offshore and we have a codified version that is used for onshore applications. It makes no sense, and so this tidies that up to make clear that the codified common law procedural fairness, as it is currently contained in the act, would apply to administrative decisions made either onshore or offshore so that there is consistency.
The Labor opposition believes all six schedules enhance the integrity of the Migration Act and associated pieces of legislation. They are obviously, as can be determined from the information I have just provided, highly technical but they are nevertheless very important, and we have great pleasure in supporting them so that the Migration Act can continue to evolve and keep pace with decisions and to perform the important work that it does within our system of law.
It is encouraging to hear the response from the opposition to support, in the main, all of the schedules that we are discussing tonight. It leaves me with very little to do apart from echo the overview of the bill which the opposition spokesman did so well. These are very important measures that are strongly supported by the Australian public. Of course, many of the finer details of the Migration Act are not well understood by the man and woman on the street, so it is important in these examples—where in many cases the law has been tested and taken to the highest court—that, where the policy intent has not been followed, it is only appropriate that we should be making clarifications today. Obviously, there are huge and seismic changes in immigration policy, but this piece of legislation is an example of how we will be making the day-to-day operations—for those people that are either seeking visas or seeking adjudication on their eligibility for a visa—run in a more streamlined way, and in a way that concurs with the original intent of the legislation.
To very briefly touch on those points again: schedule 1 makes very clear that individuals who have been previously refused a visa should not have the active consideration of a subsequent visa refused, unless that refusal has occurred since their most recent arrival in Australia. In simple points, this means that if you were refused a visa in the distant past on a previous trip to Australia, that is not to prevent you from returning to this country on a different visa, being accepted, and being able to stay. That is, I think, an important clarification.
Schedule 2, which I think is also of enormous public interest, addresses the clash between section 195 and subsection 198(5) in the act. This is about ensuring the correct operation of removals policy intent. I guess on every street corner there are stories about people who apply to come to Australia, arrive, are refused, go through to the highest courts, and exhaust all their options for approval and for review, only then to be able to thwart the system by applying for a second bridging visa, or a subsequent bridging visa. People are about finding opportunities or ways, within the very generous legal system that we have available to them, of frustrating or preventing their return. And so this schedule removes that ambiguity, and puts beyond doubt that if a person has applied for a protection visa and either that visa has not yet been refused or the person is still under the reviews and appeals process, they cannot be removed. But once that process has been completed, they cannot make spurious claims to new bridging visas in an effort to continue their stay.
The recovery of costs question in schedule 3 was very controversial. In 2009, from the government of the day, it seemed like such a compassionate thing to do: to remove what were sometimes enormous costs from individuals who were often innocent parties in the process—but we know that that is, in the main, not the case. It was then that those amendments removed the liability for people, and for liable third parties, to reimburse the Commonwealth for the costs of transporting them while they were in immigration detention. I am glad that the opposition spokesman has made it very clear that this does not apply to asylum seekers. That would have been a very tempting piece of misinformation to promote around the nation, but it absolutely is not the case. This predominantly applies to convicted people smugglers or to illegal foreign fishers, who are detained under particular elements of the act. The specific concern that is being addressed today—the loophole that is being closed—is that there were some provisions that actually impeded the recovery of those debts.
The examples that have already been tested in court are cases of people who were not initially detained because of section 250, but who might well have been detained under other sections, which made it impossible to reclaim those debts. They may well have been granted some other form of visa. An example of this is a criminal justice stay visa, where it is in the public interest to complete a court process and potential prosecution of an individual, but in that case and in many instances where that occurred, the individual on that visa was also able to escape reasonable cost recovery. Lastly, of course, is the situation where an individual is not in immigration detention at the time of their conviction. This was a massive loophole, given that now around 27,000 of the 30,000 in Australia are not in detention, also making large numbers of people immune from debt recovery. The overall concern in schedule 3 was a simple one: to create a disincentive; sending a very clear signal to these persons who are participating in people-smuggling and in illegal foreign fishing that there will be significant costs if they are caught, and that the costs of that detention and transportation will accrue to them.
In schedule 4, on authorised recipients: this addresses a fairly complex area where, with respect to someone who is authorised to receive written documentation and written communication from the government, it will now be very clear what those individuals' obligations are to government and vice versa. Under this schedule, there is no obligation on the government to share with the authorised recipient any oral communication, because that person's role is specifically restricted to documentation, but it also makes clear that these authorised individuals cannot move into other forms of activity on behalf of their client beyond receipt of documents. And obviously, these authorised recipients need to get the individual's consent if they wish to cease to be an authorised individual; they cannot simply refuse to do so, or withdraw that consent without the individual knowing.
Lastly, schedule 5 addresses the Crimes Act, and specific information that is collected under Crimes Act search warrants. It would seem utterly reasonable to the Australian public that that should be germane to administrative decisions under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Australians would like to know that all possible evidence that has been legally collated should be available to a minister or a department in making those citizenship decisions.
These are relatively small issues. They are issues that have gone, in many cases, to the highest court in the land. As a result of these decisions, should this bill be passed, some of the more ambiguous elements of this legislation will be corrected tonight. It is good to see that there is bipartisan support to ensure that that indeed occurs.
I am pleased to rise in support of the passage of this bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. As has been indicated by the shadow minister for immigration, Labor supports the contents of this bill and will vote accordingly.
The contribution of migrants to Australian society, culture and prosperity has been an important factor in shaping our nation. Since 1945, more than seven million people have come to Australia as new settlers. In the 2011 census, it was reported that one in four of Australia's 22 million people were born overseas. We all know that Australia's migration framework—its network—is often a complex web of evolving legislation, with legislative provisions and judicial decisions intertwined with policy decisions and intentions.
It is of vital importance that we continue to refine the legislation that underpins our system of migration. In many cases it is up to the legislature to respond to anomalies, to unfair decisions, particularly those that are identified by the courts. The purpose of this bill in many respects is for the House of Representatives and the Senate, the parliament, to act as a response to a number of inconsistencies and anomalies that have been identified through court decisions, through policy decisions over many years in respect of the migration legislation.
So the purpose of this Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 is to amend the Migration Act to clarify the restriction and scope on applying for further visas. The bill will ensure that visa applications are considered on their merits. If a person has a visa violation dating from a previous visit to Australia and is now back in the country, then prior history will not bar that person from further application. This amendment will make it clear that the restriction on applying for a further visa applies only if a noncitizen has had a visa cancelled and, importantly, since last entering Australia. While the existing provisions contain a statement to this effect for the purpose of noncitizens who have had their visa refused since last entering Australia, those important additional words 'since last entering Australia' are missing from the equivalent provision relating to those who have had their visa cancelled. This suggests that a person who had their visa cancelled at any time would be subject to the prohibition in section 48 on applying for a further visa, which the department claims would be contrary to policy intent. So this amendment in schedule 1 in respect of the operation of section 48 of the act clarifies that position and ensures that the act operates according to its original intent.
Amendments contained in the bill will extend the operation of section 48 of the act to people that may have had a valid application lodged on their behalf. This is a result of a matter before the full Federal Court challenging the application of section 48 to a minor on whom an application was made on their behalf. It was argued in a particular case that section 48 would not operate to limit further applications by the minor if they did not know about or understand the nature of the visa application that was made on their behalf and subsequently refused. This could have unintended policy outcomes, particularly for families and minors in difficult situations.
I highlight the example that is outlined quite effectively, I think, by the Parliamentary Library in the Bills Digest of a 16-year-old girl who remains in conflict with her father due to family violence and remains living in a refuge with her mother. She is included on a non-meritorious visa application without her knowledge by her father, which is refused. Then when her mother includes her on a subsequent meritorious visa application as her dependant, she is informed that the application by the daughter is invalid due to the father's previous application. We all know that that is not the intent of this type of legislation. It is generally found to be beneficial legislation and should operate accordingly. To have situations where someone is a victim of family violence and could be refused an application for a visa due to an invalid previous application that was lodged without her knowledge is not the original intent of this legislation and, accordingly, needs to be amended. That is what this amendment will do. It puts beyond doubt that the bar will apply regardless of whether the applicant was unaware of the application being made. The fundamental point is that the system will assume that the parent acts in the best interests of the child when a visa application is made on their behalf.
The bill seeks to ensure that an application for a bridging visa does not prevent the removal of a detainee who is otherwise eligible for removal. The amendment will expressly clarify that, despite the power of removal under subsection 198(5), the department must not remove a noncitizen that has made a valid application for a protection visa that has not been refused and finally determined, even if the application was made outside of the time limit. So to address potential concerns regarding Australia's human rights obligations, a provision has been added to the amendment, after subsection 198(5) that will ensure that, despite powers outlined in the amendment, protection visa applicants will not be considered eligible for removal until either the visa application has been refused or the application has been finally determined. Again, that clarifies the position with respect to Australia's human rights obligations and the operations of that particular section of the act.
The bill also seeks to enable debt recovery from all persons convicted of people smuggling and illegal foreign fishing. We know just how awful and bad people smuggling has been not only to those seeking asylum to the north of Australia but also to regional relations between Australia and our nearest neighbours. It is an insidious trade, it is an immoral trade, and this amendment provides the opportunity for the government to recover from persons convicted of this insidious activity. These amendments are, of course, consistent with Labor's policy to combat people smuggling and illegal foreign fishers by providing a further financial disincentive to engage in such activities and builds upon some of the strong actions that were taken by Labor in government, particularly around illegal fishing and people smuggling, where penalties were severely increased.
The bill amends the act to clarify that the role of an authorised recipient is to receive documents on behalf of an applicant, not to do things—not to act on their behalf. These amendments address the finding of the full bench of the Federal Court in the 2012 case of SZJDS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship that the term 'applies for review' in the act means that an application must have been properly made under section 347 for the obligation of the tribunal to give documents to an authorised recipient to be engaged. The amendments make it clear that no technicalities will make invalid an application to have an authorised recipient. As long as the person has expressed a desire to have an authorised recipient act on their behalf, it will not matter if the application is valid.
The bill will also amend the Australian Citizenship Act to enable greater use of material and information obtained through a search warrant, including making or assisting to make a decision to grant, cancel, revoke or refuse a visa or Australian citizenship, about the detention, removal or deportation of a non-citizen from Australia or cancel approval of citizenship. There are currently a number of cases in the department where they operate with the AFP and have uncovered highly sophisticated criminal networks that led to further migration fraud relating to current applications pending before the department. However, because there is currently no ability to share the information with the administrative side of the department, that information is not able to be used to question those applicants. Labor is satisfied that the amendments will not adversely impact upon applicants' ability to have decisions reviewed and to have procedural fairness and natural justice applied to those decisions. Those two important legal principles will continue to apply in such situations where the Crimes Act warrants are used in administrative decision making.
Finally, the amendments will bring all visa applications under the code of procedure—section 57 of the act, which currently only applies to visa applications made onshore, and Commonwealth procedural fairness applies to applications made offshore. It is appropriate that the definition of procedural fairness is consistent across all visa applications regardless of whether they are made onshore or offshore, and this particular provision will clarify that inconsistency. The amendment will also significantly reduce the risk of jurisdictional error arising from the failure to apply the common law test appropriately.
It is quite a complicated bill, a necessary one, that will improve and clarify the operation of a very important piece of legislation. It is one that governments must constantly reform and refer to in the wake of decisions being regularly made in the courts. That is what this bill does, and for those reasons Labor and I support the passage of the bill.
I am pleased to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2014. This is the continuation of the coalition government's commitment to the Australian people to restore integrity to Australia's migration system and to ensure the security of Australian borders. As the member for Kingsford Smith said, it is quite a technical bill. It goes to a whole lot of detail, and I will not regurgitate it all, since it is in Hansard, but there are elements that need to be mentioned. The bill amends sections 48, 48A, 501E of the act so that they can be correctly applied according to the policy's intention. It ensures that a pending bridging visa application cannot be used to prevent removal, thus limiting the ability of some of the detainees to frustrate the removal process. It applies the debt liability provisions of the act to all convicted people smugglers and illegal foreign fishers—as the member previously said. It clarifies the process and requirements relating to the receipt of documents by an authorised recipient from the Migration Review Tribunal or the Refugee Review Tribunal. It clarifies the role of the authorised recipient and the requirement to notify them of any direct communication that the department may have had with the person who appointed them. It allows for the access and the use of material and information obtained under a search warrant issued under the Crimes Act 1914 by the department for duties under this and other acts. It sees that the procedural fairness requirements prescribed in this act apply universally to all applications. Finally, it repeals any reference to section 14 of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999.
Before I continue in this debate, I would like to talk about the success and the reason why we are here today in this particular context: fixing up Labor's mess on migration. Let us understand that, when John Howard left office in 2010, there were four people in detention as a result of having come via boats. When he handed over, that was the situation. When the Labor Party handed over—the people booted them out essentially, because they could not control our borders—we had something like 30,000 people displaced in the Australian community without their visa status assessed. We had something like 15,000 people in detention in places like Christmas Island, Scherger and Curtin, or they had been released into the community because they were deemed not to be of any conflict.
I have to congratulate the now Minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison, for what he has done in this area. He had one of the biggest challenges, because everyone knew that John Howard stopped the boats and stopped the illegal trade of migration, but after six years it was a case of—and the media were very responsible for saying this—'Well, it's different now. It's gone too far. You can't stop it. It's entrenched. The people smugglers have got the upper hand.' When Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister, he found a solution to destroy a successful outcome in terms of protecting our borders. I am particularly appalled that the first minister for migration, under the Labor Party, was a Western Australian. His name was Senator Chris Evans. Senator Chris Evans was the one who turned the green light on. The green light essentially said, 'If you can get to Australia, you will get a visa. If you get to Australia not only will you get a visa but you will get somewhere to live, you will essentially get paid and your kids will go to school. If you stay long enough, you will get a permanent visa.' What sort of green light is that?
Let's have a look at Lampedusa in Italy. Dare I talk about Italian connections? Boats are sinking off Lampedusa because the Africans have now realised there is a porous border solution going through Italy. Before you ask, 'How would you know?', I went to Italy. I went to Sicily and other places where there are detention centres. I went there and talked to the Africans who were in detention. They basically said, 'It is the same story. All we have to do is get on a boat and Italy will take us.' When I went to another detention centre in Rome, I asked the policeman who was showing me around the detention centre, 'Why don't you try to stop these people and send them back like we do?' This was at the end of the John Howard year. He said, 'I'm sorry, signor. We are the land of the Pope. We don't do that.' In other words, he was saying they have a soft and open heart. But what the Italians do is send them north. They take them into the detention centres and give them money to go to Germany, Denmark and other northern European countries that have decided they should open their borders as well. You can see what is happening in France as a result. So thank you very much, Senator Chris Evans, for what you did.
He was followed by the member for Gorton, then the member for McMahon and then, finally, the member for Watson. They all presided over the disgraceful situation which allowed people to come to Australia unbridled. As I said, those people are now sitting in the Australian community. Remember when Kevin Rudd said, 'We are going to put a moratorium on Afghans and we are not going to process them'?
You bloody hypocrite—
I would not talk too much, if I were you. If anybody knows about Sri Lanka it is me. I am the chair of the Sri Lankan friendship group and I can tell you, Member for Moreton, I know more about this situation than you will ever write a dirty book about. What you do not understand is what you did on your side when you were in government to the border protection of this country. You are a disgrace. You should not open your mouth. Aren't you the one who said you were going to resign from parliament if Kevin Rudd ever came back again? Why didn't you have the guts to resign? You did not have the guts, did you? You did not have the guts to resign.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the member to address his remarks through the chair.
The member for Canning will address all his remarks through me and he will be heard in silence.
It needed to be responded to. If the drivel keeps going, I will keep responding to it. If he wants to keep quiet, we will continue with the bill. But if he wants me to point out his history and his party's history on this issue I am happy to do that.
The member for Moreton will listen to you in silence.
At the end of the day, they were the party that opened the gate. This is what the now minister, Scott Morrison, is fixing. These technical amendments stop the ability of people smugglers to get away with it, essentially. They stop them from appealing to every court level in Australia. They stop them from using our judicial system and taxpayers' money to stay here. All these amendments we are going through are necessary because they have found legal circumventions to the laws that the Labor Party put in—with the help of the Greens, I will add. The Greens were in bed with them. They formed a coalition with them.
You voted with them—
Order! The member for Moreton will listen to the member for Canning in silence.
If you have something decent to contribute, wait your turn. Otherwise, show some manners.
At the end of the day, while people said we could never fix this and turn back the boats, it has been done. For almost six months there has not been a boat. There has been no help from the media. All the Canberra press gallery, the left wing version of the Canberra press gallery and —dare I say it?—one of the biggest culprits, the ABC have been part of this process of undermining us in fixing this. I understand Laura Tingle in the weekend's media was reported as having said the coalition would have to backtrack on our hard migration changes because they would never work. We did not backtrack. We have put them in place and, as a result, we have stopped the boats. It has been almost six months since there has been any illegal arrivals by boat.
Then we had George Roberts from the ABC. George Roberts is up in Indonesia and he is trying to make a name for himself as a junior ABC journalist. He was the one who went out there and vilified our naval service personnel, saying that they forced people on boats to put their hands on the hot exhausts of the boats and burn their hands. Not only did he not backtrack, he continued to repeat this. Not only did he continue to repeat this but he was backed up by the ABC executives at the most senior editorial level. Against all the lack of assistance from the press gallery here in Canberra, we have stopped the boats.
The whole issue is that these amendments are going to do something about making sure that the department has the ability through both the department itself and the Migration Review Tribunal to stop people using the system to stay here. There is going to be a common-sense approach to the processing of visas for people who are clogging the system. The continual nuisance applications designed to facilitate their further stay in Australia are going to be dealt with through these amendments.
I do not know well the previous speaker, the member for Kingsford Smith, but he seemed to be quite genuine in what he was saying. He was in the Senate, by the way, when these laws were passed. I understand the Labor Party is not opposing these amendments, so it will be interested to see the member for Moreton criticise them, even though they are not going to vote against them. At the end of the day the legislation will work towards ensuring that we can finally stop the rorts that have been happening through this change of systems.
You are an expert on rorts, aren't you Don?
You just go and write another dirty book and see how you go. You will have an opportunity shortly, Kevin Rudd's mate.
One of the things these amendments will do is enshrine the character test into legislation. The Labor Party talked about character tests under their new regime. I think they even talked about new paradigms and such, but none of them worked. You may recall the boats that have arrived off Darwin, and in particular the one they set on fire themselves. The court found that five people were guilty of having started the fire. Can you believe that the previous government gave those people visas to stay in Australia. They were given visas to stay in Australia even though they killed some of the people on their own boats.
This legislation is going to fix up those terrible rorts and the lack of accountability that happened under the previous government. We are the ones who are going to bring integrity back to this country's migration system. I know those on the other side are uncomfortable about this. The member for Fremantle is someone I know well, being a Western Australian. I know that she wanted to move in her party room that they move away from detention. Remember that it was Gerry Hand, all those years ago, who confirmed that there would be mandatory detention in this country. Those on the other side, particularly the Left of the Labor Party, are still uncomfortable that we have mandatory detention. It is a bipartisan policy, but they still want to move in their own caucus meetings that they walk away from these things. That is the real issue here. If they had the opportunity again to be on the Treasury benches or on this side of the House they would water down the arrangements and legislation so that the green light could be turned on again.
We want to bring fairness back into the system. I have constituents who have family overseas and are trying to bring their children here. They talked about domestic violence. A particular woman I know in Malaysia has been subjected to domestic violence and has been ostracised by her ex-husband in Malaysia, who has now returned to the Middle East. She cannot get a visa. She is stranded in Malaysia. They are the sort of people we want to bring to Australia, rather than the ones who pay a people smuggler $10,000 and then use our court system to park themselves in Australia on the charity of organisations in Australia like the Salvation Army and others.
This is decent legislation that is designed to tidy up the mess the Labor Party brought to this country, and as a result denigrated our reputation as a migration destination without any discrimination. I support the bill.
I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. Deputy Speaker Vasta, with your Italian background you would well know that our migration framework underpins our economic and social growth. Since World War 2 we have had over seven million people arrive in Australia. In fact, you could say that we have had a migration scheme running for about 226 years, apart from Indigenous Australians.
For most of those 226 years—I think in fact for 224 years—the number one source of migrants to Australia was Great Britain. We see that on our flag, the Union Jack having predominance on our flag, with the Cross of St Andrew, from Scotland, the Cross of St Patrick, from Ireland, the Cross of St George, from England—unfortunately the Welsh do not get a look in, but that is something for the United Kingdom to sort out. For 224 years of our migration program, Great Britain has been the number one source. In the last two years we have seen something interesting. The number one source country has changed. Two years ago China was the number one source and then one year ago India was the number one source, reflecting the changing face of Australia.
Migration is an emotive topic. People are arriving here as skilled migrants, or through family reunification or through love or as people seeking asylum. We see people try to exploit it. We even see ignorant people in this chamber try to make mileage out of the fact that people, when their family is in dire straits, will do anything. They will try to rake up $10,000 or go into hock to criminals to try to put their children into a safe place. I know that I would do anything to give my children a safe haven if my environment had changed such that they were being persecuted. This is not to mention that you cannot seek asylum when you are starving to death. That is not legitimate grounds under any treaty for coming to Australia. You cannot seek asylum in Australia when your country is going underwater because of climate change and rising sea levels. That is not a legitimate ground at the moment. Obviously it will become more of a factor, but the reality is that the treaties we have signed that give us obligations will let you flee persecution and come to Australia, but we will not let you come here if you are starving to death or drowning.
Migration is an important thing to get right. There is a little bit of interplay between the legislation that comes out of the Commonwealth parliament, and the judiciary. I think the very first piece of legislation to go through the Commonwealth parliament was the 'white Australia act', which reflected the views of the men of the time. Since then we have signed other treaties with the world. We have been a proud leader when it comes to actually guiding the world in terms of doing the right thing. Despite the legislation we signed off in the first parliament we have become a much more multicultural nation and we have been able to hold our head up high.
The bill before the chamber is highly technical and complex. It seeks to address inconsistencies in the application of parts of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act), obviously reflecting some of that interplay that comes with judicial interpretation, especially in the High Court.
In my six or seven years in this parliament I have been involved with lots of pieces of legislation. The biggest inquiry I was involved with was the Christmas Island tragedy inquiry back in December 2010, when my views, which have changed over the last decade, came into sharp focus while interviewing the people who tried to rescue the people who died in that tragedy and when we looked at the extended horrible footage showing young girls drowning and people doing their best to get to Australia. But obviously that was not to be the case. The Labor Party's response to that tragedy was in fact to look at a solution whereby we would do a deal with the Malaysian government and try to break the people smugglers' business model so that they did not have anything to sell. Obviously it would have been something that would have changed lives. In fact, arguably, if the Liberal and National parties had voted with the Labor Party on this piece of legislation we would have had a piece of legislation that perhaps would have saved the lives of 689 people who have lost their lives at sea. They lost their lives as a result of the LNP and the Greens getting together to put the kibosh on the Malaysian agreement.
But that was not to be. That was political opportunism at its most rank, as far as I am concerned. That is why I was amazed the other day to see the Treasurer come in here and make the following statement in parliament:
But most of all, as a result of the actions of this government, there are no children floating in the ocean between Australia and East Timor, as occurred under Labor.
The rank hypocrisy of that statement, after the Treasurer voted with the Greens to block the Malaysian agreement, still riles me. And I ask him to come back in and apologise for making that statement. I follow closely what the immigration minister says. He would never have said that. Maybe it was in the heat of the moment, and the Treasurer still has the opportunity to come back in and apologise to the parliament for making that statement. Obviously it will not bring back the 689 people who lost their lives at sea after the Malaysian deal was blocked by the Liberal and National parties and the Greens. Nevertheless, that the Treasurer came into this parliament and made that statement still offends me.
The legislation before the parliament is, as I said, mainly technical. It seeks to clarify the restriction and scope on applying for further visas by amending sections 48, 48A and 501E of the Migration Act. Obviously this is based on the current interpretation of section 48. It is suggested that anyone who has had a visa cancellation or application cancellation at any time is prohibited from applying for a further visa. This is contrary to the policy intention—and there is agreement between Labor and the LNP on this policy—to prevent people who have done something wrong from playing the system so that they can stay in the country. The amendment will ensure that each application is considered on its merits. So, if a person has a violation dating from a previous visit to Australia and is now back in the country, prior history will not bar their further applications.
Schedule 2 of the act proposes that the department must remove a detainee who was entitled to apply for a substantive visa or revocation of the cancellation of a substantive visa but did not do so. This obligation to remove in such circumstances will apply irrespective of whether the detainee has made a valid application for a bridging visa. The amendment expressly clarifies that despite the power of removal in subsection 198(5) of the act the department must not remove a noncitizen who has made a valid application for a protection visa that has not been refused or finally determined, even if the application was made outside the time limit.
The current subsection is creating a situation in which detainees are held in indefinite detention due to their ongoing pending applications for bridging visas as the department does not have the power to remove a person if they have applied for a bridging visa. There is no limit to the number of bridging visas a person can apply for. A bridging visa application also takes away the removal powers of the department. This can result in detainees applying continuously for bridging visas after all avenues have been exhausted. So, basically this amendment removes bridging visas if there is a bridge to nowhere, effectively, so they cannot just keep creating a bridging visa. Bridging visas still have an important role while people are in flux or when their situations are changing. They are used sparingly, but they are an important part of our immigration repertoire. But obviously we need a bridge to somewhere for it to be an appropriate mechanism.
Schedule 3 of the act proposes amendments to section 262 to put in place debt recovery provisions for people who have been detained for people-smuggling and illegal foreign fishing. I am not sure how successful that will be. But, if people have built up assets, that is something that always should be encouraged under Australian law. Under the current provisions of the act a person is not liable for costs arising from their detention and removal when they are no longer detained because of section 250 or because they were granted a visa or because they were not in immigration detention at the time of their conviction. The amendments empower the Australian government to recover detention debts from people smugglers and illegal foreign fishers—obviously not asylum seekers, but the people who are doing the illegal activity. We would never suggest that it is illegal to seek asylum. These amendments are consistent with Labor's policy to combat the scourge of people-smuggling and illegal foreign fishing by providing a further financial disincentive to engage in such activities.
Schedule 4 amends section 379G of the act to clarify that the role of an authorised recipient is to receive documents on behalf of an applicant and not to actually do things on their behalf. That is mainly technical.
Schedule 5 inserts a new section 51A of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 that will provide administrative access to and use of material and information obtained under a search warrant issued under the Crimes Act 1914 for certain purposes of the act and the Citizenship Act.
Schedule 6: this amendment will bring all visa applications under the code of procedure, which is section 57 of the act. This only applies to visa applications made onshore, and common law procedural fairness applies to applications made offshore. It is appropriate that the definition of 'procedural fairness' is consistent across all visa applications, regardless of whether it is made onshore or offshore. It is not appropriate that offshore applications are afforded a higher standard of procedural fairness than those made onshore. The amendment will significantly reduce the risk of jurisdictional error arising from the failure to apply the common law test appropriately.
Obviously, migration debates are always seen through the prism of our borders. We know that, and we know that the signs and symbols are important. The sign and symbolism of the Liberal and National parties in renaming the department 'border protection' belies that long history going back to 1788, I guess, of people arriving here by boats in Australia, whether it was from the fear of the French, who arrived three days after the First Fleet, or the fear of the Russians, or the fear of the Japanese—they built cannons out in Brisbane harbour and they built cannons on the Sydney heads; I think they even built them down in Melbourne, but I am not as familiar with that—or the fear of the Chinese or the Indonesians. I am not sure whether they have ever had a fear of the New Zealanders apart from at Bledisloe Cup time! But for Australia, as a nation that is based on the fact that people have arrived in boats and made a claim on the land, we seem to have a greater fear of people arriving and seeking asylum. It is almost irrational.
I have heard other speakers in this chamber, despite having made quite incoherent statements, talk about this reality and comparing it with Europe, where there are significant arrivals of asylum seekers. As the armed conflicts in places like Syria and Iraq deteriorate, people will always seek a safe haven. People will always do what they can to give their children or their grandchildren a chance in life. That is the human brief; that is the human condition. We will always do what we can to look after our children. So that reality, and these figures are a little bit out of date, means that because of war, famine and climate change there are about 42 million displaced people in the world.
Now, we are generous nation. We have done more than our fair share of heavy lifting when it comes to settling people in Australia on permanent visas and through other visas. I think it is basically the United States first, Canada second, Australia third and pretty much daylight fourth. But the reality is that even if we doubled, tripled or quadrupled our intake we could never accommodate that 42 million people. If you then cut it down to the number of people registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—I think, from memory, it is about 15 million people registered as refugees, having a reason to flee persecution or the like—we could never settle that number of people. We could never grant asylum and have a harmonious community.
We do multiculturalism well because we do it appropriately and in a well-resourced way. We offer support, guidance and comfort to people who arrive in Australia, however they get here—whether they come on a skills visa, a marriage visa, an asylum seeker visa or on a plane organised by the Australian government. The reality is that our harmonious community is a result of us looking after people appropriately when they arrive in Australia.
This legislation cleans up some of the problems associated with it. There is much that the Labor, Liberal and National parties agree with when it comes to dealing with migration. Obviously, there is political pointscoring that is a little bit obscene on occasions, but the reality is that much of this legislation is agreed on by both sides of the chamber. I commend it to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—It has come to my attention this evening that a case is being brought in relation to the events of SIEV 221, bringing an action against the government.
I just wanted to say that when things of this nature happen it is obviously a free country and people have a right to bring whatever matters they wish to before the courts. But I just want to send a very clear message to all the members of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and all of those personnel of our Navy who serve as part of Border Protection Command, that those who served on that terrible day back on 15 December in that terrible incident, have our absolute respect and our absolute confidence. They have been rightly praised for their heroism and their bravery in what they did on that terrible morning, to save the number of lives that they did in that terrible, terrible incident.
These matters will go through the courts as they will in a free country. But I just want to tell every one of those men and women who serve in our Border Protection Command, whether that is at sea or in other places, that they have the respect of the government and, I am quite sure, the respect of the opposition as well. This event occurred under the time of the previous government. I know that the then ministers—I have no doubt—would join me in supporting the good work of our people in the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Australian Navy who form part of Border Protection Command.
I thank the members for their contributions to this important debate. The debate really does deal with quite technical matters in relation to migration legislation as well as citizenship legislation. The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 amends the Migration Act 1958 and the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to ensure that sections 48, 48A and 501E of the Migration Act can be correctly applied according to policy intention; to ensure that a bridging visa application is not an impediment to the exercise of the removal of a person under subsection 198(5) of the Migration Act; to apply the debt penalty liability provisions of the act to all convicted people smugglers and illegal foreign fishers; to clarify the obligation of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal to give documents to an authorised recipient; to clarify the role of the authorised recipient and the extent of the obligation to notify an authorised recipient of direct communications made with the person who appointed them; to provide access to and use of material and information obtained under a search warrant issued under the Crimes Act 1914 for certain purposes of the Migration Act and the Australian Citizenship Act; to ensure that the procedural fairness requirements prescribed in the Migration Act will apply universally to all visa applications and to provide for greater consistency and decision making; and to repeal redundant provisions in the act—that is, the Migration Act—which contain references to section 14 of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999.
This bill deals with administrative matters, but as other speakers have ranged widely in this debate, touching on so many other matters, I think it is important to note that at least on these questions there is an agreement between the major parties represented in this House to these amendments, which will improve the efficiency of the administration of the matters that are regularly within my portfolio under both of these acts. I thank those of the House who have indicated their support for these measures. The other measures and the other matters that have been the subject of this debate will remain contentious. The comments on the government's position on border protection that have been injected into this debate by some clearly indicate that there is still great difference between the major parties on the issue of border protection. Those opposite continue not to support the government in its measures, which have so far proven so successful. That is a matter for those opposite to explain to the Australian people at the appropriate time. On the matters in this bill at least, however, there is agreement. I commend the bill to the House.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung
As there are fewer than five members on the side of the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Ms McGowan, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I have taken the view that the deferred division should not have proceeded until the member speaking at 8 pm had completed his speech, and so I did not interrupt the minister. In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved by the Minister for the Environment on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (3):
(1) Schedule 3, page 13 (after line 9), after item 2, insert:
2A Subsection 48A(1)
After "described in subsection (2) or (3)", insert ", or referred to in subsection (2A),".
2B Subsection 48A(1)
After "subsection (2)" (second occurring), insert ", (2A)".
2C After subsection 48A(2)
Insert:
(2A) A bilateral agreement including a declaration that is described in section 46 and that covers an action described in section 24D or 24E must include the following undertakings by the State or Territory:
(a) that the appropriate State or Territory Minister will obtain the advice of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development if the taking of the action, or a class of actions that includes the action, is likely to have a significant impact on water resources, including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity;
(b) that, in deciding whether or not to approve the taking of the action or a class of actions that includes the action, the decision maker will take into account any relevant advice obtained from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development under the agreement.
(2B) To avoid doubt, the fact that a bilateral agreement contains the undertakings mentioned in subsection (2A) does not limit the ability of the appropriate State or Territory Minister to request advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development.
Note: See subsection 505D(2).
2D After paragraph 505D(1)(b)
Insert:
(ba) at the request of the Environment Minister—to provide advice to the Environment Minister about the operation of a bilateral agreement including a declaration that:
(i) is described in section 46 or 47; and
(ii) covers an action described in section 24D or 24E;
(2) Schedule 3, item 5, page 13 (line 15), before "The", insert "(1)".
(3) Schedule 3, item 5, page 13 (after line 18), at the end of the item, add:
(2) The amendments made by items 2A, 2B and 2C of this Part apply in relation to an action that is approved in accordance with a management arrangement or authorisation process that is a bilaterally accredited management arrangement or bilaterally accredited authorisation process for the purposes of a bilateral agreement on or after the day this item commences, regardless of when the agreement is entered into.
I introduce these amendments to Australia's national environment law to ensure the continued protection of Australia's water resources from coal seam gas and large coalmining development. The Australian government recently introduced a bill that amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the EPBC Act, to support the implementation of the Australian government's one-stop shop reform for environmental approvals. The bill includes an amendment to allow states and territories to make approval decisions in relation to the water trigger.
I have been carefully considering the Australian government's amendments in relation to the one-stop shop and the water trigger. I have met with the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, on a number of occasions to discuss the concerns that my local community have in relation to coal-seam gas development. I impressed upon him that it is of utmost importance that the community has confidence in the one-stop shop and the approval decisions made by the states and territories for CSG and large coalmining projects.
To make sure that the states and territories maintain high environmental standards when making decisions relating to the water trigger, I have introduced two amendments. The first amendment will make it mandatory for states and territories making approval decisions under bilateral agreements to seek and take into account the advice—and this is very important—of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development. The second amendment gives the independent expert scientific committee an additional function and allows the federal environment minister to request its supplementary advice on high-risk coal seam gas and large coalmining developments assessed under the one-stop shop. The Commonwealth minister can ask the IESC if their advice has been adequately considered.
My amendments ensure two things. Firstly, under bilateral agreements, decision makers must seek or take into account the advice of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development. Currently in some instances this is not the case. The second amendment gives the IESC an additional function and, importantly, gives the federal environment minister the ultimate say and indeed oversight of this. An example would be, as I said, if the IESC does not believe their advice and opinion has been taken into account. I believe these two amendments strengthen not only the bill before us today but indeed the water trigger legislation passed by the previous parliament. Water is crucial. It is everything with regard to food production and a lot of other things. It affects our daily life.
There was a lot of concern in my community on this issue, including in Bentley, as has previously been mentioned in this chamber. This water trigger legislation, along with my two amendments, strengthens the protection of our waterways from CSG mining. The assurance framework included in the bill has evaluations or audits against the state and territory commitments in the bilateral agreements, transitional and five-yearly reviews of bilateral agreements, reporting mechanisms, ongoing monitoring, continuous improvement mechanisms and ultimately a call-in power for the Commonwealth environment minister. The call-in power will allow the Commonwealth environment minister to take back a project before it is approved by a state or territory if the project will result in or is likely to result in serious or irreversible environmental damage and a breach of the agreement. In extreme circumstances the minister has the power under the EPBC Act to suspend or cancel an entitlement agreement. I commend these amendments to the House.
I too support the amendments moved by the member for Page, but can I point out to him it is too little too late. There is no point putting a bandaid on a gaping wound, and that is what you are proposing to do today. The fact is that you and your party are huge supporters of coal seam gas mining on the North Coast of New South Wales, and this does nothing to allay the fears of people in your community and in my community and the extent of concerns about unconventional gas mining. In fact, just last weekend at the National Party conference, which I am sure the member for Page was at, he would have heard the Leader of the Nationals and the Deputy Premier slag off at people that were protesting at Bentley. That is what you and your party think of people who oppose coal seam gas mining. The fact is that you are a member of a party that proactively pushes coal seam gas mining right across the North Coast of New South Wales.
There are changes being made to water down the water trigger. What we put in place when we were in government was a very important initiative to protect water resources throughout the country. The actions we took in extending the water trigger were very important to people in my electorate and indeed to people in your electorate, member for Page. What you voted for tonight took that away. You took away the provisions in terms of looking at water and coal seam gas mining. This bandaid does not repair that at all. In fact, it does nothing—it makes it worse. Tonight you have voted to hand all of those environmental powers to state governments or—God forbid—some councils.
You made reference to Bentley. We all know that Bentley is in Richmond Valley shire. We know that the National Party mayor of Richmond Valley Council is full-on keen for coal seam gas mining. What you voted for tonight means either your pro-CSG National Party state government or your pro-CSG Richmond Valley Council is going to give a big tick to coal seam gas mining at Bentley. So keep in mind what you voted for, and disregard the bandaid amendments that you have put forward.
If you want to talk about Bentley, we know that the decision on an exploration licence is going to be made by 25 June. That is pretty close in terms of the decision making and the impacts there. We saw thousands of people at Bentley come out to protest the exploration licence there and we are going to see thousands again. So I think that you need to be true to your constituents who are very worried about the exploration licence at Bentley and what that means.
These amendments are not actually going to secure anything. You have taken away so much by voting for this bill tonight. By voting to actually delegate approval responsibilities to the states and the councils as well, you have taken away the capacity for national oversight across a whole range of very important issues. Your attempt to put a bandaid response in this legislation is not going to have any effect at all in stopping harmful coal seam gas mining or in having any oversight of it. We have to look at all of those particular factors within the context of this bill.
You cannot vote for something and then pretend that the couple of minor, little amendments that you have moved mean that somehow it is not that bad. Well, it is that bad. It is that bad because you have effectively voted to hand over approval powers to a state government who, quite frankly, we know are environmental vandals. The New South Wales state government are environmental vandals; everyone knows that. It is a real concern in terms of their actions, from allowing shooting in national parks right across to their pro coal seam gas mining agenda. Their vandalism is very widespread. It includes some of their rezoning and not protecting koala habitats. There are a huge array of issues on which the state government has failed the people of New South Wales. I think that in our area and in others they will be held to account come the state election next March.
The member for Page has tonight voted to say, 'Yes, you're environmental vandals but we'll give this power to you or we'll give it to the councils.' Now, most councils just do not have the resources to be able to deal with issues such as this. They just do not have the staff, the scientists, the bureaucrats and the encompassing framework that the federal government has to look at all of these particular ramifications effectively. So it is irresponsible to hand it to them as well. Potentially, as I said, we could see some councils making decisions in relation to coal seam gas mining or even uranium mining. For goodness sake, how irresponsible is that?
The member for Page can stand here tonight and move as many amendments as he likes. The fact is that what he voted for is absolutely destructive. Your constituents—and I know what they want because they are my constituents too—want you to stop unconventional gas mining and any unconventional mining on the North Coast, but you and your party continue to pursue it. We saw your leader at the conference on the weekend denigrate and ridicule those of us who stood against it. The fact is the National Party are pro coal seam gas mining and you confirmed it by voting for this bill tonight.
On behalf of the government, I present the explanatory memorandum in relation to the amendments moved by the member for Page. I make some brief comments on the amendments. The member for Page has moved two amendments, which are aimed at, and will deliver, an increase in the role of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development, known as the IESC. I hope that all members of this House can support the amendments. Not only do the amendments strengthen this legislation; they strengthen the role of the IESC and the safeguard system throughout the entire Commonwealth and state framework. As a consequence of this, the states will be subject to more rigorous standards than has ever been the case.
We have discussed these amendments not just with New South Wales Farmers but also with the National Farmers Federation, the Queensland government and the New South Wales government. I must say that the state governments have accepted in good grace the lifting of the standards to which they are subject and to which they will be subject. In particular, the member for Page has been a great advocate and a true parliamentarian in the course of this process. He has helped in the crafting and the design of the legislative amendments and he has advocated a policy position that is common sense. I think that this strengthens the process significantly.
To summarise, two steps are being encompassed in the amendments before the House today. Firstly, this set of amendments will ensure that state and territory decision makers must—and I repeat 'must'—seek and take into account the advice of the IESC. This is achieved by making it mandatory for bilateral agreements to include this requirement. This is a standard which was never there under the previous government. It is there now and it will remain there so long as we are responsible for this legislation. In other words, these are the toughest standards in relation to the protection of water that Australia has ever had. Secondly, this legislation also allows the environment minister at a federal level to request from the IESC information on the operation of the bilateral agreement in relation to the water trigger. For example, this could include advice on the extent to which a state or territory has assessed the impacts of the development and has considered the initial advice of the IESC.
I want to make one correction for the sake of the House. I mentioned earlier that this would last until the bioregional assessments were complete. I want to clarify that it will in fact last in perpetuity and not just until the bioregional assessments are completed. There is no sunset provision. I apologise if there was any inadvertence on my behalf.
In summary, let me make the very simple point that the member for Page, on behalf of the government, has set out these amendments. He has argued for additional protections for the water resources of Australia, in particular the subterranean water resources contained within aquifers and basins. He and the government together, working with the farming community and the states, produced these two amendments. For the first time ever, states will be subject to a requirement, if they are to operate under bilateral agreements, that state and territory decision makers must seek, and take into account, the advice of the IESC. All up, these are valuable amendments, which produce additional protection to water resources—the most protection that has ever been given under Australian law. I thank the member and I commend the amendments.
This is a piece of choreographed theatre of which Andrew Lloyd Webber would be proud. This is astounding. The government has come in and said the existing national protections that apply at the federal level against things like coal seam gas mining are about to be taken away once and for all. Instead, under the legislation, we are going to allow state or even local governments to approve projects that would normally be assessed against federal standards. Then, in a rearguard action—because the government knows that the community is breathing down its neck about coal seam gas—it comes in and says: 'I'll tell you what we'll do. We won't keep those high levels of protections—we're still going to remove them all, but we'll just add in one little one that takes you about a third of the way to where we were before.'
When you consider this amendment together with the legislation that we are about to pass, what it will mean is this: yes, a state minister has to obtain advice, but it is now going to be the case that that very same state minister gets to determine whether those conditions have been met. It might even be a local government that gets to determine it, and that might even be the case where the state government is the one conducting the proposal—the proponent. In other words, under this amendment and the legislation, when you read the two together, a state government can come along and say: 'We are the proponent for this coal seam gas project, and we are going to determine whether it meets federal standards, and the only obligation on us now is to go and seek some advice. Well, we sought it and we're going to approve it, and there's nothing you can do.'
If you are really concerned about protecting the community against the adverse impacts of coal seam gas, then you would keep the existing legislation and the water trigger that is embodied in it. These amendments, as choreographed as they are, make a bad piece of legislation slightly better, and so they will be supported. But anyone who really cared about protecting the water table and protecting the community from the impact of coal seam gas would be voting against this piece of legislation in the first place. I think everyone knows that these amendments would not be here, were it not for the wide cross-section of Australians from all walks of life who are coming out and saying, 'Hang on, this government we voted for is not representing us when it comes to protecting our farmland and is not representing us when it comes to protecting us against the adverse impact of coal seam gas.' This is a choreographed attempt to hold at bay some of that support, but I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the communities right across this country, who are campaigning to protect their land and their water against the impacts of coal seam gas and unconventional gas, know that this is not good enough and they know that the only reason that this is happening is they are out there day after day fighting to protect their land and their water. The Greens will continue to stand with them and continue to condemn this coalition government for voting to strip away federal protections, including the water trigger, and hand over to state and local governments the power to determine whether coal seam gas and unconventional gas mining can go ahead.
The member for Melbourne talked about Andrew Lloyd Webber, and we have just heard from the phantom of the opera. Certainly, in the last parliament he was the phantom of the parliament. He would float around here like some greenie spectre making sure that every bit of legislation had a green tinge to it. I will pay him one due: at least he was consistent—consistently bad, nonetheless, but at least he was consistent. We always knew where the member for Melbourne was coming from; we always knew what angle he would take. I pay him that respect. But we did not know where the member for Richmond was coming from.
During the last election campaign, there were some very mischievous ads placed in the local press against the Nationals candidate for Richmond, Matthew Fraser, that mixed up state and federal issues to scare the daylights out of the people of Richmond on what the National Party stood for. It was mischievous, if not reckless, in the extreme. The member for Page is a really good member. You would not have seen the previous member for Page, Janelle Saffin, ever go against her party. You would not have seen that and you certainly will not see the current member for Richmond go against her party, because to do so would mean instant expulsion. I must give credit to the member for Page because—unlike the member for Melbourne, who said this was a carefully orchestrated manoeuvre—he has courageously advocated to improve the legislation. That is what really good backbenchers do: they advocate for legislation that has already been discussed by the party room. The member for Page has gone out and introduced in consultation with the Minister for the Environment—who is absolutely getting on with the job of ticking off on green projects that will improve business and industry, while at the same time placing those environmental safeguards in place—to make sure the environmental standards of his electorate and the good farming folk he represents are going to be met.
