I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The coalition government is committed to supporting the delivery of quality schooling and providing funding and regulatory certainty for all Australian schools.
The Australian Education Act 2013 is the principal legislation by which the Australian government provides financial assistance to approved authorities for government and non-government schools. It enables expenditure of Australian government funding for schools and related payments, and secures the reform and accountability objectives to improve the quality of education in Australia.
The act commenced on 1 January 2014. Australian government funding for schools is provided to state and territory governments that are then required to distribute these funds in line with the requirements of the act. In 2014, around $14 billion will be paid to government and non-government school authorities under the act.
This bill will create a mechanism to enable payments to be made under the government's Indigenous boarding initiative, an initiative designed to provide additional recurrent funding in 2014 to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boarding students at non-government schools. I thank the member for Solomon for her role in bringing this about. The additional recurrent funding will be used by schools to deliver improved services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boarding students and provide additional support to boost school attendance and engagement.
The bill will also provide funding certainty for certain independent special schools and special assistance schools that would otherwise see their funding reduced to the schooling resource standard from 2015. Instead, these schools will now transition towards the standard consistent with other schools.
Since the act was passed by the 43rd Parliament, a number of errors and oversights made during the original drafting have been identified which affect the proper administration of the legislation. This bill will correct these and provide greater certainty for schools about their funding entitlements for the current funding quadrennium.
Turning to the specifics of the bill: schedule 1 and schedule 2 separate the measures that will come into effect at different times. Schedule 1 contains those amendments that will commence on royal assent, and schedule 2 contains those amendments that need to be backdated to operate from the start of the Australian Education Acton 1 January 2014. The need for amendments in schedule 2 to apply retrospectively from 1 January 2014 is to ensure that funding calculations and payments made for 2014 are correct, so that all schools are funded as intended.
The bill will create a new mechanism to make payments to schools in prescribed circumstances. The regulations will contain the type of information the minister must have regard to in exercising this new mechanism, both in terms of eligibility and calculation of funding, and be subject to review and disallowance by the parliament.
In the first instance, this new mechanism will enable payment of the Australian government's Indigenous boarding initiative. The initiative was announced in the 2014-15 budget and will provide interim support for non-government schools with more than 50 Indigenous boarding students from remote or very remote areas, or where 50 per cent or more of their boarding students are Indigenous and from remote or very remote areas. This additional funding will assist non-government boarding schools to provide these students with a high-quality education and support educational opportunities for Indigenous students.
The bill allows for the correction of errors and oversights that have become apparent since the act became operative on 1 January 2014. The bill will ensure that certain special schools or special assistance schools will not have their funding reduced in 2015. Currently, the safety net in place will disappear and these schools will have their funding immediately reduced to the schooling resource standard from 1 January next year because the current work with the states and territories to develop nationally consistent data has not yet been completed. The amendment will provide funding certainty by spending $2.4 million for next year and ensuring these schools transition to the schooling resource standard in a manner consistent with other schools until the revised student-with-disability loadings are available.
The bill will address a gap in the current act dealing with the transitional arrangements to ensure that schools moving between approved authorities will be neither financially advantaged nor disadvantaged. A school moving to another approved authority will have, as a starting point for its Commonwealth funding entitlement under that approved authority, the amount that would have applied had the school not moved.
The bill will correct the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) index values for locations of schools so that schools in inner regional locations are properly identified as such.
The bill will correct a significant error that would see, for some school authorities, the Commonwealth liable to pay the entire amount (both Commonwealth and notional state share) calculated for an authority, rather than the Commonwealth's share of that calculated amount.
The bill will insert the final 2014 amount for capital funding paid to Block Grant Authorities. This amount will be the basis for future capital funding amounts for Block Grant Authorities.
The bill will address a minor technical error and correct a cross-reference regarding the pro-rating of recurrent funding.
The bill will provide greater flexibility and options for managing any non-compliance that occurred under the previous legislation, the Schools Assistance Act 2008, should compliance action be taken.
The bill clarifies the operation of reviewable decisions and will correct errors relating to who can apply for a review of a decision under the act.
Finally, the bill will amend the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2013 to extend to 1 January 2016, or a later date determined by the minister, and the commencement of school improvement planning requirements under the act to provide regulatory certainty to schools while consultations with stakeholders occur in relation to possible adjustments to this requirement.
This bill supports all Australian schools by correcting errors and omissions in the existing act to ensure effective and efficient administration. Taking action to fix these problems will strengthen the legislative framework that underpins the Australian government's significant investment in schools and contribute to improving the quality of school education in Australia.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia's rural industries are among the most innovative and productive in the world. The Australian government is committed to ensuring their profitability and competitiveness, now and into the future.
The Australian government supports rural industries in a variety of ways. To help primary producers increase their output and improve their profit margins, we support rural research and development. Much of this support is channeled through the 15 rural research and development corporations. In addition, to keep our rural industries engaged and influential on the world stage, the government is a member of international commodity organisations and regional fisheries management organisations.
This bill implements a 2014 budget measure to change the way that the government pays for its membership to these organisations. The bill also reduces the red-tape burden currently imposed on some of the rural research and development corporations.
Australia is a member of the international wine, grains, sugar and cotton commodity organisations. These organisations work to improve the trading environment for agricultural products. They fund research and development on global issues affecting these industries and provide useful information and statistics for our producers, scientists and research and development organisations.
Australia's membership to these organisations provides benefits to our primary producers. For example, the International Cotton Advisory Committee sponsors research on the cost of cotton production and production methods to inform the cotton research community and primary producers. It has direct links with our Cotton Research and Development Corporation as part of its research associate program.
Other roles of the international commodity organisations include setting international standards to improve production and product marketing, improving food safety and security. Just as our rural research and development corporations foster partnerships at home, the international commodity organisations promote global partnerships. If we do not engage with these organisations, they could develop standards that are not appropriate for Australian conditions and practices.
Australia is a member of six regional fisheries management organisations. Our commercial fishing and aquaculture industry is worth over $2 billion annually and employs around 12,000 people. These organisations manage migratory fish species to ensure the optimal use of fish stocks to the benefit of our fishing industries. Through our membership of these organisations, we ensure that regional management measures are compatible with domestic arrangements and secure access for the Australian fishing industry.
Australian research and development operates within a global system and must take into account international issues. The change to the legislation reflects this and also acknowledges that the ultimate beneficiaries of the activities of these international organisations are farmers, fishing industries and rural communities.
The bill amends three acts to allow the government to recover the cost of the memberships from the Commonwealth funding provided to relevant rural research and development corporations. This will provide a funding mechanism for memberships to these organisations that is sustainable in a time of increasing budget pressures.
The amendments will result in a saving to government of about $7 million over the next four years. This saving will be redirected by the government to help repair the budget.
The bill also reduces red tape for some of the research and development corporations. For consistency across all rural research and development corporations and to reduce regulatory burden, the bill drops the requirements to table certain documents in the parliament.
The funding contract and variations to the funding contract will no longer need to be tabled for Dairy Australia, Forest and Wood Products Australia, the Australian Livestock Export Corporation and Sugar Research Australia. In addition, Dairy Australia and the Australian Livestock Export Corporation will no longer table the annual report and other compliance reports. In the interests of good governance, the corporations will still produce these reports and make them available to the public or to members as required.
An annual coordination meeting for the chairs of the statutory research and development corporations will be dropped. Today, only five of the 15 research and development corporations remain as statutory bodies. There are more effective ways that the corporations can—and do—coordinate their activities and the government decided that a legislated coordination meeting is no longer required.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill introduces several minor amendments to aged-care and health related legislation consequential to one 2014 budget measure and to support the recent extensive reforms to the aged-care system in Australia.
Reprioritising the Aged Care Workforce Supplement
The coalition committed during the 2013 election campaign to deliver better services for older Australians and greater certainty for providers.
The 2014 budget included several important aged-care initiatives to provide better choices and improved access to services that will allow older Australians to continue to live active and healthy lives.
Under one key budget measure, Reprioritising the Aged Care Workforce Supplement, the government is honouring its commitment to invest in Australia’s aged-care workforce by putting back into the general pool of aged-care funding the substantial amounts previously allocated to the workforce compact: $1.1 billion between 2013-14 and 2016-17, with a further $0.4 billion in 2017-18.
This initiative, under which residential-care, home-care and flexible-care providers of aged-care services receive an increase in basic subsidy, was implemented separately from 1 July 2014, through two legislative instruments addressing the subsidy arrangements.
This bill makes consequential amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 to reflect the implementation of the budget measure. Specifically, this bill removes the workforce supplement from the list of primary supplements that may be provided by the subsidy principles under the act.
My Aged Care
A second measure in the bill amends the Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 to support the implementation of stage 2 of the aged-care gateway, which is a centralised online information portal known as My Aged Care.
Stage 1 of My Aged Care was introduced from1 July 2013. It currently provides information on aged care, support for consumers in finding Commonwealth-funded aged-care services in their local area, and online fee estimators for home-care and residential-care pricing.
Stage 2 of My Aged Care will operate from early 2015, and is a key component of the improvements to Australia’s aged-care system. My Aged Care will be expanded to include:
A client’s identity created during the new registration process will be authenticated, using Medicare’s health-care identifier for the individual. This approach will protect both client privacy and the integrity of Commonwealth systems.
The amendments in this bill will allow the collection, use and disclosure of the relevant data for this limited purpose.
Recovery of past home care costs for a compensation recipient
This bill, together with the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges (Amendment) Bill 2014, amend the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 and the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges Act 1995 to overcome a current anomaly in the legislation relating to the recovery of past care costs where the care recipient receives a compensation payment.
Recovery in these circumstances is currently possible in relation to the past costs of residential care, but not home care. This anomaly is removed by bringing the capacity to recover past care costs for home care into line with the existing arrangements for residential care.
The amendments remove the current inequity between the two types of care, overcome the potential for delayed entry into more appropriate residential care until compensation payments are settled, and minimise financial loss to the Commonwealth.
Other amendments
Lastly, this bill makes a minor clarifying and technical amendment to aged-care and health related legislation, consistent with intended policy, arising from the recent changes to aged care. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill, together with the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, makes minor amendments to the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 and the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges Act 1995.
Together, the amendments will overcome a current anomaly in the legislation relating to the recovery of past care costs where the care recipient receives a compensation payment.
Recovery in these circumstances is currently possible in relation to the past costs of residential care, but not home care. This anomaly is removed by bringing the capacity to recover past care costs for home care into line with existing arrangements for residential care.
The amendments remove the current inequity between the two types of care, overcome the potential for delayed entry into more appropriate residential care until compensation payments are settled, and minimise financial loss to the Commonwealth.
Of the small package of amendments needed to achieve this measure, this bill introduces those that expand the existing charges on compensation for the purpose outlined here. Amendments made by this bill to sections 7 and 8 of the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges Act 1995 have been introduced separately to the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 to comply with section 55 of the Constitution. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 honours the coalition's commitment to restore the full suite of border protection and immigration measures, abolished by the former, Labor government to stop the boats. This bill will amend the Migration Act 1958, the Migration Regulations 1994 and the Maritime Powers Act 2013 and make minor changes to the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to support the government's key election commitments to stop the boats and resolve Labor's legacy case load of around 30,000 cases. These measures are a necessary extension and consolidation of the government's successful border protection policies and are part of a broad package of measures which will tackle the management of the backlog of illegal maritime arrivals, known as IMAs, and bring important enhancements to the integrity of Australia's protection regime.
The government is committed to Australia's national security and economic prosperity in its efforts to combat the illegal and dangerous practice of people-smuggling. These changes will further strengthen the government's ability to manage illegal arrivals and strengthen public confidence in Australia's protection and migration programs.
Specifically, the bill reintroduces temporary protection visas and introduces a safe haven enterprise visa, which is also a temporary visa. It reinforces the government's powers to undertake maritime turn backs and introduces rapid processing and streamlined review arrangements. The measures deliver on the government's election commitment to introduce temporary protection visas and ensure that no illegal maritime arrival will be granted a permanent protection visa. It will also ensure efficient processing of Labor's backlog of 30,000 IMA asylum claims, as we promised we would do.
The amendments to the Maritime Powers Act strengthen Australia's maritime enforcement framework and the ongoing conduct of border security and maritime enforcement operations. Enforced turn backs are a critical component of the governments suite of border protection measures that have been so successful to date in stopping the boats. These measures affirm and strengthen the government's ability to continue the success of our maritime operations. This will help ensure that the tap stays off, that it will never return and that we will never go back to the cost, chaos and tragedy that was present under the previous government and was created under the arrangements put in place by that government.
The amendments in schedule 1 of this bill reinforce the government's powers and support for our officers conducting maritime operations to stop people-smuggling ventures at sea. They provide additional clarity and consistency in the powers to detain and move vessels and persons. They further clarify the relationship between the Maritime Powers Act and other laws and clearly state that ministers can give directions in respect of the exercise of maritime powers. Finally, as was parliament's original intent, the amendments support our Navy and Customs personnel to continue to do their difficult jobs efficiently, effectively and safely on the water.
The amendments to the Maritime Powers Act are just one element of this bill.
It has been a clear policy of this government to ensure that those who flagrantly disregard our laws and arrive illegally in Australia are not rewarded with a permanent protection visa. The reintroduction of temporary protection visas, or TPVs, in schedule 2 of this bill is fundamental to the government's key objectives to process the current backlog of IMA protection claims. The government is not resiling from providing protection but, rather, is providing temporary protection to those IMAs who are found to engage Australia's protection obligations. TPVs will be granted for a maximum of three years and will provide access to Medicare, social security benefits and work rights, as occurred under the Howard government. TPVs will provide refugees with stability and a chance to get on with their lives while at the same time guaranteeing that people smugglers do not have a 'permanent protection visa product' to sell to those who are thinking of travelling illegally to Australia.
However, consistent with this government's principles of rewarding enterprise and its belief in a strong regional Australia, a new visa, the Safe Haven Enterprise Visa, will also be created. The Safe Haven Enterprise Visa will be will be open to applications by those who have been processed under the legacy case load and are found to be refugees. I stress that that does not relate to people who may seek to come to Australia in the future by this method. They of course are subject to offshore processing and resettlement, as well as our turn-back measures and other arrangements. The SHEV, as it is known, will be an alternative temporary protection visa to the TPV and encourages enterprise through earning and learning in regional areas.
IMAs granted a SHEV will be required to confine themselves to designated regions—either a state or territory government or local government area, or an employer in a regional area can request to be designated. This would be identified through a national self-nomination process. No region would be required to compulsorily participate in such a scheme. The visa will be valid for five years and, like the TPV, will not include family reunion or a right to re-enter Australia. SHEV holders will be targeted to designated regions and encouraged to fill regional job vacancies, where they exist, and will have access to the same support arrangement as a TPV holder.
SHEV holders who have worked in regional Australia without requiring access to income support for 3½ years will be able to apply and if they meet eligibility requirements be granted other onshore visas—for example, a family or skilled visa as well as temporary skilled and student visa. However, I stress: they will not be able to apply for a permanent protection visa. Consultation with state, territories and local government will inform the details of the criteria for this visa. Details will be included in the regulations subsequent to the passage of this bill.
Schedule 2 of the bill also includes the creation of authority in the Migration Act to make deeming regulations. The first time this authority is being used is to make regulations that deem IMAs who have a current on-hand permanent protection visa application to instead have applied for a temporary protection visa. It also includes a minor amendment to the Migration Act to make clear that there may be multiple classes of protection visas and to include an amended definition of protection visas.
Schedule 3 of the bill will create an express link between certain classes of visa that are provided for under the Migration Act (including protection visas) and the criteria prescribed under the regulations in relation to those visas, and ensure that noncitizens can only apply for those visas in accordance with the criteria set out in both the Migration Act and in the regulations.
The government is of the view that a 'one size fits all' approach to responding to the spectrum of asylum claims made under Australia's protection framework is inconsistent with a robust protection system that promotes efficiency and integrity. It limits the government's capacity to address and remove those found to have unmeritorious claims quickly while diverting resources away from those individuals with more complex claims. The government has no truck with people who want to game the system. A new approach is warranted in the Australian context. The fast-track assessment process introduced by schedule 4 of this bill will efficiently and effectively respond to unmeritorious claims for asylum and will replace access to the Refugee Review Tribunal with access to a new model of review, the Immigration Assessment Authority—to be known as the IAA. These measures are specifically aimed at addressing the backlog of IMAs—some 30,000—and will ensure their cases progress towards timely immigration outcomes, either positive or negative.
All fast-track applicants will have their protection claims fully assessed by my department under the Migration Act. However, it is the government's policy that, if fast-tracked applicants present unmeritorious claims or have protection elsewhere, their cases will be channelled towards a direct immigration outcome rather than accessing the broader merits review process to prolong their stay in Australia. Such fast-track applicants will be known as 'excluded fast-track review applicants' and will not have access to those broader forms of merits review.
The IAA will be established as a separate office of the Refugee Review Tribunal. Eligible fast-track review applicants will have their refusal cases automatically referred to the IAA and will not have to apply for a review by it. The IAA's primary function will be to conduct a review 'on the papers', only considering the material which was before my department when it made its refusal decision under section 65 of the Migration Act.
The government recognises that a review applicant may have a genuine reason for not presenting all relevant claims in the first instance. In limited circumstances, the IAA has a discretionary power to get new information where the information is considered to be relevant, however, the IAA is under no duty to accept or request new information or interview an applicant. In keeping with this model of limited review, the Immigration Assessment Authority will not accept or consider any new information presented at review by a fast-track review applicant unless exceptional circumstances apply and the IAA is satisfied that the new information was not, and could not have been, provided to the department before the section 65 decision was made.
This new approach to review will discourage asylum seekers who attempt to exploit the current review process by presenting manufactured claims or evidence to bolster their original unsuccessful claims only after they learn why they were found not to be refugees by the department. This behaviour has on numerous occasions led to considerable delay while new claims are explored.
These measures will support a robust and timely process, better prioritise and assess claims and afford a differentiated approach depending on the characteristics of the claims.
Effective tools must be available to ensure that those who do not engage our protection obligations can be removed from Australia. Prompt removal of failed asylum seekers from Australia supports the integrity of our protection program and reduces the likelihood of applicants frustrating and delaying removal plans.
The current view put forward by some advocates that a person who simply claims to be a refugee is a refugee, despite multiple assessments to the contrary, is actually undermining the refugees convention. Those not found to be refugees have no right to stay in Australia and must depart.
Schedule 5 of the bill will make clear that the removal power is available independent of assessments of Australia's non-refoulement obligations, which are addressed in the broader assessment process where a noncitizen meets the circumstances specified in the express provisions of section 198 of the Migration Act. This change is in response to a series of court decisions which have found that the Migration Act as a whole is designed to address Australia's non-refoulement obligations, which has had the effect of limiting the availability of the removal powers. Asylum seekers will not be removed in breach of any non-refoulementobligations identified in any earlier processes. The government is not seeking to avoid these obligations and will not avoid these obligations, rather it seeks to be able to effect removals in a timely manner once the assessment of the applicant's protection claims has been concluded.
Schedule 5 of the bill will also create a new, independent and self-contained statutory refugee framework which articulates Australia's interpretation of its protection obligations under the refugees convention. The government remains committed to ensuring it abides by its obligations in respect to the refugees convention and this change does not in any way compromise this commitment. The new statutory framework will enable parliament to legislate its understanding of these obligations within certain sections of the Migration Act without referring directly to the refugees convention and therefore not being subject to the interpretations of foreign courts or judicial bodies which seek to expand the scope of the refugees convention well beyond what was ever intended by this country or this parliament. This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions—not those who seek to direct us otherwise from places outside this country. The new framework clearly sets out the criteria to be satisfied in order to meet the new statutory definition of a 'refugee' and the circumstances required for a person to be found to have a 'well-founded fear of persecution', including where they could take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour to avoid the persecution.
Let me be clear, the government is not changing the risk threshold required for assessing whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution. Under the new framework, refugee claims will continue to be assessed against the 'real chance' test, which has been the test adopted by successive governments, in line with the High Court's decision in Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1989] HCA 62.
The bill also clarifies the interpretation of various protection related concepts such as:
The new framework will also clarify those grounds which exclude a person from meeting the definition of a refugee or which, upon a person satisfying the definition of a refugee, render them ineligible for the grant of a protection visa.
The amendments contained in schedule 6 reinforce the government's view that the children of IMAs who are born in Australia are included within the existing definition of 'unauthorised maritime arrival', known as UMA, in the Migration Act. This will ensure that, consistent with their parents, these children are subject to offshore processing and are unable to apply for a visa while they remain in Australia, unless I have personally intervened to allow a visa application.
The government will also extend the definition of a UMA to the children of IMAs born in a regional processing country. This amendment supports the government's intention that IMA families in regional processing countries should be treated consistently and that children born to an IMA ought not be treated separately from their family in the protection assessment process.
Amendments will also be made to the Migration Act to ensure provisions relating to 'transitory persons' operate consistently.
From time to time, successive governments have found it necessary to cap certain classes of either the migration or the humanitarian visa programs in order to ensure that government annual targets are not exceeded. This is a vital program management tool, particularly when exceeding targets may resolve in budget overspends. As a result of a recent High Court judgement regarding my use of the cap for the onshore component of the humanitarian program, it has been necessary to make minor amendments to the Migration Act. The amendments in schedule 7 of the bill will put it beyond doubt that I may cap classes of the migration or humanitarian program when necessary.
Schedule 7 will also repeal the 90-day limit for deciding protection visa applications at both the primary and review stages of processing. The associated reporting requirements will also be repealed, as they consume time and resources without adding value to the overall government objectives.
The bill deserves the support of all parties. Just like our community continues to benefit significantly from the constant update in technology, the current management and assessment process of asylum seekers should equally be deserving of a commitment to innovation and improvement. The changes in this bill will benefit the Australian community by providing us with the assurance of an effective, orderly and managed protection program.
The government has a clear mandate for these changes. There are no surprises here; this is the government keeping its election commitments to stop the boats—upon which we are delivering—and to resolve the legacy caseload efficiently, quickly, fairly and with integrity.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
In relation to the bill on which I have just made the second reading speech, I table a letter from me as minister for immigration to the member for Fairfax; and a letter to me from the member for Fairfax relating to the proposals set out in that arrangement.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014.
This bill will ensure that more job seekers in receipt of income support meet their mutual obligation requirements to attend scheduled appointments with their employment provider.
This will help to promote a more efficient employment services system and enhance the integrity of our social security system.
It has long been a feature of our social security system that unemployed people in receipt of income support are asked to do certain activities in return for that taxpayer funded benefit.
This concept has also received bipartisan support over many years.
One of the activities that job seekers are asked to do is attend scheduled appointments with their employment provider to discuss job options and to review progress in finding work.
These appointments are not onerous and are designed to maximise the chances of a person moving from welfare to work.
Most job seekers are required to attend an appointment with their employment provider only once a month.
Appointments are generally of short duration and take into account the job seeker's capacity to attend at certain times.
Job seekers are given clear and reasonable notice of the appointments, and are also given reminders of their appointments.
This is done both formally—in person or in writing, including time, date, place—and informally via SMS, phone, or email.
Job seekers are also informed in advance that a failure to attend an appointment without giving prior notice may result in suspension of their payment or the imposition of a penalty.
If a job seeker contacts their provider ahead of the scheduled appointment to let them know they are unable to attend due to a good reason, then no suspension of payment or penalty is applied.
And if it is subsequently found that a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for the failure to attend and the failure to notify ahead of time, then no suspension of payment or penalty is applied either.
These are common sense rules in keeping with the types of behaviours and standards expected in the workplace.
However—despite these flexibilities—attendance rates by job seekers at appointments with their employment provider remain unacceptably low.
Similarly, in the 2013-14 financial year 12.75 million compulsory appointments with employment providers were scheduled—and of these 4.47 million were not attended by job seekers.
This is an attendance rate of only 65 per cent and a non-attendance rate of 35 per cent.
This sheer volume of missed appointments creates a huge red tape burden and additional costs for employment providers.
Instead of helping people with their job search, front line staff end up wasting time trying to contact the job seeker to reschedule and in submitting reports to the Department of Human Services.
All of this extra effort on the part of employment providers could be avoided if more job seekers did the right thing first time by either attending the scheduled appointment or picking up the phone to reschedule ahead of time if they are unable to attend.
This is not a big ask.
Apart from the impost on employment providers, the sheer number of people not meeting this requirement undermines the integrity of our income support system.
In 2012-13, over 238,000 job seekers had at least one participation failure applied by the Department of Human Services for missing a regular appointment or a reconnection appointment with their employment provider.
In 2013-14, this had grown to almost 280,000 job seekers. That is more than one in five of all job seekers who received an activity tested payment at some time during the year.
The Department of Human Services only applies these participation failures after a series of checks and balances—such as whether the person should have been required to attend the appointment, whether they had a reasonable excuse or if the notification of the appointment had been sent to the wrong address.
So it is clear that there are 280,000 cases each year where both the person's employment provider and the Department of Human Services agree that there were no extenuating circumstances that explain the job seeker's failure to attend.
Keeping the current rules in place which allow this number of people to fail to attend is not fair by those taxpayers who get up every day to go to work and pay their taxes that help to fund income support payments and our employment services system.
Workers are expected to keep commitments—like appointments—in return for their wages and the same sort of standards should be expected of job seekers in receipt of taxpayer funded income support.
In 2011, the former government introduced legislation that tightened the rules for those job seekers who did not attend appointments.
The then Minister for Employment Participation—the current Member for Adelaide—commenting on the then attendance rate said, 'I believe that attendance at appointments can and must improve. This is why we made an election commitment to strengthen the compliance system.'
The then minister also went on to say, 'All Australians on income support should have the opportunity of work—but with the opportunity comes responsibility—and with this bill we are going to firmly expect that people meet those responsibilities.'
We on this side of the House—when in opposition—supported these measures as a positive first step towards improving attendance rates.
Unfortunately, while the measures introduced have made a modest improvement to the attendance rate—the larger problem still remains.
As I mentioned, 35 per cent of all scheduled appointments are missed each year and more than one in five of all job seekers who receive a payment in any year have at least one participation failure applied for missing an appointment with their provider.
It is time to make further changes to drive improved attendance rates and reduce the red tape burden and financial strain on employment providers and our social security system.
The bill will achieve this by introducing stronger incentives so that more job seekers do the right thing first time round.
Currently, a job seeker who has their income support payment suspended because they failed to attend an appointment can get that suspension lifted simply by indicating they will attendanother appointment.
That is a person can simply say they will attend another appointment—even if they have no real intention of doing so—and still get their income support payment.
Given the sheer number of regular and reconnection appointments that are missed each year, it is clear that the current arrangements are not providing a sufficient incentive for job seekers to do the right thing.
More needs to be done to ensure that more job seekers are attending appointments and not wasting their employment provider's time.
Under this bill, from 1 January 2015, job seekers who have their payment suspended for missing an appointment with their provider—without giving prior notice of a valid reason—will typically only have their suspension lifted when they actually attend another appointment.
This will provide a stronger incentive for job seekers to attend their appointments and remain engaged with their employment provider.
From 1 July 2015, the bill will further strengthen compliance arrangements by providing that, if a job seeker has had their income support payment suspended for failing to attend a regular appointment with their employment provider—and it is subsequently determined that they have no reasonable excuse for that failure to attend—then they will not be back-paid for the period of noncompliance.
This provides a much stronger incentive for job seekers to either attend their scheduled appointment in the first place or to pick up the phone ahead of time, explain why they are unable to attend, and, where it reasonable, get the appointment changed.
This is what is expected of people in the workplace if they cannot make it to work and it is only fair and reasonable that a similar standard is applied to those people in receipt of taxpayer funded benefits.
The bill does not change the rules with regard to reasonable excuses.
The bill will not impact those whose failure to attend is beyond their control, for instance, where they were taken ill or had an unexpected caring commitment and gave prior notice.
And it will not impact the majority of job seekers who attend their appointments or those who let their provider know in advance if they genuinely cannot attend.
As is the case now, job seekers with a reasonable excuse will not have the suspension or penalty applied if they gave prior notice.
In addition, employment providers will remain able to exercise discretion in when they report a failure to the Department of Human Services.
The bill will not remove any of the current safeguards in the system that are designed to ensure that vulnerable job seekers do not incur penalties inappropriately.
Other amendments
The bill will also make changes to provisions that allow job seekers who are 55 years or older and have a full-time mutual obligation requirement to meet that requirement just by undertaking part-time voluntary work or paid work.
With an ageing population, it is important to encourage older people to continue to participate in the workforce, both for the good of the economy and so that they themselves continue to enjoy the benefits of working.
The Australian government believes it is vital that we increase mature age workforce participation, and through the Restart program we are providing strong financial incentives to employers of up to $10,000 to employ an eligible mature age worker. Yet the current legislation effectively allows some job seekers to become parked on income support at age 55 years.
This bill will introduce a provision that will allow cohorts of job seekers who are specified in a legislative instrument to be precluded from these provisions.
These job seekers would continue to participate in employment services and will be required to look for full-time work. For example, it is intended that job seekers aged 55 to 59 years old who would currently be in Job Services Australia would be specified in the instrument.
The bill also makes minor changes to broaden the existing delegation power under social security law to include regulations or other instruments made under the social security law.
The main impetus for this amendment relates to the recent legislative instruments for the Job Commitment Bonus, which contain secretarial powers that will need to be exercised from 1 July 2015.
Conclusion
The Australian government is committed to building a more efficient and more effective employment services system that helps more job seekers into work.
The government is also committed to ensuring the integrity of our income support system so that it is affordable and sustainable over the long term. In order to do that, we need a strong job seeker compliance framework that includes appropriate incentives and sanctions for job seekers.
While the previous government's changes resulted in a modest improvement—it was well short of what is needed.
This bill builds on the changes made in 2011 by introducing new incentives to drive more widespread change in job seeker behaviour. The government is determined to reduce the number of missed appointments each year so as to reduce the red tape burden and costs on employment providers.
The government does not consider it acceptable that job seekers miss nearly 4.5 million appointments every year when it is a simple task to pick up the phone and reschedule.
The government does not consider it acceptable that more than one in five of all job seekers in receipt of income support payments each year have at least one participation failure applied for missing an appointment with their provider.
These figures show that the problem Labor tried to resolve in 2011 persists, and that further change is needed if we are to see a significant reduction in these numbers.
The changes proposed will provide stronger incentives for job seekers to take responsibility and take appropriate action in the first place.
This is the sort of respect and courtesy expected in the workplace, and it is only appropriate that job seekers treat their employment providers in exactly the same way.
All the existing rules with regard to reasonable excuses and protection of vulnerable job seekers will remain in place.
Recently, the government announced its proposed model for a new employment services system. The government is investing $5.1 billion over three years in this new model that is designed to drive stronger performance and better outcomes for job seekers.
The government is committed to reducing red tape for employment providers so that they have more time to spend on what they do best—namely helping job seekers with finding and keeping a job.
This bill will markedly improve attendance rates at employment provider appointments and reduce the costs and impact for employment providers, whilst also maintaining taxpayer confidence in our social security system.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the report of the committee's delegation to China from 28 July to 6 August 2014. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
I am very pleased to speak to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics 2014 parliamentary delegation to China. As the chair of the committee, I had the honour to lead the delegation, which visited Beijing, Chengdu and Shanghai. Firstly, I would like to thank the other members of the committee who took part in the delegation for their contribution to the visit: the deputy leader of the delegation, Mr Pat Conroy, also Mr Scott Buchholz and Dr Peter Hendy. The delegation worked very well and brought together a variety of interests and knowledge of economic matters and other issues in China, which proved to be very valuable during our meetings and our discussions.
It was a pleasure to visit three quite different parts of China, and a wonderful opportunity for meaningful engagement and discussion between the Australian delegation and our Chinese neighbours. The delegation enabled us to reaffirm the very valuable relationship and cooperation which Australia has with China to establish connections with our counterpart committees in the country and to gain a substantial insight into economic developments across China and issues being faced in individual provinces. The delegation felt very welcome in each city we visited and was warmly received by parliamentarians and government officials, business representatives and academics.
The main aims of the economics committee in undertaking this visit were to gain a deeper understanding of the Chinese economy and to learn about China's economic reform agenda, its banking and non-bank lending sectors, its trade and investment relationship with Australia, and where opportunities might exist to strengthen ties between our two countries. Discussions also extended to areas including health, education, environmental policy, social development and security.
In Beijing, the delegation met with the financial and economic committee of the National People's Congress, with government ministries, banking regulators, the National Development and Reform Commission, China Development Bank and members of the business community.
In Chengdu, we met with representatives of the Sichuan Provincial People's Congress and Australian business representatives in the province. We also visited the site of a proposed new residential and commercial zone known as the Tianfu New Area and met with its administration. It will cover an area of 1,578 square kilometres to the south of Chengdu and consist of one city with six functional zones. The provincial government expects its population to reach six million by the time of its completion in 2030. It is estimated that this will bring the total population of Chengdu to 23 million people—around the size of Australia's population.
In Shanghai, the delegation met with the financial and economic affairs committee of the Shanghai People's Congress, with Shanghai Zhongfu property holding group, Chinese academics and the AustCham Financial Services Working Group. We were also privileged to visit the Shanghai Stock Exchange, the Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone, Baosteel's steel mill and port facilities, and the Changxing Island base of Zhenhua Heavy Industries.
This report outlines the matters discussed during our visit with a broad focus on China's economy and reform agenda and in the context of Australia's trade and investment relationship with China. China's economic reform agenda was a prominent subject of discussion, with a focus on the government's recognition that for a long time growth had relied on high input, and that innovation was now the key to China's economic future.
Endorsed at the Third Plenum of the 18th Chinese Communist Party Congress in November 2013, the package of reforms is aimed at reforming China's economy over the coming years. They include opening the financial sector to more competition both domestically and internationally, interest rate and capital account liberalisation, setting up a deposit insurance system, enabling the establishment of privately owned banks, further liberalising cross-border capital and financial transactions, development of domestic capital markets and allowing greater flexibility in the exchange rate.
Some areas of interest to the delegation among the reforms being contemplated were improvements to property rights and private ownership of property, creating fair and open market systems, improving taxation and budget systems, the opening of border and inland regions and changes to policies to assist small- to medium-sized enterprises. Overall, the reforms appear to be having a positive impact in China, particularly in cities like Chengdu, with good investor sentiment and a high level of representation by large foreign companies, including a growing number from Australia. However, it seemed to the delegation that many of the reforms were proceeding slower than was hoped, with the trade-off between reform and China's GDP growth target looming as one of the main potential areas of constraint.
As members would be aware, the House Economics Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into Australia's foreign investment policy as it applies to residential real estate, during which questions have been raised by submitters, witnesses and commentators about the level of investment by Chinese individuals and enterprises in Australian residential real estate. The ways in which Chinese investors may be obtaining funding to purchase property in Australia has also been queried, particularly in terms of the sustainability of China's so-called shadow banking sector. While the inquiry is not focused on investments coming from any particular country, the delegation took the opportunity presented by its visit to China to gain a better understanding of China's banking system and lending processes, including those within the shadow financing industry.
In this regard we heard that China is taking steps to tighten its oversight of the shadow banking industry in an attempt to slow rising debt levels and bolster financial stability, although it was clear that currently the sector is not regulated nearly as closely as traditional banking activities, and there is often very little transparency about what shadow banks are investing in or how their loans are performing.
On behalf of the delegation I would like to sincerely thank the National People's Congress for their hospitality during our visit. I would also like to thank our Australian Ambassador to China, Ms Frances Adamson, our Consul-General in Chengdu, Ms Nancy Gordon, and our Consul-General in Shanghai, Ms Alice Cawte, and their staff for the excellent program and their support and hospitality. I would also like to thank Mr Peter Banson, the economics committee secretary, for his professional assistance both with the delegation and his excellent stewardship of this report.
I know that members of the delegation were very pleased to have the opportunity to visit China as part of the Australian parliament's annual committee delegation program and I thank the Speaker, the Hon. Bronwyn Bishop, for this opportunity. The program enabled us to arrange a focused visit with meetings targeted at the committee's interests. In addition to strengthening the parliamentary and bilateral links between Australia and China, the focused nature of the visit will result in a significant contribution to the committee's current and future work. I commend the report to the House and move:
That the House take note of the report.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill, which deals with how we address the proceeds of crime. As the Bills Digest tells us, the bill amends the act to revise the procedures and requirements for making orders relating to unexplained wealth, and to allow information obtained using coercive powers under the act to be shared with state and foreign authorities for the purposes of proceeds of crime investigations and litigation. The digest tells us that unexplained wealth laws enable a court to issue an order unless the subject of proceedings can establish, on the balance of probabilities, that his or her wealth was lawfully acquired. An assessment is made of the quantum of unexplained wealth—the difference between the person’s total wealth and that shown to be derived lawfully—and the subject of the order must pay the amount to the relevant jurisdiction.
These laws are designed to target the wealth of senior organised crime figures who profit from crime while tending not to be directly linked to the commission of specific offences. That statement was made by Robert McClelland as the Attorney-General in 2009, and it shows how long this has been an issue on the agenda. It is beyond the time that we should have addressed this question. The legislation has been around for quite some time, and finally we are seeing it progress through the parliament.
Sadly, there are some issues with it, which, because of the attitude of state and territory governments, remain unresolved. We know that this bill was first introduced on 5 March 2014. It was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on 6 March, with their report made due on 15 March. We know that the committee made a series of recommendations and that eight of those recommendations have been responded to in this legislation. Whilst eight of the recommendations in the report were accepted, there is one fundamental issue which is yet to be properly addressed, and that is the question of state and territory governments having a uniform approach to this particular regime.
While the bill will implement several of the committee report recommendations, it will not address, as the Bills Digest informs us, a more fundamental problem with the Commonwealth unexplained wealth laws on which the committee made recommendations for significant reform. Due to the need for a connection with a constitutional head of power, the application of the Commonwealth unexplained wealth regime is limited to instances where a court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a foreign indictable offence or a state offence that has a federal aspect; or part of the person's wealth was derived from an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a foreign indictable offence or a state offence that has federal aspect. As the Bills Digest reminds us:
This undermines the key advantage of unexplained wealth laws over prosecution or traditional confiscation as, in practice, a connection must be made to a specific offence or fairly specific type of offence in order to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement.
To remedy this, the committee recommended that the Commonwealth lead development of a nationally consistent unexplained wealth regime. Sadly, though, despite the work that was initiated by Messrs Palmer and Moroney to investigate this option, the Minister for Justice stated on 5 March 2014 that the Commonwealth was ‘continuing to pursue a national scheme with our state and territory colleagues to crackdown on criminals flaunting illegitimate wealth’. This, I think, is a major issue and something that needs to be contemplated by the state and territory governments to ensure that we get a national regime—a national scheme that allows us to get the efficiencies and the required approaches that were identified by the committee.
It is worth pointing out, as my friend the member for Fowler did yesterday in his contribution to this debate, that it was the police themselves who raised this issue and put it on the national agenda back in 2007. The member rightly said in his contribution that, as a result of that, we owe them a great debt of gratitude. In doing so, he acknowledged the work of a very dear friend of mine Vince Kelly APM, who is the President of the Police Federation of Australia, the leaders of each state and territory police association and the Australian Federal Police Association for the work they did in raising this issue.
I want to for a moment concentrate on Vince Kelly. I have known Vince for many years—at least two decades. We now know that Vince has taken a decision to step down from the Northern Territory police service, ending 27 years as a police officer and for 14 of which he led the Northern Territory Police Association. He is stepping down at their AGM in November. For seven years he has been at the helm of the Police Federation of Australia as their president. Vince has made an unparalleled contribution to Northern Territory law enforcement and to national law enforcement. I want to acknowledge Vince for his contribution. I also want to acknowledge his wife, Andrea, for her contribution in supporting him in the work that he has undertaken, which has really been his life's work. He has had great support from his association and from police members right across this country. We have too few opportunities in this place to acknowledge the important work—the very dangerous work at times, as we have learnt, sadly, this week—of members of the police forces in the various jurisdictions and the Federal Police in this country. They provide exemplars to us of service, and Vince is one such fine exemplar. He is someone who I think we can all say has done a really good job in not only advocating for his members but ensuring that issues to do with crime and the law are properly at the front of the national agenda, such as this piece of legislation, which, as I say, came as a result of the work done largely by the Police Federation of Australia and the various state police associations.
So I say to you, Vince: I am not sure what you are intending to do when you step down from your position, but I know that you will retain a great deal of interest in the work of the Police Federation and the association and that you will want to continue looking after the interests of police force members right across the country. I know that you are held in extremely high regard across the Northern Territory. Anyone I know who has met you speaks very highly of you. Andrea, you have been a very solid support, even indulging in some of Vince's passions—at least sharing some of his passions—in the sense of his great commitment to Rugby Union. I first met Vince on a rugby field. He is a little younger than I, and he was a lot more dynamic than I was when I met him. But I say to Vince that you have made a tremendous contribution to the Northern Territory and the Australian community in your work in the police force and your work as a leader of police across this country. You deserve our tribute and I say to you, and I know the people in this chamber will share this view, that you and your police force members deserve our recognition for your courage, your commitment and your service.
I would like to associate myself with the comments the member for Lingiari made about Vince Kelly. As the wife of a currently serving member of the police force I know first-hand what a great job Vince has done in representing the members of the Northern Territory police force—people like my husband.
Today I rise to speak on the importance of combatting serious and organised crime in our communities. I wholly support Minister Keenan in taking tough steps to strike at the centre of organised crime. The changes in this bill, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014, are aimed at taking the profit motive out of organised crime and at targeting criminal kingpins who remove themselves from the day-to-day operations of their criminal organisations but reap the profits their organisation brings in through illegal activity.
The bill seeks to ensure the most effective framework for law enforcement to investigate and take action to target unexplained wealth; to streamline the process for obtaining unexplained wealth orders, while ensuring appropriate safeguards for individuals; to close loopholes in the Proceeds of Crime Act that potentially make it easier to escape unexplained wealth actions and frustrate court processes.
The coalition is committed to tackling organised crime around Australia. In our policy to tackle crime we promised to strengthen unexplained wealth laws to ensure we have the toughest framework possible to target criminal proceeds. We want to remove any financial incentives for criminal bosses and heighten the risks for profiting from criminal activity.
Constituents in my electorate of Solomon have no tolerance for criminal gangs reaping wealth from illegal activity. Darwin and Palmerston residents want a strong government that will halt criminal kingpins in their tracks and make them think twice before they effectively steal money from our community. Our policy to tackle crime was framed around the recommendations of the 2011 inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement into the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth laws and arrangements. The inquiry found that the unexplained wealth provisions were not working as well as they could be. The committee made recommendations in order to make the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 more effective. While a number of the committee's recommendations were implemented, the previous Labor government chose to cherry-pick from the recommendations, and as a result a number of the recommendations were not carried out.
The coalition's policy to tackle crime seeks to address these omissions. Reforming unexplained wealth laws was a key plank in the law and order platform the coalition took to the last election. This bill gives effect to that commitment We are delivering on our election promises and we are doing what we said we would do. However, there is still quite a lot to do.
Locally, Minister Keenan is taking crime in Darwin and Palmerston seriously. He visited during the election campaign and I worked with him to secure $300,000 in funding for my electorate for new CCTV cameras. When Minister Keenan visited my electorate last year and I took him to visit a few crime hotspots, I identified the Palmerston CBD area, the Nightcliff shopping area and the Karama shopping centre as areas that need extra attention in terms of combatting crime.
I have delivered on my election commitment to tackle crime in Darwin and Palmerston. Recently, the Commonwealth government signed-off on funding for two mobile CCTV units for Northern Territory police. The funding was provided as part of the coalition's Safer Streets program, which assists local communities to implement strategies that address crime and anti-social behaviour.
In the coming months, Darwin and Palmerston Police will acquire two mobile CCTV units, the first of their kind in the Northern Territory. Mobile CCTV units will allow for flexibility in tackling crime around my electorate. Not only will they be available to combat crime in identified crime hot spots but the units will be able to be deployed to any area should an issue arise as the needs of our local community change. We know that hotspots do change, and these mobile units are going to provide extra support for the current arrangements. It was the police who decided what technology they thought was going to help them in combatting crime. This will be an additional extra tool. It can also be used at special events to ensure the safety and security of everyone there. Mobile CCTV units are a great investment for the Northern Territory, enabling police to deploy the units on an as-needs basis. I am absolutely delighted that the police were involved in the decision making for these CCTVs. This shows the coalition's commitment to working at the grassroots level to ensure that when we invest it is for proper infrastructure and for things that are actually going to make a big difference.
Combatting crime is not only about macroinitiatives such as our unexplained wealth amendments. It is also about microinitiatives such as funding for community crime prevention measures such as the CCTVs that I have mentioned. Only safe communities can be strong and prosperous, and the best way to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour is to prevent it happening from the get go.
Tough antibikie measures fall into the macrocrime category that I touched on a few moments ago. The activities of bikie gangs, particularly in western Sydney and Queensland and also in the Northern Territory, is an area where a broad based approach is required to get on top of what is essentially a national scourge. A police officer in the Northern Territory recently commented in a world-weary tone that the bikers build up a store of goodwill among some in the community when they conduct their annual pre-Christmas toy run, but for the remaining 364 days the police are left to clean up the aftermath of their activities.
The Northern Territory government recently threw its support behind Queensland's antibikie laws in the High Court challenge that began earlier this month. In doing so, it joined the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia in backing or supporting this legislation. The Northern Territory Attorney-General made a very good point in giving his support to Queensland's legislation when he said that the bikie laws:
… are an important crime-fighting tool to crackdown on the illegal activities of outlaw motorcycle gangs, and should be upheld.
He went on to say that organised criminal gangs are not only a Queensland issue. They also have the potential for their insidious tentacles to creep beyond state and territory borders. That is exactly what the coalition is doing through these crimes legislation amendments. We are taking a national approach to criminal activity by effectively removing the peculiarities and the quirks that exist between state and territory legislation. What is more, we are tackling crime by removing incentives and deterring would-be offenders through penalties and sentencing. As with any good legislation, there is an additional community benefit component. Funding for the mobile CCTV units I mentioned a few moments ago comes from the Confiscated Assets Account. This is money taken from criminals and reinvested into preventing them from committing more crimes. I think it makes good sense.
Often, through their illegal activities, these people are dealing in death through the sale and supply of drugs that can leave families devastated and can shatter whole communities. In the past week in the Northern Territory, two Top End youngsters are believed to have died as a result of taking drugs, the source being a new synthetic drug known as quacka that recently hit the streets in the territory. There is a chain that led to the deaths of these two young people that begins with the manufacture and ends with the sale. Every single person involved in that process should be held accountable, and it is only appropriate that any profits that are made throughout this process should be confiscated from them and that they serve any prison time. This bill strengthens the laws that turn the tables on bigwig criminals who live off the profits of illegal activities at the expense of hardworking, law-abiding Australians.
I turn now to the legislation in detail. To begin with, this bill amends existing search and seizure powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act to allow authorised officers to seize material they deem relevant to unexplained wealth. Currently, there is some uncertainty that exists under the provisions. This amendment will address the uncertainty by ensuring any material that is relevant to unexplained wealth investigations may be seized when an authorised officer searches a premises under a warrant.
Unexplained wealth can be a very tricky crime to prosecute, given Australia's numerous jurisdictions. It is important that we ensure that all agencies around Australia have the appropriate tools to communicate effectively so they are able to prosecute those who violate unexplained wealth legislation. The measures in this bill will allow for law enforcement agencies to share information between themselves and even with authorities overseas. This will aid not only in prosecuting unexplained wealth crimes but also in the recovery of the proceeds of crime. The coalition will not stand by while criminal kingpins shift their wealth interstate and overseas. No longer will organised crime participants be able to shift their wealth around the country in an attempt to evade law enforcement agencies.
We are making it harder for criminals to profit from crime by making it riskier to pocket large sums of money obtained illegally. Our law enforcement agencies will now be able to work more cooperatively than ever before. This is something that they have always wanted and always tried to do, but bureaucracy has often gotten in the way. The coalition is working hard to remove those obstacles and enable our agencies get on with their jobs.
What is also essential for a cooperative and coherent approach to prosecuting unexplained wealth crimes is to ensure there is a clear and straightforward process for obtaining court orders. To give both prosecuting and defending parties certainty and clarity throughout the court process, a court will no longer be able to refuse to make unexplained wealth orders for wealth of $100,000 or more. However, for sums under $100,000, the court can still refuse to make an order if it is satisfied that it would not be in the public's best interest. Removing discretion for amounts of wealth over $100,000 still allows for appropriate protections, as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement considered in their report.
These amendments will also aid the courts in providing a clear and straightforward process for unexplained wealth prosecutions by allowing police to submit one lot of affidavit material, rather than submitting the same material for every application. Basically, if affidavit material is submitted in support of an initial court application, it will not need to be submitted again in order for it to be considered in proceedings. To streamline further court procedure, these amendments will also allow the courts to follow a simple process to allow property seized under unexplained wealth laws to be used to pay any debt owed to the Commonwealth as the result of an order. These will improve the capacity to enforce unexplained wealth orders and bring the scheme in line with other similar orders in the Proceeds of Crime Act.
These amendments are another tool being introduced by the federal government to help our counterparts in the states and territories deal with the criminal element who deal in death. I commend the bill to the House. I think this legislation is going to help our law enforcement officers around the country. (Time expired)
In contributing to this debate today on this bill, firstly I want to acknowledge in this place the outstanding work that is being done by the Minister for Justice, the member for Stirling, in dealing with the very serious issues surrounding terrorist activities in Australia. The minister is doing an outstanding job, and I think that is something that is recognised by both sides of this House.