The amendments that the member for Page has come up with are very good: they improve the legislation before the House. The two amendments will boost the role of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on coal seam gas and large coalmining development. That is what we want—we want good legislation. We want amendments which are going to tighten and strengthen those water triggers which are so important. We all know that. I have coal seam gas mining exploration licences being called on in the Riverina, particularly around Hillston. I have to say that, in consultation with state government representatives—through the member for Murrumbidgee, Adrian Piccoli, and through the Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson—they have put those developments back. They have put the licensing exploration back. That is what National Party members do—in consultation with our coalition colleagues, the Liberal Party, we look at what has happened and then, in consultation, we get better legislation. We get better improvements. We make amendments, as the member for Page has done.
The first amendment will ensure that state and territory decision-makers must seek and take into account the advice of the IESC. This is achieved by making it compulsory for bilateral agreements to include this requirement. Secondly, we will allow the environment minister to request advice from the IESC about the operation of a bilateral agreement in relation to the water trigger. This could include advice on the extent to which the state or territory has assessed the impacts and consequences of the development and considered the initial advice of the IESC. The Minister for the Environment has consulted with NSW Farmers, the National Farmers' Federation, and the Queensland and New South Wales governments—because that is what this side of government does. That is what the federal coalition does. We consult. We never heard any consultation from those on the other side in the last six years—particularly in the last term when there was a hung parliament, and particularly when it came down to issues which affected farmland, agriculture, and regional and rural Australia. All we ever saw—all we ever heard from them—was what the member for Melbourne wanted. We had this green tinge placed over every bit of legislation. And did we ever hear from the member for Richmond about wanting to get her electorate going forward—about her electorate actually looking at things, in relation to weighing up industry as well as the environment, and reaching a satisfactory conclusion? No, we did not. That is why I commend the member for Page for his amendments.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak in favour of these bills. They implement the work of the former federal government, in the main part. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Regulatory Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2014 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2014 are in fact the culmination of a substantial body of work that commenced on the third week of August 2009, when the Montara oil and gas well exploded. Together, the bills respond to the incidents leading up to and consequent upon the explosion in the spring of 2009 of the Montara platform. Together, we in this place and through these bills will ensure the safest operating environment for our offshore hydrocarbons industry. Recommendations of the Montara inquiry created NOPSEMA as the single, unifying safety regulator in Commonwealth waters. I was pleased to announce at the APPEA conference in May 2014 that NOPSEMA would also become the single environment regulator in the offshore environment, an important initiative because it streamlined both safety regulation and environmental regulation. I would like to address some issues around safety regulation in the offshore hydrocarbons industry. It is a dangerous industry. It is an industry marked by great capability and great risk.
On 21 August 2009, the Montara wellhead platform in the Timor Sea experienced an uncontrolled release that continued until 3 November 2009. The affected area was estimated to be up to 90,000 square kilometres. It was considered at the time to be Australia's most significant offshore petroleum incident. And yet, just six months later on 20 April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig located in the Gulf of Mexico experienced an uncontrolled release following drilling of the Macondo well. That release triggered an explosion, and a fire causing 11 fatalities and spilling an estimated five million barrels of oil into the sea. Over one-third of US federal waters in the gulf were closed to fishing during that incident. The release was contained finally on 15 July 2010. More recently—to demonstrate not only the extreme danger involved in offshore hydrocarbons work but also the importance of safety—on 27 August 2012, two workers were fatally injured on the Stena Clyde mobile offshore drilling facility located in the Otway Basin off the Victorian coast. Work on the offshore hydrocarbons environment is important for our country. It is important for economy. But it is not so important that it should bring with it unacceptable risk to the environment or to the health of our workers.
The explosion at Montara in 2009 had, in many ways, its cause many months earlier in March 2009, when the well completion was taking place. So, therefore, almost five months before the final blow-out, during the cementing operations on the H1 well, because of the practices on the primary cementing job, no-one had noticed the latent hazard associated with the wet shoe or failed primary cement job, and the West Atlas rig was demobilised from the field. The correct well barriers were not in place to adequately secure the well. This was, in oilfield practice terms, a very basic failure—the failure of the process safety requirements that has at least a need for two effective and verified barriers in place of the well in the reservoir before removing the blow-out preventer and demobilising the rig. None of the essential good oilfield practices and safe oilfield practices were put in place in an adequate manner on that day in March 2009, meaning that in many ways by August 2009 the eventual explosion that took place was simply predictable.
Since 2009 around the world there have been in the order of 300 deaths in the offshore oil and gas industry—50 incidents in just over a two-year period. Those incidents have seen deaths occur around the world in the offshore hydrocarbons industry. Deaths in industry are never to be accepted. We are lucky that in the Montara incident no-one died, but that is the point—we are lucky. The de-manning of the facility that morning on 21 August 2009 placed men in their workplace at great risk. The de-manning of the rig took place in a dangerous gassy environment. It took place very early in the morning. It took place in an atmosphere known by the industry not to be safe. It was known by the industry not to be safe because it was known that there was an uncontrolled release of gas. No blow-out preventer was in place and the well was open to the atmosphere because the pressure containing cap had not been reinstalled. Indeed, since March of that year, there was no effective barrier in the shoe track. From March of that year there was no weighted completion brine, only sea water, in place. From March of that year there was no isolating cement plug in the upper well bore. The explosion that took place at Montara was entirely predictable.
The 2010 Borthwick commission inquiry found that the root causes of the Montara blow-out were failure to maintain two well barriers, no verification of barriers and poor management of change—limited competence led to deficient decision making. This is not the hallmark of the Australian hydrocarbons industry; this is the hallmark of a set of accidents, some predictable, and slack behaviour in a risky and dangerous environment.
It is the case that the explosion at Montara that led to the Borthwick inquiry that led to the creation of NOPSEMA has, in its final conclusions for the Australian offshore hydrocarbons industry, a happy ending in that we now have one of the best regulatory environments that we could have operating in our offshore hydrocarbons fields. What I mean by that is that we have great capability looking after the safety of workers and now looking after the environmental management and approval of activity in the offshore sector. It is my view that NOPSEMA, as the single offshore regulator for both environment and safety, should be extending its capability to the near shore, to the shoreline, in order to ensure that all of our offshore hydrocarbons are managed both in environmental approvals and in safety approvals in a consistent way—to ensure that they are managed in a manner that is efficient and effective and to ensure that our offshore safety environment is as carefully managed as we know our oil and gas industry would like it to be.
The offshore oil and gas industry is important to the Australian economy. It is important not just because it generates large dollar values of hydrocarbons; it is important because it also generates industrial activity onshore and it generates some of the best jobs that our young men and women in our universities could aspire to today. It generates work in maritime engineering and it generates work in subsurface geology that for the future will be extremely important to our economy. But in order to develop this highly sophisticated offshore industrial environment we do need to have a regulatory environment that is as good as it can be. I am conscious that a regulatory environment that follows the kinds of mistakes, the kinds of errors, that occurred at Montara is a regulatory environment cast in many ways in the most difficult set of circumstances. It is true that we are lucky that no-one was injured in that incident. It is true that in other incidents that I have named deaths took place. So while we count our blessings let us also be careful that the regulatory environment that we put in place in the offshore is fit for purpose and appropriate—is sufficiently capable to act quickly to situations as required by government but which also encourages the best possible offshore practices in the petroleum industry.
In this place we are committed to doing everything possible to avoid incidents and accidents like the leak of oil and gas from the Montara wellhead platform in 2009. Governments work hard to ensure that we achieve the best and safest offshore petroleum industry in the world and this bill ensures the commencement of the amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 that we have put in place. Industry, government and regulators must be absolutely committed to a culture of high safety standards and environmental protection within a framework of continuous improvement. We must work and learn together, applying the lessons from the incidents of the past, and that is vital for the effective regulation of the offshore petroleum industry and, frankly, its ongoing licence to operate.
I have mentioned that around the world, in the past few years, there have been over 300 deaths in just over 50 incidents. In Australian waters, we have had two deaths on the Stena Clyde. We have also had, in the Surat Basin, a death last year. During the recent Minerals Week conference, at the dinner held in this building, we were told that in the last 12 months alone there had been 14 deaths in the Australian mining industry due to practices that we all know can be improved and that need to be improved. We all know that workers, when they turn up in a workplace, have a right to return home as safely as when they arrived at work. The hydrocarbons industry brings with it additional risk. It brings with it the risk of very large volumes of hydrocarbon potentially in uncontrolled environments; and brings with it the reward that is brought to our country through LNG exports, through condensate exports and through the export of crude oil.
The benefits, however, are outweighed by the 'disbenefits', if, in the process of pursuing the bounty of our hydrocarbon fields, we create environmental situations that are unacceptable or safety situations that create unacceptable levels of risk. These amendments operationalise good portions of the act, which grew from learnings from a situation that no-one foresaw but was entirely predictable. We hope in this place that these amendments and NOPSEMA itself will operate to make our offshore hydrocarbons environment not only as productive as it can be but also as safe as it can be—that is, safe for those working in it and safe for the environment in which it operates. I commend these amendments to the House.
I rise to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Regulatory Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2014 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2014.
That is a mouthful!
That is a mouthful. These are good bills, and it is a privilege to follow the member for Brand, who, I would like to acknowledge, did have worthy intentions in government, along with the former member Martin Ferguson. They were two excellent ministers in the previous government, in a pretty shabby line-up. They were ministers we could all admire. The member for Brand and Martin Ferguson were amongst those warning against the carbon tax, notably inside the cabinet of the government. I think that is a pretty brave thing to do, as is their stance against the MUA in WA. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that there are some Labor figures willing to stand up to the MUA in WA and the antics there. Even Martin Ferguson is facing expulsion from the Labor Party—a very sad moment for the Labor Party in general. He was a good minister who knew that this bill is a worthy initiative, and therefore the government is continuing to build on the work of the very few competent elements of the former government, namely the member for Brand and Martin Ferguson. They are old Labor, good Labor, the kind of Labor you used to vote for in the fifties and sixties but it has been replaced.
This bill is part of the government's one-stop shop green agenda to ensure that we eliminate red tape and create a better business environment—of course, offshore petroleum greenhouse gas storage being a most relevant component of modern environmental legislation. These amendments are quite technical in nature. They are making several amendments to ensure the effective commitments of pending amendments to the OPGGS Act relating to regulatory powers and enforcement measures.
This bill also inserts a regulation-making power into the OPGGS Act to enable regulations to be made to provide for remittal and refunds of amounts of annual titles, administration levy in certain circumstances and other minor policy and technical amendments. It is very administrative in nature, but it is important that we continue to ensure that we have a one-stop shop policy. We have had several bills in the House in recent weeks—including today's amendments to the EPBC Act, which have passed this House—to ensure that there is one set of environmental assessments and regulations in Australia, high standards that are enforced by the Commonwealth but assessed by the states, and enhanced with strong measures from this chamber.
The bill also amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Act, ensuring annual titles administration levies be imposed for a year of the term of the title, even if the title does not remain in force for the full year. These are good, common sense amendments that ensure that we minimise bureaucracy and red tape for business and allow for the proper operation and the intention of these acts.
These acts are important. As I said, when they were in government, the opposition commenced many of these changes, but never got around to doing it. The last government was full of too much delay and chaos in too many areas. The administration of these acts was another thing they never quite got around to. However, we are getting on with the job. It is necessary for us to make these amendments, and we are ensuring that these very technical amendments will allow for an immediate operation, with the removal of the carbon tax.
The environmental plan levy amendment is important. It both relates to and supports the streamlining of environmental approvals for offshore petroleum activities. This is part of the government's early agenda, as you have seen, in relation to red tape reduction and green tape reduction. I am currently chairing an inquiry into green tape and one-stop shops, and we are looking forward to more evidence this week. Offshore petroleum is a significant part of environmental assessments and approvals in the modern era. These amendments—the environmental plan levy amendment in particular—are very important to ensure that the streamlining of environmental approvals is carried through to this vital area of economic activity.
Without further ado, I would like to use my last few remaining seconds speaking on this very important legislation to strongly recommend these bills to the House. This is the government's deregulation agenda for green tape and red tape reduction. These bills form part of that worthy initiative— (Time expired)
Debate interrupted.
It is not often I find myself agreeing with Senator Cory Bernardi, but his recent comments attracted my attention. Senator Bernardi was reported as saying:
I see Australian politics at a crossroads.
The perception of politicians has never been lower and it is clear to me that people are looking for more from their political representatives.
I should probably say that, while we agree on this point, the agreement does not go much further.
Of course, it is not just Senator Bernardi who has observed the changing political tides here and abroad. In recent weeks there has been a renewed interest in the politics of protest. This is an important debate. I rise tonight because I am deeply concerned about the movement towards what I call anti-politics. This is not a concern about protest per se—far from it. I was proud to join tens of thousands in Melbourne in marching last week to protest and demonstrate concern about this budget's inequitable impacts. But I am concerned about the growing sense of alienation from formal politics and the increasing recourse to a populism that denies the possibility of meaningful democratic change. I take this opportunity to make a small contribution to making the case for politics of hope with purpose.
Elections in the world's second largest democracy, the European parliament, recently returned many representatives of populist, nationalist parties. The United Kingdom Independence Party topped the polls in the UK, as did the far-right Front National in France, while neo-Nazis have also been returned in Greece. The Golden Dawn party polled at almost 10 per cent of the vote. It was a good election for anti-politics. People are demonstrating their willingness to break with past allegiances, often in quite radical ways. I think of the industrial towns in northern France that have switched from Communist to Front National. It seems to me that many Europeans have not so much lost faith in the European ideal—I note that UKIP's electoral success sits rather uncomfortably with support for Europe in the UK never having been higher—as they have formed the view that the political system is broken and bereft of hope such that all options seem to be equally valid choices.
What does this mean for Australia and Australian Labor? My view is that a significant driver of the trend to anti-politics is a sense among ordinary working people that they lack power over their own lives and, more importantly, they do not see politics as it is as a means to changing that. In Europe, that lack of empowerment is most stark amongst those who have been punished by the economics of austerity. In Australia, while we may not face yet the horrible levels of unemployment that are destroying European communities, we are no stranger to a sense that economic power has drifted upwards at the expense of working people.
We must recognise now that a major challenge is to rebuild belief in formal politics and to instil a sense of hope that political choices, and political action, change lives for the better. I think it is hopelessness and alienation that push citizens far left or hard right or keep them from the ballot box altogether. It is a profound sense that things cannot change. The insider culture of politics is partly to blame. This we must acknowledge. But parties of protest simply exacerbate this. The point is that to turn it around we must re-imagine the role governments can play in people's lives.
Recently, the senator-elect for the Motoring Enthusiast Party, Ricky Muir, gave an interview that has been sneered at by some in the political class. The knowing insider commentary has been about how Mr Muir should not have been allowed to front the media without proper training. I suspect that I do not have much in common with Mr Muir, but I hope to have the opportunity, while we are both here, to seek to bridge our world views and experiences and to work together in this environment. The bullying, sneering political discourse confirms and reinforces the sense of alienation many people feel.
We see another parallel with the budget. The coalition have been patting themselves on the back for their extreme, neoliberal budget. Their self-congratulatory and self-satisfied reaction could not be more at odds with the response of the general public. When the Treasurer sighs his world-weary sigh before giving another contemptuous and dismissive lecture by way of response to budget criticism, he is not simply being dismissive of Labor concerns; it is directed at all of us. It is easy to understand, then, why people have lost faith with government and politics more generally when this government have so enthusiastically broken faith with them.
Whatever else the budget does, it has done a good job of reminding us all of the powerful and enduring consequences of political decisions. Australians—protesting students, fearful pensioners and vulnerable young people—understand through this budget that, as Paul Keating said, when you change the government, you change the country.
The coalition has perversely made the case that government matters by demanding that those least able do the lifting. I am angry about this budget and the way it touches lives. I think especially of a young woman in my electorate from a refugee background. She kept connected to education and employment through a government program that has now been now cut. She is the embodiment of why government matters. What will happen to the next woman in her circumstances?
For young people who find themselves locked out of opportunities to build a good life by the coalition's cuts, the impact on their self-respect and dignity is an individual tragedy. But for government and those who believe there is a role for hope in politics and public life it is a calamity and a ticking time bomb that undermines the faith in democracy which we rely on. The Treasurer claims that equality does not matter and that the role of government is to bring people to the 'starting line', but this budget prevents people from even being in the running.
Tonight I want to bring to this place the plight of and challenge for the air service in Coober Pedy in the north of my electorate. Coober Pedy is, of course, the opal mining capital of the world. It is 800 kilometres north of Adelaide and 700 kilometres south of Alice Springs. It is increasingly becoming a tourism gem. It is where I instruct travellers to go when they think they have seen the world. I say, 'Go to Coober Pedy. You will see something that you will not see elsewhere in the world. It is unique.' It is not just its rich and colourful mining history and the fascinating cultural mix that makes up Coober Pedy; it has some of the most fascinating and spectacular underground accommodation and hospitality in the world.
Because it is so isolated, it is simply not negotiable that we have a commercial air service out of Coober Pedy. Since 2002 this has been operated by Rex airlines. Prior to that it was Kendell. Rex operate a fleet of Saab 340s Australia-wide. In February 2012, CASA made an amendment to the minimum runway widths for landing such aeroplanes as a Saab 340. The Coober Pedy airstrip is 18 metres wide and CASA, in their wisdom, have decided that the airstrips should be 36 metres wide. It is not completely clear to me why CASA have gone in this direction, but it seems they want to be part of the same standard as everyone else in the world, or the general aviation widths and standards around the world. Perhaps this is an admirable aim, but I would point out that we are territorially isolated in Australia and in fact we see very few aircraft, apart from jetliners, fly into this nation. We are quite capable of making our own rules for our own population.
The widening of the strip by 18 metres wide would cost the owner of the airstrip, the Coober Pedy Council, $800,000, and it would need to be in place by February 2015, unless something is done about it. I have been closely involved with this issue since late last year. When these amendments were made, in 2012, I thought common sense would get the best of it—that we would not have to worry about this, because no-one could be so stupid. In fact these aircraft have been landing on this strip for probably about 15 years, without incident. One would think that with that kind of record it should not be all that hard to grant the same exemption the aircraft have had for all of that period.
I have had numerous conversations with Rex and CASA over this issue. In their latest letter CASA assure me of the following:
I would like to reiterate that the widening (upgrading) of Coober Pedy's runways is not required, unless the aerodrome operator wishes to do so as a business decision …
But CASA are telling Rex, the operators of the aircraft, that they need to go back to Saab and develop a flight supplement that will allow for the narrow-runway landings. They have ordered some simulator tests, and that sounds all reasonable and fair, except that Saab no longer make aeroplanes, so you can see they may not be totally interested.
My point is that if this costs Rex a significant amount of money to develop—maybe $100,000—I do not think they will retain the service into Coober Pedy. So while CASA are telling us there is nothing to worry about, I am deeply concerned. If the development of the flight supplement with Saab is to cost more than the route is worth to Rex, the flight service will cease on 12 February next year. I continue talking to CASA and they say that it will all be well in hand and will all happen. I just worry about the sands of time drifting out. This has been going since 2012. We are now only seven months away from February, so it is of great concern to me that things are moving too slowly.
Early childhood education and access to kindergarten is facing an alarming crisis. In 2008, the former federal Labor government, together with Australian states and territories, committed to a National Partnership Agreement to provide, by 2013, 15 hours a week, or 600 hours a year, of early childhood education for children in the year before they start school. To achieve this, the former federal Labor government invested $970 million over five years, including $210.6 million for my state of Victoria.
The Abbott government has failed to guarantee beyond the end of 2014 continued federal government funding of universal access to 15 hours of kindergarten per week. This has put the National Partnership Agreement with state and territory governments in jeopardy, and kindergartens, which are beginning their 2015 enrolment, have no clarity or commitment on the level of government funding they will receive. This is a devastating situation, which is not only putting at risk the quality of early childhood education our children receive but causing major chaos and uncertainty in the early childhood sector. There is the scary potential that many kindergartens, whose whole operation is centred on providing government funded 15 hours of kindergarten per week, will be forced into closure. Many of these kindergartens actually invested money and borrowed money to extend their facilities so that they could accommodate the 15 hours a week and also continue their three-year-old program. This was particularly so in Victoria, and particularly so in my electorate, where people were very embracing of this commitment to 15 hours and did everything in their power to ensure they could offer the best quality of education to children in those vital early years. Education does not begin when someone gets to university. It does not begin even when they get to primary school. It starts from birth and the most vital years, as research will demonstrate, are in that fundamental preschool time.
I have been contacted by the councils, kindergartens and parents in my electorate who are outraged by this cruel and unfair cut and this growing uncertainty. They have no idea whether or not their children will have access to 15 hours of kindergarten next year. They cannot plan and they have no certainty about what the future holds for their children. These kindergartens are run by committees of management of parents. This is a very difficult and uncertain time.
Australian studies show children who attend preschool or kindergarten go on to score significantly better in year three NAPLAN tests. This is also backed up by international research that shows Australian students with one year of pre-primary education achieve more highly in year four reading, maths and science. It sets them up for life. The early years are the most important in a child's development. Learning begins from birth, and learning and development at each stage of life forms the foundation for the next—every step along the way. The more we invest in the early years of a child's life, the better their outcome. During the period from birth to eight years, children acquire more skills and knowledge than in any other period in their lives. The skills and knowledge they develop in these crucial years are the foundation for learning at school, and for lifelong learning. If we do not maximise every opportunity in kindergartens then we are failing a whole generation of young people and beyond.
This cut will cost our education system and our economy a lot more in the long run, leaving Australian children to slip between the cracks. But it is more insidious than that, because it will be the families who can least afford it who will miss out the most.
The deepest concern is that the key principle of universal access is that cost does not become a barrier to accessing kindergarten. Should the federal and state governments take away this funding, there will be major fee increases within this sector.
Early Childhood Management Services, a not-for-profit community enterprise providing quality early childhood education and care for children, families and communities across Melbourne, estimates a 70 per cent increase in fees, potentially seeing families paying more than $2,300 per year for a 15-hour program. Many low-income families will just not be able to afford it. Their child will not go to kindergarten and will start school without that vital learning process.
In 2008, before Labor introduced universal access funding for preschool and kindergarten, just 12 per cent of Australian children received 15 hours or more of quality education in the year before school. In 2012 that figure had risen to over 56 per cent. It is time the Abbott government actually listened to their state Liberal colleagues. They know how important preschool and kindergarten are. Instead, Mr Abbott looks set to return us to the situation we had under the Howard government, when just one in 10 Australian children had access to 15 hours of preschool per week. This is simply not good enough.
There are times in the life of a politician, like any other person, when you feel you just cannot go on. But there are other times when it is all worthwhile, and last Friday was one of those times. It was publicly announced by the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, Andrew Stoner, that a new dam will be built in the central west of New South Wales—a dam of 90,000 megalitres, primarily on the councils of Cowra and Blayney, just above Cabonne.
This is the biggest thing that has happened in the central west in almost two generations. It is the first time a politician has had the guts, the foresight and the vision to make a decision as huge as this one is in that region. As somebody who has been pushing for this for a long time, I do not think I have ever been as delighted about a single issue in all my years in politics—which are very similar to those of the minister at the table today; we have been here a while now.
We have.
This is so huge, and not just for the central west, not just for Calare and Cowra and Grenfell and those who will use it. This is a pick-up, a morale boost for regional New South Wales and for regional Australia as well. Late last year, when I was joined by the mayors of Bathurst, Blayney, Orange and Cabonne and representatives from Central Tablelands Water, we went out there and said, 'This is needed; it is needed for the manufacturing, for the processing, for the urban development, for the mining, for the abattoirs and for the timber industry.' This dam is not about more irrigation, but it does give greater security to the irrigation that exists. It will combine with two other dams, Rowlands and Carcoar, to create a nexus for the central west that will be felt by local government areas way beyond its own borders.
For example, if a big business starts somewhere like Blayney, it is not just Blayney and Orange that will do well. People will come to work from the surrounding LGAs, be it Cowra, Bathurst or wherever else. It is a huge thing, and, as I said, nothing like this has happened in the central west for many years. And I must thank those mayors who backed me when I went out on this. I must thank Tony Perry, who recently retired as the CEO of Central Tablelands Water. The site is a fantastic site. Yes, there will be issues, and—surprise, surprise—a few Greens have come out and said, 'Woe is us.' Well, I have never seen them enthusiastic about anything that was progressive, productive or good for people. Let us not get too surprised when people are consistent. And the one thing you can say about Greens is that they are consistent.
The dam project is on the Belubula River, east of Canowindra. It is on the Blayney and Cowra shires above Cabonne. For Andrew Stoner, the Deputy Premier of New South Wales—and we have been talking to his office for the last three months; as we went into it they kept asking for information—it was not an off-the-cuff decision. He had the foresight and the vision and made the time to understand the need for this dam. I have been the member for Calare for almost half of my political life now, due to redistributions, and the first thing I realised was that west of Bathurst and west of Oberon they need more water for the future. Andrew Stoner has proved himself by having the guts, the vision and the go to make this statement, to get the money, to put around $350 million out there to do it, including the money to do the study first. He has shown that he is the leader in regional Australia against which others will be measured. He has not talked about water; he has not talked about systems; he has gone out and done it, and I thank him.
In the face of widespread community opposition, the Abbott government is continuing with its extreme right-wing agenda and is refusing to abandon its attempts to change section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The Abbott government's resistance comes despite a joint letter to the Attorney-General from over 120 community organisations urging that the changes be dropped. My understanding is that over 5,000 submissions have been received in response to the exposure draft of the bill, with the time frame for submissions being only around one month. Whilst those submissions have not been made public, it would be reasonable to assume that the majority are probably against the changes.
Section 18C states that:
… it is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Importantly, section 18D already provides a wide range of exemptions to section 18C:
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.
I particularly note the words 'reasonably and in good faith'. It is also important to understand that the behaviour described in section 18C is 'unlawful' rather than 'criminal'. A person is not going to be arrested for offending someone, as some advocates for weakening the act have claimed.
Australia also has obligations as a signatory to several international human rights conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to protect people from racial abuse. The government's proposed changes to section 18C fall well short of the obligations within those conventions. Nor does Australia have a bill of rights as an alternative for protecting a person's human rights.
Section 18C was enacted after extensive public consultation. The community backlash against repeal of section 18C was underestimated by the Abbott government. It has now retreated from its original proposal and released a discussion paper in which the words 'offend, insult and humiliate' have been replaced by 'vilify'. In the proposal 'vilify' is defined as 'to incite hatred'. This would prohibit a very narrow range of conduct whilst allowing a wide range of exceptions.
A poll in February by Essential Research found that 36 per cent of respondents had experienced or witnessed racism in the past 12 months. Sadly, we do not need polls to tell us that racism exists. In the last couple of years there have been numerous examples of racist abuse exposed in the news media. In some or all of those cases, the abuse has gone further than insults or name calling and resulted in threats and violent behaviour. It is unclear whether these incidents are on the rise, or if the much wider availability of mobile phones which can record video has provided a greater means to expose these incidents. Whichever is the case, it is clear that they are not isolated cases.
The Jewish community has been understandably vocal in its criticism of the proposed changes. In October 2013 a Jewish family, including elderly members, was physically attacked in Sydney after leaving a synagogue in an unprovoked racist attack. Earlier this year anti-Jewish graffiti was found at the Adelaide university. In a statement issued by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and reported in The Australian Jewish News, President Robert Goot AM, SC said that the exposure draft of the repeal is 'deeply flawed' and that it:
… "in effect rips up" key protections to groups within Australian society which have operated successfully for almost 20 years …
Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane said:
… the current Racial Discrimination Act strikes a fair balance between freedom of speech and freedom from racial vilification.
Statistics show that most Racial Discrimination Act matters are resolved through conciliation; very few end in court, and 20 years of court precedence now provide guidance and certainty for all. If changes are made the law will become untested and unclear until again tested by the courts.
With Australia's cultural diversity increasing, we should not be weakening racial discrimination laws or encouraging people to think that it is okay to racially abuse others.
When Labor was elected to government and kicked off 'spend-a-thon 07' which then ran on for another six years, they provided a huge number of examples of how not to manage public money, from the border security blow-out to the school hall program and of course, the pink batts program and many more. But none of them were more grave or more of an example of what not to do than their administration—or lack thereof—of the NBN.
I believe that this will go down in Australian history as one of the single most appalling pieces of public administration that the nation has seen. To understand the contrast between what the previous government did and what the current government is doing it is necessary to go back to the beginning, when this project was hastily conceived in midair on two plane flights, one from Melbourne to Sydney and another from Sydney to Brisbane. That was sufficient for the former government to sign-off on a massive commitment of public expenditure.
It was a commitment which, at the stroke of a couple of pens and a couple of press releases, the previous government said would cost $43 billion and the private sector was going to invest 49 per cent of that money. But that did not happen. In fact, no serious proposal for private sector investment was ever put forward because it was such an appalling proposal.
So of course there was a huge blow-out in costs, and we have seen in the recent strategic review that the costs were in fact on track to being not $43 billion but $72 billion or $73 billion. This is an extraordinary amount of money and, remarkably, this was done in an environment where the previous government did not even ask the question: where is broadband need the greatest?
This is a pretty fundamental point. If you are going to build a massive broadband network it might make sense actually to think about where the broadband need is greatest. And that did not happen; in fact, it was only very recently that that work was conducted for the first time by the current government. So there was a massive blow-out in cost and what we got was three per cent of Australian households connected by the last election for a cost of $6.5 billion—$6.5 billion and three per cent of households connected. And, of course, Labor had the gall at one point prior to the last election to say that under Labor the NBN is free. There are about nine million households in Australia so at $72 billion that is a cost per household of about $8,000 in taxation. And, of course, we know that under Labor the NBN was likely to cost more than $130 per month per household. So how one can describe that as 'free' is certainly beyond me.
It really goes to the fact that you need serious people running projects of this kind. There are a lot of technology enthusiasts on the other side, and that is great. They are prolific tweeters and people who like to use the internet; that is terrific. But a project of this size and complexity requires experience and a steady hand at the wheel, and that certainly was not the case under the previous government.
There are areas in my electorate, like the shopping district in Padstow, which still do not have good broadband, and that is in the middle of Sydney. And there are suburbs like Lugarno which also struggle to get decent reception. So there are huge issues which the government will address, but by taking a technology-agnostic approach rather than just throwing fibre around the country in a very loose and unstructured fashion. By taking a technology-agnostic, measured approach and by using different assets where those make sense, including HFC in some places, we will deliver the project much more quickly and for $30 billion less. We will solve the broadband problems that still exist in this country.
House adjourned at 21:30
I have received a petition from 155 residents of the suburbs of Mirrabooka, Brightwaters, Bonnells Bay, Windemere Park, Yarrawonga Park, Sunshine and Brighton. This petition has been found in order by the Standing Committee on Petitions and I hereby present the petition to the House.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain citizens of South Lake Macquarie draws to the attention of the House to the serious interference with television reception on the Morisset peninsular, namely but not restricted to, the suburbs of Mirrabooka, Brightwaters and Sunshine.
We therefore ask the House to review this situation and urgently undertake any necessary changes which are required for uninterrupted television reception.
from 155 citizens
Petition received.
The petition relates to the digital television reception issues affecting residents of the Morisset peninsula. These residents tell me they experience simultaneous interference to the digital signals of the ABC, SBS, NBN and Ten during some weather conditions. The signal from Prime is unaffected. I am told this happens frequently, sometimes daily. Understandably, these people are frustrated by the interruption to their television signal, so, in an effort to find a solution, I have already made contact with the Minister for Communications on this matter. The minister advises that the problem is caused by atmospheric ducting in the area, described as interference from signals travelling further than expected which cannot be differentiated from local signals. This affects those viewers who depend on the Mount Sugarloaf signal because they are co-channelled from the high-power transmission site that serves the Illawarra. Prime services are from Mount Sugarloaf and are not affected because they are not co-channelled in this way.
This certainly matches the experience of Mr Kevin Kirk of Mirrabooka, who described to me his frustration at investing time and money in several reception assessments and upgrades to his antenna system, all to no avail. To quote Mr Kirk:
This is the 21st Century and this is Australia, we feel we are entitled to the same uninterrupted television as any other family.
These residents are right to expect decent television reception. Television provides us access to news, current affairs and entertainment. For people who are elderly or isolated, it is particularly important, as free-to-air television remains the most accessible form of telecommunication. And, of course, in regions like the Hunter, we are well served by our regional media broadcasters and have affection for the local content they provide. I do not believe it is reasonable or fair that these residents are forced to invest in a satellite service simply to replace what has been delivered—for free—for nearly half a century.
I call on the minister to assist me in finding an adequate solution to this reception issue and restore the quality of television reception that residents of the Morisset peninsula enjoyed before the analog signal was switched off last year. I ask the minister to direct the Australian Communications and Media Authority to investigate the matter fully and make recommendations to remedy the situation. I congratulate everyone who signed the petition, in particular Mr Kirk, who was the principal petitioner. I note that the minister has worked closely with my colleague in the Hunter, the member for Paterson, on similar reception issues and I hope his enthusiasm to fix the problem in Morisset will be equally forthcoming.
On Saturday night I was very fortunate to attend Pearl of the Orient, an occasion which celebrated 30 years of the Bundaberg and District Australian-Filipino Association and, of course, the 116th anniversary of Philippine Independence Day. And what an event it was, attended by the local mayor, Mal Forman, and his wife, Joy, my colleague Stephen Bennett, the state member for Burnett, and Councillors Honor, Forgan and Hamilton from the Bundaberg Regional Council.
The event was a huge success, with a record almost 400 guests attending. I congratulate the association's president, Mila Schneider, and the rest of the organisers. It is not often that you see a queue of 200 people waiting for a meal, but it was certainly a wonderful occasion. This included traditional Filipino foods such as the lechon, which is a pig on a spit, prepared by international Wide Bay TAFE students. There was a flower parade, which acknowledged all past and present members, who had raised enormous amounts of money for the association. Having never attended a Filipino association event before, it certainly was an eye-opener to see such a long list of attendees and people who have raised such an enormous amount of money.
There was a stage performance about the life of the Filipino national hero Jose Rizal—a gentleman whose life, unfortunately, was ended because he was executed—and the work that he did for Filipino independence. This was conducted by local primary and high school students. There was also an artwork as a stage backdrop, which was done by 20 or 30 individual students in separate panels and then put together as a collage. It was a wonderful event.
It is great to see the Filipino community enjoying themselves, after a tough year following tropical Cyclone Haiyan. Certainly, the discussions I had with my colleagues and the counsellors at the event felt like an enormously large family Christmas lunch. More than 171,000 Australians were born in the Philippines. In my electorate of Hinkler there are approximately 700. People came from Hervey Bay and Childers to the event. At a number of events people wore traditional dress. It certainly was a spectacular event, which I enjoyed enormously. I look forward to attending next year's anniversary of Philippine Independence Day.
I congratulate president Mila Schneider on a job well done. It certainly was a wonderful event. It is good to see that they are part of a local community. The community is much stronger for their presence.
It is my great pleasure to deliver my annual report to the House on the Gorton Young Leaders Awards, a program I established some years ago, to recognise the achievements of exceptional young leaders in my electorate of Gorton.
Now in its fifth year, the Gorton Young Leaders Awards recognise local young people who have shown an exceptional commitment to public service in their final years of secondary college, specifically through involvement in voluntary work, student leadership or community service.
Fourteen former year 12 students across seven schools have been recognised for their achievements during 2013. They are as follows: from Melton Secondary College, Gordana Ostojic and Kyle Olinga; from Lakeview Senior College, Maddy Floresco and Luke Bethune; from Staughton College, Jennie Johnstone and Jordan Lindsay; from Melton Christian College, Jemima Justus and Darren Quinto; from Victoria University Secondary College, Deer Park Campus, Kimberley Mendez and Cuong Tran; and from Copperfield College, Mehak Sheik and Tommi Tam Phan.
The achievements of these winners have again spanned a range of worthy causes. Amongst them are a number of schools captains and SRC members. Others volunteered for St John's Ambulance, ran the backstage crew at the college production, and led various charity events and fundraisers. One student led fundraising activities for HeartKids, for which she was nominated for Young Australian of the Year.
Each of these recipients distinguished themselves as a future leader through their commitment to their education and their community. The winners, not to mention the families, friends and schools, should all feel proud.
Indeed, it was my great pleasure to meet these young leaders and their supporters at a presentation ceremony that I recently convened at my electorate office. Students were presented with certificates and a small prize, during what was a hugely successful and uplifting morning.
I am very proud that we have such upstanding representatives of Melbourne's west. I am sure the House joins me in congratulating these young leaders. Now enrolled in courses at university, TAFE and other educational institutions, they certainly have very bright futures ahead of them. We wish these young leaders every success going forward and I look forward to charting their future progress.
There are a significant group of senior citizens living in my electorate of Moore, who are upstanding members of society, financially self-sufficient and active within the local community. However, they are not yet able to be registered on the electoral roll. I am referring to the category 410 visa holders, who are seeking a path to permanent Australian residency after living in Australia for more than 10 years. As at 30 June 2013 there were an estimated 5,572 individuals on 410 visas. Of these, 3,323 were resident onshore and 2,249 offshore.
In order to qualify for their original visa, applicants were required to provide police clearances, undergo medical health checks, demonstrate that they had the means to be financially self-sufficient in retirement and maintain private health insurance cover during the period of their stay.
I have met a number of retirees who arrived under this category of visa. In the main, they are self-funded retirees from Commonwealth countries who have not only met the criteria for the visa but have purchased a home. Many have immediate family, extended relatives or close friends. Active in the community, they volunteer countless hours with charitable and service organisations such as Lions, Rotary and the Returned Services League. After a period of five to 10 years living in Australia these retirees become settled and establish social connections. After integrating into the community they then face the anxiety of applying for an extension to their visa with the real prospect that the extension may not be granted and they will face the upheaval of selling their property, saying goodbye to their friends and returning to their countries of origin.
I make the case for merit-based migration. Applicants who can demonstrate that they are contributing to the domestic economy and are financially self-sufficient ought to be given favourable consideration. Similarly, those who are from Commonwealth countries, who are well integrated into society and contribute to the nation are worthy candidates. From a government perspective, one of the major considerations is the potential cost to the taxpayer of future retirement benefits, health and aged-care costs. However, if these residents are able to demonstrate that they have lived independently in Australia for 10 years, have sufficient assets to support themselves in retirement and agree to maintain private health insurance, then there is a compelling case for the Australian government to grant them permanent residency if it can be demonstrated to be revenue neutral.
At present Ford employs 360 of our best and brightest minds in Norlane—highly skilled technical professionals who enable Geelong to be a world leader in innovative research and development in the automotive sector. More are employed at Ford's Proving Ground at Lara. When Ford made its decision last year to cease the manufacturing of automotive vehicles in Australia and Geelong, from 2016, it also made the decision to continue its product development section. The future of Ford's product development division, beyond 2016, is now under threat with the Abbott government failing to deliver viable support to keep its research and development in Geelong. We know that the Abbott government's budget has been a death sentence to Geelong's once-thriving manufacturing industry, cutting funding for the Automotive Transformation Scheme from $900 million to a grossly inadequate $400 million for the 2015 to 2020 period.
In addition, though, the government is not even honouring the entirety of the scheme's funding period, as the scheme will be completely axed in 2018 without bringing the funding forward. Through this absurdly illogical move, the Abbott government is making a concerted effort to kill off our entire manufacturing sector, and research and development will not be spared.
I met with representatives of Professional Engineers Australia—a part of Professionals Australia—last Friday to talk about the impact of this on Ford's product and development section. This is a section that not only designs vehicles that are made here in Australia but also designs vehicles that are made throughout Ford's production processes across the world. So impressive has it been that the government's Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, and the member for Corangamite, made the visit to the Lara Proving Ground to have their photo taken for the Geelong Advertiser. Despite their presence there—and it will be a bitter pill for those who saw them—the government is abolishing the Automotive Transformation Scheme. This will drive Ford to seriously reassess the viability of their continued operation in Geelong beyond 2016.
Losing Ford would mean new product development would decrease from its already parlous levels and perpetuate the dearth of domestic research and development and innovation capacity in any area that is crucial to a modern economy. The government driving this to happen simply does not make sense. Turning its back on the automotive sector will undoubtedly have widespread ramifications. Not only will it hurt the local economy but it may stifle our innovation and capacity across many areas by driving some of Geelong's most talented, qualified and highly skilled professionals to look overseas for opportunities. These professionals, notably engineers, will be the enablers of advanced manufacturing. A failure to retain professionals who will be at the forefront of advanced manufacturing could severely limit the potential of Geelong's emerging advanced manufacturing industry.
I sincerely hope that the Abbott government's failure to support Geelong's automotive industry does not drive Ford to close its product development division in Norlane, for this division of Ford is an invaluable strength for our region and, indeed, for Australia, one which we simply cannot afford to lose.
I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the fantastic work that a number of youth groups are doing in my electorate of McPherson. Last month, I was privileged to attend the Changeover Dinner for the Rotaract Club of Burleigh Heads. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the incoming president, Helana Tulloch, and her executive, which consists of the vice-president, Khalid Almaktoum, the treasurer, Steven Coffey, the secretary, Emily Sharp, the functions director, Georgina Kreutzer, the professional development director, Matthew Parker, the international services director, Scott Browning, the public relations officer, Elizabeth Brosnan, and, of course, the wonderful past president, Tenille King. This is a fantastic organisation in my electorate and I commend it on its work.
Honourable members in this place are well aware of the considerable work that is done in our respective local communities by Rotary clubs. Rotary is a fantastic organisation, as is its youth wing, Rotaract. The Rotaract Club of Burleigh Heads was formed to encourage 18- to 30-year-olds to take part in activities that help build our community and fundraise for worthy causes. It is all about changing lives and making our community an even better place. During its first 16 months the club has gone from strength to strength and I am so proud that we have such a dedicated team of young people who are volunteering their time to help others.
I am very often inspired by the young people in my electorate, and I was pleased to recognise some fantastic young recipients of the McPherson Young Community Achiever Awards in April this year. Early next month I look forward to hosting a special Y20 youth forum at Bond University in my electorate with one of our country's delegates to Y20, Jonathan Pavetto. Jonathan will seek the views of southern Gold Coast youth on a range of economic issues ahead of his participation in the Y20 Summit in Sydney in July, which, of course, feeds into the G20 Summit that will take place in Brisbane in November. I am looking forward to the youth forum as a chance to give some of the amazing local young people in my electorate the chance to have their say. It is great to be able to encourage and support our youth as they participate in debate, contribute to society and experience the great personal satisfaction that comes from being involved and active in the local community.
I would also like to encourage and commend the work of the Rogue & Rouge Foundation, which is a charitable organisation that helps to address mental health challenges within our community as well as diminish the stigma placed upon these conditions. The Rogue & Rouge Foundation, in collaboration with the Smith Family and Bond University, are engaging teachers, principals and parents in discussing the future of our young people. They are hosting an event, 'Empowering the next generation', on 25 June at Bond University. I encourage everyone to attend. I congratulate Nicole Gibson, the founder of Rogue & Rouge, and her team and wish them all the very best.
Earlier this year, the community of East Bentleigh lost a great man. Father Maurice Bernard Heriot—or 'Lou', as he was affectionately known—passed away after a long battle with illness. For 20 years, Father Heriot was the parish priest at St Peter's Church in East Bentleigh. He began training as a priest in 1944 and was ordained by Archbishop Mannix in 1951. A priest for 63 years, Lou served at many parishes, including St Peter and St Paul's in South Melbourne for four years.
It was in 1973 that the respected father Dan Coakley passed away, leaving big shoes to be filled. Lou was chosen for the task and he became parish priest at St Peter's in September that year. The one and only Father Bob Maguire succeeded Lou at South Melbourne and they remained great mates right up until Lou's sad passing. Lou and Bob shared one very special quality: they were people's priests. They understood and related to their parishioners, and they did not care much for the strict hierarchy of the church. At his service, attended by thousands of people, Father Michael Sierakowski quipped to Archbishop Denis Hart: 'He liked authority, didn't he!'
Father Lou loved riding his bicycle around East Bentleigh, visiting parishioners and local residents. He would visit families of newly enrolled students at St Peter's Primary School to welcome them to what is a wonderful community. One of my staff, who is not Roman Catholic, recalls how Father Heriot put in extra effort to welcome him and his family to the St Peter's community when he was enrolled at the school. Lou would often visit on his bike because he wanted everyone in that community, Catholic or not, to feel welcome at St Peter's. People with problems big or small would go to Father Heriot for advice, which he willingly gave. To the local community, he was a role model, a mentor and a friend.
In 1993, it was decided by the church hierarchy, not by Lou, that Father Heriot was getting on in years and would be transferred to the smaller parish of St Finbar's in East Brighton, where he remained until 2009. Having spent 20 years at St Peter's, Centre Road, East Bentleigh, and 16 years at St Finbar's, Centre Road, East Brighton, he was often referred to as the 'Centre Road priest'. He immediately embraced the parish at St Finbar's, and in turn was embraced by those parishioners. He continued visiting local people on his trademark bicycle for many years.
He retired from St Finbar's in 2009. In semiretirement, he lived in Mornington, but he was still as busy as ever, assisting parishes, writing a book about his life and spending time with his family. Last Christmas, Lou was too unwell to be with his family on Christmas day but blessed the table over the phone, a poignant and special moment. He was a priest who embodied Christ's message of love, compassion and forgiveness. He gave so much of himself to the people he served. Father Lou Heriot died on Good Friday. Vale, Father Heriot.
The 2014 budget is expanding education opportunities for all Australians by offering a broader range of education choices which will stand among the best in the world and strengthen our higher education system. A world-class higher education system is vital to a world-class economy and world-class living standards. The coalition government has made the decision to not only compete but to surpass the quality of education worldwide and deliver the best higher education system in the world for all Australians. Student support will come in the form of a $15.6 billion funding scheme provided to Australian universities, deregulation of the university sector and the largest ever Commonwealth scholarships scheme.
Starting with an improved Commonwealth scholarships scheme, the coalition government's plan will enable our smarter students to receive a world-class education regardless of their economic background or geographic placement. That includes expanding the Commonwealth funding system for students studying not just degrees but diplomas and associate degrees, and enhancing the ability of regional and outer metropolitan higher education providers to improve course options and quality, as well as facilitating partnerships between TAFEs, private colleges and universities to help less prepared students succeed at university. The coalition government recognises that for too long regional Australians have had limited choice in high-quality education.
In order to further the coalition's global emphasis on education, along with Senator Brett Mason I recently farewelled students at QUT heading off on overseas study exchanges. These students are participating in the New Colombo Plan pilot program, which allows for students to pursue unique study experiences in Japan, Indonesia, Hong Kong and Singapore in what foreign affairs minister the Hon. Julie Bishop hopes will encourage a genuine two-way flow of students between Australia and the Indo-Pacific region. This initiative follows a similar plan undertaken by the University of Queensland School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies, which involved a government grant to assist students in undertaking a semester based program at a university in Japan. These initiatives are wonderful opportunities for Australian students to gain the skill set necessary to build successful individual careers, as well as strengthening business and diplomatic ties in light of the globalised world.
As well as university students participating in the Colombo plan, Brisbane City Council and Lord Mayor Graham Quirk are determined to make Brisbane Australia's new world city in every way. Brisbane City Council has worked for many years to attract international students to the Brisbane education system. Nineteen university students from around the world have been appointed Brisbane International Student Ambassadors by Lord Mayor Quirk, with the role of promoting Brisbane as an education destination to their home countries. This initiative is only one of many, including welcome days, exhibitions and friendship ceremonies held by the lord mayor to thank international students for choosing to study in Brisbane and to encourage them to remain lifelong friends of our city.
The coalition government understands that excellence in education directly translates into national prosperity and productivity and believes this plan to help Australia achieve a world-class education will equip Australians to succeed in an increasingly competitive world. (Time expired)
The recent Indian election has been of great international significance and also tremendous local significance in the Greenway community. The world's largest democracy has indeed spoken. I note the recent win of the BJP, led by the now Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and I congratulate him and his team on this emphatic victory. Prime Minister Modi now has the opportunity to work on improving India's economic growth in such a way that all Indians will benefit. India has an increasing role in international affairs and is in a sound position to capitalise on growth in the region, in this the Asian century. India is an important friend to Australia, and it is essential that our relationship, one between two democratic nations, continues to prosper. Amidst all the number counting, I was very touched to witness beaming live the images of Prime Minister Modi's mother, her hand on her son's, talking to him as he assumed his destiny.
There are more than 390,000 Australians with Indian ancestry, and a large proportion of the Indian-Australian population resides in my electorate of Greenway, with more than 15,000 Indian-Australians calling Greenway home. India is, of course, now the largest source of permanent migration to Australia. The Greenway Indian community are very keen followers of the political landscape and were very interested in the events concerning the election and the BJP's victory. What happens now in India and in the future will impact the large Indian diaspora who now call Australia home, as of course many of their family members still live in India.
We share strong cultural, social and economic links with the world's largest democracy. It is vital that we continue to build upon those links with the new Indian government, led by Prime Minister Modi. We must continue to deepen, strengthen and broaden those ties.
I am privileged to represent such a large Indian-Australian community in this place and it was a pleasure to not only visit India earlier in the year and to recognise what a vast multicultural nation it is, what incredible economic challenges it faces but also visit areas of extreme cultural and religious importance, including Amritsar and the Golden Temple.
As I have commented outside this place, the economic reforms achieved by Mr Modi in the state of Gujarat will transform India if they are replicated on a national scale. Prime Minister Modi has promised that the 'good days' for India are coming and I believe that his focus on development in the nation will set the foundation for the future of his country. I sincerely hope that he is able to achieve this for both the benefit of India as a country and the vast Indian population whom I represent.
Lastly, I would like to note that the 16th Lok Sabha has, at 61, the highest number of women members in its history. I want to particularly congratulate one of them, Harsimrat Kaur Badal, the Akali Dal MP from Bathinda in the Punjab, who has been appointed as Minister of Food Processing Industries. I had the pleasure of meeting her on a parliamentary delegation in Canberra last year and, again, had the pleasure of meeting up with her in New Delhi earlier this year. I wish her all the best.
On Friday I attended the Station Street Men's Shed open day. It was in fact more of an 'opening day' because it was the first time they opened up the place. They have not as yet used any of the machines and I know that because there was no blood or sawdust on the floor. It was great that the member for Berowra, the Chief Government Whip, could join me at the opening as well.
Many members of the public were there. It was also an opportunity for the wives to come along and see where their husbands would be spending some of their 'shed time'. It was mentioned during a speech that that was the first and only opportunity for the wives to see or gain entry into that particular men's shed. However, the rules are not yet set in concrete.
Also present were Mr Kevin Morris, the Station Street Men's Shed committee secretary, who also works with the Canning Horticultural and Recreation Society. The men's shed location is in Cannington, as I said, just behind the Cannington Greyhounds. I know that many people in Western Australia will know exactly where that is in Cannington. The horticultural and recreation society has granted a lease and, when the new development for the Cannington Greyhounds goes ahead where they will relocate the actual greyhound track further behind where it currently is, that will be moved and there will be a new location for the men's shed. It will still be local for the local men.
SITA, a resource recovery organisation, was there as well. It presented a $5,000 cheque to the men's shed. Mr Nial Stock, WA's SITA general manager, was also present. The grant of $5,000 was part of a $96,000 program launched by SITA in October 2013. This is an example of corporate philanthropy, working at its best in the local community. SITA have a facility in my electorate of Swan, at the Welshpool Resource Recovery Centre, which I have toured with the local member for Belmont, Mrs Glenys Godfrey. SITA of Welshpool is home to a number of resource and recovery waste management activities.
I would like to congratulate everyone who attended the event on Friday, including the people from the Canning Horticultural and Recreation Society, who provided the facilities. Also, thanks to the members who provided a barbecue lunch afterwards and also to SITA, which provided the celebration cake to kick off the Station Street Men's Shed.
I would like to bring to the chamber's attention the great work of the Hervey Bay Independent newspaper and its fundraising arm, the Indy Foundation. I attended the Indy Foundation lunch last Friday. This is an organisation that has raised over $200,000 for local charities. I would like to congratulate one of the local owners, Malcolm Quinn, for such wonderful work.
In accordance with standing 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that the Government has turned its back on regional Australia in the budget;
(2) acknowledges that the Government's broken promises and wrong priorities in the budget will hurt those living in regional Australia and further increase the divide between the city and the bush;
(3) notes that this budget will hurt regional Australia by:
(a) slashing $1 billion in funding to local government by cutting into the Financial Assistance Grants;
(b) introducing co-payments to Medicare that will discourage doctors from bulk billing, meaning there will be less choice for people to access general practitioner services in regional areas;
(c) cutting health which will mean fewer services in regional Australia;
(d) cutting education which will impact on regional schools and students with less funding available;
(e) increasing the fuel excise which will hurt regional Australians the most who rely on being mobile and being able to travel to work;
(f) cutting the ABC that regional Australians rely on for information; and
(g) increasing university fees that will hurt regional students and regional universities; and
(4) calls on the Government to reconsider its broken promises and wrong priorities for regional Australia in the Budget.
This government has really turned its back on regional Australia with this latest federal budget. The budget devised by those opposite is full of broken promises and of twisted priorities that will hurt people living in regional Australia more. The things in this budget that particularly impact on people in regional Australia include the freezing of indexation for financial assistance grants. That is more than $925 million across four years that will no longer be going to local government. Introducing a $7 GP tax will discourage bulk-billing and there is less choice for people in regional and rural Australia to visit a GP, so it will impact on them. There are cuts to health. An $80 billion cut to health and education will mean less services in regional Australia. Cutting education will impact on those smaller regional schools and students, with less funding available.
The increase in the fuel excise will hurt regional Australians more because they are more mobile and they rely more on transport, particularly their own vehicle, to get to and from work and to pick the kids up from school. Cutting the ABC will affect regional Australia as well because of the services that they rely on the ABC for. Particularly concerning is the change in the deregulation of university fees and the HECS debt, which will hurt regional students and regional Australia. There is so much in this budget that will hurt and impact on regional Australia. There is so much to talk about. Where to start?
Interestingly, we have seen the National Party, the coalition partner, stay pretty silent on the impact of this budget on regional Australia. Indeed, the minister, in this chamber in consideration in detail on the budget, would not answer when I asked many questions about whether any government agency, anywhere in the whole of government, had done an assessment of the impact of these changes in this budget on regional Australia. Of course, he did not answer because the answer is no. Nobody anywhere in government—in the education department, in the health department, in the Treasury, in the Regional Development Australia portfolio—has assessed the impact of these changes in this budget on regional Australia. One of the reasons they have not done that is that the findings will come out and show that regional Australia would indeed be hardest hit by this budget should these measures get through.
The cuts are astounding. We have the Australian Local Government Association coming to Canberra this week for the local government assembly. The financial assistance grants cuts are expected to dominate debate. Indeed, local governments across the country are pretty angry that they received no consultation and no notice of this cut, to take effect from 1 July, when the budget was introduced. This is a $925 million cut over four years across the country. This will impact more on those smaller regional and rural councils that can least afford it.
The President of Australian Local Government Association says councils are coming to Canberra 'somewhat shell-shocked'. Of course they are shell-shocked. They had prepared their budgets for the next few financial years. They had locked all that in, and suddenly they are getting a cut. As the Mayor of Geraldton said, there are 15 small councils outside of Geraldton and some of these councils depend on the grants to fund half of their budgets. This is a very substantial impact on smaller and regional councils.
What do people opposite actually think is going to happen? Councils are cutting services and staff because of this government's changes and/or increasing rates in regional and rural Australia, because of this budget and this financial assistance grant cut. It is very significant indeed and the impact on councils is very significant. We have 900 delegates coming to Canberra this week who are very, very concerned about these cuts to local government right across Australia. It will be interesting to see what those opposite are going to say to these councils en masse—900 of them—here, this week, lobbying for their councils, their regions and their cities, for funds from Canberra. They will be lobbying for the funds that they are actually entitled to under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act—funds that they were relying on, that were cut in the budget with no notice and no consultation.
How on earth can those opposite sit there and say they care about regional Australia when they have allowed this to happen? And where are the Nationals? They are silent. Warren Truss, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, has not been out there defending regional and rural councils; he has not been out there standing up to the government and Joe Hockey, the Treasurer, to say, 'These grants should not be cut.' This is almost a billion dollars that these councils will never get back. Services will be cut in regional Australia, and it comes on top of all of the other measures in the budget that will impact on regional Australia, as well as all of the public sector cuts that will impact on regional Australia.
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion.
I simply cannot believe that the Labor Party has had the hide to bring forward a motion that attempts to shame the coalition over its record on regional Australia, when it is their debt in the first place. And if there is one record that regional and rural Australians are disgusted with, it is record of the past six years of Labor debt and Labor waste—the one we voted down at the last election.
The government, on the other hand, has already begun to breathe new life into regional Australia, with record investment in infrastructure and services—already more than $20 million has been committed in grants and infrastructure for Gilmore alone. More than $3 million has been made available to improve six local black spots, with the bulk of that funding put towards the Princes Highway and Turpentine Road. Programs like the $565 million Black Spot program, crucial to fixing dangerous and accident-prone sections of local roads and streets, or the $248 million Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity program, go directly to our commitment for rural and regional Australia. We have committed $100 million in this budget to fix up mobile phone black spots across the country, mainly for the benefit of rural and regional Australia. There is also $100 million extra for rural research, and more than $50 million to entice more doctors to work and train in rural and regional practices.
Gilmore is an electorate Labor abandoned, because they never understood our issues or how to address them, or even knew how to talk to us. Why is this? It is because they are fundamentally out of touch with regional Australia—predominantly small business people, families and farmers. The Labor Party has no link to these people, and does not understand the challenges that we in regional Australia face every day. Labor will never understand what it is like to be a single mother raising two kids in a regional or rural town, or how hard it really is to find employment when the only public transport into your town centre runs just once a day in each direction. This government cares about single parents, and that is why we are introducing a $750 payment to single mothers who receive the full rate of family tax benefit part A.
When they introduced the carbon tax, the Labor Party simply had no idea of the impact they had on the 39 dairy farms in Gilmore. At a time when milk was retailing for $1.00 a litre, the increases to electricity and refrigerant gases were crippling. The electricity bill for one dairy farmer in my electorate, Tracey Russell from Brundee, has increased from $1,400 a month to more than $2,400 since the introduction of the carbon tax. Tracey estimates that at least half of that—more than $500 a month—is solely due to the carbon tax. Another example is the cost of refrigerating milk on farms. Prices for refrigerant gases have increased between 200 and 400 per cent for farmers in my electorate. This translates into an increase in costs of over $15,000 for some farmers in my electorate to re-gas their refrigeration systems.
Gilmore has a complexity of issues. Despite this, we work hard, always trying new solutions to give our community a hand-up, not just a handout. Programs like the revamped work for the dole, a program which is being piloted in the Shoalhaven from 1 July, help give regional communities like mine a sense of self-worth and opportunity, where before there was none. Labor does not understand work for the dole. Australians do not want to rely on welfare; they want to stand proud. Australians, especially rural and regional Australians in Gilmore, are a very proud people. That is why work for the dole is so important in Gilmore. Fundamentally, I believe that most people want to work for what they have—to get ahead in life—and will always value the skills that community work can bring. It is time to help our youths regain their sense of self, their can-do attitude and their desire to make their lives better.
This motion before the House talks about the government's budget priorities. I cannot help but think that budget criticisms are a bit rich, coming from Labor, especially as they have left all Australians a legacy of $667 billion of debt and $1 billion of monthly interest—for years to come—and more than 200,000 extra people unemployed. That is an enormous debt, and there is not a lot to show for it. What an amazing testimony to financial mismanagement. There is not a single Australian who could not make a suggestion of where this money could have been better spent—unless they be from the opposition.
Those on the other side indicate cuts to education—but if there is a net increase each year, that is not a cut. With an extra 80,000 places at university, that is not a cut. With a chance to study for an associate diploma or diploma—not just a degree—that is enhancing our tertiary opportunities for regional students, not cutting them. Labor does not get it. Our youths, our regional people, do not want their grandchildren to be burdened with debt. This budget provides a vision for a debt-free future. I have yet to hear a whisper of a plan from those on the other side.
I start by congratulating the member for Franklin and the shadow minister for regional development and local government for bringing this motion before the House today. Its timing could not be better, because there are hundreds of delegates from local government organisations in Canberra today talking about the devastating impact of Commonwealth government cuts to the services they are delivering throughout regional Australia.
The member for Gilmore, who has just spoken, seems disappointed that I have not had some time to speak in reference to her contribution. I will do that. I would have thought a member representing regional Australia with one of the highest unemployment levels in the country would have had a bit more to say about their program for dealing with unemployment. It seems to me that the only thing they have to say to the poor unemployed people, in areas like the member for Gilmore's, is: 'For God's sake, don't lose your job, because if you do you're off benefits for six months!' That is the message they are sending to unemployed people. If you want to improve your skills do not look to TAFE, because they are cutting the hell out of funding for TAFE as well.
She talks about areas where funding could be better spent. I will give you one example that puts a spotlight on the priorities of those opposite, particularly the Liberal members of those opposite. There is over $5 billion on a Paid Parental Leave scheme which is going to disadvantage those who live in regional Australia. Whether they are people on low incomes or no incomes, they will receive nothing out of it.
We know that not all of those on the other side have got their priorities wrong. Some of them actually get it. I see the member for Dawson is going to speak in this debate and I hope that he has something to say about the misspent priorities of the government when it comes to regional Australia, paid parental leave and where they could be spending their money.
Having had a high-profile National Party candidate standing against me in the last election, I took particular interest in National Party policies. I was particularly keen on this document I have here: Our plan for regional Australia. This is the National Party platform, the promises they took to their constituents in the last election. It is actually not a bad document, if you read it closely. They promised to ensure that regional Australia was represented when the big decisions in health were going to be made. The policy says:
Only The Nationals' Regional Health Rescue Plan can ensure that the one third of Australians living in the regions get a fair go from the health system and a fair share of health funding.
And I love this bit:
When health policy decisions are being made, regional concerns must be championed by a dedicated Minister with regional experience and a primary focus on the welfare of regional Australians.
Sounds pretty good. Unfortunately, we learnt that only two weeks ago that minister was not even in the room when the biggest decisions were going to be made in relation to regional and rural health. I know the member for Dawson would not have let that happen. He is a man who is not afraid to stand out—stand up, stand out and talk out—when the interests of his constituents are at risk. I am sure the member for Dawson would have ensured that he had been in the room when this horrible GP tax was being debated and when the cuts to health and hospital funding were being considered.
We know that the cuts to hospital funds are going to have a devastating impact on regional Australia. The Nationals had a bit to say about that in their plan for regional Australia. They said that the Nationals will not support policies that lead to the closure of regional hospitals. I can point to one policy that is going to lead to the closure of regional hospital beds and regional hospitals around this country and that is the decision to rip $55 billion out of hospital funding over the forward estimates. The National Party shadow minister was not even in the room when this decision was being made. It is a damn shame because maybe she could have done something to prevent the $1 billion worth of cuts to regional and other hospitals in New South Wales. It is said that this will lead to the loss of over 300 beds in New South Wales.
If the Nationals are going to stand up for regional Australia, they could start by speaking out on the devastating impact that the GP tax, the hospital cuts, the TAFE cuts and the cuts to local governments—the myriad devastating cuts—are going to have on people in regional Australia. (Time expired)
You learn a lot of things in this place and you are surprised by some of them. The thing that has surprised me most in this place is the level of misinformation that is deliberately promulgated. I was sitting here thinking that there is one solution to the debt crisis. If we levied the Labor Party $1 every time they used the word 'cut', we would manage our debt quite comfortably. And we could charge them $2 every time it was an act of misrepresentation because when you pay more into a fund, invest more, it is disingenuous to call them cuts.
In any event, I thought I would talk about something I am passionate about—regional South Australia. I am passionate about it because I have lived my whole life there. If I could have got my university degree in Mt Gambier—and I could now, by the way—then I would have lived my whole life there. Do you know what is hurting regional Australia and South Australia the most?
An opposition member: The Abbott government.
No, it is $667 billion of your debt and it is $1 billion a month. I reflected on this and wondered what I could do in the electorate of Barker for $1 billion. I would be a hero, to start with. There has been a lot of discussion in South Australia—and my good friend the member for Hindmarsh would agree with me—about the Royal Adelaide Hospital. The Royal Adelaide Hospital is being built for $2 billion. I could build a Royal Adelaide Hospital in Mt Gambier after two months. I could build one in Renmark after two months. I could build one at Karoonda after two months. Those on the other side create the problem and then they whinge about us fixing the problem. The reality is that this problem is your problem and we are addressing it. Do you know what regional Australians and South Australians hate the most about this? It is not only that we are paying $1 billion a month but that we are sending $700 million of it offshore. It is time to wake up and smell the coffee, quite frankly.
The member for Bendigo would like to see more union influence when it comes to decisions. I think the people in regional South Australia would like to see less union influence. Quite frankly, the member for Franklin can laugh all she likes, but the reality is this is serious. They laugh about this motion on the budget. When I go back to my community we cry because $1 billion a month is not able to be spent in regional Australia. I have just met with the CEO of the South Australian Local Government Association—and I will be meeting with mayors from my electorate tonight over dinner—and she told me, and this has been confirmed in meetings I have had throughout the electorate over the last week—
Honourable members interjecting—
on this topic. If you waited a minute and listened, you would get the answer. She came to me and said, 'We in local government in South Australia understand that we need to do our bit.' I asked her why she had that view and her answer was—wait for it—
Honourable members interjecting—
If you listen, her answer was, 'Because Labor got us in this mess.' That was her view in the discussion. I should have taped it and played it to you. I have served in local government for eight years and the one thing I learnt in local government that I have brought to this place is that you cannot spend more money than your raise. You can do it for a year or for two years, but we had six years of it and we spent and spent. The debt was $96 billion when John Howard and Peter Costello took the treasury bench. Our task—$667 billion—is close to seven times that task. Who put us in this position? The ALP did and they come into this place and say, 'We are worried about the effects this budget will have on regional Australia and South Australia in particular.'
The reality is that we were forced to make these tough but fair calls because the Labor Party forced us to do it. Imagine if we had not wasted money on pink batts and overpriced school halls. We could have actually delivered the kind of infrastructure regional Australia needs to deliver its product to the market. In this Asian century it will be agriculture and regional Australia that drive us out of it. Quite thankfully, I am glad that it will not be the Labor Party leading this country over the next three years.
This budget smashes regional Australia. This budget is an absolute shocker when it comes to the families, the towns and the communities of regional Australia. There are so many examples of how this budget smashes regional Australia that it is hard to work out what to focus on in this short speech. Let us start with the $80 billion worth of education and health cuts. Everybody can see in the budget papers that these cuts will hit regional Australia hard. Because the government has walked away from the national health reform agreement, my own electorate of Bendigo will be $29 million worse off over the next five years. Bendigo Health will feel the brunt of it and have $25 million stripped away.
The former state Labor government put money aside to build a brand-new hospital. The doctors, nurses and hospital are now asking themselves whether they will have enough money to open their doors. That is now under question because this government ripped apart the agreement and has taken money out of the Bendigo hospital. The other four small hospitals in the area are now talking about mergers. They are not sure whether they will be able to keep their doors open because this funding agreement kept them open. This government is putting the health of regional Victorians at risk.
It is not just the hospital cuts but the GP tax. Local rural GPs are speaking out. Unlike in the metro areas, a lot of doctors in the regions do not operate from nine to five. Those doctors are on-call for emergency care and aged care. They want to know whether they will need a cash register when they turn up at an aged-care facility. One aged-care facility is talking about having a 10-visit card that you pay in advance. It would be just like a coffee card, and every time you see the GP, when they pop in, you cross one off. That is what they are talking about. This is what this government is now creating through the GP tax. Talk about creating red tape. The $7 GP co-payment, the tax, is creating more red tape.
It is not just health that is being hit hard; universities and regional campuses will also be hit hard. The students in central Victoria—for example, Bendigo senior secondary students—who are thinking about going to university talk about not where they will go to university but if they will go to university. Over 25 per cent of the students at the Bendigo campus of the La Trobe University are the first in their family to go to university. Those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds are now questioning whether they will go to university. If they do not go to university, what are their options? There are a lack of jobs in the regions. The jobs crisis is deepening because this government has no plan for jobs in the region. This budget does little to address the growing jobs crisis in regional Australia.
As we have heard, the regional councils are here this week in Canberra and they are demanding answers from this government. Why is it that they have to suffer the cuts when it comes to the financial assistance grants?
I met with the Greater Bendigo City Council last week, and they do not know where they are going to find the $1.8 million that this government has cut from their budget. They have already increased rates by six per cent this year and six per cent last year. Some of the council areas in regional Victoria over the last three years have already increased their rates by 20 per cent. They cannot keep hitting ratepayers, yet they might have to because this government has taken the cruel decision to freeze their financial assistance grants.
Federal government should do its bit to support regional councils and they have failed. This government in their first budget have failed—failed to support local governments that work really hard. The ratepayers in my part of the world are saying, 'We cannot afford an extra per cent. If only our wages went up by 18 per cent over three years.' They do not; yet, their rates are.
Fuel excise: nobody on the other side has even touched the fuel excise issue. Forty cents in every litre is to go to the government. If only 40 per cent in every litre in Bendigo went into Bendigo roads, maybe then we would not be so upset about the fuel excise increasing. They say that this is important because this is what is needed to fix our roads, but if only every cent went into regional roads. Where are the Nats when it comes to regional Australia? Where is the impact statement? Why did they tear it up and why are they hiding it? Why are they so afraid to tell regional Australia how bad this budget is for regional Victoria? (Time expired)
Hearing the statements of those opposite, I am reminded of the time that they were in government. It reminds me of an old story about the farmer speaking to his city cousin. They had a conversation about politics. The farmer referred to the former Labor government as fence post turtles. When the city cousin said, 'What is a fence post turtle?', the farmer said, 'Well, he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do up there and you just want to get the poor dumb creature down to where he belongs.' And that is exactly what the last Labor government was when it came to regional Australia.
They were put in there by these supposedly country independents—they did not get there by themselves—and when they were there they did not know what to do. There was so much mismanagement that went on and so much debt that went out of control. In fact, it was a little bit worse than that because the joke goes that they do not know what to do while they are up there. Perhaps they did not exactly know what they were doing but I suspect that some of them did when they put in a carbon tax, because there were alarm bells ringing left, right and centre about the impact that would have on regional Australia.
It has hit places like the Mackay region, which I represent—a regional town—perhaps the worst. In the Deloitte Access Economics report that was done into carbon pricing, they clearly flagged with the previous government that Queensland would be worse off and that regions in Queensland would be worse off. They were intent—these guys who are talking now about how concerned they are about regional Australia—on bringing in a carbon tax on diesel fuel, putting diesel fuel costs up through the roof. And who would be paying? Regional Australia, where freight is so important.
This is something that we have had from the Labor Party, who now come in here with this hypocritical stance that they are somehow concerned about regional Australia. There was no sign of that when they were in government. In fact, the regional ministers were all city based. Why did they not give it to a country based MP? Why was it Sydney members who had it? Why was the member for Grayndler the minister for the regions? He probably would not know a cow from a horse if you took him out west. This is the ridiculous situation that the Labor Party had us in. In fact, a while ago, he was in the other chamber denying that he was the regional minister, so I wonder what he was doing for three or four months while he was there?
But if we want to talk about what the government is doing for regional Australia, it is actually quite positive. We have a number of programs that we are rolling out which were announced in this budget and that are going to pay huge dividends for regional Australia. The building stronger regional communications fund is something that is extremely important: mobile phone funding, for the first time in a long time, helping communities get that communication that they vitally need. The National Stronger Regions Fund: $1 billion. This fund will be up and running by next year, targeting infrastructure projects supporting local and regional development. Organisations, including councils, can apply for grants from $20,000 through to $10 million for key community infrastructure—infrastructure that was neglected under Labor. Right now we are spending $314 million on the Community Development Grants program, delivering things such as an upgrade to the gymnastics centre in Mackay. We have $2½ billion that we have put forward for something that country people realise is vitally important—local roads—through a boost to the Roads to Recovery program. This includes $350 million extra, doubling funding in 2015-16 for local councils. I have to say I know the Deputy Prime Minister addressed local councils this morning. There was applause and much nodding of the heads when he told them about that $350 million extra that is going in for 2015-16. If the members opposite wanted to support something, they would get behind that because that is going to be a big win for all of their councils, not just city based ones.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) commends the Government on the establishment of an Infrastructure Growth Package (IGP) that will fast track investment in critical infrastructure across the country;
(2) notes that:
(a) funds will be targeted at projects that grow the economy, boost productivity and create jobs;
(b) the fund includes $5 billion over five years towards the Asset Recycling Initiative which will encourage the states and territories to sell assets and recycle the sale proceeds into new productivity-enhancing infrastructure, and
(c) the fund also includes $3.7 billion for targeted infrastructure investments to delivery priority infrastructure projects and upgrades across the country;
(3) acknowledges the IGP builds on the Government's existing commitment, now at more than $50 billion, to fund key road, rail and intermodal projects; and
(4) recognises the IGP as part of the Government's Economic Action Strategy to build a strong, prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia.
Australia's infrastructure deficiencies have been talked about for a long time. There have been numerous reports by consultants and by governments at the state and federal levels. We have taken the bold decision to do something about it in significant terms. The challenges we face include not just an ageing population and increased expenditure commitments over the next 10 years but also a population set to grow to 38 million and our cities to almost double in size by 2050 and freight to almost double by 2030. These are some of the parameters we have to work within. We have a major infrastructure challenge and also a productivity challenge that we have heard a lot of debate, comments and reports about. We are taking up these challenges on both fronts. In this budget we are all contributing to make a better future for Australia. As the Treasurer said:
We are not going to pass the buck to another generation. We must move now to shape our destiny. We inherited an economy with below-trend growth; we inherited an economy with rising unemployment, with falling terms of trade.
Despite this, we are putting in a series of economic measures to build a better Australia.
The Infrastructure Growth Package is one of those key measures to grow the economy, ensuring that Australia can return to trend growth levels as soon as possible. The key component to lifting productivity growth in our budget is through an investment in productive infrastructure—$50 billion, a record amount spent on productive infrastructure. This is an additional $16 billion more than what Labor would have delivered if they were re-elected, and I will be interested in hearing what the members opposite say when their turn comes to speak on this significant package. This funding forms part of the government's economic action strategy to build a strong, prosperous economy, raise productivity and create thousands of new jobs.
The government's investment in infrastructure will also leverage greater co-contributions from state governments and the private sector. This innovative asset recycling program will free up billions of extra dollars. We are already seeing state governments look at their infrastructure assets in a different light. The growth package includes $11.6 billion in infrastructure growth and fast-tracks investments in critical infrastructure across the country. There is $5 billion over five years in the asset recycling initiative. There is $2.9 billion in Western Sydney to support the new Western Sydney airport, which I am sure my colleague here, the member for Reid, will speak about. There is $3.7 billion for targeted infrastructure investments to deliver priority infrastructure projects and upgrades, including the first ever concessional loan in Australia to accelerate WestConnex stage 2 in Sydney so it can be built at the same time as stage 1.
There is other funding like the East-West Link, now a $3 billion commitment; the Toowoomba second range crossing, now a $1.285 billion commitment; and the first ever regional public-private roads project in Australia. There are new projects the member for Perth might be interested in like the Perth freight link and a $9.25 million commitment for the first ever public-private roads project in Australia. There is the Northern Territory roads package worth $77 million and the national highway upgrade program, with $228 million. Additional funding for local roads programs includes the Black Spot program, now a $564.5 million commitment; and the Roads to Recovery program, now a $2.4 billion commitment. These are all significant commitments in their own right.
One of the most significant commitments from South Australia's perspective and, in particular, the perspective of my electorate of Hindmarsh is South Road. The North-South Corridor, which the Prime Minister has been extremely committed to since he came to Adelaide in October, was one of the first priorities that I dedicated myself to work on when I was elected. I have been regularly talking to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the assistant minister, Jamie Briggs, and others about the importance of this corridor to South Australia. I have been consulting with locals, businesses, stakeholders and local government, in particular the mayors of Charles Sturt, Marion and West Torrens as well as councillors in the areas.
I commend other support from the local community, including by the Messenger, the local newspaper, and their commitment to the issue. They have run a series of articles and spoken to local stakeholders, local residents groups and traders groups. Their support in getting this project over the line has been significant. As the Messenger said in their post-budget edition: 'Residents, traders and community leaders are celebrating victory.' How right they are. Since the announcement, I have also spoken with many residents and traders and they have been extremely positive about the announcement because they know it will help decrease travelling times for families in the area. It will decrease travelling times for businesses. It will improve productivity. It will reduce the amount of time people are stuck in traffic. It has been very well received in the local community—and so it should be. This has been on the cards for so long and we decided to act strongly.
This is the single largest infrastructure investment in South Australia by any Australian government. Early works will start next year, to be completed by 2018. The upgrades will improve access to the port, the airport and freight terminals, and will improve the efficiency of public transport, something that all South Australians want. It will reduce time people spend being stuck in traffic, giving them more time with their families. It will accelerate new opportunities for economic development and job opportunities and slash travel times for commuters.
The government has made a record $2 billion investment to build the infrastructure of the 21st century in South Australia. Eight hundred new jobs will be created. This is $435 million more than what Labor would have invested in South Australia if they were re-elected. Let me tell you what others have said. The state Labor Treasurer, Tom Koutsantonis, has said:
It's got to be fixed, it's very, very important and I think quite frankly that the Commonwealth have stumped up to take on one of the hardest parts of South Road and that's encouraging.
The RAA were also most complimentary. Mr Mark Borlace from the RAA said:
It's fantastic to see that these two significant parts of South Road will be upgraded by 2018.
Regarding the Black Spot program and Roads to Recovery in my electorate of Hindmarsh, we have made three major announcements that will help with road safety. Tapleys Hill Road, Marlborough Street and Valetta Road in Fulham Gardens will be improved. Marion Road and Cross Road at South Plympton will have changes made to help address the high level of right-turn crashes on all approaches. Sir Donald Bradman Drive and Sir Richard Williams Avenue in Brooklyn Park will be improved to increase sight distance and reduce rear-end crashes. These are examples of local programs, local commitments and local improvements.
I will quickly touch on some major infrastructure investment across other areas of Australia. In Victoria, there is a record $7.6 billion investment, which is $1.6 billion more than Labor would have committed. In WA—the member for Perth will be interested—a record $4.7 billion is committed, which is $880 million more than Labor committed. The Swan Valley bypass and the Great Northern Highway are two of the projects. In Queensland, 45 new programs of works are proposed for the Bruce Highway. The Gateway Motorway in Brisbane has received a commitment of $930 million. The total contribution is $6.7 billion for Queensland. In Tasmania, the Midland Highway will receive $400 million for freight and passenger movements. The member for Grayndler has joined us and I know he is happy about these announcements. I am looking forward to hearing his response to this record infrastructure investment.
In closing, infrastructure spend is a win for all Australians—from the Northern Territory, where we are upgrading six regional roads, to Tasmania where there is record Commonwealth government investment in infrastructure to improve our productivity, to help our businesses, to reduce travelling times for families and, importantly, to improve our economy to get it back on track, to build a better and bigger Australia.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I move:
That all the words after "That this House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
(1) condemns the government for failing to fulfil its promises on infrastructure investment in its budget of broken promises;
(2) notes the Budget:
(a) fails to conduct cost benefit analysis for any new project funded in the budget greater than $100 million;
(b) cuts funding to projects which have been recommended by Infrastructure Australia including Brisbane's Cross River Rail and the Melbourne Metro;
(c) fails to provide any additional funding across the forward estimates for the Pacific Highway or the Bruce Highway;
(d) cuts funding for any public transport projects other than those already under construction;
(e) fails to fund any new rail freight projects;
(3) further notes the advance payment of $1.5 billion this month for the East West project in Melbourne in direct contravention of the government's stated policy of only making milestone payments upon construction; and
(4) condemns the Coalition for undermining the independence of Infrastructure Australia.
When I came to work this morning, I did not realise I was coming to a fantasy world. That is what the motion represents—an attempt by this deceitful government to overinflate the scale of infrastructure spending in the 2014-15 budget. The only new projects in this budget have been funded by cuts to projects that have been recommended by Infrastructure Australia in order to fund projects that have not had cost-benefit analysis, such as the East West project in Melbourne. The East West project in Melbourne is getting a $1½ billion advance payment this month. Regarding the second stage of the project, which is getting a $1 billion advance payment, at Senate estimates it was not clear even where the tunnel will come up. That is, not only has it not had proper planning or cost-benefit analysis but it is unclear where it will go.
In terms of the other announcements, there are a series of re-announcements of federal Labor government funded projects that were already in the budget. At the heart of this budget is not a record new funding package for infrastructure spending; at the heart of it is deceit from the government. That includes the member for Hindmarsh, who spoke about his joy at the Torrens to Torrens section of South Road being funded. That is in his electorate and of course the preconstruction work had already begun and the then opposition opposed the project. He mentioned projects like Tasmania's Midland Highway, where there has been a $100 million cut. Of course, most significant are the cuts to any public transport project that was not already under construction. In addition to that, there are cuts to roads, such as Melbourne's M80 project—$500 million was cut—which was recommended by Infrastructure Australia and has a positive BCR. There is the billion-dollar cut to financial assistance grants for local government. Then there are the so-called new things that have been created. Have a look at the detail. The recycling fund comes from the Building Australia Fund and the Education Infrastructure Fund—money that was already in the budget. They have renamed it and pretended that it is something new. It is dependent upon, of course, privatisation of existing public assets. They do not want to use the 'privatisation' word, but that is precisely what this fund is about.
Let us look at the advance payments and compare that with what the government is actually saying. Only 10 days ago the assistant to the minister, his errand boy, the member for Mayo, said:
So we are driving the state governments very hard to give us timetables to ensure that we're meeting the expected time of delivery of these projects. That we're hitting milestones, that we're only making payments to states when they actually deliver the milestones, that they're not getting money in their bank account prior to milestones being delivered …
It could not have been clearer, yet what has occurred? Today we know, on top of the East West, there is an advance payment for the Pacific Highway in New South Wales. There are no new projects and no new additional funding, but an advance payment is being made. That is why this budget is such a con.
At the same time not a single project that has received new funding in this budget has been recommended by Infrastructure Australia. The whole idea of Infrastructure Australia was to break the nexus between the short-term political cycle of just three years and the infrastructure investment cycle. Yet what it has done is ensure that Infrastructure Australia and that process are undermined.
The Perth freight project, which I am sure the member for Perth will comment on, had been rejected previously and again had no cost-benefit analysis attached to it. It is something that was done on the back of an envelope in order to have something to reannounce. They do deserve some credit for their ingenuity and chutzpah. They have renamed some projects. The F3 to M2 in Sydney has become the North Connex. The Perth to Darwin highway came with a number of names, but they have come up with a new north link name for that project. Renaming a project does not make it a new project. It is extraordinary that they believe that they can somehow bluff their way through on this.
They say that, if you invest in roads and not rail, that will free up money. What it does is encourage state governments to also prioritise roads rather than have proper transport strategies. I believe in funding both roads and rail. You need to fund the project that produces the greatest productivity and helps deal with urban congestion in our cities. You cannot have an ideology that says just roads, as the conservatives do, or just rail, as the Greens political party do. You need to be guided and to have a comprehensive plan.
I started this speech by saying that the House of Representatives had turned into a bit of a fantasy land. When you measure the motion before us against the facts, you have to wonder how they decided that this is a great package. It is a package where the facts do not matter. This government wants to wind back the clock when it comes to infrastructure development. It will lead to a failure to invest in any urban public transport. States over a period of time will prioritise road projects because that is where the co-funding is. There is a natural incentive there. You would have to be a complete nong to be a Treasurer and not acknowledge that as a fact. When you are competing with other states to get federal co-investment into your state or territory that will occur. But there seems to be no acknowledgement of that by the government, even though Infrastructure Australia made it very clear in an answer to a question that that would be the case over a period of time.
The fact is that we need to deal with investment in terms of infrastructure in order to boost productivity. This government is walking away from the Infrastructure Australia process. It is undermining the independence of Infrastructure Australia, which is in the legislation that is before the Senate at the moment and which has been rejected by the Business Council of Australia, by the Urban Development Institute of Australia, by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, who are all saying that the government is going down the wrong road in undermining that independence and it needs to have the process right. If you get the process right, you will get the right investments.
I rise to speak against the amendment and in favour of the original motion as put by the member for Hindmarsh. Whilst I had a prepared speech, I had the inspiration from the member for Grayndler's words and I think the term was 'fantasy land'.
For six years as a member of the Reid community I watched a long, long episode of the Muppets. Over those six years, everyone in the Labor government was fighting one another for the role of Gonzo. If you want to talk about fantasy land, there is no better illustration than the member for Grayndler's lauding of Infrastructure Australia. Why? Because he invented it. I do not begrudge him that but what I would draw his attention to is that, in the last Labor government, Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, the Adelaide desal plant, a $328 million project in Adelaide, was approved by the Labor government—which version I am not exactly sure; it was one of the three. That $328 million has since been studied by the Auditor-General and he has, to put it brutally, slammed it and called it for what it is when he said proper grants processes were not followed.
Infrastructure Australia is fine in concept; however, the hypocrisy of the member for Grayndler is to stand here lauding it. When it suited him, he circumvented it, as did his government, to do what the Auditor-General labelled 'pork barrelling'.
I also note that the member for Grayndler did not mention two specific projects—the second airport for Sydney and the WestConnex. I do not blame him for that either. In July 2010 the member for Grayndler said in the Fairfax press:
The simple fact is that Sydney does need a second airport and we need to plan for it now if this city is going to continue to be a truly global city.
I say 'Hear, hear!' to the member for Grayndler because he is my next-door neighbour in Reid, and I said in my maiden speech exactly the same thing; however, that was 2010 when he was in government. I would draw his attention to 2013, when he said in the Fairfax press again that 'construction on a second Sydney airport would start within three years if Labor was re-elected'. The problem with the member for Grayndler is not specific to the member for Grayndler. It was a common theme of the last six years—that six-year version of the Muppets. We were promised the world and delivered an atlas in Reid. Quite frankly, it is not good enough.
I rise today to dismiss out of hand the amendments in support of my friend because those two projects which I have just mentioned, the WestConnex and the second Sydney airport, are on their way. While Labor may have talked about them for six years and put in place some magnificent bodies like Infrastructure Australia and circumvented it to pork-barrel when it suited them, we are getting on with the job of governing and delivering for the people of Reid.
WestConnex will be delivered and delivered promptly. You heard more announcements by the Premier of New South Wales, Mike Baird, on the weekend about fast-tracking stage 1 and 2. It divides my electorate in two. It is not good enough. Parramatta Road is a barrier between the north and south of my electorate—it has been since I was a boy—and we will fix that.
The second Sydney airport is a necessity for my electorate of Reid, where we deal with twice the long-term operating plan level of noise. We said pre-election we would commit to a location and to building it, and guess what? Unlike the member for Grayndler, who promised the people of Grayndler and Reid the world and delivered an atlas, we are getting on with the job of governing.
I rise to condemn the amendment out of hand, in support of my good friend the member for Hindmarsh, in support of the Abbott coalition government delivering what we said we would do before we were elected. I applaud the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Deputy Prime Minister and the assistant minister for infrastructure for the wonderful job they are doing. I say: long may it continue.
It is with pleasure that I rise to support the member for Grayndler's amendment, because nowhere more than in Western Australia do we see the difference in the attention a place is given under Labor and under Liberal governments. Just as a preamble—I always want to get this in—during the six budgets under Labor we committed $4.2 billion worth of expenditure for infrastructure in Western Australia. That compares with $1.9 billion over the last six years of the Howard government. So quite clearly the bacon was brought home by the Labor government in terms of infrastructure.
I want to talk a little bit now about projects in Western Australia and why it is highly dubious that we are going to be receiving any additional funds at all. First of all, we know that there has been a net reduction in this budget of $500 million in certain projects. So $500 million that was committed to Perth urban rail has been deleted from this budget, in line with the Prime Minister's anti-obsession with public transport. We all know—it is well documented—his very outdated views on public transport. He wants everyone to be a king in a metal castle, driving around in a car. He thinks that is what creates a good city and a good society.
But in particular the big-ticket item, the supposedly new project that has been introduced in Western Australia to attempt to compensate for the loss of $500 million from a very worthwhile urban rail project, is the Perth Freight Link. The member for Grayndler talked a little about how projects are being renamed. One of the reasons why the extension of Roe Highway stage 8 has been renamed the Perth Freight Link is largely that they need to wrap some pre-existing projects that have already been funded into what is supposedly a grand concept.
We heard the Deputy Prime Minister saying, 'This project is ready to start now,' but the bit that he is actually starting now is the upgrade of Leach Highway and High Street going into the existing Fremantle port. That is a project that was funded under Labor. It was in the budget under Labor. It has now been woven into the Perth Freight Link in order for the government to say, 'Look, our project is underway already.'
But in fact, if we look at what the substance of their project really is, which is the highly controversial extension of the Roe Highway stage 8, we find it is very much not ready to go. In fact, one of the local members, Rita Saffioti, was questioning the Treasurer during estimates in the legislative assembly. The Treasurer responded to her questions about how they were going to fund the Perth freight line. He said: 'Firstly, it's not referred to in our budget at all. We don't have full information about it.' He went on to say: 'The Western Australian government has not made a decision as to its contribution to the proposal put forward by the Commonwealth and until I have a proposal in front of me I cannot answer the member's questions.' So it is a project that is so early in its development that the state government were not even aware of it when they prepared and proposed their budget documents.
So we have this allocation of $850 million to build five kilometres of road—very, very expensive road—right through a wetland. I would be prepared to lay money that that part of the project will never go ahead. What we have here is a creation. You put money into something that you know is unlikely ever to be built, but it makes it look like you have made a commitment to Western Australia. They will be claiming the project is underway when in fact the bits of it that are going to be built and will be built over the next year were a pre-existing project funded under our budget.
I also want to make a comment about Oakajee, which still appears. Oakajee was a proposal funded conditionally under Labor and, surprisingly, still seems to be in the budget. When I asked the Deputy Premier about its continued existence in the budget, he said, 'Oh, yes, we did think about taking it out, but it's going to go ahead.' Yet public servants recently gave evidence that this project is not going ahead. (Time expired)
I am delighted to rise in support of this motion moved by the member for Hindmarsh today, because it articulates the heart of what the coalition government is doing to build a strong economy, create jobs and deliver the infrastructure of the 21st century. To that end, I do not support the amendments moved by the member for Grayndler in relation to this motion.