I also want to acknowledge the outstanding work on the ground in my electorate by our local police officers. They are state based police working on the ground in our communities, keeping our people safe. I want to acknowledge the outstanding work being done at a local level by south-west police officers, particularly in relation to the number of very successful drug operations and arrests in recent months. I know that a huge amount of work over an awfully long period of time has gone into these operations, and they have proven to have very sound results. I want to thank in this place all of the officers and others involved for their hard work and dedication to our communities. The officers in my part of the world have gone over and above to deliver these results for our community.
I am out there talking to people all of the time and I have had so much feedback on this issue. I have told the local police about the feedback I am getting. The general public really appreciate this results in their local communities. They often see what is going on. They see what is happening to their communities, particularly in relation to drugs. They certainly value and respect the contribution that our local police officers make when they engage in this sort of activity. There have been really positive comments and reactions from people on the ground. It gives a very clear message to criminals as well. It sends a reinforcing message about the capability of our law enforcement officers, whether they are state or federal. We see them being active together at this moment on some of the issues the nation is facing. I think all of us in this place respect the work that they do. I certainly do. I know that the people in my community respect the work of our local police in the south-west and what they are doing. It sends a very clear message to criminals and it sends a strong message to young people—people of all ages, really—who may be teetering on the edge that the local police are very on the ball and doing the job we have employed them to do.
I, like so many other members in this place, constantly see the damage drugs and organised crime do. I see the amount of damage done, be it to an individual or their broader family. Everybody is affected when one individual in a family has a major drug problem. Illicit drug sales and use then has an impact on the community. Besides that very personal cost, there are massive health costs not just for the community but for the whole health system from treating the many conditions and illnesses that go with sustained drug use. There are physical and mental conditions relating to illicit drug use.
There are some great small businesses on the ground going out of business because they cannot compete with a business that is simply being used to launder money for organised crime. If you are small business whose job it is to make a profit out of your small business, how on earth do you do that when you are competing with a business that is simply laundering money for organised crime? Profit, of course, is not that particular business's priority, but it certainly is for the small businesses right across Australia and in my electorate. As we know, it is frequently organised crime that sits behind those types of illicit activities and businesses. This legislation is targeted at those who sit at the top of these types of organised crime efforts. We have also seen organised crime infiltrating legitimate businesses.
In the work and presentations that I do out and about on cybersafety, the amount of information that comes back to me from people who are being affected by some form of scam or fraud is just extraordinary—and growing rapidly. There is online and cybercrime. There are all sorts of different crimes in this space. There is 'hacktivism'—attacks on individuals, organisations and governments. We are seeing it all, and we will see an increase.
So the minister and this government, as has been very clearly demonstrated in an ongoing way, are deeply committed to doing everything we can to keep Australians safe and our nation itself strong. This bill further strengthens our approach to organised crime. It makes amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act to improve the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth laws to enhance our capacity to prevent those people engaged in criminal activity from actively benefiting from those activities. It takes away that opportunity for them. The bill delivers more of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement inquiry in 2011.
Unexplained wealth laws, as we know, were introduced in 2010 as part of a suite of reforms aimed at more effectively preventing and investigating organised crime activity and targeting the proceeds of organised crime groups. As I said, there is very strong community support for these laws and a very clear reason for them. The Australian Crime Commission, for instance, conservatively estimates that organised crime currently costs Australia $15 billion a year. That is a conservative analysis, I would think. As I said, it does have a very profound impact on individuals, on businesses, on communities and on industry.
The laws are located in the Proceeds of Crime Act, which provides a really comprehensive scheme to trace, to investigate, to restrain and to confiscate proceeds generated from Commonwealth indictable offences, foreign indictable offences and certain offences against state and territory laws. Under Commonwealth unexplained wealth legislation, if a court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person's total wealth exceeds the value of the person's wealth that was lawfully acquired, the court can compel the person to attend court and prove, on the balance of probabilities, that their wealth was not derived from one or more relevant offences. If a person cannot demonstrate this, the court may order them to pay to the Commonwealth the difference between their total wealth and their legitimate wealth. There are three types of order which can be sought in relation to unexplained wealth: unexplained wealth restraining orders, preliminary unexplained wealth orders and unexplained wealth orders. They are used for various purposes.
In July 2011, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement initiated an inquiry into Commonwealth unexplained wealth laws, basically to examine the operation of the existing laws, to identify relevant issues and to determine ways in which the laws could be made more effective. The report was handed down in March 2012. It made 18 recommendations about improvements. So the purpose of this bill is to amend the POC Act to actively strengthen the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth regime and to actively improve the investigation and the litigation of unexplained wealth matters. It is very important to improve both the investigation and the litigation of these unexplained wealth matters.
Schedule 1 of the bill contains amendments to the POC Act to implement the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's recommendations to include a statement in the objects clause about undermining the profitability of criminal enterprise, which is important; to ensure evidence relevant to unexplained wealth proceedings can be seized under a search warrant; to streamline affidavit requirements for preliminary unexplained wealth orders; to allow the time limit for serving notice of applications for certain unexplained wealth orders to be extended by a court in appropriate circumstances; and to harmonise legal expense and legal aid provisions for unexplained wealth cases with those for other POC Act proceedings to prevent restrained assets from being used to meet legal expenses. I think that is quite a significant part of this particular bill.
The amendments will also allow charges to be created over restrained property to secure payment of an unexplained wealth order, as can occur with other types of proceeds of crime order; remove a court's discretion to make unexplained wealth restraining orders, preliminary unexplained wealth orders and unexplained wealth orders once relevant criteria are satisfied; require the AFP Commissioner to provide a report to the PJCLE annually on unexplained wealth matters and litigation; and empower the committee to seek further information from federal agencies in relation to such a report.
Schedule 1 of the bill also contains amendments to the POC Act that do not relate to specific recommendations of the committee but have been identified as necessary to support the amendments that I outlined above and to address some of the inefficiencies in the act. They clarify that unexplained wealth orders may be made where a person who is subject to the order fails to appear at an unexplained wealth proceeding. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that persons cannot frustrate unexplained wealth proceedings by simply failing to appear when they are required to do so. The amendment will give effect to the original intent of the unexplained wealth scheme in the POC Act.
The amendments will ensure that provisions in the act that determine when restraining orders cease to have effect take account of the new provisions allowing charges to be created and registered over restrained property to secure the payment of unexplained wealth amounts and the fact that unexplained wealth restraining orders may sometimes be made after an unexplained wealth order, not only before. Consequential amendments are proposed to ensure that provisions allowing a court to order costs in certain situations where a restraining order has ceased take account of these amendments. These are very practical additions.
The amendments further streamline the making of preliminary unexplained wealth orders, remove redundant and unnecessary affidavit requirements in support of applications for preliminary unexplained wealth orders, and ensure that a copy of the affidavit relied on must be provided to the person who is subject to the order in light of the changes to the affidavit requirements.
There have been some concerns about the bill's impact on the right to privacy and the protection of families and children. In order for an interference with the right not to be arbitrary, the interference must be for a reason consistent with the ICCPR and must be reasonable in the particular circumstances. Reasonableness in this context incorporates notions of proportionality, appropriateness and necessity. In essence, this requires that limitations serve a legitimate objective, limitations adopt a means that is rationally connected to that objective and the means adopted are not more restrictive than they need to be to achieve that objective.
The POC Act enables proceeds of crime authorities to disclose information obtained using coercive powers under the POC Act with state, territory and foreign authorities for the purpose of assisting in the prevention, the investigation and the prosecution of serious and indictable offences. As a result, provisions of the POC Act interact with the right to privacy.
The bill also amends the existing disclosure rules to clarify that disclosures can be made to a state, territory or foreign authority that has a role in identifying, locating, tracing, investigating or confiscating proceeds of crime under the law of the state, territory or foreign country, in order to assist in the identification, location, tracing, investigation or confiscation of proceeds of crime. This is all part of how we deal with those who sit in the space of organised crime. This amendment is necessary to clarify that information can be shared with such authorities to assist in proceeds of crime proceedings or in the decision to commence such proceedings. The amendments made by this bill will ensure that the government continues to have strong laws to target the substantial profits made by serious and organised crime.
Before I add my voice to the chorus of support for the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014 can I do two things. I congratulate the member for Forrest on her contribution to this important debate. As a former criminal lawyer, can I say it was well considered and I am sure very well received. I also congratulate the Minister for Justice and acknowledge the very important work he has been undertaking over recent days in this place—of course, this bill is in his name. I can only think of the stresses that are placed on him at a time of national crisis, such as that we are facing. My thoughts go out to the law enforcement men and women of this country. They are people I had a lot to do with in my former life as a criminal lawyer.
In that context I think I provide something of a unique perspective on this bill. As a community member I have a deep interest in ensuring that the community in which I live is safe and secure, in ensuring that we have measures that support the halting of crime and profits flowing from criminal bosses and in doing everything we can to limit the incentives for criminal activity. As a former criminal lawyer I come to this place with a perspective from the inside, if you like—not that I ever acted for criminal kingpins. Rather, I acted for people that I would describe as the criminal underlings, who were in very many respects victims in their own right, which is something I will speak about.
It is trite but I will say it: serious and organised crime poses a significant threat to all Australian communities and to people from all walks of life. We have seen high-profile outlaw motorcycle gangs, ethnic based criminal syndicates and other criminal enterprises go about exploiting hardworking Australian families. By ensuring that these criminal enterprises are not able to profit from their illegal actions we are providing a deterrent and protecting those hardworking families. Of course, most importantly, we are bringing criminals to justice.
That is the reason that we are taking the action in this bill that targets unexplained wealth. Unexplained wealth laws turn the tables on organised criminals who live off the benefits of their illegal activities at the expense of ordinary Australians and provide an avenue to target criminal kingpins, who enjoy the proceeds of crime without in any real sense getting their hands dirty in the trenches of criminal activity. I have spent a decade acting for people and ensuring that they receive justice and fair trials, but they are very often the criminal underlings. They are coopted into a life of crime, usually because of addiction or some other element, such as psychological frailty, and they are used as pawns by kingpins, who enjoy the proceeds of criminal activity and live the high life, if you like.
I am sure it has been mentioned many times in this debate that the most famous example of an unexplained wealth case is the prosecution of Al Capone in Chicago in the thirties. He profited from his illegal bootlegging enterprise and financed a number of criminal activities, including corruption and murder. It was by investigating sources of his illegitimate, unexplained wealth and undertaking a prosecution of him that the authorities were ultimately able to bring him to justice, albeit via the unusual course of a tax office prosecution.
There are of course a number of other examples where the proceeds of crime have been used to identify criminal activity rather than a criminal act in and of itself. One of the reasons why this is so important might not have been spoken about in this place. I have sat in interview rooms and had discussions with clients who the police know and I know are nothing but pawns in the process, but they do not, cannot and will not assist police authorities for fear of their own life. They are so scared about offering up any information about those people who have effectively turned them into victims that they keep shtum, and the kingpins continue on their campaign where they provide illicit substances to young men and women and extort ordinary everyday Australians. These measures strengthen the ability of law enforcement officers to go about these prosecutions without the need to obtain that often very difficult evidence from those involved as criminal underlings.
In appropriate circumstances, unexplained wealth laws allow a court to order a person to demonstrate, quite rightly, that his or her wealth has been lawfully acquired. If they are unable to do so, the person may be ordered to forfeit their illegitimate wealth. Unexplained wealth laws are a highly effective tool, as I have said, for fighting against serious and organised crime. Taking the profits out of criminal syndicates undermines the entire business model of the criminal group and prevents illicit funds from being reinvested to support further criminal activity.
I will pause at this point to say that undermining business models of criminal activity is something that has been discussed at length in this place, in another portfolio area, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Immigration for the work he has done to undermine that abhorrent trade in people: people-smuggling. What we have done, and what the minister has done so efficiently, so professionally and so methodically, is bust up the business model for the people smugglers. That highlights how important it is when you are fighting criminal syndicates and crime in general to go after the business model, because ultimately that is what is motivating the kingpins. The criminal underlings are perhaps motivated by their illicit-substance addiction or by other factors, but the kingpins, it will not surprise you to learn, are motivated by nothing more than money.
The coalition's policy to tackle crime promises to strengthen the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth laws to ensure that we have the toughest framework possible to target criminal proceeds. This commitment followed the 2011 inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement into the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth laws and arrangements. In its final report, the joint committee found that unexplained wealth provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were not working as intended. The committee made 18 recommendations aimed at improving the investigation and, importantly, prosecution of Commonwealth unexplained wealth matters. While some of these recommendations have been implemented, there are a number outstanding, and we are seeking to rectify this situation as part of the commitment to make the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth laws as effective as possible.
There are effectively three measures in the bills, as you have heard from others. We are seeking to ensure the most effective framework for law enforcement to investigate and take action to target unexplained wealth and to streamline the processes for obtaining unexplained wealth orders while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place. We are also seeking to close the loopholes in the Proceeds of Crime Act so that we avoid the prospect of people escaping unexplained wealth actions and frustrating court processes.
In the time I have left I will briefly outline the amendments under each of these aims in further detail. As to the effective law enforcement framework, we are seeking to ensure that law enforcement powers are sufficient to target and restrain criminal assets. The bill will amend existing search-and-seizure powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act to allow authorised officers to seize material relevant to unexplained wealth. This amendment will address some uncertainty that exists under current arrangements. Other measures will enhance the ability of law enforcement to share information obtained under the Proceeds of Crime Act. To balance this expansion of power, which we must always do in this place, the bill requires the commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to report annually to the parliament's Joint Committee on Law Enforcement on the number of unexplained wealth investigations and applications. This will strengthen the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's oversight of the use of these powers and ensure that appropriate checks and balances are in place.
As to the second aim—streamlining processes for obtaining unexplained wealth orders—as well as ensuring that law-enforcement agencies are better placed to attack the profits of criminal syndicates, the bill also responds to the joint committee's recommendation aimed at improving the efficiency and fairness of unexplained wealth laws. Under the bill, a court will no longer have an overarching discretion to refuse to make an unexplained wealth order for suspected wealth of $100,000 or more. The joint committee considered that there were adequate safeguards already contained in the act. The court will retain its discretion for orders for suspected wealth of less than $100,000 and will still be able to refuse to make an order if satisfied that it is not in the public interest. Removing the general discretion will improve certainty for parties while also maintaining appropriate protections for those who are subjected to unexplained wealth orders.
The bill will also reduce unnecessary duplication in affidavit requirements—and as someone who has drafted many of those I am sure that prosecutors around the country are cheering that—by repealing certain requirements where police have already presented the same affidavit material in support of an earlier application. The bill will also improve the court's ability to enforce an unexplained wealth order by setting out a process to allow a restrained property to be used to pay a debt owed to the Commonwealth under an unexplained wealth order. This will improve the enforcement of unexplained wealth orders and bring the scheme into line with other types of orders provided for in the Proceeds of Crime Act.
We must close the loopholes in the Proceeds of Crime Act. The bill does that. It addresses those loopholes that were identified by the joint committee. The bill will prevent restrained assets which may have been unlawfully acquired from being disbursed on legal expenses by people who are trying to frustrate the unexplained wealth proceedings. They will instead be able to seek representation through Legal Aid, as is the case with other Proceeds of Crime orders. The bill will also clarify that a person whose property is subject to a preliminary unexplained wealth order is prevented from frustrating unexplained wealth proceedings by simply failing to appear when ordered to do so.
In concluding, in addition to the further minor amendments made by the bill, these changes represent a major reform of the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth laws. The measures have been informed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's comprehensive inquiry and extensive consultation with law-enforcement agencies and other stakeholders. I am confident that these additional powers will assist the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in bringing the kingpins I talked about to the justice they deserve. It is so common that the criminal underlings serve their penalty; it is so uncommon that the kingpins who drive this behaviour, who enjoy the proceeds of this behaviour, are brought to justice. These measures make it more likely. They strengthen the Commonwealth's capacity and are a measure of this government's resolve to go after serious and organised crime—because ultimately it is having a significant and deleterious effect on our community's safety and welfare. I highly commend this bill to the House.
In supporting the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014, by way of background I note that the majority of the amendments in it were previously included in the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, which was introduced into the House of Representatives on 28 November 2012 and subsequently into the Senate on 6 February 2013—but which lapsed at the end of the 43rd Parliament. The main amendments in the current 2014 bill which were not included in the 2012 bill are the insertion of an additional objective of undermining the profitability of criminal enterprises into the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; the removal of the requirement for authorised officers to meet an evidence threshold test for a preliminary unexplained wealth order where the evidence threshold test has already been met; clarification that a court may make an unexplained wealth order even if the person to whom the order relates failed to appear as required by a preliminary unexplained wealth order; and the allowance of information obtained using coercive powers under the act to be shared with state and foreign law enforcement authorities for the purposes of proceeds of crime investigations and litigation.
Organised crime—and its links to terrorism—is a major issue facing our nation. Transnational organised crime globally was estimated to have generated US$870 million in illicit profits in 2009. The Australian Crime Commission conservatively estimates organised crime to cost Australia in the order of $15 billion annually. Australia is inextricably linked to international organised crime through international financial transfers and the flow of illicit goods and persons into our nation. Australia's National Security Strategy, released in January 2013, lists organised crime as one of the seven key national security risks. Organised crime has capitalised on globalisation and the rapid technological development of the internet, enabling overseas based criminals to target Australia through cross-border links, commerce and trade, and the funding of terrorist organisations.
Organised crime undermines the very integrity of Australia's financial and taxation systems. It creates inequity by shifting the tax burden onto legitimate and law-abiding citizens and businesses. No suburb or locality in Australia is spared from the scourge of organised crime. In my electorate there was an attempt last year by an outlaw motorcycle gang to establish a new chapter and clubhouse. At the time, whilst serving on the Wanneroo City Council, I moved to reject the development application on planning grounds. The police district superintendent, Charlie Carver, made a presentation to council with evidence that the bikie gang was involved in the illicit manufacture and distribution of drugs, as well as standover tactics. Police raids in the area have uncovered several kilograms of drugs and precursor chemicals, as well as a substantial amount of cash and illegal weapons. This represents only one example of organised crime operating in a suburban environment.
The coalition government is serious about targeting organised crime and minimising its spread by implementing a strict regime of border protection and law enforcement, and by introducing unexplained wealth legislation such as this bill, which is designed to target and confiscate the wealth of senior organised crime figures who profit from crime. By confiscating illegally gained wealth, the government is removing the incentive for the commission of crime.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Act 2012 provides for three types of orders relating to unexplained wealth. Firstly, it provides for unexplained wealth restraining orders, which restrict a person's ability to dispose of or deal with property. Secondly, it provides for preliminary orders, which require a person to attend court for the purpose of enabling the court to decide whether to make an unexplained wealth order. Thirdly, it provides for unexplained wealth orders, which require a person to pay the amount determined by the court to be the difference between the person's total wealth and that which has been legitimately acquired.
Unlike existing confiscation orders, unexplained wealth orders will not require proof of a link to the commission of a specific offence, which may be extremely difficult to prove in an organised crime context. Rather, the court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a foreign indictable offence or a state offence that has a federal aspect, or that part of the person's wealth was derived from an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a foreign indictable offence or a state offence that has a federal aspect. In that sense, the new measures represent a significant shift in law enforcement strategy.
In response to the growing threat of organised crime syndicates infiltrating Australian society, the government is taking steps to ensure that the Australian Crime Commission and other relevant law enforcement agencies have appropriate surveillance and investigative powers. Information sharing between law enforcement agencies and the Australian Taxation Office will also be improved. The government will target organised crime by confiscating the profits and assets of criminal syndicates—thereby undermining their business model—through the development of a national unexplained wealth scheme, mandatory freezing orders and international agreements relating to unexplained wealth.
The Australian Crime Commission's organised crime threat assessment 2012 identified six distinct illicit activities as being key enablers of organised crime, namely money laundering, cybercrime and technology enabled crime, identity crime, exploitation of business structures, corruption and violence. According to a 2013 Australian Crime Commission report, organised crime groups in Australia are currently using sophisticated networks of businesses, proprietary companies and trusts to enable a range of organised crime and regulatory offences. Professional advisers have a significant role in helping organised crime exploit business structures by drawing on their specialist skills, knowledge, expertise and resources.
The involvement of organised crime in the importation, manufacture and distribution of illicit drugs in Australia disrupts lives, burdens the health system and causes deaths. A long list of drugs includes methylamphetamine, precursor chemicals for illegal drug manufacture in clandestine laboratories, cocaine, heroin, MDMA, cannabis, opioid analgesics, benzodiazepines, performance- and image-enhancing drugs, to name a few. Confiscating the proceeds of drug dealers in our suburbs and communities is a powerful way to remove the incentive to break the law.
Credit card fraud is on the increase. Between 2010 and 2012 there was a 26 per cent increase in fraud recorded against Australian-issued credit cards, costing consumers and the banking industry $262 million. Similarly, Australia's financial and banking systems are also being targeted by fraud schemes involving mass marketing, investments, advance fees, superannuation, securities, the share market, mortgages and loans.
Crime syndicates are also involved in revenue-generating activities such as intellectual property crime through the manufacture, importation and distribution of counterfeit goods, and software, music and video piracy. The black market trade costs industry billions of dollars in lost royalties which, in turn, results in forgone taxation revenue for government.
Firearm trafficking by crime gangs undermines the integrity of our firearm-licensing system. Weapons smuggled across borders and sold to criminals are a risk to public safety. The misuse of firearms creates a negative perception of legitimate firearm use by sporting shooters and disadvantages law-abiding firearm owners.
Organised crime syndicates are involved in human trafficking and maritime people-smuggling. Illegal immigrants in Australia without the proper class of visa are being exploited by crime syndicates as cheap labour. I refer to a recent interagency police raid on a rural property in Carabooda, near the border of my electorate, where it was reported in the media that approximately 170 foreign nationals allegedly working without visas were detained, several hundred thousand dollars in cash was confiscated, several kilograms of illicit drugs were seized and 21 unlicensed firearms were impounded. In addition, there are credible reports that the syndicate allegedly offered illegal labour hire to neighbouring farms. The entire operation would have generated substantial profits, which this legislation would seek to confiscate.
The problem of international organised crime infiltrating Australia is a serious threat to our community and the integrity of our financial and taxation system. Our vast borders and the relatively relaxed nature of our current systems enable the international flow of illicit funds and money-laundering schemes from nations with less rigorous forms of governance. It is, therefore, essential for the government to take measures to address the situation. The International Crime Cooperation Central Authority in the Attorney-General's Department liaises with international law enforcement and justice partners in formal government-to-government requests for mutual assistance and extradition. Australian agencies must cooperate by obtaining and providing evidence to assist with foreign investigations and prosecutions as well as seeking coercive action to support foreign investigations and prosecutions. By using multi-agency task forces to combine and coordinate a range of Commonwealth, state and territory capabilities, a more effective response to organised crime can be provided.
In summary, the bill seeks to provide a strong deterrent to those involved in organised crime by targeting the proceeds of crime and unexplained wealth. Wealth that cannot be demonstrated to have been acquired by legitimate means will be forfeited. This is part of the coalition government's strong stance on border protection and law enforcement. We must never allow organised crime syndicates to gain a foothold in Australian society. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014. The bill implements a key coalition election commitment. In the lead-up to the federal election last year, the coalition released its policy to tackle crime and keep our streets safe. The policy included a number of measures such as those contained in this bill, tougher penalties for people caught bringing illegal arms into Australia and our $50 million Safer Streets Program for activities such as CCTV, closed-circuit television. I will come back to the closed-circuit television issue shortly.
This bill implements a number of recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement in its 2011 inquiry into unexplained wealth laws and arrangements. It is interesting to note that Labor had the opportunity to take up those findings and implement them, but they did not. It was obviously not a priority for them. The coalition government has introduced legislation aimed at strengthening the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth regime.
Crime inflicts significant social and economic costs on communities, families and individuals. Organised crime is a serious economic threat; make no mistake. It has been estimated to cost the Australian economy over $15 billion per year. This is money gained from crimes that damage our community. Unexplained wealth laws are aimed at taking the profit motive out of organised crime. They target criminal kingpins who insulate themselves from the day-to-day operations of their criminal organisations but profit from the misery they pedal. Unexplained wealth laws give the court the ability to order a person to demonstrate that their wealth was lawfully acquired. If they cannot, that person may be ordered to forfeit their illegitimate wealth.
It is important for the Commonwealth to have the strongest unexplained wealth regime impossible. As the previous speaker said, it is one of the few ways in which organised crime can be dealt with at the top of the pyramid. This bill also builds on work that the Minister for Justice has been undertaking in trying to establish a cohesive national approach to organised crime.
I would like to take a moment to talk about crime in our society generally. Serious and organised crime is a significant threat to the safety and security of our nation, and that is something we are focused on in a slightly different way at the moment. Fighting crime is traditionally the role of state governments, through police forces, but at a federal level we do support that work. The men and women of our federal, state and territory police forces and crime-fighting agencies do a fine job, but it is a difficult job in often challenging circumstances. In my opinion, those who chase organised and unorganised crime do not get the credit they are due for working day in, day out to keep us feeling safe and secure in our communities and in our homes. A coalition government will help make our streets, homes and communities safer, with tough and effective measures to prevent and reduce crime. To deal with organised crime, we are making it more possible, through this bill, to prosecute or take the profits. There is also the issue, already spoken about, of illegal arms coming into our country, and that has to be dealt with as well.
I believe it is just as important that we deal with local crime. As I mentioned earlier, this bill includes several measures, including a program that I strongly support that provides local grants for measures such as increased closed-circuit television surveillance and better lighting in our streets, parks and community areas. I firmly believe this will help to address crime and target antisocial behaviour at the local level. The money for this program will come from the proceeds of crime, so the crimes of yesterday will help prevent tomorrow's crime.
In Calare I believe that closed-circuit TV is working well in the areas it has been implemented in. I was successful in getting money for Orange to do this back in 2007, and a year or so later it was established in the CBD. Since then Orange has added to it. Parkes council has also received funding of around $70,000 from the Australian government to install 18 cameras in its CBD. I look forward to more of Calare's towns being able to apply for funding to install CCTV under the Safer Streets Program.
Each community faces different crime problems. Luckily, Calare does not have major crime issues, but from time to time issues arise. Generally speaking, we are not a high-crime area. Data collected last year showed that crime rates in Bathurst had lowered in the last decade thanks largely to new technology and a focus on proactive policing. Compared to 12 years ago, break and enters had fallen by 55 per cent, motor vehicle theft was down by over 60 per cent and stealing from dwellings had decreased by 64 per cent. In Orange, also according to data collected last year, crime trends over the past two years had remained steady, except in the case of motor vehicle theft.
There is a perception by some that crime is on the increase. However, this has been shown to be due to an increase in the media reporting of crime and, in some cases, increased reporting by victims. As I mentioned, from time to time there are issues. Recently we saw a big drug bust in Parkes, thanks to some great detective work by the Lachlan Local Area Command. A man was charged after police seized approximately $100,000 worth of cannabis. Officers also seized a large number of fertilisers, cutting equipment and other items associated with the cultivation of prohibited substances. We do not want to see this in the community, but it is great work by the local police and our detectives in dealing with local issues. Crime prevention is, in the first place, a very local issue. But, as this legislation shows, it all leads up to the big boys at the top, and we have to deal with them.
I am a big supporter of any measures that can be taken to prevent illegal arms entering our country. Recent events in Sydney and other capital cities have shown that, almost always, it is illegal arms that are used, and quite often illegally imported arms. I commend the bill the House, because I do believe that the federal government has a serious role to play, with our state colleagues, in controlling crime.
At the outset, I commend the member for Calare for his contribution. He put it very well when he said that the crimes of yesterday will help to prevent the crimes of tomorrow—it is a very apt description of the effectiveness of this legislation. This is legislation that has been in place for a number of years, but that needs to be improved so we can ensure we have the most stringent laws to crack down on crime. It is a series of amendments that will strengthen the framework, and in doing so will strengthen public confidence that those with ill-gotten gains will never have any closure and that those gains can be obtained with unexplained wealth provisions and can be put back into the community. It makes those involved in illegal activities with unexplained wealth think twice that, as I said a few minutes ago, there will not be closure—they can be asked the question any day and if they cannot prove that their wealth was obtained legitimately, they will face the consequences of their actions.
A number of speakers have participated in this debate, and I want to focus briefly on a few aspects. The legislation in this area has been in place for a number of years. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement examined its effectiveness during the last parliament and found that the legislation had some defects that should be corrected and that some of the provisions were not operating in the way that they were originally intended. As the member for Calare and other speakers on this side have pointed out, the coalition took to the last election a strong policy to legislate in the way that we are doing right here in the House today. I want to commend the minister, Mr Keenan, for his focus in this area, both in opposition and in government, and in bringing these amendments to strengthen these important provisions into the House so we can deal with them as soon as possible.
I want to focus on one set of amendments, which a number of people have mentioned, that I think are perhaps the major improvement in this legislation—that is to ensure through the amendments that proceeds of crime which have been seized cannot be used in legal defence. The member for La Trobe touched on this last night. He said that seized proceeds can no longer be used to fund a defendant's legal case. Clearly, when someone with unexplained wealth that has been derived from criminal activity faces the prospect of losing all of it, the capacity to be able to use that for their legal defence means, in many cases, there is absolutely no end to their legal resources. Naturally, they can use it not only to tie up the system, but it is also a situation where the normal incentives do not operate. As the minister outlined in his speech, people of course should have legal representation—that is not at issue: that is why we have the legal aid system—but that is certainly something that was identified, and something that will be a major improvement in the bill.
I want to give a lot of credit to the member for La Trobe. All of us know of his expertise as a former senior member of the Victorian police in this particular area and it is something that he has spoken about in this parliament for many, many years. Back in 2009 he was part of a bipartisan delegation that went to Canada, the United States, Italy, Austria, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands looking at exactly this issue. As he said, the committee learnt a lot of things from the authorities, but they got one consistent message wherever they went, and that was that, if you go after the money, you can bring down organised crime. As he said last night, crime is about creating wealth and creating power, and the world of criminals' power will not come without great wealth, but if you take away the money you take away the power. That is the heart and soul of this legislation. It is something that he has been passionate about in our party room and in the parliament, which has benefited greatly from his expertise.
As speakers have pointed out, the proceeds of crime, once obtained, go back into the community to fight crime. The member for Calare aptly summed that up, as I said in the beginning. The most practical benefits for our local communities are in investments like closed-circuit TV security cameras—a proven weapon against local crime and a proven deterrent against anti-social behaviour. The very first federal grants in this area were made I think in 2005 or 2006. It was the former Howard government that decided it should step in and provide grants for local community groups to install closed-circuit television security cameras in our shopping malls and on our streets. It took the federal government to take the initiative back then, even although we do not run state police forces. I distinctly remember community groups in my electorate applying for these cameras after the federal government invented the program to enable these installations to occur. The very first cameras in our area were installed in Lilydale, at the train station. There were sceptics, but in a very short time where there had been a very high rate of crime and antisocial behaviour—lots of thefts from cars in the car park during the day—crime was reduced by 70 per cent almost overnight.
In the main street of Croydon, now in the electorate of the member for Deakin, they had huge problems, and it was through a federal grant, matched by a big contribution from the local community group, that a batch of security cameras were installed in the main street, with a live feed straight to the police station. That had a huge impact overnight. I know my friend and colleague who is speaking after me, the member for Deakin, has worked very hard and has made a number of commitments in these areas as well. In the electorate of Casey, because of this proceeds of crime legislation and our commitment, we are going to have further upgrades in the area. Consistent with the commitment I made at the last election, we will extend and enhance that network in Lilydale so that it can cover a wider area and we will install new networks in Healesville and Yarra Junction. I pay tribute to the Lilydale Centre Safe Committee and its chairman, Mr Alister Osborne, who is coordinating the rollout which will occur in the not too distant future.
This is important legislation. It is legislation that shows the parliament working at its best and it is legislation that we are very confident will dramatically improve the operation of the act, and with the oversight committee doing its job in the months and years ahead if there is any need for further improvements the government and the parliament will stand ready to deal with them.
It is fantastic to follow the contribution of my colleague the member for Casey. He did an outstanding job looking after a patch of Deakin when it was part of Casey by ensuring that the main street of Croydon got CCTV. That is an enduring legacy of his hard work and I think ultimately it is a great example of the fruits of the changes I will discuss today in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill. Ensuring that we use the proceeds of crime for, effectively, crime-fighting infrastructure is of great benefit to the community. I will speak a little later in my contribution about the ways in which we are using those measures in the electorate of Deakin.
The bill contains a number of measures that will be effective in hurting the criminal kingpins where it hurts them the most—in their pockets. I was staggered to learn, as I think most Australians would be, that the criminal economy in Australia is worth around $15 billion, according to the Australian Crime Commission—that is $15 billion of illegitimate wealth. The question that immediately springs to my mind is what is the cost of that to all our communities. I am sure everyone in this place—I heard other contributions earlier—has stories about how crime has damaged their community. In my electorate of Deakin, as in many other electorates around the country, one example that immediately springs to mind is the ice epidemic we are currently facing. Just this month my local paper, the Maroondah Leaderan outstanding publication—reported on how the trafficking of crystal methamphetamine—ice—is worsening and police resources are being severely tied up in dealing with this threat. I am informed that in my patch the police are arresting up to 20 drug traffickers a month and, as one senior sergeant said, 'When we arrest one trafficker, another one jumps into his place.'
What of the people who are buying this ice? Unfortunately we know all too well what this insidious drug can do to people, inducing unpredictable psychosis and other often violent behaviour. There is no doubt that there is a direct link between the supply of ice and crimes such as burglaries, thefts from cars, assaults and other street-type offences. Police are doing an exceptional job and they are using all the tools in their chest to stop the scourge of these drugs. I often applaud their hard work and dedication, and I do so again today. But what we in this place have a responsibility to do is to help our police, our state government departments and our communities by introducing laws that will help them combat crime at all levels.
We have a responsibility to protect our communities and to create a safer and more secure Australia, and that is what the bill before us today does. It introduces tough measures that strike at the heart of organised crime. These are tough measures that target the people who make their money out of other people's misery, who live off other people's addictions through drug trafficking, as I have mentioned, illegal gambling and many others, who prey on the vulnerable through cybercrime, identity theft, who rip us all off through money laundering and tax evasion and who commit or order violent and other abhorrent acts, including assaults, murders and human trafficking.
What I think is important for Australians to understand is that these measures are focused on people who not only make their money out of other people's misery but also insulate themselves from the dirty work—the so-called kingpins, the bosses. Unexplained wealth laws are a very effective weapon as they take away what crime bosses value most in the world, and that is money. These laws give courts the power to order a person to prove that their wealth was legally acquired; if they cannot, they may be ordered to forfeit their illegitimate wealth.
As other speakers have mentioned, unexplained wealth laws do already exist in Australia, but these laws need to be strengthened. We took our policy to tackle crime to the last election and in that we promised to bolster laws and close loopholes to create the toughest possible regime to cut organised crime off from the profits it needs to reinvest in criminal activity. Today's bill fulfils that promise to the Australian people. I therefore want to congratulate the Minister for Justice, the Hon. Michael Keenan, on his dedication to strengthening the unexplained wealth laws and to combating organised crime more broadly.
I know that the minister is strongly focused on establishing a national and cohesive approach to organised crime, of which today's bill forms one crucial part. It was in fact the focus of discussions between the Commonwealth and the states and territories at the inaugural Law, Crime and Community Safety Council in July. I was pleased to hear that at the council meeting the various jurisdictions agreed to look at developing a cooperative scheme that will support a national approach to the seizure of unexplained wealth. A working group will also be established to assist with this task. Again, I commend and congratulate the minister for his success in bringing the various jurisdictions together in this very important battle.
The minister in his second reading speech went through the finer details of the measures in the bill and how they will operate, so I will not go into those in great detail today. However, I do want to touch on what the amendments in this bill—some of them I foreshadowed a little earlier—are designed to do. The amendments stem from the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement inquiry into the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth laws and arrangements in 2011. The committee made a number of recommendations—18 recommendations, in fact—in its final report, some of which had not been implemented until now. The inquiry involved extensive consultation by law enforcement agencies and stakeholders to make sure that the recommendations put forward achieved the right balance of providing the agencies with the tools they need to investigate and target unexplained wealth while, at the same time, ensuring appropriate protections remain in place. From what I have read, today's bill gets the balance right and will be welcomed by law enforcement agencies, including Victoria Police in my patch, as they continue to do an outstanding job in tackling serious and organised crime.
Firstly, the amendments seek to strengthen the powers of law enforcement agencies by giving them more tools to go after the profits of criminal syndicates. The bill boosts search and seizure powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act and also makes it easier for state, territory and foreign authorities to share information and work cooperatively. Secondly, the bill seeks to streamline the laws, making them fairer and removing uncertainty. The courts' overarching discretion to refuse to make unexplained wealth orders for suspected wealth in excess of $100,000 will be removed, creating greater certainty for all parties. But I stress that appropriate protections do remain in place, with the court retaining its discretion to refuse an order if it is satisfied that that refusal would be in the public interest. Finally, the bill closes a number of existing loopholes in the Proceeds of Crime Act. People will be prevented—the member for Casey went into some detail on this—from using restrained assets to cover legal expenses to defend an unexplained wealth case; instead, as with other proceeds of crime orders, they will be able to seek legal aid. I echo the member for Casey's comment in that respect: it is a perverse outcome if a criminal boss in a certain case may be able to string out or unduly tie up the resources of a court by using restrained assets to fund, effectively, a protracted court case. Also, people whose property is subject to a preliminary unexplained wealth order will be prevented from frustrating the proceedings simply by failing to appear at court. That is a glaring hole in the current laws, and I think it is a very sensible change. We hope this reform will help to usher in a new era of combating organised crime by giving both the police and the courts the powers that they need to enforce the unexplained wealth laws.
It is also fitting that the criminal profits should fund crime prevention infrastructure. Every dollar that we take from a criminal through the unexplained wealth laws will be reinvested into crime-fighting infrastructure. It is a common sense approach and it has certainly been welcomed in my electorate of Deakin, where the coalition government is investing $600,000 to improve public safety through the Safer Streets Programme. It is $680,000 generated from criminal activity that will now make our community a safer place in which to live and work. Of that funding, $400,000 will be used to install CCTV cameras in Railway Avenue, Ringwood East and central Ringwood, where people have expressed to me their concerns about feeling unsafe walking at night. CCTV has proved to be a very helpful tool for deterring crime and assisting police to identify offenders, so much so that many groups in my electorate of Deakin are expressing to me their wish to have additional CCTV in our area. Another $200,000 for the Deakin electorate will go towards the installation of lighting in Nunawading, where the local traders association voiced fears that a lack of lighting makes passers-by and many of their customers feel very unsafe at night.
The final piece of the Safer Streets funding for Deakin is $80,000 that we have provided in the budget to assist the Whitehorse City Council with the cost of a retrofitted graffiti truck to help with the more rapid removal of graffiti in the municipality. If people feel unsafe because of anti-social graffiti in the area, we want to combat that at all levels.
All of these crime prevention measures will make a real difference to safety in my community. It gives me a lot of satisfaction to know that they have been funded by money that would otherwise have gone to furthering criminal activity. These measures are but a few examples of the good use that illegitimate wealth can be put to, and the great benefit that can come for all of us from the unexplained wealth laws.
I look forward to the bill passing, and, hopefully, to hearing media reports of successful police investigations and prosecutions of unexplained wealth cases and to knowing that, on each occasion, the Commonwealth has broken a criminal syndicate and taken away the money the syndicate relies on to continue its destructive activities. Ultimately, each successful prosecution will mean less money going into the pockets of drug traffickers, money launderers and thugs, and more money being invested in productively in our society, through crime prevention initiatives.
It is a sad reality that serious and organised crime represents a significant threat to the safety and security of our nation, as we all know too well. But today's bill goes a long way towards helping to tackle that threat and to undermining serious and organised crime. I am pleased to have been able to support this bill, and I look forward to the implementation of the reforms it contain, which ultimately will help to create a more safe and secure Australia.
I want to add to the earlier comments on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014 by the members for Casey and Deakin, and many others. It is a great pleasure to speak to this bill today. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the Commonwealth's unexplained wealth regime. This is a really important step in the fulfilment of the coalition's election commitment to tackle crime, and in the implementation of a very comprehensive national policy approach on the issue.
I would like to start by elaborating on how serious this problem is in Australia. It is quite startling when you consider that the Australian Crime Commission estimates that money gained from criminal activity in Australia is a very significant $15 billion. That is $15 billion gained from illegal activities that damage and threaten the security of the communities in which we all reside, work and live. Criminal activity can be anything. Many members who spoke earlier outlined some of those areas of criminal activity. It could be illicit drugs; fraud; money laundering and other financial crimes; trade in illicit firearms; criminal activity in sports, particularly in areas such as match fixing; and environmental crimes, such as trade in protected species. By no means is this an exhaustive list. There are many other areas in this country in which criminal activity seeks to engage. There is a very simple rule here: wherever there are easy profits to be made, there is crime, and there will always be people who will find ways to engage in crime.
The particular difficulty in tackling organised crime relates to some of its defining features. There is a very sophisticated system of transnational connections, which is a large feature of it; the activities quite often are spread over several markets; and, most difficult of all, there is a mixture of legitimate and illegal activities, which sometimes makes it really hard to define just what are illegitimate profits.
Under the amendments proposed in the unexplained wealth bill, the courts will be able to require a person to demonstrate that their wealth was lawfully acquired. Failure to do so could mean forfeiture of illegitimate wealth. I am heartened by the thought that this would reduce the profit motive for the criminal kingpins behind organised crime networks and activities, and it would debase any illusion that these profits would go undetected indefinitely. While completely eliminating crime is unlikely, these kingpins are at the top of the criminal food chain, and they are responsible for peddling misery. They are usually insulated from the day-to-day operations of crime, and they stand to gain the most financially from all of these particular activities.
The proposed bill also provides law enforcers with much more teeth in tackling unexplained wealth, and that is a good thing. The bill is a part of the Abbott government's comprehensive strategy to tackle a central feature of organised crime, but would also implement eight recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement as, part of their 2011 inquiry into unexplained wealth laws and arrangements.
In terms of the particular bill, there are some specifics which I would like to highlight today. Firstly, the bill seeks to ensure the most effective framework for law enforcement is in place to investigate and target unexplained wealth. It will also be the subject of ongoing monitoring, including through an annual report on unexplained wealth matters and litigation by the AFP commissioner to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. In turn, the committee will be able to also seek further information from federal agencies, which is much improved.
Secondly, this bill seeks to streamline the processes for obtaining unexplained wealth orders while ensuring that there are very adequate and appropriate safeguards. That includes a number of aspects, such as streamlining the affidavit requirements for preliminary unexplained wealth orders and the removal of redundant and unnecessary affidavit requirements in support of applications for preliminary unexplained wealth orders. The overall focus of these measures is to remove the disincentive of unnecessary red tape to ensure that unexplained wealth comes under increasing scrutiny in the courts.
Thirdly, the bill would close loopholes in the Proceeds of Crime Act that potentially make it easier to escape unexplained wealth actions and frustrate court processes. This includes, for example, harmonising legal proceedings to prevent restrained assets being used to meet legal expenses and a whole raft of other measures.
On a concluding note, unexplained wealth, without a robust framework for investigation and action, where necessary, is a threat to all Australians and must be addressed at all levels of government. The bill reflects growing momentum nationally to target organised crime, and the topic of this was of much discussion during COAG meetings. It also builds on the very hard work already done by Minister Keenan, and I would like to congratulate him and his department, particularly for trying to establish a cohesive national approach to organised crime. I also recognise the headway made by other state governments, even in my own state of Queensland by the Queensland Police and state government. I would like to thank them for all the work that they have done to date. In my state, we are the beneficiaries of the Safer Streets program, which has provided funds for CCTV and lights. Areas such as Fortitude Valley, Ascot and Petrie Terrace will be the beneficiaries of this fund, and they are very worthwhile projects that will make our streets safer. In particular, I look forward to working with the Brisbane City Council on these projects. Safer streets are good for all of us.
The issue of unexplained wealth was raised specifically with states and territories at the inaugural Law, Crime and Community Safety Council on 4 July. The jurisdictions have agreed to consider a cooperative scheme in support of a national approach to the seizure of unexplained wealth. It is hoped that a working group will be the next step in progressing this issue between these two levels of government. I strongly support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014. It is absolutely integral if Australia is to have the strongest unexplained wealth regime possible. This bill supports and builds momentum towards what must be a comprehensive national approach to keeping Australian communities safe. I commend it to the House.
I rise to speak in favour of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014. Mr Deputy Speaker, I certainly know that you would be well aware that serious and organised crime is a serious threat to the safety and security of our nation. I am going to mention a figure here. It has been mentioned before, but I do not think we can mention this figure too much. The Australian Crime Commission estimates the criminal economy in Australia is worth around $15 billion. That is a big figure for us to digestive. As the member for Brisbane mentioned, basically, this money is raised by peddling misery.
What does this $15 billion mean and where does it come from? This is money that is made by people who are peddling things like ice, opiates, ecstasy, marijuana and many other commodities in our economy. What are those things doing? They are destroying our youth and they are causing misery in our local communities. Fifteen billion dollars is bigger than a lot of markets for a lot of products in our economy. Ten or 15 years ago I read that just the drug trade—and this is about more than just drugs, but drugs are a big part of this—is up there in dollar value with oil and coffee. If you look at the total amount of oil and coffee that is traded around the world each year, they are big markets. A lot of people make a lot of money out of oil and coffee. The illicit drug trade is up there with that.
That is an amazing statistic. What does that mean? That means that there are a few things going on. Obviously, organised crime is making a lot of money, and a lot of these people are very invisible in our community. They are not the people that you read about in the Rich 200 list. They do not advertise that, but they are up there. Some of the richest people in our community, who are invisible, have made their money out of these types of activities. Globally, some of the richest people in the world are people who are peddling illegal and illicit activities. The other effect that it has, and why these laws are good, is that we have criminal activity both from the seller and the buyer of these products. Also, because these people are so wealthy, there is a lot of bribery that occurs with officials and so forth. So strengthening the legislation through this bill is very important.
As it has been previously mentioned, this was a commitment made by the coalition government. It was an election commitment. Unexplained wealth laws are aimed at taking the profit motive out of organised crime. They target criminal kingpins who insulate themselves from the day-to-day operations of their criminal organisation, but who profit from the misery they peddle.
The other aspect is that—and this has been mentioned before, too—obviously, that the money from this is going to go into crime prevention. I think it was mentioned by someone a little earlier that it is like yesterday's crimes are paying to prevent tomorrow's potential crimes. Just in my local community: I, too, have been lucky enough to work with the Richmond Valley Council. They have some crime issues that they feel made some parts of their streets unsafe to walk around on at night. We were able to obtain, with the good work of the people at the Richmond Valley Council—John Walker, the general manager, and Ernie Bennett, the Mayor, and their staff—over $400,000 for CCTV cameras that will be put in around the streets of Casino. This is going to be great for their community.
The unexplained wealth laws give the court the ability to order a person to demonstrate that their wealth was lawfully acquired. If they cannot, the person may be ordered to forfeit their illegitimate wealth. To be perfectly honest, this is not rocket science, is it? If you have had a successful business and you have done well it is pretty easy to show through your tax records. Even if you have inherited money or won the lottery there are some sorts of trails for those where you can say, 'Look, I have a good life and I've done the right thing.' And they deserve the wealth and the success that they have. If, however, you seem to be living a very wonderful life and cannot explain that, these laws are meant to make sure that if you have gained it illegitimately then you will be penalised for that.
It implements a number of recommendations by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement in their 2011 inquiry into unexplained wealth laws and arrangements. As I said, this was a key commitment in the coalition's policy to tackle crime. The bill seeks to do three fundamental things: to ensure the most effective framework for law enforcement to investigate and to take action to target unexplained wealth; to streamline the processes for obtaining unexplained wealth orders whilst ensuring appropriate safeguards; and to close loopholes in the Proceeds of Crime Act that potentially make it easier to escape under unexplained wealth actions and to frustrate court process. Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, guess what? These people who have obtained this wealth—often a lot of it—usually do not get the cheaper suburban lawyer to try to get them out of these spots. They employ the best legal brains that this country has. So closing these loopholes is very important for that.
It is important for the Commonwealth to have the strongest unexplained wealth regime possible. The bill also builds on work that the Minister for Justice has been undertaking in trying to establish a cohesive national approach to organised crime. The issue was discussed with the states and territories at the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council in July this year. Jurisdictions agreed to investigate and consider a cooperative scheme to support a national approach to the seizure of unexplained wealth and to establish a working group to progress the issue.
I commend the Minister for Justice. His whole focus and his whole modus operandi in this is that he wants this to be a national, cohesive approach to organised crime. This bill is a very important step in that. Obviously, with state governments and different levels of government we need the cooperation of everyone to make these things effective.
In summary, I just want to reiterate that the people who this bill is targeting are bad people. These people are peddling misery. They make a lot of money, in a lot of cases, by making people's lives unpleasant, when they have drug addictions. That is why the money that is going to be obtained from this is going to do wonderful things like provide money for crime prevention activities, like in my community with the CCTV cameras in Casino.
I would like to thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014. I would like to address some of the issues that have been raised, particularly by opposition members.
In particular, a number of opposition members have erroneously claimed that this bill is almost word-for-word identical to the previous unexplained wealth bill that was introduced by Labor in 2012. That bill, which was introduced but never passed, was in this parliament for close to a year. Despite the now opposition's comments about their commitment to unexplained wealth reform, for a whole year they could not find time within their legislative program to actually deal with it.