The Infrastructure Growth Package will fast-track investment in critical infrastructure across Australia and includes a record $14.9 billion worth of investment in my home state of New South Wales—$6 billion more than what Labor would have invested had they been re-elected. Some of the projects we are funding are of enormous significance to New South Wales, including NorthConnex, which is particularly important to people and businesses on the Central Coast. The coalition government and the New South Wales Liberal and Nationals government will each contribute $405 million toward this $3 billion major investment that will connect the M1, formerly known as the F3, and the M2 together in a nine-kilometre underground tunnel, bypassing around 20 to 22 sets of traffic lights between my electorate and the Sydney CBD, depending on whether you use Pennant Hills Road or the Pacific Highway.
It will save the average commuter or, for instance, a freight truck driver around 15 minutes each way. For the 30,000 to 40,000 commuters who leave the Central Coast early in the morning and return home to their families late at night, this equates to around 10 hours per month in reduced travel time—more than a full day's worth of work every month. That is time they can spend building their businesses, building their careers, investing in their families, spending time with other people or enjoying the best of the incredible lifestyle that we have to offer on the Central Coast. For freight companies, manufacturers and other businesses who also rely on vital road connections, this reduction in travel time can also deliver potential cost savings and boost productivity.
Construction on NorthConnex will commence next year. It will create around 2,000 direct jobs, bringing additional economic benefits and, importantly, more employment opportunities for people in my electorate of Robertson. When NorthConnex opens in 2019, this will be the realisation of a 50-year-old dream, a plan that has been on the books for decades. Thanks to the investment by the federal coalition government and the New South Wales Liberal and Nationals government, this dream can now become a reality. In addition, of course, we also have the M1 productivity package for the widening of the Kariong to Somersby and Kariong interchange ramps, with upgrades expected to be completed by mid-2019.
I take this opportunity to commend the New South Wales government on its recent announcement of an additional $20 billion in infrastructure investment designed to boost productivity, create jobs and reduce congestion. The Liberal and Nationals government in New South Wales is determined to help rebuild our state after 16 years of neglect by the Labor Party and recently announced it will fund this important $20 billion investment through a 49 per cent sale of the state owned electricity network sector. This will bring enormous benefits to the Central Coast, particularly with the regional roads fund and regional water fund, the schools and hospital building fund, sport and cultural fund and the construction of a second harbour rail crossing, which could reduce rail commuting times to and from Sydney.
The coalition's Infrastructure Growth Package will also fund a number of additional road upgrades in my electorate of Robertson, including fixing a dangerous intersection in Kariong. The Langford Drive intersection with Woy Woy Road is renowned by locals for numerous accidents and dangerous road crossings, and it has been a concern for a number of years. I am proud to be part of a government that is funding $675,000 towards a safer traffic solution for Langford Drive. In addition, as part of the Black Spot Program, $150,000 will be invested to upgrade the dangerous bend along Narara Valley Drive from Yurunga Avenue to Mangrove Road, including additional safety features to help tackle the number of accidents, especially during wet weather. The Black Spot Program will also enable another accident-prone site to be addressed, with $150,000 to install a wire rope barrier on the existing median on Avoca Drive, from Empire Bay Drive to Oberton Street in Kincumber.
This funding forms part of the government's Economic Action Strategy to build a strong, prosperous economy, boost productivity and create thousands of new jobs. In doing so, it is delivering on the local commitments we made in our Growth Plan for the Central Coast, commitments that will help build a better future for everyone who lives in the best part of the best country in the world.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the motion moved by the member for Hindmarsh. I will indicate to the chamber that it is my intention to support the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler. I was listening with great interest to the member for Robertson's contribution. So let me tell her about another big commuter corridor—that is, the Illawarra—and what has happened to us under this government in terms of infrastructure investment. I can assure you that it is not such a happy story.
In particular, I want to support the member for Grayndler's amendment, because in (2)(e) he talks about the failure to fund any new rail freight projects. This particularly impacts on my electorate. Obviously, infrastructure is a particularly important part of economic growth and development, particularly economic diversification in regions like mine that are undergoing some significant shift. Obviously, we continue to do reasonably well out of the mining sector that operates in my area, but the manufacturing sector has been undergoing significant change. I am sure that members would remember only a few years ago the major restructure of BlueScope Steel and the flow-on effects that had on our economy.
There are two aspects to the opportunity to economically diversify both industries and regions. They are infrastructure, not only the traditional forms of infrastructure such as road, rail, port but also the infrastructure of the future, the National Broadband Network. Sadly, both those have taken a hit since this government came to power.
Another thing that drives growth and opportunity for regions is investment in people, in skills, training and education development—if you like, the brain and the brawn—that contribute to growth and jobs of the future. Under this particular matter now before the chamber, I am obviously going to concentrate on the infrastructure side of the story in my own area. However, I would like to acknowledge that the partner to that story, if you really want to maximise the opportunity to be part of the industries of the future and to have the people in your local area have access to those jobs, is investment in people.
RDA Australia, the Illawarra branch, have been working very effectively for a number of years on a program of development for the region, under the very effective leadership of chairperson Eddy De Gabriele and chief executive officer Natalie Burroughs and her team. They have indeed worked with our community. Annually, they have a leadership conference on what needs to be done for the future. The investment in infrastructure is one of the priority areas for the RDA, representing the views of my whole area. There have been a number of action plans in place. But, in particular, I want to inform the House that they have reflected the ongoing commitment of my region to a rail link project, the Maldon to Dombarton Rail Link. It is a freight-specific link that goes from Port Kembla and links us into the state-wide and nationwide rail infrastructure and, in particular, the growing Western Sydney corridor.
It is a project that, prior to us winning the election in 2007, we committed $300,000 for a pre-feasibility study, which was completed, then a further $3 million for a full feasibility study, which was also completed. As a result of that feasibility study we then committed $25.5 million to do all the preparatory work for the project. That was provided to the New South Wales government. They have commenced that work and it is due to finish, as I understand it, at the end of this month, if not early next month.
As a result of that work coming towards completion Labor and the then minister, the member for Grayndler, placed $50 million on the table to engage as a federal government with the private sector to see what the opportunities were to actually build the line. In MYEFO this government got rid of that $50 million. A major freight rail link that will significantly improve the commuter link on the rail by taking freight traffic off the commuter line and will significantly improve the impacts on our road has just been dropped and walked away from, despite the importance of the port of Kembla as one of the three major ports on the New South Wales coast. So it was a very short-sighted outcome.
Added to that we of course had the abandonment of the rollout of the National Broadband Network to the home across our region, which would have transformed the way the businesses in our region were connected to the wider world as well. It was very short-sighted and not an economic growth strategy at all. The minister and this government should look at reinstating those projects. (Time expired)
I am delighted to speak today in support of this important motion from my colleague the hardworking member for Hindmarsh. Together with the members for Reid and Robertson, I have to commend the government on the establishment of an infrastructure growth package that will fast-track investment and critical infrastructure across our country. This investment will boost our economy, lift productivity and create jobs around the nation. It will also help us fix the No. 1 complaint by the good people of Bennelong: traffic congestion. Our local community owns the dubious honour of possessing five of the most 10 congested roads in New South Wales. Unlike those opposite, who year after year in government would make promise after unfulfilled promise, the coalition are actually delivering on our commitment to build the roads for the 21st century and to deliver the infrastructure needed by the people who place their trust in us.
Around Bennelong this includes WestConnex and NorthConnex. WestConnex is one of Australia's largest ever road projects. It is a 33-kilometre motorway designed to ease congestion, connect communities and create jobs. Construction on both stage 1 and 2 projects is expected to commence early next year. NorthConnex involves construction of a twin three-lane tunnel linking the M1 and M2 motorways. The tunnels will be around nine kilometres in length, running beneath Pennant Hills Road. This represents a solution for one of the worst choke points that impact on residents of Bennelong. The Commonwealth and New South Wales governments are both contributing $400 million towards this project. Construction on the project is expected to commence next year and be completed in 2019.
The federal government will also be committing funding for the installation of safety devices at two black spot projects in Bennelong: $400,000 in Pittwater Road in East Ryde and $42,500 in Balaclava Road, Eastwood. These projects are just a small part of the coalition's honouring our commitment to the people of Australia, with the federal budget delivering a record $50 billion investment in productivity-enhancing infrastructure across the country over the next five years, including an $11.6 billion growth package. This is $16 billion more than Labor even promised to deliver if they had been re-elected. The coalition's investment in infrastructure will leverage greater co-contributions from state governments and the private sector. The asset recycling program will free up billions of dollars for extra investments that are needed today. In total our measures add up to $126 billion of economic benefits spread across the entire economy. This massive investment will not only deliver productivity-enhancing roads and rail freight projects across Australia; it also frees up the states to get on with building urban rail. Since the federal election, the state governments have committed to investing in over $25 billion worth of major public projects.
These actions are just the first step. Our country has a lot to catch up on, with so many electorates directly affected by six years of broken Labor promises. In Bennelong we saw the farcical situation of the former Prime Minister and former Labor Premier announcing, with great fanfare, their promise to build the Epping to Parramatta rail link. The former minister even dedicated $2.1 billion towards this project, yet not one dollar was spent and not one sod of soil turned. The people of Bennelong were not easily fooled. This was not the first time a Labor government had promised this and other infrastructure. It was the election of the state coalition government in 2011 that finally saw construction commence on the North West Rail Link. Yet when the Premier went, cap in hand, to the former minister asking for the $2.1 billion to be redirected to a project that would actually see the light of day the money was nowhere to be found.
While this work to clean up Labor's mess is proceeding, we will also work on crucial master-planning so that we can continue to provide the infrastructure needs of the next generation. Such planning has been in short supply in our nation's history, yet we are surrounded with examples of long-term benefits that we have derived from strong infrastructure commitments and bold policy thinking. I look forward to working as part of this coalition government in setting the foundation stones for that bright future. I commend this motion to the House and reject the amendment from those opposite.
What many people may not appreciate is that our central bank, the RBA, not only keeps a close watch on housing affordability but also maintains a watching brief on the diverse range of factors affecting it—factors such as infrastructure planning and the way that it affects movement of people in our cities. In the space of last year, senior RBA officials Philip Lowe and Luci Ellis have given speeches with considerable insight into RBA analysis in this area. Starting with the speech by Luci Ellis, we see a focus on the proximity of where people work to where they live, viewed across state capitals. Sitting within that speech is the observation that, 'Survey data suggest that average commute times have risen since 2006 in at least some cities'—no surprise. The RBA warned the Howard government that infrastructure blockages would generate capacity constraints within the economy. They did little about this, and we have been playing catch-up ever since.
However, the fact that commute times have risen comes as no surprise to me or my fellow Western Sydney residents. The statement confirms reality. The imperative of improving people movement across Western Sydney is obvious, and the benefits are easy to see. The economic priority is exceptionally pressing, especially when it addresses a key challenge confronting the nation—lifting productivity.
That brings me to Deputy Governor Lowe's 2013 speech, Productivity and Infrastructure, where he observed:
… there are significant opportunities for additional investment in transportation infrastructure and for using the existing infrastructure more efficiently. Doing so would promote productivity growth in Australia and contribute to advancement of the overall welfare of our citizens.
Besides making the point that under-investment in transport infrastructure affects housing affordability, Deputy Governor Lowe remarked:
… I can't help but think that surely there are investments in transport infrastructure that would yield a social rate of return greater than the cost of financing.
As a member of a federal Labor government, I was proud to see us not only lift infrastructure spending to record levels but also improve decision-making processes and project governance. We balanced our spend across projects that would help private transport opportunity with projects boosting public transport capacity. Yet, in a few months, we have seen this new government go backwards on these infrastructure priorities—badly.
Since this government has come into office, billions of dollars have whooshed out with little regard to planning or long-term thinking. In Western Sydney, for instance, the Abbott government committed nearly $2 billion to supporting the WestConnex project, a project rightly drawing criticism for not living up to its intended objectives of taking motorists straight into Sydney's CBD and ensuring that the M5 actually delivers freight through to the port. Federal Labor committed to WestConnex on the basis that the New South Wales government addressed these flaws, and the Abbott government hid those flaws under a pile of taxpayer cash.
The shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, Anthony Albanese, rightly observed:
… when governments spend billions of scarce public dollars on new roads or rail lines they ought to be certain upfront that they get it right and that the investment delivers on the desired outcome.
If you arm yourself with a calculator, a clutch of government press releases and Google Maps you will paint a mess of projects sprawling across the country. A trail of zeroes will cram your calculator screen, but amongst all that you will not find much cost-benefit analysis. To make matters worse they are watering down infrastructure governance, limiting the Infrastructure Australia board's capacity to independently determine priority order of projects.
Nothing better demonstrates the cavalier attitude of the government to infrastructure planning than Badgerys Creek airport. You will not hear those last three words roll off the Abbott government ministers' tongues because they refer to it as 'Sydney's second airport' or 'Western Sydney's first airport'. They are worried about this airport, and rightly so. That is why they do not call it 'Badgerys Creek airport'—the airport that dare not speak its name!
It is why Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss calls MP briefings on it but does not show up to lead the briefings. A couple of weeks ago when the PM was brave enough to talk publicly about Badgerys, he made a telling slip when he finally managed to mention it. He was addressing The Daily Telegraph's Champions of the West awards night, and of course talking about Badgerys Creek in front of The Daily Telegraph is about as hard as driving an ice-cream van through a sweaty neighbourhood—they have been feverishly campaigning for it. During his speech, the PM slipped when he said, 'There should not be burden without benefit'—I repeat: 'burden without benefit', which says it all.
At the Badgerys Creek compound they chant about two benefits. The first is roads—three of them built around the airport—and the other is jobs. But they fail to mention detail. The roads have been described by the assistant minister for tar, the member for Mayo, as Western Sydney's 'economic plan'—three roads and an airport and, presto, an economic plan! The lack of detail on one of the biggest road projects, boasted by the government, does not even have a completion date; in fact, it says it is just going to be completed before the airport is built. All spin and no substance, and for an airport that we are told is supposed to create 60,000 jobs and will only create five. When it comes to infrastructure, it is clear that this government does not have a clue and does not have a sense of what it is going to be spending its money on. (Time expired)
Debate interrupted.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the importance of investment certainty for clean energy investors;
(2) notes that:
(a) under the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET), around 3,500 MW of new renewable energy capacity has been commissioned since 2001, with total investment to date of $18 billion;
(b) the Clean Energy Council estimates that there is potential for another $18.7 billion in clean energy investment if the MRET policy was retained in its current form;
(c) over 24,300 people are directly employed in the renewable energy industry;
(d) the Australian Energy Market Commission has found that the cost of the MRET accounted for approximately three per cent of residential retail electricity prices in Australia; and
(e) reducing the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of our electricity generation sector is essential if we are to reduce Australia's carbon pollution; and
(3) calls on the Government to commit to retaining the MRET at the legislated 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020.
The renewable energy target is a crucial piece in Australia's armoury against climate change and our attempts to decarbonise our energy generation sector.
The most up-to-date figures have shown that the RET so far has resulted in the total deployment of over 7,000 megawatts of energy generation, and this represents over 13 per cent of our electricity generation sector coming from renewable energy sources. Over 24,000 jobs are in the renewable energy industry—mostly as a result of the RET. Emissions in the Australian economy have been 22.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent lower as a result of the renewable energy target.
It is important to note that the RET was bipartisan. The coalition when last in government introduced it and they also supported the expansion of the target to at least 20 per cent of Australia's electricity generation, with a fixed target of 41,000 gigawatt hours. The term at least is very important in this debate, because the RET is under attack right now from the government, who seem divided between those who want to abolish it and those who want to reduce the target to some floating percentage figure. I will be very interested to hear the contributions from the members opposite about whether they are in the abolition camp—and I suspect the next speaker might be—and later speakers who will certainly be arguing for a whole variety of options there. But the government certainly painted their colours on this particular issue, by appointing a climate change denier as the head of their review. So it will be no surprise when they support a reduction in the target or possibly the abolition of the target. This is no surprise coming from the Prime Minister, who is the most anti-environment Prime Minister we have ever seen. If you saw his little trip overseas recently, you saw this in spades.
The fact is that the 20 per cent renewable energy target is very important for combating climate change, it is very important for industry and it is very important that it remains unchanged. The independent expert Climate Change Authority has recommended no change and has stated that the fixed target is crucial to industry confidence. Industry forecasts state that there will be nearly 20,000 jobs at risk and $15 billion of additional investment lost if the target is changed. Quite rightly, a range of actors have said that there is a huge sovereign risk issue if the fixed target is abolished with less than six years to go before 2020.
On the impact of the RET on prices, the independent experts, the Climate Change Authority, have found that the renewable energy target actually reduces wholesale energy prices by increasing supply and providing a source of energy with a low marginal cost of production. The Climate Change Authority broadly agree with AEMO that, in terms of retail electricity prices, the impact is around three per cent of retail energy prices or less than $1 a week on average. In fact, some independent models predict electricity prices will actually rise if the RET is abolished.
I urge everyone listening to the debate to ignore dodgy consultancy reports that might get quoted by the other side that somehow forecast huge price reductions if the RET is abolished or claim that the RET is responsible for huge parts of electricity bills. Trust the independent, apolitical experts through the Climate Change Authority and AEMO, who say it is less than $1 a week for a great carbon abatement task and a great industry development target that works with ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to build a renewable energy industry in this country, which is vital if we are going to de-carbonise the economy and be part of the clean energy industrial revolution that is happening around the world. The coalition has abolished ARENA already, in direct conflict with a promise it made before the election—no surprise. This government loves breaking promises and it is certainly trying to do the same for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
In being an efficient way of combating climate change, the Climate Change Authority has found that the RET's cost of abatement is around $40 a tonne, more than the carbon price but much less than Direct Action will ever hope to achieve. So it is great for industry development. We have seen 24,000 jobs developed. It is, importantly, complementing the carbon price and reducing carbon pollution in the economy and it is supported by important industry groups like the Australian Industry Group, which says there should be no change. This is an important issue. We need to stick to the fixed target to support Australia's de-carbonisation. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Science and economics are problematic bedfellows. Any attempt to shoehorn progress and expedite new technologies invariably leads to disappointment. The nature of scientific progress is not linear, nor can it be controlled or predicted. If the venture is not economic, then it is not sustainable. How ironic that Labor members seek to sustain an unsustainable idea and an unsustainable industry. When one introduces constraints by means of a renewable energy target, there are unintended consequences. It is known that the marketplace of ideas, like the marketplace of goods and capital, works best unfettered. Introducing artificial constraints that are demonstrably uneconomic perverts the efficient allocation of both human capital and financial capital. The ones left paying the price for Labor's nice ideas are the people of Australia. The RET will punish poor people disproportionately more than the wealthy. Labor has dropped caring for the poor and the working class for champagne socialism. Unrealistic divestments of time and capital and artificial crises punish those that can least afford to be punished. The RET has and will continue to cost jobs and push the cost of living much higher for many millions of Australian families.
What is known of Labor's policies now beyond any doubt is that they are wildly optimistic and woefully lacking in precise detail. There never seems to be any thinking of how the thing will work beyond the big idea. This RET scheme and the specific measures it advocates are completely discredited by having been born of a Labor government congenitally addicted to fantasy.
Honourable members interjecting—
Unfortunately, you are right. If science could be tamed and brought under bit and bridle, why should anyone trust Labor's future solution? Projects like nuclear energy present viable, safe, clean and economic alternatives to the energy crisis. Debate must move forward from rampant nimbyism. In truth, the RET is an anachronistic plan that was dreamed up at a time when Australia still had surpluses. The geopolitical situation in the Middle East, Africa and Russia was also more benign, and yet the Labor Party wants Australia to stick to the same plan. How dumb. Our best options for getting to clean, economic sources of power lie with locally sourced, proven nuclear technologies.
I refer here particularly to the debate around thorium reactors and their important future role in the provision of clean energy. Specifically, I would like to see this happen in my home state of Western Australia. Canada, China, Germany, India, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States have experimented with using thorium as a substitute fuel in nuclear reactors. When compared to uranium, there is a growing interest in thorium based nuclear power due to its greater safety benefits and greater abundance. India's three-stage nuclear program is possibly the best-known and best funded of such efforts. Australia has the largest reserves of thorium. We have all the necessary materials and know-how in WA. It is tragic that, with this opportunity, Australia should fall behind India in scientific and economic endeavour.
In a 17-page submission last week, the Business Council of Australia described the RET as poor public policy that is no longer relevant to Australia's circumstances. Today, the Australian Energy Market Operator is set to cut national power demand forecasts for the third straight year. I join others such as Origin and EnergyAustralia in stating the obvious: the full costs are escaping assessment. We should allow the market to determine the best mix of technologies based on market principles, not some arbitrary decision made by Canberra based pen-pushers with little understanding of the drivers of economic competitiveness and technological development. It is my belief that in Australia, our nation should never sacrifice Australian jobs or our standards of living because of an idle threat. (Time expired)
The proposal we have before us—the proposal we believe we will likely see from the government—to scrap the renewable energy target is made from a very short-sighted point of view. It is being promoted on the basis that it will cut the cost of energy and therefore promote and expand Australian jobs and Australian industry. I put it that that is an extremely short-sighted view. We know that around the world people—countries and large economies—are moving towards and embracing emissions trading schemes. Those countries are putting themselves in a place where they are going to be reducing their carbon emissions and having less carbon-intensive production.
We are going to be disadvantaged by the removal of the renewable energy target in two very clear ways. One is that we will have an economy that continues to be fossil fuel dependent; that will bring with it considerable cost. It is true that what we are asking for is a trade-off in the short term—a short-term additional cost to energy prices—for the long-term benefit of reducing costs. It is about making a short-term loss in order to make a much more substantial and longer-term gain. Bloomberg, for example, has projected that, while removing the Australian RET would only save around $10 per year per domestic consumer—a very small amount—after 2020, the net position of the RET will be one of reduced energy prices. We will get that benefit—a short-term pain for a very substantial long-term gain. I put it that we might even see pain accelerating as more and more economies move to emissions trading schemes—just as we found, before Australia introduced a price on carbon, that our airlines going into the European Union airports were being charged a levy because we did not have a carbon price.
We can expect to see this writ across the economies of the developed nations. They are not going to simply allow Australia to access their markets without placing a price on our carbon intensity, such as we see in our very big trading partners. Seven of the major cities in China now have emissions trading schemes; Korea is moving to an emissions trading scheme; the states of the United States with the biggest economies have emissions trading schemes. We will see, built into our costs, a cost we are going to have imposed on us—a penalty paid for the fact that we have not decarbonised. So not only will we be losing that long-term benefit of having a decarbonised economy and cheaper energy prices but also, in the short term, we will find ourselves hit with a levy because of the carbon intensity of our manufacturing and those things that we seek to export.
The member for Tangney talked about the nuclear power industry. That is an industry whose very development was underpinned by government and this fantasy about free markets being that thing that has created innovation did not happen in nuclear energy. That was government funded. It did not happen with the internet; it did not happen with touchscreen; it did not happen with Wi-Fi—all of these technological developments were, in fact, underpinned by government investment in research and development. This is very short sighted. Even if you were not at all concerned about climate change, you would be concerned about the long-term economic consequence about Australia remaining—with its little pal 'canadia'—with those little pockets that are still allowing their economies to be driven fundamentally by the fossil-fuel industry and not getting with the program and not giving us the opportunity of those long-term reductions in costs. (Time expired)
Religious belief is based on faith not facts. The new climate religion, recruiting disciples every day, has little basis on fact and everything to do with blind faith. The new theologians of the green Left are not focused on the hilltop at Calvary, but on hills closer to home—many in my electorate, near Lake George, Gunning and Crookwell. And heaven help the heretics who question them. If you listen to Labor and the Greens, an immediate shift to renewable energy is necessary to avoid Armageddon.
At the other extreme, some believe, we do not need any of this. Of course, the coalition is taking a middle path. We have concluded that well-targeted emissions reduction via Direct Action is good policy. The great virtue of Direct Action is that it provides incentives, not penalties, for emissions reduction across the country. But the hard work starts now. As policymakers, our job is to minimise the cost of reaching our emissions-reduction target, particularly given our economy relies on energy-intensive exports.
Today's The Australian reports on definitive economic modelling of the renewable energy target recently completed by Deloitte. It tells us what should be obvious: the scheme is poor policy in its current form. The massive subsidy we single out for the wind industry via the LRET is one of the biggest but least understood corporate welfare programs ever conceived. Wind energy typically costs well over $90 to $100 per megawatt hour. The alternative is conventional energy, currently priced about $30 to $40 per megawatt hour, in the absence of a carbon tax. To make things worse, the electricity grid needs extra investment to absorb the intermediate supply from wind.
Deloitte tells us that the cost of reducing carbon emissions via the renewable energy target is $125 per tonne, more than five times the cost of Labor's job-destroying carbon tax. The total cost to the economy is expected to be $34.1 billion, in today's dollars. The extravagance of these massive subsidies to the wind industry is being paid for directly by electricity consumers and generators. Indeed, we have hardly begun. For large-scale renewables, which has come to mean wind, the current target of 16.1 terawatt hours moves to 41 by 2020. At the same time, the market price of delivering those renewables will increase sharply, reaching a legislative cap in the near future.
According to Deloitte, by 2020, the RET will cost the economy $3.4 billion per year. It will destroy almost 5,000 jobs and will drive a substantial reduction in investment and real wages. That is what bad policy does. It wastes money, costs jobs, costs investment and reduces income across the nation. It is true that the cost of renewables will come down over a period of time, but solar will trump wind easily on this count.
Across much of the Western world, policy makers are focused on one easy option to begin decarbonising our electricity grids, while the cost of renewables comes down: natural gas, because it is abundant and because it halves emissions. The United States has presided over a game-changer, achieving rapid reductions in carbon emissions, containing the price of electricity and putting manufacturing back on the map—all on the back of cheap gas. It has given Obama an incredible political opportunity. He is claiming this is a triumph of his new direct action policy when, in fact, gas has done most of the work.
But there is a hitch for us. In Australia gas is more expensive than in the US, because we export it. Of course, there are strengthening calls from the left for a reservation of gas for domestic purposes. We should ignore these calls because we have alternatives. Bear in mind that the electricity grid is responsible for less than half of our emissions. Land use, transport, fuel, agriculture and industry are all responsible for the rest. Indeed, these areas have been central to delivering our Kyoto obligations and will be central to Direct Action.
Burchell Wilson, chief economist of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said in today's TheAustralian:
The renewables industry has been standing over the graves of Australian manufacturing concerns, crowing about the jobs the RET is creating in the wind industry.
In short, by 2020, if the renewable energy target is not restructured, the costs will explode and we will all pay for it.
That is why this government is conducting a review of the target and why we committed to this review before the election. Fixing the RET is the next step towards ending the age of entitlement—in this case, wind-industry entitlement.
It is a great privilege to speak in support of the motion put forward by the member for Charlton. In the motion, he indicated—in quite some detail—the outstanding performance of the mandatory renewable energy target and it is in that vein that I stand to support his words.
His motion speaks to investment. We have seen total investment to date of $18 billion under the mandatory renewable energy target. The Clean Energy Council has estimated the potential for another $18.7 billion and 24,300 people directly employed in the renewable energy industry—and that does not even get us started on the assistance this will give us in managing climate change.
It is very hard for me to understand how a government could set about dismantling a policy that is such a global success story, but having heard some of the contributions on the other side of the House I am starting to understand a little bit more about where this push is coming from. I am genuinely shocked to hear some of these contributions, because the people who have made contributions to this debate from the other side are people who are about facts and science. Yet what we have heard today is climate change described as a religion. I am genuinely surprised that in 2014, in this parliament, in Australia, we are having this debate right now.
It is the sort of thing that could only be contemplated by a Prime Minister who, while he no longer describes himself as a climate-change denier, could, at best, be described as climate change ambivalent. His attempts to water-down global efforts to tackle climate change are embarrassing to me and embarrassing to many other Australians. We saw so much of this on his recent trip overseas, where the Prime Minister tried to put together what he called a conservative coalition of nations who are refusing to tackle climate change head-on. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there were very few interested parties to join in this crusade. Even the Conservative UK energy and climate minister would not get on board with this. The New Zealand PM, John Key, rejected the conservative coalition and, in fact, Canada's Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister's only friend in trying to undermine international efforts to address climate change.
We have also seen it very clearly in the rhetoric that is being used around this review of the mandatory renewable energy target. The government has named self-proclaimed climate sceptic Dick Warburton to head the review. There have been many media reports of other people engaged in this review process who have long histories of work in traditional energies, such as oil and gas, which have a significant stake in the mandatory renewable energy target.
What I find so frustrating and outrageous about the discussion we are having right now is that building a strong renewable energy market in our country is so clearly in Australia's economic interests. The member for Hume has left the chamber, but both of us have a history in management consulting and we know that Australia needs to work to build industries where it has a comparative advantage. I cannot think of another industry in this nation where we have such a clear advantage in trying to deal with these issues.
We should be the powerhouse of renewable energy all over the world. We should be exporting the technology we invent in this country to countries all over the world because we have the science capability, we have the culture of invention and, practically, we probably have more wind, more sun and more waves around our country than just about any other country in the world. We also know that this should be where we focus our energies, because Australia has more to lose from climate than just about any other country in the world. Australia is already seeing weather patterns changing; Australia is already seeing agricultural products not delivering the same outputs as normal; in Australia the vast majority of our population lives on the outskirts and rising seas could see some of our cities facing issues of flooding; and Australia will have to step in to help nations around us that will literally be submerged, not in centuries to come but in this century.
Instead of being a global leader on this clear area of comparative advantage, we are becoming a laggard. Recently we saw what I believe is the 140th country around the world put in place a renewable energy target, and yet at the same time we are having a debate about how to get rid of a policy that has delivered already so much for this country. China built more renewable energy capability last year than non-renewable. Almost three-quarters of new energy that was created in the EU last year came from renewable sources. US President Barack Obama has recently announced further investment in his country's renewable energy target. We must have a firm commitment from this government that the mandatory renewable energy target be retained at the legislated 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020.
Paul Keating famously said, 'In the race of life, always back self-interest.' Never has there been a truer word spoken when it comes to the mandatory renewable energy target. No matter where you stand on this debate, it is where your interests lie. As someone who has spent a fair bit of time with Greg Hunt, the Minister for the Environment, I can say that you will not find a more passionate defender of the renewable energy target. In fact, the Howard government brought in the renewable energy target and embedded into the legislation the need to review it regularly, and that is what is happening at the moment.
This debate is about self-interest. You have people opposite who lost the election clearly on the carbon tax, the job-destroying facts of it and that sort of thing. There is the transitional economy that Australia has at the moment where we are losing our manufacturing base, but why are we losing our manufacturing base? If I were an inner-city left-leaning Labor member, I would be very keen to make sure that we push this thing here, because I will be speaking directly to my constituents. If people in my electorate want to maintain manufacturing jobs in hot competition with China, which can land product in the yard next door to them cheaper than they can make it and lift it across the fence, that is the issue.
In the time I have left I would like to tell you a story about why I support the RET and why it is important in my electorate. I think we could have both. We could have coal fired baseload power with zero emissions. The algal project at James Cook University is the perfect example. To develop industry in northern Australia, we must have secure, affordable baseload power. The previous government spent $2½ million getting a case study on this and the result was that all other forms of energy were simply not sustainable, were not economically viable. The only thing that could be done would be a coal fired baseload power station. If you go to the MBD project at James Cook University, you will see that if we build it into the design of a power station we can produce coal fired power with zero emissions.
That is important for Australia, but it is also important in our region. Whilst we have a commitment to the environment and we are a regional leader on this, places like Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam all have thermal coal. They all have access to this sort of thing, but they may not have the same great drive that Australia has to provide clean energy. So, if we can provide a baseload power station in northern Australia and provide it with zero emissions, we can then export that intellectual property to our nearest neighbours, to the Asia Pacific, and get them on board as well.
This is what we can do. This is what the renewable energy target was set up to do, and this is what we are trying to do in north Queensland. The fact is that when I was a candidate, when they had the launch of big solar—which the previous government walked away from—there was the CopperString project which was going to bring renewable energy all they way through to Mount Isa, and bring Mount Isa onto the grid. The previous government walked away from that—did nothing about it and let it wither on the vine.
At the launch of the project there was a question and answer session and the Labor candidate did not bother hanging around for it, leaving me to answer the questions. The basic question that was put to me was: why don't we support renewable energy or big solar? I said, 'It is not that I do not support it, but who is going to pay for it?' If you give someone a choice to pay an electricity bill of $500 or $510 and they both do exactly the same thing 99.9 per cent of people are going to take the $500 price. That is the fact of life. It comes down to an economic debate.
We live in the north, where a company like Sun Metals Corporation is paying above and beyond, and is only able to work at about 30 per cent capacity because of the cost of power and the price they pay for load shedding and all that sort of thing. That is a major industry. If you are not able to attract more industry to north Queensland then you have a problem. If you are not able to grow your economy that way you have a problem. They are not going to be able to build an energy-intensive refinery and hook it up to the nearest wind turbine; it is simply not going to happen.
I see that there is room for both here. I am a supporter of the RET and I am a supporter of direct action. I thank the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
This House:
(1) recognises the tragedy of the floods in May that afflicted Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Croatia, which killed more than 40 people;
(2) notes the:
(a) need for evacuation of large populations from both countries; and
(b) risk of undiscovered land mines from the war in the 1990s, being moved by flood waters and mudslides, increasing the risk to civilian populations; and
(3) commends the Australian Government for pre-positioning funds with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies through the Disaster Relief Emergency Funds to assist national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to respond quickly to situations such as this.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
I rise to speak on the tragedy of the May floods in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia. I know that in Cowan there are many of Serbian and Bosnian descent. While in fairly recent history they have been plagued by war, Serbia and Bosnia are now both victims of the natural disaster of floods. These floods have been the worst in centuries. Although the waters have now receded, more than 60 people lost their lives. In Bosnia, it was stated that one million had been impacted by the floods. In Serbia, hundreds of thousands were also affected because of the large rises in the Sava River, which runs through Belgrade.
I understand that the floods have caused more than 2,000 landslides. Villages have been wiped out and it is also known that landmines left over from the war have been found, and pose yet another risk. These events have happened far from Australia but the impact is also felt here. There are many Australians of Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian heritage. I know of their great sorrow over this calamity.
Yet from such heartache there comes great resolve, and I know that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been raised by the communities in Australia to support those in need. In Perth, this is the case. On Saturday, 7 June, in one night the Serbian community collected $60,000. As of 9 June just the Perth Serbian community collected $145,000 for Serbian flood relief. I congratulate the community president Father Sasa Stojanovic and the acting President, Mr Milan Jelesic, and their community for their great work.
I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Bosnian community in Perth. They, too, have been hard at work raising money for flood victims. The community president is Mr Muhamed Merdjanic. Together with his committee and the community as a whole, he has raised $13,405.
On the government side, I know I got a very quick response from the Minister for Foreign Affairs when I contacted her about the situation. I am grateful that, later, on 26 May, Minister Bishop issued a press release expressing the condolences of the Australian government to those impacted, especially to the families who had suffered a loss of family members. The minister contacted the Serbian and Bosnian governments as well.
Although we are on the other side of the world, Australia provides core funding to key international organisations involved in the flood response. Australia helps to finance the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the World Food Program. Our core support enables these agencies to deploy experts and resources quickly to assist with responses such as these. That includes core funding for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which is $9 million in 2013-14. That has helped to allow the deployment to Serbia of the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination team. Also, Australia is a top 10 donor to the UN Central Emergency Response Fund, which releases humanitarian assistance quickly in disasters such as these.
Australia is providing the World Food Program with $46 million in core funding in 2013-14 to assist their operations of deploying boats and generators to the floods. This government is increasing humanitarian funding from $264 million this year to more than $338 million in 2014-15. I understand the Australian embassy is donating thousands of dollars worth of medical supplies locally.
I know that the EU is providing coordinated assistance through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, which has been activated upon the request of Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina due to the severe flooding in the two countries. Over 20 EU member states offered assistance, such as motorboats, helicopters, pumps and humanitarian kits, and they deployed over 400 relief workers to the two countries. In addition, Australia's representatives to Bosnia have visited the site and will identify if there are further local needs that could be addressed by the Australian Direct Aid Program.
To conclude, I express my condolences to the families and friends of those who have suffered greatly in these floods. I also express my gratitude for the great efforts of the diasporas in Australia and the ongoing support of the Australian government. Just to conclude, I have had the good fortune to have visited Serbia twice, in 1985 and also last year. Also, I visited Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, last year. These countries have suffered greatly through the wars that have afflicted them in recent decades. It is such a tragedy to see the heartache that the natural disaster, on this occasion, revisited on those countries. It is good that they are well supported by their diasporas in Australia. I congratulate them on those efforts.
I thank the member for Cowan for bringing this motion forward today. I also welcome in the gallery Mr Dinko Tomac, from the Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The floods that struck the Balkans last month were truly devastating. At least 49 people lost their lives, while thousands were evacuated from their homes. Some were temporarily evacuated, while others are yet to return even to this day. The economic cost of recovery is estimated to be well into the billions of dollars. After talking to Mr Tomac a little earlier about Bosnia-Herzegovina, the price tag is about $1.5 billion. I know from the Serbian ambassador that the estimation is that $2.5 billion of reconstruction is necessary there. They have seen much of their infrastructure—their roads, rail, electricity, water supply and sewerage reticulation—damaged, some beyond repair, as well as the devastation to the vital agricultural lands of those countries in the Balkans.
Large parts of Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia are facing a very long road to recovery. During my visit last year to Serbia, it was clear to me that the country and, as a matter of fact, the region were very much in the process of rebuilding after years of civil conflict and economic uncertainty. The floods have now made this road a very long and arduous one.
As a First World nation, we know the difficulty of rebuilding following extensive national disasters—for instance, the Queensland floods. We know the pain that is borne by the people and the economic cost that is borne by a nation. Therefore, we know that recovery tasks, in relation to the Balkans, are almost impossible for a small nation to bear by themselves.
Much of the world has lent support during and following the Balkans disaster. Many people with heritage from the region live in my electorate. Fowler has a very large enclave of people from Bosnia, from Serbia and also from Croatia. I have attended a number of fundraising functions recently. The Serbian community in Australia has now raised about $1.5 million over the last month. I attended the Serbian flood appeal at Bonnyrigg Sports Club last Monday. The rain did not deter the hundreds of people who turned up and they raised over $200,000 on that day. Bonnyrigg Sports Club has been a primary meeting place for the local Serb community and it is no surprise that it is taking a leading role in the fundraising efforts. Club president, Ned Bogicevic, and general manager, Jason Woods, together with hardworking board members such as John Pavasovich, have all taken a leading role in the relief for flood victims. I also took part in the humanitarian concert organised by the leaders of the Serbian community, including Stan Jankovic. The concert was held in the Serbian culture club in Middleton Grange and was a great success.
While individuals and communities across Australia and around the world have come together to provide assistance during these devastating floods, Australia's reputation as a generous and compassionate nation is under question at the moment. This government's decision to cut $7.6 billion from our foreign aid budget is preventing Australia from contributing to the aid effort in relation to this situation. While countries much less fortunate are lending a supporting hand, Australia has failed to contribute one cent towards the flood relief efforts in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia. Those opposite, clearly embarrassed by the lack of contribution and action, repeatedly draw our attention to Australia's contribution to global organisations such as the United Nations and the International Red Cross. Those contributions are the minimum for a First World nation like Australia. Once these donations trickle down through the large and wide-reaching international organisations, it is likely that no significant assistance will flow directly to the people of Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia.
Australia has had its fair share of natural disasters. We know how difficult it is to deal with natural disasters—both during them and in the aftermath. Australia is a wealthy country and, more importantly, we are a nation with considerable experience in disaster relief efforts, as well as engineering flood mitigation measures to protect affected communities. We should not be turning our backs on these countries affected by an unprecedented natural disaster. We are a wealthy country. We are a country that cares and we should always remember the roles that Serbians, Bosnians and the Croatians have played in contributing to the modern face of Australia.
I thank the member for Cowan for bringing this most worthy motion to the House to acknowledge and reflect on the worst floods in a century that have hit Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia, following rainfall which started on 13 May. Thousands of people have been affected, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Serbia.
Like the member for Cowan, I also received a quick response from the foreign minister, who has expressed the government's condolences at the unprecedented flooding, especially to the families who have lost loved ones. Minister Bishop has written directly to representatives of the Serbian and Bosnian governments. I note also that DFAT has met with officials from the affected countries to discuss the impact of the floods, the response to date and likely future needs. The thoughts of all Australians, including those of Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian heritage, are with the affected communities.
As someone who was born in the former Yugoslavia, I know firsthand that family and friends in Australia will feel this disaster very deeply indeed. Villages have been wiped out by over 2,000 landslides. There have been over 60 deaths, and thousands of people have been evacuated from affected areas. Undiscovered landmines from the war in the 1990s are being moved by floodwaters and mudslides, increasing the risk to civilian populations.
I am pleased to report that Australia's core funding to key international organisations involved in the flood response is being used to help those in need. That includes the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs—UNOCHA—and the World Food Program. Australia supports and enables these agencies to deploy experts and resources quickly, to assist with responses such as these. We should not be making politics about this event; we should be reflecting on the fact that our contribution does indeed make a difference when it comes to humanitarian need and disaster in our near region and beyond.
Australia's support to UNOCHA helps the rapid deployment of UNDAC teams—UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination teams. And I note that an UNDAC team has been sent to Serbia to assist with the coordination of the response and assessment of needs. Australia is also a top-10 donor to the UN Central Emergency Response Fund, which releases humanitarian assistance quickly in disasters like these. Australia's core funding to the World Food Program has enabled the dispatch of boats, generators and logistic support. A number of other UN agencies that Australia provides core support to, such as the UN Children's Fund and the UN Development Program, are also involved in the response. This government does take humanitarian response and support to these global agencies very seriously. Humanitarian funding will increase from $264 million this year to more than $338 million in 2014-15. Like the member for Cowan, I note the good work of the Australian Embassy in Belgrade in donating thousands of dollars worth of medical supplies locally.
Other support has also been quickly initiated through the European Union's civil protection mechanism, which has been activated upon the request of Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Over 20 EU member states offered assistance like motorboats, helicopters, pumps and humanitarian kits and deployed over 400 relief workers to the two countries. The European Commission's Emergency Response Coordination Centre is in constant contact with Serbia and with the participating states in the EU civil protection mechanism, matching the incoming offers for assistance with needs on the ground.
Australia continues to monitor the situation closely through our partners, including the EU, the UN and the Red Cross societies. In addition, Australia's representatives to Bosnia have visited the site and held discussions with key responders on the ground and will identify if there are further local needs that could be addressed through Australia's direct aid program.
Let me conclude with a message for those in flood affected areas. U Srbiji I regionu Balkana, su od poplava stradali ljudi isti kao svi mi. Izgubili su u katastrofalnim poplavama sve sto su generacijama stvarali. Tim ljudima je potrebna nasa pomoc. Ja iskreno verujem u humanost i solidarnost. Zemlja u kojoj sam roden—neophodna je nasa pomoc.
I rise today to support the member for Cowan's motion that recognises the tragedy of the floods in May that affected Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. Obviously, we have heard how it has killed many people—over 40 people—and was due to a low-pressure system called Yvette, which brought the heaviest rain to Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in 120 years of recorded weather conditions and measurements. We have also heard about the floodwaters that have caused over 2,000 landslides across this region and the many thousands of homes that have been toppled or submerged in the mud. I have been advised that this has affected some 1.6 million people in Serbia and Bosnia after a week of flooding, with many being evacuated from their homes in both countries.
My home state of Victoria is home to over 7,000 people who were born in Serbia. In my electorate there is a large and active Serbian community. I know that many have been deeply affected by these floods. Many have loved ones and families back home who have been affected. I would like to commend this community and other communities, like the Bosnian community, who have rallied together in response. Institutions like the Serbian Orthodox Church of St Stephen in Carrum Downs, Saint Stefan Serbian Orthodox Church in Keysborough and the Serbian Springvale White Eagles Football Club have organised events in recent weeks to raise money to provide urgent humanitarian aid to those who have been affected. As reported in the Dandenong Journal, parishioners from the Keysborough Serbian Orthodox Church have donated more than $230,000 to help victims. Father Chedomir Videkanic of the Keysborough Serbian Orthodox Church said in the paper that hundreds had pledged the extraordinary sum at an emotional meeting at the church last month in response to the continuing humanitarian disaster in Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. It was also reported—and this is to be commended—that the Dandenong council has contributed $10,000 to the aid effort. Father Chedomir said it may take five to 10 years and millions of dollars—probably billions of dollars—to rebuild so every donation will make a difference to reconstruction in this part of the world.
Local Serbian residents Radenko Mihalovic and Slobodan Todic have conveyed to me the vital need for financial aid for simple matters like assisting Serbian schoolchildren with uniforms and books for the start of the school year in September. Many school children have had their clothes and books washed away, so these children need books and they need clothing. That is why they need this targeted aid.
I would like to say that both Radenko and Slobodan have been running the Serbian Program on Casey Radio, 3SER, 97.7 FM—that is a bit of advertising there—from 8 am to 9 am each Wednesday for the last 11 years. They have kept the local Serbian community updated with the latest news and events about the floods. Radenko has also advised that his brother Dragan has had to relocate his family from Loznica to the capital, Belgrade, to seek refuge from the floods, while his friend Elena also fled Loznica as her house had been washed away with the floods. These are tangible examples of the local community being profoundly affected by the events that occurred.
Radenko has also advised that one of the biggest challenges facing the Serbian government is the need to repair vital roads and bridges that link key towns and cities so that relief can get to those people in need. According to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the record floods in Serbia and Bosnia could cost some three million euros, or $4.5 billion. Bosnian officials have said that the physical damage could exceed that of the Bosnian War of the 1990s.
Another significant issue arising from the flooding affecting those living in Bosnia is, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, the risk of undiscovered landmines from the war in the 1990s. These landmines could have been moved by floodwaters and mudslides, increasing the risk to civilian populations. According to various sources, up to 120,000 landmines remain in 9,416 marked minefields. The floods washed away riverbanks and fuelled landslides that have unearthed these minefield warning signs and, in many cases, the unexploded booby traps themselves. An official at Bosnia's Mine Action Centre, Sasa Obradovic, said his agency in light of the floods would deploy mine-hunting scouts. Since the war 601 people have been killed and 1,121 wounded as a consequence of these unearthed mines. That is quite substantial.
I would like to welcome the international attention, but obviously we need to keep an eye on this. There are substantial groups of people who have been affected. It affects the Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian diaspora who live in and make a wonderful contribution to this country. It has been an honour, on behalf of the Serbian community particularly, to be able to raise this matter in this place today.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) commends the Government for reaffirming Australia's support for the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (the Initiative) by maintaining the $15 million commitment for 2013-14;
(2) notes that:
(a) on 13 January 2014, India passed three years without reporting a single case of polio, an achievement reports say will lead to the entire South-East Asia Region of the World Health Organisation being certified as polio-free later in 2014;
(b) lessons learned from India's success are now part of the Polio Eradication and Endgame Strategic Plan 2013-2018 announced at the Global Vaccine Summit in Abu Dhabi in 2013;
(c) the Initiative should mobilise the polio eradication infrastructure for broader child survival efforts wherever possible, ensuring that the knowledge, capacities, processes and assets created by the Initiative contribute to reducing child deaths, accelerating the achievement of Millennium Development Goal 4;
(d) despite ongoing security challenges, in the three countries where polio remains endemic—Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria—the proportion of children vaccinated during 2013 increased;
(e) in 2013 for the first time in the history of the Initiative, all cases of poliomyelitis caused by a wild virus were due to a single serotype, type 1; the most recent case due to wild poliovirus type 3 occurring on 10 November 2012 in Nigeria, while a case of poliovirus type 2 has not been detected since 1999;
(f) polio outbreaks in previously polio-free countries—Somalia, Syria, Cameroon—and the presence of the polio virus in Egypt and Israel are constant reminders of the need to ensure the polio program is fully funded and of the need for countries to take full ownership of the implementation of emergency plans; and
(g) the World Health Organisation, its Initiative partners and the GAVI Alliance have initiated a joint program of work to ensure polio eradication infrastructure systematically contributes to improving routine immunisation coverage; and
(3) calls on the Government to continue to support polio eradication by reaffirming Australia's commitment to provide $80 million over four years from 2015 to 2018 to the Initiative.
To have a sense of how difficult it is to eradicate an infectious disease, we need only consider that in human history we have achieved this twice: we have achieved it with smallpox and also with rinderpest, a viral disease that affects cattle, sheep and other ruminants. Yet today we are on the cusp of being able to add a third disease to this list, in the form of polio. It was an Australian, Frank Fenner, who played a key role in driving the smallpox eradication effort, and it was an Australian in Sir Clem Renouf who was pivotal in kick-starting Rotary's efforts to eradicate polio. Australian aid funding and the work of our NGOs continues to assist a worldwide effort that is carrying us towards the finish line in 2018, when hopefully the World Health Organization will be in a position to declare the world polio free.
Under the leadership of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, Australia significantly increased its commitment to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the GPEI. In 2011 the Labor government pledged $50 million over four years. In March last year, we committed a further $80 million for four years from 2015-16. At the time this motion was tabled, that further funding for polio eradication remained in doubt, and I acknowledge the efforts led by the Global Poverty Project, and in particular Michael Sheldrick, and Rotary to convince the current government to match Labor's funding. At a time when the aid budget has been significantly cut, the Prime Minister's announcement a few weeks ago at the Rotary International Conference in Sydney that the government would honour Labor's commitment was very welcome.
Polio is a crippling disease with a simple solution—two small drops. We know what is required to eradicate polio; we just have to fund it. That is why the commitment by Australia to the GPEI is pivotal to achieving a polio-free world. The gains made to date in the provision of vaccines and the spread of routine immunisation are impressive. In March 2014, 11 countries in the South-East Asian region—including India, comprising 1.8 billion people—were declared polio free by the World Health Organization. This meant the proportion of the world's population living polio free jumped from 52 per cent to 80 per cent, an incredible leap forward.
Now is the time to press forward and bring an end to polio in countries like Nigeria and everywhere the disease is endemic. Progress in Nigeria over the past year has been promising, especially in Kano state, the main source of polio viruses in the country. Only a few years ago Nigeria had more polio cases than any other country. Last year, Nigeria saw a 50 per cent reduction in polio cases compared to the previous 12 months. As of 10 April this year, only one case had been reported. Today, we can see our way to the end of the disease in that country. But the time to invest is now. Significant challenges remain. Insecurity and violence in north-east Nigeria mean thousands of children are not being immunised. A strong routine immunisation program is required to sustain polio eradication, to improve immunisation coverage and to serve as a platform for improving child and maternal health.
In Pakistan, another country that suffers the debilitating effects of endemic polio, the national and local government leaders are fully invested in overcoming vaccination bans and fears that fuel an increase in polio cases. For example, Peshawar's local government initiated the Sehat Ka Insaf, Justice for Health campaign. It is delivering nine child health interventions, including polio vaccine. A similar approach is being taken in areas of Karachi that are difficult to access. National Islamic leaders have issued 28 fatwas promoting the safety of the polio vaccine and the importance of vaccinating children. In the context of the progress that has been made, it is sobering to reflect on the fact that the World Health Organization has officially declared the international spread of wild polio virus in 2014 as a public health emergency of international concern.
To end polio and to realise the broad benefits eradication will bring, we still need unwavering political and financial commitment from across the global community. We need immediate vaccination of children in north-east Waziristan, Pakistan, to stop the intense outbreak in that region; as well as in parts of Nigeria and in outbreak countries, particularly Syria and Somalia. We need polio-free countries to maintain high levels of routine immunisation to ensure that all children are being reached with the vaccines that they need.
As we approach the end of polio, let us remember that this achievement has wider implications. Not only does it demonstrate the life-changing impact of our aid dollars; it also demonstrations that the lessons, assets and infrastructure of the polio program could greatly enhance child survival efforts. In vaccinating children in some of the most remote, vulnerable and socially marginalised communities, the polio program has created a blueprint for reaching every child with critical lifesaving interventions. If partner agencies and donor governments seize on this opportunity, we can dramatically reduce child deaths even further, accelerating progress and reaching the fourth millennium development goal.
Finally, as we get to the brink of an incredible world achievement, the end of polio, I want to pay tribute to the committed partnerships of teams such as Rotary, UNICEF, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization and the Global Poverty Project.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I would like to thank the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion into the House and having such an important issue debated in this place. I would also like to acknowledge the fact that the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, at the Rotary conference in Sydney a couple of weeks ago, committed Australia to another $100 million over five years towards the eradication of polio. Hopefully, in another five years time we may see what was considered an unachievable aim—or certainly a very adventurous aim when Sir Clem Renouf started on his campaign—being realised.
I am a patron of Polio Australia. So I am very pleased to be here today. Maybe towards the end of my comments I might make some mention about what is happening in Australia with polio. I would also like to acknowledge the work that is done by Michael Sheldrick. I first met him probably 18 months ago. He is a very passionate campaigner for polio. Through Michael Sheldrick, I met the 2013 Young Australian of the Year, Akram Azimi. Last year, Akram spent three days in my electorate. We visited about six schools and I think about the same number of Rotary meetings, where Akram told his story about polio. It was very important, because Rotary has played such a pivotal role in this, for Rotarians to speak with Akram about his experiences. But also I wanted the school students to meet Akram as someone who is a refugee from Afghanistan and to understand that quite often the things that are debated in the media in black and white are not so black and white when you get to meet someone like Akram Azimi.
Akram was carried out of Afghanistan as a young child. Akram, his brother and his parents spent seven years in a refugee camp in Pakistan. While he was in Pakistan he witnessed children begging in the streets—children who were horribly deformed from the effects of polio. He clearly remembers attending a clinic with his mother and having the drops of vaccine placed on his tongue and not fully understanding at the time the significance of that. He realises in hindsight that it was probably those two drops of vaccine that, if not saved his life, certainly altered the course of his life. If it were not for the will of his mother and the vaccine that was made available from organisations around the country—possibly even Rotary—he may have suffered the same fate as those children he saw around him and been committed to a life of begging in the streets. Upon his settlement in Australia and then ultimately upon adulthood, Akram became a member of Rotary—I think he might even be a Paul Harris Fellow in Rotary—and continues that message about the importance of doing this last bit.
The member for Fremantle mentioned the three major countries that are still to go. These are break-out countries, where polio is still going around. It highlights the fact that in Australia, because we do have people coming and going to this country, we must maintain our vigilance in vaccinating our own children. One of the things I can remember is, as a boy at Warialda public school, lining up with the entire school and having that vaccination—I can even remember the taste of it, surprisingly enough—back in the mid-sixties when we had a nationwide campaign. I can also remember children at that school a little bit older than me who had suffered from polio. We are at the cusp, but we have got some way to go.
I would just like to finish by mentioning the work that is done by Polio Australia. It is a little bit off the topic but related somewhat. Many of the people who were youngsters in the forties, fifties and sixties and who may have had a slight touch of polio are, in their later stage of life, really being stung with the late onset effects of polio. We need to recognise that it is still a very important syndrome. People are suffering from it, and we need to raise the awareness that, while polio in Australia is eradicated, people are still suffering from its effects.
Polio is a highly contagious viral infection that can lead to paralysis, breathing problems or even death. There is no cure for polio, only treatment to alleviate the symptoms. However, polio can be prevented through immunisation. Polio vaccine given multiple times almost always protects a child for life. Polio became one of the most dreaded childhood diseases of the 20th century. In the early 20th century much of the world experienced a dramatic increase in polio cases and epidemics became regular events, primarily in cities during the summer months. These epidemics, which left thousands of children and adults paralysed, provided the impetus for a great race towards the development of a vaccine. Developed in the fifties, polio vaccines have reduced the global number of polio cases per year from many hundreds of thousands to under 1,000 today. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative means to bring this figure down to zero. Many in this chamber are old enough to remember the scourge of polio in our own country. We remember the images of children with calipers and crutches, or maybe we read I Can Jump Puddles by Alan Marshall or heard about polio sufferers needing an iron lung to help them breathe. We also remember the easiest immunisation we ever had to experience: the Sabin oral polio vaccine.
Sadly, there are some children in the world who cannot access this simple vaccination against polio. Today, some children will contract polio simply because they are poor. They live in developing nations with no access to basic health care such as immunisation and the vaccine against polio in particular. In 1988 the World Health Assembly passed a resolution to eradicate polio, launching the GPEI. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative is a public-private partnership led by national governments and spearheaded by the World Health Organization, Rotary International, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United Nations Children's Fund. Its goal is to eradicate polio worldwide.
Since 1998 more than 2.5 billion children have been immunised against polio, thanks to the unprecedented cooperation of more than 200 countries and 20 million volunteers, backed by an international investment of over US$8 billion.
Since its launch in 1988 the GPEI has reduced the global incidence of polio by more than 99 per cent and the number of countries with endemic polio, from 125 to three. More than 10 million people are walking today who otherwise would have been paralysed. By 2006 only four countries remained that had never stopped polio transmission and annual case numbers had decreased by over 99 per cent. In January this year India passed three years without reporting a single case of polio, an achievement which led to the South-East Asia region of the World Health Organization being declared polio free on 27 March this year.
With this certification, the proportion of the world's people living polio free increased from 52 per cent to nearly 80 per cent. The WHO has estimated that, with continued support from the global community, the world can be free of polio by 2018. However, polio remains endemic in three countries: Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan. Until polio virus transmission is interrupted in these countries, all countries remain at risk of the importation of polio, especially in the polio virus importation belt of countries, from West Africa to the Horn of Africa. Worryingly, cases have also appeared in previously polio-free countries, including Somalia, Syria and Cameroon. That is why it is important to continue funding this important initiative and also to commit to the next step in the eradication of polio.
On 26 May 2012, the World Health Assembly declared ending polio 'a programmatic emergency for global public health'. Noting India's success, using available tools and technology, the threat to the global community of ongoing polio virus transmission in the remaining three endemic countries—as I mentioned, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan—the WHA called on the WHO director-general to develop and finalise a comprehensive polio end game strategy.
I commend the government for reaffirming Australia's support for the GPEI by maintaining the $15 million commitment for 2013-14. However, I also call on the government to continue to support polio eradication by reaffirming Australia's commitment to provide $80 million over four years, from 2015 to 2018. This is aid that works.
More than 100 years have passed since the first polio epidemic of 1894 and we are still working to fight the disease. Although 2002 saw the eradication of the illness in Europe, 10 years later, in 2012, five countries still remained affected by the virus including Afghanistan, Chad, Nigeria, Pakistan and Niger. The world is still left with more than 200 cases of polio remaining. Polio is an incurable virus that can infect a person of any age. With less built-up immune systems, children are however more susceptible to the illness and make up roughly 50 per cent of polio victims. Treatment for polio bears great difficulties, as 95 per cent of polio cases show no symptoms, with only a small number of sufferers experiencing fevers, sore throat, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain or diarrhoea. Despite its lack of obvious symptoms upon onset, polio is an incredibly life-affecting virus, often leading to paralysis and circulatory distress. As science is yet to equip doctors with a cure for polio, the best prevention for the virus is by way of vaccination. Until each and every child has been vaccinated, the polio virus will continue to be alive and will affect the minds and bodies of its innocent and undeserving victims.
The World Health Organization, its initiative partners and the GAVI Alliance have all initiated a joint program of work to ensure polio eradication infrastructure, systematically contributing to the improvement of routine immunisation coverage.
This motion calls on the government to continue to support polio eradication by reaffirming Australia's commitment to provide $80 million over four years, from 2015 to 2018, to the initiative. Such work undertaken by the WHO has inspired the Australian government to go beyond the $80 million requested, from 2015 to 2018, and instead contribute to funding the polio program to the sum of $100 million over five years. This commitment will strengthen health systems to deliver routine immunisation and will improve a country's capacity to control all communicable diseases including polio.
The federal government realises the extent to which this virus damages those affected and pledges to do all it can to assist to eradicate the virus. The financial contribution will be used by the World Health Organization not only in their research efforts but also by providing routine vaccination to countries affected. The Australian government have high hopes that our contribution will greatly assist the WHO efforts as, after its implementation in 2013, the initiative saw all cases of poliomyelitis caused by a wild virus to be due to a single serotype, type 1, seeing death to polio caused by type 2 or 3.
Although substantial advancements have been made in the virus eradication efforts, health systems have been weakened by factors such as conflict and of failure to deliver routine immunisation, exposing unimmunised children to the virus. The World Health Organization has declared polio a public health emergency of international concern. The Australian government is therefore responding as promptly and effectively as possible, working alongside the WHO and Rotary International to further the proud history of support for polio eradication shown by the Australian government.
Rotary International's involvement in the polio eradication campaign began when Australia played a crucial role in the efforts to eradicate smallpox, with the efforts of Australia's Frank Fenner, a world leader in that campaign, which in turn inspired another Australian, Sir Clem Renouf, then president of Rotary International, to cooperate with another rotarian, Dr John Sever, Head of Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Health in Washington DC. They teamed up to attack polio. At the time, the polio virus was crippling 1,000 people per day, but immunisation could be achieved by just two drops of the vaccine at a cost of just 10c each. Sir Clem's initial effort in 1979 saw more than six million children vaccinated in the Philippines. Since then the world has made tremendous progress and Rotary's efforts have been crucial to this success.
If you visit the polio eradication website, you will see there is an interactive world map showing the progress of the polio eradication campaign from the 1980s until now. It is encouraging to see how much progress has been made. According to Rotary International, 99 per cent of the world is polio free. However, the fight is far from over and we need to finish the job. The $100 million announced by foreign minister, Julie Bishop, is a vital step in ensuring that polio eradication remains high on the world agenda and leads to the eventual total global eradication of the polio virus.
Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 13:3 1 to 16:00
There has been a lot of posturing about infrastructure spending in the Northern Territory and about how the Territory supposedly missed out in budget 2014-15. Let me say from the outset that I am not going to be lectured by has-been, former or serving Labor politicians about my record in securing money for the Northern Territory since winning government. The fact is that budget 2014-15 is a necessary budget and a good infrastructure budget for the Territory. The overall spend is just under $600 million, with most of that going to Territory roads. That is way more than what we would have received if there was a Labor government. In fact, it is a record infrastructure spend for the Northern Territory.
The budget also honours my election commitments, including $300,000 for CCTV cameras, $1.5 million for the Jingili BMX track, nearly $100,000 for Warren Park, and more money for other community projects. That is on top of $40 million for the Palmerston hospital. All up there is $110 million for the Palmerston hospital. The federal Labor government made lots of promises around the Palmerston hospital, but they never actually handed over any money. When Labor was in government, it spent money like it was going out of fashion. The truth is that the budget is in a mess and it needs to be fixed. Interest payments of a billion dollars a month is proof of that. (Time expired)
On Saturday I had the pleasure of being in Alexandra to enjoy the hospitality of the Alexandra Quilters and the Alexandra Truck Ute and Rod Show. The Queen's birthday weekend showcases Indi at its best, and this year was no exception—glorious weather, big crowds and terrific community events. Craft thrives in Indi, in the wonderful communities. On the weekend the Alexandra Quilters exhibition celebrated 30 years of stitching pearls in Alexandra. How pleased I was that Denise Fiddes, the secretary; Margaret Rae, Murrindindi mayor; and Jill Olive were my hosts, pointing out the intricate details of these magnificent quilts.
And the truck show! What a treat. There were more than 12,000 people, 40 trade stalls, 100 trucks, 30 rods and 75 utes, all from a community of only 2,500 people. Quality entertainment was provided by Greg Champion from the ABC Coodabeens. Special mention to Gordon, Andrew, Steve, Damon, Colin, Stu, Aidan, Sarah, Johnno, Meg, Bruce and Mark. Well done, Alexandra. The highlights I would like to mention in closing were the unveiling of the Victorian Truck Drivers Memorial and foundation. Special mention to Telstra for supplying a COW. A COW is a cell on wheels, and it was used to solve the ongoing problem in Indi experienced during festivals of the overload of the mobile phone system. Thanks, team Telstra. Well done.
As we head to the next stage of the budget process and the budget bills head towards the Senate for consideration, I would like to take this opportunity to present a challenge to those members opposite, members of the Labor Party and the crossbench. The reality of what we inherited was debt heading towards $667 billion, interest repayments of a billion dollars a month on the debt, and, if we did nothing, a debt burden over $24,000 for every single person. So that is a significant challenge for our nation. I would say to members of the Labor Party: use the opportunity to be constructive instead of obstructionist. For every dollar that you propose we do not use as a saving in the bills that go before the Senate, propose another dollar of savings. If you do not, it is the next generation of Australians that will pick up that bill. If you cannot bring yourselves to find another dollar in savings, be honest with the next generation and say they will pick up the bill. Say to the next generation of Australians that they will inherit a country where there is less money—$18 billion a year less—to spend on roads, schools and hospitals. Say to the next generation of Australians that they have to pay higher taxes.
We know with the Productivity Commission's recommendations that taxes would have to increase by 21 per cent to fund the ageing of the population. So if we do not take measures in the budget it is likely the next generation will paying at least 21 per cent higher taxes.
In September 2009 I spoke in parliament advocating for the release of Tibetan political prisoner Dhondup Wangchen after meeting his distraught wife in Dharamsala, India, in July of that year. Last week, after serving six years in prison, Wangchen—the self-taught cameraman and video activist—was released from prison in Qinghai's provincial capital Xining.
In 2009 Wangchen was convicted on grounds of inciting separatism after coproducing and distributing the controversial and eye-opening documentary 'Leaving fear behind'. Wangchen and his assistant, Golog Jigme, had travelled across Tibet in 2007-08 giving everyday Tibetans a voice—an opportunity to tell the world about their plight and grievances at a time when China was experiencing heightened global attention as hosts of the Olympic Games in Beijing. Despite the fear of reprisal, the majority of the 108 Tibetans interviewed chose to refrain from hiding their identity—reflecting their strong desire and determination to express their views on the Dalai Lama, the Beijing Olympics and the Chinese government. The documentary has seen international success. It has been translated into a dozen languages and has been screened in more than 30 countries. After smuggling the footage out of Tibet, Wangchen was detained by the Chinese authorities and was transferred to a labour camp in 2010 before being sent to Qinghai prison.
As with other members of the Tibet Parliamentary Friendship Group, I am relieved by the news of his release. We will continue to advocate for genuine Tibetan autonomy and for the release of other political prisoners in Tibet, including the Panchen Lama—the second-highest ranking lama after the Dalai Lama—who has been in protective custody since 1995, when he was six years old. (Time expired)
On 23 to 25 April this year I was privileged to attend the International Parliamentarians' Conference on the Implementation of the Program of Action for the Conference on Population Development. This conference, held in Stockholm, was organised by the UN Population Fund and the European Parliamentary PD Forum. It came on the 20th anniversary of the Cairo Program of Action. Our panel discussions and debates focused on the critical importance of protecting the rights of women and girls and adolescents. More than 260 parliamentarians from 134 countries came together to debate these issues and, in the end, to produce a communique to set a course of action beyond 2014. We hope this will be taken up by the General Assembly of the UN when it looks at its own post-2014 action on 22 September this year.
In our communique we recognise the importance of the interlinkages in eradicating poverty and social inequities; achieving universal access to good school education; gender equality; achieving universal health coverage; maternal and child health; expanding high-quality family planning services and access to a mix of modern contraceptive methods which take into account client choices and clinical needs; promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights; preventing and treating sexual harmful infections; eliminating gender based violence as well as harmful practices against women and girls; and addressing the health and other impacts of alcohol and drug abuse. I was particularly pleased when we included the reference to alcohol, given that it is too often not included in any of these references to the rights of women and girls—and we know foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a global epidemic at this time. (Time expired)
I rise to draw the House's attention to the struggle for families searching for child care for their young children. Every parent knows that the waiting lists are extremely long. Almost every working family has suffered the agonising wait to find a suitable childcare place for their infant in an environment where demand has rapidly outstripped supply.
Why do we find that childcare centres cannot keep up with demand? One reason is that many centres struggle to maintain the high number of qualified staff they need, because the pay for early childhood education remains inexcusably low. Talented, qualified educators simply cannot afford to remain in the profession they love so much on a low income. This means that fewer childcare workers are available. The Liberal Party broke their promise by denying early childhood educators the wage boost they were scheduled to receive last year. So we continue to lose qualified and well-trained staff and parents continue to struggle to find affordable child care for their children. Early childhood educators and children are extremely important to Australian families.
The Abbott government has a responsibility to properly fund early childhood educators and their care, so that our children get the possible head start while their parents return to work. It is not just paid parental leave; it is actually child care that is vitally important in this space. Not all families can rely on relatives for the care of their children. In my electorate, where 47 per cent of families are born overseas and do not have family members present, government investment in the wages of early childhood educators is crucial to ensuring that child care is affordable, flexible and available for the community. I want to congratulate Charlotte Schmid from Mount Waverley Secondary College, who completed this 90-second statement during work experience in my office last week. (Time expired)
Last week I attended the Underdale High School's governing council meeting and want to congratulate the principal, Nigel Gill, teachers and parents for some of the good work they are doing at Underdale High. It was especially good to hear two of the senior students, members of the SRC, who reported on some of the social initiatives the students were doing, particularly in the area of social justice.
A unique program at Underdale is the soccer academy which, for the past 11 years, has used the beautiful game as a tool to attract students and train a new generation of soccer administrators and players. The academy teaches students on-field as well as off-field aspects of soccer, from nutrition and fitness to the high-level technical and physiological attributes needed to make it in the world game. The academy's director, Rod del Nido, said the academy was established as a bit of a behavioural management tool where kids who were misbehaving but had a passion for football started this program and became more engaged in their education. He said the daily attendance of above 90 per cent has translated into other subjects.
Another great initiative is a program run by the University of South Australia, promoting social justice through football, through the Football United program in South Australia. At this time of the World Cup—and I say go the Socceroos against the Dutch!—it is great to see some soccer programs out there in our community.
Recently here in parliament, during our sitting weeks, I have had the pleasure of welcoming groups of students from our local Catholic schools. The first students I wish to acknowledge are the year 6 students of St Ambrose's primary school in Woodend and the second group are from the Bendigo Catholic secondary college.
The primary school students were keen to engage and asked me to pass on a few words to the House about what they would like to see from their government. They have said what they would like is less homework. They have also said they would like more funding for sports and arts programs in their school. The students also had some fantastic ideas about what the government could do in their community. What they want to see is increased funding for the Buffalo Sports Stadium and the Gilbert Gordon Oval. They would like to be able to play football all year round, which would require floodlights for their particular oval.
They would also like to do is see the rock protected. Hanging Rock is part of their community and they want to see local, state and federal governments work together to protect this site; they would like to see it with World Heritage status.
The Bendigo Catholic secondary students raised the issue of refugees. They wanted to see the government adopt a compassionate approach towards refugees and believe that asylum seekers should be processed onshore. They also called on the government to recognise same-sex marriage. They believe that who you love should not be prescribed by your gender. They want to see the government adopt a more compassionate approach and see a situation of equity before the law. These are the views of the Catholic students from my electorate.
There has been disappointing news for Tahmoor, a village of 4,500 people in the north of my electorate. The Tahmoor Underground Mine, run by Glencore, will be making about 40 workers redundant next month. This is a major blow to those families who will be directly affected and to the Tahmoor community. I offer my full support and the support of the federal government to help those staff find other employment quickly.
However, I will put this news in context. There is a major structural problem in our resources sector. Our costs—labour, energy and transport—are continuing to climb and our competitors are selling cheaper coal; it is as simple as that. The former Labor government's failure to run budget surpluses has contributed to an unnecessarily high exchange rate. The coalition government is restoring business confidence and laying the foundation for future economic prosperity. In our first six months 100,000 new jobs were created nationally. I met with Glencore representatives in my Goulburn office last Friday and there is good news on the horizon for Tahmoor. Another major project is in the planning stages which, if approved, will extend the life of the mine by 18 years. We may be coming off a resources boom but there is plenty of life left in our mining sector.
I rise to speak on my concern about the imminent closure of the RSPCA adoption centre at Tweed Heads, which is unfortunately due to close on June 30. It is heartbreaking for this to occur after 30 years of operation. I would like to highly commend the RSPCA for the outstanding work they do within the community. I was very privileged to be a volunteer inspector with the RSPCA many years ago when I was a police officer and I greatly enjoyed working with the people of the RSPCA and investigating animal complaints in the area.
I understand this closure is due to a drop in donations. Last Friday, I attended the Tweed Heads RSPCA with the state shadow minister for the North Coast, Walt Secord, and the Labor candidate for Tweed, Ron Goodman, to call upon the New South Wales state government to help the adoption centre and provide the funding so the service can continue. We called on the Tweed Nationals MP, Geoff Provest, to make immediate representations to his state government. It is the state government that is responsible for animal welfare in New South Wales. Unfortunately, the nearest RSPCA centres are in Coffs Harbour and Brisbane. The Tweed Heads RSPCA has been operating in the region for more than 30 years and providing adoptions for 27 years. It adopts about 300 cats a year, 100 dogs and dozens of rabbits, ferrets and birds. Under the closure, six staff will be made redundant. So this is a very urgent case. We have been calling on the New South Wales state government to step in and help them.
It is also important to note that, with the centre closed, it would put a huge amount of pressure on the Tweed Shire Council and the animal facilities they provide. I call on the state government to urgently fund the organisation. Let us keep the RSPCA at Tweed Heads open.
I rise today to recognise the outstanding contribution of Great Community Transport organisation, their amazing staff, their volunteers and, in particular, the unstoppable Helen Walker OAM, the founder and manager of, may I say it, this great organisation. Great Community Transport provides transport for many disadvantaged people right across our region, including the aged, the frail and people living with disabilities and their carers. Since its humble beginnings, Great Community Transport has now grown to boast a fleet of 23 vehicles and 120 volunteers, servicing the Blue Mountains and the Penrith region. Great Community Transport is an important link that helps so many disadvantaged people to stay connected, independent and in their homes for longer. I am pleased to note that in the 2014-15 federal budget Great Community Transport will receive an increase of 18 per cent, or some $169,052, in their funding. This will be provide a massive 5,427 trips throughout our region.
It was truly wonderful to see Helen star on the front cover of the 2014-15 Penrith-Blue Mountains phone book. She is an icon of our region and it is right for her to be acknowledged in this way. Through this program, Helen and her team have improved the lives of so many people right across Western Sydney, and I would like to acknowledge her service.
The decision by the Abbott government to axe the Grants to Voluntary Environment, Sustainability and Heritage Organisations program is irresponsible and irrational. The program has been running for 40 years. It costs the government a measly $1.3 million a year. Now, after no cost-benefit analysis or investigation whatsoever, this government has deemed the program unnecessary. This, together with the axing of $484 million from the National Landcare Program, is another example of the government's deliberate ignorance of the importance of the natural environment.
In my region, West Moreton Landcare will be badly affected by the axing of this funding. With its headquarters based in the beautiful town of Tallegalla, West Moreton Landcare was founded by Arnold Rieck 30 years ago and is being run by a band of hardworking, dedicated individuals like Bob Hampson, Beryl Wallace and Margaret Witherspoon, to name just a few. I was recently contacted by the President of West Moreton Landcare, Bob Hampson, regarding this funding. Bob said to me the following:
Any reduction in funding allocated by the Commonwealth Government to the Landcare program will make it more difficult for Groups to continue to undertake local, grass-roots projects and indeed, perhaps even to survive.
This group has done a lot of hard work, including minor restoration for the environment around Rosewood, salinity issues concerning Black Snake Creek in the Marburg region and other work it does for riverbanks and creek beds in and around the rural parts of Ipswich. It has been a great organisation and, sadly, it will suffer as a result of the Abbott government's budget cuts. (Time expired)
Each of our electorates has people who leave their mark on our communities after they are lost to us. These people are the salt of our community—the people who put in, treat people with respect, pass on their skills and wisdom, and give unconditionally of their time to improve the lot of others. Dennis 'Noddy' Reeves was one of these people and he has been lost not only to his loving family but to an embracing community.
For young men, it is important to have connection with significant others—significant others who provide that little bit of guidance, that word of affirmation when things are a bit tough and an approach to life that includes humour and hospitality. Dennis was that significant other to many. It is not so important what we do in life, but it is important who we are. Dennis Reeves made the most of every day. He committed his life to relationships. Starting with family and close friends, Dennis found time to make a positive impact on many others. A love of Australian Rules football led him to a life of playing, leading, coaching and mentoring with his beloved Cooee Bulldogs and later the Burnie Dockers. A 20-plus-year stint as president of the Burnie club, and his maverick leadership of the Rocky Cape Shack community, means his legacy will be long remembered and will live on in others. Together with Senator Stephen Parry, I would like to pass on the sympathies of a grateful electorate to Dennis's wonderful family—his wife of 34 years, Marisa; his much-respected children, Karli and Brennan; and his wider family. (Time expired)
() (): I want to pick up on an issue discussed today in question time with respect to the views put forward by the Prime Minister about what is occurring to pensions under the proposed policy of this government. Let us be very clear. There will be a cut to the value of pensions into the future; there will be a cut in the rate of growth of pensions into the future; there will be a cut in the living standards of senior citizens in this country who rely on those benefits. The hypocrisy has been highlighted by the position of the Prime Minister and has been highlighted very clearly by legislation with respect to military superannuants, which I had spoken on before and which was passed just a few weeks ago. The government, in honour of their commitment before the election and before the election before that, actually changed the policy for military superannuation under two schemes to a much fairer indexation—their own words, 'fairer indexation'—to include not only CPI but also male total average weekly earnings. Having changed that just a matter of weeks ago, the circumstances are that the government has flagged very clearly that it is going to change everything else back the other way with respect to payments, whether it be for service pensions, disability pensions or aged pensions, right across the board. There will be a cut in the standards of our elderly citizens as a result of this change. (Time expired)
On Saturday, 7 June, I had the honour of representing the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon. Warren Truss, in officially opening the Fitzgerald River National Park Improvement Project. Jointly funded by the federal and state governments, the $40 million, four-year improvement project has accomplished a number of great outcomes for the region. Forty kilometres of roads were sealed and another 40 kilometres of gravel roads were upgraded so that visitors could have reliable and safe access into the park. Many kilometres of walking trails throughout the park have been greatly improved, and the park's camp site facilities have been upgraded.
Popular with bushwalkers, recreational fishermen and campers, the Fitzgerald River National Park is a beautiful part of the world covering close to 330,000 hectares and offering a huge potential for tourism. It is one of Australia's environmentally richest and largest national parks. More than 40,000 visitors a year take advantage of the park's natural beauty. Thanks to the improvement project, we expect these numbers will continue to increase. By supporting the growth of tourism here, the upgrade creates opportunities for local businesses in the region. This project has already delivered employment opportunities to the tune of 80 full-time and 30 part-time jobs during its creation. I am looking forward to watching the tourism growth over the coming years. Congratulations to everyone involved for their efforts in delivering this key piece of infrastructure to support the community within this beautiful region. I would like to especially commend Main Roads WA for in-kind use of road equipment, which contributed to the project completion.
The Abbott government give lip-service to the fact that they want to help young people find employment. Each and every time I visit the budget, I find a new area that the Abbott government have attacked in relation to helping young people return to work or find their first job. I was devastated to find out recently that the Job Guide and website, which has been funded since the seventies, is about to cease. This is a tiny, little bit of money that is invested in assisting young people to find work. The Job Guide is going to be funded up until December 2015 and myfuture will finish this year.
In my previous life as a rehabilitation counsellor working with people and getting them into the workforce, I found these guides absolutely invaluable. I know that they are used at TAFE; I know that every vocational counsellor works with these guides. It is a very short-sighted decision to cease publication of these excellent guides and it will not do anything to help young people find work. In fact, the removal of them will lead to a situation where there is less information for people who are looking for work.
In the first week of June the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure, the Hon. Jamie Briggs, confirmed that Gilmore had been successful in its applications for more than $3 million of black spot funding for seven different locations across our region. The biggest upgrade project totalled $2 million for the Princes Highway in the southern Shoalhaven, and there is an additional $824,000 for the next stage of Turpentine Road, a road that will soon be one of the major arterial roads between Canberra and the South Coast. These funds will deliver a much-needed boost to safety and road quality in my electorate.
I would like to thank Glenn Chamberlain and Danny Kennedy, better known as Dingo and DK, of our local veterans motorcycle club, for bringing the Turpentine Road black spot to my attention after one of their club's members, known as Trapper, was badly injured, sustaining over 17 fractures in a very serious accident on the road. It is when you hear stories like this that you really start to think about how seriously we must take the state of our roads. You realise the importance of these investments in road safety. Often these upgrades are small safety improvements but they have big effects on lives in our local communities.
Finally, I would also like to thank our local councils and my community for participating in this latest round of black spot consultations and encourage anyone with local road black spots to get in contact so that we can keep Gilmore a priority region for the next funding round of this fantastic $500 million initiative. With this announcement, the total roads investment made in Gilmore by the coalition over the last nine months is close to $20 million.
Arts are alive and flourishing in Indi, and no place more so than in the beautiful King Valley. I am pleased to take this opportunity to place on record the wonderful work of the committee, sponsor and community workers responsible for the King Valley Art Show. The show has been running for 17 years, and this year there was a record 374 entries and 15 prizes, to the value of $13,000. Professional art judge Julie Chambers from Mildura awarded the grand prize of $3,000 to Graeme Peebles for his Time-Tide, an eye-catching mezzotint. All profits from the art show are given back to the community as grants, and I heard many examples of what a difference these grants make to the community's ability to participate and learn about art, particularly for young people. I would like to say well done to the team: Anita, Michael, Margaret, Linda and the two Julies—a fantastic effort. And thank you to the Whitfield District Primary School parents for the delicious gourmet nibbles, to the local wineries for the delicious wines and most of all to the King Valley community for the excellent company on a very cold night and providing this opportunity to showcase Indi's extraordinary artistic talent.
I would like to address the issue of drought. Many people will remember that the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister visited my electorate earlier in the year to look at the dire situation of drought in western New South Wales. I have got to say there has been some relief. Indeed, the day the Prime Minister was in Bourke we had 70 millimetres of rain. But there is still a very specific area and unfortunately they are going into their third year. The communities of Walgett, Lightning Ridge, Collarenebri, Goodooga and Brewarrina are still in a dire situation. I was in Lightning Ridge a few weeks ago and the smell of death is in the air, as the livestock and wildlife both are dying. I acknowledge that the drought package that was released is being rolled out now. It is really much welcome and I am very appreciative of the assistance that I have received. But I am flagging in this place that if this continues we are into uncharted territory. For a farmer to miss three years of income in a row and have the expense on top of it is truly unsustainable. On 28 June I will be going to Lightning Ridge to meet with those farmers and discuss where we might go from here.
Last Friday I held my annual seniors forum at Halekulani Bowling Club. We had over 150 seniors present that day. As usual, it was a fantastic event. It is one of the forums or get-togethers where there are absolutely no politics. We had a wonderful array of speakers. I would like to put on record my thanks to those people who gave up their time to come along and speak and those people who gave up their time to have information tables at Halekulani Bowling Club. I would like to thank Justin Dover from the Vietnam vets aged-care facility at Noraville and member of the not-for-profit aged-care sector. Centrelink gave their wonderful presentation as always and there were lots of questions. The NRMA came and talked about road safety for seniors, and once again there were lots of questions and lots of interaction between the people who were there. I thank solicitor Angie Anthony, who came along and presented to the forum. Also, the Stroke Foundation came to the forum and talked about health factors that can make a person a lot healthier and that can reduce a person's susceptibility to stroke and cardiovascular disease.
Last Friday I had the pleasure of representing the Deputy Prime Minister at the opening of the stage 2 flood mitigation works in Carnarvon. This is a significant project for the region, with $15 million committed by the federal government and $45 million by the Western Australian state government to reduce future flood damage to vital community infrastructure in Carnarvon. Carnarvon is prone to severe flooding due to the levy banks of the Gascoyne River being unable to withstand severe weather events. In 2010, Carnarvon faced its worst flooding in 50 years, with millions of dollars in damage to homes, plantation crops, pastoral leases, livestock and road infrastructure. The completion of the stage 2 mitigation works will help to ensure that this devastation is not repeated. To achieve this, project construction included a series of four integrated earth and rock levies which cover a total of 16 kilometres, with heights varying between one and six metres. The project also involved irrigation works to protect community assets from water damage. Completion of this project will help to ensure Carnarvon and surrounding areas have the security they need to expand horticulture, urban areas and population. It will also secure a key transport corridor to the Pilbara and expansion of horticulture to the north. I look forward to seeing the local community benefit with a reduction in social and community disruption and a limit to the emotional stress that can often be caused by such extreme weather events.
Today I rise to pay tribute to the late Alison Ryan who passed away peacefully at Clare Holland House recently surrounded by her family after a 15-month battle with cancer. Despite her illness, Alison still managed to attend Tuggeranong Community Council meetings. She was a very active member of the Tuggeranong Community Council and her last meeting was in April this year. Alison was also a very active member on the council executive, the Transport and Community Services Committee and the Lake Tuggeranong Carers Group. Before her illness, Alison worked at the ACT government shopfront and saw the difficulties that many people faced in paying their debts to the ACT government. Through the council she embarked on a campaign for a fairer debt payment system, an issue that was eventually taken up by the ACT Greens in the last ACT assembly. However, she will be remembered as the driving force behind the implementation of random roadside drug testing in the ACT. She embarked on this campaign with the full support of many Canberrans after the tragic death of her daughter Amy in 2008. Amy was in a car accident that involved a drug affected driver and, despite her loss, Alison turned her negative into a positive that will long benefit our community. Thanks to Alison, our roads are now safer. Farewell, Alison Ryan, you have made a significant contribution to the Canberra community and the Tuggeranong Valley. You will be sorely missed by your family and friends.
I would like to thank the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure, Minister Briggs, and the government for recognising the needs of the motorists in and around the Cowan electorate, because $330,000 has been provided to upgrade the intersection and install a traffic light system at Alexander Drive and Illawarra Crescent North, Ballajura. This is an intersection which has unfortunately in the past claimed life, and many people have been injured as a result of vehicle accidents in this area.
Local residents have had cars through their front walls. They have heard the accidents occurring at, in and around the intersection. There has been much damage. This funding is a good thing. This is exactly what black spot funding and taxpayer's money should be providing. It is good to see that the safety of people using that intersection will be considerably enhanced and it will be safer when traffic lights control the flow of traffic.
Once again, I thank the minister for his due consideration and this is a great example of a black spot program which will help the people of Ballajura, Alexander Heights and those passing by.
I stand to support the iLoddon Mallee group calling for our region to be reinstated to the NBN rollout schedule. There is still no rollout schedule planned for big centres like Bendigo in my electorate after the Abbott government ripped up the former Labor government's rollout plan. This uncertainty from the current government has meant that NBN developments in the area have stalled. Local telcos have said that they have stopped investing in ADSL infrastructure, believing that the NBN will be rolled out.
My office deals weekly with complaints from people in the community—communities in Bendigo, in Castlemaine—complaining that they cannot get decent access. This would not be a problem if the government had not come to power and ripped up the plan.
It is just not good enough that Central Victorians be left behind when it comes to telecommunications. They too deserve to be able to connect with the rest of the world. Shepparton is connecting. Geelong is connecting. Ballarat is connecting but Bendigo is not, because the current government ripped up the plan.
It is clear from the people that I talk to that they want the National Broadband Network. They want to be able to connect. So far some of our smaller towns have benefited from the NBN: townships, such as Heathcote, Malmsbury and Tarnagalla are connecting through the fixed-wireless network and they are raving about the difference that it has made. That is why I call on this government to restore Bendigo to the plan. (Time expired)
As part of my step-by-step walk against violence against women in Australia, particularly in my electorate of McMillan and across Gippsland, I asked Chris Major, our local police inspector, to give me a briefing on where we are at with policing on this and to ask somebody else: 'What more can we be doing? Step by step, one step at a time—let's have a cultural change.'
It is not just about good men being silent on the issue; it is about good women being silent on the issue too—grandmothers and mothers who know there is something going on in their households or in their extended households and saying nothing. They told me that the police now have the opportunity through their sergeant where they can walk into a household, see the damage done to a woman, and hand the gentleman a sheet and say, 'You're out of here until you can go before a magistrate and sort this out.'
Police can walk straight into a house in Dandenong, Pakenham or anywhere and hand a piece of paper that says to that man in that household that has bashed that woman, 'You're out of here until you have seen a magistrate.' So we are not relocating the women and children; we are exiting the man. It is working. It is a very effective tool, and I would like to see it implemented right across Australia.
I commend the member for McMillan for the comments he made, which I endorse. I would like to talk about an event conducted in my electorate on 11 June. It was quite a special event. It was the blessing of a convent which houses three very special women from Nigeria. They are Nigerian Catholic nuns who have, as part of a project of exchange between Nigeria and Australia, come to Cranbourne to spend their time nourishing and enriching the area. They are amazing people. I would like to mention Sister Grace, Sister Mary and the very formidable Sister Mercia Ko, who I guess you would say is the head nun. This project was embarked upon as a consequence of a discussion between Bishop Michael Apochi, the Bishop for Nigeria, and Bishop Christopher Prowse, who is now the Archbishop of Canberra. It is amazing seeing the great works which are occurring here. A couple of priests have come over from Nigeria as well. I am very grateful to Bishop Prowse for the work he has done. The convent is an amazing new building, certainly much larger than the smaller one, which barely houses three nuns. This great project just goes to show the strength and resilience of the Catholic Church and its reach into the international community as well.
On a recent sunny Saturday morning, I had the pleasure of visiting the Bunny Cottage Preschool and Long Day Care Centre in Bexley, a family oriented suburb in the electorate of Barton. I was invited by the director and owner of the centre, a qualified childhood educator, Ms Sharon Akkanen, to their 20th birthday celebrations. Like other childcare centres across Australia, the Bunny Cottage plays a pivotal role in the community for working parents. It is symbolic of a fundamental social pillar—families. I had the pleasure of meeting and speaking to parents that day and discussing with them the importance of quality child care. While some are privileged to have the help of extended family members to care for their children, I fully realise that not everybody has that luxury. The Bunny Cottage is a firm reminder of the importance of such an institution to families where childhood educators provide quality programs to adapt young children to society.
The Bunny Cottage should be commended for providing quality education and care in a home-like and nurturing environment. It has been operated by the same family since 1994. Their strict adherence to small intakes ensures quality provision of services in the crucial stages of children's development. With our population expanding and parents juggling work and family commitments, child care centres like the Bunny Cottage are precious resources in our communities. We are fortunate in Barton to have such a fantastic centre run by dedicated staff to prepare our youngest generation.
Today in the House of Representatives we are debating the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, which allows for delegation of the environmental approval powers from the Commonwealth to state and local governments. As my colleagues have outlined, this is bad policy. It will hand over to state and local governments the approval powers for development in some of Australia's most pristine and significant environmental assets such as the Great Barrier Reef. It removes the accountability and consistency that exist in the current system.