That bill would only have implemented six of the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement—an excellent committee, a committee whose views are always worth listening to in my view. As members would be aware, they did a comprehensive inquiry into Commonwealth unexplained wealth laws. The report that they prepared has formed the basis for how we have constructed this bill. We are implementing more of the recommendations from that committee report than Labor's legislation was going to.
Despite the claim that has been made by the member for Moreton and a number of his colleagues that this bill does not go far enough, the two additional recommendations that I have referred to compared to Labor's bill will streamline affidavit requirements for preliminary unexplained wealth orders and will repeal duplicate affidavit requirements with respect to these orders, which was recommendation 8 of the parliamentary joint committee. Also, it will include a statement in the Proceeds of Crime Act's objects clause about undermining the profitability of criminal enterprise, which was the first recommendation that was made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.
The remaining recommendations of the committee have already been implemented, or cannot be implemented solely by changes to Commonwealth law. Essentially, we have implemented all of the recommendations that have been made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement where we have been able to. I do congratulate that committee, which was chaired by a Labor member of parliament at the time when they produced this report, for the excellence of that report. It has provided the Commonwealth with some very worthwhile guidance, I think, for how we can frame this legislation.
Some examples of where we have not been able to implement the recommendations are recommendations 3 and 4, which relate to amendments to clarify the role of the Australian Crime Commission with respect to unexplained wealth proceedings. The government continues to consider the feasibility of these amendments but within the confines of the constitutional advice that we are getting from the Attorney-General's Department. Whilst these issues remain under consideration the Crime Commission will continue to rely on the existing provisions of the ACC Act to assist in proceeds of crime proceedings.
Recommendation 7 of the report, related to allowing the Australian Taxation Office to use information gained through telecommunications interception in the course of joint investigations by task forces prescribed under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 for the purpose of the protection of public finances. The recommendation is being considered in the context of the government's broader consideration of potential reforms to the telecommunications interception regime. As members would be aware, we are conducting a broad review of the interception of telecommunications. This particular recommendation of the committee forms part of that review.
The government will continue to consider options for implementing these remaining recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, including options to implement recommendations via regulations. It might be that we would not need to legislate again. It might be possible that we could implement some of the recommendations by regulation. But as I have previously said, this bill gives effect to the vast majority of the recommendations that have been brought down by that excellent committee.
In addition to this, the government is actively pursuing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity recommendations regarding a national unexplained wealth law. Several opposition members also referred to the report by former police commissioners, Mr Ken Moroney and Mr Mick Palmer, into options to enhance national arrangements for unexplained wealth. Whilst the report has not been made public, it has been provided—in most cases—personally by me to all police and justice ministers around the country for their proper consideration.
The member for Moreton was right when he said that Labor was unable to break the deadlock on this issue with the states and territories. It made several attempts to convince the states to sign up to a Commonwealth-led scheme. He is right in saying that effort was made, but like so much associated with the previous Rudd and Gillard governments, even when they had a good idea, such as implementing national unexplained wealth laws, they really had no idea how to go about cooperating with the states to actually implement it. What you do not do is brief the media about what you are going to do and then brief the states afterwards—which of course is what happened in this instance. I can assure you that at our first meeting with the states and territories where we discussed this, the anger that was felt by those states and territories, including Labor run states and territories, about the way they had been treated by the previous government meant that there was absolutely no way they were going to agree to a national unexplained wealth regime while they were being treated in that way by the Commonwealth. If you are going to try and get agreement with people, the first thing that you should do is talk to them and explain what it is that you are trying to achieve and why you believe it will be good for the country. In government, Labor, for some unknown reason, refused to do this with the states and territories, and the states and territories responded appropriately by not being that cooperative. I appreciated their concerns and, as soon as the government changed, it was raised with me that the states and territories would appreciate being treated in a different way by the new government. We have certainly done that since we came to office. Indeed, this issue is going to be further discussed at the second meeting of the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council which will meet in Geelong next Friday, 3 October.
I am not going to give a running commentary on negotiations with the states, but the idea and principles behind a national unexplained wealth regime are very sound. I have been talking to both state police ministers and state justice ministers or attorneys-general. I hope that by using that approach, where we do not negotiate through the pages of the media but instead we negotiate face-to-face—I went and visited all of the ministers over the course of the past year—that we will come to a reasonable agreement with Commonwealth and states cooperating to make sure that criminals will have the money that they make through their behaviour confiscated.
The member for Moreton has noted that this bill does not contain new provisions relating to the work of the Australian Crime Commission. The amendments that were proposed by the PJCLE that relate to the Australian Crime Commission have either already being implemented or raise quite complex legal issues for consideration. The government has taken the view that the remaining measures in this bill should not be held up by the work that is going on in relation to those issues, and that we should pass the vast majority of the recommendations of the parliamentary joint committee while we are working through some of the constitutional implications that have been raised in relation to the Australian Crime Commission's role in unexplained wealth proceedings.
Recommendation 2 from the parliamentary joint committee proposed the amendment of Commonwealth legislation to allow the Crime Commission board to issue a determination on unexplained wealth to enable the ACC to use its coercive powers to provide evidence in support of unexplained wealth proceedings. This recommendation was considered, but it has been determined that the ACC can already use its coercive powers to investigate matters relating to relevant federal criminal activity. Evidence gathered by the ACC is generally available for use in unexplained wealth proceedings.
Recommendations 3 and 4 relate to amendments to clarify the role of the ACC with respect to unexplained wealth proceedings. We have considered the recommendations that were made by the committee but, as I highlighted earlier, these recommendations raise very complex legal issues and very complex constitutional issues. They require further consideration which we are progressing at the moment through the Australian Crime Commission and the Attorney-General's Department. Whilst these issues are being actively considered by the government, the ACC will continue to use its existing powers to assist in proceeds of crime proceedings.
There were many comments made by opposition members about federal law enforcement's funding position. The government was left with a very difficult situation when we came to office in relation to Commonwealth law enforcement because the previous Labor government did not support Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. They cut $120 million from the Australian Federal Police between the fiscal years 2010-11 and 2013-14. They cut $30 million and 88 staff from the Australian Crime Commission between 2007-8 and 2013-14. To put that in context for Australia's criminal intelligence agency, that is about a third of its budget and about a third of its personnel. They really crippled the ability of the Australian Crime Commission to do its job while they were in office. For six years, under Labor, this was an agency that was not supported; now that we have come to office we need to go about rectifying the damage that was done. I am pleased to say we are doing that, but the damage was very extensive and it is going to take us some time to fix. Twenty-seven million dollars and 56 staff were cut from AUSTRAC between 2009-10 and 2013-14. The record of the Labor government in relation to Commonwealth law enforcement agencies is abysmal. The role we have had since coming to government is to rectify some of that damage. I am pleased to report to the House we are doing exactly that.
We will restore the capability of federal law enforcement agencies, given the cuts they suffered under the poor budget management of the previous government. But faced with the difficult fiscal situation we are in, we need to do that gradually. We have recently allocated $77.3 million to the Australian Federal Police as part of the $630 million counter-terrorism package and that is a very significant investment in Commonwealth law enforcement. Other agencies such as the Crime Commission will get over $20 million, and AUSTRAC will get the same amount to pursue objectives under that counter-terrorism package as well.
Several members have used this bill to highlight the views regarding the government's Safer Streets program, which is funded by proceeds of crime. Again, unlike the former government, we are actually using the proceeds of crime—money we take from criminals that they have gained through their criminal activities—to fight crime. The previous government took money from proceeds-of-crime proceedings—from criminals—and they refused to spend it. They used it to prop up their dodgy budget figures. We said we were not going to stand for that and as soon as we came to government we reversed that, but it does not stop the Labor members from having the front to criticise what we are doing, which I find quite extraordinary.
We are committed to the Safer Streets program. It is an excellent program. It is an exceptionally good use of proceeds of crime money. It will fund $50 million worth of investment across the country over the course of the three years of the first Abbott government, which will assist state, territory and federal police to do their jobs. The member for Moreton—whose contribution I did not hear; I only had it reported to me by my staff—has clearly made a series of egregious errors. This does not surprise me, unfortunately. He stated in his contribution that the guidelines and eligibility criteria for the Safer Streets program are hidden. These are the secret guidelines that were raised by the shadow minister for justice. I thought I had comprehensively dealt with that allegation in the House. Not only have we published them on the internet, they actually have their own web address. If you go to a very useful site called Google and type in 'safer streets' and 'guidelines' it will be the first thing that comes up. I would advise the member for Moreton—who must not have been in the House the day the shadow minister for justice raised that particular allegation—to use 10 seconds of his time to do some research before he comes into this House and makes ludicrous claims.
I have very little time left to me, but I am very proud of this bill. This bill will make the lives of serious criminals in Australia much harder. We are implementing the recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, chaired by a Labor member at the time, the member for Fowler, who has done an excellent job in conjunction with his colleagues. I am proud of this bill and I commend it to the House.
Question agreed to.
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.
) ( ): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014 is similar to the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill that had been introduced by Labor in May 2013. Labor support this bill because it contains a number of important measures, which we first sought to progress in Labor's IP Laws Amendment Bill 2013 and which I will refer to in my remarks.
The patent system underpins our intellectual property system and, by extension, Australia's innovation system. The key to an intellectual property system is striking the right balance between encouraging innovation while ensuring people have access to new technologies. The patent system is particularly important for encouraging innovation in the biotech and pharmaceutical sectors because of the high costs and risks associated with developing new medicines. Without adequate patent protection, many new products would never make it through the development and commercialisation phase and would therefore never reach consumers.
A well-balanced IP system advances the interests of Australian innovators by lowering business costs and by making it easier to access export markets. But it also allows Australia to provide assistance to developing countries when it is needed most. When Labor were in government, we introduced the IP Laws Amendment Bill 2013, which contained a suite of measures to make the Australian IP system more responsive to the needs of consumers, more efficient for entrepreneurs and more supportive of other countries facing health emergencies. The primary purpose of Labor's bill was to clarify the scope of Crown use and its operation, particularly in the context of health care, and to implement the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement—otherwise known as the TRIPs protocol.
After scrutiny with various House of Representatives and Senate committees, Labor's bill reached the Senate in June 2013; however, it lapsed with the commencement of the 44th Parliament in November 2013. This bill amends the Patents Act 1990, the Trade Marks Act 1995, the Designs Act 2003 and the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994. The main purpose of this bill is to implement the TRIPs protocol, which would enable manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals to apply to the Federal Court for a compulsory license to make and export a patented pharmaceutical product to address health crises in developing countries. Countries that implement the TRIPs protocol are able to export patented medicines under compulsory license to countries in need.
The TRIPs protocol is a World Trade Organisation agreement drafted in 2005 that sets out the minimum requirements for intellectual property protection for WTO member states. Australia has been a signatory to the TRIPs Agreement since September 2007, but has yet to implement these provisions via legislation. According to the World Health Organisation there are more than 100 countries currently experiencing one or more serious epidemics. In 2011 an estimated 262 million people were infected with malaria, HIV-AIDS or tuberculosis, causing 3.8 million deaths. Many of the countries suffering from such epidemics are developing countries that do not have the capacity to manufacture or distribute the necessary medicines. We are seeing this right now with the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.
The WTO has tried to address this situation through the TRIPs Agreement, which enables a country that is experiencing a serious epidemic to access patented drugs. Under the TRIPs protocol, member countries with limited or no manufacturing capacity can access patented pharmaceuticals made under compulsory license in another WTO country. The TRIPs protocol aims to encourage patent owners to either provide medicines to least developed countries at affordable prices or to issue a voluntary licence to generic manufacturers to provide medicines at affordable prices. If the patent owner is unwilling to do this, the protocol provides a mechanism to force the patent owner to issue a compulsory license. Schedules 1 and 2 of this bill, like Labor's 2013 bill, will enable manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals to apply to the Federal Court for a compulsory license to make and export a patented pharmaceutical product to address health crises in developing countries, delivering on our commitment to the WTO's TRIPs protocol. It is important that we implement a proper mechanism to ensure access to essential medicines for countries in need.
In addition to implementing Australia's commitment to the World Trade Organisation's TRIPs protocol, this bill also contains a number of important measures, which we first sought to progress in Labor's IP Laws Amendment Bill 2013. Those measures included: firstly, extending the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court to include plant breeders rights; secondly, allowing for a single trans-Tasman patent attorney regime and single patent application processes for Australia and New Zealand; and, thirdly, minor administrative changes to the Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Designs Act.
I will turn for a moment to plant breeder's rights. Schedule 3 of this bill amends the Plant Breeder's Rights Act to enable the owners of the plant breeder's rights to take action against alleged IP infringements in the Federal Circuit Court. The amendment will provide a quicker and more efficient means of resolving disputes about the infringement of plant breeder's rights which could previously only be dealt with in the Federal and High Courts.
With respect to the single Australian-New Zealand patent examination process, the bill also makes some changes. Schedule 4 of this bill proposes a single patent application and examination process and a single trans-Tasman patent attorney regime to support the single economic market arrangements between Australia and New Zealand. The aim of these amendments is to streamline the process for applying for patents in Australia and New Zealand, thus reducing duplication and saving costs for investors and inventors.
I now turn to the administrative matters. Schedule 5 of the bill contains a number of minor administrative matters, including removing document retention provisions in the Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Designs Act so that IP Australia's retention of documents is governed only by the Archives Act. It also makes changes to minor oversights in the drafting of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 and technical corrections to drafting oversights in the Patents Act.
The major difference between Labor's 2013 bill and this bill is the deletion of schedule 1 of the 2013 bill, which modified the operation of Crown use provisions. Crown use is an important but rarely used safeguard that allows governments to access patented inventions without the owner's authorisation and can be invoked when an invention is used for the services of the Commonwealth or a state. It is an exceptional use that enables the government to use a patent for the benefit of community need without first negotiating a licence. Crown use provisions are currently enshrined in sections 163 to 170 of the Patents Act. Governments can apply Crown use provisions in a similar way to compulsory licensing; however, the Crown use provisions are a less costly and more effective option. With Crown use, patented inventions can be used without first seeking the owner's permission. The patent holder is, however, entitled to remuneration.
Crown use provisions provide a safeguard to ensure that the patents system does not prevent the government from acting in the public interest. Labor's bill would have amended the Patents Act to clarify the scope of Crown use and its operation. Schedule 1 of Labor's bill made it clear that Crown use can be exercised when an Australian state or territory government has the primary responsibility for providing or funding the provisions of a service. Labor introduced these measures in response to community concerns regarding gene patents and access to health care and to clarify the circumstances where governments could intervene to address unreasonable patent holder conduct that could result in patients being denied reasonable access to health care.
The Productivity Commission examined Crown use in its inquiry Compulsory licensing of patents that was released in March 2013. Their report addressed several reasons why Crown use provisions were rarely used. These issues were what schedule 1 of Labor's Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 sought to address, specifically in response to community concerns on the issue of gene patents and health care. While the bill currently before the parliament does not include Labor's measures around Crown use, it does contain other important changes which are indeed long overdue. However, we note the removal of Crown use provisions and call on the government to continue monitoring the situation with gene patents and access to health care very closely.
I now turn to Crown use and gene patents. In recent years there has been growing debate over gene patents and their impact on research and access to health care. In government, Labor took this issue very seriously and implemented a number of measures to address community concerns around gene patents, including multiple reviews and long-running consultation processes, while still maintaining a strong patents system that encourages innovation. In Australia there have been three substantial government reviews of gene patents in the past decade and several inquiries have been conducted into the impact of gene patents on access to health care—namely, the 2004 Australian Law Reform Commission report on genes and ingenuity, the 2010 Senate Community Affairs References Committee report on gene patents and the 2011 Senate Constitutional and Legal Affairs Legislation Committee report on the Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010.
The 2004 Australian Law Reform Commission review made a number of recommendations, including amendments to the Patents Act, that specify healthcare services or products as a rationale for invoking Crown use provisions. The report noted that, while Crown use provisions are rarely used, they constitute an important mechanism in helping to ensure that patent protection does not adversely affect significant public interest. The Australian Law Reform Commission did not recommend amending the Patents Act to exclude genetic materials or technologies from patentability.
As I said at the outset, this legislation effectively implements legislation that was introduced in this place just over a year ago by the previous Labor government. There are some minor differences but, notwithstanding those differences, we believe these measures are long overdue. Labor will be supporting this bill.
The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014 this afternoon gives me an opportunity to talk about the TRIPS agreement, which over the last decade has slowly come to fruition, after recognition late in the last century that the market failure that exists in developing economies made it almost impossible for us to have a realistic crack at the great killers of TB, malaria and AIDS-HIV in particular. We have seen in the last 10 years significant advances since the work first began. Much of it emanated from Harvard University. Jeffrey Sachs and Michael Kremer, an economist from the Harvard University School of Economics, brought this issue to public recognition. In this debate today, where we finally connect the TRIPS agreement after at least seven years of waiting since it was drafted, we recognise the work that occurred 10 years ago.
It was Kremer who published 'Pharmaceuticals and the developing world', which was a really important contribution in 2002. Some of the initial drafts of that document back in 1999 came to my attention as a young student looking for an area of important international health to work on.
At that time it was important to recognise that the market failure that really prevented major pharmaceutical corporations from taking cutting-edge drugs to the developing world was a problem for which we had no solution—and it was not that long ago. At the time, the concept was to turn to wealthy countries and ask them for a contribution to a fund proportional to their GDP, which would act as a pool mechanism so that as great drugs potentially came along for which pharmaceutical manufacturers knew there was no large financial market because the disease primarily existed in the developing world, a fund would effectively pull it through the stages to eventually see that drug being approved.
We had two types of diseases to consider. Firstly, we had conditions like HIV that were a significant problem and offered financial revenue in developed economies and, therefore, could be taken to the developing world. Secondly, we had the diseases that existed almost exclusively in the developing world. These are the ones that have huge amounts of morbidity. The diseases are known to us in wealthy countries but, of course, they afflict millions in the developing world. The list of those include:Chagas disease and dengue, hookworm, Japanese encephalitis, lymphatic filariasis, oncocytosis, schistosomiasis, and trachoma—with the exception that it exists in Australia. For those diseases, we know there are millions of people affected but that there is not really any revenue model to get the research happening because pharmaceutical manufacturers know that there is not really a great market there.
There is no market there for three reasons. First of all, these are relatively small economies with large populations and very, very low GDP per capita. There is no real market to purchase these pharmaceuticals and no way of distributing them. And, of course, the positive externalities of people seeking out treatments for preventing infectious diseases from spreading simply do not exist because people have given up seeking medical treatments in many cases.
That challenge, of course, was far less complex with HIV because, since at least 1984 when it was first known as HTLV, there has been a worldwide effort to find cures for HIV. We are now in a position where, while we cannot eradicate the virus, although we think we have come very close on occasion, we know that people will most commonly live and die with the disease rather than from it. So there have been remarkable breakthrough drugs and just getting them to the developing world has become a simpler process—and that is where TRIPS came in. We acknowledge that the drugs were being created, but we did not want to undermine the First World market by producing large amounts of this drug and delivering them to the Third World. First of all, that undermines any market there might be in those countries. Secondly, you have the risk that these drugs are purloined, taken across borders or actually sold in poor countries to the wealthy populations that live there. All of this would undermine the market proposition for these companies who might otherwise consider doing it.
As a result, TRIPS was, I think, ingenious, and really changed the way we were thinking. Back in 1999, Kremer's initial thoughts were about creating this fund that would make pharmaceutical companies say, 'Well, we have this molecule; it is going to costs hundreds of thousands or millions to develop. But at least we know there is a pot of money at the end.' That pot of money at the end of the rainbow just proved to be a little bit too tricky. In the end, we have fallen back to the more realistic goal of using the market to develop world-leading drugs and then going to the manufacturer and saying, 'You have a great drug that can work in the developing world. We will pay you to license generic manufacture of your drug at super low prices, and the wealthy countries will compensate you for your losses by selling that drug to the developing world to people who could never afford it.' That proved to be, I guess you could say, a more practical approach to the problem.
Globally, what we know is that in this effort to take technology to the poorest parts of the world, we have a different experience here in developed nations than we have right now in developing economies. Traditionally, the old way of doing it was to wait for income to increase. As income increased, health also improved. That is the correlation between more income and being able to purchase better health. That is what we saw in developed economies. This was really interesting work done by Rob Fogel, who found that the 50 per cent health improvement and the fall in death rates in the UK and the 70 per cent improvement in the US actually happened before 1911. That means it happened pre-drugs and pre-technology, effectively—certainly pre-antibiotics.
That was the developed experience. But in the developing world, it is really completely different. For example, Vietnam has a GDP per capita about 10th of that of the US at the start of last century, but their life expectancy is already 20 years longer. Something different is happening in the developed world now. Even in Africa, with a lot of the instability there, we saw that the GDP fell between 1972 and 1992 by over 10 per cent. But even in that time of falling GDP, we were seeing falls in infant mortality and improvements in longevity, which obviously was independent of either GDP or household earnings. So this is the new challenge then. We cannot afford to wait for the developing world to turn around. We cannot afford to wait for incomes to rise. We cannot take that standing-back approach to build capacity and wealth and hope that health will rise with it. We now have technology—a frontier which can move into even the most poor and dysfunctional communities and improve health. I guess that is the path that we have now taken.
Samuel Preston estimated, even in the 70s, that income growth was probably only accounting for between 10 and 25 per cent of the improvement in health. Dean Jamison, as recently as 2001, was even more precise. He attributed, I think, over 70 per cent of the decline in infant mortality rates between 1962 and 87 to technology alone—21 per cent to better education and, really, only about five per cent of that improvement due to growth in income. So the general belief now is that we cannot wait for improvements in capacity. We have to give ownership of these solutions to countries themselves, because they know what works. But in the end there are very elaborate partnerships supported by TRIPS, which include your bilateral and multilateral agreements. You have the faith organisations, NGOs, the private sector brought in and then, of course, agreements with government. It is a very complex partnership that underpins it.
This, of course, is at the heart of the Global Fund. The Global Fund is there to specifically focus on those three big killers—AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. They have just taken a very simple approach—a large pot of money, listening to the countries of origin and where the work is being done, and giving them full control over it by having a process that does not advance unless every one of those parties that I have just listed is involved. Getting government and civil society working together is not new. We have NGOs all over the world—often poorly coordinated but doing their best in resource-sparse environments. What has changed in the last 10 years is a general reaching out to the private sector, realising that you just have to have the engine room of intellectual property making a difference in the developing world, and there was a time, as recently as 2000, when we really had not woken up to that. That has been a very, very significant shift.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has also made an extraordinary mark just in the last 20 years. I can remember when the foundation first visited the World Bank. It was in 2000. Even at that time, the World Bank was more focused on reducing corruption in its dealings with developing economies than it was with elaborate private sector partnerships. So when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came along with an utterly different approach, I can remember the impact that it had in Washington. Basically, the foundation turned up and asked: 'What are the diseases for which there is a cure but which is not available in those countries?' There was a big long list. There was a very simple piece of arithmetic done. The foundation simply asked, 'How many people are affected? How much does the drug cost? How much does it cost to deliver?' They multiplied those together and wrote a cheque. This was an extraordinary change in the way aid was delivered. The foundation simply said, 'Our goal is not to have as many diseases with as many people afflicted at the end of our work. We want to start eradicating disease full stop.'
This new look at how aid can be delivered is not about how much you have to give but about pausing to work out how much it would cost to get to the goal. You agree on the goal and then you work backwards. You work backwards from that and ask, 'Is this a realistic goal that we can achieve within a lifetime, within a decade or within a year?' This is about looking at it from the other side and saying, 'We will not stop until this is achieved.' It will be utterly futile unless we take that approach which looks at the destination rather than simply the positive feelings of being part of a journey.
The TRIPS agreement took a long time to connect up here. I have to note that in six years of a Labor government this process could have been accelerated but it was not. These things are way too urgent to wait. This was something that was drafted and generally agreed to in 2007 and here we are finally dealing with it today in 2014. That is a source of concern. They are an opposition that feel very comfortable taking the high moral ground on foreign aid, but with all of their domestic disputes and troubles they found it almost impossible to take really meaningful steps in government. There were 100 countries affected by diseases for which cures were not available who had to wait for the duration of that six years of Labor government until there was a coalition government to finally get this moving.
I do not want to become too partisan in these comments, but there is a sense that Labor is easily distracted by other matters and often forgets that there are simpler, red-tape-free ways of getting things done. Again, agreements between New Zealand and Australia are way more complex than we thought when we first embarked, but this effort to get a combined Australia-New Zealand therapeutic goods administration is well worth pursuing. Although we possibly underestimated its complexity, having a single trans-Tasman agreement within IP is certainly an excellent idea.
My focus today was primarily on TRIPS because I think that is the headline story from this legislation. We now have a way of directly incentivising the generic production of breakthrough drugs for the developing world. I really wanted to point out in my speech today that 10 or 15 years ago that was not even contemplated; we were heading in the other direction. But now in economies such as in sub-Saharan Africa, where 38 countries spend less on health in total than the single state of Connecticut in the US, we can start to make a difference for populations there even when their own governments do not share the same passion for diverting and maintaining investment in health. There is not a high enough recognition that health underpins economic outcomes in those countries. Until we have the capability and sophistication within those governments to have that focus on health and human development, in the meantime we will have these very fertile partnerships between the world's biggest pharmaceutical manufacturers, the world's biggest technological developers, those who are coming up with the bright ideas that are the subject of IP, particularly here in Australia, civil society and government. I look forward to those partnerships developing further.
I was going to begin by complimenting the member for Bowman on an excellent speech. He did blot his copybook towards the end, but I think he gave a very powerful and important explanation of the importance of TRIPS and the role that this legislation will play in ensuring that Third World communities have access to the drugs they need to deal with very severe conditions and to overcome some of the fundamental inequity that exists across the planet where people who are most in need of medical assistance and advanced pharmaceuticals so often simply do not have access to them. I want to compliment him, as I said, for explaining that in very considerable detail.
He did, however, blot his copybook somewhat towards the end because he misrepresented the case of who, in fact, first proposed this legislation. The legislation in relation to TRIPS, as we all know, first came before this parliament in 2013. It was a piece of legislation promoted by the Labor government. But at that time, in keeping with the 'just say no' approach of the then opposition, it was objected to by the opposition and described as inadequate, incompetent legislation by the now departed former member for Indi. We now see this legislation being brought back into this place, and it does have the support of the opposition.
There were just a couple of matters that I wanted to raise here today. The first is one of the things that is not in the bill. There has been an entire area of difference between the Labor bill and the bill now before the House—and that is, as my colleague earlier mentioned, the removal of the Crown use provisions. These are provisions that already existed within patent law that allow the Crown, from time to time, to utilise patents for public purposes without necessarily obtaining the licence of patent holder. Governments are required to pay compensation for that use, so it is not something that will detract from the economic position of the patent holder. This is in order to ensure that public good is protected by patent law.
At the end of the day, patent law is the gift of the state to the private patent holder, going right back to the days of the woollen stockings that were the first subject of patent protection in the United Kingdom in order to encourage the French manufacturers to come over and bring their worsted stockings to England. So it is very much a gift, and part of the Crown use provision is a recognition that from time to time there is an important role for the state in accessing those patents and having the capacity to do so. There has not in fact been all that much Crown use of patents in Australia—I think we have found half a dozen cases where this has been invoked, two of which have been contested—but I think this is an issue that will become increasingly important because of this issue of gene patenting.
There is a great deal of concern in the community about gene patenting. Amongst many people, including cancer survivors, the ability to patent a gene mutation such as the BRCA mutations for breast cancer is really seen to be quite repugnant. People find it very difficult. I will just read an email I received the other day from a Lesley Keegan. Lesley says:
I can't say how disgusted I am with Australian Patent laws which is in the process of allowing the patenting of genes. This isn't about saving lives, this is about making money. It is happening in every genetic research sector including one close to my heart, the genetic heart research sector … I have had the misfortune to have had contact with people within the genetic heart research sector. My opinion is and has been for quite a while that there is something intrinsically wrong with the system.
We have seen the same from breast cancer survivors.
This is a very complex area. In the 2004 report—and I think it was one of the first and most comprehensive reports on this whole issue of patenting of genetic material and whether or not we should allow it—the Law Reform Commission certainly expressed that they were sympathetic to the concerns of the public about the patenting of genetic material. But they made the point that if had been addressed in the 1980s, just as the capacity to do this detailed genetic sequencing was emerging and as the activity of private laboratories in this area was emerging, it may well have been possible to do something. The point they made in the 2004 report, in the 2009 submission to the Senate inquiry and, I think, in the subsequent 2013 inquiry was that the 'gene genie', if I can say that, is out of the bottle and there have now been so many patents granted in this area—tens of thousands—that it would be difficult to unwind that. So they recognised the problem, but we have really gone too far down the track, in their view, to unwind this.
What they proposed instead was that we modernise and make more accessible these Crown use provisions. These Crown use provisions were to be modified and strengthened so that, if there were a situation where access to genetic material is not made available to allow treatment or further research and development to take place and the development of realistic and affordable solutions for people who suffer from genetic mutations is blocked—and there are people who are fearful that this is the case—then the Crown use provision would enable the government to override the exclusivity of the patent and ensure proper compensation. Nevertheless it would provide a level of protection. Unfortunately, the government of the day has decided that it is not going to do that. It is not going to act in accordance with the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission in this regard and it is not going to allow the Crown use provisions to be strengthened and modernised so that they create this fallback position.
There is one other item I wanted to comment briefly on, and it is plant breeders' rights. The bill before us provides for a more accessible regime, with greater accessibility to courts for a more speedy resolution of disputes relating to plant breeders' rights. Of course, that is important. These can be very expensive processes. But I will just make the observation that I think there is a great future in genetic modification of crops. I do understand concern in sectors of the community about GM, but it is science and it is progress. It can enable us to do extraordinary things—to take genes for drought resistance from plants in African deserts, incorporate them into food crops and ensure that we can deal with some of the consequences of climate change on the drying continent that we are facing here in Australia.
So I think there is great potential for GM, but one of the really big risks that we face is the conduct of the companies that own the GM rights. I do not think that we have the legal regime here right. Some of the really unfair treatment of people whose crops have been corrupted—or infiltrated—by GM crops and who then found themselves on the receiving end of penalties is quite extraordinary. Until we resolve that legal issue, until we have a fairer regime for those farmers who choose, as they should be able, not to go down the GM path they will continue to have that two concerns. One concern is their ability to protect their product, but an even more profound concern is that if they are unwittingly the subject of an invasion by seed from GM plantations not only is their economic model undermined but they can become financially liable for having expropriated the stock and genetic material of the seed company. That is a completely untenable position and one of the things that are standing in the way of there being a wider spread acceptance of GM crops. I really do urge this. I know it is not the issue that is dealt with centrally here, but with this bill we are making it easier to take action under plant breeders' rights. Part of the sequel of that has to be to make sure that those rights are fair and protect the interests of non-GM farmers as well.
We support this legislation. We are particularly enthusiastic about the implementation of the TRIPS regime. We are not an opposition that just says 'no' as a matter of course, as is shown here by our support, notwithstanding the fact that an almost identical bill was opposed the Conservatives when they were in opposition. I am happy to support this bill, and I commend it to the House.
I am pleased to rise to speak on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014. The purpose of this bill is to make a range of improvements to Australia's intellectual property laws to increase their efficiency and effectiveness and to reduce red tape for business, something we need to do more and more of. The amendments in the bill make changes to the Patents Act 1990, the Trade Marks Act 1995, the Designs Act 2003 and Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 and are divided into five schedules.
Schedules 1 and 2 of the bill deal with implementing the TRIPS protocols. Many developing countries simply do not have the economic wealth and have difficulty in manufacturing and accessing patents of pharmaceuticals. They are unable to respond to many of the serious health problems, such as HIV, malaria and tuberculosis, in the world today. Millions of people die from these diseases every year. This bill will amend the Patents Act to allow Australian generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to supply these countries with the patented medicines they need by producing them as a generic. The amendments will deliver on the government's commitment to implement the protocol amendment of the World Trade Organization agreement. Under this protocol the manufacturer is able to apply to the Federal Court for a compulsory licence to manufacture generic versions of patented medicines and export these medicines to developing countries.
The particular drugs that this bill mentions are for malaria. In 2012 the World Health Organization estimated that there were 627,000 deaths from malaria. It also mentions drugs for HIV-AIDS. In 2012, again, the World Health Organization estimated that there were 1.6 million deaths worldwide from HIV-AIDS. For tuberculosis, the World Health Organization estimated there were 1.3 million deaths.
But there is an environmental problem that causes more deaths than those three ailments together, indoor air pollution. In many parts of the world today people are denied access to low-cost and abundant supplies of electricity. They are forced to use renewable sources of energy, such as twigs, dung and crop waste. They burn that inside the house and the resulting indoor air pollution causes 4.3 million deaths annually, the World Health Organization estimates. Yes, it is a great move to make those drugs available to tackle diseases in the Third World, but we need to tackle indoor air pollution in Third World countries, because it is a greater killer than those three diseases combined.
Schedule 3 of the bill deals with plant breeders' rights. It enables people who have an intellectual property right as a plant breeder to take action in the Federal Circuit Court instead of having to go to the Federal Court, which theoretically should lower their costs. The reason we should be encouraging our plant breeders, especially many of our small businesses, is the importance of increasing crop yields. In 1961, over 50 years ago, we were feeding 3.5 billion people. To do so, we were cultivating 1.37 billion hectares of land. Since then the global population has doubled to more than seven billion, but because we have been able to improve our plant breeding we have had greater crop yields. Those greater crop yields have meant that we can feed double the population that we fed 50 years ago with only a 12 percent increase in land. We need to continue those improvements in crop yield. That is why it is important that we encourage plant breeders' rights, so we continue to increase crop yields.
The fourth schedule helps to work to bring Australian and New Zealand economic relations closer. At the moment, patent applications filed in New Zealand have to be filed separately in Australia. There is a duplication of the process. This bill will streamline the process, following a single patent application and examination process in both Australia and New Zealand. It will reduce duplication. It will make it cheaper and easier for both Australian and New Zealand businesses to access both markets. It also provides for a single register of patent attorneys. And I know there are many New Zealand patent attorneys who will have the opportunity to practise their trade here in Australia, and vice versa. This is important. Having closer economic relations with our kiwi cousins benefits both our countries. It is also important that the intellectual property laws in those two countries become more closely aligned. There are a few small differences between Australia's intellectual property laws and those of New Zealand, and we should we working to ensure that those differences are minimised and reduced, and that will benefit both countries.
The fifth and final schedule will simply reduce a bit of the regulatory burden with some unnecessary documentation retention provisions in the patents, trademarks and design act. Repealing those provisions will allow IP Australia to dispose of unnecessary IP documents, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in warehousing costs. In this economic environment, where every single month our nation has to pay $1 billion just to service the interest, without repaying any of the principal debt that was run up over the past six years, every single cent we can save is important. This is another step that this government is proceeding with in reducing the red and green tape. On the subject of intellectual property laws, we need to remember that the entire reason that the government interferes in the market and has this regulatory system is to drive innovation. The intellectual property laws are not there to create and protect monopolies. It is all about driving innovation. In saying that, we need to recognise that simply making more and more and stronger and more stringent intellectual property rights does not necessarily lead to an increase in innovation.
That is especially true with the fashion industry. A paper was written a few years ago by Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman from the University of California and the New York School of Law. It was called 'The piracy paradox'. In that paper they note that the fashion industry has very low IP protection. Other than trademarks and the designs in a fabric, the simple cut or shape of clothing does not have any intellectual property protection. These authors said that this has actually been to the benefit of the fashion industry and that it has created and has been a driver of innovation. The dilemma is that not having intellectual property protection underpins the economics of the fashion industry. They said that the industry needs to keep growing and, for it to keep growing, customers need to want to keep replacing the clothes they have and buying tomorrow's fashions. To do that, they have to become dissatisfied with the fashions they are currently wearing. Their argument is that the continued copying we see in much of the retail sector in the designs of clothing actually brings in an induced obsolescence. The researchers argue that no-one 'cool' wants to keep wearing something after everyone else is wearing it, so the continual copying drives that obsolescence. They said that this results in an industry where there is more innovation, more competition and probably more sales than there would be if there were strong intellectual property protection rights. The other reason they give for having low intellectual property rights in the fashion industry and for how it actually drives innovation and creates wealth is that it creates what they call 'aspirational utility', where people actually get enjoyment from imitating the lifestyles of the rich and famous. They say it is like a gateway to drugs. Giving people access to a lower-quality version makes them more interested in getting the real stuff and increases the brand value of the real stuff.
For example, several years ago, before I became a member of this House, I was in New York City on business. I was walking down Fifth Avenue, and there was the Louis Vuitton shop, with all the bright lights and the bags in the window—a magnificent example of high-end retailing. When I came back later that night the shop had closed—I think it was after six o'clock—and out the front there were a couple of hawkers on the street, selling knock-off versions of Louis Vuitton bags. You would think that would destroy the brand. But we have seen over the years that all those high-end fashion brands, despite that copying and those knock-offs, are becoming stronger and that their brands are becoming worth more. That is what the Professors Raustiala and Sprigman call the piracy paradox. That brings me to a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia in a case between Seafolly and its competitor, City Beach. Seafolly had several fabric designs and City Beach was found by the court to have infringed those designs.
I seek leave of the House to table the colour photographs of those designs, because without seeing them it is difficult to make sense of what I am talking about.
Leave granted.
These were rose floral designs, which I think were on many of my grandmother's dinner sets. The courts have found that there are variations in the designs and they have been granted copyright protection. They awarded penalties and costs of over $½ million in this case. I believe this was a very poor decision, and anyone who looks at the two designs will think it is a poor decision. But the court said that City Beach took inspiration from Seafolly, being the market leader.
This decision and these comments show, with the greatest respect to the courts, that their understanding of how consumer products are produced and designed is completely naive. Everyone who is not the market leader is looking to the products the market leader has. No matter what consumer product you look at, whether it be cars, fashion or whatever other product, that is how our system works—companies look to the market leader for inspiration. For the courts to criticise that is very ill-judged and sets a very bad precedent.
I believe this decision is going to cause great difficulty in the fashion industry in Australia. It means that, if a young fashion designer comes up with their own design, something they think is unique and new—and we know most designs are based at least in part on things that have gone before—a large incumbent player can simply have their legal team write to them and say, 'You have infringed our copyright, because it is close to something we do.' While at first blush the young designer may say, 'This is ridiculous', the legal team of the large player can simply pull out the precedents in these decisions and say, 'Take a look at these and withdraw your product from the market.'
The decision of the court in this recent case will reduce competition and reduce innovation. The ultimate losers will be the Australian consumer. I therefore believe this is an issue parliament needs to look at, because we need a vibrant fashion industry. We want to encourage young fashion designers in this country to get out and create new designs—and to market them not just here in Australia but to the world. With that, I commend this bill to the House. It makes a few major improvements to intellectual property right laws, but this recent Federal Court decision means we have more work to do in this area.
The main purpose of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014 is to implement the WTO's Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Protocol, known as the TRIPS Protocol. This is an agreement that enables a country that is experiencing a serious epidemic to access patented drugs and for countries with limited or no manufacturing capacity to access patented pharmaceuticals made under compulsory licence in another WTO country. The TRIPS Protocol encourages patent owners to either provide medicines to least developed countries at affordable prices or to issue a voluntary licence to generic manufacturers to provide medicines at affordable prices. If a patent owner is unwilling to do either of these things, the protocol provides a mechanism to force the patent owner to issue a compulsory licence.
Australia has been a signatory to the TRIPS Agreement since 2007 but has yet to implement these provisions via legislation. I will highlight, later in my contribution, some of the reasons for this delay. Other aspects of the bill include amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act to allow disputes over IP infringements to be heard in the Federal Circuit Court, which I think it is good move—as highlighted by the member for Hughes in his contribution.
So you agree with me!
It is rare, I agree, but I am glad to be able to throw you a bone. I will disagree with you a bit later, so do not get too excited. The bill proposes a single patent application and examination process and reduces duplication in the process of applying for patents in Australia and New Zealand. It changes various acts in relation to retention of documents so that IP Australia is only governed by the Archives Act, as well as making some technical corrections and rectifying some drafting oversights. These measures are all designed to improve efficiency and consistency in the area of IP—and, as the last speaker said, to reduce red tape.
This bill has been a long time coming. The Labor government introduced a similar bill last year. However, this current version deserves some scrutiny—because it is in both its similarities to and its differences from the former bill that we can see the contrast in values between those on that side of the House and those on this side, particularly when it comes to support for science, innovation and emerging industries.
I will deal with the similarities between this bill and Labor's bill first. Despite their vocal—and in some cases ludicrous—objections to the former bill, the government have offered up an almost identical set of amendments relating to the WTO's TRIPS Protocol. As I said earlier, these amendments have been a long time coming. It was 1995 when the TRIPS Agreement came into force, from which global minimum standards for intellectual property regulation with regard to pharmaceutical products were applied for the first time. Since the Doha Declaration in 2001, the scope of the TRIPS Protocol has been viewed from the perspective of the simple goal of 'promoting access to medicines for all'—because the right to be healthy is a fundamental one. It is a basic human right and medicines play a crucial role.
Patenting is important because it provides an incentive for innovation, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, where there is a high level of expenditure on research and development, as well as on production technologies. Indeed, were it not for the patent process, many pharmaceuticals would simply not be developed and the opportunity for them to benefit society would not exist. But generic drugs also play an important role in ensuring the supply of medicine at affordable prices and there is an undeniable social benefit to the distribution of these products in developing countries, particularly in response to the outbreak of sudden health crises or the prolonged spread of disease.
This bill will enable manufacturers of generic medicines to apply to the Federal Court for a compulsory licence to make and export patented products to the least developed countries that are experiencing a health crisis of this kind. According to the World Health Organisation, there are over 100 countries currently experiencing one or more serious epidemics. In 2011, an estimated 262 million people were infected with malaria, HIV-AIDS or tuberculosis. This caused 3.8 million deaths. Most of these were in developing countries which do not have the capacity to manufacture or distribute the medicine which is needed to save people's lives.
Australia is a compassionate country and Australians would be rightly proud of their legislators for enabling this protocol within the framework of our IP laws. It must be noted, however, that the course of this legislation in this place has not been smooth. I was astounded by the contribution of the member for Bowman. The first half of his speech was very well considered and, I think, a great contribution to the debate. The second half was a frolic into rewriting history in which he had the gall to condemn the Labor Party for not progressing this bill while we were in government! Why did we not progress this bill in government? It was because those on the other side opposed it. If you look at the Votes and Proceedings for 24 June 2013, it shows there were 68 members who voted against the second reading of the bill, including many on the other side now. There were some particularly vocal opponents, including the former member for Indi, Sophie Mirabella, and the member for Tangney, who remains in parliament today. They were concerned that, in the spirit of the humanitarian principles of the TRIPS protocol and in accordance with the exclusions within it, Australia was not prepared to refuse assistance to a country in need should it not be a member of the WTO.
In fact, Ms Mirabella in this place mused that not withholding life-saving medication to non-member countries would reduce the incentive for them to join the WTO—a perverse notion that effectively holds sick people and vulnerable people to ransom. Let me repeat: Ms Mirabella was arguing that this bill should be opposed because giving free or cheap medicine to developing countries to help them solve epidemics would reduce their incentive to join the WTO. What a heartless and sickening idea.
Dr Jensen, the member for Tangney, took the idea even further. He accused the former Gillard government of embarking on treason by allowing this provision. When questioned on this matter, Dr Philip Noonan, the then Director General of IP Australia, said:
It is certainly possible to say that maybe the TRIPS agreement should not extend to countries like East Timor, but the bill very clearly, in the explanatory memorandum, adopts the policy position that it should extend to every country, because if a country were to come to us and say, 'We have a health emergency; you're the only one that can help us,' then it would just be an unreasonable position to say, 'No, you don't belong to a particular club; we can't help you.'
What a wise contribution by Dr Noonan. Those on the other side, led by Ms Mirabella, argued that we should let these people die, because not doing so reduces their incentive to join the WTO. Dr Jensen, as I said, suggested that it was a treasonous act by the Labor government. By his logic, the Abbott government is now pursuing a treasonous course of action by including in this legislation provisions that make it very clear that we will provide these medicines to non-WTO countries.
I am pleased to see that the Liberal government has come to the realisation that we were right, and that it is extending the scheme to non-WTO members—as Canada, Norway and Switzerland have already done. This will be particularly important in our region, as it includes countries, like Timor Leste, who have not joined the WTO. So I am very glad to see that the Abbott government is rejecting the flawed, cynical and, quite frankly, perverse policy position of Ms Mirabella and the member for Tangney.
This bill differs from last year's version significantly through its omission of Crown use provisions, which allow the government to use a patented invention without the owner's authorisation or first negotiating a licence for the services of the Commonwealth or state. These amendments would have delivered certainty to the government and the community that the patent system would not prevent us acting in the public interest, should the need arise, in one of the most fundamental services the people of Australia expect us to provide—health care. This is particularly relevant to the area of gene patents, where there has been growing debate over recent years with regard to their use in health care.
As I have already said, there is a need to balance the known safeguards that patents provide with the right for patients to access treatments in a timely and affordable way. There is also a need to ensure that progress is not stifled and that policy settings are right to give scientists the confidence to pursue their research, with the prospect of a return on their investment. Labor's amendments to the Patents Act would have done that. They would have ensured that our policy settings were keeping pace with technological advancements and that the public's right to access health care was preserved, whilst supporting our world-leading medical research sector, which is so valuable.
Labor's bill was developed in response to a string of research on this issue, including the 2004 Australian Law Reform Commission report on genes, the 2010 Senate committee report on gene patents, the 2011 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report on the Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010, and the 2013 Productivity Commission report into the compulsory licensing of patents, which made a very clear recommendation that the bill would have implemented. It also built on the former Labor government's legislation which allowed researchers to carry out their research without being blocked by patents.
The government's removal of the Crown use provisions is symbolic of this government's lack of support for innovation and science in this country. This is a government that has no science minister. For the first time in over 60 years, we do not have a science minister. This is a government that has cut the CSIRO budget by $114 million. This is a government that builds on the Howard government's disgraceful legacy of slashing the R&D tax concession when they came to power in 1996. This is a government that, so far, has rejected the $350 million venture capital fund put forward by Labor that would support innovative small businesses. This is a government that, so far, has rejected the $500 million precincts measure that would really drive innovation in this country.
This bill contains some very laudable measures, which I applaud, but it omits significant provisions that would advance research in this country and provide certainty for government and the community. It builds on the appalling legacy of those opposite in rejecting science, rejecting funding for science, rejecting innovation and rejecting funding for innovation. Nevertheless, Labor will support the current bill because it contains a number of important measures that we agree with and that will provide a better regulatory framework within which technologies can develop and new industries can emerge. Perhaps most importantly, it can help save the lives of those most in need.
We remain concerned about the removal of Crown use provisions and expect that the government will continue to review this and introduce separate legislation to ultimately amend the Patents Act. We will not, as those opposite did when they were presented with the same opportunity, oppose these measures simply for opposition's sake. We will not, as some of those opposite did, make vehement statements against what is essentially a compassionate and humanitarian act. Rather, we will support the government and commend it for finally upholding Australia's commitment to the World Health Organization and for including the TRIPS protocol in our IP laws.
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to speak to the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014. Many in this House would know that in the past I have spoken about IP laws and the need to protect our local innovators and entrepreneurs. I am on the record as saying that we need a strong, robust IP framework to support our investors in the future. Currently, the IP system takes applications from Australian businesses for trademarks, patents, designs and plant breeders rights to protect their brands and new ideas from being duplicated by competitors. To keep the framework strong and relevant, we must consistently review and build upon the existing protections afforded through legislation.
That is why I support this amendment bill, which will reduce unnecessary burden on our regulatory authority and strengthen our bilateral processes in an increasingly globalised society, particularly when it comes to intellectual property. We must ensure that Australia remains competitive in a fast-paced global fight in the search for the development of the next new thing emerging in new industries. This bill contains a number of measures that will improve the Australian IP system and makes amendments to the Patents Act 1990, the Trade Marks Act 1995, the Designs Act 2003 and the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994.
In 2007, the Howard government committed to implementing the protocol amending the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, known as the TRIPS protocol.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue his remarks.
Today I rise to call on this government to stop the cuts to child care. The government were elected telling the Australian public that they would make child care more affordable. But what have they done? In just over a year, they have already announced just over $1 billion in cuts to existing programs. That includes, in an unprecedented fashion, a bill which is currently before this parliament to cut the means tested childcare benefit, which low- and middle-income families right across Australia rely upon.
The education department have let out the truth about this measure. They have stated that over 500,000 low- and middle-income Australian families on incomes as little as $42,000 year will be worse off as a result of this absurd, cruel and heartless measure from those opposite. No government has ever tried to cut the means tested childcare benefit before. It is not just members on this side of the House that will stand up and say that this is wrong and that this must be stopped.
Today I have the signatures of 25,650 Australian members of the community, including those from the fine electorate of Rankin, who have stood up and called on this government to say enough is enough. It is one thing to break your promise; it is another thing for this cruel and heartless attack on the families that can least afford it.
Last Thursday, 18 September, I was delighted to inspect and open the newly upgraded section of the Bruce Highway between Cabbage Tree Creek and Carman Road, north of Gin Gin in Central Queensland, in my electorate of Flynn. The 6.7-kilometre Cabbage Tree Creek to Carman Road section was opened to traffic last Thursday. The upgrade is a major milestone in the government's resolve to fix the Bruce. Completion of these sections removes one of the worst, if not the worst, black spot sections of the Bruce Highway between Brisbane and Cairns.