The Commonwealth environmental assessment approval process sits within the Department of the Environment located in Canberra. Many of the individuals who work in this area are my constituents. I want to pay tribute to these hardworking public servants, because in the debate today several government members mentioned that this legislation will allow greater access to expert scientific advice and community consultation, as if this were not already an essential part of the Commonwealth approval process. I know some of the hardworking public servants who work in this area. They are specialist public servants. Many are environmental scientists. They are dedicated to ensuring the best result is achieved for the whole country. Their jobs are demanding, involving significant time away from their homes and loved ones. Not only is this bad policy but also in the debates today the government has shown that once again they have little respect for the expertise of our Commonwealth public servants or for the great work they do. The Abbott government has nothing but disdain for our public servants and has no interest in protecting Australia's environment for the future.
I wish to report that the Abbott government's efforts to speed up the NBN rollout are paying off for residents and businesses in Barker. Indeed, it was my very great privilege on Wednesday, 11 June, at Tailem Bend to participate in the official switch-on of fixed wireless services to five communities in my electorate. The first fixed wireless services to houses in South Australia are now online, providing high-speed internet capability to surrounding districts of Tailem Bend, Meningie, Coonalpyn, Tintinara and Naracoorte. This marks the first switch-on of fixed wireless technology anywhere in regional South Australia.
The truth is that the rollout is happening faster than ever since the coalition took government, and we are doing it by saving $32 billion. A further 12 fixed wireless towers are currently under construction across Barker. Without question it is important that families and businesses across our great nation have access to high-speed internet services, which have become such an important part of our day-to-day lives, and I congratulate and thank Minister Turnbull for his industry and endeavour in turning around a program that was more about press releases than it was about practical outcomes. The people of Barker and I are grateful. I can assure you of that.
I thank the member for Barker. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has now concluded.
I am very pleased to be able to make this opening statement. How nice it is to be doing this consideration-in-detail phase of the appropriation bills on this side of the chamber. I must say, when we were in opposition we used to actually turn up for this part of the appropriation bills proceedings. Perhaps we will get sensible questions from the member for Holt and the member for Griffith. But as a shadow minister I used to take these responsibilities very seriously. We would come here for the whole hour and we would arrive here on time. Clearly these are not things that the shadow minister takes that seriously. I would have thought that, with the opportunity to question a government about a budget that they were so excited about, they would take the opportunity to do that. But clearly they do not.
This budget will help build on a more prosperous nation. Fighting and preventing criminal activity is a key priority for the Abbott government, since only safe communities can become strong and prosperous. This budget delivers on a number of our key election commitments. We are ensuring that all proceeds of crime are used to fight crime. We are doing this by reversing the previous Labor government's decision to freeze the $61 million retained in the confiscated assets account. Under this government this money will now be released for community crime prevention initiatives. Under the previous government, of course, they used to use this money to prop up their dodgy budget bottom line. The member for Lilley, who was then Treasurer, used to literally take from criminals to prop up his budget bottom line—rather extraordinary. We will ensure that that money goes to fighting criminals.
Fifty million dollars will be invested to boost the efforts of local communities to address crime and antisocial behaviour through the government's Safer Streets Programme. Eighteen million dollars will be invested in the schools security program to ensure that our children can be educated in a safe and secure environment. For the first time, funding can be used for security guards as well as to install security infrastructure such as CCTV, lighting and fencing in schools. One million dollars will be provided in 2014-15 to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to expand its oversight to Australia's new border force, and $10.2 million will be invested over three years to establish a Western Australian strike team within the National Anti-gang Squad.
Fifteen million dollars will be provided to states and territories through the National Bushfire Mitigation Programme to implement long-term mitigation strategies and better fuel-reduction programs. This measure will help to make sure Australia is better prepared and can withstand the impacts of natural disasters. Funding will also be provided to work with the United Kingdom government to have Captain Matthew Flinders's original 1804 chart of Australia transferred to Australia on long-term loan. The government has committed $193,000 over two years to fund this project. This chart is literally seen as the birth certificate of the nation and is a very significant part of our history.
This budget is also focused on ensuring that Australians are served by an efficient and effective civil justice framework. Notwithstanding the difficult financial circumstances that have been left to us by the previous government, the Abbott government has kept to a minimum savings sought from the arts sector. Across the forward estimates, total reductions in arts funding have been limited to only 3.1 per cent. Most of those savings come from uncommitted funds or from bringing forward the termination date of programs which were due to terminate during the life of the current parliament in any event. The government has decided to quarantine the 28 major performing arts companies—the great flagship companies which bring the best of classical music, opera, dance and drama to Australians audiences—from any reduction in funding at all. This reflects our commitment to the sector and in particular our commitment to giving audiences the maximum opportunity to enjoy the best of Australian performance art.
Because the government is committed to ensuring that those opportunities extend to Australians who live outside the capital cities, the government has decided to quarantine funding for regional arts from any reduction. As anyone with any knowledge or understanding of the sector is well aware, the arts have done particularly well in this budget, notwithstanding the very difficult choices that we face.
In this budget we also announced two new arts funding initiatives. Importantly, these measures have also had a positive impact on the budget bottom line. The key measures that we are doing to contribute to budget stability are the amalgamation of key Commonwealth merits review tribunals. This will make it easier to navigate the merits review system by providing an accessible one-stop shop for external merits review. I am happy to go into that at a later stage.
It has been a pleasure to hear from the minister about the funding commitments that have been made and the cuts that have been made. There are a number of questions that arise but I would like to start with a very important issue—that is, the effect of the Abbott government funding cuts on access to justice in this country.
Access to justice is a significant concern for this country. It has been the subject of a number of inquiries and considerations, including most recently a draft report from the Productivity Commission in respect of access to justice, in which the Productivity Commission noted that there are not incentives for lawyers in private practice to engage in systemic advocacy work but that lawyers in community legal centres are uniquely placed to undertake advocacy work in respect of systemic issues.
Notwithstanding that the Productivity Commission has recognised the importance of policy reform advocacy work for the community as a whole—including in dealing with systemic issues and difficulties arising within the legal system—in MYEFO the Abbott government announced that it would be cutting $43.1 million from legal policy reform and advocacy funding over four years, including cuts to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and community legal centres.
The May budget continued that cut, and there has been a great deal of concern from the community and from community legal centres in respect of the effect that is going to have on community legal centres' abilities to engage in problem solving and in advocacy more generally. That then leads to concerns about access to justice, which in turn leads to concern about the administration of justice.
Is the minister aware that the Human Rights Law Centre Executive Director, Hugh de Kretser, said that the cuts went against the recommendations of repeated parliamentary inquiries that highlighted the chronic underfunding of Aboriginal legal services?
Is the minister aware that the Australian Council of Social Services urged the federal government to take a cool approach and avoid trying to restore the budget in one hit, saying that the cuts would have little impact on the budget bottom line but a devastating impact on those who need legal assistance?
What percentage of work do community legal centres do that is defined as so-called legal policy reform and advocacy work? Can you give an example of the policy work that would be the subject of the cuts being made? The cuts to policy reform will practically mean that experts in the field will not provide information to the government; why does the Abbott government want to take away funding that would allow for policy consultation from experts?
Is the minister aware of the wage disparity between private lawyers and community legal centre lawyers? Who has been consulted in respect of the impact of these cuts on Australians in need, taking into account the fact that community legal centres often provide—with a lot of expertise and on a very slender budget as it is—services to those people who cannot afford private lawyers' fees but equally do not qualify for legal aid assistance, such as people with debt issues, people with family law issues, people suffering family violence and people who are unable to access justice?
Is the minister aware of the concerns that have been raised by the courts in respect of the burden that self-represented litigants place on the courts? Does the minister consider that there will be an increase in the number of self-represented litigants that the courts are expected to handle as a consequence of these cuts to community legal centre funding and services?
Are you aware, Minister, of the comment from the community legal centres' national campaign, Community Law Australia, that as many as one in five people turning to community legal centres for assistance is already being turned away by those community legal centres because of a lack of resourcing? Are you aware as to whether any of the community legal centres whose funding is to be cut had been visited by or on behalf of the government and consulted before these cuts were decided upon?
Is the minister aware that an independent economic cost-benefit analysis of community legal centres published by the NACLC found that, on average, community legal centres have a cost-benefit ratio of one to 18—that is, for every dollar spent by government on funding CLCs, these services return a benefit to society that is 18 times the cost. To express it in dollar terms, the $47 million spent on the CLC program nationally in 2010 would yield around $846 million in benefit to Australia. Why would the government cut services which provide such benefits to this country? Thank you.
Firstly, can I say that I appreciate that the member for Griffith has actually turned up. The shadow Attorney-General and the shadow minister for justice are both members of the House of Representatives, yet, astonishingly, they could not even be bothered to come in for this consideration-in-detail stage, which I think is just extraordinary. So I give you points for that at least. I also appreciate that you gave me some very detailed questions. I do not want to disrespect all those questions, so I will say something in a general sense, if you do not mind, and then we can have a look at some of the detail on notice, if you are happy for me to do that.
Can I say in the first instance that we are very committed to making sure that vulnerable Australians do have access to justice. This budget builds on the commitment that we had in previous years when we were in government. The government has renewed its commitment to the ongoing funding of legal aid commissions and will be negotiating with the states and territories to agree on a one-year extension of the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services. The agreement provides ongoing Commonwealth funding for legal aid commissions and will be extended by one year, until 30 June 2015. Extending the agreement will have no impact on the budget bottom line, because ongoing funding for legal aid commissions was already published in the forward estimates. The government is considering options for future legal assistance arrangements from 1 July 2015. It will focus on holistic delivery of front-line services to the most vulnerable members of our community, and the Abbott government is strongly committed to that. Extending the agreement will allow time for the government to consider the findings of the Productivity Commission's inquiry into access-to-justice arrangements and the review of the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services. This will also provide the government with the opportunity to develop a medium- to long-term approach to ensure equitable and sustainable service delivery.
I appreciate that there were a whole series of very detailed questions in the five minutes that the member for Griffith used. I will endeavour to get her the most sensible responses to some of those questions, if she could just accept my response in general terms for what we are doing in the future, pending the review that the Productivity Commission is undertaking.
I have a question to the minister. I first need to provide the minister with a little bit of background in order for him to be able to answer this question. On Friday, I had the opportunity to meet the new principal of the King David School, David Opat. King David is an independent Jewish school in my electorate of Higgins and is one of the many fine independent Jewish schools located in Melbourne. David Opat is taking over from another fine principal, Michele Bernshaw, who served the King David School for more than 14 years and served it so incredibly well. The reason I want to draw the attention of the minister to the King David School, and other independent Jewish schools in the Victorian community and right around Australia, is that, unfortunately, we have seen many acts of graffiti, many acts of violence against property and threatened acts of violence against the person of staff, students and parents of students that attend these schools.
I hate to say it, but even in a great country like Australia there are people who do propagate anti-Semitic thoughts. In fact, I have seen this in my own electorate of Higgins, where there have been unnamed individuals who have distributed brochures supporting the boycotts to business and sanction scheme. Again, I know that it is a scheme that is supported by some members of the trade union movement. I think it is a very anti-Semitic movement and it is one that propagates some pretty unhelpful and inflammatory thoughts against good members of our community and good members of the Jewish community.
The question I have for the minister is: obviously, students have the right to feel safe at school. Parents want to know that when they send their students to school that they are going to be safe, and teachers need to be safe in their workplace. Can the minister explain what the Australian government is doing to secure the safety of students at schools like King David—for example, I know that we made a commitment to the Secure Schools Program—the reasons behind that commitment and how that commitment has in fact extended beyond the previous commitment that we provided as a coalition government when we first got elected in 1996?
I thank the member for Higgins for that question. I acknowledge that within her electorate she has a very significant Jewish school and also a lot of other significant independent schools, and that she takes the safety of students and the teaching staff there very seriously as does the Abbott government, which is why we have committed to allocate $18 million within this budget for the Secure Schools Program. I am sure the member for Higgins would be interested to note that I have literally just come from a meeting with the Australian Council of Jewish Schools who, obviously, have a very keen interest in making sure that the students who attend the schools that they represent are protected when they go to those places. They are right to believe that the government has a keen interest in ensuring that that is the case.
The security issues that Jewish schools and other independent schools are concerned about are real issues. Sadly, you only need look back at recent history to understand why members of the Jewish community in particular are concerned about the safety of educational institutions that are associated with their community. We have seen some very drastic and terrible examples of that, to a very limited extent in Australia, certainly, but in Europe and other parts of the world we have seen dreadful attacks on Jewish schools. We need to make sure that we in Australia are doing everything we can to make sure that educational institutions that might be targeted or at risk in this way are as difficult and hard to target as is possible. That is why we are allocating this $18 million. Funding will start in the 2014-15 budget to extend the Secure Schools Program, with $6 million available in each of the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 years.
For the first time, under this government, the funding, as well as being able to be used for hard capital security infrastructure, will be able to be used for security guards. Schools and students should not be distracted from their studies by the threat of violence because of their race or religion. This program seeks to extend their security infrastructure so that they can enjoy the same schooling experience as any other school.
I know that the member for Higgins is very concerned about the King David School in particular. I am very pleased to have Carmel School in my electorate, which is the Jewish school in Western Australia—and an exceptionally good school it is too, with excellent academic results year after year. I am aware from my contact with the school and with the Perth Hebrew congregation in general that they remain very concerned about their own security. Unfortunately, they have had incidents. They would not be as serious as some other security incidents that have appeared around the globe, but they have certainly given them pause for thought. The government stands with them in doing all that we can to make sure that we are securing Carmel School, the King David School and other independent schools around the country that might require that attention.
I am about to write to state and territory education ministers and the Independent Schools Association, seeking nominations from their jurisdictions for schools which may be eligible for funding. Once we have had these nominations, the candidates will be able to apply for funding grants before being assessed, and the successful applicants will be announced. Clearly, that is going to have to be a competitive program. We are going to make sure that we cover the risks as we assess them, and we will be making sure that that money goes as far as possible to secure the school environment for independent schools that are legitimately concerned about being at risk.
Because the member for Higgins was kind enough to ask that question, I will note that the King David School has already been a successful recipient of funding in previous rounds—almost $1 million under three grants went to the King David School—and I appreciate the contribution that that school does make to her electorate. I look forward to working with Jewish schools but also with other independent schools in being able to announce the successful recipients of the funding program in the 2014-15 financial year.
As far as details go, from the minister representing the Attorney-General's speech, first off I would like to ask him a question that relates to the Attorney-General's portfolio. I was chair of a committee that brought down a finding with respect to data retention. It was a component of the national security legislation. It was a reform that was countenanced in three tranches. We tabled this report in the last sitting week of the 43rd Parliament. I am led to understand that the Attorney-General's Department is looking at the various tranches of legislation as we speak. So my question is to the minister representing the Attorney-General. Could he please tell me whether or not they are going to introduce any legislation pertaining to data retention in the life of this parliament?
I thank the member for Holt for that question, though I am not sure whether he started there with a barb about my un-inspirational delivery! But I will give him the benefit of the doubt, because that is a sensible question and one which the government is seriously considering. As you appreciate, I am representing the Attorney-General here today, and this matter would fall within his portfolio jurisdiction. But it is something that I take a keen interest in, obviously, as the minister with responsibility for the Australian Federal Police, and the police of course are very concerned about this and have been making representations to the government. He would understand the content of the representations because he would have seen their submissions to his committee. I must say that that committee does do very serious and sensible work, and when that committee makes recommendations to the government we take those recommendations seriously. I understand that the Attorney-General is looking at those recommendations at the moment.
It is very important that we have a regime in Australia which complements our national security and also helps our criminal justice agencies to do their job. I appreciate that, in the environment in which we live at the moment, there is a lot of myth and concern about this idea that somehow the state might be snooping on people. Everything we do in the law and order area and in the national security area when it comes to data retention and communications is to make the Australian people safer, and that is the absolute and primary objective that we will have in responding to his committee's recommendations. We need to look at these things sensibly. What we are doing is important for community safety. I will not pre-empt that response to the committee, and I am not actually privy to that response in totality yet, but we do take the committee's recommendations seriously and we do take the safety of the Australian people seriously.
Before I put my question to the minister, I will just give some context. As a representative for regional Australia and regional South Australia in particular, and as someone who represents a large swathe of regional South Australia, the reality is that bushfires are an ever-present danger. Indeed, during the 2014 bushfire season we had no less than six large-scale bushfires raging across Barker, at Eden Valley, Rockleigh, Calperum Station, Ngarkat Conservation Park, Billiat and Tintinara. They burnt out of control between 20 December and 23 January. They burnt 232,000 hectares. They destroyed many significant assets.
I will give some further detail. The Eden Valley fire ignited just after midday on Friday, 17 January. It burnt through almost 25,000 hectares and was not declared as contained until Monday, 20 January, much to the relief of those on the front line and the personnel involved in managing the incident in the fire-affected communities. Just after 5.30 on 17 January, a lightning strike ignited a fire within the Ngarkat Conservation Park, burning some 90,000 hectares. A fire also ignited near Rockleigh, on the Murraylands, just after 3 pm on 14 January. This is the third time communities in the area have been threatened by fire within 12 months. More than 80 CFS firefighters responded. Just after 6 pm, on 14 January, fires ignited in the Margaret Dowling camp site, at Billiat, Katarapko and Kringin, with additional lightning following in the next few days, sparking the Calperum fire, exposing the community of Cooltong to significant danger. My question to the minister is this: given, Minister, what you have just heard about how my local community was so seriously affected by bushfires between December last year and January this year, what budget measures will help us better prepare our communities for bushfire events in the future?
I thank the member for Barker for that question. It is a very good question and I appreciate that he has had discussions with me in the past about the bushfires that affected his community in January this year. The government is very aware of the toll that bushfires and other natural disasters take on the Australian community. Unfortunately, as we all know too well, bushfires are a harsh reality in Australia, as are other natural disaster events. But every summer we continue to see communities that are devastated by bushfire. We know—and the member for Barker will know—that the impacts of bushfire last well beyond the event itself.
In the budget we announced the National Bushfire Mitigation Program, which will provide $15 million over three years, to help states and territories implement long-term bushfire mitigation strategies and better fuel reduction programs. I acknowledge that everything we do in this area is always done in conjunction with the states and territories, which actually have first responder responsibilities for natural disasters in Australia. As the minister with responsibility for emergency management within the government I have discovered that the Commonwealth in and of itself does not have an enormous amount of hardware to respond to bushfires. We always do what we can with the assistance of the Australian Defence Force but, essentially, it is the responsibility of the states and territories. They do a magnificent job in doing so and the same goes for the way the South Australian government responded to the bushfires in January this year. The National Bushfire Mitigation Program draws on a coalition election commitment. Through this initiative we can help to build stronger communities which are better prepared for when that bushfire threat becomes a reality.
The Abbott government recognises that we have to do something to address the increased toll that natural disasters are taking on Australian communities and businesses. That is why, with the support of all state and territory governments, we have commissioned a Productivity Commission inquiry into natural disaster funding. This inquiry will consider how we can best target our overall disaster funding in a way that better equips our nation for future disasters.
These are just two of the many investments we are making to better prepare the nation for future disasters. We are also providing over $52 million over two years to target natural disaster risk priorities in all states and territories and investing up to $12½ million to address the high cost of strata title insurance in North Queensland. As anyone who spends a little bit of time in the coalition party room will attest—we do not normally talk about party room discussions, but I suspect the member for Leichhardt will not mind—the member for Leichhardt has been talking about this issue ad nauseam for many years. When we were in opposition we were not in a position to do something about it, but the Abbott government has responded to those concerns, which are particularly acute in North Queensland, with this $12½ million, which addresses the high cost of strata title insurance in his area and other parts of Queensland in particular.
I thank the member for Barker for this question. The way the Commonwealth government responds to natural disaster is very important. It costs the Australian taxpayer hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars, depending on how bad any particular disaster season is. This Productivity Commission inquiry is very timely. We will take the recommendations, which I expect to receive by the end of the year, very seriously, and we will look to implement them to make sure the enormous investment the Australian taxpayer is making in making sure Australian communities respond to natural disaster is spent in the most effective possible way. We will take the recommendations that the Productivity Commission makes very seriously and respond appropriately as a government.
I want to address some questions to the Minister for Justice about section 18C, but first I want to mention the comments that have just been made by the member for Higgins and responded to by the minister in relation to the Secure Schools Program. What was missing from the minister's answer and, indeed, what was missing from what was said by the member for Higgins was any acknowledgement—and one was due—about the fact that there is bipartisan support for the Secure Schools Program and that there was $20 million in the 2008 budget for three years for the Secure Schools Program to fund security works not just in Jewish schools but in schools at risk from racially and religiously motivated violence, which we deplore, not just in Melbourne but throughout Australia. And there was a further $15 million in the 2011 budget over three years, which I had assumed had bipartisan support. The Minister for Justice in talking now is forgetting that for the last six years, supported by our Labor government, there have been works performed at Jewish schools throughout the country and, I might add, at some Muslim schools and, in one case, in a government school in south-west Sydney where security was needed to be enhanced because of religiously or racially motivated violence. Of course, both parties went to the last election very directly supporting an extension of the Secure Schools Program and both parties at the last election supported not just an extension of funding for the Secure Schools Program for capital works but also an extension of funding to cover some recurrent funding for security guards in Jewish schools. I am very pleased to see the program continuing and I would have thought that the minister or perhaps the member for Higgins might have found it in themselves to acknowledge the work done by the Labor government over both of the last terms.
But I wanted to raise with the minister the appalling conduct of both the Attorney-General and the government in general over its proposed repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It might be that the member for Higgins can speak in this place about her condemnation of anti-Semitism, but it is a pity that her colleagues at the ministerial level—
Mr Keenan interjecting—
I do not think it is a matter for heckling by the Minister for Justice; it is a much more serious matter than that. It is a pity that they have not been able to do anything about the Attorney-General, who thinks it is appropriate to stand up in the Australian Senate and say things like, 'People do have a right to be bigots, you know.'
I wanted particularly to refer to a letter by Moshe Gutnik, the President of the Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia; Yehoram Ulman, the President of the Rabbinical Council of New South Wales; and Meir Shlomo of the Rabbinical Council of Victoria, who thought it was necessary to write to The Australian newspaper last month, pointing out that Tim Wilson, the Human Rights Commissioner appointed by this government, was completely wrong when he suggested that there was any support from any rabbinical organisation in this country for the changes proposed to be made by this government to section 18C. They reminded the people of Australia—and I remind the people of Australia and every member of this parliament—that last month was the month in which Jewish people and others around the world marked Holocaust Remembrance Day. They ended their letter with these words:
None of us dares forget, and Wilson and the government would do well to remember that racist words have evil consequences.
What we are seeing from this government is a gutting of the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act, a removal of the protections that have served Australia well for almost 20 years and its replacement, it would seem, with something that it is now absolutely clear would permit, among other things, all kinds of vile, racist abuse in public and, in particular, Holocaust denial to occur. This government should be ashamed of itself for its conduct in proposing a gutting of these provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act, and the member for Higgins and the Minister for Justice need to be reflecting when they are so quick to say that they condemn anti-Semitism and that they want to do what they can to protect the Jewish schools in the electorate of the member for Higgins, because the two things go together.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister for Justice: when is the government going to make public the 5,700 submissions that it has received, and when is the government going to announce what it is going to do, which should be to drop its proposal on the Racial Discrimination Act?
I will deal with the issue of the Secure Schools Program that the shadow minister raised. How nice that the shadow minister has found time to join us during the Consideration in Detail stage. It only lasts for an hour, but obviously he has only found time in his busy schedule to join us for half of that. It is true that the Secure Schools Program—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
And now we are joined by the shadow minister for Justice—how nice that he can join us. He will last 20 minutes of the consideration in detail proposal.
Mr Feeney interjecting—
I am sure that when you get up and have your five minutes you can say your piece on this, but I have been in here for the whole hour and I can assure you that I have monitored the movements of both shadow ministers. I was terribly disappointed that they could not be bothered to come and attend consideration in detail up until this point.
I will go to the point that the shadow Attorney-General has made on the Secure Schools Program. I appreciate that it is a program that also existed under the previous government, and I have no problem whatsoever with acknowledging that. Of course, it might have been nice if he had acknowledged that it was the Howard government that invented this program. Indeed, when I was a backbencher in the Howard government between 2004 and 2007, I worked very hard to make sure that the synagogue that exists within my electorate had appropriate protection, and the federal government joined with the Western Australian state government to ensure that that was the case. So I have got no problem acknowledging that the program existed under the previous government, and I am sure that he will join the love and acknowledge that the program existed under the Howard government also.
As to the references to 18C that the shadow minister has made, firstly I would note that there is no appropriation associated with 18C, and what we are doing here at the moment are the appropriation bills. Section 18C is not an issue that appears within the budget paper—it appears completely extraneously to that—but, because I like him so much, I am going to extend him some latitude to talk about the questions that he has asked me in relation to 18C.
As the member for Higgins has very sensibly reminded me—and the shadow minister is quite right to be passionate about anti-Semitism—I note that the BDS movement that is endorsed by some trade unions around the country is not condemned wholeheartedly by the trade union movement as it should be. Indeed, it is actively supported by some individual trade unions—trade unions which would be constituent members of the Labor Party. Where is the condemnation of those trade unions being associated with a movement that is blatantly anti-Semitic? I appreciate that the shadow minister is passionate about this—and it is right that he should be—but where is the condemnation of the trade union movement endorsing what is an anti-Semitic movement at its core? This feeds to the sort of prejudice that we were talking about, which the Secure Schools Program was designed to address.
On the specifics of the questions that he has asked me about 18C—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Order! The minister will be heard in silence.
At the moment, as the shadow minister would be aware, there has been a very considerable process of public consultation. We have received an enormous amount of submissions. The Attorney-General is currently working through those submissions and will be making some announcements about that in due course. We take the submissions that we have received very seriously—obviously we are interested in the views of the Australian community. I appreciate that the debate around this has been passionate, and there is no problem with people having a bit of passion when it comes to what are very serious issues. We will be methodically and sensibly working through the submissions that we have received, and the Attorney-General will obviously be making some announcements in due course about that.
I have a question of the minister. I will preface it with some brief comments. As a result of several visits to the electorate of Forde over the last couple of years the minister would be aware of the wonderful work that Logan City Council has done in conjunction with Queensland Rail and the Queensland Police Service in putting together a CCTV network not only to help reduce the incidence of crime in our community but also provide safer streets on the whole for the local community. I thank the minister and the government for the investment of some $960,000 in CCTV cameras for the electorate of Forde. This has been greatly welcomed by the Logan City Council. It is complemented by an investment of over $1 million by Logan City Council in a new CCTV monitoring room and the upgrade of digital monitoring equipment to better link in with Queensland Police Service and Queensland Rail.
My question to the minister is: what decisions were made in the budget that have allowed the funding of this program through different uses of the proceeds of crime and how does this differ from decisions made by the previous Labor government?
I thank the member for Forde for his question. I was very pleased to join him over the course of the last few weeks at Logan City Council for some announcements about the expansion of the CCTV network in his electorate of Forde. Logan has a very extensive CCTV network. In fact, it would be one of the most comprehensive networks anywhere in the country. Previous governments, including the Howard government, contributed extensively to that. The Abbott government is very pleased to join the member for Forde in announcing an expansion of that CCTV network. I note that the Mayor of Logan and councillors, from the interaction we had when I visited with the member for Forde, were very grateful for the assistance of the Abbott government under our Safer Streets program.
In the budget we have delivered on our election commitment, ensuring that all proceeds of crime money is used to fight crime. When the former government was in office, they froze that proceeds of crime money. It had always been expended to the benefit of law enforcement agencies to stop future criminal activity. They froze the confiscated assets account and they used that money to prop up the budget for political reasons. Had this continued, had we not reversed that when we arrived in office, up to $112 million seized from criminals, which we would have collected from their criminal activities, would have been locked in that account by the 2017-18 financial year. We reversed that decision so that proceeds of crime will again be available to fund local crime prevention strategies such as the Safer Streets strategy, which funds the Logan City Council CCTV network in Forde. We are using these funds straight away to address the legacy of underinvestment in crime prevention by the previous government. The previous government has a dreadful record on this—they froze proceeds of crime and they significantly attacked all of our law enforcement agencies. The Australian Crime Commission, in particular, was savaged by the previous government over six years. A third of its personnel and a third of its budget was cut.
We need to now move on and reinvigorate law enforcement agencies and make sure that proceeds of crime are being used to attack criminal activity—as they always were in the past, until the previous government got so desperate to pretend it had a surplus and subsequently froze that proceeds of crime money. Future decisions on proceeds of crime will be made at my discretion. This is an important step in reducing administrative red tape so that funding can easily flow for what is needed in our communities. We will be looking at making sure our law enforcement agencies are also getting a fair share of that funding to do their very important work, after six years of underinvestment and budget cuts from previous governments. It has always been the Abbott government's intention that proceeds of crime be returned to the community so that the crimes of yesterday will be used to prevent the crimes of tomorrow. Projects will be funded to support crime prevention and law enforcement initiatives, including Safer Streets, as the member for Forde alluded to.
How fortuitous, the member for Swan and the member for Lindsay are also getting funding under the Safer Streets program, as well as the member for Higgins. I have been to all of your electorates and I am looking forward to coming to the member for Higgins' electorate to make an announcement about the Safer Streets funding that we will be deploying in Higgins. This money has also been used to fund such things as the establishment of the national Anti-Gangs Squad team in Western Australia. We will be using over $10 million of the proceeds of crime funding so that a number of AFP officers and other federal law enforcement officers, including an officer from the Australian tax office, will be embedded in the Western Australia Police force, within their Anti-Gangs Squad, to work constructively to make sure that they are doing all they can in the national fight against organised crime and, in particular, of course, outlaw motorcycle gangs that have been the focus of the Western Australia Police attention until this point.
I thank the member for Forde for that question. I appreciate his ongoing interest in community safety within his electorate.
Minister, my questions go to the selection process and eligibility for the Safer Streets program. As you would be aware, the target group for funding under the first funding round for the Safer Streets program were those organisations identified before October 2013. That is to say that some $19.3 million was set aside by you and allocated for projects, but only able to go to those organisations identified by you before October 2013. Those organisations identified by you have since been invited by you to apply for funding under the Safer Streets program by the Abbott government. As a consequence, organisations that were not hand-picked by you prior to October 2013, including those that had already been approved for funding under the former NCPF program, were barred from applying.
My question to you is: what did the selection process for identifying these organisations involve? What were the selection criteria used to identify successful and unsuitable organisations? Who identified the organisations to receive the funding? How did the selectors gain access to these organisations and determine they were suitable for the program? How were these organisations identified? Who identified them? Who reviewed these applications? When did the selection process commence? How long after the selection process began were successful organisations identified? When were the organisations informed that they had been chosen as funding recipients? Was there any consideration made for organisations that had been approved for funding under the previous NCPF? Given that successful organisations were hand-picked by you prior to the 2013 election, how did you assure that there was political neutrality? What processes were put in place to ensure an unbiased selection process?
Minister, I am very keen for you to enlighten us on these important issues. I note, with time being difficult, that on 16 June 2010, in proud, fine words in this place you said:
Surely for ministers of the Crown it is not that difficult to come in here and answer questions for 35 minutes on areas within their portfolio without going through this ludicrous parody of government members getting up and asking dorothy dixer questions and the minister then reading a prepared answer.
It is sad to see those fine sentiments turn to dust now that you are in office, but, having concluded your dorothy dixers—
You weren't here.
Mercifully, Hansard records your fine sentiments, Minister, and mercifully Hansard can shine a light on your hypocrisy. Having wandered your way through those time-wasting dorothy dixers, tell us about the selection process and tell us about how you selected those organisations before October 2013. Tell us how it is you assured that the government process would remain politically neutral?
I must say, I do admire the shadow minister's front to roll in here after 40 minutes of consideration in detail, which only lasts for an hour, and complain that government members, who happened to be in the chamber, were asking questions. It is very difficult for me to respond to the opposition if they do not come into the chamber and ask me questions. One hour is allocated every year for budget consideration in detail, yet the shadow minister has come in here after 40 minutes has expired and asks me why it is that I had to respond to questions from members who actually were here in the chamber. Quite remarkable! But I do admire his sense of humour, if nothing else.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The minister will be heard in silence.
The shadow minister was very keen for me to enlighten him—and of course I am very keen to enlighten the shadow minister whenever I get the opportunity to do so. I would like to give him a bit of history about proceeds of crime in Australia and how it came to pass that we committed those proceeds of crime to the Safer Streets Program. Governments of all persuasions, up until the advent of the Gillard-Rudd era, had spent proceeds of crime money on fighting crime. It stands to reason that, if you are going to take money from criminals, you would subsequently reinvest those funds—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. I did not ask for a history lesson. Can he please answer the questions that have been asked of him?
I ask the minister to be relevant to the questions.
I very keen to be as helpful as I possibly can be for the shadow minister. I am not sure if he is aware of the background. This background is vitally important to understanding what has gone on in this process. It is important to understand because governments of all persuasions have spent proceeds of crime money on fighting crime. This happened under the previous Howard government and it happened for the first few years of the Rudd government until the government got so desperate with their out-of-control spending that they looked for any pockets of money they could use to prop up the budget and pretend that they were running a better budget bottom line than they were. They froze the proceeds of crime and said: 'This money we have taken from criminals is now going to be used against the member for Lilley's dodgy figures to pretend that the budget is in better shape than it is.' This is what happened and it was a shameful thing.
Money that should have been used to fight criminal activity was actually used to prop up their dodgy bottom line. I think that is shameful. When we were in opposition we decided that that was a very bad decision. It was a bad decision for law enforcement and it was a bad decision for communities where that money could have been spent. So we said in 2012: 'We are not going to accept this. We will unfreeze proceeds of crime and will reinvest it in community projects all around Australia that make our streets safer.' Subsequent to that I spent a lot of time talking to communities about what their priorities might be. We spent a lot of time going around Australia talking to local members and community groups about what their priorities might be. We subsequently made a series of commitments at the election that we of course will keep. Like all of the Abbott government's commitments, we are going to make sure that they are kept. We made promises to communities, such as the communities in Swan, Lindsay and Higgins, and said that we would stand with them and fund community safety initiatives that they believe are going to be useful to combat crime within their local area.
That is the right thing to do, as opposed to what the Labor government were proposing to do with the proceeds of crime. They were going to sit on the money and use it to prop up their dodgy budget so they could pretend their budget was in better shape than it was after their years of excessive spending. If we had not come in and made the very important decisions that we made to unfreeze the proceeds, then there would have been $112 million accumulated within that fund up until the 2017-18 financial year.
The Labor Party spent outrageously in government. They went around looking for whatever pots of money they could use. They froze proceeds of crime money—money that would have been better spent within the community, money that would have been better spent on law enforcement all around Australia and money that we will reinvest in making sure that criminals all around the country find it harder to commit their foul deeds.
Madam Speaker—
I call the member for Swan.
That's impossible.
The member for Batman will resume his seat!
But you insisted in opposition that you would not take dorothy dixers.
The member for Batman will resume his seat! I call the member for Swan.
My question to the Minister for Justice will be in reference to the Safer Streets Program.
Mr Feeney interjecting—
The member for Batman will cease!
The member for Batman might think that they are dorothy dixers, but the people in my electorate of Swan will be very interested to hear the background to this question. Anytime you want to come to Swan, Member for Batman, you can. You can talk to the people of my electorate about the crime issues that we face. But, as of yet, I have not seen anyone from the Labor Party come to Swan to talk about crime issues since the election.
Mr Feeney interjecting—
You had your turn. Just sit down now and listen. I would like to give the minister a bit of background on crime in my electorate. As you would understand, being a Western Australian, there is what is called the crime corridor in the south-eastern part of Perth, which takes in my electorate, Hasluck and parts of Canning. We have had issues with serious crime such as violence on our streets. I went out with a police patrol late at night and they were telling me about a situation where they arrived at the Burswood train station to find that one of the youths there had had half his face ripped off. That was typical of the crime in some of the areas in my electorate.
We conducted some local action campaigns through the community and one of them was at the Lynwood Village Shopping Centre, where they were experiencing a lot of issues with crime in the car parks and people being threatened. With support from the City of Canning and the support of the local shopkeepers, security improvements were made through extra security guards and some CCTV camera installations. This was funded not only by the City of Canning but also by the owners of the shopping centre. Also, in an area in east Lynwood, as a crime prevention measure there were improvements to street lighting. Again, the City of Canning came to the party. We met on site with Linton Reynolds, whom you may know, and also the CEO of the City of Canning. Further to that, there were improvements in street lighting in that particular area.
I was operating a mobile office at the Carousel shopping centre and, after complaints were made at the mobile electorate office, information was given to us and forwarded to the police, who, within seven days, managed to shut down a drug house that was operating within about 500 metres of the shopping centre. In another two instances, in South Perth and St James, we have managed to have two other drug houses shut down with the assistance of police and information provided by the local community. So there is a real willingness and appetite among the local community to get involved and support reducing the crime problems that we face in Swan. We also had some instances of crime at the Carson Street school in East Victoria Park. Again, through my efforts and those of the local community, we managed to get the school to have some extra security fencing put up, which has helped address their crime prevention issues down there.
Also, we have seen security improvements to the Red Castle hotel site in Lathlain, just near the Burswood station. There were some issues with drugs, some dealers and the Red Castle hotel, which had been left destitute and in isolation and experienced a fire. With help from the Victoria Park council and support from the police, we managed to have some hotel fencing put in and patrols for that area were stepped up as well.
As you previously mentioned, you came to my electorate recently, about 2½ weeks ago, to continue the good work that has been done with the CCTV rollout, particularly in the city of Belmont and in Rivervale and Kewdale. It was great that you could come that day, meet with the PCYC and with a shopkeeper who had just experienced a robbery attempt on his shop, and announce a $100,000 commitment to the rollout of further CCTV around the Belmont Forum Shopping Centre.
Based on that information, can you explain the difference between the former government's National Crime Prevention Fund and the coalition government's Safer Streets Program? Also, is it incorrect for Labor members to be saying that funding has been cut in crime prevention?
I thank the member for Swan for that question. I was very pleased to join him in his electorate to make an announcement about the further commitments we would be making for the town of Victoria Park. I only have a limited period of time, so I will respond very quickly in answer to the member's question. In the lead-up to last election, after, as I explained to the House, the previous government had frozen proceeds of crime money and not reinvested it, as all previous governments had in crime prevention programs, at five minutes to midnight they ran around in the election campaign making commitments of that money. They had refused to spend that money whilst they had the opportunity in six years in government. They ran around making commitments prior to the last election that they were now miraculously— (Time expired)
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Finance Portfolio
Proposed expenditure $649,800,000
I have four questions, to begin with, for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. First, I refer to the government's fiscal strategy as outlined on page 3-7 of Budget Paper No. 1. Can the parliamentary secretary explain how you would quantify (a) a strong surplus, (b) sound economic growth prospects and (c) low unemployment? Can the parliamentary secretary put a number on those three criteria? Second, does the parliamentary secretary agree with the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection when he told the House on 3 June 2014:
If I go back to the PEFO—as we know, the PEFO is where the officials tell the truth about what the budget really is from the previous government. From the previous Government, that's what it does.
Third, can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the government's own budget documents, page 7 of the budget overview, confirm that funding to schools and hospitals will be $80 billion less than under previous arrangements? Parliamentary Secretary, is this not an $80 billion cut? Fourth, can the parliamentary secretary confirm to the House that this government's $80 billion cuts to hospitals and schools have led to a $16 billion cut to hospitals and schools in Queensland? If not, is the parliamentary secretary saying that the Queensland budget papers are misleading?
I might begin by talking about the Finance portfolio and the government's budget measures therein, and then I will answer the shadow minister's questions. Some of the answers are contained in this introduction. Without reining in spending now and in the future the budget would have remained in deficit for at least the next decade, and I am sure that the shadow minister would agree that that is the case. Leaving future generations to shoulder the burden of our spending decisions, as well as cope with the impact of an ageing population, is just not fair. It is not fair on current taxpayers and it is certainly not going to be fair on future generations. We need to start paying our way so that those future generations are able to enjoy the standard of living that we now take for granted.
With this budget, the government has made significant steps towards reducing the huge deficit left to us by Labor. The budget represents an overall $43.8 billion improvement in the budget bottom line at the 2013-14 MYEFO in the four years to 2017-18. It places spending on a manageable trajectory and provides a credible path back to surplus—and we all want that. With this budget, by the end of the decade Commonwealth debt is projected to be $389 billion—still a large sum but a significantly reduced amount on the $667 billion debt which we were projected to reach had we not taken any action. In this budget, we have taken important steps towards improving the efficiency of the public sector by reducing duplication. The savings realised through more efficient government operations will be redirected to repair the budget and to fund policy priorities. For example, the government will achieve savings of $43.3 million, over four years, by moving to more efficient practices for public affairs and internal communications for Australian government agencies. To investigate where else we might be able to realise further efficiencies, the government is developing and implementing a contestability framework over a three-year program of work to review whether government functions should be open to competition and the appropriate means for this to occur. This work will complement the scoping study into future ownership options for four operations announced in the budget. The government will provide $11.7 million in 2014 for scoping studies into the future of Australian Hearing, Defence Housing Australia, the Royal Australian Mint and the registry function of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
We are also getting our house in order by embarking on the progressive sale of non-defence Commonwealth properties surplus to requirements. The Commonwealth owns a number of properties which reflect historical rather than current or projected future needs. The first tranche of properties will include around 40 surplus non-defence Commonwealth properties, including vacant blocks and facilities which are no longer in use. The details of specific properties to be offered for sale will be released over time as part of a coordinated sale process. The first tranche is expected to deliver savings to the budget of $22½ million over the forward estimates. Finance has been provided with a modest amount of funding to meet the costs of engaging private sector experts to support the sale process.
In the digital age, information technology plays a pivotal central role in how agencies undertake analysis, collect information and deliver services. The budget provides a modest amount of funding for Finance to perform gateway reviews which will provide quality assurance for three significant major capital projects: for the Bureau of Meteorology's replacement of its existing supercomputer, which is used for the bureau's weather forecasts and warnings across Australia and will reach its expected end of life in mid-2016; for the Department of Social Services to develop a second-pass business case to further scope options to replace its grants management platform with a more flexible and integrated system; and for the Immigration and Border Protection portfolio to strengthen and enhance Australia's border protection services.
We inherited a mess, and the shadow minister asks about health and education spending going forward. We are certainly committed to the four years of the forward estimates and we are going to actually increase what Labor would have done for both health and education in those very important portfolio areas. We did not commit to anything further beyond that. Labor made promises they knew they would never have to keep. They made those promises for the out years, years five and six, knowing full well that we had a debt and deficit crisis. They knew full well that they would not have to deliver on those promises. They made agreements in the education sphere without Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory coming on board. We are a Commonwealth government; we make decisions based on good national priorities. When you do not have all states and territories signed up to a Commonwealth deal it just does not make sense.
In this appropriation discussion and debate, I think it is important to understand the context in which the government has made its decisions and my question does go to that. But, first, I want to remind the minister that when we came into government in 1996 we inherited a situation where we had to pay back $96 billion of Labor's debt, which we did over about a 10-year period. Not only did we do that during the previous coalition government period, but we also provided for the future by putting more than $45 billion into the Future Fund and also putting moneys into other such funds. More than $6 billion went into the Higher Education Endowment Fund, which I note was raided by the Labor Party when it came into government. That is why we need to make higher education reforms, which we are doing in the upcoming budget.
The situation we have inherited coming into government, as I understand it, is that we have significant debt, with gross debt heading up to more than $665 billion if we were to make no change in the current budget. We are paying interest bills of around $12 billion today, which is about how much we currently spend on schools—that is, the Commonwealth contribution right here, right now, to schools—and, again, if nothing were to be changed it would go up to more than $35 billion in interest alone.
We saw under the Howard government multifactor productivity on average increase by about 0.7 per year during those years. We saw under the previous Labor government that multifactor productivity actually decreased by 0.7 per year on average. In this budget, because of the decisions that have been made in the appropriations, we are able to make investments in such things as productivity enhancing infrastructure. If we were to continue on a path of debt as a result of deficit after deficit being delivered, which is what the Labor Party delivered during their six years of government, we would have to pay interest bills that would mean we would not be able to make investments in productivity enhancing infrastructure.
Could the minister enlighten the House on the investments that we are going to be making in infrastructure as a result of the fact that we have made these appropriations measures? I am particularly interested in my home state of Victoria. I know that we have made a broader announcement of more than $50 billion of investment over a seven-year period, but, in Victoria, I understand that we are going to make investments of around $7.6 billion, $3 billion of which is going into the East West Link, which will have a huge impact on productivity in my home state of Victoria. I would like the minister, if he might, to also talk about the asset recycling program, which will be able leverage up the investment that we are making with the state governments so that we can ensure that we can be on a path to prosperity and growth in our country, rather than a path of ruin and debt.
The member for Higgins fully understands and appreciates the mess that we have inherited after six years of chaos. Labor left Australia with a broken budget, a damaged economy and a serious mess to fix, and I know that this was no more better demonstrated than in the state of Victoria, where we have got transport systems and infrastructure chaos needing to be repaired, and we are getting on with the job.
When the Prime Minister was elected he said he wanted to be the infrastructure Prime Minister. I know that he also stated, quite clearly and quite categorically, that we were once again open for business. He and the trade minister have led important delegations and taken a lot of Victorian business people with them to open up preferential trade agreements with both Korea and Japan, which will mean considerable investments for Victoria into the future and getting on with the job of improving those key transport areas in Melbourne. Regional Victoria will follow, and, as the member for Higgins pointed out, it will lead to improved and bolstered productivity.