The federal government provided $60 million towards the $75 million project, which involved a major upgrade of two sections of the Bruce Highway north of Gin Gin: 6.7 kilometres between Cabbage Tree Creek and Carman Road, and 3.7 kilometres across Back Creek Range, alias the 'Big Dipper'. The project is part of the Australian government's Infrastructure Investment Program, which is providing a record $13.4 billion to build Queensland infrastructure.
The national highway from Brisbane to Cairns has just got a lot safer and a lot more pleasant to drive. Not only is it a significant improvement for road safety; it will reduce travel times and improve the efficiency of freight movements through the area. The new alignment is flatter and wider and has removed the tight turns from this section that used to give it its notorious reputation.
Working families in the Scullin electorate and right around Australia are facing real cost-of-living pressures—pressures which have been exacerbated by the cruel budget handed down by Treasurer Hockey and the Abbott government. When I think about the cost-of-living pressures that families are facing, I think about access to affordable and accessible child care, which impacts significantly on the life choices of families and the life prospects of our children. So I rise to join the member for Adelaide in condemning the Abbott government's cuts to the childcare benefit.
The Abbott government is pushing through cuts to child care support that will impact over half a million low- and middle-income families, many of them in Scullin—
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
and many of them in Bass, so do not laugh about this—it is serious. This will mean higher fees for over 80 per cent of the families who rely on child care—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The reference to me laughing had nothing to do with the member's comments, and I would ask him to withdraw that incorrect assertion.
There is no point of order. The member for Scullin has the call.
The Abbott government campaigned on making child care affordable, yet once again they have done just the opposite, stripping almost $1 billion from early education and care. I spoke earlier this week on the cruel cuts to Aboriginal child and family centres. This is just one element of a cruel agenda, betraying working families and betraying our future.
Central Queensland faces a jobs crisis on a scale not seen for 30 years. As coal prices continue to dive due to global issues, up to 15,000 coal related jobs have been lost in the past two years. This week, BMA announced a further 700 job cuts, directly impacting on towns like Moranbah and Dysart in Capricornia and cities like Rockhampton and Mackay. This is coupled with a downturn in the beef sector. This creates the hallmarks of a perfect storm of concern for jobs and small business growth. This potential crisis is far worse than any Holden or SPC.
That is why I and my federal colleagues George Christensen and Ken O'Dowd have been working to secure meetings with key government ministers to review projects that create local jobs. I want to reassure people in Capricornia that I have been working behind the scenes to ensure that our federal ministers are aware of the jobs crisis we face in the industry. We need to fast-track key priority projects and infrastructure in an effort to boost employment and business growth in our area.
Water infrastructure is one key area on stand-by. I want to see the Connors dam built between Sarina and Moranbah. This project is shovel-ready and is located in the Isaac shire, which is suffering from the downturn in coal. Towns like Moranbah and Dysart need to diversify away from a reliance on coal. Other projects include the Fitzroy agricultural corridor near Rockhampton and the Urannah dam, which would open up the potential for irrigation farming near the mining town of Collinsville.
Today, on a positive note, we saw the minister approve the next stage— (Time expired)
There are more families in the electorate of Rankin that rely on the childcare benefit than in any other electorate in the entire nation. Seven thousand five hundred families in Rankin rely on the childcare benefit. They are earning as little as $42,000 per year. They are getting the assistance that they need and deserve for child care so that they do not have to make the choice between being good workers and being good parents. Unfortunately that means that 7,500 families in my electorate of Rankin are under the gun by this government and their unprecedented attacks on child care—not just the childcare benefit, but the billion dollars in cuts throughout the child care system more generally.
In July it was my honour to welcome the member for Adelaide to my electorate to talk with some of our child care providers about some of these issues, and they told us first-hand that a lot of families will be very adversely affected by these sorts of cruel and unfair cuts. These are the sorts of cuts that show the government does not understand what it is like to try and be a good worker, to try and be a good parent and to try just to make ends meet and raise a family in the modern economy. My message to the government is the same as that from the member for Scullin, and the same as that from the member for Adelaide before—they need to stop being part of the problem when it comes to child care, and they need to start being part of the solution. That means reversing these billion dollars in cuts, and it means not attacking the childcare benefit that 7,500 Rankin families rely on to make ends meet.
Yesterday during question time, Madam Speaker welcomed three remarkable women to this chamber—the Hon. Rose Pihei, the Hon. Joan Jerome and the Hon. Elizabeth Burain. These women are members of parliament from Bougainville—the autonomous Bougainville government. They have been quite remarkable in their endeavours in bringing peace to Bougainville and to empowering the women of Bougainville. Under the peace agreement, there became 41 seats—33 seats elected at large; three seats allocated to women and three seats allocated to the ex-combatant, the speaker and deputy speaker of the house. For these three women to represent the women of Bougainville is a truly remarkable achievement—and they have not rested, also taking on other roles. For example, Rose is also a minister and Elizabeth and Joan have also taken on a wide range of activities. They have been empowering other women in Bougainville. Next year we look forward to seeing women run for the open seats in Bougainville and to seeing more women represented.
I would also like to pay particular tribute to these three women who were part of bringing peace to Bougainville. These were the women who, with other mothers, stood up and said 'Enough is enough—the conflict has to end.' They called on their own men and their own boys to stop the war and to bring peace. They are truly remarkable people. They have brought together many projects in Bougainville—a beautiful country with beautiful people. (Time expired)
I echo the sentiments across the chamber. However, I rise today to condemn this government and this 'PM for women', and that they act to limit women's participation in the workforce by their cruel cuts to childcare benefits. I have a new moniker for the PM of many names—today I will name him 'the prime minister who boldly goes where no man has gone before', because never before has any government ever thought about attacking the means-tested and targeted childcare benefits. In my electorate of Lalor, that is nine and a half thousand families who receive some form of childcare support; that is nine and a half thousand women who may cut back their work hours. Never before has there been a PM who claims to be a friend to women had such contrary views on women and child support. On one hand, he cuts payments to families who earn as little as $42,000 a year—that will reduce family incomes. On the other hand he wants to coddle his so-called women of calibre with a rolled-gold PPL scheme in the name of workforce participation. Well, Australian women from all walks of life know a sham when they see one. The petition tabled today is a rejection of this PM's Starship Enterprise and the strange new world of the unfair budget.
I rise to pay tribute to the Hon. John Beswick, a former deputy premier of Tasmania, who recently announced his retirement as a councillor on the Dorset Council in my electorate of Bass. John was elected to the Tasmanian parliament in 1979 as a Liberal member for Bass, and served in that parliament for 19 years. He was a councillor on the old Ringarooma Council for 10 years, and has been a Dorset councillor for the past five years. John Beswick has always been prepared to take on an enormous workload. As a state politician he oversaw an impressive range of ministerial responsibilities, including primary industry, forests, fisheries, water resources, education, lands, national parks, arts, libraries, employment and training, housing, labour and industry, consumer affairs, police and public safety and forests and mines.
After the fall of the Gray government in 1989 and two years of Tasmania's first Labor-Green government, Ray Groom led the Liberal Party back into power with John Beswick as his deputy. Shortly after this, John had to deal with the tragedy at Port Arthur and worked closely with the Howard government on the formulation and introduction of tougher gun laws. Few politicians can claim to have made a more distinguished contribution to their state and their local community than John Beswick. I thank John for his service, and I wish him well for the future.
I would like to make a warm welcome to this House to all of the participants of the RIRDC Rural Women's Award and to their partners and sponsors. We had a most wonderful occasion in the Great Hall in Parliament House last night—truly a gala celebration of all that is good, glamorous and gorgeous about Australian rural women.
Hear, hear!
Thank you—well-recognised, my colleagues across the House. We celebrated the seven state winners, the runners-up, and it was a most wonderful evening. Particularly to Jackie Jarvis from WA, the national runner-up; and the national winner, Pip Job from New South Wales—well done! I would also like to particularly acknowledge the Victorian state winner, Julie Aldous, from the magnificent town of Mansfield in the electorate of Indi. Well done to Margo, RIRDC, to the sponsors—Westpac, ABS, GRDC—and to the minister for the wonderful speech he made. I encourage all MPs in this House to please note that the closing date for the 2015 award is 30 October. I will send you all a little note so that we can send the word around your communities to encourage the best and the most wonderful of Australian rural women to come to parliament for another wonderful dinner next year.
September is prostate cancer awareness month, and yesterday I had the privilege of hosting the parliamentary Big Aussie Barbie. The Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia is dedicated to reducing the impact of prostate cancer on Australian men, their partners, families and the wider community. The Big Aussie Barbie is the PCFA's largest fund raising campaign, and it was wonderful to see so many of my parliamentary colleagues supporting this great cause. Prostate cancer accounts for approximately 30 per cent of cancers diagnosed each year in Australian men and is the second most common cause of cancer death after lung cancer. It is estimated that around 120,000 Australian men are currently living with prostate cancer.
As a wife and a mother of two boys, raising awareness of this disease is important to me. It is vital that we support men to have regular health checks and encourage them to feel comfortable talking with professionals about their health and concerns. This is a disease that can have a good prognosis if detected early when compared with other cancers. Prostate cancer has one of the highest five-year survival rates, of 92 per cent, after diagnosis. I would like to commend the PCFA on their work in raising awareness of this disease and their dedication to reducing the impact of prostate cancer on Australian men and their families. I would like to particularly thank the Hon. Jim Lloyd, Associate Professor Anthony Lowe, David Sandoe and Kathryn Jones of the PCFA, my parliamentary colleagues and members opposite for supporting yesterday's parliamentary Big Aussie Barbie.
The Abbott Liberal government has launched an extraordinary $1 billion attack on Australian families and the productivity of our nation through their savage cuts to early learning and childcare programs. These cuts include: $450 million from outside school hours care; $157 million from family day care services; support to help parents complete study and return to work; $300 million support for educators' wages; and, now, $230 million from the Child Care Benefit by freezing the income threshold. The government has undertaken no analysis of how this will impact the 3,460 families in Newcastle who receive the Child Care Benefit, who it will affect and by how much.
Families and educators in my electorate are worried that these cuts will have a detrimental impact for generations to come. More than 50 Newcastle family day care users have written to me this week alone, anxious about increasing fees, service closures and their capacity to remain in the workforce. Early childhood education sets our children on the right path for life-long education and development. It also provides an avenue for women to return to work after having children, helping to increase our nation's productivity and boost the local economy. Quality child care needs to be both affordable and accessible and Newcastle families deserve better than what they are getting from this government.
I rise today to congratulate the St George Basketball Association on its great success in the 2014 season and on its recent presentation night. The presentation night, which was held at Penshurst RSL, was a great opportunity to congratulate the players on their successes during the year. This year I have commenced the Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement Awards, and I was very pleased to present the first group of awards to players from the St George Basketball Association. Special congratulations go to Justin Beer, James Corben, Billy Da Silva Harisis, Dean Stojanovski, Lionel Liu and Ethan Hartzenberg, all of whom won awards on the evening. St George Basketball had a great year, with its under 12 men's team winning the Metro League grand final. The under18 mens White team also won the grand final, while the under 16 mens Red team reached the finals of both the Metro League and the State Cup.
I would also like to congratulate Penshurst RSL on its sponsorship of the association. Penshurst RSL is one of the bedrocks of our community, and I thank its management and board for its generous support of groups across the St George region. I would also like to congratulate the St George Basketball Association's President Ray Barbi, who forcefully advocates on behalf of the basketball community in the Banks area. Congratulations are also due to the presentation night MC Byron Geddes, whose wit and style kept the crowd entertained throughout the evening. I look forward to continuing to work with this important community group.
Recently I was approached by a very impressive young Geraldton woman who wanted to talk about the Abbott budget. She felt it was very tough on single parents who needed more help to build their capacity to support themselves. Sara is a single mother with a four-year-old boy. Two years ago she went back to study and obtained a Cert IV in Beauty Therapy and various related qualifications. She has now established her own business at home and is gradually building up her client base, and she hopes to be financially independent in the next few years.
Sara explained she could not have done any of this without, firstly, the JET Child Care Fee Assistance program. Sara could not have afforded day care costs from her parenting payment alone. That entitlement has now been cut so that full time study will be much harder. Secondly she relied on the Education Entry Payment to cover her fees and the cost of transport each day. She was very clear that without that payment she would have struggled to cover these costs. This payment has now been abolished. Sara agrees that we need to encourage supporting parents to become independent—but you do not do that by cutting the childcare and fees assistance that makes it possible for these young parents to get the skills they need to re-enter the workforce.
Last Sunday I was very pleased to hold a community listening post in Anglesea, thanks to Angair. It was an important opportunity for local residents to discuss the importance of a strong, operative renewable energy target and other environmental concerns. In Anglesea, one of the biggest issues is Alcoa's coal fired power station, which is now up for sale. Last year it emitted 39 million kilograms of the respiratory irritant sulfur dioxide, an amount three times that emitted by Hazelwood, a power station ten times the size. This is simply unacceptable in light of mounting evidence about the health risks associated with SO2. People with asthma and other existing respiratory disease, the elderly and children are particularly at risk. The World Health Organization and the United States Environmental Protection Agency say there is no safe level of exposure to SO2 for these groups. In a coastal town where there are homes just 500 metres from a coal fired power station, it is a very poor reflection on Alcoa that it has refused to install sulfur dioxide scrubbers.
If this power station is sold, I will campaign up hill and down dale to ensure that the new owners take their clean air responsibilities more seriously than Alcoa has to date. Today I have today written to the environment minister, Greg Hunt, urging him to include SO2 levels in the upcoming review of the National Environment Protection Measure, in addition to particulate levels. The people of Anglesea—and Corangamite—must have clean air, and the evidence suggests better regulation of SO2 levels must be high on the agenda. (Time expired)
Supporting women to return to the workforce after they have had children is one of the most important things a government can do to improve productivity. Key to this is ensuring affordable, high quality child care. So why is it that the Abbott government—a government that says it wants to improve productivity, a government that campaigned on making childcare affordable—has cut the Child Care Benefit.
The Child Care Benefit is a means-tested payment to low- and middle-income families—to families whose household income is as little as $42,000 per year, to families who need it most. The Department of Education has confirmed that cutting the Child Care Benefit will leave half a million low- and middle-income families worse off. There are many vulnerable children who absolutely depend upon this support to make sure they can access the early education and support they deserve to set them up for life.
The Abbott government proudly talks about the benefits that will stem from its Productivity Commission Inquiry into Child Care. But the fact that the government has cut the Child Care Benefit before the Productivity Commission has even reported demonstrates that its words are meaningless. This is a government that is determined to cut support for child care, no matter what. This is a government that, despite promising no cuts to education, has cut education at every level, from child care to primary schools, to high schools, to higher education through to vocational education and apprenticeships.
Deputy Speaker Scott, you really do need to visit the City of Burnie in my electorate over the next few weeks; it will do you the world of good. Burnie comes alive in the early weeks of spring, with a huge number of opportunities for families, the young, the old and the excitable. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have got you in the excitable category, because last Friday I was honoured to launch Burnie Shines, a month-long festival during October of high-energy events and significant levels of community spirit. This year's theme is 'It's a Small World After All', which focuses on celebrating amazing things being done by amazing people in small groups in my city—groups like the City of Burnie Brass Band, which has been operating for 125 years; the Orchid Society, which still includes some of the original members from its inception 52 years ago; and the Burnie Ten—a Australia's premier out-of-stadium footrace that attracts nearly 5,000 people—which is going to celebrate its 30th year of massive volunteer support. Our city by the sea is coming alive with street stalls, film festivals, the annual Teddy Bears' Picnic, art exhibitions, the glamorous Burnie Shines Cocktail Party and the 321 Go Kids Race that attracts nearly 2,000 people.
I congratulate Jenny Cox and the marketing and events team from Burnie City Council and the hundred community groups that are putting this month together. I look forward to seeing you in my electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker.
One-tenth of the population of the greater Townsville region in North Queensland regularly attend Cowboy matches and up to half a million people watch the NRL on television every weekend. Rugby League attracts and involves some half a million Australians every weekend. Rugby League has done more for social cohesion and a fair go for first Australians than any other social mechanism in this country. The game of Rugby League is subject to numerous resolutions from time to time in this parliament—in other words, the game is of great significance, particularly to the people of North Queensland.
Last Friday night, for the third year in a row, the integrity and capabilities of the NRL match officials must be viewed with serious apprehension. Following a 2012 Manly and North Queensland semi-final, when three—all were played repeatedly on the television news—miscalls eliminated the northerners in that year, in 2013 a seven-tackle try by Cronulla cost us the semis again. Arguably, three blatant errors knocked out the pride of North Queensland for a third year in a row.
I just reckon it is impossible to accept the argument that the referee has just made a mistake. In last Friday night's game, at the 73rd minute, Sydney's Sonny Bill Williams dropped the ball when he was standing upright to play it. Television replays clearly show that no Cowboy player was remotely near the ball. Instead of calling a knock-on, the referee penalised the Cowboy player for interference, when he was nowhere near it in time or space, and awarded the Roosters a penalty. This indefensible error, which resulted in a Roosters' field goal that gave them a one-point winning margin, eliminated North Queensland—(Time expired)
Two weekends ago, I participated in a 100-kilometre Walk for Kids event. This event encourages people to walk 100 kilometres over two days to raise money for the Neonatal Critical Care Unit at Queensland's Mater Hospital. In Australia, around 2,000 newborn babies a year need a surgical procedure. Some of these babies are very unstable, and moving them from the critical unit to theatre requires a large amount of support and technical equipment. Walk for Kids raises money for the purchase of this vital technical equipment.
In my electorate, Walk for Kids has been an annual event for five years now. I would like to thank North Lakes businessman, Matt Roue, who was one of the original organisers, and Daisy Bolton, who helped Matt organise this year's event. Thanks also to Bowmaker Realty and Breaking Point Fitness—two businesses that have sponsored this event since it began. I would also like to acknowledge my state colleague the member for Murrumba, Reg Gulley, who is still getting over his blisters. And thanks also to the local Rotary Club for providing us with sustenance—a dinner, a BBQ breakfast and snacks throughout the walk. Finally, thank you to all the walkers—100 kilometres is an awfully long way to walk. You did a magnificent job doing that and raising more than $20,000.
Today we have heard from several speakers about how this unfair budget will strip a billion dollars from child-care and learning programs. We have heard how the changes to the Child Care Benefit are going to hurt women and families and how it will be a barrier for many women wanting to return to work—particularly many women in regional areas, including my electorate of Bendigo.
I also wish to highlight that included in these cuts is an attack on women who work in the sector. One of the first things that this government did was cut the Early Years Quality Fund—the fund that boosted wages for some of our lowest paid workers. These are women who have skills and qualifications. These are women who have certificates, diplomas and degrees, yet they are on a minimum wage. What does this government do? It cuts the fund that would have boosted their wages. Are we surprised about this coming from a government that has little regard for women? You can just see it in their ranks: one woman in the cabinet, two women on the front bench and very few women elected at the last election.
This government does not represent women, and their cuts to child care demonstrate this. Perhaps if they got a few more women on that side of the parliament we would not have such a problem in early childhood education. I call on the government to restore the funding, particularly to the women working in this sector because it is time that these women got a government that backed them up and paid them decent wages.
With the small amount of time I have I would like to acknowledge that I was honoured to spend time yesterday with Penny Schultz from Field in the Upper South East of South Australia. Penny is the 2014 South Australian Rural Woman of the Year. Penny is, of course, one example of the outstanding women doing great things in agri-business in South Australia. I enjoyed my discussions with Penny about agri-business and the challenges in rural communities. She is an exceptional South Australian and I am sure she was very close to being the national winner.
It being 2 o'clock, and in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. The Acting Prime Minister said yesterday that we are an inclusive and tolerant society. But, today, Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi is co-sponsoring a private member's bill that will give the green light to racist hate speech. How does this action from a Liberal Party senator promote an inclusive and tolerant society?
I thank the honourable member for his question. What I can do is repeat the assurance given by the Prime Minister on a number of occasions that the government does not propose to proceed with changes to section 18C. That commitment remains in place, and that demonstrates our wish to encourage all Australians to live in tolerance with one another. We need to respect one another's views. We need to acknowledge that there are people in this country who have different views from others, and that should be respected also—and some of those may not necessarily be mainstream views. But the government does not propose to change section 18C.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister please update the House on what the government is doing to support international efforts to combat the threat posed by foreign fighters?
I thank the honourable member for her question. The government certainly shares the serious concerns that the international community has about the advances that have been made by the ISIL death cult, particularly in eastern Syria and northern Iraq. Overnight, the Prime Minister has addressed a special session of the United Nations Security Council, chaired by President Obama, to address the issue of foreign terrorist fighters. The Prime Minister has assured the Australian people and the audience at the Security Council that this government will be vigilant. It will be vigilant at home and it will be vigilant abroad, and we will do whatever we can to ensure that our country remains safe. It is the highest priority of this government and should indeed be the highest priority of any self-respecting government.
As the Prime Minister noted in his address, the conflict in Iraq and Syria may seem to be distant, but it is reaching out also to us. Last week an Australian operative in Syria instructed his local network to conduct demonstration killings. That, of course, prompted a rapid response from Australian authorities. This week, an Australian terror suspect has savagely attacked two policemen, leaving an Australian Federal Police officer seriously wounded. I am happy to report to the House that the Australian Federal Police officer is now in a stable condition, and it is our understanding that the Victorian police officer who received stab wounds will be able to leave the hospital later today. But there are 60 Australians already fighting with ISIL, and another 100 or more providing support from within Australia. Sixty passports have been suspended to prevent more Australians from joining these groups in the Middle East.
On 14 September the Prime Minister announced that Australia would deploy ADF assets and personnel to an international coalition effort's to disrupt and degrade ISIL. We will be prepared to be involved in what needs to happen. Australia will not fight alone, but we will be prudent and proportionate in our contributions. It is an international effort that now involves around 40 nations.
The Prime Minister has met a number of world leaders at the United Nations Security Council, and they have been able to exchange views on how the world will best be able to cooperate to meet this new threat to our freedom and our way of life.
My question is again to the Acting Prime Minister. Just now the Acting Prime Minister ruled out the government moving legislation giving the green light to racist hate speech, but he failed to rule out whether Liberal or National senators will vote for Senator Bernardi's legislation—legislation that will give the green light to racist hate speech. In plain English, will the Acting Prime Minister commit to joining with Labor and vote against this destructive and divisive legislation—yes or no?
In plain English, the government has no plans to change section 18C.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the international coalition's efforts to combat ISIL and other terrorist organisations in Iraq and Syria?
I thank the member for Longman for his question. Over the last week it has become quite evident that a very broad international coalition has been formed in order to combat terrorism wherever it occurs. Particularly, this broad coalition will fight against terrorism in Iraq and Syria, where there are particularly murderous groups killing civilian populations indiscriminately, and in fact killing anyone whom they perceive opposes their ideology.
Last Friday I attended a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council chaired by Secretary of State John Kerry. Forty nations were represented at this special meeting and all of them spoke in condemnation of ISIL and its ilk. All of those present agreed to tackle terrorism as part of a united front. They agreed that military action should be taken and that the Iraqi government needed support in order that it can defend its own citizens and defend its territory and its sovereignty. It was agreed that there needed to be more humanitarian support. The Australian government committed further funding particularly focused on the women and children in Iraq who have been brutalised by this regime of terrorists, and there was an effort on disrupting the flow of fighters, funds and weapons into Iraqi and Syria.
On Tuesday, I attended the Global Counterterrorism Forum. Thirty nations pledged support for efforts to combat terrorist groups. This was chaired by the United States and Turkey, and it was focused particularly on preventing foreign terrorist fighters from leaving or coming back to countries, starving these terrorist groups of funds and cancelling passports. We shared experiences.
I also took the opportunity to meet with foreign ministers of Arab states to reconfirm Australia's commitment to fighting terrorism and to seek confirmation of their commitment. I met with the foreign ministers of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait and representatives of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf and the Arab League. All confirmed their support for the airstrikes and for further steps to combat terrorism. I do point out the House that the threat is not just from the group called ISIL. There are other groups, including the deadly Khorasan group, which is an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria, al-Nusra and al-Shabaab. This is a global issue. It is a regional issue. It is a domestic security threat. The Australian government will play our part in combating terrorism wherever it occurs.
My question is to the Minister for Education. Yesterday the minister challenge the opposition to ask the Australian Technology Network of universities about the minister's university changes. The network have said it rejects as regressive the application of the 10-year Australian government bond rate to the repayment of outstanding student debt and that it should be scrapped. Isn't this just another example of the government getting its basic facts wrong, and will the minister now scrap his plan to Americanise our universities?
On 28 August the Australian Technology Network said:
Deregulation is a threshold issue for the sector and its passage through the Senate is crucial to protect the international reputation for quality higher education, representing around $15 Billion in export earnings for Australia.
So the shadow minister can selectively quote if she chooses to. She can selectively quoted as much she likes. The tragedy for the Labor Party is that they are off piste with the university sector. I am sure they assumed that when the government handed down the biggest market economic reform in Australia's history to universities that the university sector would splinter and not support them.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga will desist, as will the member for McMahon.
I am sure the Labor Party is very disappointed that the universities are remaining united behind reform. I will quote also from Belinda Robinson, the head of Universities Australia, who wrote only this week—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned.
The member for Moreton needs to understand that all his shouting does not get on the television, if he thinks everybody is listening. It does not actually make it. My comments get on the telly; yours do not. You cannot be heard, so you are just wasting a lot of time and energy. Belinda Robinson, the head of Universities Australia, said on 23 September:
Why is it that a consensus of Australian universities are calling on Senate crossbenchers to support and amend the Government's higher education reform agenda?
The short answer is because the existing funding model is not sustainable and a new approach is needed.
She went on to say:
If the Government's package is opposed outright, the quality of the things that our great universities do so well—teaching and research—could be jeopardised. It is simply not possible to maintain the standards that students expect or the international reputation that Australia's university system enjoys without full fee deregulation.
Sadly for the Labor Party, the university sector wants reform. Do they want amendments? Sure, they do. Do the crossbenchers want amendments? I am talking to them about that subject as we speak, and what I have said all along is the government is entirely open to suggestions from the Senate, from the crossbenchers, even from the Labor Party or the Greens. The sad thing for Labor is that you have dealt yourself out of the conversation. You are irrelevant. You are policy light. You are utterly irrelevant to the debate, and when a reform passes the Senate either now or in the near future, Labor will be proved, yet again, to be standing on the sidelines just whistling Dixie.
Before I call the honourable member for Melbourne, I would like to advise the chamber that we have with us in the Speaker's gallery His Beatitude the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarch and His Grace, Peter Stasiuk, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Australia. We make you most welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Has joining the war in the Middle East increased the threat of terrorism in Australia and made us less safe?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Governments have to act on all fronts to endeavour to secure peace in their own lands and hopefully to provide a positive influence around the world. That is what Australia has done. The aircraft flew into the towers in New York well before the US went to war in Iraq. We had Australians' lives lost in Bali well before we committed to those conflicts. So it is simply nonsense to try and argue that because a country does its duty to help keep the world safe, because a country commits to what may sometimes be a very difficult and costly conflict, that somehow or other that is justification for other people to commit acts of terror in our land. The reality is that people are acting now in Australia, unfortunately, before there has been any commitment by Australia to place people into the war zones.
We will continue to talk with the Australian people. The government is committed to open dialogue with the opposition, and I commend the opposition for their constructive approach to these issues as well. Australians are united in wanting their own country to be peaceful and wanting the world to live in peace. Sometimes, you have to fight to preserve your peace. This may well be such an instance. There is a horror around the world at the present time that can be tolerated by none. Governments, therefore, need to be firm in their resolve to make it clear to anyone that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. The United Nations Security Council meeting last night made that point abundantly clear to the world. The world is united in endeavouring to stamp out this evil, and Australia stands ready to play its part.
My question is to the Minister for Justice. Will the minister please inform the House of the action the government is taking to prevent young Australians being radicalised and leaving Australia to join extremists overseas?
I thank the member for Petrie for that question. I want to reiterate to the House that our security measures at home and abroad are directed against terrorism, not religion and not any sector of the community. It is about fighting crime and keeping Australians safe. To do this, it is absolutely essential that we have strong law enforcement agencies that are resourced properly and have the legislative powers they need to do their jobs. As the Deputy Prime Minister has noted and just to update the House, the Victorian police officer who was injured on Tuesday night is about to leave hospital and the Australian Federal Police officer who was very seriously attacked is doing well. In spite of his rather horrific injuries, he is doing as well as can be expected.
To make sure that law enforcement can do their job, we are investing $630 million in a counter-terrorism package. A very important part of that package will be investing $13.4 million in a Countering Violent Extremism program. This will be aimed at early intervention that will help to support people at risk and to deradicalise through mentoring, education and health support. It will allow us to work directly with communities so that they can help to prevent individuals moving down the wrong path to radicalisation and violence. It will also help us to prevent and counter online radicalisation, which is particularly important because we have seen recently how social media, in particular, can encourage radicalisation, particularly amongst young people.
The internet presents us with risks, but it also presents us with a great opportunity. We want to develop counter-narratives which will reach out to communities with a positive message. To do so, we will work with our international partners and big social media sites, such as Google and Facebook, to address concerns over extremists' use of websites.
The Countering Violent Extremism program is in addition to the excellent work federal and state law enforcement already do. The government and law enforcement have been working to address concerns within the community, to discuss the counter-terrorism measures and to work through ways we can reach out particularly to young people who are moving down the wrong path. We are doing this to prevent incidents like we saw in Melbourne on Tuesday evening.
A lot of work has been done and a lot of work will continue to be done. Our nation will never be about isolating part of our community based on religion, and the government will not allow that to happen. We appreciate comments that were made yesterday by Sheikh Safi, an executive member of the Australian National Imams Council, when he said:
Community harmony should be maintained at all costs. We must not let emotions take over common sense.
Now is the time to remain calm. We will continue to do everything we can to make sure that Australians live in safety together.
I would like to advise the House that we have with us 25 staff cadets from the Royal Military College Duntroon who are members of the Neville Howse VC Platoon, a rehabilitation unit for cadets injured during training. We make you very welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Education. Yesterday the minister called on the opposition to ask Universities Australia about the minister's unfair university changes. Universities Australia has said it supports the continuation of the existing system of CPI indexation of student debt. Will the minister finally admit he got it wrong and scrap his plan to Americanise our universities and saddle young Australians with a debt sentence?
I would remind the member for Kingston that Sandra Harding, chair of Universities Australia, said: 'The status quo is not tenable. It is not sustainable.' If the legislation does not pass, we will have the status quo. So Universities Australia are behind the reform of the university sector. They are supporting the reform of the university sector. Would they like to see changes around the edges? Of course they would. We have been talking about that for months. That is why we are having a Senate inquiry—
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth will desist.
to which submissions are being made. The government has never said anything at any point other than that we are prepared to negotiate with the crossbenchers. As I have said many times on radio, on television and in this place, governments have controlled the Senate for three of the last 40 years. In other words, for 37 years they have had to negotiate with the crossbenchers in the Senate. I have made it perfectly clear that the CPI rate versus the 10-year government bond rate is one of the things that we are very open to negotiating with the crossbenchers.
Suddenly, the Labor Party have discovered that we are introducing a 10-year government bond rate for student debt. Where have you been, you troglodytes? What have you been doing?
Have you been studying closely the $6.6 billion of cuts that you delivered when you were in government?
We do not use props, Member for Sturt.
I table list of the $6.6 billion of cuts, so you can remind yourselves of what you thought about universities. I said yesterday, in response to an interjection from the Minister for Health, 'What are the Labor Party's alternatives? Are they closing free education? In other words, is the taxpayer paying 100 per cent?'
I thought that could not possibly be the case, but do you know what I discovered? I discovered one Labor member who says:
I have a further suggestion to lift our primary vote.
That is not very altruistic!
Get rid of HECS, now euphemistically called HELP, and re-introduce free university education and free TAFE courses.
That was the member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson. In fact, there is a secret agenda within the Labor Party to abolish the HECS scheme, so there are more billions of dollars that they will have to find at the next election when the media starts scrutinising Labor's policies.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The Minister for Health will desist.
Finally, in case I do not get another question on this issue, the member for Kingston talks about the Americanisation of the education system. Who said this:
But in supporting start-ups, nurturing creativity and rewarding ingenuity … America shows us the way.
That was Bill Shorten, July 2014.
Government members interjecting—
There will be silence on my right. This is question time, not rabble time.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on how the government is fulfilling our election commitment to introduce temporary protection visas?
I thank the member for Lyons for his question and his keen interest in the measures that have been announced today and their application to his part of this wonderful country. People smugglers know that the way to Australia illegally by boat has been closed. They also know who closed it; it was the Abbott government. It was by restoring the measures that work under the Howard government, which have been so successful in this first year of Operation Sovereign Borders. No-one seeking to come by boat will get here, because either they will be turned back where it is safe to do so or they will be transferred offshore where they will be processed on either Nauru or Manus Island and resettled outside of Australia.
In addition to that, people remember and know that there was a third element that existed under the Howard government's policies. That was to deny permanent protection visas through temporary protection visas. Today, I have introduced into this parliament the legislation to restore temporary protection visas to their rightful place in the visa book of this country. That is because there are 30,000 people who were left behind by the Labor Party, who they did not process and who turned up on Labor's watch during their years of border failure.
It is our plan that they do not get a permanent protection visa and that they be offered a temporary visa, where there is no opportunity to apply for a permanent protection visa. That is a change, because under the Howard government you could apply for a permanent protection visa when you are a TPV. These measures actually go further and do not provide for a permanent protection visa to be applied for by someone on a temporary protection visa.
The alternative being offered by those opposite is that they get a permanent protection visa straightaway. It is a hotline to welfare. There are no conditions. They want to just give them a protection visa straightaway, because they happened to turn up illegally by boat on their watch. But that will not be the policy of this government and that legislation has been introduced into the parliament today. We have also strengthened the maritime enforcement powers through this bill that we have introduced today, as well as introducing a more efficient process to deal with the legacy caseload of over 30,000 cases.
How will that help?
The member for Grayndler will desist.
We know they oppose temporary protection visas and we know they want to give them permanent visas, but we also know that they oppose turn backs. I saw the other day that the shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection said:
The policy of turn backs obviously has had an effect.
Really, Sherlock? Did you work that out! Even still, there has been just one vessel this year and they still cannot support turn backs. You get an absolute cricket noise every time we talk about turn backs.
We know that Kevin Rudd said before the 2007 election, 'I will turn boats back.' That lasted about a week! We know that if those opposite were to occupy these benches, the boats would come back. That is because the weak policies of those who sit opposite would come back with them.
My question is to the Minister for Education. Yesterday, the minister rejected suggestions that his unfair HECS changes would deter low-income students from going to university. But Central Queensland University has said that it fears that the minister's unfair changes will act as a genuine disincentive to study amongst our more exposed and disadvantaged student cohort. Why is the minister making it harder for low-income students to get ahead by Americanising our universities and saddling students with a debt sentence?
The vice-chancellor of Central Queensland University also said that he was looking forward to these reforms. He was actually licking his lips in anticipation about these reforms, because Central Queensland University:
…is a lip-smackingly good university.
That is what he said. The vice chancellor of Central Queensland University has talked about the extraordinary capacity that these reforms will give him to frame their scholarship program to actually attract students and compete with city-based universities.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will desist.
That has been said too by the vice-chancellor of the University of New England. Paul Wellings, the vice-chancellor of Wollongong University, has talked about how for the first time ever regional universities will be able to compete on price with capital-city universities and frame their scholarship offerings around relocation costs; tuition fees, potentially; living expenses; accommodation and extra tuition. The fabulous thing about this deregulation and this reform is that will create a dynamic university sector that is competing for students. When competition enters, the students will be the big winners. They will not only compete on price but on quality. They will have to make an offering that will attract students to their institution. Regional universities, because of the lifestyle they can offer and the lower cost of living, will actually be able to compete very successfully with capital city universities. Jim Barber, who used to be the Vice-Chancellor of the University of New England, says this is the most significant reform universities have ever seen and will be the opportunity that regional universities need to compete with sandstone universities.
It is sad that Labor comes into this place, now almost every day, and tries to frighten and scare students. Its scare campaign has already been exploded this week by the University of Western Australia. I finish with a quote from the Group of Eight universities executive director, Michael Gallagher
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga will desist.
He said, I think very sensibly:
… the 2014 Higher Education Budget reforms are necessary. They are logical, coherent, sustainable, equitable and inevitable.
… … …
My guess is that the detractors of micro-economic reform in Australia's higher education industry will find themselves on the wrong side of history in resisting efficiency improvement and innovation, as they will be in opposing the redistributive measures of the package and, curiously, supporting socially regressive subsidies from general taxpayers to more advantaged segments of the community.
My question is to the Treasurer. What does the 2013-14 final budget outcome tell us about the state of the budget inherited by the current government? How will fixing the budget help my constituents in Robertson?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will desist. Don't push it.
I thank the honourable member for Robertson for the question and recognise that in Labor's last budget they promised an $18 billion deficit. In fact—they were so close—it turned out to be a $48.5 billion deficit. They were only $30 billion out. They were close this time. They missed it by 'this' much. It was quite a considerable effort given that there were no shock events in the last financial year—certainly there was no shock event at the last election. The fact of the matter is that that left Labor having delivered six consecutive budget deficits, totalling $230 billion. No wonder Mr Swan was made Treasurer of the Year by the rest of the world, because no-one else could meet that benchmark. No-one could get there. In the last year alone the deficit left by Labor was the equivalent of $2,000 for every man woman and child. It confirms that last year the Australian government had to pay $1.2 billion in interest every month just on the debt that Labor left. Seventy per cent of that is heading overseas because the Labor Party when in government had to borrow from people overseas. The net result is that about $800 million was going overseas. Without corrective action what we inherited from Labor would in 10 years time be $667 billion of government debt—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The member for Charlton and the health minister will desist.
the equivalent of $25,000 of government debt for every man, every woman and every child in Australia. As a result of Labor's actions, a child born in 10 years time would start life with a $25,000 debt up-front. That is why we are getting on with the job of fixing the mess that the Labor Party left, getting the budget back to a credible surplus, ensuring that the government lives within its means and ensuring that business can have the confidence to get out there and employ more Australians. That is one of the reasons why this year under the coalition job creation in Australia has been running at five times the rate it was under Labor in their last year of government. We are about jobs. We are about prosperity. We are about fixing up Labor's mess.
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left.
My question is to the Minister for Education. I refer to a letter signed by 317 staff at the University of Western Sydney, which states:
… it is expected that most will increase fees by between 100% and 200%, or more.
Minister, why are you saddling Australian students with a debt sentence whilst Americanising our universities?
I just do not feel that the member for Fowler's heart was in that question. Obviously, it was his turn to turn up and ask a foolish question without the facts, but I will deal with it. On the Americanisation issue that Labor raises—I explained this yesterday to the member for Lalor but I will explain it again—the United States does not have a higher education loan program. It does not bear any relation to the Australian system in how it supports its students. The idea that the government's reforms are making our system more like that of the United States is an absolute falsehood. The bizarre thing about the point is, imagine if the Australian university system was as successful as the United States system. The United States has 27 universities in the top 50 universities in the world. More than half of the top 50 universities in the world are in the United States. Apparently, America is the bogeyman of universities—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The member for Kingston will desist.
yet it is the most successful higher education system in the world. In spite of that, Australia has the Higher Education Loan Program; the United States does not. Our HELP system is the envy of the world. Students pay, when they earn over $50,000 a year, two per cent of their income at the lowest loan rate they will ever get in their lives. That is why, in spite of the Hawke government introducing the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, when Labor was led by great leaders rather than the current Leader of the Opposition, the participation rate of Australians in the higher education system—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will desist.
has continued to exponentially rise to the point where there are now 750,000 Australians—
Mr Champion interjecting—
I said, the member will desist.
getting an education offering in Australian institutions. If the Labor Party's logic was right, those students would not be enrolling at Australian institutions, but they are doing so in droves, because they know they can borrow their debt from the taxpayer.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is the champion of the League table for people leaving the chamber. Do you want to add to it? If not, desist.
I also think that perhaps the member for Fowler might have wanted to check his question given the revelation that the Leader of the Opposition has in fact said that America shows us the way. He only said that in an address to the New York Academy of Sciences in July this year. So, he says one thing in New York—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will desist.
and a different thing in Canberra. Now, there is a pattern here, of course, as we have seen before. He obviously does not realise that we can follow his statements when he is making them in New York—it's called Google! The reality is that you cannot say in New York that America shows us the way and then try to run a scare campaign about our great ally the United States when you are back here in Canberra.
My question is to the Treasurer. What does the final budget outcome for last financial year show us about the need to repair the budget? What are the alternative approaches to fixing the budget?
I thank the member for Capricornia for the question. And I remind the House that this was meant to be the surplus year, according to Labor. In 2010, when they first did a forecast for 2013-14, they said, 'Don't worry—it will be a $5.4 billion surplus'. Then they revised it down to 4.8. Then they revised it down to 4.5. Then they revised it down to 3.3—an ever-diminishing surplus—and then down to 1.9, then 2, then 2.2. And then, just before Christmas, 21 December 2012—a date I will not forget—out comes the member for Lilley saying that we cannot get to surplus: 'We're going to have a deficit; we got it all wrong.' And then, of course, he said, 'We'll have an $18 billion deficit', and I thought, 'Wow, that's quite a turnaround'. It went from a surplus to an $18 billion deficit. And then, it turned out, under the member for McMahon, 'We got it wrong a few months ago; it's going to be a $30 billion deficit'. And of course it turned out to be $48.5 billion.
And Thursday is a special day in the House of Representatives—it's book day! It's Labor book day! I was earnestly searching around for the ever-illusive Labor Party surplus, so I went to reference material. I do note that I do not have a copy of My Story by Julia Gillard here with me, but I thought there must be reference to a surplus in that. And I found one little reference to a surplus: 'Our 2010 election strategy being a promise to return to surplus in 2013 as the best way of countering the opposition's allegations of Labor waste and debt … in making this promise I was relying on Treasury and Finance figures'—Treasury figure over there!—'For complex reasons reality did not live up to what the Public Service professionals said'—there are the complex reasons over there! She goes on to say, 'I inherited this political strategy'. There's a guy that died with a surplus over there! And of course I will go to 'the' book; here it is: the factual details of Wayne Swan as Treasurer. I went to the index of his book. I thought, there must be reference to a surplus there. But there is nothing there! Julia Gillard has more references to the surplus than the guy who said he had delivered them. Oh, dear. You know, my old mate Kevin Rudd is right: it is all fiction over there—fiction when they claimed they were going to deliver a surplus, fiction when they claimed they had delivered a surplus. The problem is that we have to clean up the Labor mess.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with an editorial from the Dubbo Daily Liberal today, which asks, in relation to the government's unfair university changes:
Where are the government MPs who should be protecting their regions?
Why are the Acting Prime Minister and his Nationals MPs failing to properly represent their electorates on these unfair changes? And when will they stand up to their Liberal colleagues?
I thank the honourable member for her question. I would just refer her back to budget night. On budget night the very first group to come out welcoming the government's decisions and changes to the university sector—the very first group—were the regional universities. They put out a press release on behalf of regional universities welcoming the changes—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton!
and their position has not changed. Yes, like all sectors, they would like to have some elements of the package a little different than they are. But they have, in conjunction just in recent days with the Group of Eight, the biggest universities in the country, put out a joint statement, again calling on the parliament to pass the changes, recognising that these changes need to be made and putting together a joint position with the biggest universities in the land.
Of course, regional universities play a particularly important role in regional communities. Whether it be in Dubbo or whatever other regional city, they add a dimension to the whole community. The regional universities are particularly good at providing the skilled professionals for their local areas—the teachers, the pharmacists, the nurses et cetera. And they have done very well in that regard.
The important thing about the regional universities is that their students tend to stay and work in regional communities. Indeed, I met with the regional universities only a week or so ago and they made the point to me that 75 per cent of their students stay and work in their local communities. They know they have a particular role to fill and it is a role they fill well. Many of them have been leaders, particularly in innovation. The minister referred briefly to Central Queensland University, an example of a university that reaches out and is imaginative. It is this kind of vision that is going to ensure that the regional universities do well under these changes. They will continue to expand, not just in regional communities but in their urban campuses as well—not to mention in the education services they provide around the world.
I will stand up for regional universities. I will make sure that they get a fair go—and so will my colleagues. We will have an education system, a university system, that delivers for all Australians, wherever they live.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business. I ask the minister to inform the House what steps the government has taken to ensure savings from the repeal of the carbon tax are passed on, including in my electorate of Casey.
It is a great pleasure to get a question from the member for Casey. It was great to be in his electorate recently, talking with small businesses. It is also an important anniversary today. It has been 300 days since I have received a question from Labor about small business—300 days have passed. I know the Leader of the Opposition had a lot of trouble working out which of the previous Labor leaders to follow—whether to follow Prime Minister Gillard or to follow Prime Minister Rudd. He is following former Labor leader Kim Beazley who, in a moment of great clarity and honesty, said, 'Labor has never pretended to be the party of small business.' The opposition leader is clearly following that.
I was pleased to meet, along with the member for Casey, a number of small business owners in his electorate a few months back. There the discussion was about the need for this government to get on with its Economic Action Strategy, to restore opportunity, to restore prosperity, to give people that encouragement that they so yearn for but never received from the previous government. They were also urging that we got on with the abolition of the carbon tax. I am thrilled that we have been able to achieve that ambition.
I was particularly pleased to get an email from Tony, the owner and operator of the Mount Evelyn Supa IGA—in fact he was at that discussion hosted by the member for Casey. He sent me a note saying, 'Great big thanks for abolishing the carbon tax.' He went on to describe what the achievement of that election commitment meant for his business. He is saving $1,800 a month, every month, on his electricity bills. He has calculated that, with the refrigeration systems in his business and the need to regas those systems, he will save a further $4,700 a year as a result of the abolition of the carbon tax. He said to me that that was more than $26,000 of direct savings as a consequence of this government abolishing the carbon tax. He said, 'That goes a long way towards paying for a staff member.'
He was delighted that this government has done exactly what it undertook to do—and we have the systems in place, with a tough carbon cop on the beat, to make sure those savings are passed through to small business, to consumers and to households. But do you know what he was most excited about? He said, 'I am most excited about the abolition of the carbon tax for my customers.' He said that it had put money back into their pockets. He is ready to take on the competition in Mount Evelyn, he is ready to offer them good service and a good deal—and he is encouraged that not only is he seeing savings, which are supporting his business success, but that his customers are seeing money back in their pockets.
We are getting on with the job in this parliament. We are not only the friends of small business; we are the only friends that small business has in this parliament.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. In a Senate submission about the government's higher education changes, the Western Australian National Party has said:
… the social costs on regional students in WA have been poorly considered … regional students in WA will be disproportionately impacted by these reforms.
How can the Leader of the National Party support the Americanisation of our universities, which will see regional students saddled with a debt sentence?
The opposition has continually sought to make comparisons with the system of education in the United States. As the minister has pointed out, there are of course many differences. But one of the things I observed about university education in the US, when I was in the area quite some time ago, was the extent of the regional university network in the United States. Most small communities have a university presence. There are many good things in the US system I would like to see in Australia.
There are many elements of our proposed reforms which offer new opportunities to students living in country communities. Particularly in a state like Western Australia, there will be a new opportunity, through the new scholarships program, for country students who face the extra cost of moving to a large city. The scholarship program will give the most talented country students the opportunity to get an education at the university of their choice. That is an opportunity that was never provided by Labor. Indeed, Labor refused to address the issue of the higher costs for students who have to travel to the cities for their education. This program provides new opportunities for those who need to travel to a capital city to obtain their education and I am sure that will be particularly appreciated in Western Australia.
The reality is that Universities Australia, in a press release issued on Wednesday, 24 September, have been demanding that the Senate pass these higher education reforms. The universities of Australia, working together, know that the current system is broken, that it does not provide opportunities for Australian students—including, in particular, students from regional communities. These reforms can make a real difference and give students in Western Australia, and indeed other states, the chance to obtain degrees they otherwise could not afford.
I seek leave to table a position of the Nationals of Western Australia which is different to position of the Leader of the Nationals.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on how changes to the coastal shipping regulations will boost Australian jobs and ensure sustainability of the sector into the future?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I recognise what a key issue shipping freight rates and shipping services are for Tasmania. I advise the House that today is World Maritime Day, so it is appropriate that we draw attention to the importance of the shipping industry. If there are representatives of the shipping industry in the gallery, we welcome them particularly on their day, World Maritime Day. It is an opportunity to recognise how important shipping is for an island continent like Australia. We depend so much on having services available at an economic rate to be able to get our exports to the marks of the world and, of course, to import the consumer goods that we so often need.
Unfortunately, over recent times the Australian shipping industry, particularly at a domestic level, has fallen behind. Our domestic shipping industry is losing market share; it is declining in size. Indeed, the deadweight tonnage of the Australian shipping fleet has fallen by 64 per cent over the two years since Labor introduced its so-called shipping reform. Once more, domestic shipping is declining on average about 2.4 per cent each year. At a time when our freight task as a nation is growing, our shipping sector is losing market share and is declining. The current protectionist regulations are burdensome and clearly ineffective.