When Labor came to office, as we heard the member for Higgins say—and she would know, as she worked for Peter Costello, one of the great Treasurers of this nation—they inherited a surplus of $20 billion with no net debt and $45 billion in the bank. Between 2008-09 and 2012-13, Labor delivered deficits totalling $191 billion. Labor left additional project deficits of $123 billion over the next four years—so that is going up to 2016-17. As the member for Higgins pointed out, we are paying at the moment $12 billion of debt annually thanks to Labor's mess. That equates to $1 billion a month—you could build a lot of roads, rail infrastructure, schools or hospitals with that $1 billion each and every month that we are paying down.
The Deputy Prime Minister—the Minister for Infrastructure—has correctly pointed out that, if left unchecked, that is going to be $3 billion per month of money that we will not have to invest in Melbourne or regional Victoria. We have got to pay down that debt so that we can then get on with the job of building the important infrastructure not just for Victoria, New South Wales or the ACT—which the shadow minister proudly represents—but indeed for all of Australia. We do need to have productivity-building infrastructure. The Abbott-Truss government has reduced Labor's deficits by $43.8 billion through to 2017-18. Gross government debt is also forecast to be $389 billion in 2023-24, compared with $667 billion that Labor left us. Certainly, if we do not do something, our future generations are going to inherit a far worse mess than what we have got now.
As the member for Higgins pointed out, the trouble is that Labor spent way beyond the hidden amounts in their budgets. They left us with budget booby traps in every cupboard door that we opened in Treasury and Finance. There was $1.2 billion secretly cut from schools. There were projects funded by non-existent mining tax revenue. Labor spent money that they had never earned to the tune of $16 billion—that is $16,000 million of mining tax revenue that never realised anywhere near the amount projected. A virtually broke Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, a really important agency, was left virtually penniless by the federal government. There was no funding for offshore processing, although we heard in question time today of the numbers of projected people who were supposed to come to Australia in the first six months—we have been in government nearly nine months now—but have not come, because our policies are working. They are policies ridiculed by the other side.
The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection is getting on with the job of stopping the boats, which is also going to help pay down our debt, because we are not spending the amount of money on detention centres—nine of which we have closed—in processing people who arrive unauthorised on our shores. We fixed up depleted Reserve Bank reserves, another problem of Labor's. There are 96 non-enacted tax measures—more hidden costs left by Labor.
To hear the parliamentary secretary speak, you would think there had never been a global financial crisis. You would think that the government had not brought down a budget that increased the deficit relative to the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. In fact, what we have heard today from the parliamentary secretary is a comparison of the government's budget update with the government's budget rather than the baseline Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook with the budget itself.
I did not hear an answer from the parliamentary secretary to any of my four questions. I know the parliamentary secretary has authored a book called Wild colonial boys: bushrangers in the Riverinabut he really is a bushranger of the Riverina when it comes to answering questions in here: all shooting through and no standing to deliver.
He did not answer what a numerical forecast would be of a strong surplus, sound economic growth prospects or low unemployment. He also curiously did not attempt to differ from the minister for immigration on the notion that the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook is the baseline. I take it that he agrees with the minister for immigration. He did not disagree with the suggestion that the government has cut $80 billion from schools and education, and he certainly did not suggest that the Queensland budget papers were misleading when they reported a $16 billion cut to hospitals and schools in Queensland.
I want to ask four further questions, and see if the parliamentary secretary might this time turn his mind to answering some of them rather than presenting prepared speeches. Firstly, can the parliamentary secretary confirm that, without amendment, an error in Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-14 would lead to $972.4 million in funding to the states, territories and local governments in 2013-14 not being legally paid? When did the government find out about this error? Did Finance advise the government of the error? If so, when did it occur? Can the parliamentary secretary advise how the error came about and how a print-production error could cause the error to occur? Can the parliamentary secretary advise when amendments will be tabled to fix the error?
Secondly, can the parliamentary secretary explain why all of the savings in relation to the communications and public affairs functions targeted savings measure have been allocated to Finance in its portfolio budget statement page 20, when the measures in Budget Paper No. 2, page 113, state that the savings are from 'various agencies'? Can the parliamentary secretary advise the House of the split between portfolios of the savings amount, and can the parliamentary secretary advise the House how the savings amounts were calculated?
Thirdly, can the parliamentary secretary advise the House of how many public-office holders in the finance portfolio will be affected by the salary freeze? Can the parliamentary secretary advise who those public-office holders are? Can the parliamentary secretary advise what levels of savings are obtained from the freezing of salaries of public-office holders in the finance portfolio?
Fourthly, can the parliamentary secretary advise the House the amount of savings obtained through ceasing the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation and winding up the Australian River Co. Limited? Given the proximity of this to the member's electorate, I hope he might turn his mind to answering these four very specific questions.
I rise here to support the minister in this appropriation deliberation. I bring to everyone's attention the fact that, once again, we have inherited a Labor mess. Whether it be at a federal level or in my home state of Queensland, where the LNP inherited an $89 billion debt which was incurred by an outgoing Labor government, it is an atrocious record that we, as a coalition, inherit.
In the national debate, as in the debate we have in Queensland, you will often find the critics on the other side of the House offer no solutions as to how they would cut spending or, if they will not cut spending, what increases in tax they would burden the Australian public with. There is nothing of that magnitude; nothing of that noise. However, what we will hear is rhetoric and I rise to allay the Australian public's concerns when they hear misleading statements espoused by those from the ALP saying that there have been cuts to education when the reality is that in this budget, education spending will increase.
In Queensland, health spending will increase. Labor uses the opportunity to go into the outward years and say that is where the cuts will be. To understand their capacity to budget and forecast, you could go back and have a look at their track record in forecasting surpluses and deficits. I remind the House that the Labor government was, on average, out by $20 billion. It was not out by a million dollars; it was not out by $20 million; it was not out by $100 million. It was out by $1,000 million dollars multiplied by 20. They were continually out with their forward estimates, so it is a little bit of a long straw to be reaching out into the outward years to try to draw some soft analogy that we are cutting into health and education.
I say to the aged pensioners of Australia that there are absolutely no cuts. There will be two increases per year at the current rate of indexation and it is only after the out years, into 2017, when we will implement the lesser of the indexations.
We have to be the adults in the room. We have to come to this budget—to return to some type of normality—because, speaking as a businessman and as a representative of the people in my electorate, everyone knows what happens if you spend more money than you earn. Everyone knows what that situation looks like; everyone knows where you end up. The banks understand exactly where you end up. We should not drift too far away from those basic fundamentals that we apply in our own households and businesses, but Labor seem to distance themselves from that soft logic. We cannot sustain $1 billion of interest per month on borrowed money to service our debt. That is unsustainable. On the contrary, since we have come to office, we have put an extra 100,000 jobs on. You would hear from the other side of the House that we were the doom-and-gloom party, that everyone was going to lose their job. It is quite the contrary with 100,000 new jobs.
Labor's record of deficit and debt had us on a trajectory of no less than $667 billion dollars of debt. No-one will forget Labor's management of the fiscal economy when they wanted to introduce a mining tax—a mining tax that raised three per cent of its forecast revenue—and then went and spent the money they thought they were going to generate from it, leaving us in a terrible situation. They talk about trying to offer the Australian public some relief from the carbon tax. The instant relief in this budget would be for the ALP to go into the Senate and repeal the carbon tax.
My question to the minister is—
An honourable member interjecting—
I have 21 seconds left. Everyone has to do their little bit of heavy lifting. Can the minister explain to the House how as parliamentarians—senators and members in this place—we will play our role in doing the heavy lifting? What impact do gold pass benefits for members and senators have, if the minister could explain?
I thank the member for Wright. I also thank the shadow minister at the table for his previous questions which I will get to in this answer. The government has made clear that in order to rebuild Australia and to build a strong and resilient economy everybody has to do, as the member for Wright indicated, their share of heavy lifting. The last budget was brought down on 13 May by the Treasurer, who, quite clearly indicated that it was a 'contribute and build budget' and that everybody has to share the burden of the savings which need to be done in order to get our country back on track.
As announced in the 2014-15 budget, there will be a one-year's pay freeze on members of parliament and senior public servants. The Life Gold Pass Scheme is now closed to new senators and members entering parliament and former members who did not previously qualify for a Life Gold Pass who re-entered parliament on or after 6 March 2012. The government announced as part of the budget that, for those who have qualified, the gold pass travel entitlements will be wound back for former and current members of parliament. As part of these reforms, spouses will no longer be eligible for travel and limits will be placed on eligibility and the class and number of trips per annum.
These changes are expected to deliver savings of $5 million over five years. It might not seem much in the context of $667 billion, but if left unchecked and let go and if we just do what Labor did for six years and bring in populist budgets, the costs will add up. But every cent counts and every dollar saved counts towards paying back some of the chaotic debt and deficit that we have inherited. It is a modest but important contribution to the repair task of the budget.
We are also removing the entitled members and senators use of private employment print agencies when recruiting personal and electorate staff. Under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 parliamentarians can choose to access their printing and communications entitlement to advertise for staff through print media should they wish to do that. These changes build on the changes stated in the government's announcement on 9 November 2013 on a range of reforms to strengthen the rules governing parliamentarians' business expenses and to improve the integrity of the parliamentary entitlements framework. It is all about accountability. It is also worth noting that the base salary for senators and members as at 1 July 2013 is $195,130 per annum, so parliamentarians will also pay the debt levy that is currently in front of the Senate.
The shadow minister asked me a series of questions earlier. I can tell him that Appropriation Bill (No. 6) provides for a total of just over $972 million in funding in 2013-14 and of this nearly $319 million relates to payments to states, territories and local government. The amendments will enable these payments. Quite correctly, he pointed out that there was an amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-14, circulated earlier today. A schedule was inadvertently omitted from the bill and the government will be moving an amendment at the appropriate point in proceedings to ensure that the schedule appears in the bill as intended. It is expected that that will go before the House this Thursday. The text of the amendment has been circulated and it will be formally moved at the appropriate point in proceedings.
These things happen. Certainly the previous government inadvertently forgot to mention a whole lot of things, like the fact that they would be imposing a carbon tax, which means a $550 slug to every family. Certainly every business is paying for the carbon tax which the Prime Minister at the time, Julia Gillard, said she would never, ever impose. These things happen. They should not happen but they do.
The member for Fraser talked about the Albury-Wodonga Corporation. That came in when Gough Whitlam was the Prime Minister and there was great hoopla and fanfare that it was going to end state and federal anomalies, and certainly border anomalies that exist between New South Wales and Victoria. At the time it was a great thing. It certainly boosted regional Australia. The amount the shadow minister asked about has not been quantified.
But we are not just about building up Albury-Wodonga. We are about building up regional cities, towns and villages right throughout Australia. That is why the member for Mayo in conjunction with the Deputy Prime Minister are getting out there with an infrastructure fund looking at roads, primarily, but also inland rail and a whole host of other measures which are going to make regional Australia strong again. Regional Australia was ignored under six years of Labor, but we are getting on with the job of doing the sorts of things that are going to boost productivity in those areas which grow the food and the fibre for Australians.
The parliamentary secretary is the author of a book called Mud, Sweat and Cheers, and I feel as though we are getting today a little more mud and sweat than cheers. But I give him two cheers for answering two of the eight questions I have asked him so far. Through this process we have learnt that the government is fixing an error—a significant one, nearly a billion dollar error—made during the drafting process. We have also learnt that the government intends to cease the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation and wind up Australian River Co. Limited and yet cannot quantify the savings so gained. It is extraordinary to me that the parliamentary secretary who represents an electorate nearby Albury-Wodonga seems to regard this as an irrelevant matter. He seems to be unconcerned at the government's inability to quantify these savings.
Unfortunately, the first four questions I asked the minister remain unanswered, unaddressed, and as to two questions I asked earlier, it appears the parliamentary secretary does not know how many public office holders in the finance portfolio will be affected by the salary freeze. Extraordinarily, he is unable to advise the House of the split between portfolios of the savings amount relating to communications public affairs functions targeted savings. It is particularly unusual given an amount has been identified for defence.
Let me press on through the mud and the sweat with five additional questions. Can the parliamentary secretary advise the House whether the changes in average staffing levels to the Department of Finance between 2013-14 and 2014-15 as reported in the 2014-15 budget are attributable to machinery of government changes?
Second, can the parliamentary secretary advise the House whether the change in average staffing levels for the Australian Electoral Commission between 2013-14 and 2014-15 as reported in the budget are attributable to staff who had been hired for the 2013 federal election?
Third, can the parliamentary secretary advise the House the reasons for the change in average staffing levels for ComSuper between 2013-14 and 2014-15 as reported in the budget?
Fourth, can the parliamentary secretary advise the House of the proportion of departmental expenses for the Department of Finance that are attributable to staff? Can the parliamentary secretary explain why there is nearly $100 million decrease in departmental expenses for Finance between 2014-15 and 2015-16?
Fifth, can the parliamentary secretary advise the House whether the Department of Finance is undertaking a spill and fill of all positions where staff could potentially be deemed as excess similar to what is being undertaken in the Department of Communications?
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question: Australian taxpayers want to see their hard earned tax dollars used for public good. What is the government doing to promote a more efficient and dynamic public sector?
Australian taxpayers do need to see that taxpayers' dollars are being spent wisely and that there is for government value for money in every tax dollar spent. In this budget, we made important steps towards improving the efficiency of the public sector by reducing duplication.
I might just backtrack a little, because I was asked by the member for Higgins earlier about the Asset Recycling Fund. Indeed, it will start on 1 July 2014 as a dedicated vehicle to provide funding and financial incentives to states, territories and other bodies to invest in new productivity enhancing infrastructure, including through the Asset Recycling Initiative. It is getting on with the job of building that important state infrastructure that is so badly needed.
The member for Parkes and I were at Queanbeyan on the weekend and we saw a Queanbeyan bypass initiative announced by the Deputy Premier, Andrew Stoner, the member for Oxley, but in close conjunction with the Deputy Prime Minister and the good Nationals member there, the member for Monaro, John Barilaro. That is an example of federal-state cooperation—getting on with the job of building that infrastructure which is so sorely needed. It would not have happened under Labor, Member for Parkes, and we were there to witness first hand the delight of people in Queanbeyan to that announcement. It certainly would not have happened under the previous member, Steve Whan, but is happening under the current member, John Barilaro.
The Asset Recycling Fund will start from 1 July, with an initial size of about $5.9 billion and with contributions from uncommitted funds currently in the Building Australia Fund and around $2.4 billion in uncommitted funds currently in the Education Investment Fund, which is around $3.5 billion. As the member for Higgins alluded to earlier, that is going to see considerable investment in the states. She certainly wants to see Victoria through all of those important transport grid projects in Melbourne and, certainly, regional Victoria will benefit from the Asset Recycling Fund.
As I mentioned earlier, the government is achieving savings of $43.3 million over four years. The member for Parkes would like to know that we are also realising savings of $19.4 million over the forward estimates by abolishing and merging some small agencies to improve coordination and to increase efficiency. For example, we are merging ComSuper with Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation so that the administration of the Commonwealth superannuation schemes occurs through a single entity. We are also realising the synergies between the activities of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman and the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
To investigate where else we might be able to realise further efficiencies, the government is developing and implementing a contestability framework over a three-year program of work to review whether government functions should be open to competition, and the appropriate means for this to occur. People who pay taxes want to make sure that their taxes are being used wisely, and want to make sure that they are getting value for money. This work will complement the scoping studies into future ownership operations for four operations announced in the budget, and that goes towards making the sorts of considerable savings that we need to fix up Labor's mess.
I need to answer the shadow minister's questions and, time permitting, I certainly will. For those questions I have not got the time for, I will get back to him on notice. For example, the staffing numbers you have asked for; I will certainly get back to you and provide written advice to that effect. He talked about Mud, sweat and cheersa publication I indeed authored; and certainly, Australian taxpayers have had to endure more than their share of mud and sweat through the past six years with the previous Labor government. And they were cheering on 7 September when the coalition was returned to government. They were certainly cheering, because they knew that the sensible people were back in charge. They knew that the mature people were in charge: the member for North Sydney was in charge of Treasury; the member for Cook was in charge of immigration and border protection; the member for Wentworth was in charge of communications; and the member for Wide Bay was in charge of regional development, infrastructure, local government—all of those important things that have grassroots people of Australia making sure that their voices are being heard in Canberra, because they were not being heard over the past six years. They were not being delivered upon; like the NBN—with no cost-benefit analysis.
We have had to do some things that have not been widely accepted throughout the nation. One of them was a co-payment of $7 to visit your GP. I know the shadow minister was in favour of that, because—speaking of writing publications—he authored a publication which actually endorsed that view.
If the government were confident of its own policy on a Medicare co-payment, they would be focusing a little more on what they said last year, rather than what I said while I was at university. The fact is that every prominent health expert opposes the government's GP tax, as do I.
It has been disappointing to hear the parliamentary secretary, the author of a book called And the big boys fly, flying away from some of the key questions that I have been putting to him this evening. I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's willingness to take on notice a number of the specific questions about staffing, but I was disappointed that he was unable to reassure many of my constituents who work for the Department of Finance that the department is not presently undertaking a spill and fill of all positions. As parliamentary secretary, that is a piece of information that ought to be directly available to him. If he is unable to rule it out, then many of my constituents who work in the Department of Finance will be concerned that just such a spill and fill is taking place. Those of us in this place expect a spill and fill to take place every three years, but my constituents, hardworking public servants serving both sides of politics, should not be treated in such a way.
The parliamentary secretary was also unable to explain why there was a nearly $100 million decrease in departmental expenses for Finance, raising further concerns of a hit to Finance. The parliamentary secretary instead regaled us with tales of his visits to Queanbeyan, concerning me that he thought this was in fact consideration in retail, rather than consideration in detail. But I shall press on and put some further questions to him.
First, can the parliamentary secretary confirm that (a) the capital and earnings of the Asset Recycling Fund will be available for new projects and (b) only the earnings of the Medical Research Future Fund will be available for new projects? Can the parliamentary secretary advise what rate of return has been estimated for both the Asset Recycling Fund and the Medical Research Future Fund?
Second, can the parliamentary secretary advise the House of the amounts over the forward estimates that the Medical Research Future Fund is forecast to hold? Can the parliamentary secretary advise the House of the split between uncommitted funds in the Health and Hospitals Fund and savings from the health budget that make up the investment credits line for the Medical Research Future Fund?
Third, can the parliamentary secretary confirm that projects to be funded out of the Asset Recycling Fund have already been approved? Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the amounts in earnings in the Asset Recycling Fund are greater than the amount in projects that have already been approved?
Fourth, can the parliamentary secretary advise the House whether the government is actively considering privatisations of the following entities: Snowy Hydro Ltd, the Australian Submarine Corp., Australia Post, Moorebank Intermodal Company Ltd, COMCAR and the Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd? The potential privatisations of these entities are of great concern to Australians, who are entitled to know whether they are under active consideration by the government.
Border protection is an issue that is front and centre in the debate nationally. In asking a question on the issues of border protection, I pick up on one of the points that the previous speaker raised in an earlier line of questioning about how many Commonwealth employees and public servants would be affected by the wage freeze. I had the opportunity to read a paper recently, and one of the alarming statistics to come out of the Public Service concerned bracket creep and the number of incremental increases in the middle sector of the Public Service. I know this is not a forum to ask a question of you on this subject, but I want to ask if the member for Fraser has actually received any constituent calls, because I know he is a diligent member for the constituents of Fraser, a large percentage of whom would be public servants. In my electorate, I have a number of people earning over $180,000 and I have not received any calls from those people about having to pay the extra two per cent. I am genuinely interested to know—it is not a political slight or anything—if there is going to be perceived fiscal uncertainty as a result of the wage freeze for the Public Service. In the event that there is, I ask that the member enlighten them as to why these measures have to be taken in the manner that they are, to try and pull back some of the debt and deficit mess, to use the description of the Labor leader.
It is abundantly clear that, as a coalition, we went to the last election stating four key policies, including abolishing the carbon tax. We are in the process of doing that, but we are being hampered in the Senate and we trust that the dynamics of the Senate, as of 1 July, will move to a position where we will be able to fulfil that core commitment. Secondly, we said we would build the infrastructure of the 21st century. Evidence of that is that, in my home state of Queensland, we will be investing $13.4 billion in conjunction with state governments, who will be offered an inducement to sell assets and invest in productivity measures that provide a benefit to the state and, in turn, to the nation.
We gave a commitment to the nation that we would fix the budget. Part of tonight's proceedings is doing exactly that. We are making the tough decisions. They are not popular decisions, but we are making these tough decisions so that the next generation—and my daughter who is 18 is currently studying environmental science in Toowoomba at USQ—do not have to carry the burden of debt and deficit. If the hard decisions are not made by us today, she will inherit that legacy.
Most importantly, we said we would stop the boats, that we would address our border security. There are some enormous savings measures in this budget. This needs to be addressed. Scotty Morrison, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, has done an outstanding job. There are some fiscal benefits that will flow through with reference to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. There are some provisions that will come to light for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. Could the parliamentary secretary who is responsible enlighten us how those measures are helping the coalition provide a better future for the nation?
I thank the member for Wright for his interest in matters pertaining to immigration and border protection and his interest in all matters pertaining to good government, which is what we getting on with the job of doing. Labor's failed border protection policies resulted in more than 55,000 unauthorised boat arrivals in more than 800 boats, causing a blow-out of over $11 billion. Tragically and sadly, they resulted also in the deaths of 1,100 people, who drowned at sea. We have not had a boat arrive for nearly six months now and we have not had a drowning at sea. Each person who came under Labor's watch cost $170,000 to process. That is a huge cost when you are trying to develop infrastructure in, for argument's sake, the electorate of Bendigo, in the electorate of the shadow minister who is at the table or in regional Queensland.
The shadow minister asked me earlier about health costs. Under the coalition, hospital funding for the ACT will increase from $266 million in 2014-15 to $311 million in 2017-18. That is under the coalition government. In 2015-16 funding to the states for hospital services will increase by nine per cent, or $1.4 billion more a year. It will go up by nine per cent the following year and the following financial year. It is a similar story with education. The amount of funding will go up and up.
He talked about Finance ASLs. It is all due to the machinery of government and the deregulation to PM&C. He talked earlier about the AEC. I am going back on some of the things he raised. I can cover in my letter to him the things I am unable to answer—and I will certainly get back to him. The change to the ASL was all due to the election. I am not aware—and this is in response to his previous question—of any plans to do a spill and fill, but difficult times do call for hard decisions. Difficult times call for difficult measures. As I said before and as the member for Wright indicated, we all have to contribute our share to building a better Australia. We all have to contribute our share to help restore confidence in government. We are doing that. We would like to think that Labor will get on board as well.
Investments in the Medical Research Future Fund, which the member for Fraser raised, will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians, in accordance with an investment mandate to be issued by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, Senator Mathias Cormann. The Medical Research Future Fund, which will build up to a $20 billion pot, will go to, hopefully, finding some answers to some of the questions that have thus far eluded medical researchers. It will provide valuable research and development in finding hopeful cures for many of the illnesses which plague and beset our nation. It will provide valuable medical research into cancer, into dementia and into all sorts of dreadful ailments which affect each and every family.
The establishment of the Medical Research Future Fund will be subject to the passage of health savings legislation, and we do hope that Labor gets on board because they have been so obstructive in so many things. Even their own savings identified before the previous election have been blocked in the Senate by Labor for whatever reason. Five billion dollars worth of their own savings have been blocked by an obstructionist Labor in the Senate. It beggars belief. The HHF—the Health and Hospitals Fund—will cease operation on 31 December 2014. Committed funds from that pool at 31 December this year will be transferred to consolidated revenue, from which the remaining commitments of the Health and Hospitals Fund will be met. I have to say that that Health and Hospitals Fund did provide funding for some valuable projects in the Riverina, and I was certainly appreciative at the time. Wagga Wagga Base Hospital, a new hospital at Griffith and the multipurpose development at Hillston in the west of my electorate certainly benefited from that HHF.
The Medical Research Future Fund is the biggest international future fund of its type, and I know that this needs bipartisan support, because Labor members know of the benefit of valuable medical research. I know the health minister and certainly the Assistant Minister for Health, Senator Fiona Nash, are behind this project because it will provide valuable research into many illnesses. (Time expired)
I note that the parliamentary secretary has referred to uncommitted funds from the Health and Hospitals Fund being added to the Medical Research Future Fund. I wonder if he might advise the House whether, in the event that the government's $7 GP tax fails to pass the parliament, as appears likely, the entirety of the Medical Research Future Fund will be uncommitted HHF funds. In other words, is the government only prepared to create a Medical Research Future Fund if it can do so by taxing the sick, and is it actually true that the government is unwilling to use a single dollar of general revenue to put into the Medical Research Future Fund? If that is the case—if, indeed, the government's only commitment to medical research depends on taxing the sick—many Australians, I think, will doubt the true commitment of this government to a medical research future fund.
I note that the parliamentary secretary failed to respond to my question as to whether the government is considering privatisations of Snowy Hydro, the Submarine Corporation, Moorebank Intermodal, Australian Rail Track Corporation, COMCAR or Australia Post. I am sure that my constituents—like me—look forward to an answer for that question.
The member for Wright asked me a question. I have to say that if I had to choose two members of the government with whom to have a beer, the member for Wright and the member for Riverina would be high on my list. I have a great individual regard to each of them, albeit that I disagree with much of what they are defending in this budget. The member for Wright asks me whether I have had representations from members of my electorate concerned about the salary freeze. The simple answer is, member for Wright, we do not know enough from the government—
Order! The question is the Appropriations Bill consideration in detail. It is a function of the executive. Remain relevant to the question, please.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Speaking directly to that expenditure item, my concern is the lack of information forthcoming from the government about the number of public office holders affected by the salary freeze. The parliamentary secretary has failed to demur from the minister for immigration's suggestion that PEFO is when officials tell the truth and that the government's budget should be measured not against its last budget update but against the state of the books when it took office. The parliamentary secretary's failure to differ from the minister for immigration on that suggests that he truly believes that the baseline is the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, and it must therefore follow that this is a government which has made the deficit worse, not better. For all the government's talk of 'debt and deficit disasters', this is really a government which does a great line in alliteration but a terrible line in deficit reduction, and it has in fact increased the deficit, not decreased it.
The income tax levy is just one example of that. Nearly half the revenue in the first year will be lost to a fringe benefits tax loophole. I ask the parliamentary secretary whether the government agrees with recent reports that around half the revenue from the income tax levy will be lost as high-income earners shift income into fringe benefits in order to avoid this tax.
My question goes to the parliamentary secretary regarding Budget Paper No. 2, page 233, on smaller government, surplus Commonwealth properties and divestiture of some non-defence surplus Commonwealth properties. In my electorate of Wright I am privileged to have the defence training facilities of the Canungra warfare training centre. I am often fortunate to meet ranking officers in the Australian military who at some stage of their illustrious career would have trained at that training centre. When I tell them I am from Beaudesert, they greet me with warmth, because they were hard days when officers were trained in intelligence and warfare in areas that are not that dissimilar to jungle-like warfare. To the northern end of my electorate I border up to Amberley air base and, just to the north-east, I have the Greenbank Army base facility, so I am surrounded by enormous assets in the defence portfolio area. I compliment Defence on the program they have had for divesting themselves of buildings that have asbestos in them to make the area safer for those who occupy the rooms.
I also take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank the minister for the return of the gap-year program, which was a program that was abandoned by the previous government. It was a program that the Defence Force used to offer to year 12 students for 12 months after school where they could do a try-before-you-buy 12 months, touching every part of the Defence Force, to see if a career in the military was for them. Thank you, minister, for returning such a valuable gap-year program.
In addition to that, could you touch on something in the public arena around the Lodge refurbishment. This is in Budget Paper No. 2, also on page 233. There is additional funding going to that. I acknowledge the humbleness of our Prime Minister and the dwellings that he takes up at the moment. It shows the character of the man and shows that what he advocates from a fiscal perspective he actually practices. I am sure he would be complimented by those opposite as well.
I thank the member for Wright for his strong advocacy for the military and certainly for veterans. Investment in defence fell to 1.56 per cent of gross domestic product in 2012-13—the lowest level of defence funding since 1938. We all know what happened in 1939. The 10½ per cent cut in the 2012-13 budget was the biggest since the Korean conflict. I do not think any Labor members could ever come in here and criticise our investment in defence, our commitment to defence, and certainly what we have done in the space of the DFRDB and DFRB indexation for our returned service men and women has certainly been warmly welcomed by those people.
I was asked about the Lodge. The Lodge has national symbolic status and is listed on the Commonwealth Heritage List. Essential work is required at the Lodge to prevent further deterioration of the building fabric and to undertake repairs to wiring and plumbing at the property. The property condition reports identified essential works were required to restore the property's condition to a compliant level to meet Building Code of Australia and work, health and safety obligations. That work is going on. We need to restore the Lodge to its former glory, to its original glory. As the work has progressed, Finance has had the opportunity to identify additional beneficial works which could be undertaken while the property remains vacant. As you say, the current occupier of the position of Prime Minister lives in very humble digs here in Canberra whilst the Lodge refurbishments are taking place. Those refurbishments include works on balcony balustrades to achieve building compliance, and internal and external painting.
Opposition members interjecting—
None of the members over the other side calling out will probably ever occupy the Lodge, with any luck. We know that the member for Fraser has designs on the member for Maribyrnong's position at the moment. He could well do a better job but, unlike the member for Grayndler, he may well need the votes of both caucus and the people. He talked about some of the privatisation scuttlebutt that has been going around about Snowy Hydro and Australia Post. That is not on the drawing board at the moment. It has not been flagged by government. It is just media speculation. He also talked about the budget crisis being unreal. Parliament's independent budget adviser rejected claims by Labor and the Greens, and who would ever believe the Greens? The very worst Labor member, I have to say, is better than the best Greens member.
An opposition member interjecting—
I am not saying the member for Fraser is the worst Labor member by any stretch of the imagination but, certainly, claims that there has been some sort of concocted budget crisis are unfounded. Remarks that effectively endorse government's warnings that, if left unchecked, gross debt would balloon to $667 billion are from no less than the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Phil Bowen, who said it was time to begin the return to surplus to protect the economy against future crises. Of course he is accurate. He told the Australian Financial Review:
It is time to start coming out [of debt and deficit], otherwise the longer you leave it the more exposed you become and the harder it is to wind it back.
It is good advice. Labor members need to get on board with the program that we have got in place, the infrastructure spend that we are doing, the commitment to our veterans and our defence and certainly the spending that we are going to be doing in health and education to get over the next four years, the forward estimates, and get this country back on track.
We need to make sure that this country's credibility is restored. We have to be competitive. We have to give our taxpayers value for their tax dollars. That applies whether you are in Pitt Street or Swanston Street or in regional Australia. I know that the people I represent, the people that the member for Wright and the member for Hughes represent and the people that you, Deputy Speaker Hawke, represent as the member for Mitchell want better value for money. They did not get it in six years of Labor, six years of racking up debt and deficit. But Tony Abbott, Warren Truss and the team are getting on with the job of restoring confidence and restoring respectability and accountability to government.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 1, Committee and delegation reports, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
This is the sixth Major Projects Report, or MPR, to be produced by the Defence Materiel Organisation and the Australian National Audit Office. Indeed, it is the third in which I have taken part. This report is a valuable contribution to parliament satisfying itself on the use of public money in the Defence arena and a means of ensuring it is well spent.
It is important to recognise that we do not undertake the process in the spirit of a trial or interrogation. Having been involved in three of these reports, I have been struck by the fact that this is an evolving process, which builds incrementally as we expand understanding of the complex financial budgetary and organisational issues involved. There is very much a spirit of cooperation and good faith in the discussions we have in the public hearings. This report, in particular, has I believe reached new heights in the interchange between the committee, the DMO and the ANAO. In my view it has contributed to a greater mutual understanding of what needs to be done to improve what the report describes as a 'line of sight' between the MPR and other important documents such as portfolio budget statements and budget papers, and also consistency of project names and groupings.
The information contained in these documents should, to the extent possible, be comparable. When put together it should provide an understanding of the issues. In our report we raise a number of issues and questions. The responses to these will be the basis, I hope, for further improvements in transparency and information.
There is one area I would like to highlight tonight—and that is sustainment. I know I have an unusual fascination with sustainment, but given the fact that our sustainment spend in 2012-13 exceeded the acquisition spend in the Defence arena—the sustainment spend is about $5 billion and the acquisition spend is about $3.9 billion—I think my unusual fascination is warranted. The report notes that sustainment is currently outside the scope of the MPR. It goes on to make the case for improving financial reporting on sustainment expenditure which, as I said, amounts to $5 billion in 2012-13. The report also points out that full sight of sustainment activity is necessary to view a major project in its complete context.
It is, of course, crucial that public reporting on sustainment does not create risks by exposing operational information that would damage capability. I have been acutely aware of that. It is an issue that has been highlighted by the Defence representatives who have appeared before the committee. In seeking greater transparency, greater accountability and further information in the sustainment area I am not in any way wanting to give away government secrets or in any way compromise operational security.
In particular there is no quarrel with the department's express view in its executive minutes in response to the 2011-12 report that providing performance details of DMO sustainment activities consistent with the MPR would be potentially highly sensitive and of a classified nature. I understand the sensitivities around this. That said, the report also notes that DMO's provision of more information on sustainment in the PBS 2013-14 would be greatly appreciated. We would like more information than what has been provided to date.
As a case study—examined at length in the committee's report—makes clear, there can be uncertainty as to the distinction between capability acquisition and capability sustainment. This was particularly frustrating for a number of members of the committee in terms of trying to get that line of sight—that visibility—about where a project began and where it ended. There were a number of projects in the MPR that were well past the acquisition phase and would not necessarily be classified as project. One would have assumed that they would be classified as being in the sustainment phase but here they are in the MPR.
As I said before, it is still very difficult to get a whole-of-life perspective on a financial and budgetary performance of a major project. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that reporting on financial performance is not the same as reporting on operational performance. This is clearly an area that will benefit from further analysis and discussion.
Before I conclude, I would like to quote some elements of the report. I go back to the notion of sustainment and trying to improve visibility. As the report says:
However, the fact remains that there is little visibility surrounding $5 billion of public money spent on sustainment in 2012-13. Further, when a Major Project's acquisition budget is combined with the sustainment budget, only then does the scale of the overall, long-term financial commitment become apparent. The MPR and the budget papers do not presently disclose this information.
The report makes clear that we wish to continue those exchanges and examinations, and I do believe that there is a real will to enhance the transparency and accountability in this area. I note as the committee did that in future a separate inquiry into sustainment expenditure reporting may be necessary. Again I quote from the report—here recommendation 4:
The Committee recommends that the Defence Materiel Organisation prepares a suitable and separate methodology for reporting sustainment activity and expenditure, and that this methodology be reported to the Committee within six months of the tabling of this report.
I very much look forward to seeing that methodology in the next six months. As I said, it would greatly enhance the transparency and visibility of these projects to the parliament throughout their lives. I look forward to participating in these further discussions, particularly on how we can get greater transparency on sustainment.
I thank the Defence Materiel Organisation and the ANAO for their involvement in this and for their candour in discussions on the issues. I also thank my fellow committee members. There is an enduring interest in the major projects across the committee, and DMO and ANAO in particular have been helpful in enlightening us in many areas. I thank them.
Debate adjourned.
I rise in the chamber tonight to discuss the recent interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on its inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election Senate voting practices. As Acting Deputy Speaker Hawke would know, this has been an issue of some public comment, particularly since the last federal election, given some of the results that occurred at that election and particularly given the rise in success of not only minor parties but also microparties. When I say microparties, I think it needs to be understood I am talking about the fact that we had one party where a representative was elected to the Senate who had only achieved a primary vote of some 0.51 per cent. That was the Motor Enthusiasts Party in Victoria, and it very nearly happened in WA—by only a handful of votes—with regard to the Sports Party.
This has been an issue which has been coming up for some time because of the nature of the operation of the Senate voting system, the way people have become more aware of it in the political system and the nature of how some have sought to utilise that system to achieve outcomes. I stress that those who seek to do so are doing this quite legally; there is no question about that. However, there is a question regarding the results that it achieves and whether or not that in fact represents a reasonable reflection of the will of the voters.
I thought what I might do tonight is address several of the points around those issues given some of the public debate that has occurred in the lead-up to and since the report was released. The point here is that the recommendations of the report have often been categorised as being about the big parties ganging up on the little parties. The appeal has been very much to the Australian sense of egalitarianism and that what we should be ensuring is that we have a democratic system that allows a thousand flowers to bloom but does not actually allow the big parties to gang up. However, the real question with an electoral system is about achieving a democratic result. When I say democratic, the issue is whether it reflects the will of the voters. There are times when, I have to be honest, I am not really impressed with the will of the voters with respect to what they do. In my electorate I think they have done pretty well over the last eight terms, although others may disagree.
What I would say is that when you go to the issue of our democratic will and to the issue of the operation of the Senate system there are some key questions. One of the arguments that is put by some people is that, because in recent Senate elections in excess of 20 per cent of voters have voted for non-major parties, that suggests that there is a clear democratic will that one—or almost two—senators ought to be part of that non-major party component. But that makes some assumptions, and the assumptions need to be challenged. The argument seems to be that anyone who does not vote for a major party supports all minor parties, or that someone who chooses to vote for the Sex Party, for example, in fact is quite happy for their vote to be included if necessary in a quota that might elect someone from the Christian Democrats. In this assumption, you have a situation where someone who might support a party such as the Motoring Enthusiast Party then has concerns around the environment. I think that has to be challenged.
There has been work done in looking at below-the-line voting and the nature of the preferences displayed by those who choose to vote below the line for non-major parties, and there is a very clear correlation in that area with respect to the politics of the individuals. It is very much a matter where parties of a more progressive nature will tend to preference to each other at the minor level and parties of a more conservative nature will tend to coalesce in that direction. They will also tend to end up on the major parties that they think best reflect their philosophical views.
The fact is that all parties have at various times utilised the Senate voting system and the group voting tickets, which allow parties to nominate preferences in a manner that suits the particular political arrangements that they enter into. Around election time, major parties involve themselves in preference deals; so do minor parties. Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose. I have done one or two in my time and I have to say it is a great way to bring you to tears. What I would say is that there is a real argument that, to some extent anyway, it conflicts with the democratic will of the voters. Yes, some say that as a voter you can always check what the ticket says and then make your own decision about what you do with a group voting ticket. However, the fact of the matter is that, overwhelmingly, people do not avail themselves of that opportunity. Most of them are not aware of it and, frankly, that in itself is, I think, not sufficient to suggest that you are giving people a genuine opportunity to reflect their democratic will in their preferences.
The committee was really confounded by that issue. It was also confounded by the fact that what we have seen happening in recent elections is a massive explosion in parties registering and seeking to contest Senate elections in particular. To give a couple of figures from the report, regarding groups that were registered for Senate elections, in 2010 there were some 32 groups registered in New South Wales; in 2013 it was 44. Tasmania exploded from 10 to 23 and the ACT from four to 13—although I cannot quite work out why that happened. The thing is that what we see, what we have seen and what was clear from the evidence presented to the committee is that a range of players, if you like, are seeking to utilise the capacity to register parties and register group voting tickets and, in that way, engage in preference negotiations to achieve results. Again, it is completely legal, but there is a real question mark as to whether it is actually delivering democratic results.
I wish the new senator from the Motoring Enthusiast Party all the very best. It is a very tough job to be in this place and to be an independent or even part of a small group of minor party members. There is a lot to consider and a lot to do. The pressure will be on him. I have no idea whether he will turn out to be a good, bad or indifferent senator; that also is often in the eye of the beholder. What I would say is that I think there is absolutely no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people who effectively ended up voting for him had absolutely no idea that that is where they would end up delivering their democratic support. That in itself is a real question.
The reforms that have been recommended by the committee provide for a situation where, I believe, the results that will occur through the conduct of elections will demonstrate a more democratic outcome with respect to the will of the voters. There is a danger that there will be significant levels of exhaustion on the basis of the optional preferential option. I do not think that is a good thing, but in the context of Senate ballots and the questions around the circumstance of groups of candidates supported by particular parties, and the nature of the proportional representation system, there really is no alternative to that. I think that if the choice is between having the democratic will hijacked by group voting tickets, as has occurred in recent times, and the issue of a degree of exhaustion, I think that the latter is preferable. I think it is preferable from a democratic point of view because it the result will better reflect the will of the Australian people as exhibited at an election.
These recommendations are also serious about addressing some of the issues around registration of parties. There is no doubt that the federal registration requirements are remiss by comparison to state jurisdictions. Frankly, it is harder to register and to stay registered in some states than it is to be registered federally. Therefore, there is a need to increase the requirements with respect to processes and the requirements with respect to membership numbers, in order to ensure the bona fides of parties.
I think it is a good thing in our system that we can have parties spring up and achieve electoral success, and it does happen. It has happened in the past. It even happened in the last election with the Palmer United Party, and has done in recent times with parties like the Greens and the Democrats. It will not always be something I agree with myself from a political point of view, but I think it is a good thing. However, I do not think it is a good thing to have a situation where you can put out a shingle, put in a few names, and end up in a situation where you can get on a ballot paper with a range of other similar parties—or similarly structured parties—and game the system.
This report is designed to put forward some concrete recommendations which will deal with that in the context of our Senate elections into the future. The last major revision of Senate rules occurred in 1984. I think this is a good step forward, and I urge the government to embrace the recommendations that are part of it.
I will briefly speak on the interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The right to vote is very important in any country, and we have to remember how sacred that right to vote is. We need to ensure the system we have gives the opportunity for individual citizens to have their democratic views fully respected.
I have some concerns about the current compulsory preferential system. I know that throughout the country there are many people who simply do not understand the compulsory preferential system, where they have to number every square. This is especially true in states such as New South Wales, where we have an optional system for preferential voting for the state elections but a compulsory system for the federal election. Many people in our country went to the 2013 election thinking that they were voting for a candidate by writing the number 1—whether it was for the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens or one of the other minor parties—and thinking that they were voting for that party. Their intention was clear, but because we have a compulsory system, and because they did not number every square, their vote was deemed informal. If someone puts a '1' in the square, it is very clear as to what their intention is, but the voter, because of that honest mistake, is disenfranchised.
I believe that, going forward, federally we need to look at adopting an optional preferential system of voting to make sure that those people are not disenfranchised, and to make sure that where they clearly intend to give their vote to one party or to one candidate, that that vote is respected. Of course, if they then wish to go ahead and distribute their preferences, they can do so, and their vote will also be counted the way it should be. I believe this would improve our democratic system. It would more accurately reflect the will of the people—the will of the voters—and, ultimately, that is what our electoral system should do.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 5, committee and delegation business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
Question agreed to.
In a curious speech last year, the Prime Minister's No. 1 business adviser, Maurice Newman said:
… Australian wage rates are very high by international standards and our system is dogged by rigidities.
In a carefully crafted takedown, the noted economist Stephen Koukoulas observed that Mr Newman had kicked an own goal. He cited a number of nations with lower minimum wage rates than Australia but in each case the country he cited had a higher unemployment rate. The example was most extreme in the case of Canada—which Mr Newman curiously referred to as our closest competitor—which, in the 38 years since 1975, has never had an unemployment rate below 5.9 per cent, compared to Australia, where the unemployment had at the time not been above 5.9 per cent since 2003. So much for low wages helping labour market efficiency and driving unemployment lower.
The facts fly in the face of the Prime Minister's No. 1 business adviser, in much the same pattern as we are seeing for government advisers on climate change. Like Maurice Newman, Dick Warburton is a climate change sceptic, and yet Australia is now seeing temperature records being broken across the board—the year of the highest temperatures on record, the summer of the highest temperatures on record and record hot spells dispelling the climate change deniers like Maurice Newman and Dick Warburton.
Today, a speech by Christopher Kent, of the Reserve Bank of Australia, went further and dispelled the views of Mr Newman on wages. In a speech titled 'Cyclical and Structural Changes in the Labour Market', Christopher Kent noted a number of points about the labour market. He noted, in particular, that the NAB business survey showed that wage growth has slowed over the past year. Wage outcomes of more than four per cent have become far less common than was the case a few years ago, and outcomes of two to three per cent are more common than outcomes of three to four per cent. He went on to note:
The slowing in wage growth across all industries has meant that firms have experienced relatively slow growth in their labour costs. This is more striking after accounting for the growth in the productivity of labour, which as I've already noted has picked up somewhat compared with the pace we had become accustomed to over much of the 2000s. Over the past year and a half, the growth in nominal wages has been matched by growth in labour productivity. As a result, there has been no increase in the cost of labour required to produce a unit of output.
In turn, slower growth in labour costs is having a beneficial effect on international competitiveness.
So the data gives the lie to the Prime Minister's No. 1 business adviser, who would have you believe that there is a wages break-out in Australia. The problem with the rhetoric about a wages break-out is that it distracts Australia from more pressing economic challenges. As Reserve Bank officials have noted many times when they have appeared before the House of Representatives Economics Committee, Australia does not have a deficit problem by comparison with other nations around the world. With debt levels peaking around a tenth of national income, Australia is extremely well placed compared to the typical developed country, whose debt is often nearly as large as, and in some cases larger than, their national income. Why does Australia have debt? We have it because we chose to step in and to support 200,000 jobs and tens of thousands of small businesses.