Tasmanians feel this very strongly, as an island state. I was interested to read a letter from the Launceston Chamber of Commerce in which they pointed out the particular disadvantages in Tasmania. They said:
… Launceston and Northern Tasmania has suffered considerably from increased costs and timeliness for exports and imports of freight as a result of the enacting of the Coastal Shipping Legislation.
Labor's legislation has hurt northern Tasmania. They go on to say:
… this regulation does not serve Tasmania well: it is reducing our capacity to increase investment to the State; nor has the Australian Shipping Industry grown as a consequence of this regulation.
This is a classic case of legislation gone wrong. Legislation that was billed as trying to reform and revitalise the Australian shipping industry has resulted in lost market share, fewer ships available on the Australian shipping register and, indeed, greater costs to Australian industry seeking to move their product around the coast.
My question is to the Minister for Education. Yesterday the minister lauded the United Kingdom's university changes as his inspiration, but the minister's own regulation impact statement found that the fee deregulation in the United Kingdom resulted in a trebling of student fees at most institutions. Why does the minister want to treble university fees and saddle young Australians with a debt sentence?
Apart from the Leader of the Opposition's trying to verbal me from my comments yesterday, I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to these articles in the The Guardian newspaper, hardly known to be a great supporter of the coalition, in May this year. What I was pointing out to the House yesterday and I am happy to repeat it today was that in fact, in Great Britain, where fees were introduced for undergraduate degrees in England but in Scotland there is ostensibly free education—in other words, the taxpayers pay for the students' tuition fees—in England the percentage of low SES, low socioeconomic status, students going to university has increased and in Scotland it has either stagnated or declined. In fact, the introduction of fees in England actually improved the uptake of higher education amongst low-socioeconomic-status students. Labor would rather just rely on myth than the facts. Myth, sadly, is running the Labor Party's policy agenda. They would rather try to create a scare campaign, they would rather make things up, they would rather pretend that the so-called Whitlamite free education—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The question repeatedly referred to the tripling of student fees.
There is no point of order. The minister has the call.
The question was full of rhetoric. If the opposition cannot get their questions right and tight enough to be able to hold a minister to them, I am not going to help them to do so. The member for Grayndler should perhaps give some tips to the Manager of Opposition Business, because it was a very broad question full of rhetoric.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognise the Leader of the House attempted to give a ruling on the point of order, but could we hear a ruling from you before he gets the call.
I said there is no point of order. The minister has the call.
I was saying that the Labor Party still try to hold to this Whitlamite myth that somehow free education in the early 1970s led to an increase in students from low SES backgrounds.
Mr Champion interjecting—
There is too much noise. The member for Wakefield has one chance left.
Everyone knows in the education sector—including people like Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, who I will quote in a minute—
Just because I am generous today.
that all 'free education' meant in the seventies was a redistribution of wealth from the poorest Australians to advantaged and privileged Australians who were going to university anyway or who would go to university and were happy to pay for it. In fact, Bob Hawke said, 'You've got to get rid of the idea—it's absolute BS—that there is, ever has been, or ever could be free education'. He said, 'I see no problem with the concept of paying back this investment when they are in a financial position to do so.' He said, 'There is no such thing as free education; it's a question of who pays and how it is paid for.'
What the government are doing through our reforms is spreading opportunity to 80,000 more students from low-SES backgrounds to take up a place in university, first-generation university-goers, disadvantaged Australians. Remarkably, Labor is opposing that reform.
My question is to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on the status of the East West Link? What benefits will this vital infrastructure project deliver to communities in Melbourne? Is the minister aware of any other plans to reduce traffic congestion?
Opposition members interjecting—
I call the honourable Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and we will have a lessening of noise on my left so that we can hear the answer. That includes the member for Charlton.
The member for La Trobe is a great fighter for the East West project. He knows and his constituents know how important it is, like the member for Deakin, the Minister for Social Services and the member for Casey, in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne—they know how important this project is.
A government member interjecting—
I was coming to the member for Corangamite, on the western side. I know she is desperate to be involved in this project. This project comes from a report that was done by Sir Rod Eddington, an eminent Australian, well-respected, former chair of Infrastructure Australia, appointed by 'Scooter' over there—the member for Grayndler—as the first chair of Infrastructure Australia way back in 2008.
An honourable member interjecting—
No, it is not, and I would ask the assistant minister to address people by their correct title. And the member who is making disparaging remarks will cease.
The East West project comes from a report that was done by Sir Rod Eddington back in 2008 which made the point that Melbourne needed an east-west connected strategy.
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order.
Scooter, how are you, old fella?
The assistant minister will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler on a point of order.
Government members interjecting—
There will be silence on my right so that I can hear the point of order.
Madam Speaker, to be fair to the assistant minister—
Just get on with the point of order.
he was probably at school when the report was done. It is a very different project from the one being proposed by the Victorian government.
The member will resume his seat. As I have said before, simply because the former minister is missing that portfolio it is no reason to abuse the standing orders, and he knows it. The assistant minister has the call.
This was a report that then asked for submissions to be put into the east-west study to understand which was the best project to go ahead with. There was a group of four MPs from the Labor side who followed that advice and put in a submission in July 2008. Those MPs were the Hon. Julia Gillard MP, member for Lalor; the Hon. Nicola Roxon, member for Gellibrand; the Hon. Brendan O'Connor, member for Gorton; and the Hon. Bill Shorten, member for Maribyrnong. It says, 'The group supports a cross-city road link for the western suburbs to the Eastern Freeway.'
Government members interjecting—
There will be silence on my right as well. We will have some order.
But, not happy with just one submission, Bill Shorten, National Secretary of the AWU, puts in another submission. That submission says on the first line, 'The Australian Workers Union believes that the new East West Link is crucial to jobs and economic growth.' Well, we are with the AWU. The workers united will never be defeated. We are with the AWU on that. But unfortunately the Labor Party has changed its position and now opposes it. Danny Andrews will rip up a contract which will soon be signed. The new position of the Labor Party—
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left and right.
is that they will have a scooter-built revolution. They will have the 'building the scooter revolution' announced by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The scooter-led revolution is actually an old policy.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think under the standing orders the member for Mayo should refer to members by their correct titles.
I will ask the assistant minister to do that and, at the same time, I will ask the member for Grayndler to withdraw his comment. So you will both withdraw.
I withdraw.
Good. And, Assistant Minister, you will refer to members by their correct title.
What am I withdrawing?
Scooter.
I withdraw.
You have the call.
Madam Speaker, it is an old announcement. The scooter-led revolution was announced in 2012. What it says is that we know that if the Labor Party is elected next time the carbon tax will be back, the boats will be back, the debt will be back and the chaos will be back. I table the submission from the AWU and from the group of four. (Time expired)
I was going to give the call to the Leader of the Opposition, but he has just been pushed out of the way. The member for Grayndler.
I seek leave to table the coalition's 'better way on infrastructure' policy, saying it will have a cost-benefit analysis.
Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. The member will resume his seat. I now give the call to the Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Before the last election the current Minister for Defence promised, 'The coalition is committed to building 12 new submarines here in Adelaide.' This week the Prime Minister said, 'When we make a commitment to the Australian people, we keep it.' Will the Acting Prime Minister now guarantee that his government will keep its commitment to build 12 submarines in Adelaide?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The government has not yet made a final decision on the design and build of the next generation of Australians submarines.
Honourable members interjecting—
The question has been asked. There will be silence for the answer.
That decision will of course be made on the advice of Australia's Defence chiefs. What the Prime Minister has clearly said is that the bulk of the Australian work on this project will be centred on the South Australian shipyards. That means more jobs for South Australia.
What I find quite curious about this is that Labor's commentary on this issue seems to be vastly different since they have been in opposition than when they were in government. When they were in government they did not make too many decisions about defence, other than to cut expenditure to the lowest levels since 1937. But once or twice they did make decisions about acquiring new ships for the Australian Defence Force. One of those decisions was to purchase HMAS Choules. That was not built in Australia. They bought it from the United Kingdom. And when it came to replacing the Australian-built icebreaker, the Aurora, Labor called tenders and they chose a shortlist—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It was a straight-forward question: Will the government keep its promise to build 12 submarines?
The member will resume his seat. The question relates to shipbuilding. I call the Acting Prime Minister.
When it came to Labor's turn to make a decision about whether to build an icebreaker in Australia, they chose two shortlisted tenders, both of which said they were going to build the vessel in Europe. When HMAS Success needed to have a double hull added, they sent that job to Singapore.
There is far too much noise in the chamber. We will have some silence so we can listen to the answer.
And when it came to servicing the Armidale-class patrol boats, they sent that work offshore as well. Labor is now trying to pretend that they are interested in an Australian shipbuilding industry, but when they were in office they did precisely the opposite. What I have noted is that Labor has said more about ships and the defence force in its six months in opposition than it did in six years in government. During six years in government it did nothing for the Australian shipbuilding industry. Now it is in opposition it is making promises and commitments it knows it has no intention of keeping.
The member for Adelaide will desist or leave the chamber, the choice is hers. The member may therefore leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Adelaide then left the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to this article in the Adelaide Advertiser that raises concerns about the Noarlunga GP Super Clinic, labelling it a 'white elephant'. How have the ongoing issues at the Noarlunga GP Super Clinic affected the delivery of health services in South Australia?
The member for Kingston will desist!
There is a lot of internal reflection going on in the Labor Party at the moment, and I think it is important to remind Australians about some of the achievements of Labor when they were in government during the Rudd and Gillard years. There was a lot of talk about 'backstabbing Bill' and all of the players in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd arrangement, and I think we should talk about some of the achievements of the Labor Party when they were in government.
The Minister for Health will kindly refer to people by their correct titles.
I can say to the House that the Labor Party promised 64 so-called super clinics—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Minister for Health would assist the House if he withdraws.
Madam Speaker, I did not hear your request. I am happy to withdraw. The Labor Party promised 64 so-called super clinics in 2007. The great achievement of Labor was that they were able to deliver 33 of those in a six-year period. That is not bad, considering the Treasurer has outlined the fact that billions of dollars become a rounding error for Labor because, when they are in government, they rack up an enormous amount of debt. For those people who do not understand the GP super clinic program, what they did was they borrowed $650 million from overseas to spend on super clinics to compete with doctors who had already put their own money into those clinics, so some of those doctors were driven from business. The member for Kingston has been up here at the dispatch box today. She has been sliced and diced, waving her wet lettuce, sliced and diced by the Minister for Education. She continues to come up, gets knocked down each time, but she has been a great champion of this super clinic, and let me tell you some of the outcomes of this super clinic.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. Perhaps the minister might also like to explain why he is getting—
The member will resume her seat.
Let us talk about the successes of Labor when they were in government, not just failures in education—
The member for Ballarat will desist!
not just failures in terms of the management of the economy, but they wasted $650 million on this program. This particular surgery cost $50 million—sorry, $25 million for 50 rooms—it cost $2 million a room.
The member for Ballarat will desist or leave, the choice is hers.
Just to put that into perspective, a bed in a tertiary hospital costs $1 million. What would you expect for 50 rooms? How many GPs would you expect?
The member for Kingston will desist!
Would you expect 50, 100, 20, 30, 40? Labor's numbers and predictions jumped all over the place, but I will tell you how many GPs are in that clinic today—zero. Not even one. Only the Labor Party could borrow money to set up a clinic in competition to another doctor's practice and find that they open it at a cost of $25 million and not one doctor.
The member for Kingsford Smith will desist!
Labor were a failure when they were in government and they are a failure in opposition. They should never be allowed to return to this side of the parliament.
I move that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
by leave—I move:
(1) Mr Porter be discharged from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and that, in his place, Ms Price be appointed a member of the committee;
(2) Mr Laming, Mr Porter and Dr Gillespie be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Fund Establishment;
(3) Mr O’Dowd, Mr Taylor and Mr Pasin be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth;
(4) Mr Laming be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and that, in his place, Ms F. M. Scott be appointed a member of the committee;
(5) Ms F. M. Scott be discharged from the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and that, in her place, Mr Laming be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The devastating impact of Tony Abbott's budget of broken promises on jobs and the cost of living.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
This is the week that truth has caught up with the budget and caught up with the government. It is fair to say that the parallel universe that this Liberal regime inhabit is shrinking fast. Reality keeps getting in the way of their rhetoric. The truth keeps shining a light on their broken promises and lies. On five different matters this week the truth has mugged this lying government. Firstly, we have learnt about the GP tax, justified on the basis of an out-of-control health spending crisis that does not exist. Secondly, we have learnt that university fees will increase in a manner which will discourage many students from studying. Thirdly, we have discovered that the government has been systematically engaged in a wilful conspiracy to destroy the renewable energy industry in this country. Fourthly, we have seen that when it comes to keeping promises on building submarines in Adelaide this government cannot lie straight in bed. Furthermore, fifthly, we have seen warnings from the banking sector of Australia that this government has gone too far in deregulating consumer protection. They are five matters this week where the truth has uncomfortably reared its unwelcome head in government considerations.
The GP tax, an attack on the sick and the vulnerable, has been justified on the basis of out-of-control health spending. The government has said that the GP tax is being imposed because we have an unsustainable health spending system, yet they propose to put the money from it into a future fund for medical research and none of that money will be used to deal with the health spending crisis that they allege exists. This is a government that is addicted to scaring Australians and inventing false crises to justify unfair tactics. But the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has blown a big hole in the logic and the rationalisation of the government. Federal government health spending is at its lowest in 30 years—its lowest. How on earth can you justify taxing the sick and the poor and the vulnerable on a rationale that does not exist? We have discovered this week that Australians are spending more on their own health care than Medicare is, and yet this is a government that wants to transfer more of the burden onto ordinary Australians. AMA president Brian Owler has belled the cat. He says that this research makes 'a mockery of the fact that the government's been claiming that health care expenditure is out of control.' He goes on to say simply and purely and unequivocally on behalf of the patients of Australia, 'there is no justification for a GP co-payment.' Look at those government members opposite—their heads are bowed; they are not arguing back because they know the truth when they hear it.
There is a second truth this week that has embarrassed the government. Education is essential to our future. Going to university should depend upon your hard work and your good marks, not your parents' wealth. Letting universities charge what they like will mean crippling debts and higher fees. People are worried—not just young people but families and mature age students. The Minister for Education visited the United Kingdom recently. You would have thought he could have discovered that fees are trebling under the system he advocates. He challenged us this week to look at what some of the university groups have said, and then he had the cheek—what a cheeky fellow this Minister for Education is—to accuse Labor of selectively quoting. We have discovered in the Senate submissions that no-one universally and unanimously supports all these recommendations. Frankly, we cannot get enough of this out-of-touch, arrogant fellow because we selfishly want Australia to see what this government is like. Never hide Christopher Pyne—keep bringing him out. We love him, but the people of Australia don't.
We have discovered this week that the University of Western Australia has said that medical degrees will cost $100,000. Fantastic, Christopher Pyne—the worst Minister for Education we have ever had is introducing the highest fees we have ever seen in Australian education history. They can put that on his tombstone. The cost of doing a science degree is going up 82 per cent, and economics is going up 56 per cent. This government have a plan to create a two-class Australia, and they cynically keep arguing that the people who have not been to university should be presented with a bunch of flowers by the people who have gone to university. Christopher Pyne is so out of touch it is breathtaking. I know not what planet he lives on, but it is not the one the rest of us live on. When he says that parents and grandparents who have never been to university somehow begrudge their children and their grandchildren going to university, he is being so shockingly arrogant it is a disgrace.
It is not just universities—there is also the renewable energy target. This week se have seen the government continue to do everything it can to destroy an industry. Let me quote John Hewson, Tony Abbott's former boss. He has said it well, thus proving that even a stopped clock can be right twice a day:
You're asking people to make long-term investments and then you change the policy in the middle of that and you reduce the value of those investments.
What—the mining tax?
Be careful—he even says more. Former Liberal leader and Abbott boss Hewson goes on:
This is a government that says it's open for business. For Christ's sake, what business are you open for?
It is certainly not renewable energy.
Then, of course, we got the broken promises on submarines. I thought the performance of the Acting Prime Minister in question time today was outrageous. We put to the government a very straightforward statement. David Johnston, the little-known defence minister, who was being stalked by Mathais Cormann and his faction in the Western Australian Liberal Party—I would not want to be in the same party as that chap—fronts up at the Australian Submarine Corporation. No shame. He is right in front of where they build the subs—we know Liberals love being photographed with the military; it is just what they will not do for military equipment that is so outrageous—and on 8 May says: 'We will build 12 submarines in Adelaide.' He did not say what that Truss fellow said just before. He did not say, 'Well, the bulk of the Australian work will be done in South Australia.' No, he did not say that. He said: '12 submarines in Adelaide'. We just asked them a simple question today. If any of the backbenchers have any courage at all they should get up and say, 'Will the Liberal Party of Australia keep its promises on submarines?' Just keep your promises on submarines!
Ms Gambaro interjecting—
Come on, Teresa. You have a crack at it. Keep your promises. Let me quote the Governor-General and former CDF , Sir Peter Cosgrove. Right before he became Governor-General, he said:
Whenever I am asked why we should build submarines in Australia, my short reply is that we can’t afford not to.
Of course, what would the former CDF compared to all the Colonel Blimps over here know? Then there are the financial changes that the government is making. The government is so out of touch with the truth that it is recklessly deregulating consumer protections for people who consume financial products to a point where even the banks have said, 'You've gone too far.' How you can get outflanked on the left by the big banks of Australia defies me. It sets new land speed records. It is not only that the government have been outflanked by the banks where even they think the government is going too far in drinking the drug of deregulation and exposing people to further financial risk; it is that they lied about it.
So this week we have five different matters where this government continued to lie—despite the truth. It does not matter if it is jobs and renewable energy. It does not matter if it is jobs and submarines. It does not matter if it is out-of-control health spending—a confected crisis where they are scaring Australians to justify their rotten GP tax. It does not matter if they want to make it harder for working-class kids or kids from the bush. Wasn't that a classic answer from the Leader of the Nationals? His own party has said it is a bad idea. Of course, the Liberal Party has got its hand so far up that chap's back that he does not even remember the bush anymore.
What I saw today and what I have seen in the last couple of days with financial protections is that even Innes Willox, the spokesperson for the Ai Group, the Australian Industry Group, spelled out the lies of this government. Remember the dirty deal the government did with the Palmer United Party to wreck the retirement savings of millions of Australian? Innes Willox said:
… we wouldn't expect wages to rise to completely offset the postponement of the superannuation guarantee …
This mob promised real solutions, but all they are is part of the real problem of Australia.
Once again we hear the ranting and the railing of the Leader of the Opposition as he stands in the chamber and attempts to portray that this government has somehow not done the right thing by the Australian people. Once again we hear the bluff and the bluster as the Leader of the Opposition laments his concern about jobs, his concern about renewable energy targets and his concern about defence. He says that it has all gone to potash since the coalition was elected. But the extraordinary thing and, in fact, the subject of the debate of the MPI this afternoon deals with, is the very clear indication of the track record of our performance versus Labor's performance.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party come into the chamber and say how concerned they are about the cost of living and how we as a government have not stood by our election promises. This is coming from a Labor Party who, when they were in government, implemented policies that oversaw electricity increases—perhaps the single biggest input cost into every household and into every business across the country. The Australian Labor Party oversaw increases in electricity costs of 101 per cent from the December-quarter of 2007 until the September-quarter of 2013—a 101 per cent increase in electricity prices over that period and they have the gall, the audacity, the hypocrisy to come in here and lecture the coalition about how we do not do the right thing in terms of cost of living.
Bear in mind that this is the Australian Labor Party, which, under the stewardship of the former Prime Minister who said 'There'll be no carbon tax under a government I lead' introduced a carbon tax. It was in direct contrast to what the Australian Labor Party said they were going to do. It was a policy, which, at its core, was about driving up the price of electricity. As a consequence of this policy there were stories in the Daily Telegraph about pensioners unable to turn on their heating in winter because of the cost of electricity. Yet the Australian Labor Party—highlighting just what hypocrites they are prepared to be—come in here and say how we have the policies wrong and how Labor had the policies right, when Labor pursued an aggressive form of pushing up energy prices as much as possible. It was not just confined to electricity. We saw utilities increase by about 89.1 per cent and gas by 71.4 per cent.
But it is more than that; it was also Labor's active pursuit of policies that ran directly contrary to what was in the interests of Australians overall. Who could forget when Labor promised that they were going to end the double drop-off? We remember how the then minister stood up and said: 'No more Australians have to do a double drop-off. They will all be able to be co-located at schools and it will make it so much easier for parents.' Not only did that not happen; we also Labor's sop to the unions in their attempt to channel as many workers as possible into their union base to prop up the Australian Labor Party. We saw the consequence where childcare costs increased by more than 50 per cent as a direct result of Labor's policies. Then they say to the coalition, 'You should be more concerned and more focused on the needs of working women,' when we, the coalition, are attempting to provide women with a replacement wage, and we, the coalition, are prepared to put money into Australian women's superannuation, in stark contrast to Labor's policy, which offers only a minimum wage and no superannuation. So, once again, we see just how plain it is that Labor are prepared to display their hypocrisy when it comes to, for example, childcare costs and what is in the best interests of Australia's working women.
The other interesting thing when you were listening to the Leader of the Opposition's contribution to this debate was that he railed about sovereign risk and how we were jeopardising investments with respect to the renewable energy target, because we as a government undertook a review. Bear in mind that it was a legislative review. Bear in mind that we took it to the last election that we would undertake a review. Bear in mind that all we have had is a report to government and not a report of government. But that does not stop the Leader of the Opposition from attempting to make hay trying to maintain that things are very bad because we have billions in investment threatened.
Let us compare and contrast this to Labor's performance. What we see is the example of the Australian Labor Party having not one, not two, not three, but four iterations of the mining tax. There were four combinations and permutations of the resources superprofits tax, which became the mining tax, which actually did drive down investment in our resources sector. It actually did result in job losses in Australia's resources sector. It actually was a completely failed policy. It had some $17.2 billion of expenditure tied to it but raised a paltry couple of hundred million dollars.
So we continue to see examples of where the Leader of the Opposition stands up and makes all the right sounds and just hopes and prays every day that the Australian people conveniently forget Labor's track record. Labor's track record on the cost of living is appalling. Labor's track record when it comes to sovereign risk is appalling. And Labor's track record when it comes to making sure that we provide Australian children with a better tomorrow than they would otherwise have today is the worst example of all.
We on this side of the House know that we will pursue policies that do put downward pressure on the cost of living. There is no clearer example of that than what we did with the abolition of the carbon tax. The government has worked constructively and methodically with those cross bench senators who were willing to take notice of the mandate the Australian people gave us at the last election. We followed through on our promise and delivered the repeal of the carbon tax. We did likewise with respect to the mining tax. We said we were going to do it and we delivered. Not only did we deliver on our promises, but we actually delivered real savings back to Australians, with expected electricity price reductions—not increases but reductions—of nine per cent.
I saw recently an example in Queensland that occurred as a direct consequence of the coalition's abolition of Labor's failed mining tax. Queensland Premier Campbell Newman announced that public transport fees were going to be frozen this year, and next year they would decrease by five per cent. This is happening as a direct consequence of the abolition of a complete failure of a policy from the Australian Labor Party.
The final point I draw upon, which the Leader of the Opposition made reference to, was health spending. I have to say that I continue to be amazed at how the Australian Labor Party can stand up with a straight face and run the complete mistruth that if Labor was still in power there somehow would be billions of dollars of extra funding going towards health and education. The real facts are very straightforward. There was no money being set aside for health and education by the Australian Labor Party. Not one single cent had Labor actually been able to materialise and put aside for additional health and education funding. In fact, with respect to education, under the coalition there is an additional $1.2 billion being provided in education funding that Labor was going to rip out in a sneaky little announcement they made just prior to the last election—$1.2 billion ripped out of education funding in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. Yet the Leader of the Opposition stands up here with a straight face and says how outraged he is that we would be looking at reducing Gonski funding, when we in fact are delivering real funding increases each and every year in health and education, unlike the Labor Party. I will not tolerate for one moment—none of us on this side will—being lectured to by the Australian Labor Party about how we do not take decisions in the long-term interests of Australian children, when we are the only side in this chamber prepared to stand up for the next generation of Australians, because Labor wants to finance their futures to pay for today's spending and to pay for their measly promises as they attempt to run around the country and promise all things to all people. We reject Labor's approach. The Australian public reject Labor's approach. We have seen the consequence of Labor's failure. (Time expired)
I want to weep at the contribution from the member for They will be the first generation that we leave worse off than previous generations. That is what we are giving to our children. We are giving them less in environment, less in the economy, less in education and less in health. You talk about a better tomorrow. You should hang your head in shame.
This Abbott government is full of broken promises and cruel cuts that are reaching from cradle to grave. But the ones who will be most impacted are our children and their children. Every one of us in our maiden speech talked about creating a better future, a better world. You are not doing that. You are creating a worse world. We have a prime minister who said there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions, no changes to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS. All of those things have come true. He has hidden behind each barefaced lie. He has lied, and he has hit and hurt the Australian public. He is driving up costs and he is pushing up unemployment. This is not for a better, brighter future; this is for a worse future.
In my electorate of Chisholm, I will see people footing an extra $5.5 billion in out-of-pocket healthcare costs, and I have an electorate that does not have a huge bulk-billing rate because of the socioeconomic demographic I represent. But I have an ageing population. Thanks to the GP co-payment, many in my electorate will not see a doctor. We have heard that the president of the AMA, Brian Owler, has said that its report confirms there is no need for a GP tax. This makes a mockery of the fact that the government has been claiming healthcare expenses are out of control. They are not. They are at their lowest level ever. The government has used this as a narrative in terms of the lead-up to its federal budget, saying healthcare expenditure is out of control. It is being used it to justify the introduction of the GP co-payment. There is no justification for the GP co-payment. There is no justification for getting rid of universality of Medicare, something that is the envy of every other country in the world.
In my electorate of Chisholm, home to two of the largest universities in the country where 53,000 students studying on campus and tonnes more study off campus at Monash in Clayton and at Deakin in Burwood, they are facing the prospect of massive student loans. They are facing the prospect of not going to university. We will see students in my electorate making the decision that it is too costly to literally walk across the road to the Clayton campus to go there. We have seen this at a time where unemployment is at its highest level in Victoria in 15 years. We are going to take away this opportunity and drive people out of education.
At the other end of the scale, we have seen a reprieve for 12 months with childcare fees. But we have also seen them taking the axe to family day care. This is going to hurt in my electorate. This week, Monash Council is deciding whether they will scrap family day care altogether. This will impact 54 educators—phenomenal members of our communities—and 314 families. This includes people like Laura, who has been in touch with my office. She is devastated that, after 20 years of providing family day care, she will be thrown on the scrap heap. She will not be able to support those children who need this kind of service—children like Mason, a child with autism, who was rejected from all the other centres because, at three, he did not have any language. Now he is a thriving four-year-old, the chattiest in Laura's care. You stand condemned.
The Leader of the Opposition has moved his matter of public importance. This is something that he and his office and his team would have been planning all day. In it went just before 12 o'clock and the Speaker chose it. It is an MPI about jobs and the cost of living. But we did not hear the member for Chisholm mention the cost of living. She might have mentioned jobs once or twice in a cursory way. The first half of her contribution was relevant to yesterday's MPI on the environment. I have actually checked. I checked with my colleague here next to me. Someone wrote this MPI and Bill Shorten signed it. But he did not mention jobs or the cost of living. He did not mention the cost of living once. And do you know why? Because along with those opposite—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
You are back. Are you rostered on? You are fantastic. It is this involuntary babble. That is why you are here. That is what we heard from the Leader of the Opposition for 10 minutes: a jungle of gibberish. It was a mixture of insults, corny jokes and populism. If there was one thread that held the Leader of the Opposition's speech together, it was pretending that budget surpluses do not matter, pretending that runaway deficits and debt do not matter, pretending that he can be populist, pretending, as we saw over the course of the last few months, that he can create jobs where he knows there are none—just pretending and hoping that he can stir up enough populism on any issue to get himself through. This is no substitute for serious policy.
We know that the whole time he was a minister—he was an Assistant Treasurer at one point—he and the former government at first pretended that the budget situation did not matter and then pretended for years that they would return the budget to surplus. The Leader of the Opposition, along with a few others in the opposition, actually declared at one point that the budget had returned to surplus. He put it out in a newsletter and said Labor had returned the budget to surplus. But, as the Treasurer pointed out during question time, we had more than 500 pledges of a surplus, but no surplus. Now, confronted in opposition with a runaway debt situation, their deep thinking has led them to pretend that it does not matter. We see it on policy issue after policy issue.
They have put in a matter of public importance mentioning the cost of living, and clearly what has happened is after it has been submitted they have thought, 'Hang on, we don't want to talk about that because we are the kings of cost of living pressure.' They were the kings of the carbon tax that racked up cost of living and racked up costs for business and for families. We went to the last election on a clear pledge to abolish it. We have abolished it against the opposition. And what do they want to do? They want to bring it back. They have the hide to put in a matter of public importance on cost of living when they do not even have the courage to mention it in the House of Representatives. That is the situation we face with those opposite.
We have heard them talk about higher education and pretending, like on the budget, that we do not need any reform. They have been pretending, even, that the Hawke and Keating reforms were not worthwhile. We even had the member for Wills wanting to roll back the Hawke and Keating reforms on higher education. When I was at university as a Liberal student I supported the Hawke and Keating reforms. But the problem is that all of those opposite have had their fingers crossed behind their backs the whole time they have been in public life. Now here they are in opposition and they will not confront a serious policy issue in any area.
The Minister for Education rightly pointed out that Paul Kelly in The Australian had this to say:
Labor has opted out of serious engagement, yet again.
Anyone following policy and looking at the need for reform knows the budget needs to be reformed, that higher education needs to be reformed and that tough and difficult decisions are necessary today for a brighter future tomorrow. But those opposite will just keep pretending, and the Leader of the Opposition is quickly making himself the great pretender— (Time expired)
What a telling contribution that was from the member for Casey, because in his five minutes he failed to address the impact of the broken promises of this government on rising unemployment, insecure work and the cost of living. He had nothing to say in defence of the government, and that is wholly unsurprising—so, well said, Member for Casey, as ever!
I also want to touch on the contribution of the parliamentary secretary. Unfortunately—or, perhaps, fortunately—I only caught the very end of it. He said something quite interesting, I thought. He said that he would not tolerate lectures from Labor. At one level, what a hubristic and arrogant statement that is. But, secondly, it led me back to a contribution on the part of the Prime Minister. We know all about the broken promises around 'no cuts to health, no cuts to education and no changes to pensions', but there is a more fundamental promise that has been broken by this government and this Prime Minister. I would like the parliamentary secretary to have regard to that promise, not any lectures from me. The Prime Minister said on election day:
I now look forward to forming a government that is competent, that is trustworthy and which purposefully and steadfastly and methodically sets about delivering on our commitments to you, the Australian people.
… … …
… in a week or so the Governor-General will swear in a new government.
A government that says what it means, and means what it says.
A government of no surprises and no excuses—
well, that bit we all remember—
A government that understands the limits of power as well as its potential.
And a government that accepts that it will be judged more by its deeds than by its mere words.
He went on to say:
I give you all this assurance—we will not let you down.
A good government is one that governs for all Australians, including those who haven’t voted for it.
A good government is one with a duty to help everyone to maximise his or her potential, indigenous people, people with disabilities, and our forgotten families, as well as those who Menzies described as ‘lifters, not leaners.’
We will not leave anyone behind.
What fine words! Lets take him and the rest of his government at them and judge him by his deeds.
Today, I am proud to join with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Chisholm in this matter of public importance to talk about the devastating impact of the Prime Minister's budget of broken promises on jobs and on the cost of living. Earlier this afternoon, we heard the Treasurer and the finance minister try to blame Treasury estimates on Labor. What we did not hear from them was a reiteration of their pledge that the coalition would achieve a surplus in their first year in office and in every year of their first term. It has been quite the reverse, in fact, with a doubling of the deficit. All this government do is make excuses for their bad behaviour and blamed the Labor Party for everything. They are still an opposition in exile.
There was the supposed budget emergency that existed. It exists when the Treasurer is here and full of bluster, but not when he goes overseas to tell the truth. But it is not just the Treasurer doing this. Think about the $80 billion that is being ripped from health and education in Australia, specifically in health. Yesterday's report found that growth in health funding is at its lowest level in decades. Think about the impact of the GP tax. The most important issue to my constituents in Scullin is the end of universal health care. Far from no cuts to health, we are seeing a massive cost-of-living impact as well as quality-of-life impact from these broken promises in health.
We have heard about education from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Chisholm. It is hard not to see—although members opposite seem to struggle with this—the cost-of-living impact of this doubling or tripling of university costs. Far from enabling people to maximise their potential, this government is curtailing life choices.
The Minister for Social Services continues to spread the untruth that this government are not cutting pensions when their own budget papers show this. They bank the savings and yet swear blind in here that there are no cuts. Is this really a government that says what it means and means what it says? Of course not. They have no sense of the importance of security and dignity in retirement. When I think about the cost of living, I think about insecure work. I think about the unemployment rate that the Treasurer will not and cannot talk about. I think about inaccessible and unaffordable child care, compounded by decisions in this parliament at the moment. I think about the GP tax. I think about the attacks on primary health care. I think about the petrol tax. National Party members might wish to raise that issue and that broken promise. I think about the cutting of public transport support and, indeed, the junior minister mocking the costs of congestion. I think about the consumer protection changes. This government has launched into an all-out assault on the cost of living for Australian families and has broken trust in doing so. (Time expired)
It is no wonder those opposite did not actually address their own matter of public importance on jobs and costs of living. In 2007 Australia had no national debt, a budget in the black and a surging mining industry. We had a national piggy bank of many millions of dollars. From that point forward our economy and jobs took a nosedive. At the time of the election in 2013 our youth unemployment had increased by a whopping 30 per cent and the long-term unemployment jumped by 25 per cent. On news.com.au in August 2013 the director of employment and education for the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry was quoted as slamming the then Labor government for cutting $242 million from subsidies for trainees and apprentices. Those opposite should not lecture this side of government about unfair cuts to jobs and work opportunities until they have had the decency to research their own destructive and economically debilitating policies.
Really, changing the pay rates for apprentices who turned 21 years old was the most destructive action possible to prevent regional youth from gaining an apprenticeship position. Seriously, did you think beyond the headline for this ridiculous change? I have a constant stream of young people complaining bitterly as they cannot get work. They wish to take up an apprenticeship and they have offered to work for half pay in order to secure an apprenticeship. The employer, sadly, is unable to accept this offer.
We on this side of House know that there is no instant fix. The problem we have took six years to develop. There is not going to be an overnight cure. We have reinstated financial incentives: there is $2,500 for a young person now without a job if they get one and keep it for a year and there is another $4,000 if they keep it for another 12 months. There are incentives to move from work of up $3,000, depending on the criteria they meet.
In Gilmore, we have the opportunity to facilitate the revamped Work for the Dole, giving our young people the chance to be with other volunteers, build their self-confidence and learn skills and work ethics that provide a stepping stone to paid work. We have begun the Green Army rollouts, where teams of young people can gain environmental qualifications and increase environmental amenity, as well as learn the skills, confidence and work habits that have no dollar value but—more importantly—have human capacity value. This government even has work incentives for our mature jobseekers, worth $10,000 over two years for people over 50.
Did those opposite even consider the effect of the carbon tax on small business? Did they not realise that increasing the expenses for a small business, like huge electricity bills, reduced employment opportunities? One of my local small businesses, a bakery, received their first electricity bill since the carbon tax was axed into oblivion. It was $900 less this last quarter. Yes, I did say $900 less.
Did those opposite not realise that the weekly grocery bill for every single Australian would be increased after the carbon tax was introduced? Electricity is used to both chill and freeze. This meant that prices for dairy, fresh fruit, vegetables and meat all went up. If people wanted to stay healthy, it was going to cost more. Talk about cost of living increases! There seems to be a chronic disconnect for those opposite, who are developing poor policy, as to the impact on the everyday Aussie.
Today, those opposite rabbit on about changes to universities. You must be kidding! Under Labor, they cut $6.6 billion from university funding with no avenue for the universities to survive financially. Do you want our students to go overseas to get a degree? Today, we hear selected excerpts about university comments. This is both misleading and untruthful—stop it. I say that you and your ridiculous rhetoric just shows your economic ineptitude. It is no wonder we have so much national debt. University students in Australia pay not a single dollar up-front. Shame on you!
We will fix the budget, we will fix the economy and we will encourage our youth. We repealed that disgusting, damaging carbon tax. We have strengthened the ACCC to challenge noncompliance on cost reductions. We get it. We understand policy and fiscal connections. We have the will to fix this mess for our national future.
I am glad that we are having a debate about jobs. We do not do it often enough. Unemployment is way too high. We have over 750,000 people unemployed, with unemployment at over six per cent. Our youth unemployment is much higher again. Long-term unemployment is growing. Regional unemployment is way too high. There is widespread, under-acknowledged underemployment. Unemployment is serious and it needs a lot more focus than it is being given around here.
Today, I signed the Australian shipbuilding industry pledge organised by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, who were at the front of Parliament House. This pledge asked that parliamentarians commit to supporting our shipbuilding industry and the high-tech manufacturing jobs that are part of this sector. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, is supporting the Australian submarine industry and its workers.
Last Thursday, 18 September, TheAustralianFinancial Review had ago at him for it in an editorial, which applauded Tony Abbott for:
…finally saying no to the foreign-owned car companies.
In the very next sentence, it disapprovingly referred to:
Bill Shorten's rally of submarine workers, with its little disguised xenophobia.
That was in the very next sentence! TheAustralianFinancial Review felt entitled to throw around the ugly word 'xenophobia' in the next sentence after sneering at the car companies as being foreign owned.
Over the years, I have grown accustomed to double standards in political debate, but normally those who practice it have enough of a sense of shame to put a bit more space between their contradictions. This hypocritical attack on the Leader of Opposition occurred in the context of an editorial having a go at the former Treasury secretary Dr Ken Henry. Dr Henry had said that we are following a policy of maximising exports at any cost, which he described as Australian mercantilism. He said that no matter what the situation, Australian mercantilism will always prescribe the same treatment: to cut business costs, especially wages and taxes, and to cut government spending.
He expresses concern that Australian national attributes—such as incorruptibility; respect for the rule of law; safe working conditions; a concern with environmental sustainability and animal welfare; institutions that support social harmony, economic and social opportunity; and tolerance—are all potentially on the chopping block if they add to business costs. I think Dr Henry made some important and valid points. I am concerned that we are narrowing our economic base, are too dependent on mining and energy exports and are running out of options for our future prosperity. We need to have a broader economic base and to be more self-sufficient. How do you do that? You do it with support for education, science and research; support for university students and support for manufacturing.
That is the very opposite of what this government's budget has done. You do not do it by chloroforming the renewable energy industry and the rollout of the National Broadband Network. You do it by learning from successful overseas examples like Norway, with their sovereign wealth, free tertiary education and low unemployment. Our children will not thank us for our greed and short-sightedness. They will thank us if we pay more attention to Ken Henry. They also will not thank us if we continue to run the massive migrant worker programs in the face of the highest unemployment for over a decade in the last couple of months.
The ACTU president, Ged Kearney, says:
Unemployment has hit a 12 year high yet instead of tightening up requirements to import labour – the Government is trying to help employers bypass local workers in the Northern Territory under new designated area migration agreements.
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union National Secretary Michael O'Connor says:
With the construction boom in the resource sector coming to end we will have thousands of construction workers looking for work, but the Government seems intent on destroying the job opportunities of locals while allowing the exploitation of overseas workers.
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation Federal Secretary Lee Thomas says:
… the 457 visa scheme was initially created as an emergency stop-gap measure used to address critical skills shortages.
"We find it unacceptable that instead of employing locally-educated nursing and midwifery graduates, employers in some health sectors continue to employ increasing numbers of workers from overseas – the current rate is 3,000 to 4,000 annually, a staggering 400 per cent increase since 2005.
"The Government must act, otherwise more than 3,000 nursing and midwifery graduates who still cannot find jobs will soon become a lost generation of highly trained health professionals who are unable to deliver quality care …"
The tragic reality is that we have a government which does not believe in full employment and which is not genuinely committed to Australian jobs. (Time expired)
I was somewhat disappointed by the contributions of the members for Scullin and Wills, although the member for Wills actually got on track towards the end when he discussed education and research. Let us look at research and health research. The medical health research fund is a ground-breaking $20 billion initiative. I am sure that the member for Wills would agree that that is where this country needs to go, but did he mention it? No. There was not iota of it in his speech. I was recently at the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute for a visit. They have around 150 highly educated postgraduate employees among their 400 employees. That is because of federal government money—only $200 million of it. Member for Wills, imagine what $20 billion could do! In case he was not listening during question time, the head of Universities Australia, Belinda Robertson, said in the Financial Review this week:
It is simply not possible to maintain the standards that students expect or the international reputation that Australia's university system enjoys without full fee deregulation.
That is right. The body for universities across Australia endorses full fee deregulation to make our universities better and give them a fighting chance against the competition from overseas.
We heard no new ideas raised and no solutions proposed by the opposition, but that is nothing new. We have been through that before and hear it every week in the House. We are after solutions, especially for my state of South Australia, where youth unemployment is around 40 per cent. The carbon tax has not helped at all. It has not helped jobs but it has increased the cost of living. Qantas had a $100 million bill and Virgin had a $20 million bill. Earlier this week I was talking to a major employer. They said they had a $20 million bill from the carbon tax. Imagine how many employees we can add to the payroll of major employers and small businesses with the removal of the carbon tax. We are on the right track. The bills are going down and are looking better. Since the carbon tax has been removed electricity prices in my state have fallen by about nine per cent and gas prices have fallen by about five per cent. That is not inconsequential. It helps small businesses. It helps medium sized businesses. It helps households and consumers. What do Labor want to do? We know their position. They want to bring it back—higher taxes, higher costs.
What else have we done? Let us touch on the free trade agreements that we have signed over the last year following some great work by the Minister for Trade, Andrew Robb. We have signed one with Korea and one with Japan. The South Korea free trade agreement equates to $5 billion in additional income. It means more jobs and more capital investment. Around 15,000 jobs are expected to be created from the Korean free trade agreement after years of operation. When one in five jobs in Australia is linked to trade this is a significant step forward. Local exporters, small businesses, want to reach out to the growing Asian middle class, and the growth in Asia is so important.
Let us have a look at our record on jobs. Over the last year we have created jobs at three times the rate that the Labor Party did in their last year in government—that is over 100,000 jobs. That is a great result. What were Labor doing in their last year? We know that they were changing Prime Ministers from Gillard to Rudd and changing small-business ministers as well. We are reading in the papers each week, with the release of each new book, about their infighting and instability. No wonder they were unable to govern the country properly when they were fighting among themselves, working out who was backing whom, who was jostling for which position and which promotion. If they had got on with the job of governing Australia we would be in a far better place than we are now. As usual, we need to fix up their mess.
I will finish on a couple of other positive initiatives. In my state, South Australia, and in Victoria we have the $155 million innovation growth fund and we have the infrastructure for South Road. Defence has been a topic for today: we are committing to almost $1 billion worth of defence procurement in South Australia in this year alone. There are 44 separate acquisition projects. There is $34 million in funding for the future submarine project—it is high-end work. We have close to $80 million for the future frigates. That is a significant commitment. We are committed to jobs. We are committed to a strong ship-building industry. We are going in the right direction on a number of items. We got rid of the mining tax. We are producing the jobs of the future. We are doing a far better jobs than our friends on the other side of the chamber.
It was really interesting to listen to the contribution from the member for Hindmarsh, who talked about jobs and the creation of jobs. Jobs are going only one way in South Australia—out. The member for Hindmarsh, as with all members on the other side of the House, fails to take any responsibility: it is always Labor's fault. The member for Hindmarsh needs to know that he has to take responsibility and needs to accept the fact that his government has had an enormous impact on the car industry and submarine contracts going to Japan.
Why isn't he standing up for his electorate when it comes to those contracts going overseas?
This week the Abbott government has demonstrated very graphically to the Australian people its contempt for them—broken promises based on lies. This is a government that said one thing before the election and another thing after the election. Before the election, the government said, 'No cuts to health'. They are pushing a GP tax of $7, which will affect X-rays and blood tests as well as going to your GP and going to your specialist. It will have a dramatic impact on the cost of health services in this country. It will really affect people's costs of living.
Rubbish!
Someone on the other side says, 'Rubbish!' That shows just how disconnected they are from their electorate. Rather than coming to this House arguing for the people they represent in this parliament, they are happy to hit them with a GP tax—and a GP tax that, as it has been shown this week, is based on fallacious facts. Figures released this week have shown that health costs are at a 30-year low. That is why AMA President Brian Owler was forced to say:
That makes a mockery of the fact that the Government has been claiming health care expenditure is out of control.
a mockery. And those on the other side of this parliament are prepared to perpetuate that myth. Again, in Brian Owler's words:
The Government has used this as a narrative in the terms of the lead-up to its Federal Budget, saying health care expenditure is out of control. It has used it to justify the introduction of the GP co-payment. There is no justification for a GP co-payment.
no justification for hitting Australians with this GP tax.
And what other broken promises are there? No new tax: well, we have had the petrol tax. And pensions: 'No changes to pensions.' Well, we have already seen legislation passed through this House that will dramatically decrease the pensions people will receive into the future. Those on the other side of this parliament stand up, speak in favour of that legislation and vote for it and then go back to their electorates and face the people they represent. To be quite honest, I do not know how they can, because these are changes that are going to dramatically affect the cost of living of people they represent. Broken promises: one thing before the election and another thing after the election.
Also, there are health and education cuts. This government really does stand condemned for its ineptitude, its broken promises that hit those people who can least bear the brunt of the government's cruel, harsh cuts and broken promises—the sick, the poor, the elderly. This government has justified its broken promises on health by saying it wants to make the health system sustainable in the long term. Well, I have already demonstrated that that is a fallacious point of view. And members of the government, particularly the Prime Minister, have stood up and said that they are the best friend Medicare has ever had. This government is a government of broken promises. This government is a government of lies, and the members of the backbench of this government need to go back to their electorate and explain to the electorate why they support the government's broken promises and lies. (Time expired)
I am very interested to talk on this MPI, and it is really interesting to hear the member for Shortland and the member for Chisholm and every other member over on that side who just spoke—apart from the member for Scullin, as a new member—saying that there are broken promises. These members are the same members who went into the last election, in 2010, and said there would be no carbon tax. And the people in the gallery and the people reading this at home know exactly what happened there. They went into the 2007 election under Kevin Rudd and said they were economic conservatives. They said they would not change the Pacific solution. And what did we see? Mass changes.
But we know that every time the opposition gets the chance to have an MPI they come into this place and want to talk about the budget, they want to talk about jobs and they want to talk about costs of living. I am just amazed when the opposition wants to talk about budgets. One of the things that inspired me to run to represent the people of Petrie and make a contribution in this place was the disastrous six years of Labor and the six budgets they delivered that left billions of dollars in deficits that Australian children will have to pay for generations to come. And they want to talk about budgets in their MPI!
We have the opposition leader, Mr Bill Shorten, who says in his newsletter, 'We're delivering surpluses'. Yet today in question time, what did we hear? There was not a surplus; there was never a surplus under Labor. In fact, the current Treasurer revealed today that there was a $48.5 billion deficit, after Labor promised time and time again that there would be a surplus. So, if you want to talk about budgets, we are happy to talk about budgets. We promised the Australian people a strong, prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia, and we are working towards delivering surpluses. And we are working not just towards delivering surpluses but also paying off Labor's debt, and that is what we will continue to do. Part of our plan with that, of course, revolves around jobs and revolves around cost of living. We know we want to create more jobs, and that is what we are endeavouring to do.
In my electorate of Petrie, where we have a higher level of youth unemployment. That is why in our last budget one of the great things we did was bring back Work for the Dole, after Labor once again scrapped it. And why did we do that? I will tell you why. I have been out visiting our Work for the Dole sites in the last couple of weeks, and the reason we did that is that there are people who are out of work and cannot get a job, and one of the things they say to me is, 'I go for an interview and people want some experience'. Employers are looking for someone who is proactive and actually wants some experience. Work for the Dole should be looked upon in a positive light, not a negative light. I would say to every member opposite that if you have a Work for the Dole program in your electorate I would encourage you go out and visit the people involved in that program. Talk to them. Find out what it is that they want to do in life and encourage them to achieve it, to do their best.
I was recently out at the PCYC in my electorate. There were five or six work-for-the-dole participants there. They were building a new deck, they were painting the walls and they were installing a new kitchen. I said to them, 'This is great stuff, guys, really positive, because at your next job interview, you can say to that future employer: "I have not been sitting around at home and applying for jobs; I have actually been helping not-for-profit groups and updating my skills. I am learning to build a new deck and picking up carpentry skills and I am learning cabinetry skills by helping install a new kitchen."'
So there are a whole lot of things we have delivered in this budget, including working for the dole and reducing red tape—because we understand that it is businesses that employ people in this country. We have the Restart program for older workers. We will continue to be positive. We have restored defence spending as well. I noticed that members opposite talked about defence spending. The member for Brisbane came in and said that, when they were in government, they cut defence spending. You are dead right, Member for Brisbane—you cut it by $16 billion! They cut defence spending by $16 billon, yet they want to talk about building boats in Adelaide—$16 billion would have gone a long way towards that. The coalition will continue to deliver a strong, prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia. I urge the opposition to support our policies for the benefit of this nation.
Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.
by leave—I move:
That Ms ML Landry be discharged from the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and that, in her place, Mr Coulton be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
As I was saying before the debate was interrupted, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014 finally implements the TRIPS Protocol, something that the Labor government did not do in their two terms of government. The TRIPS Protocol implementation will result in Australian pharmaceutical manufacturers being given the ability to apply to the Federal Court for a compulsory licence to manufacture generic versions of patented medicines and export those medicines to developing countries in need. The patent holders will be provided with adequate compensation for the use of their patented inventions.
This is important and commendable because the health of a nation is fundamental to its development and success. Developing countries often face severe barriers to manufacturing or attaining patented pharmaceuticals. This means that they are unable to respond to serious and often avoidable health crises in their nation. Millions of people die from diseases such as HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis—something that we do not worry about here in Australia due to the availability of vaccinations and medical treatments. Australian pharmaceutical manufacturers will now, as a result of the passing of this bill, be able to supply these countries with the lifesaving patented medicines they need. This is one way that Australia can contribute to a healthier global society and ultimately boost the global economy by assisting developing nations with their health needs. This should also provide a much needed boost to Australian pharmaceutical manufacturers who can access these new markets.
The bill will also make it easier for the owner of plant breeder's rights, or PBR, to take action against alleged infringers. Currently, PBR owners can only take action in the Federal Court. This is a costly exercise for PBR owners. As a result of this bill, PBR owners will be able to take action through the Federal Circuit Court, which is designed to deal with less complex matters more efficiently and effectively than the Federal Court. This will assist PBR owners across Australia greatly, many of whom are small businesses who will benefit not only from a cheaper alternative to taking action but also from the added protection of being able to take affordable action to protect their IP rights.
This bill reaches out to our neighbours across the Tasman as well. Currently, patent applications have to be filled out under the Australian system and the New Zealand system. It is found that many patent owners file the same application in New Zealand as in Australia, a huge regulatory burden. Businesses that want to obtain identical patents in Australia and New Zealand will find that the process will be streamlined by allowing a single patent application and examination process. This will reduce the significant red-tape burden of duplicate patent applications, making it easier and cheaper for businesses to protect their IP in both Australia and New Zealand. This will also strengthen our economic relations with our friends across the ditch.
Patent attorneys assist businesses by drafting applications for the grant of patents and prosecuting those applications before patent offices. Again, patent attorneys currently have to register once in Australia and again in New Zealand, with evidence that many register in both countries. This bill provides for a single trans-Tasman register of patent attorneys, with registration giving a person the right to practice in both countries. This will make the regulation of patent attorneys more efficient and will save patent attorneys time and money. These single economic market initiatives will save time and money and reduce the burden on the patent application process across Australian and New Zealand.
Speaking of reducing the regulatory burden, something that this government is proud to do, this bill will enable the government to dispose of unwanted IP documents sooner, saving the government hundreds of thousands of dollars in administration costs. Unlike the former Labor government, we are committed to releasing businesses from the red-tape stranglehold that inhibits them from achieving their full potential in the Australian economy. Healthier businesses across the country mean more jobs and a better quality of life for Australians. This government wants Australia to be open for business, and that means cutting red tape at every opportunity.
I pay tribute to the Hon. Bob Baldwin MP, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, who has taken a keen interest in intellectual property protections in Australia. When the parliamentary secretary visited my electorate of Hasluck, we held a roundtable on intellectual property which was well attended by local innovators. Hasluck is home to people with great ideas and the enthusiasm to turn their dreams into reality. The parliamentary secretary saw this firsthand and committed to supporting their desire to innovate within Australia with the protections that they needed. Those within my electorate who were seeking solutions and responses to IP enjoyed the knowledge that the parliamentary secretary had of their industries and his capacity to get across the complex issues that they were raising.
After speaking with them, Mr Baldwin left them with a sense that this was a government that was prepared to listen and a government that was prepared to come away from that meeting, consider the opportunities and consider what could be done in the context of the pressure points that they experience. It is important that we give serious consideration to developing industries that are going to make a difference, because at some stage our reliance to a heavy extent on education and mining will change, as it did with cheap wheat. Australia needs to be well positioned to develop those innovations into a marketable commodity or product that will create sales not only across this nation but around the world that generates income through global economies.
All of the local Hasluck innovators that attended the roundtable with the parliamentary secretary reflected on the keen interest and knowledge that he had when discussing their inventions and the difficulties they had in protecting their intellectual property. It was heartening to see a government listen to people and make positive changes to support their aspirations.
Whilst there is more to do, this bill is a step in the right direction to make it easier for innovators to protect their ideas and reduce the red tape burden of IP Australia.
I will continue to advocate for the rights of those within Hasluck and across Australia who dare to dream and contribute to innovation, inventions, ideas and processes of the future. Nothing is more frustrating for those who create a new product than to register it and see that their idea cannot go any further because, in some instances, their ideas or designs have been copied by others. They do not have the capacity to pursue costly and expensive legal pathways, but they certainly look to governments to provide the direction that safeguards IP within Australia, encourages the development of their innovation and creates a pathway. When I spoke with them, all of them talked about wanting to carry their idea through to a real product that was marketable and saleable across our country. But the more important element that came through from all of them was that they wanted to create jobs for younger people; they wanted to create opportunities for employment and stretch into the marketplace to make a real difference in the way in which they deliver their products.
As I said, I will continue to fight for those who have issues around IP, work closely within our government and be a strong advocate for the issues they face.
I start my contribution to the debate on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014 by saying that I know that there is little time left to speak on this legislation today. I hope to be able to make a major contribution to this debate on the next sitting day. It is very important legislation and it is related to the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013. This legislation replaces legislation that was tabled by the former government and legislation which lapsed in the last parliament.
The main purpose of the bill is to implement the TRIPS protocol, which would enable manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals to apply to the Federal Court for a compulsory licence to make and export patent pharmaceutical products to address health crises in developing countries. This is a very important aspect of this legislation; it is very important that we as a nation are able to fulfil this obligation. This would deliver on the government's commitment to the World Trade Organization TRIPS protocol. Countries that implement the TRIPS protocol are able to export patent medicines under compulsory licence to countries in need.
Other minor aspects of this bill include extending the jurisdiction of the former Federal Magistrates Court, the Federal Circuit Court, to include plant breeders rights matters. Once again, that may seem inconsequential, but that is a very important aspect of this bill and has enormous ramifications, allowing for a single trans-Tasman patent attorney regime, a single patent application and examination processes for Australia and New Zealand as part of the broader single economic market agenda.
The bill makes minor administrative changes to the Patents Act, Trade Marks Act and Designs Act to repeal document retention provisions already governed by the Archives Act 1983, and minor amendments to the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012. The bill is similar, as I already mentioned, to the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 introduced by Labor in May of that year. The main difference between Labor's bill and the coalition's bill is that the provisions regarding amendments to Crown use in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 have been removed. Other changes are minor and/or drafting error amendments.
I know my time is very short tonight and that we will be going to the adjournment debate—
Debate interrupted.
I did not know Ron Mulock personally; I knew him by reputation. It has been said of reputation that the great difficulty is to first win that reputation, the next is to keep it while you live and then the next is to preserve it after you die. When affection and interest are over, nothing but sterling excellence can preserve your name. So today I seek in this chamber to play a small part in preserving Ron's name. I note too the presence of the member for McMahon, the member for Blaxland and also, importantly, the member for Lindsay. We all rise to pay tribute to a great Labor Party figure in New South Wales, Ron Mulock, who passed away this month aged 84 in the city he loved so much and was instrumental in shaping—Sydney.
Ron Mulock was drawn to a life of public service, and we in New South Wales are all very grateful that he was. As a minister in a string of portfolios, Ron Mulock would also go on to prove himself a capable and loyal deputy premier to both Premiers Wran and Unsworth. It is a difficult year when we lose two icons in the same year— Neville Wran and Ron Mulock. Such was Ron's versatility and value to his leaders, following is the list of ministries he held down during his illustrious cabinet career: Minister for Justice, Minister for Transport, Minister for Services, Minister for Housing, Minister for Education, Minister for Health, Minister for Mineral Resources and Development, Minister for Highways, and the Attorney-General.
I am personally indebted to Ron Mulock, because it was he, along with then Premier Unsworth in 1987, who concluded a Commonwealth-state agreement to establish the University of Western Sydney. I would become the first person in my family to attain a university degree because of this university, and to this day many young Australians have that campus to thank for shaping their lives. So, Ron Mulock, we thank you.
As friendly and easygoing as Ron was, he was certainly no pushover, as I am sure many of the executive of the Teachers Federation would attest during his tenure as education minister. He was a doer, a school and curriculum builder, but he had a budget to adhere to. In fact, it was the government's biggest at the time and he knew his maths.
One word that stands out whenever I have heard the name Ron Mulock is 'loyalty'. I loved a comment made by Ron's son Mark during his recent eulogy, where he said that Ron was the best friend you could ever have, in good times and especially in the bad times. That loyalty was recognised and later rewarded when, in 1973, Neville Wran asked Ron for his vote in a ballot for the Labor leadership against Pat Hills. Ron Mulock declined, but promised Neville his undivided loyalty if he won. The rest, as they say, is history, and the string of portfolios I have just mentioned is testament to the trust Neville and later Barrie Unsworth would have in him.
Ron Mulock was proudly Western Sydney. Ron set up shop as a Penrith lawyer, and it was not long before he knew just about everyone and just about everyone knew him. Just over a decade later he had become Penrith's mayor, a position he would hold three times with distinction. He became a member of the Labor Party in 1968, and many years later would be rewarded with life membership. He was warmly remembered across Western Sydney, regardless of politics, for his contribution to the region. As I said, he had an impact, in particular for people growing up in Western Sydney, like the member for McMahon, the member for Blaxland and me. Importantly, across politics he was regarded and respected, and the fact that the member for Lindsay wanted to ensure that we remember Ron Mulock's memory today is testament to that fact.
Macquarie Street called on Ron Mulock because of his talent as a young politician, but he was also a very talented sportsman. The records prove he was an excellent cricketer, in particular a fine bowler with the three grade clubs he represented. Ron would be one of Sydney's best first-grade performers, with the incredible figures of 8 for 59 in one match in the summer of 1962-63. His other sporting love was the Penrith Panthers Rugby League club, of which he served on the board and was honoured with life membership. I can only imagine how excited he would be in the knowledge that his Panthers are potentially just one win from a grand final appearance after a stellar season.
Ron is survived by his wife Desley, two sons Mark and Paul, daughter Jane and nine grandchildren Max, Beth, Georgia, Dominic, Gabby, Ruby, James, Tess and Peta. He was also much loved by sons Peter and John, who sadly passed on at too young an age. To the entire Mulock family, we are sorry for your loss but we are deeply proud of a very great man.
Firstly I would like to thank the member for Chifley for his moving words on a Penrith icon. I would also like to acknowledge the presence in the chamber today of the member for McMahon and the member for Blaxland. Ron Mulock in fact opened St Clair, which is in the member for McMahon's electorate.
I rise today to pay my respects to the life of Ronald Joseph Mulock, a man blessed with passion, purpose and integrity. But, Ron, you were so much more: a husband, a son, a brother, a father, a lawyer, a mayor, a minister, a deputy premier, a visionary, a mentor, a friend. For me, you were our region's senior statesman, our elder and our community's patriarch. Ron, you join a long legacy of some our most esteemed leaders who have played pivotal roles in shaping so much of our region of Western Sydney, from Yarramundi to Macquarie, Chifley, Henry Parkes and Sir John Jamison, and the families of Cox, Woodriff, Smith, King, Blaxland, Lawson and Wentworth. Our community will be forever indebted to all these wonderful pioneering leaders. They shaped our region, our home—this special place with a beating heart and a deep soul, now emerging as an economic powerhouse.
Ron, I believe you saw the light on the hill. Perhaps the sun setting behind our sapphire misted mountain served as a constant reminder to you. Like you, Ron, I am honoured and blessed to represent such a remarkable region, with its inspiring traditions and unique character. I, like so many before me, stand here today, in this place, part of the legacy that you personally helped create. Ron had many endearing virtues—honesty, integrity, loyalty and respect for his fellow man. In every sense of the word, he was a thorough gentleman. Ron's life story is one of adversity, success and delivery. Born on 11 January 1930 at the height of the Great Depression in St Margaret's Hospital, Darlinghurst, and baptised a Catholic on that same day, he never knew his mother or the identity of his father. But his stars forever changed when Elizabeth Mulock fostered a 10-month-old baby and officially adopted him at 14. The young family saw much hardship, and I believe these experiences instilled in Ron a passion and commitment towards his own family.
Ron started school St Declan's in Penshurst, then went on to win a bursary to De La Salle College at Marrickville and subsequently won college and state bursaries. In 1949 Ron was employed by the Commonwealth department of immigration and began studying law part-time at Sydney University. In 1950 he became an articled clerk and was admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court. Ron moved to Penrith to establish his own practice, opening the doors in 1957; he was later joined in partnership by Doug Timmins. During the mid-1960s he was elected to Penrith Council as an independent, finally joining his beloved Labor Party in 1968. He served as mayor of Penrith from 1968 to 1971. Later he joined parliament in 1971 as the member for Nepean, and tonight the member for Chifley covered much of his parliamentary achievements. In 1954 Ron and Desley Allen met and started to go out together. They were married on 11 May 1957. Together they created a long and happy life and a wonderful family with five children—Mark, Paul, Jane, Peter and John, and then nine grandchildren. Ron and Desley's relationship remained strong—always supporting, always loving—and together they weathered many testing times, supported by the love of friends, their family and their deep Christian convictions. Sadly they lost their younger child, Peter, who had been born with cerebral palsy, in 1981 at the age of only 16, and in 1999 their son, John, died of a rare lymphoma when aged only 38.
Ron had an intense love of sport. He was a cricket tragic and had a passion for our Penrith Panthers. You are right, member for Chifley—he would be very proud to see us in the preliminary finals. I am sure he will be there with the boys on Saturday night. Ron himself excelled in sport—in cricket, athletics and rugby league. He will be long remembered.
Ron, you were a good friend to so many. You were a true believer in the Labor movement right to your last breath. You were a devoted family man, a treasured son of Penrith. You are already missed, but you will never be forgotten.
The Abbott government's refusal to recommit to construction in South Australia of the replacement submarines is a betrayal of all South Australians. Prior to the 2013 federal election, the now-defence minister, Mr David Johnston, said:
We will deliver those submarines from right here at the ASC in South Australia. The coalition today is committed to building 12 new submarines here in Adelaide.
The submarine contract was a crucial election commitment for South Australian voters in 2013, but as is now clear, South Australians were deceived. Just as deceitful is the Abbott government's campaign of blaming the ASC and its workforce for problems with the Collins class submarines and the AWD project—just as it blamed car workers for the demise of car making. All of the relevant facts relating to the Collins class submarines were known when Minister Johnston made the commitment in May 2013, but it seems that the bean counters are in control of the Abbott government.
Decisions about major defence contracts should not be based solely on up-front purchase costs, but on a comprehensive national interest test which includes whole-of-life costs; impact on Australia's balance of payments; the economic value that flows to other industry sectors; tax returns to government and social cost savings that arise from keeping jobs in Australia; and—importantly—providing the defence needs of Australia.
For South Australia, the building of submarines and other naval ships is of vital importance. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in building world-class shipbuilding facilities by the ASC, and invaluable expertise, skills and capability have been established. I understand that the current Defence Capability Plan includes 48 vessels to be built over the next 30 years at a total cost of $60 billion to $80 billion, with through-life support of an estimated $180 billion to $200 billion. Based on an AIG review of the Anzac Ship project, BAE estimates that the benefit to the Australian economy of building ships in Australia rather than overseas would be around $117 billion and 613,000 jobs over a 20 year period. With the end of car making in Australia in 2017, shipbuilding provides a much-needed alternative for workers and industries whilst delivering essential defence needs. But there is more at stake than jobs. It is in Australia's national security and economic interest to further develop and maintain its shipbuilding capability.
Shipbuilding is high-value advanced manufacturing, and if developed strategically, Australia could even become an exporter of naval vessels. Conversely, buying offshore simply exports jobs and knowhow, whilst foreign countries become stronger at Australia's expense. Nor do overseas-built ships and submarines meet Australian requirements without substantial modifications. It is the modifications, or the fitting of separately-sourced combat systems, that inevitably lead to delays, additional expense, loss of control over projects and buck-passing when problems do arise. Where—and who—will carry out future maintenance of foreign built or designed vessels? Yet in a complete backflip from his pre-election commitment, Minister Johnston recently said:
Japan is one of several countries we are talking to actively about our new submarine program.
All indications point to Japan being the preferred supplier of 10 Japanese submarines at a cost of around $20 billion.
In late August the Japanese defence team visited the ASC facility in Adelaide for an undisclosed purpose. North Asia correspondent Matthew Carney reports that the cost of the 10 Japanese submarines will be much more than $20 billion. He cites Japanese defence officials as saying that the Japanese military is unlikely to share all of their expertise and that it would take Australia decades to perfect the submarines' top-secret technology. Furthermore, to run and service a fleet of 10 submarines will require at least 1000 staff that need to be trained for 10 to 15 years. I also understand that Japan has never previously exported submarines, so there is indeed no precedent to guide Australia.
Where is the 'defence logic' that the Prime Minister refers to in buying the submarines offshore? As one person recently said to me: 'Buying the submarines offshore does not pass the barbecue test.' Where is the defence logic of outsourcing to another nation our defence needs? Where is the defence logic of Australia losing its capability to defend itself? Where is the defence logic of strengthening a foreign economy at the expense of Australia's? The submarine and naval vessels replacement project presents the government with an exceptional nation building investment opportunity of around $250 billion over the years ahead. It is an opportunity to stimulate the Australian economy, create jobs, build and retain skills, invest in research and development and, significantly, enhance our national security capability. Conversely, outsourcing our defence needs offshore leaves Australia vulnerable. Responsible governments simply do not trade away these opportunities. Unlike the auto industry, which the Abbott government claimed it had no control over, shipbuilding and the submarine replacement program rest solely and squarely in the Abbott government's hands—and Australians know it. (Time expired)
I rise today to extend my congratulations to the winners of the highly competitive 2014 Hanson Swan Business Awards. Congratulations to Campbell Giles of Giles Jones First National Real Estate in Midland on winning the Business Person of the Year Award 2014 for his outstanding results and exceptional customer service. Congratulations to Melanie Ellis and Teresa Davies of Lenard's Ellenbrook and Midland Gate who took home the Retail Business Award for their friendly and enthusiastic team offering quality products. Anthony Yurisich, the wine maker at Olive Farm Wines and The Cheese Barrel in the Swan Valley, was the recipient of the Hospitality Award for their fresh and unique concept for the local, interstate and international community. Sam and Daymon Rogers of Cushion Factory in Bellevue received the Manufacturing Award for their streamlined online process offering quality custom cushions and covers, establishing themselves as a go-to custom cushion and furniture cover manufacturer. Congratulations to Kim Boalch of Swan Valley Tours for winning the Tourism and Website Services Award three years in a row and consequently being inducted into the hall of fame. They facilitated Professor Jimmy Choo's visit to the Swan Valley and have been recommended by the New York Times as a 'thing to do in Perth'.
Jana Wilson of Gidgegannup Pharmacy won the Best New Business Award for establishing the pharmacy as a local fixture in the community through her friendly customer service. Edward Semeniuk of Wallis Drilling in Midvale received the Apprentice of the Year Award for his drive for excellence and exceptional work ethic. Patty Williams of Shanks Pony Tours in Midland received the Judges Innovation Award for her creative tours that have captured the history and secrets of her local community in Midland and Guildford. Louise Richardson and Lorelai Campbell of Soapbox PR in Guildford were the recipients of the Professional Services award for their passion and enthusiasm for their clients' needs resulting in a stronger business community. Congratulations to Michael K Elliot of Plantman Equipment in Bellevue who received both the Swan Business of the Year award and the Mining Services Award for their reliable and valued service to the community. Brett and Jody Carney of Bax Security Services in Midland were the recipients of the Quality Customer Service Award by combining their experiences as a former police officer and their quality-focused approach. Congratulations to all of these outstanding local businesses who were rightly recognised in the annual Swan Business Awards. I, along with the Liberal East Metropolitan Team, proudly support these awards every year. Unfortunately I could not make it to the awards this year; however, I heard that it was an outstanding night, as is expected for these prestigious awards.
Small business is the engine room of our economy and the mainstay of our local community. This government is committed to helping small business and family enterprises get a better deal from government. We have already started to reduce business costs by scrapping the carbon tax and cutting red-tape to create the right environment for small businesses to grow and prosper. One issue that small businesses across Hasluck consistently raise with me is the need to reduce the GST-free import threshold to keep their businesses competitive and viable. Currently, the threshold allows shoppers to buy up to $1,000 worth of overseas goods online GST-free. Compared with our neighbours across the Tasman, who have their threshold set at NZ$220, this is incredibly high. I have raised this issue with my colleagues here in the House and will continue to fight for a fair go for Hasluck's local small business community. I encourage business owners to get in touch with me and let me know how this issue affects them directly. I have already heard from many in Hasluck, however, and I am sure there are plenty more stories to tell. It is important that we encourage the growth of small business—it is the backbone of our economy and it gives the opportunity for local people to be employed, to become part of their regional and community economy but also, equally, to contribute to a much broader area around them. I congratulate all of the winners of the awards and I look forward to a continued working relationship with them all.
Today I wish to highlight some of the Centenary of Anzac local grant recipients in my electorate. As members would know, the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program provides up to $125,000 per electorate to enable communities to commemorate the Centenary of Anzac in their own way. These can be small projects or large projects. Each of us had to pull together a committee to assess local grant applications. The challenge for the committee for Bendigo was incredibly tough. We had an overwhelming number of applications. Some of the ones I wish to highlight today have already found out the good news that they have been successful. This includes the historical society in Maldon, who received a small grant to update and restore a photo memorial. The memorial has the photos of seven sons—seven sons who enrolled to fight in the First World War. When we met with the committee they shared some of the stories of these sons. Tragically, one of the sons was killed at Gallipoli. He was a stretcher-bearer. One of the sons had an interesting journey. He dropped out, met a French girl and came back to Australia under his brother's name, and then re-enlisted only for it to be discovered that he was the older brother. He then went back to the war. This story reminds us that it was families—ordinary people, people with stories, real people of our communities who had lives—that were sent to war.
Another one of the successful grants was for the Woodend RSL, who received almost $22,000 to construct a wall of remembrance on the Woodend Avenue of Honour. Anyone who has driven into Woodend from the north side, the Bendigo side, would recall this amazing avenue of honour and its trees. Unfortunately, because the trees have grown over time, all of the copper plaques that were hanging around the trees have since fallen away. This wall is a way to put back the names so that people who may go for a walk along the avenue will be able to identify the tree and the fallen soldier.
When I met with RSL members recently to celebrate their success at receiving this grant, they talked to me about the next phase of the project and the work that they are doing with the council to have built along side the avenue a footpath so that it can become a place for family members to walk along and remember the sacrifice of the soldiers.
Another project that has been recognised and will receive a grant of just under $1,000 is the Pioneers & Old Residents Association of Castlemaine. This grant will be used to update an honour board that was made in the 1920s. It has the names of 70 people and their families who were involved in the First World War through the Navy. As many would know, these boards were painted in gold leaf. Whilst gold leaf lasts a while, it does not last for centuries. So this funding will enable the organisation to update the gold leaf on this honour board.
These are just some of the projects that have been recognised in my electorate. Bendigo is an old electorate. A number of projects did miss out, so if the minister has extra funding that perhaps other electorates have not been able to allocate, we would gladly take it off their hands. Bendigo, as I said, was one of the first places in Australia where volunteers signed up. They went to the town hall and signed up within days of the Prime Minister declaring that Australia would be involved in this conflict. Throughout the electorate we wish to honour and remember and to never forget their sacrifice for our country.
Earlier this week the Harper committee released a draft report following their review of our nation's competition policy. Without wanting to criticise the report and noting that it is only a draft report, the Harper committee really has a lot more homework to do. The first area in which they need to do a bit more homework is perhaps the greatest anti-competitive evil that this nation faces and one that our competition policy is not addressing, and that is monopoly power or buyer power.
There are three ways that firms can achieve an unfair advantage in the marketplace: one is violence; another is deception; and, of course, the other is through their bullying and use of buying power. We got a little bit of insight into the extent of the anti-competitive nature of this buying power by some of our larger supermarket chains in a report released earlier this year by KPMG entitled The state of the industry 2013. They noted in the report that there has been a significant increase in trade spend, which is basically the rebate that the supplier pays to the retailer, from 19.5 per cent of gross sales in 2008-09 to 23.4 per cent in 2011-12, without corresponding increases in volumes. If you are a supplier today supplying our major supermarket chains, for every $100 of product that you sell, the biggest cost to you is not your wages, your rent or your business inputs; it is actually the rebates that you pay to the retailer, which KPMG measures at 23.4 per cent. This is the reason why items such as vegemite are dearer to buy off the supermarket shelf here in Australia than they are in the UK or New Zealand. This is the reason why a bottle of Coca-Cola in Australia costs $4, when I can buy that same bottle of Coca-Cola almost anywhere else in the world for $2 or less.
The other area in which the Harper review needs to do quite a bit more homework is in deciding what anti-competitive practices we need to outlaw. We need to make clear the purpose of our competition laws. It is very easy to say that they are about consumer interests—but that puts the cart before the horse. The best way to protect the interests of the consumer is to prevent our markets from becoming overly concentrated. The best way to protect the interests of our consumers is to have an economic environment that enhances business freedom and entrepreneurial opportunities. We should have an economy where someone who wants to be an entrepreneur does not have their opportunities restricted by anti-competitive practices designed to eliminate him from the field. To have those things in place would be in the best interests of consumers.
What is of most concern and where the Harper review needs to do most of its homework is in their recommendations on the misuse of market power. Let us just provide some background on where we are. From 2007, when the Howard government lost office, to 2013, we saw the number of people employed in the small business sector decline by 519,000 people, even though the economy grew. There were 519,000 fewer people employed in small business. We saw private sector employment decline from 53 per cent to 43 per cent in small business. We cannot blame it all on the carbon tax, although that was a major contributor. We cannot blame it all on green and red tape. A lot of it is to do with the competition laws of this nation.
What is being proposed is the 'effects test'. The effects test is being used as a Trojan horse to simply destroy the act. What is being proposed is tack onto the end of the act the removal of anti-prohibitions and to put there that it requires a substantial lessening of competition. We may as well rip up the act. We may as well tell everyone in small business that there will be no protection for you, that predatory pricing will be lawful in this country, that geographic price discrimination will be lawful and that we want to see more anti-competitive price discrimination. That will be the outcome if this recommendation is accepted. We may as well simply rip the act up. (Time expired)
Australia's greatest football nursery, the Riverina, will again will be well represented on sport's greatest stage, the MCG, on Grand Final Day. Luke Breust, Matt Suckling, Isaac Smith and Harry Cunningham will all play for Hawthorn and the Sydney Swans. Good luck to both teams and good luck to all the boys.
On that note, I think it was worth those extra seconds for those who are supporters. It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 17:00
It is with great pleasure that I rise to congratulate Jackie Jarvis. Jackie is a Western Australian woman who last night was runner-up in the national finals of the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Rural Women's Award—a fantastic set of awards that really showcase extraordinary women from all over Australia, women who are making an extraordinary contribution to the rural communities from which they come.
I have known Jackie for many years. Jackie, with her husband, runs a very successful boutique winery in Margaret River, and they have opened up export markets in China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. They are very, very successful winemakers and vintners. But in fact Jackie's award last night was not for that part of her life; it was focusing on her role in recognising that there were lots of farmers out there really struggling for labour and in many cases having to rely on the contribution of urban-origin backpackers. She recognised that there were many refugees coming into this country who were from agricultural backgrounds and that there must be some way of matching up those refugees with the demands or requirements of rural property owners. She has very successfully done that. In her pilot project, she was able to place refugees from Burundi on dairy farms in the south-west of Western Australia. She has placed refugees up in the plantations in Carnarvon and also has placed refugees in the wheat belt properties. It is a very, very successful program, and we are all very proud of Jackie.
I also want to congratulate Pip Job from New South Wales, who was the successful winner overall. Pip is a most impressive woman. Her concern about business illiteracy in the farm sector was, I thought, a most interesting contribution. She is setting about ensuring that people who are operating within that rural sector are properly supported and given the business skills that they need to make their operation successful.
Congratulations to all who have been involved in these awards. It was a fantastic evening and very well appreciated by all who attended.
I am delighted to rise today to congratulate the 12 recipients of the 2013 Australian Student Prize living in my electorate of Higgins. This award is a significant honour, recognising 500 exceptional secondary students across Australia for their academic achievements. Students in my electorate who received this award include Nicholas Liu of Scotch College, who achieved the maximum score of 50 in chemistry, English language and mathematical methods, and the maximum ATAR of 99.95; Feliks Zemdegs of St Kevin's College, who achieved a perfect study score in English, came first in economics and won the Rubik's Cube world championship; Bernadette Toohey of Sacre Coeur, who scored 50 in global politics and Australian history and achieved the maximum ATAR of 99.95; Roshan Selvaratnam of Melbourne Grammar School, who attained the maximum score of 50 in specialist mathematics and Chinese second language and the maximum ATAR of 99.95; Jordan Santucci of Melbourne Grammar School, who attained the maximum score of 50 in English and the maximum ATAR of 99.95; Natalie Perera of Mac.Robertson Girls' High School, who achieved a maximum score of 50 in literature; Georgia Formosa of Korowa Anglican Girls' School, who achieved a score of 47 in mathematical methods; Michelle Foo of Mac.Robertson Girls' High School, who achieved study scores of 49 in accounting and mathematical methods; Michael Fisher of Bialik College, who achieved a score of 47 in further mathematics and in religion and society; Sarah Barrie of Lauriston Girls' School, who achieved a perfect IB score of 45 and the Higgins Medal in 2012; Caroline Ritchie of Methodist Ladies' College, who achieved three perfect study scores in English, French and literature and the maximum ATAR of 99.95; and, finally, Catherine Perry of Presbyterian Ladies' College, who achieved a perfect IB score of 45, who was school captain and who, I am proud to say, actually now works in my office.
Every one of these students should be very proud of their achievements. I also congratulate the schools, their principals and their staff, who work so very hard in order to ensure that their students receive the very best education. I would also like to congratulate the King David School, Melbourne High School and St Catherine's School, who have had students—though not constituents of Higgins—who received Australian Student Prizes. These schools, of course, are leading schools in my electorate of Higgins. I also acknowledge the families and friends of these students, whose patience and understanding helped them achieve their best. To this end I have invited each of the students, their families and their principals to a morning tea in my electorate office, in order to personally congratulate them on their exceptional achievements.
I am firmly of the belief that the recognition of the pursuit of excellence is vital, as it illustrates the importance of endeavour and the transformative power of education and inspires all of us to achieve the very best in our chosen pursuits in life. I remember the impact that it had on me when I was a student and I received my Australian Student Prize. I know it might be bit of a shock to some of the parents out there, but they too could find that those students who received that prize might find themselves in the national parliament of Australia.
Last Sunday, along with the Mayor of the City of Casey, I had the pleasure of opening the 10th annual Doveton Show at a brilliant community farm called Myuna Farm, in Doveton. This is held on a Sunday each year and it is held at the same time as the Royal Melbourne Show. This particular show has been an incredibly successful community-driven event and initiative put together by the incredible people in Doveton. This year it attracted a crowd of about 20,000 people. The Doveton Show encompasses and showcases the very best of the Doveton-Eumemmerring Community. It also, importantly for my community, provides a low-cost alternative to the Melbourne Show, as the entry fee is a gold coin donation. The proceeds of the donation then go to the following year's show.
The Doveton Show is an event that is incredibly well supported by the local community. I parked on one of the reserves and it was just amazing to be able to walk with this human tide into Myuna Farm just to see the joy and delight on children's faces and the community. There has obviously been some strife in recent times but you can see, particularly down my way, when you have an incredibly successfully driven community based initiative like this, it brings the community together and that is what we need at this point in time.
The Doveton Show was held for the first time in, I think, September 2005—I think it was 25 September. Initially they thought about 1,000 people would turn up, but in actual fact they got about 5,000. That was to the first show. Over the 10 years, the Doveton Show has established itself as probably the premier local event for the community. It is an incredible event. I wanted to congratulate the Doveton Show events committee. I am not allowed to name them, which I would love to do. It is a committee of six—and they know who they are—that really were the driving forces behind this incredibly successful event, but I am not allowed to name them, so I will not. I would also like to acknowledge the Myuna Farm manager, Steve Hill, who might happen to be the son of one of the committee members, on holding such a marvellous event this year. I would also like to acknowledge the dedicated group of volunteers that symbolise what I think is the best of Doveton. One of my favourite characters at the farm is a spritely 72-year-old sulphur-crested cockatoo called Joey Davis, and I got a chance to catch up with him. He is very popular with the kids.
I want to say, in the time remaining available to me, that there was a recent article in the Berwick News by a former resident of Doveton that talked about the deterioration of Doveton. We had much urbane discussion about how Doveton has basically deteriorated. I did not see that person at the Doveton show—did not see them at all. I would counsel this guy that is out there trashing Doveton at the present period of time in the papers: come down and see the spirit of Doveton. You come and put the Christmas lights up with Ruth Murray and Jenny Colvin; then you can make an informed comment about the wonderful community and the wonderful people of Doveton.
I am very pleased to rise to speak about the planned Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter, which will provide temporary supported accommodation for women in times of crisis, such as homelessness and domestic violence. The project aims to provide a safe, non-threatening environment for women to assist them through their emotional and physical crisis.
The state-wide organisation Women's Community Shelters Limited is providing substantial financial and organisational support, and I acknowledge their leader, Annabelle Daniel. I also want to acknowledge the local committee which has been established and is busy raising funds towards both the set-up costs and the ongoing operational costs of the plan Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter. I want to acknowledge, particularly, John Lockyer for his work in leading that important committee. The aim is to have the premises secured for this shelter—operating, secured and open for business, if all goes to plan—before the end of this year. The operating expenses of the shelter will be in the order of several hundred thousand dollars a year. So it is a major exercise to get this established.
One in two women who are homeless or escaping domestic violence are turned away from crisis accommodation every day. The groups who are at particular risk include older single women, migrant women and women with little family support. There is a perception that women on Sydney's upper North Shore do not face issues such as homelessness or domestic violence but that is, sadly, not true. Today, there is no crisis accommodation to assist homeless women anywhere between Lane Cove and the Central Coast.
I was pleased to be able to lend my support. Each year I organise the Bradfield Comedy Debate to raise money for a worthwhile local cause. This year we were joined by prominent ex-Wallaby Peter Fitzsimons, together with other speakers, Bruce Meagher, Andrew Bell, Warren Lee, Steph D'Souza and Abigail McCarthy. We debated the topic 'That we have lost that larrikin spirit'. We had over 200 people in attendance and we raised over $22,000, which will go towards the establishment of the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter.
I want thank all who were involved. Not only did we have an entertaining afternoon but, very importantly, we raised significant funds to add to the excellent work being done by the local organising committee. When their work comes to fruition, fortunately, there will then be a place available to women in the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai areas should they need safe, temporary, supported accommodation in times of crisis, such as homelessness or domestic violence.
I congratulate all of the local people, service organisations and so on who got behind the planned Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter. I would like to thank all those involved in the Bradfield Comedy Debate and I look forward to the shelter getting started and meeting the needs of women in crisis on the upper North Shore.
I would like to start by congratulating the member for Bradfield in his work on this important issue. I, too, rise to speak on the issue of men's violence against women in our community.
Since the last time I spoke on the issue in this place, hundreds of women have experienced physical or sexual assault from partners or former partners. Most heartbreakingly, we have also seen more deaths from family violence, potentially including the alleged murder of a woman in Taree this week by a partner in breach of an AVO.
We have also heard a consistent message from advocates and service providers, including the 'No More Deaths' coalition, that we need a holistic, coordinated response from the government to this issue. We need to see our legal services, housing services, health services, child protection services, police, justice and our courts being given the resourcing and the coordination support to ensure that every part of our government is working together to ensure women in our community are safe.
Importantly, we also need to encourage men to take responsibility for their actions and to help those men, who are willing to do so, to take the journey towards lasting behavioural change. That is why I was pleased to attend a recent meeting of the Men Taking on Responsibility group run by Relationships Australia Victoria, in Sunshine in my electorate. This is a group for men wanting to take responsibility for their actions towards women and change the way they behave in relationships. The men I spoke with were there voluntarily, out of a desire to be better partners and fathers. Since 2006, the group has met each Thursday and some men have been attending for many years to try to help others to start and stay in the course, and to go through the same change in attitudes and behaviours that they had through the course.
The meetings are a place where men can share their experiences in addressing their abusive behaviour and work to ensure that this behaviour does not happen again. The group is coordinated by Kurtz Snelleksz, who provide the men with updates in behaviour change research and training, and who ensures that the conversations they have there have a therapeutic effect. It is important to recognise that these sessions are not talkfests. They are very confronting for the men involved. Men are forced, sometimes for the first time, to reflect on their actions from the perspective of the women and children in their lives and to workshop ways of changing their behaviour in the future. I felt the emotional intensity of this process in my visit firsthand.
Men from the program have been vocal about the changes that the program has helped them to make in their lives. Some men, like Martin Micallef, told The Age that the men's support group:
…probably saved my life from being a disaster.
Unfortunately, funding uncertainty has put the future of this group and others like it in doubt. The loss of groups like this and the enormous value that they can have to the women and children of the men who benefit from them would be significant. As one of the men in the group asked me when discussing the value of this group to our community, 'What price a family?'
I applaud Kurtz Snelleksz and the Relationships Australia Victoria group for their work in spearheading this program. I also want to honour the men participating in this group. The biggest battle in fighting family violence is changing men's attitudes and behaviours. This group is an important front in this battle and I admire the men who are there both for taking responsibility for their own actions and for working to help other men in our community do so too.
There is a statement I want to make and it is to do with the drought policy and the worsening drought in many parts of my electorate and other parts of Australia.
Can I first of all say that, if people eat food in this nation, they should be engaged in this debate, because our agricultural sector produces the food and fibre that we all enjoy in bountiful amounts in Australia, as well as clean, green, healthy food. I also want to point out, in terms of the agricultural sector, that it is the largest manufacturing sector in Australia. If you look at the workforce from the start of the process on the farm through the processes and the people that are engaged in agriculture—the transport and the processing through to exporting—the agricultural sector is the largest manufacturing sector in Australia.
I want to move to drought. The problem when we came to government was that there was no drought policy. Labor had got rid of the drought policy that had existed over many, many years in the federal parliament. Exacerbating this in many parts of my electorate was the callous way that they banned the export of live cattle, which has had a significant impact on capital values of land across northern Australia moving into the western parts of my electorate of Maranoa and other parts of north-west Australia.
I want to thank the Minister for Agriculture and, particularly, the Treasurer for visiting my electorate. Unfortunately, as it was short notice I was unable to join them because of other commitments. But can I say that they saw firsthand and listened firsthand to the situation in Charleville and Mitchell. I also want to thank them for the banking roundtable conducted in Canberra this week. I think what has come out of that is that the banks have at long last accepted that, whilst there is not a debt crisis per se across all of rural Australia's agricultural sector, there are hotspots of debt exacerbated by drought and also the ban on the export of live cattle.
When I look at the latest drought maps, I look at my own electorate of Maranoa. On these official maps it is all marked red. Then I go to another map in terms of what has happened this winter and what is marked red shows the hotspots in relation to drought and the impact it is having on these communities. In drought policy there is no one-size-fits-all and, as we progress further and further from the last rainfall event, the situation worsens for so many people, particularly in the pastoral zones.
There is no earning capacity and there is no cash in these communities until there is rain, and there will not be cash in these communities until breeding starts again—that may still be another 12 months away. I hope it is not, but it could well be. The other thing I want to say is that, whilst there is no cash on the land out there in these pastoral areas that are totally destocked, $1 earned on a pastoral property is $4 that circulates in the community. That is also an aspect we have to look at—the impact on these communities.
Today I rise to call on the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Industry to explain why another defence contract has gone overseas. A few weeks ago we heard that a $170 million defence equipment contract would go to Bendigo based ADA. But we have since learned that this contract that ADA has been awarded is only worth $60 million and all the products will be manufactured in Vietnam, so not one new job will be created in Australia as a result of this contract.
On 28 August, defence minister David Johnston announced that the department would be allocating $170 million to upgrade soldiers' kits, saying that the first Land 125 Phase 3B contract had been awarded to Bendigo based Australian Defence Apparel. On this day, there was joy. There was celebration and excitement in my electorate that new jobs could be created. The hard work of the facility, which has a proud history of manufacturing products for our defence services, had been recognised and it had been awarded another new contract.
This is a missed opportunity by this government to create more jobs in regional Australia. Instead, this government has created more jobs for a subcontractor in Vietnam. People have the right to be disappointed, and they are disappointed. I am extremely disappointed that the government has chosen a cheaper manufacturer overseas as opposed to a high-quality Australian manufacturer. Most Australians agree that taxpayers' dollars should be spent on defence materials manufactured in Australia, supporting local businesses and securing local jobs—because it is not just the jobs at the defence facility that you support; it is the supply chain as well. It is the people who support the work that goes on.
My community of Bendigo is now extremely nervous about what this decision could mean when it comes to the Hawkei contract, a contract that we expect to be announced soon. All we have seen so far from this government, in every decision that it has made in relation to defence manufacturing since it came into power, is this work going overseas, putting local Australian jobs at risk. In this particular case, it is a missed opportunity to create jobs in regional Australia. So I call on the Minister for Defence to explain why this important contract has gone overseas. I call on the Minister for Industry to explain why the government misled the people of Bendigo. Again, it is a missed opportunity for us to be able to create more local jobs.
I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the Royal Queensland Bush Children's Health Scheme, otherwise known as BUSHkids. This is a Queensland based not-for-profit organisation supporting the development of children in rural communities. As I speak today, general manager Carlton Meyn has gathered his teams from across Queensland to hold their annual conference at Riverglenn, Indooroopilly, just down the road from my electorate office. So I consider this an appropriate time to acknowledge the work of the organisation, which is based in my electorate of Ryan. 2015 will mark 80 years since the establishment of this organisation, which was founded to provide health service for rural children. BUSHkids is uniquely placed to continue its crucial role in early identification, prevention and intervention in respect of health, education and social issues that affect children and their families in rural communities. They have fully supported centres based in key rural centres in Emerald, Dalby, Bundaberg, Mount Isa and Warwick, with a sixth centre at Inglewood serviced by a family health support worker. These centres provide access to allied health professionals in collaboration with other government and non-government organisations in these rural communities.
A defining aspect of BUSHkids is its endeavour and dedication to its stated principles of practice. This is particularly the case in regard of building the capacity of local communities to identify and respond to the needs of at-risk children. In providing these services as a means of establishing and providing preventative health programs for those who may otherwise not be able to access them, BUSHkids seeks, through prevention or early intervention, to provide a better future for those children and families deemed at risk. The multidisciplinary nature of its work facilitates this greatly.
BUSHkids' successful record is underlined by figures that show, in the first half of the 2013-14 financial year, that the Warwick centre alone provided 2,319 sessions for children and families in its area. With a long-established record of reliable service, BUSHkids is an organisation that is uniquely positioned to drive the new Department of Social Services programs into the future. In addition to the provision of services it currently undertakes, BUSHkids aims to expand its successful delivery model into areas that relate to Indigenous health and education and into prevention and early intervention on key issues relating to emergency issues such as foetal alcohol syndrome and foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
BUSHkids is an organisation that has almost 80 years of experience at the forefront of providing key services to at-risk rural communities. I am very pleased to bring the life-altering work of this organisation to the attention of the House at a key juncture for the future health of rural Australian children and the communities in which they live. I wish them well for the remainder of their conference.
The electorate I represent has an incredibly rich and significant maritime history. Fremantle is a working port, is the largest general cargo harbour in WA and home to the largest branch of the Maritime Union of Australia. Fremantle continues to be home to a significant fishing fleet and an incredibly precious fishing culture. A short distance south, along the coast in Henderson, the Australian Marine Complex is a diverse and highly developed centre for shipbuilding, related manufacturing work and maintenance. The work at the AMC encompasses critical defence projects, including maintenance of the Collins class submarines. I am profoundly concerned that the government has introduced so much uncertainty around the future of that genre of work and those jobs.
The former Labor government introduced a number of measures and made a range of investments designed to strengthen Australia's coastal shipping, port operations, and shipbuilding. We introduced reforms to encourage the operation of Australian flag vessels, especially for the purpose of coastal shipping, and we enabled the ratification of the International Labour Organization's Maritime Labour Convention, providing greater workplace protection and compliance for all seafarers that visit Australian ports.
All these important reforms, under the umbrella of the National Ports Strategy, were pursued in the name of revitalising Australian shipping, which of course is a vital contributor to our economic wellbeing, our trade and our security. I know that my constituents will be concerned that the Abbott government is now planning to abolish the seafarer tax offset, an initiative that offered tax breaks for companies that hire Australian seafarers to work on international voyages—the point being to improve the competitiveness of Australian operated ships. This measure was part of a package of shipping reforms delivered in 2012 after extensive consultation with industry, so it is no surprise that the Australian Shipowners Association has responded to the government's proposal with the following statement:
The Seafarers Tax Offset was a key element of the 2012 reforms which help to reduce the operating costs of Australian vessels, increase the competitiveness of Australian shipping and provide significant opportunity for employment of Australians in international trades … the impact [of abolition] is severe with regard to future opportunity …
As was eloquently expressed by my colleague, the member for Grayndler yesterday, the government has, in presenting this measure as a reduction of the costs of business, demonstrated the depths of its ignorance. This offset is not a benefit to workers, but rather for employers. It is a rebate for business, designed to level the playing field between the Australian shipping industry and the foreign shipping industry. It should go without saying that in an island nation like Australia shipping and maritime industries are of particular importance. More than 95 per cent of our exports go by sea, a huge proportion of our imports come by sea, and our coastal and international passenger and freight transport and our security is dependant on the health and good management of Australian shipping. I was proud to be part of a Labor government that set out an unprecedented reform program in this area under the excellent guidance of the member for Grayndler as minister, and I am very disappointed and concerned on behalf of my community in Fremantle to see the Abbott government intent on undoing that good work.
The Hindmarsh electorate is proud about the number of its exciting young sports stars. Last week, I had the honour of meeting some of our young sports men and women and presented them with the Local Sporting Champions grants. The Local Sporting Champions program is a great initiative which provides funding assistance to young sports people aged between 12 and 18 participating in state, national or international sporting competitions. Of 46 applicants, 15 young sports men and women were successful, so congratulations to them all. They received $500 for travel, accommodation, equipment and uniforms. Well done to the other applicants, too. I encourage them to continue their dedication and commitment to their sport.
Successful applicants represented an extremely broad range of sports, including hockey, sailing, kayaking, taekwondo, swimming, badminton, yachting, gymnastics, canoeing and table tennis, to name a few. What is most impressive is the number of recipients who are competing on the international stage, with events being held in countries such as Hungary, Argentina, Azerbaijan, New Zealand, England, Slovakia and South Africa.
The funding goes a long way to helping families support their son or daughter to compete in their chosen sport, especially for those who represent Australia at international events, such as the Ellis family of Henley Beach. Jayden Ellis and his brother Charles were both recipients, so their family is extremely active in their children's sporting lives. Jayden recently attended the ICF Junior and Under 23 Canoe Sprint World Championships in Hungary, where he joined the next generation of future Olympic aspirants, and competed against the world's best junior kayakers. Jayden represented Australia in the team event, the K-4 1000 junior sprint, and won bronze—well done, Jayden!—an amazing achievement, given Australia has not won a team medal since 1985. This is the first time Australia has ever won a medal in the K-4 team junior race.
Jayden's younger brother, Charles, was unable to attend the presentation because he was flying back from Slovakia, where he represented Australia and competed in the canoeing Olympic Hopes Regatta. Charles made the finals in all of his races and hopes to follow in his brother's footsteps. The electorate could not be prouder of the Ellises, as well as all the others that applied and all those junior sportsmen and sportswomen in Hindmarsh. I look forward to watching all their careers going forward.
I was also impressed to speak to Alicia Martino, Emily Patching and Matthew Meaney about their sporting pursuits.
Another great story is Kyle Chalmers. Kyle represented Australia swimming at the 2014 Youth Olympics in August in China. He won three bronze medals. Earlier this year Kyle broke an underage swimming record held once by our Ian Thorpe. There is a great future for Kyle. He is an Immanuel College student—my old school—and he also has some good football pedigree in his family.
I would like to congratulate everyone including Thomas Clarken, Madeleine Ross, Caleb Jackson, Reece Bacchus, Tristan Edison, Keith Edison, Jace Bayliss and Alexander Warrender. Well done to you all. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, more commonly is that KAFTA tariff bill. However, just so people understand, this is not actually a free trade agreement. It is more accurately a bilateral preferential agreement. I would turn to the fine work done by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—and I note that the member for Fremantle is here in the chamber with me—and note that the member for Fremantle and the member for Wills put in a dissenting report to the committee's report on this KAFTA tariff bill. It makes for very interesting reading and makes some very good points.
It is my understanding that the opposition will be supporting this agreement, but I want to draw to the attention of those listening some of the concerns that the Labor Party has with this agreement—concerns highlighted by the member for Fremantle and the member for Wills in their dissenting report.
Obviously, Labor supports implementing agreements that will create economic growth and jobs for Australians. We are the Labor Party, and we have always believed that keeping people in employment and well educated will give people a greater chance at prosperity. That is what motivated those shearers in Barcaldine to come together in the first place. We have always been about jobs. That is why the Labor Party has such are proud history of being part of the Australian story and making sure that people are employed. That is why we are, economically, the envy of the rest of the world and, historically, have always been a nation that believed in the fair go. And what is a fair go? It is really about making sure people get opportunities and get jobs.
Australia is the fourth-largest supplier of agricultural products to the Republic of Korea, accounting for around 10 per cent of the Republic of Korea's total agricultural imports. Obviously, the farming sector would be particularly keen on this KAFTA agreement. When you think of South Korea, with a population of 50 million and rising—although slowly—and a GDP of US$1.3 trillion, if we can get 10 per cent of their total agricultural imports that would be good news for the farmers of Western Australia, the farmers of Queensland and the farmers of Australia. We understand that trade is important. In 2013 Australian exports to the Republic of Korea were valued at around $1.9 billion. Hopefully, this agreement will see an improvement in that. The government report into KAFTA said that an agreement would eliminate high tariffs on a wide range of Australian exports—particularly beef, wheat, sugar, dairy, wine, horticulture and seafood. All of these are what you would call natural resource sources. If you go through those products, there is not a significant value-adding in any of those products—with all respect to the wine industry and some of those other things—but they are not high value, value-adding, I guess. They are the sorts of jobs where the higher skills are involved.
This agreement with Korea is expected to be worth about $5 billion in additional income in Australia between 2015 and 2030, and that is good. The agreement will obviously provide a boost to the Australian economy, projected at $650 million after 15 years of operation if all goes well. It is important that we compare it not just with the opportunities but also with the threats—and there are threats. The United States, who compete with us in the Korean market in many of the products—beef, wheat, sugar, dairy, wine; I am not sure about their seafood industry—there is the possibility that they would take the Australian share of the Korean market. So it is not just the opportunities that are there but the threat, if we did not have such an agreement.
In its first year of operation it is expected that the Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, or the Korean bilateral preferential agreement, will create approximately 1,700 jobs and after this agreement is signed 84 per cent of Australia's current exports by value will enter Korea duty-free. Agricultural exports are expected to increase by 73 per cent and manufacturing by 53 per cent by 2030 as a result of this agreement.
Whilst acknowledging the good things that come with this agreement—and we are a trading nation and we should be doing all we can to make sure that there is free trade around the world, free and fair trade around the world—obviously our preference is always to do this with all nations rather than through these bilateral agreements, but there is not a lot happening there at the moment in terms of world trade improvements.
I do have some concerns, particularly about the implications on investor-state dispute settlements provisions, some of the intellectual property provisions and, most importantly, as a member of the Labor Party, the protection and nurturing of Australian jobs. They are the three things that I wanted to highlight.
The investor-state dispute settlement clauses, or ISDSs, enables corporations or investors to sue governments if their investments are harmed by a government policy or regulation and then governments, almost as a corporate entity, can be held responsible and financially liable if the legal action is successful. There is an argument up-front that such clauses are essentially a threat to our sovereignty—a threat to Australia.
Ms Parke interjecting—
I acknowledge that there were treaties in the past negotiated by Labor governments that do have these clauses. However, not since 2011 when the Gillard government agreed, and I think the national platform of the Labor Party now reflects this, that we will never allow an investor-state dispute settlement clause in any of our treaties because of that very fact.
The member for Fremantle interjected earlier on the idea that they are a threat to our sovereignty. If you look at this around the world now, we see countries like Canada being particularly hammered and the United Kingdom, I think—the member for Fremantle? There are many cases where they are taking these countries, El Salvador, where they are being hammered. As corporations rise, as the economy of the planet becomes so much more interconnected and the significance of the nation-state is on the decline, I guess, and as the Apples and the McDonalds and those multinational corporations that spread around the planet looking for tax havens, which is their legal right, we have some interesting challenges before us. We form communities, nation-states, to benefit the people who are members of them. Corporations have a different motivation. Obviously, they are duty bound to do the right thing by their shareholders, and that is deliver a profit. We do have the Corporations Law, which has some oversight, but it is not the same as the concerns of a nation. Whether they are Liberal, National or Labor, I think I can say of nearly every single member of this parliament—certainly, 225 of them—that every decision they make is in what they believe to be the nation's interest, not in their interest.
So these investor-state dispute settlement clauses mean we could end up with a Korean company like Hyundai challenging a decision made by the Commonwealth of Australia that has been made in the national interest, saying, 'That's going to affect us,' and we end up in court. There is already a challenge taking place over our plain tobacco packaging laws.
As a member of the Labor Party I strongly believe that introducing ISDS clauses within this Customs amendment bill will undermine the democratic rights of all Australians and represents a violation of competitive neutrality when it comes to Australian businesses' ability to compete on the level playing field that we aspire to. In fact, as a nation we are so honest and fair dinkum and trustworthy that we get hoodwinked, I think, sometimes by other nations that are not as committed to that level playing field. So these clauses can hamper a nation-state's ability to make a decision that is in the national interest. It is, as I said, part of the Labor Party platform that we stand by Australian jobs, and we make our position very clear on this particular ISDS provision.
Obviously, we are in opposition so we do not get sign off on treaties. We do not get to make decisions from opposition. But I do urge caution with this clause, and I think there should be particular focus on this by the government when it comes to negotiating other such agreements. The government are the world's worst card players when it comes to negotiating treaties. They have already flagged with China that there will be an agreement within a certain time—not a great approach to negotiating a treaty. Some might argue that the Chinese are the world's greatest card players, and the government have already said, 'These are the cards we're holding.' That is going to make for an interesting process in the months ahead.
Evidence shows when you look around the world that many governments are critiquing these ISDSs because transnational investors have lodged and won more cases and been awarded huge damages over health and environmental legislation—legislation that is made in the nation's interest but that affects the corporations. Governments in significant economies in Europe, South America, Africa, the Indian subcontinent and Asia have reviewed and/or renounced ISDS on the grounds that it undermines their legitimate democratic legislation. There is widespread concern about the tobacco companies' use of ISDS to undermine national public health measures to regulate tobacco advertising. In a laissez-faire, uncontrolled world, corporations can sell tobacco; but, obviously, when you make decisions in the interest of a nation, you put curbs on tobacco sales. This is a classic praxis, I guess, this intersection between the interests of a corporation and the interests of the people who live in a nation.
In 2011, the Labor government introduced groundbreaking plain packaging laws to combat tobacco consumption and in turn reduce the immense impact on the Australian healthcare system from tobacco related diseases, costs that were not being borne by the people selling the product—a legal product, I admit. That legislation was a world first. I think there was bipartisan support for the plain tobacco packaging legislation; I am not quite sure about that. There was? Yes.
But then, within a few months, the tobacco giant Philip Morris Asia Ltd, the Asian arm of the American tobacco producer, took the Australian government to the international Permanent Court of Arbitration using the ISDS mechanism embedded in Australia's bilateral investment treaty with Hong Kong. So Philip Morris Asia is using the provisions in a 1993 investment agreement to challenge the plain tobacco packaging legislation in the courts and to seek compensation, arguing that the Australian parliament's policy undermined the value of its investment by appropriating its trademarks and its branding—appropriating the company's property, if you like.
Monique Goyens, Director General of the European Consumer Organisation and lawyer of 30 years has stated that there is no need for additional legal mechanism to deal with disputes that could be resolved through routine court action. The ISDS clause offers greater legal rights to foreign businesses than those available to domestic businesses, so putting Australian businesses further behind. Labor does not support provisions that would constrain the ability of the government to make laws on social, environmental and economic matters in circumstances where those laws do not discriminate between domestic and foreign businesses.
As I said before, I do agree that there were previous treaties by Labor governments that actually had these ISDS clauses. But these are all serious issues that, if handled poorly, could have an adverse consequences for Australia's sovereignty, our economy and our legal system as well as for the intellectual property providers, consumers and unemployed Australians.
Labor also has concerns about the expansion of intellectual property rights which would extend monopoly patent rights to charge higher prices and give copyright holders greater rights at the expense of consumers, particularly Australians. Labor has concerns about KAFTA's provisions on intellectual property and obviously we will determine our position on any changes to the Copyright Act when that debate comes on later.
I also have concerns about the changes to advertising for labour. Obviously, modern Labor, whilst it came out of a protectionist party back in the 1890s, champion free trade. If you look at our history from Curtin, to Forde to Chifley—not much time with Forde, obviously, but I must mention him because he is a Queenslander—to Whitlam, Hawke and Keating, we started protectionist but then we became much more committed to trade. Labor believes the government should require employers show that there are fair dinkum skill shortages if they wish to utilise KAFTA's provisions on the movement of people and do so in a fair dinkum way; otherwise we will be swamped by skilled workers coming from Korea.(Time expired)
Five years after the end of the Second World War the Korean peninsula was again thrust into a very bitter war. Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost, hundreds of thousands more were thrown into turmoil and for three years the Korean people were facing war on their soil. I use this story is an introduction to a discussion on the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement to make this point: in my lifetime South Korea has gone from a position of being a net recipient of aid from the rest of the world to being a net donor of aid to other countries within the region. There are many reasons for this: obviously a robust democracy, a lot of work has gone into the modernisation of its economy, a lot of cooperation between the private sector and the government sector, and obviously intense interest and assistance from the rest of the world to ensure that South Korea was able to get back on its feet. We are now in the happy position of having a very good diplomatic and trade relationship with South Korea as a democracy within the region. This trade agreement takes that relationship to another level.
We support free trade and we support the trade agreement with Korea, but, as my friend the member for Moreton has said in his contribution to this debate, there are some reservations. Were Labor still in government and if we had the opportunity to complete the work that we started in 2009, we would have concluded an agreement, but there would have been some differences—and I will go to those shortly.
The Republic of South Korea is our third-largest export market. This bilateral trade agreement presents significant opportunities for Australian exporters and for Australian workers. It is not without its downside. Any trade agreement involves trade-offs and often they felt within particular parts of the economy and particular regions around the country. They are felt within regions such as mine, a region that has traditionally gained its employment and its wealth from a mixture of manufacturing, mining and other services. When we reach agreements such as this, there is no doubt that it adds further pressure to those manufacturers who are competing against nations such as South Korea and others in an open market.
But I will say this. Over the time that I have lived and grown up in my region, the exports that we have focused on as a part of our regional economy have changed. It would surprise many to know that one of the biggest export earners in the Illawarra today is now the University of Wollongong, which has an enormous offering of undergraduate and postgraduate courses and an extremely strong foreign student coterie within its student numbers. It is incredibly important to the local economy. It does not replace the traditional industries such as mining and manufacturing, but it does go to show that the balance of exports and the shape of those exports, even in a region such as mine, has changed over my short lifetime.
The Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 is a part of what I understand to be largely a bipartisan approach to the issue of trade and trade agreements. As many speakers have said in this debate, we made a turning point when it came to trade in this country, first in the 1970s under the leadership of Gough Whitlam and then in the 1980s under the leadership of the Hawke-Keating government. And, in the spirit of bipartisanship, that approach was extended under the Howard government and the Rudd and Gillard governments and continues today. These agreements are important.
The bill will give Australian exporters increased access to the Korean market and help maintain our competitiveness with the United States and the European Union within the Korean market, so we welcome the opportunities that the agreement can present for our exporters in both goods and services. We note in particular the potential gains that will be there for exports like beef, sugar, wheat, dairy and wine and for our horticultural producers. In total these sectors employ over 200,000 Australian workers.
The economic modelling suggests that the KAFTA will boost Australian exports to Korea by about $3.5 million by 2030, boost the Australian beef exports to Korea by about 59 per cent and boost Australia's GDP by about $650 million by 2030. It anticipates that there will be an additional 1,700 jobs created as a direct result of the agreement.
Modelling is modelling, and it will tell a different story. But the important thing about this agreement, I have to say, is that it shows that by working with a country that shares similar values to ours, in an open trading arrangement, we are able to turn that country from being a net recipient of aid over the last 50 years to a net donor of aid. And the best way to do that is by developing the economy, ensuring that there is a fair distribution of the wealth within the economy and ensuring that they are able to trade with countries within their regions.
I said at the outset that we have some problems with the agreement. I would like to turn my attention to those. We were deeply disappointed—in fact, we were dismayed—when the Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb, dropped the bombshell that the government had agreed to an investor-state dispute clause within this agreement. It ran contrary to a lot of the things that the then opposition had been saying in relation to international agreements with other countries. We have a problem with investor-state dispute clauses because they give foreign companies the right, which they would not otherwise have, to sue an Australian government when this parliament passes laws which may damage their commercial interests. We believe in the sovereignty of this parliament and we believe that we should not be reaching agreements which unreasonably constrain the ability of governments and this parliament to make laws on social, environmental or economic matters out of fear of legal retribution from companies based elsewhere.
We believe that investor-state dispute clauses are a good idea that has gone bad. The intent of these clauses, a long time ago—a long time ago—was to ensure that when businesses invested in another jurisdiction and those jurisdictions—and I will choose my words very carefully here—let us just say that they did not have the same robust democracies and separation of powers between the judicial and political systems. So those businesses investing in those countries could do it in the knowledge that if there was a coup or if there were an arbitrary takeover of their investments within those countries then those companies would have a redress other than the redress in the not-always-robust legal systems of those countries.
Deputy Speaker, you can see the sense in that. On the one hand we are saying, 'We think it's important that we get investment into a country that needs the development; it might need the capital and it might need the technology.' But you can see the reticence of those businesses wanting to invest in that if there has been a history of civil war, if there has been a history of arbitrary detention and if there has been a history of political interference in the judicial process.
But nobody could stand in this parliament and suggest that that is the history of trade agreements and foreign investment in this country. Nobody could suggest that. So whatever the virtues of investor-state dispute clauses in the beginning—in the genesis of the idea—nobody could suggest that there is a serious issue. I know that people like to use the words 'sovereign risk', but nobody could suggest that there is a serious issue of a business investing in Australia and an Australian government of any political hue arbitrarily taking over that business—in fact, it is prohibited by our Constitution—or that there is going to be some improper political interference in a domestic judicial process. It is beyond contemplation that it would happen in this country.
Whatever the merits of investor-state dispute clauses, that is not the situation in Australia today. I am very proud to say that. And I see the member for Fremantle in the chamber today; I know that she has been a passionate campaigner in respect of investor-state dispute clauses and the pernicious impact they can have on the making of social and economic policy in this country and in other countries around the world. I support what the member for Fremantle has to say in respect of this issue.
It is not like we are tilting at windmills, either. We have seen examples in our very recent history where a sovereign government has made decisions in the public interest—decisions that have enjoyed support across the parliament—that have then been subject to litigation in international forums because they interfered with the commercial interests of a foreign company. I have in mind the example that the member for Moreton alluded to in his contribution. It has been well over two years since Philip Morris Asia commenced litigation against the Australian government, against the plain-packaging tobacco laws that were passed through this parliament with the support of the then opposition and the government and passed into law. They were world-leading public health initiatives. It is true that the plain-packaging tobacco laws interfered with the commercial interests of cigarette companies. But we argue that it should be within the gift of a sovereign parliament and a government to pass laws which it believes to be in the interests of its population. These are not arbitrary laws. Let me put it this way: there will be other countries around the world which will be looking closely at what we are doing and are attracted to the public health benefits of the plain-packaging laws. I am quite certain it is with this in mind that Philip Morris has initiated action against the Australian government—to try to scare other jurisdictions out of passing similar laws. There can be no doubt Australia will succeed, but Australian taxpayers are still footing the bill of defending the action in international courts. They are still footing the bill for defending laws properly made in the Australian parliament for a proper purpose, and it is these examples—it is not fancy or folly; it is not like we are imagining that something might happen—which drove us to say that we cannot support causes such as these in free trade agreements.
While I have stood here and very fulsomely supported the reaching of trade agreements with our economic partners—and I do—I can inform the parliament that if Labor is successful at the next election we will seek to renegotiate this part of the treaty to revisit the issue of the investor-state dispute clauses. Whatever their genesis, nobody can say they apply to Australia today in terms of the risks associated with foreign investors.
The economy exists to serve the people of our society, not the other way around. That means when we as parliamentarians are asked to decide whether to approve a significant economic agreement, like this free trade agreement between Korea and Australia, first and foremost in our minds should be what is in the interests of the Australian people. That is our job here. It is not our job to sign off on agreements that contract out the determination of what is in the best interests of the Australian people to a small panel of unelected lawyers who sit as an arbitration panel. It is not in our interests to contract out the decision of what is best for the Australian people to multinational companies which are able to override our parliament and our government.
But that is what the Liberals and Labor are about to do by supporting this bill. What is being put forward here is a free trade deal that has some good components; I will talk about those in a moment. But for the first time it takes a significant step and says that if our parliament and our government is doing something in the interests of the Australian people, but which might possibly impinge on the profits of a multinational company or a company that is subject to this agreement, then they are able to take the government not to court but to a panel of self-selected arbitrators, who will be able to decide if Australia's laws should be struck down. That is significant, and this is the crossing of a threshold. We should not allow that threshold to be crossed. I will come back to that in a moment.
Part of the reason that we find ourselves in this situation is the secretive and undemocratic process that is associated with these kinds of agreements. The Greens believe in fair trade and there is scope for this bill, and the Korean trade agreement it legitimises, to be fantastic for this country. The Greens support many of the measures that it provides—for example, trade of beef, wine and agricultural products. If we could, we would be prepared to work constructively to make this a trade agreement that works for everyone. But it does not, and as it currently stands there are some serious, critical failings that make it impossible for the Greens to support. Because the government has locked out the possibility of an amendment from anyone in parliament, our hands are tied. As with all trade agreement negotiations, the secretive process that the government has undertaken with this agreement locks out not just scrutiny but cooperation. Parliament has been excluded from improving this trade agreement. The government does not believe that parliamentary scrutiny by MPs and senators could result in a better, stronger and fairer trade agreement. It has hidden this agreement from public scrutiny. The government negotiated the agreement in secret; cabinet signed the agreement in secret and then has taken it to the parliament for MPs to rubber-stamp—not to debate; not to discuss; not to analyse; not to ask questions; only to rubber-stamp. We can only vote either for or against this bill, but we cannot change it. That makes a mockery of every single member in this place. What this bill does is turn the parliament into nodding donkeys because we have no opportunity to improve this agreement. Cabinet is effectively being given precedence over the parliament. Parliament is meant to be the highest authority in this country. The Australian people are denied access and their representatives are denied scrutiny, and all we are left with is the Prime Minister and the trade minister saying, 'Trust us; this is good for you.' That is not good enough. That is unacceptable.
If we could, the Greens would refer this bill to a committee so that it could be independently evaluated, as has been recommended by the Productivity Commission. The Greens and the Productivity Commission are not traditionally good friends, but even the Productivity Commission says that agreements like this should be subject to a test to work out whether it is in Australia's interest, and there should be some independent review. Instead, such an evaluation has been disgracefully abdicated by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which has singularly failed in its oversight function with respect to this agreement. Instead, what will happen is that, yet again, the coalition and Labor will be in lock-step on this bill and will vote for it, while being out of step with the community. The Greens will be left as the party that stands up for our national interest.
In December last year the Senate passed an order requiring the government to table the final draft of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement two weeks before it was due to be signed. The government refused. This puts the government and this trade deal in contempt of parliament. In 2005 the Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America said it was alarmed by the lack of adequate research being undertaken prior to Australia committing itself to trade agreements and called for proper scrutiny and debate. In 2010 the Productivity Commission said that there should be independent and transparent agreement of the final text of trade agreements before the agreement is signed. Despite this advice, with this agreement that has not happened. Even the JSCOT found:
… the predicted benefits to the overall Australian economy from the implementation of KAFTA appear minimal …
The committee's report also described an impact of the agreement as a 'regulatory chill'. What this means is that the government may want to introduce protections in good faith but will be scared off from doing so because of potential reaction from overseas investors. What it means is that this trade agreement neuters the government and outsources the national interest to the balance sheet of overseas private companies—and it gets worse.
While the Greens believe in fair trade, perhaps the most toxic aspect of the agreement is the ISDS mechanism—the so-called investor-state dispute settlement component. Just for the record, so that everyone in this place knows, ISDS gives foreign corporations the right to sue sovereign governments like ours if they feel that changes to national policy or laws negatively impact on their profits. As far as the Greens are concerned, this subverts the democratic principle. This puts the financial interests of private companies above the national interest and above the democratic rights of every Australian. What this also means is that this agreement, this bill and the Abbott government introducing it mean that they are saying that private profit is more important than people's democratic rights.
What does it mean in practice? There is a good example happening right now. The big tobacco pusher and donor to the Liberal Party, Philip Morris, is currently suing the government after the previous Labor government introduced plain packaging legislation. I should point out that unlike the Greens, the Liberal Party continues to accept tobacco donations—but I digress. The reason that Philip Morris is allowed to sue the government is because of an ISDS clause in an investment agreement that this country has with Hong Kong. Imagine if the government loses the case. Taxpayers could pay damages to a private tobacco pusher because the government tried to reduce the incidence of cancer by introducing plain packaging legislation. What this government is saying by including the ISDS in this agreement is that Philip Morris's profits are more important than public health, than the public interest. How can that possibly be in our national interest?
The government could have removed all ISDSs from the Korean trade deal, but it did not. Instead, by including them, it is providing a mechanism for private companies to sue the government, potentially even this Abbott government, if a new law threatens the profits of a private South Korean company. The government claims it is fine because it says it has included so-called safeguards in the agreement. The trade minister has said that these so-called safeguards mean there is no prospect of an ISDS allowing another Philip Morris type case arising if it suits the government, but this has been contradicted in evidence that was before the committee. Professor Luke Nottage made it very clear, when he was asked if the wording in the agreement would preclude a Philip Morris type case occurring again, he said:
The answer is 'no' under the current wording. If that sort of claim by tobacco companies is a particular concern, the obvious way to preclude it completely is to have a carve out for measures in relation to tobacco.
But, of course, no such carve out exists in this bill or in the agreement. The government has left the ISDS mechanisms in. In fact, there is scope for another Philip Morris to sue the government based on this advice. Only the government can say why it wants ISDS mechanisms left in and why it wants to give licence to foreign companies to sue the Australian government.
The Greens introduced a bill into the Senate to ban ISDS mechanisms from all future trade deals, but this was rejected by the committee. Minister Robb clearly is not interested in producing a model investment treaty or going back and looking at previous agreements because he does not see ISDS as a problem. The Greens and many others do. I note, in this respect, the member for Fremantle and others in this chamber have spoken out against ISDS mechanisms. Now is the opportunity for your party to vote against it. Now is the opportunity for Labor to stand with the Greens and vote against this and send the government back to the drawing board to negotiate an agreement without an ISDS in it.
The question of intellectual property is also important because when it comes to the impact, negative or positive, of this free trade agreement on the country's intellectual property industry the government is flying blind. There has been no cost-benefit analysis produced. JSCOT's regulation impact statement and the national interest analysis make no mention of what the impact of the IP chapter of KAFTA could be on our IP industry. Could it harm Australian IP, could it help it, could it do both? No-one knows. What we do know is that JSCOT has again abdicated its responsibility as an oversight protection on these critical questions.
The Productivity Commission said in 2010 that Australia should not include IP in trade agreements without proper economic and public interest analysis. This has not been undertaken. KAFTA's chapter on IP entrenches IP with rights holders and no consideration is given to the public interest. What this could mean, for example, for people who need affordable medicine, the government cannot say.
One of the key untold stories of the demise of the country's car making industry is the role of KAFTA in helping destroy it. When Toyota announced in February this year that it would stop making cars in the country, it said:
… with one of the most open and fragmented automotive markets in the world and increased competitiveness due to current and future Free Trade Agreements, it is not viable to continue building cars in Australia.
Toyota got out while it could because it knew that the influx of cheap South Korean cars would make the already highly marginal car making market here unviable. So here we have one of the country's leading former car makers blaming the Australia-Korea Free Trade Agreement—not the carbon tax, as the government tried to spin it, but the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement itself, it said, dealt the final blow—and again we come to the national interest. We need to make an assessment about whether importing cheap cars at the expense of making cars here and all the related industries that depend on it is in the national interest.
The role of this agreement in killing off car making has been woefully underreported, although an article in December last year in the motoring newspaper supplement 'Drive', presciently titled 'South Korea Free Trade deal could crush car industry', said:
… it could be the death of the Australian car manufacturing industry.
Richard Reilly, head of the Federation of Automotive Products Manufacturers, whose members supply components to Toyota, Holden and Ford, said in that article:
Anything that potentially sees more imported cars sold here is absolutely not good for local manufacturers …
… The government needs to be extremely careful if this deal goes ahead …
The deal did go ahead, and we know the state that the automotive manufacturing industry finds itself in now.
We need to have a sensible discussion and an open discussion, fully informed by the facts, about the future of manufacturing in this country and the impact of these free trade deals on it. In the south-eastern states, which do not benefit in the same way from the mining boom as the resource rich states, there are massive pressures on employment and on the future of industry. Even now the government wants to end the assistance that is being given to those sectors early, which would put tens of thousands of jobs in the component sector at risk.
Let us have an open and informed debate in this country about whether we want a manufacturing sector and, if so, what it looks like and how we support it in these difficult times. Instead of having that debate, under the guise of secrecy and including through agreements like this, we are delivering blow after blow.
I conclude by saying this: we have an opportunity now to send this government back to the drawing board. I know there are many people on the Labor side who believe very strongly that ISDS provisions are wrong. That is part of the reason why this agreement had not been signed under the previous government. Now we have the opportunity to send the government back to the drawing board and come back with a better agreement that works in the interests of all Australians.
I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014, the KAFTA tariff bill. In doing so, I acknowledge that considerable work has gone into developing this agreement. I acknowledge my support for free trade agreements that are in the country's interest. I also acknowledge that there will be a significant benefit that comes from the implementation of this agreement to a small sector of our Australian economy. There will be a significant boost to exports in the agricultural industry, and it will benefit particularly the beef industry.
This is a piece of legislation that was subject to review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. It was interesting to note that there was a dissenting report brought down by the treaties committee. I must say that I find the dissenting report very influential in the formation of my remarks on this piece of legislation. I have to question whether this piece of legislation is in the national interest. The dissenting report highlighted many of the issues that I am particularly concerned about. After reading both the report and the dissenting report, I feel that the questions which have been raised in the dissenting report really need to be answered. It was the type of questions—which I will go through in a moment—that were raised in the dissenting report and by many of the submissions to the treaty's committee that have influenced my position on this piece of legislation.
It is interesting that the overall predicted increase in GDP after 15 years is just 0.04 per cent. For such a small increase I think, as a nation, we are making sacrifices that cannot afford to be made. The previous Labor government did not sign the treaty because they were concerned about the ISDS provisions, and, after exploring and reading this thoroughly, I am also concerned about those provisions.
It is interesting to note—and it was brought up by the previous speaker—the impact on the vehicle industry of the implementation of the zero tariffs by 2015, and how that has accelerated job losses in that industry. I think that is a real concern. I do not believe the current government has an industry plan—a plan that looks at developing a response to job loss or developing a jobs plan for the future. I think its knee-jerk reaction and its rush to sign this agreement need to be really criticised.
The government is sending military contracts overseas, whilst Forgacs in my local area is standing down people. It shows that the government has no vision or understanding of industry policy; the government needs to be on the front foot in relation to industry policy.
The AMWU submission to the committee reported that any free trade agreement should clearly benefit our economy—it is something that I and many of my colleagues believe—and not just a small niche. The niche that the agreement benefits is the agricultural industries, and when it is only 0.04 per cent of GDP after four years, you have to question whether or not it was a very proactive, wise decision to make, particularly when it leads to devastating other industries.
This report highlights some of the flaws in relation to enforceable labour, and of course it spends considerable time talking about the investor-state dispute settlement, the ISDS, and the implications it has for the Australian economy and nation. There were 34 submissions that objected to the ISDS and KAFTA. The ISDS provision gives additional specific rights to foreign investors to sue governments for damages in international tribunals on domestic legislation. That actually goes to the heart of our sovereignty and has an impact on our democracy. That should raise concern for every single member of this parliament, because we can legislate in this place and then it can be challenged. I do not think that any member would like to see our sovereignty impacted in such a way. There are a number of concerns about the implications of ISDS. The simple fact that ISDS have no independent judiciary. The arbitration panels are made up of investment law professionals who represent investor complainants, and only investor complainants can take action in ISDS systems. The panellists can also be an advocate one month and an arbitrator the next month. That is quite foreign to our judiciary system here in Australia, where judges cannot be practising lawyers. It is really difficult to see how there can be a level of fairness within this system, because the arbiters are paid by the hour. The incentive to drag out a case is obviously there—with them taking three to five years.
ISDSs have no system for precedents or appeals and therefore decisions can be quite inconsistent. I note that the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is in the House. He was very influential, from the report that I am quoting from quite extensively here. As a former member of the treaties committee, I would have to say that if I had been on that committee I would have supported the dissenting report because it does touch on all those issues. Yes, we need free trade agreements with countries, but they have to be in our national interests. We do not have to give away more than we get. We do not have to put ourselves in a position where, in 15 years time or 10 years time, we look back and say, 'We wish we hadn't had that ISDS clause in the contract.'
The safeguards that are included in this free trade agreement are not sufficient. The first safeguard sentence in KAFTA talks about safeguards, health and environment policy and they are really not adequate. It talks about rare exemptions and non-discriminatory regulatory actions by party. These are designed to apply to legitimate public welfare and public health—and issues have been raised around these particular issues in submissions to the treaties committee. 'Fair and equitable treatment' is not sufficient. I have probably spent enough time on ISDS, but to say that as a nation we are risking our sovereignty and democracy covers it fully.
There are some other areas that I have concerns about, such as copyright and IP. I do not think that our interests are significantly covered in KAFTA. There were submissions to the committee from a number of people, strongly criticising the intellectual property chapter of KAFTA. They highlighted that the provisions reflect bad policy and are contrary to the trends in IP law; that is something that should raise concerns amongst all members in this parliament. The dissenting report made some very significant recommendations, and I think that the government should look at those and should consider where it is going to in relation to that.
The other area that I am particularly concerned about is labour rights and migrant work programs. I note that there were a number of submissions to the committee on this particular area. The CFMEU submission to JSCOT on KAFTA raises significant and legitimate concerns in relation to the migrant work program and the impact on the movement of people. I know this has been quite an issue within industry—particularly in the construction and the mining sectors—for a long period of time of how a free-trade agreement will impact on the issuing of 457 visas, the safeguards around it and the implication for Australian jobs. Let's not forget that this is about Australian jobs. I am quite concerned about that because it particularly expands the area where employers could be granted access to 457 visas for Korean nationals without labour market testing. Labour market testing is an important component of the issuing of 457 visas. If that is not required, and Korean national workers can come here on 457 visas whilst Australian workers are disadvantaged by this particular provision of the legislation, I think that is unacceptable. Whilst it removes from the migrant work program the labour rights requirements for Korean nationals, the Korean government has retained the right to apply LMT numerical quotas and other restrictions to Australian citizens and permanent residents under its temporary visa program. To me that is not equitable.
I can see I am running out of time. I commend to the House the minority report of the previous committee. I ask members to think very carefully about this legislation, and I say that Labor in government would renegotiate the clauses surrounding the issues that I have raised concerns about. We truly do question whether or not it is in the national interests and—(Time expired)
I join Labor members in speaking to these bills and placing on the record, briefly, some significant concerns I have with the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. These are matters that in large part are dealt with in the amendments moved by the member for Rankin. I should make clear that these are not objections to free trade per se. Rather, as the member for Charlton said in his contribution to this debate, fundamentally, this is an agreement which was poorly negotiated. These are matters which must be put before the House and before the Australian people. These matters are important, not simply in respect of this agreement which is the subject of the bills before us now but even more so with regard to the prospect of the China agreement which may arise in the not-too-distant future.
The four matters that I will briefly touch upon create a very troubling precedent for that agreement as well as being invidious in their own terms. The first matter I wish to speak to is the question of investor-state dispute settlement. Let me be clear: as a matter of principle, I can see no warrant for investor-state dispute settlement clauses—provisions that, in effect, grant greater rights to foreign corporations than domestic entities. The capacity of such provisions to interfere with Australia's sovereignty, the sovereignty of this parliament, is deeply troubling. I note that Labor in government would renegotiate this agreement to remove this provision and so restore the capacity of this parliament to determine, for example, environmental protections in place of unaccountable private arbitration. I note that over 500 ISDS cases have been brought against governments under treaties at great financial cost to the taxpayers and at a much greater and more troubling democratic deficit.
I am also concerned about the arrangements in relation to labour market testing. Labor opposes the removal of labour market testing in agreements such as this. Fundamentally, why shouldn't employers be asked to demonstrate the existence of a skills shortage before having regard to such provisions? Further to this point—and I note that this was a matter that was unable to be traversed by the Treaties Committee—it is extremely concerning that labour rights may, perhaps inadvertently, be diminished such that preferential access may end up being afforded to the products of forced labour, and I hope this is a matter that is capable of being attended to.
I go now to the question of copyright. As my colleague the member for Gellibrand, who knows far more about these matters than I do or ever will, has said, similar democratic concerns, as noted in relation to the ISDS provision, arise in relation to intellectual property. I simply restate his words and his contribution:
If the government wants to reform Australia's Copyright Act, it should make the argument for this change on the merits, not by hiding behind the flimsy claim that we cannot even debate the issue because of our trade obligations.
That nails the issue.
Lastly, the treatment of the automotive sector simply cannot be ignored. It may be that this is a case, unfortunately, of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but the treatment of that sector and the workers contained within it cannot go without mention.
In conclusion, I feel it is important that I acknowledge the work of Labor members of the Treaties Committee—and I note the deputy chair next to me here. I also want to acknowledge the range of engagement I have had with a range of stakeholders—the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the CFMEU, the people of AFTINET and also the National Farmers' Federation—all of which I found invaluable in approaching my engagement on this important matter.
That free trade can deliver tremendous benefits should not and must not become a cloak to avoid detailed consideration of particular agreements. Past experience shows all too clearly that fundamentalist theory does not always deliver its promises in the real world. Free trade is, of course, not an end in itself. Our task here is to secure the best interests of the Australian people—their wellbeing must be our yardstick. A clear benefit right across the economy should be what we are seeking to achieve, not merely sectoral or subsectoral advantage.
Fundamentally, my concerns go to the issue around the investor-state dispute settlement provisions—these are concerns about democracy. Who decides and how they decide are fundamental questions for all of us in this place. We should not ever lightly walk away from our obligations to make these decisions on behalf of the Australian people.
This Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that will implement Australia's tariff commitments set out in the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. These amendments are complementary to those contained in the Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014. If I could use this opportunity to speak to the two bills that are in front of us here this morning, they are related very much. I am pleased to have this opportunity to conclude the debate on this important agreement.
As many know, Korea is Australia's third largest export market and our fourth largest trading partner. This is a very significant agreement. The Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement will benefit Australian exporters, importers, workers, consumers and investors by opening markets and freeing trade and investment between Australia and Korea. With now 70 per cent of all the world's export output in goods and services going as inputs into other final products, the global supply chain issues are now of fundamental importance. Sometimes products can end up going across borders five or six times before they end up in a final product. So the ease with which you get customs arrangements, the services that sit around so many of these production processes, and intermediate goods and services have all become more and more important.
It is only 25 years ago that 20 per cent of total world exports went in as inputs into products. It is now 70 per cent. This is now very much a global village as far as business being done, and it is quite critical to get a more seamless process existing across borders, especially between our big trading partners. For so many of the highly sophisticated manufacturing products that Korea is known for, in so many cases Australia is, in a very competitive way, able to sell inputs into those processes and products and are doing so. This agreement will make those transactions more profitable and certainly make Australian manufacturing industry far more competitive in terms of maintaining and growing those sorts of relationships into Korea.
So it is not only important to exporters; it is important to importers as well. We get cheaper imported products into some of our processes. It is important to workers because it creates jobs. It creates, in time, many tens and hundreds of thousands of jobs over time. It is important to consumers as they get cheaper products. It is important to investors, because this agreement provides greater certainty to investors, both ways, by opening up markets and freeing trade investment between our two countries.
With one-in-five Australian jobs linked to trade, this agreement will provide an important boost to Australia's economy. The FTA secures Australia's competitive position in this market, where our competitors, such as the United States and the European Union, are already enjoying preferential access.
There was a huge element of urgency about concluding this agreement from the time that we won office, because some two years ago the European Union and the United States completed comprehensive agreements with Korea of this nature. Every year that went on where we were not in the same position with the same sorts of agreements, our industries were being disadvantaged. For example, in the beef industry, a 40 per cent tariff is applied by Korea against all beef imports. Korea gave, over 15 years, an opportunity for the European beef industry and the United States beef industry to reduce that tariff in a linear fashion—so 2.7 per cent each year, for 15 years—until it was eliminated.
So after two years, Australia's beef industry is at a 5.4 per cent disadvantage. If we were to let it go another year it would be a 8.1 per cent disadvantage against our biggest competitor. This is a half-a-billion-dollar market for our beef industry. We were at the risk, not only in beef but in a whole lot of other areas, for the same principle to apply. We were seeing our competitive position being eroded quite dramatically because we had not, and the previous administration had not sought, to complete this negotiation. In fact, it was, in many respects, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism which has been in many ways used and abused by certain anti-trade unions. Some unions are very much in favour of trade, but there are some big unions that are anti-trade, and they have used this ISDS and put the weights on their colleagues within the Labor Party, in this parliament, to reject outright an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism.
This ignores the fact that we have, for 30 years now, had 28 investor-state dispute settlement procedures in agreements with 28 countries, and a number of those were implemented when Labor was in power. Most recently, the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement has an ISDS in it. Well, low and behold, listen to all the speeches we have heard today. Listen to the press releases. Listen to what the subcommittee had to say. The hypocrisy is huge. It is just a political tool to try and stop trade and to put Australia at a disadvantage. Those people have got an agenda which is not related to expanding our trade in growth and in our jobs position. The excuse for railing against this agreement, for holding it up and putting us at a very distinct disadvantage as a country has no grounds whatsoever. In fact, the ISDS provisions in these new agreements provide very strong carve-outs and safeguards for public health and environmental issues. Those opposite know it. They know this but they ignore this fact. Having been complicit in many ISDS provisions in the past, they are now saying it is the devil incarnate. It is just a piece of politics.
The results of the independent modelling that was being conducted show that the FTA will be worth over $5 billion in additional income to Australia between 2015 and 2030, and will result in an annual boost to the economy of around $653 million after 15 years of operation. This ignores the fact that the modelling could not accommodate the services advantages. This agreement is a 21st-century agreement on services. This agreement gives us access in services into a major North Asian country in a way that we have never had before, and it is going to provide enormous opportunity—not just on the goods side, but on the services side also, which I think will be the big growth area. Our economy is 80 per cent services. Our brand in terms of services, in so many areas, is gold standard in the region. The opportunities are enormous as long as we can get access to these markets. This agreement provides, for the first time, very significant access across a very wide range of services and it has been universally applauded by those in the services sector in Australia.
After 15 years of operation of the FTA, it is expected that our exports to Korea will be 25 per cent higher than they otherwise would have been. By 2030, exports of agricultural goods to Korea are expected to be 73 per cent higher than otherwise—a 73 per cent advantage from this agreement. Increased exports under the FTA are expected to create over 1,700 jobs on implementation. The FTA will make a difference at the farm gate, from mango exporters to macadamia nut growers to potato farmers. There is a 300 per cent tariff on potatoes; now, on implementation of this agreement, zero. Farmers will enjoy improved access to the Korean market on so many fronts.
Australia's beef exporters will be big winners, as I have just explained, because we will finally get onto that diminishing tariff line that is enjoyed by the US and the EU. It would have gone another year without settlement if we had not got into office, because the negotiations had totally run into the sand; a deadlock had been reached. Fortunately, we were able to unlock that.
In regards to KAFTA, I note that there was some confusion among those opposite. I really applaud the press release the other day by the Leader of the Opposition, and my counterpart the shadow minister for trade and investment, Senator Wong, where Labor said they will support the legislation and that increased access to Korea is important et cetera. All very noble sentiments, and yet we have got an amendment in front of us which seeks to delay it, renegotiate it, raise a whole lot of issues that Labor have supported in the past, but claim are totally unacceptable today. There is a fair bit of confusion, but hopefully the sensible comments and position announced on Monday by the Leader of the Opposition, and my counterpart, Senator Wong, will prevail. I note the press release of the Leader of the Opposition, and I am grateful for that support of this bill.
As I have said, negotiations commenced back in 2009, and as a government we are fully aware of the imperative of finalising it as soon as possible. We are looking to slow the growth of debt fuelled government spending. That has to stop if we are to put ourselves in a strong position and live within our means. But if we do reduce the rate of growth of government spending, we have to replace it with something. We intend to replace it with strong growth in the private sector. The KAFTA is a very important starting point to promoting growth, trade and investment with one of our major trading partners.
Every day of delay is another day Australia is at a competitive disadvantage against our major competitors, who have already achieved preferential access to this market. The playing field will be levelled through the finalisation of this free trade agreement. Next week I am travelling to Seoul to meet my counterpart in Korea, Mr Yoon Sang-jick, Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy. I will also be meeting other key members of the national assembly responsible for the passage of implementing legislation in Korea. When Australia and Korea have concluded their respective parliamentary processes and other procedures, we can start to benefit from this world-class agreement—hopefully by 1 January 2015.
In conclusion, I would like to pay gratitude to members in the trade division of my department, who have done a remarkably good job on this and other agreements. It has been a very heavy agenda. They have completed the processes in a very efficient manner. The advice and negotiating skills have been world-class. I am very grateful to them and to my office for the work that has been done to bring this about. I have great pleasure in supporting this bill before the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Rankin has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
It gives me no pleasure really to speak in this debate because it is a debate we would want otherwise not to have. Nevertheless, it is the case that we now have committed Australian forces yet again into the Middle East. We as a parliament need to indicate our strong support for them and the reasons for which they are embarking. I am pleased to support the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech on 22 September. He made a number of very important points, including that our support for this is not about jingoism or nationalism; it is a calculation of conscience and national interests. He outlined four key points which underpin our approach, which are that we do not support the deployment of ground combat units to directly engage in fighting ISIL, that Australian operations should be confined to the territory of Iraq, that our involvement should continue only until the Iraqi government are in a position to take full responsibility for the security of their people and their nation and that, if the Iraqi government and their forces engage in unacceptable conduct or adopt unacceptable policies, we should withdraw our support immediately. Nevertheless, we do know that we are confronting an insidious form of terror in the Middle East right at this time. We need to comprehend its impact on us not only tangentially, in a sense, but also directly as a result of the impacts it is having on the Middle East itself.
I had the good fortune to meet with some representatives of the Turkish parliament, including its Speaker, earlier in the week. It is clear now that tens of thousands—I think in excess of 120,000—refugees came across the Turkish border in a matter of 24 or 48 hours. That puts in stark light the impact that this terrorist activity is having on the region. We should not understate what it means in terms of a humanitarian disaster and its regional implications. We are a long way from the place, but we do understand that this is in part a legacy, I think, of our failed behaviour in 2003. Nevertheless, we are now in a position, despite what has happened previously, where we are committed to addressing the issues in Iraq and, indeed, having an impact on the region to try and prevent and stop the insidious work of this murderous and barbaric organisation, ISIL. We know that its impact is broad across the community, almost non-discriminatory in its negative impact, and particularly on women and girls, who are being oppressed, raped, tortured and forced into sexual servitude. We need to understand what this means. I think that having Australian troops, in this case Air Force units, deployed is really a very important sign to the world that we take this matter very, very seriously.
We know that the Australian personnel will be based out of Al Minhad, in the UAE. It is a very comfortable base. They will be looked after properly, but their role is really very important, and they will be embarking on some very dangerous activity. We want to ensure that they have our support—I know that they do across this parliament—and that their families have our support and love for them as they think about their partners, uncles, fathers, cousins, mates, whatever their relationship might be, who are over there at the moment and will be into the future, who knows for how long. This is an issue which ought to be front and centre of the minds of all of us, as I have spoken about on many occasions in this place.
But we also need to understand the impact here at home. I do not think that ill-informed and inflammatory comments about Islam are helpful. I am very concerned indeed and regret the fact that there are some in our community, including—as the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for citizenship and multiculturalism said in a letter which they have sent out to the community only in the last day or so—a very few elected representatives in this parliament, who have made comments which have the potential to damage community harmony and inflame tensions. We strongly oppose those ill-informed and dangerous views, and we will continue to speak out against them.
We are in this together. We need to make sure that there is a consensus across the Australian community. Now is not the time for division. That means that we should not be picking on one section of the Australian community just because of their religion. We need to understand that we live in what is probably the best example of a multicultural community in the world, and to have any person or persons seek to break down our belief in multiculturalism—our support for multiculturalism—in the way that is being done by some in this place is very dangerous.
We have seen the acts of idiots—and sadly one of those was killed this week—but we need to understand that this is a minority group who do not represent the broader population. They represent something which is foreign to us—alien to us—and something that we across this country will never support. At the same time, we realise there is a direct relationship between what they may be doing or attempting to do here and what is happening in the Middle East, and that is why our engagement there is so vitally important.
This particular insidious movement transgresses—goes across—geographical boundaries. It is not nation upon nation. It is a group of terrorist thugs trying to intimidate people in the community by murderous and barbaric acts. We need to reject those murderous and barbaric acts, and we should be uniting behind those in the community who are suffering as a direct result. Some are suffering through an indirect affiliation, because of their religion. They should not suffer. We should be making every effort to ensure that we work across this community to support those wonderful people. As the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister have said in their letter:
The Islamic story in Australia has a rich history and grows stronger each year. Australia’s Muslim community continues to do our nation a great service by fostering enduring cultural and religious harmony, and making a substantial contribution to our national prosperity.
Well may that continue into the future, as I am sure it will. This reflects a modern Australian multiculturalism; a story of cultural enrichment, social cohesion and economic growth, and it is a story that the Labor Party is committed to and will always defend.
This is a very important time for all of us and we need to understand its implications on us not only directly but also indirectly. We need to comprehend that the way in which these matters are being played out in other places is a source of great concern and should be a source of great concern to all civilised peoples. That is why our engagement is so important.
I commend the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister—although I did not agree with everything the Prime Minister had to say nevertheless I agree with the sentiments. We in this place need to unite behind the fact that we have sent Australian Defence Force personnel into potentially mortal danger. We need to comprehend and to understand what it means for them and their families, and subsequently what it means for us. We are playing an important role on the international stage albeit as a small-power nation, really, but at the same time we are showing our commitment to those values about which I spoke earlier.
I also stand to support the Prime Minister's statement in regard to national security. He said that to keep people safe, we need to ensure our security measures at home and abroad are directed against terrorism and not religion. He said that we need to ensure Australians live normally, because a terrorist's goal is to scare us out of being ourselves.
My thoughts are very much with the Victoria Police and the Australian Federal Police, in particular the two members, who were stabbed in this awful incident in Endeavour Hills, and their families. Endeavour Hills is just a short distance from my electorate of La Trobe, so it definitely impacts on my electorate.
I have a background in the Victoria Police. I left the Victoria Police back in 2004 as a senior sergeant in the counterterrorism unit, so I know the good fight these members and the entire law enforcement community are involved in—to serve to protect. The Victoria Police motto has always been 'Uphold the right'. They serve to protect the public, and that is what they were doing. It was a joint task force. They were protecting the public. That should never be forgotten. That is their role. They put their lives on the line every day—men and women across Australia—to protect the public. Overseas, our military personnel are endeavouring to make the world a safer place.
Also, I do have condolences for the youth who was involved in this awful situation and it took his life. And I congratulate moderate Muslims who have come out and stated that it is barbaric to support the fatwa which was directed against Australians, against the Prime Minister and against law enforcement officers in this country. Sadly, it appears that one young Australian listened to what was being said overseas. That is a tragedy on so many levels. Again, I feel so sorry for his family and friends.
Some people in my electorate believe that this is just hype by the government and also by the police—and that is even after the events which have sadly taken place. Look at what is happening around the world. We have at least 60 Australians who have decided to travel overseas to fight in a war for the so-called Islamic State terrorists across Iraq and Syria, and back home they are supported by another hundred. So 60 Australians have gone overseas. We already know a number have been killed, including in suicide bombings. So if they are prepared to go overseas and lose their life in the battle, that is what the law enforcement agencies are up against. If they are prepared to do that overseas, well, obviously, they can be prepared to lose their own lives here in Australia. There have been at least 20 Australian citizens who have returned to Australia from fighting with Islamic State terrorists. I call them 'terrorists'. That is what they are. They do the most barbaric acts to other human beings, including beheadings, as we have heard from other members in this chamber, and rapes. They are there to cause fear and that is what they are trying to do.
Sixty Australians have had their passports cancelled trying to go and fight with this group in Iraq and Syria. Cancelling their passports is the right action to take. They call themselves 'foreign fighters', but their actions are no more than getting involved in an organisation, if I can call the Islamic State terrorists that, to kill others and use every measure they can to take control of Syria and Iraq. And this fight will only spread.
We have had, in the past, potential attacks in Australia. Again, the joint task force and the law enforcement agencies right across Australia have done a fantastic job and they keep on doing that.
I would also like to acknowledge the opposition, in particular the opposition leader. I heard some great speeches before. There is bipartisan support for this. Everyone is working to make Australia a safer place. There are counterterrorism laws soon to be introduced. I will not go into detail because they are before the House. I have been a very strong advocate of changes for preventative detention, and that is something I will continue to support to give the police the tools that they need to fight terrorism.