Opposition members interjecting—
When those opposite interject and suggest that they would have had Australia take on no debt, effectively they are taking the position of the man who chooses when the floodwaters rise not to put a lifeboat on the credit card. They would have chosen loss of jobs and a recession ahead of taking on modest debt. What Australia bought for the modest debt that we took on during the global financial crisis was hundreds of thousands of lives not blighted by unemployment and small businesses that were able to survive. The best small business policy ever pursued by a government over the course of the last generation was fiscal stimulus in the teeth of the worst downturn since the global recession. When those opposite seek to airbrush out the global financial crisis from Australia's history they are doing a disservice to the bipartisan fiscal stimulus policy supported in its first tranche by the coalition but then backed off from by those who would have you believe that it is better to drown in floodwaters than to put a lifeboat on the credit card. Like the rhetoric on a 'wages break-out', the rhetoric on deficits is belied by the facts.
To the extent that anyone is concerned about deficit levels in Australia they should be concerned about a government that has increased the deficit compared to the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The yardstick when a government takes office—as Peter Costello taught us through the Charter of Budget Honesty, and as Scott Morrison, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, admitted in question time—is the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. As the minister for immigration put it, that is when officials tell the truth. Compared with that benchmark, the deficit is higher this year, it is higher next year and it is higher under the forward estimates. So those opposite can bleat all they like about deficits. They have increased deficits not decreased them.
Government members interjecting—
Those opposite may laugh but these are simple numbers. You can laugh in the face of the budget papers all you like, but the only way those opposite are able to show that they have decreased deficits is if they compare Joe with Joe: if they compare the outcome in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook brought down by Joe Hockey with the outcome in the budget brought down by Joe Hockey. If we do the right thing, the fair thing, the only decent thing, the Charter of Budget Honesty thing, and compare this budget with the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, we see that it has a bigger deficit not a smaller one.
Globally, Australia does not have a debt and deficit problem, but this government is making the problem worse with its deal with the Greens for unlimited debt and with its increase in the deficit. Australia has serious economic challenges to focus on, but those challenges are being distracted from by a government more interested in trash talking the economy than talking it up. We have seen a collapse in consumer confidence, we have seen declining retail sales and we are seeing a fall in house prices. These things are being driven by a government that is fundamentally wanting to remain in opposition mode. We have a Treasurer who is a shadow Treasurer in drag: he is more interested in talking about the problems of the Australian economy than speaking about the great bipartisan success of two decades of uninterrupted economic growth. As Stephen Koukoulas has pointed out and as Matt Cowgill has articulately pointed out on many occasions, the data give the lie to Mr Hockey's attack on the Australian economy. But his attack on the Australian economy has real consequences. It is not just coalition voters who spend; it is Labor voters too and their consumer confidence is going through the floor.
Australia's biggest challenges are around innovation, around increasing literacy and numeracy scores and around inequality, which has risen through a generation—a generation in which battlers have done worse than billionaires, in which earnings have risen three times as fast for the top 10 per cent as for the bottom 10 per cent, in which the top one per cent income share has doubled and the 0.1 per cent income share has tripled, and in which the richest three Australians have more wealth than the poorest one million Australians. But this budget is a redistributive one—a budget, as John Falzon told a rally for International Cleaners Day in Federation Mall at Parliament House, that takes away from the most vulnerable to give to the most affluent.
They have taken away from the most vulnerable to give to the most affluent. As independent NATSEM research has shown, having taken one-tenth of their income away from the poorest single parents to give to the most affluent Australians, those opposite have the gall to call it class warfare when low-income Australians complain. They do not think it is class warfare when they take money out of the pockets of the poorest single parents in order to give $50,000 to millionaires for a parental leave scheme. They do not think it is class warfare when they cut the pension in order to raise the non-concessional superannuation cap from $150,000 to $180,000. No—they only think it is class warfare when the most vulnerable Australians object to having money taken out of their pockets after a generation of rising inequality. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Standing Committee on Economics' review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report of 2013. I must admit I am a little confused about what issues in that report the shadow Assistant Treasurer and member for Fraser was actually talking about, but I do know that he is the author of some very informative books where he makes some very wise and insightful comments. But I am afraid, after some of the points he raised there, that his next book will be more likely to be a children's fiction novel than anything of economic significance.
I will address a couple of the points that the member for Fraser raised. He talked about unemployment. Let us be clear: the record of the previous Labor government saw the unemployment queues of this nation increase by 200,000 people. We can fill the MCG twice with the extra number of people who became unemployed under the policies of the previous Labor government. So the member for Fraser is in no position to stand up here and lecture us about unemployment. Already this year we have seen an extra 100,000 jobs and the majority of those are full-time jobs, as the member for Herbert correctly points out.
The member for Fraser also went on about small business—about the wonderful work that the previous Labor government did for small business. Let me remind the member for Fraser of the number of jobs lost. Does the member for Fraser know the number of jobs lost in the small business sector over the previous six years, when he was a member of the Labor government? It was 513,000. Over half a million jobs in small business were lost during the six years of the previous regime.
A government member interjecting—
That is right. There were six separate ministers—a revolving door of small business ministers—and the member for Fraser comes in here and tells us about the wonderful things the previous Labor government did for small business. Dear, oh dear, oh dear, Deputy Speaker. Then he talks about consumer confidence. Well, if you want to damage consumer confidence, you run around the nation engaging in misleading scare campaigns. That is exactly what we hear from the opposition since the budget was handed down: we hear them running out scaremongering, scaring pensioners and students. What they should be out doing is telling the truth.
Firstly, the truth when it comes to health care: there are no cuts; there is a nine per cent increase this year, a nine per cent increase next year and a nine per cent increase the year after that. In education, it is eight per cent this year, eight per cent next year and eight per cent the year after. But what upsets me most about the damage they are doing to consumer confidence is the way they are scaring young students, telling them these outrageous stories about how this coalition government is supposedly ruining their future. Let us get some facts right: in this country the coalition plan is to give the opportunity to give 80,000 more young Australians to get into higher education and learning. And you know what? They will be able to do so without spending one cent up-front. We know, also, that if you leave year 12 and go on to get a university education, throughout your life you will earn on average 75 per cent more than your peer who leaves school at year 12. Over a lifetime that is an additional million dollars.
That is the value of education. That is the message we should be out there telling our kids and our young people: get that education, because it will allow you to earn a much greater living in the future and to make a greater contribution to our nation. Yes, you will have a HECS debt, but the taxpayer will pick up at least 50 per cent of the cost of your education. You will only have to pay 50 per cent, and that is one of the best deals those young people could ever get. That is the message we should be out there telling the young of Australia, not the scare campaigns that we are hearing from the opposition.
Getting back to the report of the Reserve Bank, what this report actually shows is the dangerous denialism we are hearing about the debt and deficit crisis that we have in our nation. We all know that back in 2007 we had no net debt—zero. We actually had money in the bank. Then of course the Labor government was elected and we heard that we would have a temporary deficit. Well, we had six years of so-called 'temporary' deficits, the six largest deficits in our nation's history. The debt that this nation now has outstanding at the end of June, as per the budget papers, is expected to be $358 billion.
What is the cost of that? The cost is the interest payments to service the debt. We must pay this back sometime in the future, but until we do that we have that interest cost, the cost of the debt. At the moment, that cost is $12 billion every year—a billion dollars every month, $33 million every single day. That is the cost. That has an opportunity cost. Instead of spending on the services that we need—the infrastructure, the aged care, the hospitals, our kids with disabilities, more money on education—we have to put that money aside and we have to use it to pay the interest bill on the debt that the previous Labor government ran up. And we have to do that forever until we start paying that debt back. We know that if nothing is done and we continue in the direction we are going, that debt will not be $300 billion. We are heading in a decade's time to a net debt of $666 billion. If we ever hit that day, the interest payments would not be $12 billion a year; they would be close to $36 billion.
But we must remember one thing about the cost of this debt and how we are stuck with it forever and how we are lumbering this onto our children and our grandchildren who will have to pay it: what will the bond rate be in 10 or 20 years time? At what interest rate will this nation be able to go out there and sell government bonds in 10 or 20 years time? At the moment, that billion dollars we are paying every month is done on the current 10-year bond rate at around 3.7 per cent. So I do not care how far-sighted or how clever anyone is. No-one knows what rate we will have to sell those bonds again in 10 or 20 years time if we do not start paying that debt off.
We do know how inaccurate the long-term economic forecasts have been. If we look to the past, most of the long-term economic forecasts that have been made are simply wrong. So again I ask: what will the interest rate be in 10 and 20 years time? If we go back through history, that can give us an idea of where it could possibly be in the future. The long-term average of the bond rates between 1969 and this year is 7.78 per cent. We are now half the long-term average. In fact the highest bond rates we had were back in May in 1982 when we were selling government bonds for 16.4 per cent—16.4 per cent versus 3.7 per cent. One of the biggest risks we have in this nation going forward is what happens if there is a spike in global interest rates and those bond rates creep up to where they were for the long-term average of the last 40 or 50 years? If they do, we will not be facing interest repayments of $30 billion. We as a nation could be facing interest repayments of up to $60 billion.
Just imagine if future governments had to find another $30 billion on top of the present debt. That is the risk we are putting on our kids. This is why we need to take this action, to get our debt under control, to reduce it. I do not want my grandchildren or great-grandchildren to have around their heads the burden of needing to pay this huge amount of debt and interest or the risk that it could blow out and double because of the increases in the long-term bond rate. That is one of the risks that this— (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
I rise today to speak on the government's attack on our health-care system. I listened with some interest to the previous speaker, who was speaking on another matter, who wants to claim really clearly that somehow or other he can keep deluding himself that there are no cuts to health.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Perhaps I might ask for your intervention, Deputy Speaker, given we sat here in silence during his frankly appalling contribution.
Order!
In just 14 days time, the Abbott government's $80 billion cuts to health and education start. The member should inform himself of just what has happened, in terms of the national partnership agreements in health that formed the basis of the health and hospital reform agreements, and talk to his state counterparts for the adjustments that they are having to make—significant adjustments to all of the public hospital budgets, right the way across the country because of the cuts had been made to health.
These are cuts that do not start in 2017 as the Prime Minister claimed. They are cuts that do not start next year. These cuts start on 1 July this year. That is $55 billion that has been ripped from Australian hospitals, beginning in just 14 days time. Cutting funding from health and public hospitals means more pressure on our emergency departments. It means longer waiting times for elective surgery. It means that Australians will find it even more difficult to access the health care they need.
It is clear from this budget that the Prime Minister and his health minister are trying to shift responsibility for health out of the Commonwealth and back onto the states and territories, and onto individual taxpayers. We had reports today that elective surgery times in South Australia could blow out due to the Abbott government's cuts and we have heard that these cuts will contribute to bed closures in some states. New South Wales Premier Mike Baird said, on 19 May—I note he hands this budget down tomorrow—the impact starts on 1 July. The equivalent here in New South Wales is that over 300 hospital beds in funding disappears.
Not content with these cruel cuts to hospitals, the Abbott government is slugging patients and families with a $7 GP tax every single time they visit the doctor. The only thing this tax will do is restrict access to doctors and drive up healthcare costs for every Australian. This is explicitly what it is designed to do. I look forward to seeing those members opposite out every today, campaigning, talking to the same people I have been talking to—in nursing homes, and GP-surgery waiting rooms—about why they think this is such a great idea.
We know from Senate estimates the government has done absolutely no modelling at all on the impact a $7 GP tax will have on chronically-ill patients, GPs and emergency departments in public hospitals. There has been no modelling at all done on the impact this tax will have on rural and regional Australians.
We know that experts, from the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners to the Consumers Health Forum, all say that this is very bad health policy. Professor Brian Owler, the new president of the AMA, has said of the GP tax:
In terms of the … effect on emergency departments, we all have fears that patients, instead of seeing their general practitioners, but also accessing pathology and diagnostic imaging services, will default to our public hospital system.
Now, our public hospital system is also taking a cut under this Budget, and it's going to be ill-equipped to be able to deal with any increase in demand that might be provided by the GP diagnostic imaging and pathology …
This is absolutely dud healthcare policy. It is bad health policy and it is policy that hits middle- and low-income earners and some of the most vulnerable Australians the most.
Australia's out-of-pocket costs for health are already high, compared with other OECD countries. So why would you want to impose further pressure on Australians who already pay high out-of-pocket costs? Why would you want to put a barrier in the way of what is the most efficient part of the healthcare system—that is, primary care—the part of the system where you want people to go to access preventative health, to manage their chronic disease conditions so that they can stay out of hospital? That is the most efficient part and the most efficient use of health services.
Why are we seeing the government pursue this policy? Because the Prime Minister and the health minister appear absolutely determined to pick apart, piece by piece, our Medicare system that we have had in this country for 30 years, creating a two-tiered health system that will end up costing all Australians and families far more. The tax will make it much harder for Australian families to see their GP. It also increases pressure on family budgets. It will also put additional stress on hospital emergency wards and our public hospital system. It will spell the end of bulk-billing as we know it today and will have a devastating effect on millions of Australians.
Those opposite want us to believe that, somehow, they are the best friend of Medicare. But no number of weasel words can hide the fact that the Minister for Health and the Prime Minister are ripping billions of dollars out of our health system and attempting to fundamentally restructure it. They are no friend of Medicare.
The health minister's narrative that health costs in Australia are spiralling out of control and are unsustainable is absolutely and entirely false. During our period in government we were able to ensure that there were 11,000 more doctors, 26,000 more nurses, and more doctors in rural and regional areas. We saw record bulk-billing rates—up to 82 per cent—better access and more access to general practitioners, particularly in those communities where previously access had been limited. The sum of $20 billion was invested in our public hospital systems. The government likes to say that somehow this was a blow-out in hospital funding. No, it was not. It was a deliberate decision of a Labor government to invest in public hospitals, to actually increase the Commonwealth's share in our public hospital system, because we knew that the share had been declining under the Liberal Party. And now we are about to see that share of Commonwealth contribution for our public hospital system hit an even lower point. The world's toughest anti-tobacco laws were introduced by our government and new medicines were made cheaper through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Back in 1984—
A government member interjecting—
You keep repeating yourself; that is just great. I can hear the member saying, again, 'No-one has any problems with co-payments.' Well, you go out there and tell your community why you are backing this GP tax. I look forward to it.
In 1984, when Bob Hawke was Prime Minister, he warned that without a universal healthcare system more than two million Australians were at risk of bankruptcy in the event of a serious healthcare illness. With the introduction of Medicare we ensured that universal health care was accessible for all. Today, some 8.5 million Australians, under the age of 30, have grown up with no other system but Medicare. They have known no other healthcare system. Now in the year of its 30th anniversary, Medicare is being pulled apart at the seams by the government. They want to end it as we know it.
What does a $7 tax mean for patients and families? It means that, for a parent whose child is ill, a pensioner who needs another prescription from their GP, a person in a nursing home who needs to access a general practitioner or a student who has a chronic disease such as diabetes, they may think twice about going to their GP because of the extra cost. It means that patients such as those are more likely to present at an emergency department or end up in hospital, rather than to their GP, because they have not received the care that they need, squeezing our healthcare system even further. Obviously, what you need to do is make sure that people have access to a GP; after all, it is the most efficient part of the system. Why on earth would you try to place a barrier in the way of people accessing a general practitioner? That is exactly what this GP tax will do. Essentially, it appears the government wants to introduce a two-tiered system: one system where those who have the means to pay will have access and another system where people will not have access to the entire system, which is a slippery slope to ending the universality of Medicare.
In the concluding minutes I have allotted to me, I also want to briefly talk about the government's record in relation to prevention. Millions of dollars have been taken out of—just terminated—the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health. We have seen the abolition of the Preventative Health Agency. We have seen $3 million taken out of the National Tobacco Campaign. We have seen members flirting in the media about the repeal of plain-packaging legislation. This government has absolutely abandoned prevention. We have slashing of primary care, slashing of public hospitals and ending of commitment to prevention. Where is this government's health policy? It does not have one. (Time expired)
I will try not to sound like a broken record. I would like to raise two issues tonight and I will try to string two stories together in a coherent narrative. The first is about the tender process. There can be no real argument that infrastructure equals economic growth. That is the good part. But there is no growth unless it is shared locally. We would find it hard to swallow if a major highway was built by an overseas contractor—if they brought in all their stuff from overseas. So why do we allow for our tender process to give jobs to people from outside town in regional centres? I will give you two examples: first, Flinders Shire Council had a stretch of road that they estimated would cost $9 million to repave and because it was over the financial level it had to go to a national tender. A contractor won the job fair and square, but the cost was $27 million. They flew in their workers, they put them up in a camp that they trucked in, they brought in their equipment and they built the road. So you have a nice stretch of road but absolutely no local benefit from it.
The second example is the $120 million being spent on the joint logistics hub at Lavarack Barracks, Townsville. The tender was won fair and square across all the things that they had to do and they won the job. They are a Brisbane based firm, with a little office in Townsville. Their principal subcontractor was also a Brisbane based firm. So $120 million is being spent in my city of Townsville with very little local benefit—very few subcontractors, very few apprentices, very few local benefits. To my mind, it is pointless to build infrastructure if there is no community benefit by way of jobs or supplies. It does not help a community if the only local beneficiary is the pie van. That is what we have to watch out for here. And I am putting this parliament, my party and my Queensland colleagues on notice that I will be working to fix this.
This leads me to a project that I believe my government needs to back. The de Havilland Caribou aircraft was the quick take-off, quick landing aircraft. It was propeller driven and it looked like an old diesel truck, scooting around the skies of Townsville. It was a great bit of gear. It was retired a few years ago. When it was mooted that it was going to be retired, John Howard said that the replacement, the C27J, would be based in Townsville. It is my understanding that the RAAF would now prefer that it goes to Amberley. How do we link these two stories together? It is about how we ensure that the local economy prospers. That is the trick here. If the federal government gives the go ahead for the C27Js to be based in Townsville we can organise for private investment to build the buildings and do everything around that. From there, you will have a spine created by the federal investment which will allow small businesses to grow. If it goes to RAAF base Amberley, which is a defence base in the middle of nowhere outside Ipswich, Defence will build it, Defence will charge defence rent and it will just be a great big money churn inside government with no real benefit to anyone other than the people who want to make sure it is built at Amberley.
We should be trying to stop the money churn. If we have private contractors, private funding and private investment going into building the infrastructure that will harvest this sort of thing, then the existing aviation hub in Townsville will grow with small businesses and medium businesses playing off that space. There are lots of things happening in Townsville in relation to the development of northern Australia. You will note that the planes which fly from Townsville to Cairns to Papua New Guinea are all turboprops. Those are the sorts of things, we must be trying to play into that space. The trip out to Mount Isa is exactly the same.
Private investment would assist us in stretching the defence dollar further. We have made the commitment to redress the chronic lack of funding in defence that went on under the previous government, but we must also be very canny with the money, because we are talking about a lot of money here. Any option which would stretch the dollar must be considered. Defence should not have to own the building. If it is incredibly secret then, yes, maybe we should look at that, but if it is just a hangar for aircraft, if it is just a workshop for aircraft where private contractors or tender winners carry out work, I do not see why Defence has to own that building.
Federal government infrastructure then would provide the catalyst for small- to medium-businesses to further establish Townsville's aviation hub. We have a business in Townsville called Flying Colours. They were based in Brisbane but they decided to move to Townsville because we have space at Townsville airport and we have Townsville Airports Limited, a subsidiary of Queensland Airports Limited, which owns the Gold Coast, Townsville and Mount Isa airports. Flying Colours have built hangars and they are now doing the entire Virgin fleet as they go from the red to the white—all being done in Townsville. They are doing that sort of work there because we have a proactive business owner who is looking to provide private investment, to make sure that we are utilising our facilities. Our airport is not landlocked. Our airport has lots of land and we can build these sorts of businesses there. We have BAE Systems in our city and we are working to build our further aviation hub. If we are to be a power in the development of northern Australia, we must ensure that aviation is a key.
The government never needs to create wealth. I think everyone in this place knows that government does not create wealth but it does provide the impetus, the seed capital, the hand-up for small businesses who do create wealth. Small businesses take the risk; small businesses take a punt and say, 'We can make this work.' They are the guys who will work 80 hours a week and rely on their investment and hard work to make sure it pays off down the track. They create the wealth. They create the business opportunities and job opportunities for people so that they can love living in Townsville and build their own homes there. Those are the sorts of things we can do. If government does not attempt to create wealth, private enterprise can prosper. If you do it the other way around, we just end up where government is the only builder, where government is the one provider of infrastructure and the only one doing the business. Then you end up with nothing except taxpayers owning more and more and we do not get anywhere.
Both of these stories have that coherent theme. We have to drive our dollar further. We have to look for where our local economy can prosper and make sure that in our city and in our region—and this applies throughout Australia—we look to where the tender process and the use of government funds becomes more and more central to what goes on in our neighbourhoods, in our cities and in our regions. If we can drive that through, it means that our local engineers, our local quarrymen and our local truck drivers can all make sure that they have people working in their businesses and that they can continue to employ. We can get apprentices to go through, and that is what leads to a city that grows and grows.
I live in the best part of Australia. I know there are a few people in here who would take exception to that, but you are not allowed to mislead the parliament. So, when I say that I live in the best part of Australia, you know it is the truth. Townsville is the hub of the universe. Everyone goes through Townsville at some stage in their life. We are an important city, but we must make sure that the taxpayer's dollar is respected every time. I am not saying that the tender process should be changed so that we go to the most expensive tender; I am saying that, when we do our tender process, we have to look at the way we spend money differently. We have to look at the way the whole thing is structured differently. If we can do that, we will end up with a great result. If we can do that, we will end up with a better result for all Australians. I thank the House.
Tonight I rise to object to the Abbott Liberal government's first budget. This is a budget of inequality. It is a budget that hurts women, the vulnerable, pensioners, seniors, parents, carers, low-income earners, children and students. It is a budget of broken promises and twisted priorities. It is a budget that is neither fair, nor just. In a desperate bid to reshape public debate about his first budget, the Treasurer now prefers to talk about a budget of opportunity. Last week, in his address to the Sydney Institute, the Treasurer said it is the government's duty 'to help Australians get to the starting line, while accepting some will run faster than others' and 'it is not the role of government to use the taxation and welfare system as a tool to "level the playing field".' But that is exactly what the people of Newcastle expect governments to do. We do not subscribe to the Treasurer's dog-eat-dog world view. Governments have a vital role to ensure that no-one gets left behind—that is the Labor view. But the Treasurer's statement exemplifies the ignorance of this government and shows how truly out of touch they are. It is not a level playing field and that is the reality. Being born a man or a woman makes a difference. Living with disability or without makes a difference. Being born as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or not makes a difference. Inequality often starts very early in life and then life's circumstances can hit us hard. Many of us are faced with events that are out of our control.
This is not a debate about class warfare, as the Treasurer has claimed; it is a debate about equality. In 2014, sadly, gender equality does not exist in Australia. Compared to other nations, we are way behind. According to the World Economic Forum's Global gender gap report 2013, Australia rates overall as the 24th most equal nation between men and women. As a woman, you are more likely to have equality in Burundi, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Lesotho, Cuba, New Zealand and Latvia than you are in Australia. When wage equality is considered, we rank 55th, with women in Australia earning about 17 per cent less than men on average. When it comes to political empowerment, we rank 43rd, with only one-quarter of members of parliament being women and about one-fifth in ministerial positions. Not helping these statistics is the Abbott Liberal government's cabinet, with just one woman sitting alongside 19 men. We need to do better. It is not okay for the Prime Minister to promote himself as the minister for women, ignoring the 26 women in his government. We do need to do better and we should aspire to be No. 1 on equity, not languish embarrassingly down the rankings. We should have a woman as the minister for women, not a Prime Minister who is on the record as denying that women will ever be equal. We need to do more to improve equality for women, not introduce measures that will send us further down the list. Unfortunately, this budget brings little joy for women.
According to Marie Coleman, Chair of the Social Policy Committee of the National Foundation for Australian Women:
This is a budget that will hurt practically every woman—whether a single parent, unemployed, in the workforce, studying or a homemaker. Very few will remain unscathed.
The National Foundation for Australian Women, a non-politically aligned group, took to analysing the 2013-14 budget through a gender lens. Their work was particularly important this year as the government, led by the minister for women, abandoned a standard practice from the last 30 years that saw a women's budget statement prepared as an element of the official budget papers. The foundation's analysis of the budget found it fails the fairness and equity test and that its measures disproportionally affect women. Perhaps this is why the government did not want to report on it.
The foundation highlighted a number of examples of how the minister for women's first budget affects women, and I will go through some of those now. An unemployed single parent with one eight-year-old child loses $54 per week or 12 per cent of their income. Most unemployed single parents are women. A single-income couple with two school-age children and average earnings loses $82 a week or six per cent of their disposable income. For employed women using family day care, an immediate price rise in the order of $30 plus per week per child is likely. The freezing of the threshold and indexation for childcare rebate and fee relief will quickly impact on all childcare fees. These increases may discourage workforce participation. The increase in childcare fees for parents on jobs, education and training, or JET, childcare fee assistance and the reduction in hours of JET subsidised care available will discourage participation in work and training for low-income women. Cuts to the National Rental Affordability Scheme will impact low-income women who do not own their own home but do not qualify for public housing. Cuts to legal aid and community legal centres mean women who are victims of domestic violence have significantly reduced access to legal advice and representation. And women will pick up more of the cost and stress as they generally take the role of 'health manager' for families, with the GP tax and the increase in prescription costs and pathology and imaging charges hitting hard.
Another area of concern is the cuts to higher education. Independent analysis shows that it will be women in our society who will be hit hardest by the changes to the HECS and HELP schemes, further broadening the gender gap. If the government gets its way and these proposed higher education changes are implemented, a female graduate who takes time off work or reduces her hours to have children will be severely hit by the increase in university fees and the high interest rates, which will see their debt continue to accumulate rapidly as they are earning less. A three-year accountancy degree, for example, will take 36 years to pay off for women who take time off work to have children, compared to 23 years for an accountancy graduate who stays in the workforce. This prospect of massive and sustained debt will deter many women from going to university and participating in the workforce. Government should be supporting women to study and attain high-paid and high-skilled jobs, rather than burdening them with rampant debt, if they do choose to study, or forcing them out of the university system altogether.
It is well known that women have far less retirement savings than men. The Australian Human Rights Commission states that, on average, a woman's superannuation payout is a third of the payout for men. The Abbott Liberal government has cut the low-income superannuation contribution, a great Labor initiative to help boost the retirement savings of low-income earners—and 60 per cent of low-income earners are women. This coupled with the delay to the increase to the superannuation guarantee will have a deep impact on women and their ability to retire with dignity. Additionally, the new indexation scheme for pensions will have dire impacts on retirement incomes—and 55 per cent of age pensioners are women.
I have received numerous calls and emails from women in my electorate who have shared their personal stories about the detrimental impact that Tony Abbott's budget will have on them. Changes to the age pension, superannuation, family tax benefit, higher education and training will all disproportionately affect Australian women. In 2014 Australian women have every right to expect their government to address gender inequality. Prime Minister, if you insist on being the minister for women then it is time you stepped up the mark. You need to reconsider the unfair and inequitable measures in your budget and you need to take gender equity seriously. It is time you led the work to bridge the gender gap in Australia, not further prise it apart.
I rise to draw the attention of the House to the plight of expectant mothers and their families in my home town of Katanning, a regional service hub in the heart of the electorate of O'Connor. The town of Katanning has a population of around 4,500, but it services a hinterland of an additional 10,000 people. In May 2012 the WA Country Health Service withdrew all maternity service offered by the Katanning District Hospital following the departure of one of the town's two GP obstetricians.
My wife Tanya and I were blessed to have all of our four children delivered amongst friends and family by the wonderful Katanning hospital maternity staff, some of whom we have known all our lives.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 20:01 to 20 : 18
Those of us who choose to live in small regional towns accept that we may never have the same access to the full range of health services that our metropolitan cousins enjoy, but we do have a right to the basic services, such as a maternity facility. In Western Australian government policy, it seems absurd that, despite an allocation of $35 million to upgrade the hospital, scheduled for 2017, it will remain unable to provide the services which will attract and keep young families in our region. While it may seem indulgent to use this grievance debate to discuss an issue critical to my hometown, the reality is that attracting and keeping suitably qualified medical practitioners is a problem for almost all of the towns across my electorate.
However, as Premier Colin Barnett observed at a recent meeting with local mothers to discuss the lack of maternity services, Katanning is not just another Wheatbelt town. Katanning is a truly multicultural town. Only 78 per cent of the residents speak English as a primary language, with the balance speaking Malay, Mandarin, Korean, Burmese or Dari. It is a town that has witnessed waves of migration, starting with the Malays in the 1970s, followed by Chinese and Filipinos, who were all drawn to the town by employment prospects at the local abattoir and meat-processing plant. More recently, refugees from conflict zones of Africa and Afghanistan, and displaced people such as the Karen, have been settled in Katanning through humanitarian relief programs. More than 40 different ethnic community groups are represented in our community.
Katanning is also recognised as an area of low socioeconomic status, with median individual incomes of $525 per week, and an average household income of less than $950 per week. Katanning is also a town of young families, with children under the age of 14 making up 25 per cent of our population.
So where were all of these babies born? Before May 2012, the town was fortunate to have two GPs with obstetrics training. Between them they provided a 24-hour on-call obstetric service to the Katanning hospital. Midwives would manage the low-risk deliveries with obstetrics back-up available if required. Emergency caesareans, as well as elective caesareans, were performed on a regular basis. On average, more than 110 babies were delivered at the Katanning hospital every year. But the departure of one of the town's two GP obstetricians forced the suspension of not only obstetrics deliveries but all birthing services in Katanning.
Since then, expectant mothers have had to plan their pregnancies to allow for birthing at either Narrogin Hospital, 100 kilometres to the north, or at the Albany Health Campus, 200 kilometres to the south. This is despite the fact that the Katanning hospital continues to be staffed by experienced midwives, and one GP obstetrician remains in the town. Consultation with WA Country Health Services confirms that it would be possible to provide midwifery services at the Katanning hospital; they just do not. To re-establish an obstetrics service, it has been determined that it would now require three obstetrics qualified doctors to provide a safe and reliable service.
The reality for many pregnant women is that you cannot control Mother Nature. Anecdotally, we hear that babies have been born in the back of ambulances en route to hospital. Recently, one woman gave birth within 10 minutes of arrival at the Albany Health Campus, after a 200-kilometre car journey. Some migrant women are having their babies at home. This is a ticking time bomb with a very real risk of a tragedy in the near future and it is not something I want for my community.
Katanning's unique social make-up means that language and communications can be a barrier to making the necessary provisions for birthing elsewhere. Some members of our community, without the support network most of us take for granted, face special difficulties. One newly arrived migrant couple had no drivers licence and no car. They had to take a taxi to Narrogin at a cost of $385. Many low-income women simply cannot afford to relocate two or three weeks prior to their due date, nor can their husbands or partners take the necessary time off work.
For women who have had children before, a baby can come much faster than expected. Nine babies have actually been born at the Katanning hospital in recent months to women presenting in advanced stages of labour. Midwives have delivered these babies successfully, but with scant knowledge of the women's medical or antenatal history. That is a big ask—and potentially a big risk.
Surprisingly, despite the availability of excellent birthing services in Albany and Narrogin, the most distant option—birthing in Perth, 285 kilometres away—is the option many of the more affluent women choose. A survey of local mothers was recently conducted by a resident GP, with findings submitted to the WA health department. That survey suggested that most middle-class women choose to deliver their babies in Perth because they have accommodation and childcare options such as staying with family for an indeterminate period of time. But the expense of travelling for up to eight antenatal visits, the disruption to their children's routine, the exhaustion of their husband's leave entitlements and the impost on their extended family were all cited as issues they experienced with birthing out of town. Given the choice, every woman surveyed indicated they would have chosen to give birth in Katanning, were it possible, even if there were no specialist obstetrician or anaesthetist available.
Earlier this year, research teams of health professionals from the University of Sydney, the University of Queensland, the University of British Columbia, the University Centre for Rural Health in Lismore, the University of Wollongong and Southern Cross University visited Katanning to assess whether the town fits an internationally conceived model which identifies areas in need of birthing facilities. This model, the Australian Rural Birth Index, suggests that Katanning has the combination of factors that necessitate local birthing services. Those factors are a large reproductive-age population, high actual birth numbers and a combination of indices of social disadvantage affecting access to distant birthing services. The outcomes of this study are not yet published, but outcomes from studies in Far North Queensland and rural Victoria suggest that Katanning Hospital is, at the very least, eminently suitable for a midwife-driven delivery service, with professional backup from the excellent regional facilities in Albany and Narrogin. The Katanning Hospital should be able to provide a low-risk, or level 2, birthing option with its existing staff of midwives and the local GP.
Of course, offering a full maternity service at Katanning would require further obstetric capability. For the past 2½ years there has been a recruitment drive to secure suitably qualified doctors, as well as incentives to encourage upskilling of the local GP workforce; unfortunately, all to no avail. Meanwhile, Narrogin Hospital enjoys the luxury of three GP obstetricians, plus a general surgeon with caesarean capabilities, just an hour and a quarter's drive away. So could the two hospitals collaborate to enable a full service to operate at both locations?
Premier Colin Barnett recently attended a community meeting to hear the views of the Katanning mothers. I thank him for the time he spent respectfully hearing the views of every woman present on that day. Women came to share their own experiences or to tell the story of migrant women who could not speak for themselves. The message Mr Barnett relates to his health minister will, hopefully, be that Katanning is a community in need of a birthing service—for the refugee women, for the Indigenous mothers, for the displaced, for the underprivileged, for the ordinary and for the affluent—because every local woman deserves the opportunity to birth in a purpose-built facility such as the maternity ward of the Katanning Hospital, supported by a group of skilled and dedicated professionals and surrounded by the familiar faces of their loving family and friends.
I started this fight well before I came to this place. In every community there are strong leaders who make a real difference, and Katanning is lucky to have one of them in Paula Bolto. Paula gave birth to her first three children in Katanning, then had to go to Albany for the birth of her fourth, Lucy, because by that time Katanning's maternity facility was not available. Paula was one of the fortunate ones. Her circumstances meant she was able to relocate to Albany for three weeks before Lucy's birth. But she knew that it was not easy for many others in our community.
Paula and I decided to do something about it. She established the 'Save Our Maternity Hospital' lobby group and within three weeks we had a petition with nearly 5,000 signatures calling for the reinstatement of a maternity facility. We presented that petition to the WA state parliament 12 months ago—unfortunately, to no avail. Paula has not stopped since, working tirelessly with her team of dedicated volunteers and lobbying anyone who will listen, in an effort to bring this issue to a successful resolution. I bring their endeavours to the attention of this place in the hope it will facilitate a favourable outcome for the women of my home town.
Day after day, as I move around my electorate, I am confronted by constituents who are not happy with the state of rail services in our communities. The lack of a punctual and reliable service is our grievance. My community has asked me to get the government to do something about it.
The major national north-south road and rail transport corridor runs through Indi. This affords some benefits for our connectivity to these services, but it can be better and it should be better. I am committed to working to ensure that Indi is a connected electorate where people can get to where they need to be on time and safely, and where businesses can effectively transport goods. Access to efficient and effective rail services and freight, and high-speed rail between Melbourne, Albury, Wodonga, Sydney and Brisbane, are key policy areas for Indi. It is freight, high-speed rail and local and interstate services that we need long-term plans for. Both the federal and state governments have identified planned budget expenditure for improvements to our national and state networks, with the aim of having more reliable and safer travel conditions within this critical transport corridor. However, all is not good.
I believe the federal government has not delivered on high-speed rail. In last month's federal budget the government cut a $52 million allocation to establish a planning authority for this project that would link Brisbane and Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra. The withdrawal of this funding throws doubt on the long-term viability of this nation-building project. The delays will have major impacts on the ability of authorities to guarantee land for the corridor and will greatly add to the end cost of the project. It is not good enough. I will not allow the issue of high-speed rail to simply disappear. This project is of great economic, social and environmental benefit to all of Australia, not just my electorate.
I want to talk about the other rail—the not very fast rail that is owned by the Commonwealth via the Australian Rail Track Corporation and run by the Victorian government's V/Line. On the ground I have been meeting and liaising with staff from the ARTC, on work needed on the Albury-Wodonga-Melbourne rail track. The ARTC invested $10 billion in a state-of-the-art shoulder ballast cleaning machine that allows crews to cover more ground quickly, moving along the corridor, to clean fouled ballast and return clean ballast to the track. This ballast rehabilitation project continues to steadily improve the condition of the track between Wodonga and Melbourne through a combination of shoulder ballast cleaning, track undercutting and sledding. From all reports these targeted track works have removed mud holes and improved the overall track drainage, which in the long term will minimise the mud holes recurring. Reports are that these repairs are having an impact and that freight services between Melbourne and Brisbane are meeting customer reliability requirements. However, much is still needed to be done for the passenger service.
The V/Line passenger service on this line has been a concern of the constituents of Indi for a very long time. The line links residents in north-east Victoria to Melbourne and beyond. It is used by all the community—students, families, commuters, people seeking medical treatment and business. I am pleased to be able to report to this place that punctuality on the Albury-Wodonga line has been gradually improving over the past six months. V/Line reports that the number of trains that ran on time last month reached a whopping 94.5 per cent. This figure is a 12-month high. Compare that with the February figure of 73 per cent and the May figure of 88.6 per cent. So reliability on the Albury-Wodonga track is growing steadily, but it has a long way to go.
While the overall improvement is good to see and the work of the ARTC and V/Line continue, it will be a long time before the people of north-east Victoria trust the train line. Sections of the track between Seymour and Albury-Wodonga are still subject to speed restrictions as ARTC work continues. I call on the ARTC to give us all a definite date when this track work will be completed, speed restrictions will be lifted and passengers can rely on the punctuality of the train.
I note that the Victorian government's budget contained funding for a $40 million state government plan for free wi-fi on selected regional trains. The package also includes major upgrades to mobile phone coverage along some of the V/Line network. The selected regional trains were Melbourne to Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong, Seymour and Traralgon. Unfortunately, the selected regional trains did not include Albury-Wodonga or, for my colleague in Murray, Shepparton. This certainly begs the question: why not?
Much work has also been done by Regional Development Australia and Regional Development Victoria on reviewing passenger and freight rail in the Hume region, which includes most of the electorate of Indi. Local governments have also been playing a significant role in trying to address the problems. Infrastructure Australia provides a framework for action to meet gaps, deficiencies and bottlenecks in our national infrastructure. The key challenge has been defined as 'supporting rural communities' and how to improve the quality of life and economic prosperity in rural and regional communities. Earlier this year, Infrastructure Australia recommended a strategy for urban transport. It was noted that a lack of a widely accepted, national strategy for managing, planning and financing urban transport is an impediment to effective transport and productivity in Australia. I say, 'Hear, hear!' It is a time for a national strategy, however, not only for urban but for rural and regional transport, as has exactly been developed for our city cousins. While there are challenges in developing such a strategy, it is imperative that rural and regional communities have connectivity to our urban centres.
These are major issues, and in Indi, north-east Victoria and Victoria generally, there is strong community and business support for improved public transport. Action is needed and needed now. Since being elected to this place, I have been meeting regularly with the local state members of parliament in Indi to discuss this issue of transport and, in particular, the unsatisfactory nature of the Albury-Wodonga railway line. I am pleased to note that tomorrow the Premier of Victoria, Dr Denis Napthine, will be visiting Indi and, in particular, Wodonga. I would like to think that the railway line, rolling stock and access to internet and mobile phones—as well as a strategic plan for the future of transport in regional areas—will be raised by local state members with the Premier when he visits.
I will continue to meet with state and federal government ministers and members of this place on the critical issues of public transport for rural and regional communities. I commend the investment made by the state and federal governments in their respective 2014-15 budgets to build infrastructure across Australia and Victoria. But I will call out loudly in this place that rural and regional communities and our trains not be forgotten. Rail is the backbone of public transport in Indi. It is fundamentally important for our future growth and development. In closing, I ask that all levels of government commit to supporting rural communities in line with the challenges set down by Infrastructure Australia. We need a national strategy for regional and rural transport and a strong commitment from the Victorian government to do its bit. It is long overdue. I thank the House.
President Eisenhower, in his final speech as President to the people of the United States, warned of the potential danger of burgeoning and unfettered power of what he termed the military-industrial complex. He stated:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Unfortunately, we see this unwarranted and dangerous influence of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about in evidence today. There are forces at work that let convenience, pride and unwise loyalty override the safety of our nation and its allies. Take the joint strike fighter, JSF or F35. On Tuesday, 3 June, in Senate estimates the Chief of Air Force was asked about a statement by United States Air Force head of Air Combat Command, General Michael Hostage, that:
If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.
The Chief of Air Force states that he did not know the context, so would take the question on notice. On Friday, 6 June, in response to a question that would appear to have been a dorothy dixer, the Chief of Air Force had a statement appearing to put the quote in context. The clarification did not change the sentiment originally expressed. Indeed, it could not, because the only options you have with the original statement were that General Hostage was deliberately not telling the truth, was incompetent or was indeed telling the truth. I believe he was telling the truth.
What is concerning is the obvious pressure that has been brought to bear to ensure that Lockheed Martin, the Joint Strike Fighter manufacturer, was not negatively impacted, in terms of potential sales to Australia. This pressure is abundantly clear from the tone of General Hostage's clarification, but still makes clear that the JSF is not adequate against a near-peer threat on their own turf with a dense and highly capable integrated air-defence system.
This is exactly what Eisenhower warned about, and we now have senior officers in Australia and the US effectively acting as salesmen for huge multinational defence conglomerates. This is not in the best interests of either nation's citizens. Problematically for Lockheed Martin and Defence, General Hostage has further belled the cat on JSF capability or lack thereof. He stated recently:
The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I'm going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I'm going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it's there in numbers,
He goes further:
Because it can't turn and run away, it's got to have support from other F-35s. So I'm going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after.
So a four-to-one ratio of JSFs to F22 Raptors is needed in the air-superiority role. This clearly demonstrates that the JSF is not an air-superiority fighter.
I was trying to remember where I had heard something similar to General Hostage's statement 'because it can't turn and run away', and it came to me. I recall the RAND study Air Combat, Past, Present and Future that I made public a number of years ago. It had a slide that Lockheed Martin took particular exception to. In that slide, the statement was made that the JSF was 'double inferior' to threat fighters and that it 'can't turn, can't climb, can't run'. That slide and the exception that Lockheed Martin took to it resulted in RAND firing Dr John Stillion, a very capable analyst and previous combat aviator, who co-wrote that report.
I understand Lockheed Martin was dismayed with that statement in the RAND document. They certainly pulled out all the stops to negate that statement. Lockheed Martin have also misled on aero-propulsive performance of the JSF, saying it is similar to a combat loaded F16. This is blatantly untrue. When I pushed this point with the Chief of the Air Force—in our committee inquiry into the Defence annual report—he did not persist in equating the aero-propulsive performance of the F16 with a JSF. He clearly now does not dispute what I said in terms of the JSFs aero-propulsive performance not even matching a Vietnam-era combat loaded F4 Phantom in sustaining internal acceleration, never mind an F16.
Yes, I do have the flight manuals of the F4 Phantom and the F16, where the charts prove this point. I challenge anyone to prove me incorrect on this. The simple fact is, on pretty much everything with JSF that is not classified, underlined experts have proved to be correct where Lockheed Martin and Defence's statements have been proven incorrect.
Take costs: where Defence and Lockheed Martin were assuring us that each JSF would cost considerably less than $100 million each. In fact, the price is well over $180 million each, pretty much line ball with what independent experts at Air Power Australia said. Take the schedule: Air Power Australia said it would be years late, while Defence and Lockheed Martin assured the parliament it would achieve initial operational capability in 2013. I do not see any combat-ready JSFs anywhere on the planet, never mind in squadron service in Australia.
With aero-propulsive performance, Air Power Australia was absolutely on the money, where Lockheed Martin and Defence were assuring parliament it would at least meet its turn-and-acceleration performance. Lockheed Martin was incorrect despite having access to all the wind-tunnel data and other critical data, yet both Lockheed Martin and Defence have the audacity to denigrate those outside experts who have been correct on the publicly verifiable data points. They criticise these outside experts, calling them commentators et cetera, when Defence and Lockheed Martin have been proven wrong at every non-classified turn, yet they say, 'Trust us. It is the secret data that is critical.' How can we trust when on any objective outside test they have failed? How are outside experts without access to detailed data that Lockheed Martin and Defence have able to get it right? Where was the due diligence by Defence? They should have been sceptical, testing the evidence and being objective, yet they simply repeated the line put out by Lockheed Martin. Hence my concern going back half a century to President Eisenhower.
The simple fact is that Lockheed Martin and the military-industrial complex may be selling the US, Australia and its allies a pup, but nations that may not be friendly to us are not buying the pitch. Defence and Lockheed Martin argue that so many customers buying the JSF cannot be wrong. There are numerous times that incorrect decisions have been made in the past, such as when three US services purchased the F-4 Phantom without a gun as dogfights were deemed obsolete and it was all going to be to air-to-air missiles. It sounds very similar to the arguments supporting the JSF, but Vietnam proved the fallacy of that argument. In fact, the end of dogfighting has been suggested for more than half the history of air combat. The reality when fighting peer threats has always come back to bite.
The other fact is that most JSF purchasers have other aircraft they will use for the air superiority role. Potential threat nations are objectively testing the evidence and have come to a very different conclusion about the fundamentals to us. Noted senior Senate Armed Services Committee member and presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, believes the JSF is a 'great national scandal' and 'worse than a disgrace'. He is qualified to comment, having flown F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam. Given our budget emergency, I echo the venerable senator's words. It is time to end the madness and it is time to scrap the JSF.
Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B and the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 20:47