There is another issue which I have raised in this House a number of times before, even at the time of my maiden speech in parliament in 2004. What concerns me is we do not have a national database to collect vital information. The CrimTrac database, a Commonwealth national database, used to store selective information including fingerprints, DNA, profiles, details of sex offenders and criminal histories. CrimTrac has been hampered by the failure of relevant authorities to allow the consolidation of data relating to explosives, chemical purchases and ammonium nitrate fertilisers, which are otherwise known as high-consequence dangerous goods.
The situation people need to be aware of is that the police, for example, would have already done a check on a person who is wishing to buy explosives, so we are not talking about breaching civil liberties. That information is stored within state departments and territories around this country, including those who are undertaking pilot training. As we saw in September 11, pilot training was used in terrorist attacks.
This information needs to be dragged out of the departments and made available to police, so that when they are looking at a person, a terror suspect, and do their broader searches on friends, relatives and associates—or they may have met with the person—they may find, especially if the person moves from state to state, that the person has been buying something in one state which they would not be aware of unless they have a national database such as CrimTrac. This could be the red flag to alert law enforcement agencies: 'Hang on, what's going on here? Someone's trying to buy something or get their hands on something potentially to harm Australians.'
I remember that in Jordan terrorists planned a plot where they endeavoured to get their hands on chemicals and used stolen vehicles, and also vehicles they got under false names, and their attack was intended to kill 100,000 people. So the terrorists have tried things before, and what we need to do is give credence to what has happened around the world. Again, my background at the counter-terrorism unit in Victoria was looking at research, looking at what was happening overseas, and also looking at the legislation. I have had strong concerns about the need for a national database for some time, and also the need to look at relevant state legislation of mandatory reporting of the loss and theft of high-consequence dangerous goods. At this stage I believe the only one listed on there is ammonium nitrate fertiliser. I believe that list this needs to be increased. Again, the police need this information, especially when things are hotting up. They need to make sure they have everything in their power.
I do acknowledge and congratulate the Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan. I have written to him raising my concerns about this—and, as I have said, I have raised this numerous times before. He is taking this very seriously, and the Prime Minister is too. They are awaiting advice to see how we can actually ensure we get an outcome to give law enforcement agencies all the tools they need to make Australia a safer place.
Finally, in closing, we heard other members say, and I totally agree, that it is a time to be calm in Australia. It is a time to have respect for other people's religions and beliefs. That is the best way to prove to others out there who want to harm Australians, who the extremists call infidels, that in actual fact we are a great country. We are a very respectful country. One in four Australians have been overseas. In the future, as in the past, we need to work together and put Australia and our beliefs first.
Of the raids that were held last week, a number of those homes were actually in my electorate, so I felt the need to make a contribution to the security statement today. We know that what terrorists want is for us to fear each other, to attack each other and to lessen our freedoms, because all of these things increase their recruiting power within our community. These are the things that we must resist: the temptation to let fear get out of control, to blame the innocent for the actions of a very small number and to lessen our freedoms beyond the things that we need to do to keep ourselves safe. I know my community very well. I have been representing it now for very close to 10 years, and I do not feel afraid of it. I do not feel afraid to be in it or to go to the many events that I do, and the events of the last two weeks do not change that in any way. In fact, I see my community and all its diversity as one of the great hopes of this nation. We speak every language. We understand every culture in the world. We know every religion. There is not a city in the world that we cannot navigate without a map. It is in every way, as the world gets smaller, our strength. Our diversity is our strength when we deal with the threat of terrorism within our community.
If there are people in our community who wish us harm, for every one of them there are literally thousands of us: people of all religions and cultural backgrounds, people doing the best they can, people who greatly appreciate living in this wonderful free country, people who obviously and naturally reject terrorism. And the thousands of us have every opportunity to pull together, stronger than ever.
It is not the first time that things have gone wrong in our community around Parramatta. The shootings by the bikie gangs that you read about in the newspapers were pretty much my community as well. There have been times in recent years when a very small number of people have caused havoc on our streets, in and around Parramatta, and now it appears that increased efforts by ISIL to recruit may have borne fruit. But that possibility provides us with an opportunity to focus on us as a community, not to fight the few—law enforcement will do that more than the broader community—but to support the many, to come together to make sure that we are stronger as a community because of these events, not weaker. Our community will be defined in future by how we manage our fears and hopes in the coming days, weeks and months and the extent to which we reach out to each other in support.
In many ways the people who most need our support at the moment are the Muslim community. Last year at about this time a group came to me to tell me that members of the Islamic community, even then, were afraid to go out in the street. The women in particular, because they quite often wear the scarf—and there are many Muslims in my community who do not but many who do—were being spat on, abused or jostled, having their clothing pulled, sometimes having their scarves ripped from their heads and knocked to the street, even if they were out with their small children or pushing a pram. There were a growing number of women who were actually afraid to go out because of the level of religious bigotry that they were experiencing. I am told now that it is worse than ever. That is not acceptable. Every member of our community needs to stand up against this. Every member of our community needs to stand up against the treatment of people within our community in this way.
If there are people in our communities who wish to do us harm, the problem is perhaps better understood by a community as diverse as mine. If there are cracks in our community that let in views and beliefs that lead to violence and intimidation, they will be more easily identified by our Islamic community than by even the law enforcement agencies. Our answers and solutions as a community will be stronger if we trust in each other and accept the contributions that each of us makes to building our lives.
One of the strengths of diversity at times like this is the range of experiences and views that we hold. There are people in my community who know Iraq and Syria because they lived there. There are those who were persecuted there and fled for that reason. For some, their family still live in Syria or Iraq, and others with dual citizenship may have homes there as well as in Australia. There are many others who know the history of the Middle East. They know the history of intervention by the West, the various conflicts that have taken place over recent decades and the perceptions that are held by those communities because of the history that they have lived. There are others who have been persecuted in their first country and who hold deeply held views about the characteristics of another ethnic or religious group. There are people of all religions with varying levels of understanding about all the other religions that surround us, and there are others who have great understanding because they have taken the time, through interfaith dialogue, to learn it.
So, when something like the events of the last couple of weeks takes place, the views in my community are broad and diverse and all valuable. All are valuable. One of the negatives at a time like this—and I found it when I was phoning various religious leaders last week—was the number of them who said that they did not feel that now was the time to speak. They felt that, if they spoke about their beliefs on the sending of troops to Iraq, the government's response, the opposition's response or the policy response in Australia and they were critical of it, they might be tagged with the 'friend of terrorists' tag. They felt uneasy about speaking out. That is a great shame because we have never in this country been afraid of differences of opinion, and we have never been afraid of criticism of government. As long as that criticism comes from where I know it does come—which is a wish for us to do the best we can for our community—we should be welcoming of the full range of views.
In fact, I believe that our policy responses in the long term will be stronger if we can listen to and take account of the range of views with trust rather than suspicion. Again, I know my community well enough to know that in their hearts they wish the best for this country—which is theirs and in which they live—and the views that they express are given in good faith because they believe that they can make a contribution to the policy debate. I look forward to a time when people in my community, those of Muslim faith in particular, can speak openly about their concerns about the way the government and opposition might be pursuing policy solutions, without fear that it will somehow reflect on their loyalty to this country. I do not question their loyalty. I look forward to a time when that is the case. I would also urge them, as the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014 was introduced yesterday, that if they have strong views they are always welcome in my office to discuss them—always. It is time for us all to use the strength and the diversity we have to find the best answers that we possibly can.
About two years ago, I think, I went to a function at one of my local arts centres with an Arabic hip-hop artist from Iraq. He is called The Narcissist; that is his name. He is supposedly one of the most influential Arabic speakers in the world but he does hip-hop and it is really quite clever. He had introduced me to a hip-hop work at that time which was actually called The Terrorist. It was by a Palestinian artist, so it said the kinds of things that you would expect within that frame—a very, very good piece of hip-hop, whether you agree with its sentiments or not.
It was such a good piece of work and I wanted to share it with some friends of mine, so I said to a young Muslim friend of mine, 'There's this really great piece of hip-hop called The Terrorist; just google it.' He said: 'I can't google "the terrorist"; I'm a young Islamic man. I'll have people following me around the street.' So, even two years ago, this young man—who is as far from being a terrorist as I am from being a white extremist, quite frankly; no-one who knew this man could ever assume anything of him but good—was afraid that, if he actually googled certain words, he would fall under the umbrella of 'a person of suspicion'. That is a terrible condition to live under.
I would ask us all as a community to just consider the pressures we put on some of our communities when we start to lose our trust in their loyalty to this nation. I congratulate those—as Minister Morrison did yesterday in the parliament—who held barbecues and public gatherings in the last few weeks to bring people together and speak openly about a commitment to Australia. There were some very good gatherings, particularly in Lakemba recently, where the Muslim community came together to do just that. I thank them for doing that, in the same way that I look forward to a time when people of Islamic faith can speak their views openly without fear of assumptions or suspicion.
I look forward to a time when the Islamic community does not feel it necessary to come together to demonstrate their Australianness. They do not have to do that for me. We have had Muslims living in this country for decades. We had our first mosque in 1883. We had two in Broken Hill by 1886. I have fifth-generation Muslims in Parramatta and Turks who have been living there for 40 years. They are a fine part of our community and I wish them all the support they need at this time. (Time expired)
Each and every one of us has a slightly different list of policies that we believe will lead to good government. There is, however, one absolute that is common to most of us in the chamber, and it is that a good government allows its citizens to live in a safe and secure environment. The government will do whatever is possible to keep our people safe. Our security measures are directed only at crime and terrorism and nothing else. Above all, at this time of tighter security and international uncertainty, Australians can and must live normally. There is a development where some radical individuals, both at home and abroad, see an opportunity to disrupt Australian life by creating doubts and fears. We are a happy-go-lucky country with a great record of acceptance and compassion for others. We will continue to go to work, go to school, travel and carry on with our daily lives, as we believe in the greater good of the Australian multicultural family.
The government has known for some months that some self-styled death cult members have been organising events to take away our sense of national safety and security. This government will always do whatever is possible to keep people safe, with targeted, specialised security measures directed against terrorism of all forms.
The execution of 30 search warrants across Sydney and Brisbane last week shows that our security forces are hard at work to keep us safe in our communities. The increased level of security alert enabled the authorities to discover and interrupt a sickening terrorist plot—an attack specifically designed to show a public tragedy in the same manner as we witnessed in videos relayed from Iraq and Syria. Last week an Australian ISIL operative instructed his followers in Sydney and Brisbane to abduct random people from the street and demonstrate that there were ISIL supporters right here at home. Such an attack has the effect of destabilising our sense of personal safety. The worst part is that all that was needed for such an attack was a knife, a camera phone and an innocent Australian. I commend the government on deploying over 800 police and security agents to investigate and disrupt this disgraceful and disgusting plot within 36 hours of the operative's commands.
Australians should also be reassured when the increased security results in charges being laid for serious terrorism offences over raids. A large amount of evidence is being put together. They are currently analysing this material. In his statement, the Prime Minister explained that our security agencies considered the latest statements as being genuine. The communications of this group have been monitored for some months, but this instruction to do Australians harm was the trigger for urgent action. What the Australian government is doing is clear. We are responding intelligently to a very real threat. I urge any member of the public, especially in my electorate of Gilmore, to report anything they see as suspicious to the National Security Hotline on 1800 123 400, or directly to our local police.
The Prime Minister, in his statement on Monday, declared that the actions we have taken against these would-be terrorists show that we are determined not to be intimidated by those who would plan to harm us. The Prime Minister is right. Australians will not succumb to this terrorist fearmongering and attacks. We will not stand for the injustices that we see ISIL committing on the other side of the world. Every day we are seeing more and more reports of beheadings, crucifixions, mass executions, ethnic cleansing, rape, sexual slavery and torture from these barbaric imposters who try and call themselves a legitimate Islamic state. They are simply an emotionally charged death cult. I have travelled widely, and I tell you that 99 per cent of Muslims are just as loving and compassionate as 99 per cent of Christians. To call the ISIL death cult an Islamic state is an offence to all good, moderate Muslims across the world. Indeed, Australia's own Muslim grand mufti recently said that nearly all Australian Muslims believe that ISIL is committing crimes against humanity and sins against God. Arif Khan, a resident of the Illawarra and a National Youth Award winner, works with young refugees in my region. Speaking two nights ago on WIN News, Mr Khan revealed that he is aware that a number of our young local Muslims have been approached to fight with ISIL overseas. He then went on to explain that the overwhelming majority of Australian Muslims have outright completely rejected this minority opinion of Australian Muslims who feel as if they have an obligation to join a terrorist organisation such as ISIL. He then went on to explain that, like most of us, the majority of the people he works with simply want, and I quote, 'to help my community, to be educated, to have a good job and to be a trustworthy and honest person in my life'.
I welcome the announcement by the Attorney-General that Mr Duncan Lewis, former secretary of Defence, commander of special forces and the National Security Adviser to two Prime Ministers, has been appointed the new head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Together, more than ever, I know that ASIO, ASIS and the AFP are working hard to keep us safe from those who would seek to harm us, both at home and abroad. The government is ensuring that our security agencies have all the resources and the authority that they reasonably need. We have committed an extra $630 million in funding. Additional personnel are being recruited. Biometric screening will be introduced at our international airports within 12 months, and there will be more people on the ground at airports.
Legislation on agency powers is currently before the parliament. The government is soon to introduce additional legislation: firstly, to increase the powers of intelligence agencies; secondly, to stop Australians from fighting overseas and then encouraging and committing terrorist acts at home. This is not legislation designed to infringe on civil liberties or to introduce arbitrary new powers for police and security agencies. It is simply about strengthening existing terrorism legislation. It is about making sure that those people who are suspected by police and security agencies cannot use legal technicalities to stop an investigation or a search. Introducing legislation that is more comprehensive and will stop individuals escaping due process because of a technicality is essential to save Australian lives and for maintaining the social fabric of an open, free and multicultural Australia.
We know that there are at least 60 Australians currently fighting with groups like ISIL in Syria and Iraq and at least another 100 Australians supporting them. More than 20 of these fighters have so far attempted to return home to Australia. These are Australian citizens, and they are involved in the ISIL death cult. It really is beyond reasonable understanding that these young people, who have grown up here in Australia, can accept these actions of beheadings and all those other dreadful things as being okay. I am sure their mothers and fathers must be weeping. It is only right that this government take strong and decisive action to stop these people from freely re-entering Australia, to stop those funding and supporting this movement from home and to stop those who are propagating these beliefs to young Australians and vulnerable Australian Muslims across the country.
There are already some in the community who argue that this is not our problem; it is a problem over there, across the ocean. But they could not be more wrong. As I have already said, WIN News Illawarra has already aired a story about ISIL in the Illawarra actively approaching young Muslims in my region. This just goes to show that ISIL is very much our problem, as much as it is a problem for our whole planet. Not every parent knows all the time what their child is watching, what they are subjected to or whom they are joining in with. Some of our vulnerable youth are at extreme risk.
Australia's humanitarian aid, supported with advisers, is an essential part of assisting the Iraqi government. Australia knows that rapidly creeping and dangerous action in Iraq by ISIL is not a problem that will remain over there, across the ocean. If we are in a position to assist with preventing genocide, we have a conscience and a moral duty to do just that.
Those who seek to harm us do not value our freedoms. They do not understand and they do not respect our love of other cultures and our efforts to create a society of equality. Australians stand strong and united in their desire to retain our wonderful, safe, secure Australia. We will continue to be a tolerant and united Australia. We will continue to welcome to our nation those who wish to adopt our values, to contribute and to identify with being a fair dinkum Aussie. I strongly support the Prime Minister in his efforts to maintain a safe and secure Australia. I strongly support the government's actions that will ensure that our security agencies and the laws that govern them are kept current, relevant and powerful enough to deter these cowardly terrorists.
I welcome the opportunity to provide some brief comments in respect of the statement on national security. I begin by acknowledging the Prime Minister's statement to the parliament on Monday. As the Prime Minister said, on matters of national security the government and opposition stand together—and there can be no response at this time other than bipartisanship. As the Leader of the Opposition said, our support for the government on this issue is not a case of nationalism but rather 'a calculation of conscience and national interest'. I want to acknowledge the hard work by the government, especially in hand with those departments and those agencies including ASIO and the AFP, in ensuring that all Australians remain safe and that our streets remain peaceful.
The night before last in Melbourne, we saw a young man shot by police after physically assaulting two officers, reportedly following some matters including antisocial behaviour in a public area. I acknowledge the strong efforts by the police to protect our citizens and keep our community safe. Like the entire parliament, I send my best wishes to the officers who were injured and their families. I wish them a speedy recovery and thank them for their service. I also send my thoughts and prayers to the family of the young man who has been tragically killed. They will be dealing with the death of their son, a young man who has apparently been lost to extremism. They will no doubt be asking many questions, and the investigations that will ensue will no doubt be looking for answers.
I would also like to acknowledge the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition on Monday and endorse those comments. As the Leader of the Opposition said:
… we should never make the millions of Australians or people who have become Australians—people of every nation and every faith—feel less safe, or less welcome.
We cannot let extremists destroy our way of life or our diverse society. The rich success of multiculturalism has transformed Australia into a vibrant and prosperous nation. Our multicultural society has made an enormous contribution to the Australia of today, and it is indeed hard to imagine the shape of our nation today without their valuable contributions.
For several month we have been seeing barbaric images of ISIL conducting vicious attacks on young, innocent people, people like American journalist James Foley. But what has not been widely reported until now is the brutal sexual violence and treatment of women in places such as Iraq and Syria. It is these issues that I would like to turn to.
The United Nations estimates that around 1500 women, teenage girls and boys, have been captured by ISIL with some being sold into slavery and for as little as $25. The UN human rights office in Iraq says that as many as 2,500 women have been captured in north-eastern Iraq and forced to marry strangers after being converted by force.
To the specifics of some of these issues: as I said, some of this has now been highlighted and I want to compliment The Sydney Morning Herald journalist Julia Baird who has detailed some of this horrific treatment of women by ISIL. Whilst it is so disturbing, I am pleased to see that we are getting some public recognition of this matter. As Ms Baird said:
If we are to be embroiled in any conflict, in any capacity, we need to include the documentation and combat of systemic abuse of women as one of the top priorities of our mission.
I would like to turn specifically to her article that appeared in the The Sydney Morning Herald on 20 September and, whilst it is difficult to read, as I said, I am pleased to see that the fourth estate is turning seriously to this matter and is, as she puts in her title, 'ISIL death cult obscures its rape cult,' bringing this to light. I would like to quote some of this. She writes:
Over the past few months, Islamic State has been conducting an extensive, barbaric campaign of rape against women in Iraq and Syria.
But, oddly, we're not talking about it very much.
If we're going to be using dramatic terms such as 'death cult', shouldn't it be deemed a 'rape cult' as well?
The stories have a sickening similarity. After sustained aerial attack, when soldiers walk into newly emptied, dusty streets in Iraq, dotted with dead bodies and mangled car carcasses, they have found naked women, bound and left on the ground, who have been raped repeatedly.
Then there are the three 'rooms of horror' in Mosul prison where clusters of women have been kept locked up and raped at will.
I also draw attention to some of the facts documented by Ruth Pollard, again writing in The Herald on 18 September from northern Iraq. She quotes an Amnesty report and also a report by the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict. I think it is also worth reading some of these paragraphs. She writes:
An Amnesty International report released earlier this month echoes Zeitoun's—
Zeitoun is the story that was being written about—
testimony, as does a statement released by the United Nations Special Representative on sexual violence in conflict.
'There are allegations that many of the women and girls who have been abducted by IS fighters, notably girls in their teens and early 20s, have been subjected to rape or sexual abuse, forced to marry fighters, or sold into sexual slavery,' the Amnesty report says.
Zainab Hawa Bangura, the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, said: 'Atrocious accounts on the abduction and detention of Yazidi, Christian, as well as Turkomen and Shabak women, girls and boys, and reports of savage rapes, are reaching us in an alarming manner.'
I raise this issue, because I think it is very important to understand what we are dealing with here. It reminds us why we need to be unified against such evils and it reminds us that, too often in war, it is women and children who fare so much worse. There can be no other greater testament to this than what is happening at the moment to these innocent women and girls by people who have no right to claim that they are doing this in the name of faith.
I rise to speak on the Prime Minister's statement updating the House about the developments in Iraq and the movements of IS. It is natural that as a pluralist democratic nation we do not jump at the chance to become involved in international conflicts. However, with at least 60 Australians currently fighting with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq, and at least 100 more Australians supporting them, the conflict is obviously reaching out to us. As the Prime Minister has said, nothing can justify the actions of this death cult. It is in Australia's best interests that we stand ready with the world to help the new Iraqi government disrupt and degrade the IS movement and regain control over its own country. As Edmund Burke famously said, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Last week I was honoured to join the Prime Minister in sending off not only good men and women but also the best of the best when we farewelled troops from RAAF Base Amberley. The Australian Defence Force Air Task Group has now arrived at Australia's main support base in the Middle East. The Air Task Group includes approximately 400 Royal Australian Air Force personnel as well as FA18F Super Hornets, a KC30A multi-role tanker transport aircraft and an E7A Wedgetail early warning and control aircraft.
Australia's terrorism alert level has been lifted from medium to high in light of recent statements issued by ISIL calling for attacks against members of the international coalition, including Australians. The Australian government is regarding those threats as genuine and is taking the necessary action to ensure the safety of all Australians. The Islamic State terrorists have their sights set on the West. It is Australia's duty to stand with the world and ensure these violent radicals are stopped. Australia must join with the international coalition and prevent these extremists from further threatening all that we hold dear: our freedom, our democracy and our way of life. In this case, international military intervention is necessary. Australians do not want this; no sane person would. We live in a remarkable, tolerant, multicultural society. Yes, we could do it better, but what we see around the world, the intolerance and the hatred, shows just how well we have done.
We have not come to this point easily. There have been difficulties with that growth, because as we have built our society through different waves of migration we have confronted change: different people; different cultures. From 1770 to today Australia has borne this change. New people are different. From colonial days through early British migration, post World War II and post Vietnam to today, different people have arrived. In the fifties and sixties people spoke of 'wogs' and 'Ities' and 'dagos'—less culturally sensitive in those days but with a touch of larrikin humour. With my maiden name of Righetti, I received my fair share of 'wog' and 'spaghetti' and other colourful tags, albeit none with any malice. Then there were concerns about the Vietnamese migrants and then about Japanese and Chinese investment.
Out of all this has come a remarkable multicultural society, a cultural mix that is a key factor in what Australia is today. We are justly proud of our society and we are properly concerned when it comes under threat. Indeed, it could be said that our society is like the environment: different species and varieties make it stronger and more resilient. If we were all the same, we would be weaker and considerably more boring. However, there is an understandable view that at times we should put up the shutters and leave the rest of the world to its own folly and to the bastardry and evil that brews in other places, because over the years we have seen the cost of wars counted not only in the number of deaths of so many fine young Australians but also in the cost to wives and children. We have seen the challenges faced by returning soldiers both physically and mentally—challenges better handled today but still fraught with pain and suffering.
We have put troops on the ground in the Middle East many times in decades past. My father flew in the Middle East as a fighter pilot with 3 Squadron in World War II. He was shot down and became a prisoner of war. My son has served there as well. In Afghanistan, great nations have fought wars through history, and yet it appears that little has changed except that Afghans live with conflict and death as a constant companion.
Against this remarkable canvas of history, ranging from our multicultural success to this ever-present conflict in the Middle East, we stand today considering our reaction to events so far away. I do so as a member of our nation's parliament representing over 100,000 people, so my contribution to this debate cannot be as simple as a jingoistic call to arms.
As I move through Ryan and I talk to my constituents I see, as I am sure my colleagues do too, the mix of reactions to what people see played out on their televisions: beheadings of the innocent, rape, kidnapping on a massive scale, murder, pure evil, children taken from their parents, young women given to ISIL fighters and education systematically dismantled. The reaction in our community has been one of revulsion and swift in condemnation, but mixed with the not unreasonable fear and a question as to whether this will be resolved by yet another war. There are those who would point to the past of that troubled region and suggest that it is European and Western forays into the Middle East, from the artificial boundaries of centuries past through to the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that when combined with the liberalism of the internet has created a maelstrom of conflict where intervention is fruitless.
But Australia's initial reaction to what we have seen is right. Such barbarity as we have seen, such evil unsupported by my any moralism or religion, cannot be left unchecked. Australia's reaction is right if for no other reason than the stark fact that the world is a much smaller place than it used to be. The turmoil of the developing world is at our doorstep. In decades past the trauma of far-flung countries was largely unseen and unheard and, importantly, confined by geography. But not today, because all of the elements of these conflicts play out before us and, sadly, often play out in our own society or in those of our neighbours; not today, because if we allow this evil to prevail across Iraq and Syria and beyond, we will pay an even greater price in the future; not today, because true evil unchecked can reach into the very heart of our own society. Already we see young Australians drawn into this web of evil. This is not new—people have joined crazy and barbaric cults before, but largely their evil has been confined. But today, just as the internet has reached into the Middle East with messages of freedom and hope, the same internet provides an immediate reach into our own society. This morning's news highlights that fact.
There are no easy options, just a stark choice between careful and considered action supporting the victims of this evil and doing nothing. This will be a long and tortuous road, but we must prevail. It is Australian society, more than most, that demonstrates the wonderful success of multicultural society. It is a beacon of hope that we must defend from the evil and barbarism of these fanatics. I support the government's actions and I acknowledge the support of the opposition. This is an action taken on behalf of all Australians. It is just and it is correct. It is fraught with danger, but it must be done.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a statement on this important issue and I acknowledge the statements of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I think everyone has appreciated the bipartisan way in which this parliament has acted.
Earlier this month I made another statement on Iraq in which I referenced some of the atrocities that have been occurring in that country, particularly the atrocities against women. I spoke about the fact that women are being kidnapped and transported to Syria to be sold into marriage. Since I made that statement we have learned a lot more about the horrific and systematic acts of gender-based violence that are being carried out as part of this conflict and being used as a strategy of war.
Last weekend Julia Baird wrote a feature in Fairfax about what she describes as an extensive and barbaric campaign of rape. She spoke about there being three rooms of horror in Mosul prison where 'clusters of women have been kept locked up and raped at will'. The United Nations estimates 1,500 women, teenage girls and boys have been captured by IS and some sold into slavery for as little as a reported $25, but numbers vary. The director of the human rights office in Iraq says that as many as 2,500 women were captured in north-eastern Iraq alone, almost half of whom were converted by force and then married.
The Daily Beast reports that some women entrapped in Mosul's Badush prison gave birth to newborns who were immediately snatched from them, others were bizarrely dolled up by local beauticians before being introduced to brand new husbands, and teenagers were being forced to marry strangers. IS has launched a blatant recruitment drive via social media to lure young and vulnerable women to leave their homes to wed violent terrorists. Baird reports:
Army chief Lieutenant-General David Morrison … is "disgusted" by the reports of sustained sexual violence. The ADF has already begun training its forces to be prepared to confront the aftermath of rape in wars—
the aftermath of these absolute atrocities.
I welcome the fact that, as well as the $5 million that the Australian government has donated for humanitarian assistance to Iraq, an additional $2 million is being donated specifically to support the hundreds of thousands of women and girls affected by violence in Iraq. The money will provide reproductive health care, including obstetric services for about 250,000 pregnant women in the region.
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that, when it comes to conflict, we have the responsibility not only to protect women by preventing gender-based violence but also to ensure that women are involved in peace building at the highest level at every step of the way. These responsibilities are outlined in the United Nations Security Council resolution 1325, which addresses the impact of war on women and women's contributions to preventing conflict and promoting sustainable peace.
I was incredibly proud to be part of the government in 2012 when Australia adopted our own National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, establishing a framework for a coordinated whole-of-government approach to implementing UNSCR 1325. The experiences of men and woman in war are different. In these differences, women offer a vital perspective in the analysis of conflict as well as providing strategies towards peace building that focus on creating ties across opposing factions and increasing the inclusiveness, transparency and sustainability of peace processes. The intrinsic role of women in peace and security is often unrecognised or is an afterthought. I have spoken to women in Afghanistan who said that they have had to fight to be at the table when it comes to establishing and rebuilding peace in their country. In their words, they have had to fight to ensure that women are around the table, not on the menu.
Anwarul Chowdhury, former president of the UN Security Council, said:
… there has been an impression of women as helpless victims of wars and conflicts. Women’s role in fostering peace in their communities and beyond has often been overlooked.
Women have shown time and again that they bring a qualitative improvement in structuring peace and in the post-conflict architecture. Chowdhury, a leading force in UNSCR 1325, says:
The main question is not to make war safe for women, but to structure the peace in a way that there is no recurrence of war and conflict. That is why women need to be at the peace tables, involved in the decision-making and in peace-keeping teams. They need to be there particularly as civilians, to make a real difference in transitioning from the cult of war to the culture of peace.
We should not forget that, when women are marginalised and ignored, there is little chance for the world to get sustainable peace in the real sense. I believe it is critical, as we embark on this mission to defeat IS, that we must be conscious of the need to involve the women of Iraq and Syria, the women who have been the victims of IS's barbarity, in the process at every step of the way.
In the time I have left, I would like to focus on what is going on not in Iraq and Syria but right here in Australia. Specifically, I would like to reiterate that right now it is more important than ever that we are united and inclusive as a society, as Australians. As the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for citizenship and multiculturalism said today in an open letter to the Islamic community:
Labor stands shoulder to shoulder with Australia's Islamic community and, now more than ever, we are committed to tolerance, social cohesion, mutual respect and multiculturalism.
Labor will continue to work with you to stop misinformation, bigotry and prejudice directed at the Australian Islamic community.
Regrettably, some in our community, including a very few elected representatives, have made comments which have the potential to damage community harmony and inflame tensions. Labor strongly opposes these ill-informed and dangerous views and we will continue to speak out against them.
We know that the twisted ideology of ISIL bears no relation to a faith of peace, love and tolerance which is followed by millions around the world—and we will continue to make this point.
ISIL has no right to use the name of Islam.
The Islamic community here in Canberra is an incredibly important part of my electorate. I am very much looking forward to attending the Canberra Islamic Centre's open day next month on 25 October. I encourage any members who are in Canberra on that day to come along. This open day is a chance to say thank you to the Canberra community for the support it has shown the Islamic centre this year.
Earlier this year—and I have spoken about it in the chamber before—the Canberra Islamic Centre was the victim of a terrible act of vandalism. Vandals broke into the centre and damaged and destroyed absolutely everything they could get their hands on. Sadly, this was not the first time the centre had been the victim of a vandal attack. The response from the Canberra community was astounding. Canberrans from all faiths, from all backgrounds and of all ages banded together to help clean up the centre. In fact, on the weekend after the attack, there were more volunteers at the centre to help with the clean-up than they could fit into the actual building. It was quite extraordinary seeing all these members of the Canberra community out there, with their buckets, mops and brooms, rolling up their sleeves and getting in there with the elbow grease to clean up the centre but also to send a very, very strong message that Canberra has zero tolerance for this kind of malicious vandalism. This is the kind of community spirit that we must foster again, right now. We must be united, we must show tolerance and we must show respect.
In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to indicate my very strong support for the brave men and women of the Australian Defence Force who have been or will be deployed to the Middle East. They go with the strong support of this parliament. We support them. We are proud of them. We appreciate their very great sacrifice and that of their loved ones at home.
Debate interrupted.
In recent days we have all been rightly shocked and appalled by the threat of terrorism on our shores, perpetrated by those who adhere to the twisted and repugnant ideology of extremists. The fear and anger that it has provoked is understandable, but, in some cases, it has led us to act and speak in a manner which is contrary to our ethics and ideals. Whilst we must be unanimous in unequivocally condemning these crimes and denouncing the invocation of religion to justify them, we must also be vigilant not to promote hostility towards any religion based on the violent actions of extremists and recognise that all of our religious communities continue to be actively, responsibly and positively integrated into mainstream Australian society.
Our nation takes great pride in its multicultural composition, which is at the heart of our national identity and is intrinsic to our history and character. Indeed, Australia's vigour and cohesion rests upon the right of all of us to foster our cultural identity and to receive equal treatment regardless of race, culture or religion. Of course we have our differences—how could it be otherwise given the rich diversity of our nation? But these differences need to be celebrated and recognised as a source of social wealth and dynamism and as a key driver of our national prosperity. The reality of everyday life in multicultural Australia is that we all have family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours who come from widely diverse origins. Each of us wants to be accepted as Australians and has a firm commitment to the institutional framework of our political and legal system.
We as a society need to build on these shared values rather than perpetuate superficial differences, which benefits no-one and tarnishes everyone. We cannot succumb to the divisiveness of suspicion and mistrust. If barriers exist within ourselves, then those who wish to do us harm succeed. So long as our national identity is defined by our differences, we will empower those who promote division rather than the cooperation that lifts up the values of understanding and mutual respect. This is an issue that I believe we cannot afford to simply ignore. To do so would give credence to a profoundly distorted view of our tenets as a nation. We must disown incendiary language and actions which only serve to denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation. We must also promote the unity and harmony that we all cherish. If we are going to uphold our proud tradition as a multicultural nation, our values must be guarded and vitalised anew by each generation of Australians.
Next month I will be partaking in the Walk Together event being held right across Australia. The event invites all Australians to come together in a celebration of diversity. Its theme of common people with common dreams highlights that our national harmony and aspirations are stronger than anything that drives us apart. Here we have an example, repeated throughout Australia, in which persons of differing ethnic, cultural and linguistic heritages are able to relate to each other on equal terms, in which people are judged by what they say and do and not by what they look like and in which an Australian is not someone who conforms to a particular stereotype but someone whose citizenship is based upon their commitment to the social and moral values which underpin our society.
Our multiculturalism is about inclusion, not division. It is about interaction, not isolation. It is about a melting pot of cultures embracing common values which enrich all Australians. We as a nation need to turn to each other, not against each other, and reaffirm our commitment to an Australia bound together by tolerance and consensus, rather than torn and divided by bigotry and confrontation.
I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on a year of government in the electorate of Forde.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
I think it has been a very productive and energising year not only for my electorate but for the nation as a whole—despite the wonderful contribution from my good friend the member for Moreton, on the other side of the chamber. It is hard to believe that we are already into our second year. Since being elected, we have put runs on the board. At the big picture level are abolishing the carbon tax, abolishing the mining tax and significantly reducing the number of people-smuggling ventures. In effect, there has been just one successful venture in the eight months of this year.
Locally, we have met a number of election commitments already, with $3 million towards the revitalisation of the Beenleigh CBD in addition to almost $1 million of funding for additional CCTV cameras in the Beenleigh CBD and around the Logan Hospital precinct, Shailer Park and Waterford West. Last week I had the privilege of attending the official sod-turning ceremony for the Beenleigh CBD redevelopment with Mayor Pam Parker, representatives from the Beenleigh Yatala Chamber of Commerce and other members of the local business community. This project has been a long time coming—at least 20 years; by some estimates, 30 years. I am very excited about seeing the works commencing over the next few weeks.
During our first year we have also had a very busy time of ministerial visits to the electorate to ensure that my senior coalition colleagues are aware of actual issues on the ground. The Minister for Health and Minister for Sport has been to the electorate, as have the Minister for Small Business, the Minister for Social Services, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Minister for Industry, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services. During these visits we have met local residents, business owners, seniors groups, community and sporting groups and various other organisations to see how we can best assist them at a federal level in our local community. Some critics might say they only see politicians out and about during campaigns but over the past year we have been getting out and about in the local community to ensure we meet our constituents where they are. In the past year we have hosted a number of informal meet and greet opportunities, otherwise known as 'a cuppa with Bert', at our local coffee shops around the electorate. We also hosted a forum, looking at vocational education and training, on behalf the Department of Industry. We have held various stalls at our local community fairs and regularly visited our schools to meet with principals, teachers, students and parents. The joy of the job is visiting our local retirement villages armed, with scones and jam and cream, and spending some time with the people in those communities to hear what their concerns are and discuss with them the issues relating to their particular time of life. This Friday we are hosting our annual Forde seniors' expo at Canterbury College, expecting a crowd of some 500 or 600 seniors. I very much look forward to hearing what they have to say.
Over the next two years I and my colleagues will continue to work not only for the people of Forde but for the broader Australian community. I am always interested in hearing about what improvements we can make to our community. I enjoy meeting with people who are passionate about the region. We certainly have a lot to offer and I will continue to work on building our community into one that is going to be a strong and vibrant community for future generations.
I rise to condemn the gutless people who vandalised a prayer hall at Rocklea in my electorate of Moreton a few days ago. They snuck in like thieves in the night and damaged a community prayer hall for no good reason. Obviously these are tense times in Australia but this attack—especially using graffiti of a cross on this hall—is an affront to so many religions. It is not only an affront to the Indonesian Muslim community who worship there but also to Christians. I am sure everybody on both sides of the chamber would condemn that.
Mr Van Manen interjecting—
I take that interjection from the member for Forde, which I will come back to in a minute in order to make another connection. These are tense and difficult times but we can only be good Australian citizens if we talk about the things that join us—the links we have. To quote the national anthem: 'For those who come across the seas we've boundless plains to share; with courage let us all combine to Advance Australia Fair.'
This is a time for us to show courage. This is a time for community leaders and neighbours to step up and show courage, and show what makes Australia so great. I am especially annoyed that an Indonesian establishment was attacked. To paint the picture: this is not a mosque, it is a prayer hall. It does not have a minaret. I could understand if you lived next door to a mosque that had a muezzin calling worshippers to pray five times a day, that might be annoying. Church bells might be annoying; any noise might be. But this is near the Brisbane markets and the Brisbane golf club in an industrial area. There are some houses there, but I spoke to one of the gentlemen who used to live there, Gary Lobley, who I helped out during the floods—this whole area flooded back in 2011—and he said it was well accepted in the community. He was disappointed as well.
The reason I am particularly disappointed that the Indonesian community in Brisbane was attacked is because Brisbane has such a strong connection with Indonesia. The member for Forde's last name is Dutch, I assume; I think your connection is more with the Dutch rather than the East Indies. But Wacol, just down the road from Rocklea, was the only spot in Australia where we actually let another government set up. That was during World War II when the Dutch East Indies government fled from the Japanese advance and set up in Wacol. Down at Cowra we imprisoned a lot of Dutch prisoners. They were mainly Indonesian freedom fighters, many who had been imprisoned after the protests of 1928.
In 1942 they were evacuated from the Boven-Digoel camp, which is actually called Tanah Merah, which means 'red earth', and there is a suburb in Forde with that same name—probably the same origin. So those prisoners came down by boat and then got on a train in Townsville. When they were being taken down to Cowra to be interned with the Japanese, Germans and Italians, they slipped out a note that was picked up by a railway worker, and he took it to the trade union movement and then an entire connection was established with these political prisoners—because they were not criminals; they were political prisoners. Then Curtin, to his credit, actually made these people be released, and they worked hard to make sure the Japanese were thrown out. They joined the air force at Bundaberg—there was a big Dutch air force base at Bundaberg and, I think, in Darwin. They worked hard to get rid of the Japanese. Then at the end of World War II there was a famous incident—which is detailed in the book Black Armada, by the journalist Rupert Lockwood, which I am reading at the moment; I found out this story when I was in Jakarta recently—where the trade union movement actually boycotted. From 23 September 1945 in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, Indonesian merchant seamen walked off Dutch ships because they were being loaded to go back and reoccupy the East Indies. Those ships were held in Australia for four years. We then became the first nation to recognise Indonesia. I was fortunate enough to be here when Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono came to Australia and gave that magnificent speech in the parliament. So we have a great connection with Indonesia, they are good citizens and I am sure that this bit of graffiti is not a sign of what our true respect for the Indonesian community is.
I rise on a matter of public interest and concern in a bid to right a grave injustice done to one of Australia's pre-eminent medical researchers by Dr Norman Swan on the ABCs Science Show broadcast. I refer to Professor Bruce Hall, an internationally acclaimed Australian immunologist researcher based at the University of New South Wales, who, in a broadcast by Swan in April 2002, was grossly defamed in a malicious, untrue and biased report alleging professional misconduct and financial wrongdoing. Professor Hall and his wife, Suzanne, another researcher, have lived with the vilification and damage done to them professionally and financially over the years as a result of the allegations made in the ABC broadcast, until they applied to the New South Wales Supreme Court seeking redress against Dr Swan and the ABC in 2005.
The ABC sought to pre-empt the outcome of this court case by approaching the court seeking a judgment against it and Norman Swan, after learning Professor Hall intended to call a number of expert witnesses in his favour and following advice from its internal experts that the allegations could not be sustained. The court duly entered the judgement against the ABC and Dr Swan, which was the subject of an agreement statement on 4 March 2014.
However, instead of accepting the judgment of the court the ABC, without reference to Professor Hall, released a further statement which claimed that the settlement did not amount to an admission by any party to the case. In fact, it said the settlement reached represented a compromise on the part of all the parties to avoid litigation. In other words, the ABC neither retracted nor apologised for the damage the broadcast by Swan did to both Professor Hall and his wife Suzanne. The damage and injury that Professor Hall and his wife sustained as a result of Swan's ill-informed, biased report remained real and continue to remain a smear on his professional reputation and a millstone preventing his ability to seek funds to further his groundbreaking research, which his professional colleagues regard as critical to medical research into immunological diseases.
Colleagues both here and overseas rallied to Professor Hall's defence following the ABC's statement. The Medical Journal of Australia published a letter signed by 49 internationally recognised immunologists, including current and past presidents of the Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand, in which they said:
Now that this judgement has been finalised, we believe it is timely, as his peers, to acknowledge the very significant contributions Hall has made to the field of transplantation over the past 30 years. In doing so we believe it is important to stress that all of these contributions have been validated by other research groups, a process which remains the best available test of scientific discovery—
and verifies the integrity of the original observations.
It is our sincere hope that the damage to Hall's reputation can now be repaired and that he be given the opportunity to re-establish his research career without further impediment.
But this damage will continue to dog Professor Hall as long as the ABC refuses to retract unreservedly the allegations made in Dr Swan's now discredited program.
Respected journalist Paul Sheehan published a story in Fairfax Media drawing attention to the woeful conduct of the ABC in this matter earlier this year. In it, he described the ABC as having:
… an institutional dark side, a self-protective, self-inflated, insular, profligate, tax-subsidised reflex that uses stone-walling and evasion whenever the ABC has been caught out.
Sheehan went on to say:
We have seen numerous examples of ABC evasions … and I am following three separate legal matters in which the ABC has demonstrably made errors which it has chosen to fight in court, at the cost of millions, rather than concede. Sorry seems to be the hardest word for ABC management.
These are the words of a journalist who has trawled the history of this case, as well as others where the ABC has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in shoring up its legal defences against similar claims by plaintiffs as a result of findings that the ABC had failed to comply with its own code of conduct.
Norman Swan has prevented Professor Hall and his wife, Suzanne, from accessing funds to pursue their vital work in researching the causes of immunological disease because of the stain his negligence, bias and lack of professionalism have caused. The ABC has failed both Professor Hall and the community it claims to serve as a trusted national broadcaster in allowing the damaging claims to remain unaddressed by way of unqualified apology. It is just and right that the ABC deal with this situation in the appropriate fashion and offer an immediate unqualified written apology. I shall be following this matter closely, as will Paul Sheehan and others among his journalistic colleagues. Injustice, wherever we find it in this place, cannot be tolerated at any time.
The Minister for Agriculture and I have each said on a number of occasions, very publicly, that we would like to keep the politics out of the sector and the portfolio and work as best we can to progress and promote the sector in a cooperative way. I know he means it, and I mean it too.
Agriculture in this country has such an opportunity ahead of it for many reasons but largely because of what is taking place in China: a huge growth in population and, in particular, a huge growth in the middle classes. There are hundreds of millions of people looking for higher quality, safe, clean, green food, something that this country is very, very well placed to provide. I call it the dining boom. Some call it the food boom; some use the misnomer Asian food bowl, which is something else the minister and I agree upon. It is a phrase we do not use. Whatever you want to call it, it will not come to us. We do have competition. The advantages provided by our geographical location are limited because of the level of our competitiveness in other areas. It will not come to us; we have to go after it. It will not be so much about volumes for this country, although volumes will increase; it will be about value and higher returns on our investment—in other words, directing our limited natural resources to the commodities that provide the greatest return for the country. We see the best example of that at the moment in dairy, where the Chinese are paying extraordinary amounts of money for our fresh milk because, particularly in the wake of the baby formula scare there, they are looking for a safe product and a quality product, and we can certainly provide that.
However, if we are going to reach our full potential, we will need the government to be involved. The industry will need strategic guidance from government. Our success will mainly be determined by the private sector and, in particular, the level of foreign investment we can attract to this country to build infrastructure, but government has a role to play. It needs to be careful with its regulatory regimes; it has to get the tax system right; it has to get our spend on R&D at the right levels et cetera; but strategic guidance, particularly around natural resource sustainability, will be important.
This is where I get concerned. The government promised a new agricultural white paper. It said it would have it in place 12 months after coming into office. Of course, we are now well past that date. It indicated there would be a green paper ahead of the white paper by the middle of this year and, of course, that green paper has not yet manifested.
I was always concerned that 12 months of policy inertia was too much. I am now concerned that we are going to have much more than 12 months, and that is too long a period for the sector to be waiting for a range of government positions, processes and guidance to come to fruition.
I urge the minister—I would rather he get it right than in early, but there are many in the sector—an overwhelming number of people—just waiting to better understand where the government intends to take the sector.
I cannot help but be critical that that process has been slow. I would not be doing my job if from time to time I was not critical of the government, if I thought they were getting it wrong and, as I thought they were getting it wrong just last week—last Friday—on their announcement of the regulation of the country's bulk wheat ports.
Let's hope that the white paper delivers the right strategic guidance. I can be critical of all parties in this place for not doing sufficient in the past, although the former Labor government did provide a number of papers, including the National Food Plan, the Asian century white paper and a very in-depth paper on the relationship between Australian and Chinese agriculture, but much more needs to be done.
Very quickly, I want to congratulate Pip Job for her success at the rural women's awards last night. She is now Australian Rural Woman of the Year. Jackie Jarvis from Western Australia, who was the runner-up, and Pip Job from New South Wales are both outstanding women.
I point out that Pip Job appealed to governments plural to get more money into Landcare, another area where I am afraid I cannot be bipartisan. We are devastated and the sector is devastated by the government's cuts to Landcare, and I call on the government to reflect on that decision and to reconsider it.
Broome is open for business—to quote the local Broomites. Durack boasts the unique town of Broome, situated on the west coast of the Kimberley in Australia's north-west. Over the years, it has become not only one of mine but one of Australia's and international visitors most favoured holiday destinations.
Broome is a popular starting point for people looking to get away from it all with its sweeping white beaches, blazing rich red outcrops and turquoise water. And for the more adventurous, Broome is a well-known angler's paradise.
Today, 16,000 residents call Broome home. Although, from April to October, during the dry season, it sees an influx of up to 45,000 tourists per month.
Broome was established in the late 1800s based on the pearling industry which started with the harvest of oysters for mother of pearl. Nowadays, cultured pearl farming enterprises are a thriving industry.
Broome is a multicultural community, bringing together a variety of European and Indigenous groups. It is quite a unique town. Every year Broome celebrates this union in an annual festival called Shinju Matsuri, which in Japanese means 'festival of the pearl,' and celebrates Broome's Asian influence.
Recently Broome was announced as the winner of the 2014 Top Tourism Award, hosted by GWN7. Broome also has the honour of being the Guest Town ambassador at this year's Perth Royal Show.
In April 2013, the town of Broome suffered an enormous setback when Woodside did not proceed with the James Price Point onshore gas project, which from a Broome perspective unfortunately went to Darwin, leaving locals who had anticipated major growth in the lurch. But notwithstanding this disappointment, the business community has since strengthened its economy. We have seen an increase in live cattle exports from the port; and the port is supporting many new offshore projects and becoming a very important supply base. Already space is at a premium at the port, and further investment is needed to fill its potential
We have heard that local business, Broome Air Services, is going to invest $20 million at the airport in new facilities. This is good news for the region more broadly.
We are also seeing further planned investment. There is an industrial project costing $5l million with construction set to commence on the new Broome Road industrial area mid-2015. This project presents potential for 40 new businesses with 900 employees. The nearby Broome North residential development will provide homes for more than 13,000 people. Both these projects are going to support Broome's future growth.
However, like many communities, Broome suffers from social problems. It is heartbreaking to know that even in a paradise such as Broome there are children who go without basics such as food. Feed the Little Children is one of the good Samaritans in the Broome community lending a hand to those who are socially disadvantaged. It is a charity that relies on volunteers and on the kindness of donations. Feed the Little Children supports disadvantaged children by providing 300 meals on two nights per week all year round with a goal of providing meals seven nights a week.
I am pleased that the federal government is also making a valuable contribution to Broome. On 24 July, I had the pleasure of hosting the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Warren Truss, in Broome to announce the federal government's funding commitments of $550,000 the Broome Volunteer Sea Rescue headquarters and vessel project and $2.7 million to be invested in a new Royal Flying Doctor Service base to be located at Broome airport. Both of these are significant contributions by the federal government for the safety of the Broome and the Kimberley community more broadly.
Tourism, however, in Broome has suffered a little of late, but I am confident that it will once again be regarded as a premium tourism destination for Australian and overseas visitors. So tell your colleagues and your contacts that Broome not only is open for business but is still a fabulous tourist destination.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:56.